Pass Rush Fallacy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Pass Rush Fallacy

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    True, but remember, the Pats O line gave up more than double the sacks on Brady versus the amount of sacks the Denver O line gave up on PM.

    So if I could be allowed to extrapolate the raw data that would have equaled 8 sacks against Brady.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True, but remember, the Pats O line gave up more than double the sacks on Brady versus the amount of sacks the Denver O line gave up on PM.

    So if I could be allowed to extrapolate the raw data that would have equaled 8 sacks against Brady. 

    [/QUOTE]

    8? Really?  How so when they only sacked PM once?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    with the posible exceptions being CJones/Avril and Sherman/Talib, I see no other Pats defenders that are similar to his Seahawks counterpart. Nor do I see any way possible this current Pats defense/players could ever play the style that the Seahawks do. 

    This Pats defense do what it do. Lets see what it can do if/when Vince and Kelly, Mayo and Talib are all healthy and playing. I dont feel a change in Pats philosophy will happen, nor does it have to.

    I realy believe this offseason's most important issues are;

    1) health and rehab

    2) signing Talib

    3) signing 2 vet WR's (1 if Edelman is retained)

    4) drafting TE/both lines 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True, but remember, the Pats O line gave up more than double the sacks on Brady versus the amount of sacks the Denver O line gave up on PM.

    So if I could be allowed to extrapolate the raw data that would have equaled 8 sacks against Brady. 

    [/QUOTE]

    8? Really?  How so when they only sacked PM once?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I mean Seattle would have had 8 sacks on TB in the SB.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    It will surprise people, but the Pats' defense was 5th in sacks during the regular season, with 48.  Seattle was 8th, with 44.  So you're right, ATJ, that number of sacks isn't necessarily a complete indicator of how well a team does pressuring a QB.  

    The key to beating a Manning-led offense is, and always has been, getting enough pressure to force Manning to throw earlier than he wants and to be physical with the receivers so they're knocked off their routes and timing. Before the Pats-Bronocs game, I said the key to the Pats winning was the defense being able to do this.  There was no way the Pats' offense could keep up with the Broncos' offense in a s hoot out.  Seattle did exactly what the Pats needed to do (and they did it exceptionally well), which is basically why they won. 

    I haven't gone back and re-watched the game, but I don't think Seattle was blitzing much (at least I don't remember a ton of blitzes).  They just got good pressure from their DEs.  These are just talented athletes beating their opponents in individual battles. 

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    This article by Gasper will get Rusty all worked up, but there's a bit of truth to it. 

     

    CHRISTOPHER L. GASPER

    Patriots focus too much on bottom of roster   By  Christopher L. Gasper  |  GLOBE STAFF   

      FEBRUARY 04, 2014

    The most surprising occurrence during Super Bowl week in New York/New Jersey wasn’t the cooperative game-day weather for Super Bowl XLVIII, the resounding rout delivered by the Seattle Seahawks, or a 9/11 conspiracy theorist usurping the microphone during the press conference of Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith.

    It was Patriots owner Robert Kraft espousing the importance of the bottom third of the roster in building a championship team in response to questions about urgency created — or not — by Tom Brady’s championship window.

    Kraft did it during interviews on Friday with reporters and a radio interview on 98.5 The Sports Hub.

    “I don’t know that people fully understood, with the advent of the salary cap, the importance of the bottom third of the roster,” Kraft told reporters. “If you look at what happened to us this year, I think we had three starting defensive linemen who were undrafted rookie free agents.

    “I think how you manage the bottom third of the roster is critical to your development, so how you invest your dollars. It’s easy to [be a] Monday morning quarterback, but I think with what happened this year and the fact that we got to the championship game, it’s a pretty remarkable feat. You’re always looking to improve the team on both sides of the ball.”

    If the Patriots really believe that the bottom third of the roster is where Super Bowl champions are forged then don’t expect to get an RSVP from the 7 pounds of sterling silver the Patriots keep inviting to show up in Foxborough every year.

    It’s not about plugging fungible football players into a system, like machinery on an assembly line.

    It’s about acquiring talent.

    Invested with full authority in Seattle, ex-Patriots coach Pete Carroll built a deep, talented team in his image — relentless, energetic, enthusiastic.

    Fitting for Seattle, Pumped and Jacked Pete showed an alternative path to constructing a winner than the austere, value-based, pulse-less pursuit of excellence of the Patriots.

    But he did not build a team that embarrassed — sorry, Peyton Manning, but when you get smoked with the whole world watching that word is completely applicable — the Denver Broncos, 43-8, on the basis of the final 17 to 18 players on his 53-man roster.

    Building depth is absolutely necessary for any team, and the Seahawks were proof of that with players such as wide receivers Doug Baldwin and Jermaine Kearse and a defensive line that gave less personal space to operate than a mid-town Manhattan sidewalk at rush hour.

    But having top-end talent and having a deep roster are not mutually exclusive.

    Did the Seahawks win the Super Bowl because of players such as Ricardo Lockette, Chris Maragos, Christine Michael, and O’Brien Schofield? Or was it Cliff Avril, Percy Harvin, Russell Wilson, and Kam Chancellor?

    Saying the Seahawks won because of the bottom third of their roster is like saying Starbucks is the Goliath of java joints because of its napkin dispensers.

    The defense that Carroll built muffled and flustered Manning and the highest-scoring offense in NFL history, forcing four turnovers, including Smith’s 69-yard interception return for a touchdown.

    There was no elaborate, intricate, genius game plan to do it. It was simply our players are better than yours.

    “We didn’t change anything for this game. We just played the way we always play,” said Carroll. “I’m thrilled we put our stamp on the championship.”

    The Broncos pierced the Patriots’ injury-depleted defense for scores on six straight possessions, racked up 507 yards of offense, and had Manning complete 74 percent of his passes and throw for 400 yards in the AFC title game two weeks earlier.

    It turned out the Patriots’ best defense against the Broncos was Mother Nature. They were still missing Vince Wilfork, Jerod Mayo, and Tommy Kelly when they beat Manning back on a blustery November night.

    The absence of Aqib Talib hurt the Patriots in the AFC Championship game, but the official Patriots’ team-building manual says it’s never, ever about one player.

    So, you can’t blame Talib’s absence then.

    Winning titles with the bottom 17 or 18 players on a 53-man roster doesn’t add up. Seven of those players will be game-day inactives each week. The remaining 10 or 11 players are usually rookies, special teams specialists, developmental players, or NFL roster fodder.

    Your starters on offense and defense constitute 22 players. If you take your 15 best backup players or special teamers you’re at 37. Dividing an NFL roster into thirds, you’re dipping one or two players deep into the bottom third Kraft was talking about.

    The bottom third of the roster is where the Patriots always will have the greatest advantage because coach Bill Belichick will get more out of the average, marginal, and inexperienced players who usually populate the bottom portion of the 53-man roster.

    Belichick is a master at hiding a player’s limitations and maximizing his abilities, as he proved once again this season.

    In fairness, any comparisons with the Patriots with the Seahawks are imperfect because Seattle has star-caliber players such as Wilson ($686,685 cap hit in 2013) and Sherman ($605,681 cap hit) who are still on cost-effective rookie contracts.

    That’s found money.

    The Seahawks also rolled over $13 million in cap space into 2013.

    The Patriots have about $4 million of rollover cap space with the salary cap number for 2014 yet to be set.

    But Seattle had high cap numbers, including tight end Zach Miller with an $11 million cap hit this season and wide receiver Sidney Rice, who suffered a torn ACL Oct. 28, with a $9.7 million cap charge.

    The Fightin’ Carrolls already had pass rusher Chris Clemons, who was coming off a torn anterior cruciate ligament, with an $8.1 million cap hit. They went out and spent on Avril (two years, $13 million) and Michael Bennett (one year, $4.8 million) to bolster that element.

    They traded for Harvin and gave him a six-year, $67 million deal.

    Perhaps, his former NFL employers, the Patriots, should take a page from old Pete’s book — “Win Forever” — this offseason.

    I bet the last third is really good.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclejack02130. Show unclejack02130's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    Tthe bottom third is usually garbage, every now and then a gem comes thru but not often.  I'll say it again-follow the money, as long as the stadium is full and PPlace is humming and TV $$ flows in, Kraft and BB are happy with a competitive team, if a SB results all the better, but if not, makes no difference.  Kraft is business first, no more complicated than that.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pats-bilbo. Show Pats-bilbo's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    Besides Talent the difference between Seattle D and Pats D is intensity. There were a few games where the Pats D came out aggressive. Where the Pats O came out aggressive and they both were dominant when they did. Pete Carroll coaches on intensity and doing your job aggressively. BB coaches to do your job and play within the system. BB downplays emotion and does not want his players "pumped" up, he wants them ready to do their job and do it better than the other guy. This way works more often and more consistantly than the emotions but it does not work in bigger games against better teams that have the ability to do their job too.

    Add to the fact that Seattle has a lot of talented people and they know how to hit and tackle and that is the real difference between Pats and Seattle.

    Carroll's team when smacked back is not as dominant. Look at SF games against them. When Seattle is smacking and intimidting they win.

    We need some aggressiveness on the Pats D. Impose our will on the O not the other way around. This I think is what is really missing on the Pats D. Spikes brings that intensity at times, but he won't be here next year. Collins could be that aggressive player and so could Hightower and Jones, but I think that BB pushes for them to do their job exactly the way he tells you and does not allow some of the freedom, intensity, instinct the players need to impact the game.

    Also, Seattle's D and O play with the skills and talent they have and use it better than the Pats do. I don't think the bottom 1/3 of Seattles team is better than the pats bottom 1/3 but they were not needed to win the superbowl. Seattle went out and did what they wanted to do and were determined to not be stopped. They imposed their will.

    We are not just one or two players away from this type of dominating D because you need impact players that can play aggressively and feel like it is "doing their job". 

    The Pat's way of doing your job produces more consistency and can adjust to different teams and wins most of the time. Not a bad strategy or way to go. I enjoy seeing football players play the game but I would love to see them add the intensity to the system. However, intensity comes from confidence and instinct, with this young of a D do we really have the players to do that?

    We need a hard hitting safety and a DT or DE that scares the opposition and makes them worried about getting hit. Our LB's need to open up a bit more and bring it but we have the talent there to do it. We need a O-line that imposes it's will on the D line not just does their job. We need one deep threat or big play maker type reciever (Gronk can do it when healthy and a Wide out) that threatens and scares the other team's DB's.

    If we had these pieces and adjusted the strategy to be aggressive and not technicians, we will be dominant once more. The Pats are the best run team and best coached team but I don't think we are the most agressive or emotional team. This game still has a large degree of emotion to it. BB needs to rely a little more on emotion to "bring it" on game day.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    Good post Bilbo. Belichick tends to emphasize team and discipline.  Carroll is more focused on the individual and emotion.  I'm not sure one approach is better than the other.  I think Belichick's approach leads to more consistency.  But sometimes you need to free up talented guys to be themselves to achieve true excellence. 

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure that sacks is the sole measure of pass rush anymore.  I thought pass rush was a combination of sacks, hits, hurries, pressures, blocked/tipped passes, ect...

    In addition, Seattle is known for their secondary too.

    So, if one combines the things above - would that at least partly explain Mannings/Broncos poor performance?

    [/QUOTE]

    This it's always been this. People around here love to cherry pick one stat or another but don't realize what makes a good pass rush and what doesn't. A great example is Chris Jones. While he was playing I kept saying over and over again he wasn't a great pass rusher but kept being laughed at with people pointing to 6 sacks. Well those 6 sacks do count they were coverage sacks and while on the field he had little pressure on QB's outside those coverage sacks. 6 sacks sounds impressive until you realize he average 6% pressure when he was on the field. In otherwords 6% of plays he was in he managed to get one of those listed, which is pretty poor actually. It was kind of like Arrington the year he lead the team in ints. By itself ints is a meaningless stat but combined with pass defender, % completed, % targeted, and tackles it adds up and for Arrington it added up to a #3 CB in the league but people got all excited about those ints. This pass rush was subpar on many levels and looking at just sacks doesn't tell the whole picture. However, just looking at the difference between the Pats game and the SB it's clear what pressuring the QB is and what pressuring the QB isn't

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This article by Gasper will get Rusty all worked up, but there's a bit of truth to it. 

     

    CHRISTOPHER L. GASPER

    Patriots focus too much on bottom of roster   By  Christopher L. Gasper |  GLOBE STAFF   

      FEBRUARY 04, 2014

    The most surprising occurrence during Super Bowl week in New York/New Jersey wasn’t the cooperative game-day weather for Super Bowl XLVIII, the resounding rout delivered by the Seattle Seahawks, or a 9/11 conspiracy theorist usurping the microphone during the press conference of Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith.

    It was Patriots owner Robert Kraft espousing the importance of the bottom third of the roster in building a championship team in response to questions about urgency created — or not — by Tom Brady’s championship window.

    Kraft did it during interviews on Friday with reporters and a radio interview on 98.5 The Sports Hub.

    “I don’t know that people fully understood, with the advent of the salary cap, the importance of the bottom third of the roster,” Kraft told reporters. “If you look at what happened to us this year, I think we had three starting defensive linemen who were undrafted rookie free agents.

    “I think how you manage the bottom third of the roster is critical to your development, so how you invest your dollars. It’s easy to [be a] Monday morning quarterback, but I think with what happened this year and the fact that we got to the championship game, it’s a pretty remarkable feat. You’re always looking to improve the team on both sides of the ball.”

    If the Patriots really believe that the bottom third of the roster is where Super Bowl champions are forged then don’t expect to get an RSVP from the 7 pounds of sterling silver the Patriots keep inviting to show up in Foxborough every year.

    It’s not about plugging fungible football players into a system, like machinery on an assembly line.

    It’s about acquiring talent.

    Invested with full authority in Seattle, ex-Patriots coach Pete Carroll built a deep, talented team in his image — relentless, energetic, enthusiastic.

    Fitting for Seattle, Pumped and Jacked Pete showed an alternative path to constructing a winner than the austere, value-based, pulse-less pursuit of excellence of the Patriots.

    But he did not build a team that embarrassed — sorry, Peyton Manning, but when you get smoked with the whole world watching that word is completely applicable — the Denver Broncos, 43-8, on the basis of the final 17 to 18 players on his 53-man roster.

    Building depth is absolutely necessary for any team, and the Seahawks were proof of that with players such as wide receivers Doug Baldwin and Jermaine Kearse and a defensive line that gave less personal space to operate than a mid-town Manhattan sidewalk at rush hour.

    But having top-end talent and having a deep roster are not mutually exclusive.

    Did the Seahawks win the Super Bowl because of players such as Ricardo Lockette, Chris Maragos, Christine Michael, and O’Brien Schofield? Or was it Cliff Avril, Percy Harvin, Russell Wilson, and Kam Chancellor?

    Saying the Seahawks won because of the bottom third of their roster is like saying Starbucks is the Goliath of java joints because of its napkin dispensers.

    The defense that Carroll built muffled and flustered Manning and the highest-scoring offense in NFL history, forcing four turnovers, including Smith’s 69-yard interception return for a touchdown.

    There was no elaborate, intricate, genius game plan to do it. It was simply our players are better than yours.

    “We didn’t change anything for this game. We just played the way we always play,” said Carroll. “I’m thrilled we put our stamp on the championship.”

    The Broncos pierced the Patriots’ injury-depleted defense for scores on six straight possessions, racked up 507 yards of offense, and had Manning complete 74 percent of his passes and throw for 400 yards in the AFC title game two weeks earlier.

    It turned out the Patriots’ best defense against the Broncos was Mother Nature. They were still missing Vince Wilfork, Jerod Mayo, and Tommy Kelly when they beat Manning back on a blustery November night.

    The absence of Aqib Talib hurt the Patriots in the AFC Championship game, but the official Patriots’ team-building manual says it’s never, ever about one player.

    So, you can’t blame Talib’s absence then.

    Winning titles with the bottom 17 or 18 players on a 53-man roster doesn’t add up. Seven of those players will be game-day inactives each week. The remaining 10 or 11 players are usually rookies, special teams specialists, developmental players, or NFL roster fodder.

    Your starters on offense and defense constitute 22 players. If you take your 15 best backup players or special teamers you’re at 37. Dividing an NFL roster into thirds, you’re dipping one or two players deep into the bottom third Kraft was talking about.

    The bottom third of the roster is where the Patriots always will have the greatest advantage because coach Bill Belichick will get more out of the average, marginal, and inexperienced players who usually populate the bottom portion of the 53-man roster.

    Belichick is a master at hiding a player’s limitations and maximizing his abilities, as he proved once again this season.

    In fairness, any comparisons with the Patriots with the Seahawks are imperfect because Seattle has star-caliber players such as Wilson ($686,685 cap hit in 2013) and Sherman ($605,681 cap hit) who are still on cost-effective rookie contracts.

    That’s found money.

    The Seahawks also rolled over $13 million in cap space into 2013.

    The Patriots have about $4 million of rollover cap space with the salary cap number for 2014 yet to be set.

    But Seattle had high cap numbers, including tight end Zach Miller with an $11 million cap hit this season and wide receiver Sidney Rice, who suffered a torn ACL Oct. 28, with a $9.7 million cap charge.

    The Fightin’ Carrolls already had pass rusher Chris Clemons, who was coming off a torn anterior cruciate ligament, with an $8.1 million cap hit. They went out and spent on Avril (two years, $13 million) and Michael Bennett (one year, $4.8 million) to bolster that element.

    They traded for Harvin and gave him a six-year, $67 million deal.

    Perhaps, his former NFL employers, the Patriots, should take a page from old Pete’s book — “Win Forever” — this offseason.

    I bet the last third is really good.

    [/QUOTE]

    Gasper and Angelo right. Belichick and Kraft wrong.

    Got it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    Right about sacks.

    Twice  in that game Brady would have taken a sack where Gomer did not.

    Instead he threw an ill advised pass, one resulting in and interception and the other a near interception.

    I think collapsing pocket, passing lanes obstruction, batted balls and not being to able to move 'up' in the pocket to make throws is just as harmful as sacks. 

     

    Go onto say defensive line pressure, play after play, is the most important feature of a good defense in the NFL.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Gasper and Angelo right. Belichick and Kraft wrong.

    Got it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I keep forgetting . . . they do everything right except pass the ball too much.

    Got it. 

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     



    This is true as the diff. between them getting to manning to us was probably ony a second but the difference is Seattle can cover up the back end and they intimidate over the middle....hard for us to do that with 2 converted CBs playing safety back there. Both under 200 lbs. Ive been talking about it for a while. Adrian Wilson was supposed to help. Just like the guys brought in to change the smurf problem when Hobbs left, they were ALL OLD. S.Springs, D.Oneal, C.Scott..All signed way after their primes. Can we possible get someone to play who is UNDER 30??  smh

    Also, another thing is, when all of your CBs are over 6 ft ,its hard for QBs to throw to guys. The height discourages most throws as the Qb is scared of them making a play. When you see a 5'9" like Dennard running around its easy to throw it up and give your guy a chance. BB can learn a lot, imo.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to unclejack02130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tthe bottom third is usually garbage, every now and then a gem comes thru but not often.  I'll say it again-follow the money, as long as the stadium is full and PPlace is humming and TV $$ flows in, Kraft and BB are happy with a competitive team, if a SB results all the better, but if not, makes no difference.  Kraft is business first, no more complicated than that.

    [/QUOTE]

    pretty much. Kraft looks quite contempt with his lil eye candy  on his arm. he is living the life. he has the rings. I guess we are all done here.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It will surprise people, but the Pats' defense was 5th in sacks during the regular season, with 48.  Seattle was 8th, with 44.  So you're right, ATJ, that number of sacks isn't necessarily a complete indicator of how well a team does pressuring a QB.  

    The key to beating a Manning-led offense is, and always has been, getting enough pressure to force Manning to throw earlier than he wants and to be physical with the receivers so they're knocked off their routes and timing. Before the Pats-Bronocs game, I said the key to the Pats winning was the defense being able to do this.  There was no way the Pats' offense could keep up with the Broncos' offense in a s hoot out.  Seattle did exactly what the Pats needed to do (and they did it exceptionally well), which is basically why they won. 

    I haven't gone back and re-watched the game, but I don't think Seattle was blitzing much (at least I don't remember a ton of blitzes).  They just got good pressure from their DEs.  These are just talented athletes beating their opponents in individual battles. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    well we got to play Miami twice!  I can tell you that C.J. had all of his 11.5 sacks before december which is disturbing but I cant fault him for playing every snap and wearing down..

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to Pats-bilbo's comment:

    Besides Talent the difference between Seattle D and Pats D is intensity. There were a few games where the Pats D came out aggressive. Where the Pats O came out aggressive and they both were dominant when they did. Pete Carroll coaches on intensity and doing your job aggressively. BB coaches to do your job and play within the system. BB downplays emotion and does not want his players "pumped" up, he wants them ready to do their job and do it better than the other guy. This way works more often and more consistantly than the emotions but it does not work in bigger games against better teams that have the ability to do their job too.

    Add to the fact that Seattle has a lot of talented people and they know how to hit and tackle and that is the real difference between Pats and Seattle.

    Carroll's team when smacked back is not as dominant. Look at SF games against them. When Seattle is smacking and intimidting they win.

    We need some aggressiveness on the Pats D. Impose our will on the O not the other way around. This I think is what is really missing on the Pats D. Spikes brings that intensity at times, but he won't be here next year. Collins could be that aggressive player and so could Hightower and Jones, but I think that BB pushes for them to do their job exactly the way he tells you and does not allow some of the freedom, intensity, instinct the players need to impact the game.

    Also, Seattle's D and O play with the skills and talent they have and use it better than the Pats do. I don't think the bottom 1/3 of Seattles team is better than the pats bottom 1/3 but they were not needed to win the superbowl. Seattle went out and did what they wanted to do and were determined to not be stopped. They imposed their will.

    We are not just one or two players away from this type of dominating D because you need impact players that can play aggressively and feel like it is "doing their job". 

    The Pat's way of doing your job produces more consistency and can adjust to different teams and wins most of the time. Not a bad strategy or way to go. I enjoy seeing football players play the game but I would love to see them add the intensity to the system. However, intensity comes from confidence and instinct, with this young of a D do we really have the players to do that?

    We need a hard hitting safety and a DT or DE that scares the opposition and makes them worried about getting hit. Our LB's need to open up a bit more and bring it but we have the talent there to do it. We need a O-line that imposes it's will on the D line not just does their job. We need one deep threat or big play maker type reciever (Gronk can do it when healthy and a Wide out) that threatens and scares the other team's DB's.

    If we had these pieces and adjusted the strategy to be aggressive and not technicians, we will be dominant once more. The Pats are the best run team and best coached team but I don't think we are the most agressive or emotional team. This game still has a large degree of emotion to it. BB needs to rely a little more on emotion to "bring it" on game day.

     




    great post as always bro. The ONE thing that I can take from all the big game losses going back to the Jets in 2010 was the lack of intensity and the way they looked lost and flustered and out of sorts. Its happened time and time again. I think the lack of confidence is key. BB always hypes up the other team, makes them out to be Great..is that too much? Maybe he should be HYPING UP HIS TEAM and giving THEM confidence that THEY can win....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    My point in initiating this thread was to point out that sacks should not be used as THE criteria for determining an effective pass rush.  I make this point because we often see sacks held up as THE measure of success.

    The point WAS NOT to say that the Pats D is as effective as Seattle's - clearly it is not.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My point in initiating this thread was to point out that sacks should not be used as THE criteria for determining an effective pass rush.  I make this point because we often see sacks held up as THE measure of success.

    The point WAS NOT to say that the Pats D is as effective as Seattle's - clearly it is not.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, and sorry to derail it a bit with the article I posted.

    I agree with your main point.  In fact, as I said, the Pats were actually 5th overall in sacks this year and better than Seattle.  But was their pass rush super effective?  Not really.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure that sacks is the sole measure of pass rush anymore.  I thought pass rush was a combination of sacks, hits, hurries, pressures, blocked/tipped passes, ect...

    In addition, Seattle is known for their secondary too.

    So, if one combines the things above - would that at least partly explain Mannings/Broncos poor performance?

    [/QUOTE]

    THIS!

    It never was only about sacks. I don't even remember anyone saying that on these boards.

    That said, hurries, blocked/tipped passes are data that takes a little more effor to find on the internet. So I just look at three numbers, to know which DL performed better. 

    TFL, QB Hits and Sacks

    TFL is a meassure of how well the DL was penetrating to the backfield. QB Hits & Sacks are a good indication of pass rush

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy


    Well, Rob Ninkovich was 17th in the league with 12 qb hurries this year, he was ahead of guys like Mario Williams, Cameron Wake, jared allen, jpp, and all seattle defenders, jones had 10, which was tied with clemons of seattle. Over all the Pats had more sacks and more qb pressures then the seahawks. 

    Btw Nink turned in that performance while registering the highest pff rating against the run for a DE in the last 5 years, a +25.....

    I wonder how seattle would have looked had they lost red bryant, clemons, malcolm smith and richard sherman....and their best offensive player Lynch, the equivalent to losing Gronk???

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If we are to use Seattle as THE model for how D should be played in the NFL these days (and I don't necesarily agree or disagree) then perhaps we should stop insisting that sacks are THE measure of an effective pass rush.  The Seattle Seahawks sacked PM exactly once and had a grand total of 4 QB hits on him all game. 

    My take away from that truly impressive defensive performance was that an effective NFL D is a result of talented players playing as an integrated unit with each component seeing to the task at hand.  That the Seattle D also really brought the wood didn't hurt much (or perhaps it did) either.

    Just my perspective.

     



    I'm not sure that sacks is the sole measure of pass rush anymore.  I thought pass rush was a combination of sacks, hits, hurries, pressures, blocked/tipped passes, ect...

    In addition, Seattle is known for their secondary too.

    So, if one combines the things above - would that at least partly explain Mannings/Broncos poor performance?

    [/QUOTE]

    THIS!

    It never was only about sacks. I don't even remember anyone saying that on these boards.

    That said, hurries, blocked/tipped passes are data that takes a little more effor to find on the internet. So I just look at three numbers, to know which DL performed better. 

    TFL, QB Hits and Sacks

    TFL is a meassure of how well the DL was penetrating to the backfield. QB Hits & Sacks are a good indication of pass rush

    [/QUOTE]

    With respect to the bolded portion of seattlepat's quote, really?  I've seen that drum beaten in this forum to the point of nausea.  Had it not been repeatedly pranced as a criteria I wouldn't have initiatied this thread. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    What they did effectively, was the push up the Middle, Manning had a hard time to step into his passes. They did which I wish was done more. They put the arms up. The 1st int was a result of it. He had to change his trajectory of the pass.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Pass Rush Fallacy

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Well, Rob Ninkovich was 17th in the league with 12 qb hurries this year, he was ahead of guys like Mario Williams, Cameron Wake, jared allen, jpp, and all seattle defenders, jones had 10, which was tied with clemons of seattle. Over all the Pats had more sacks and more qb pressures then the seahawks. 

    Btw Nink turned in that performance while registering the highest pff rating against the run for a DE in the last 5 years, a +25.....

    I wonder how seattle would have looked had they lost red bryant, clemons, malcolm smith and richard sherman....and their best offensive player Lynch, the equivalent to losing Gronk???

    [/QUOTE]

    Yea and Nink was a DUD vs Manning. Didnt even get close to him. This is what you homers will never be able to comprehend. We have players who look good in regular season vs the weak division we play in but when the lights come in the postseason and the game is on the line and guys are hungry and dont want to go home, our guys are always the one NOT making any plays...  Is this just BAD timing or are you guys overating players? I dont blame Nink, he plays as hard as he can but He should be a backup player or in a rotation.

    He is 6'2 255 going against guys that are 6'3"- 6'8" and 300-350 lbs. He is outmatched MOST of the game and when he gets the occasional sack people praise him. HE SHOULD get an occasional sack while PLAYING ALL GAME. Most other teams rotate. Again, I like Nink but BB made him the bonafide starter and that was a bad move. This guy needs a breather now and then. EVEN NINK himself said he was gassed in the denver game!  When do you hear players admit that?? 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share