PDA

View Full Version : Define 'blitz'


Double Barrel
10-04-2007, 05:25 PM
On this morning's show with Mark Vandermeer and Andre Ware, one of them mentioned that Kubiak said the team blitzed the Falcons 27 times.

A discussion ensued that turned into an argument between Mark and Andre. Ware kept insisting that a "blitz" is defined as bringing one more defender into a pass rush than the offense has blockers. For instance, he said, if the offense has five linemen and a TE, then the defense has to bring 6 defenders to technically make it a "blitz". He said anything else is considered "bringing pressure".

Mark argued that a blitz is anytime you bring someone for a pass rush that is not a lineman. He mentioned a 'zone blitz', where a lineman drops into coverage and the defense brings a LB or CB into the rush. Andre continue to insist that this is NOT a blitz, regardless of what anyone calls it, and it is strictly "bringing pressure" if there are not more defenders than blockers.

The debate got pretty heated, with Ware mentioning his 30 years of football experience and playing in the NFL. He got so upset that they cut to a commercial break to cool off. I was actually surprised that Andre Ware got so angry and he sounded offended that his knowledge was being questioned. Kind of a weird segment and a side of them that I've never heard before.

So what do y'all think? I've always thought a "blitz" was of Mark V's definition, especially in light of Kubiak saying that we blitzed ATL 27 times. No way is the HC saying that we brought more defenders than they had blockers 27 times.

I thought it might be a good topic for discussion.

real
10-04-2007, 05:27 PM
I think Andre is losing it.

If a LB or DB blitzes...

It's called a blitz...

dalemurphy
10-04-2007, 05:30 PM
I think Andre is losing it.


That's twice now that the zone blitz has exposed him as a fraud. Obviously, the first time was as an NFL Qb!

Kaiser Toro
10-04-2007, 05:32 PM
I define blitz, from my perspective when I am viewing, as you send more than the front of your scheme. Under that very loose definition of a blitz, in order for them to blitz 27 times they must have blitzed the whole second half because I did not see it in the first half.

However, the Falcons only scored 6 pts in the second half.

The Pencil Neck
10-04-2007, 05:35 PM
To me, a blitz has always been about bringing linebackers and/or DB's instead of just linemen. I have never heard there being a requirement that you have 1 more rusher than blockers to be considered a blitz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_American_football#B
"blitz
a defensive maneuver in which one or more linebackers or defensive backs, who normally remain behind the line of scrimmage, instead charge into the opponents' backfield. However, in the 3-4 defense, one linebacker typically rushes the passer with the three down linemen. This is not considered a blitz. If an additional linebacker is sent, bringing the total number of rushers to five, it is a blitz. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_%28American_football%29
"In American football or Canadian football, a blitz, or quarterback rush, is a team defensive maneuver against an opponent's passing play in which the defense sends more players than the offense can block. Usually, blitzes are one or more linebackers or defensive backs, who normally remain behind the line of scrimmage during a play, but are instead sent across the line to the opponent’s side in order to try to tackle the quarterback or disrupt his pass drop."

That second definition ALMOST supports Ware. Almost.

infantrycak
10-04-2007, 05:36 PM
By his definition a standard OL with two TE's can't be blitzed even if the whole front seven rushes. Anyway:

Definition: A defensive strategy in which a linebacker or defensive back vacates his normal responsibilities in order to pressure the quarterback. The object of a blitz is to tackle the quarterback behind the line of scrimmage or force the quarterback to hurry his pass.

About Football (http://football.about.com/cs/football101/g/gl_blitz.htm)

When a linebacker(s) and/or defensive back(s) joins the defensive linemen in rushing the quarterback, it is called a blitz. One, two, three, or four of them may blitz the quarterback, overwhelming the offensive linemen. Cagey quarterbacks look for blitzes, anticipating vacant areas to throw to, maybe to a "hot receiver," such as the tight end.

Link (http://www.4malamute.com/definitions101.html)

The Pencil Neck
10-04-2007, 05:36 PM
I define blitz, from my perspective when I am viewing, as you send more than the front of your scheme. Under that very loose definition of a blitz, in order for them to blitz 27 times they must have blitzed the whole second half because I did not see it in the first half.

However, the Falcons only scored 6 pts in the second half.

They were blitzing in the first half, too.

But didn't they sit Petey in the second half?

real
10-04-2007, 05:37 PM
How do teams succesfully "pick up blitzes" if it is not a blitz unless you are bringing one extra defender?

In that case, on a blitz, shouldn't atleast one defender always be coming free ?

If we have four down linemen and a LB comes, is he not blitzing ?


No wonder Andre struggled as a QB.

Kaiser Toro
10-04-2007, 05:43 PM
They were blitzing in the first half, too.

But didn't they sit Petey in the second half?

They were. I was looking for this specifically a couple of days ago.

http://texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42906

Double Barrel
10-04-2007, 05:46 PM
I think Andre is losing it.

If a LB or DB blitzes...

It's called a blitz...

My take as well, all the way around.

How do teams succesfully "pick up blitzes" if it is not a blitz unless you are bringing one extra defender?

In that case, on a blitz, shouldn't atleast one defender always be coming free ?

If we have four down linemen and a LB comes, is he not blitzing ?


See, this is what I thought, and the exact point that Mark was making. How does Tom Brady "pick up the blitz"? Andre replied that Brady is "picking up pressure", and then made the statement that Brady would agree with Ware's take.

I'm sending a link to this thread to Mark. :D

NitroGSXR
10-04-2007, 05:47 PM
I always thought that a blitz would be when one abandons coverage in order to rush the QB. This pretty much applies only to the defensive backs and the linebackers. I didn't really think that a lineman could blitz. What about teams running the 3-4 scheme? If that linebacker comes running after the QB then that has to be considered an abandonment of his duties to cover. Doesn't matter how many people are on the line. That's just what I always thought. I guess it's a lot more complicated than that now.

real
10-04-2007, 05:49 PM
Picking up pressure...???

LMAO...

real
10-04-2007, 05:51 PM
I always thought that a blitz would be when one abandons coverage in order to rush the QB. This pretty much applies only to the defensive backs and the linebackers. I didn't really think that a lineman could blitz. What about teams running the 3-4 scheme? If that linebacker comes running after the QB then that has to be considered an abandonment of his duties to cover. Doesn't matter how many people are on the line. That's just what I always thought. I guess it's a lot more complicated than that now.

It's different with a 3-4 because of how the OLB's play...

If one of them comes it isn't a blitz.....

dalemurphy
10-04-2007, 05:51 PM
according to Andre Ware, a blitz is just like "offsides" in soccer...:confused:

NitroGSXR
10-04-2007, 05:51 PM
It's different with a 3-4 because of how the OLB's play...

If one of them comes it isn't a blitz.....

Then what is it?

michaelm
10-04-2007, 05:56 PM
Then what is it?

Bringing Pressure?

Kaiser Toro
10-04-2007, 05:59 PM
Bringing Pressure?

I am sorry, that is incorrect. The correct answer isss.....Under Pressure.

http://www.elrincondejavier.net/html/images/articulos/underpressure2.jpg :specnatz:

Porky
10-04-2007, 06:00 PM
I always defined it as when a player who normally doesn't rush the QB, does rush. In a 4-3, this means the LB's and/or DB's.

In a 3/4, OLB's also double as down lineman on pass plays, so I would not consider those players as blitzing players. But, if an ILB or DB rushed, then I would consider that a blitz.

That's the way I see it, and in this case I would side with the defintion given by Marc Vandemeer.

NitroGSXR
10-04-2007, 06:00 PM
Bringing Pressure?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I most certainly am not. I sincerely want to know the answer. The game of football is a lot more complicated than one would be willing to submit to and it's just something that I have a passion for and want to improve my knowledge.

If you're not being sarcastic then... Isn't bringing pressure simply a blitz? Especially when it comes from a man who left coverage over the line of scrimmage to attack behind the line of scrimmage. Sounds like a blitz to me.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Specnatz
10-04-2007, 06:04 PM
Bringing Pressure?

HAHA funny.

in a 3-4 you usually have one or two LB rushing the QB on every single down because of the formation used. When an additional LB rushes the QB then it is called a blitz. Or if a Saftey or CB rush it is also a blitz.

Rex King
10-04-2007, 06:11 PM
I always defined it as when a player who normally doesn't rush the QB, does rush. In a 4-3, this means the LB's and/or DB's.

In a 3/4, OLB's also double as down lineman on pass plays, so I would not consider those players as blitzing players. But, if an ILB or DB rushed, then I would consider that a blitz.

That's the way I see it, and in this case I would side with the defintion given by Marc Vandemeer.

Whoa, missed this thread. That's pretty much what I'd go with. In the vernacular, I'd say Andre was pwned.

Yankee_In_TX
10-04-2007, 06:12 PM
Under Andre's definition, could you not "Blitz" (let's say two extra men), and say the TE and FB jump onto the line and help block. Does that change it from a blitz to pressure?

edo783
10-04-2007, 06:19 PM
Blitz, when anyone other than a down defensive lineman rushes the passer. If it is a 34 or 43 line up it doesn't matter. If someone other than the guys that are standing/hands on the ground as lineman at the line of scrimage goes after the QB, it's a blitz.

nero THE zero
10-04-2007, 07:15 PM
I missed it this morning but this is a big reason why I don't like Andre Ware. He makes assinine statements (ie. Deion Sanders is the best football player ever) and is too quick on the defense when questioned about it. It's almost like trying to have an adult discussion with a 10 year old.

I loved MV when he was with Rich in the afternoon but I just can't stomach the morning show with Ware.

Speedy
10-04-2007, 07:26 PM
Blitz, when anyone other than a down defensive lineman rushes the passer. If it is a 34 or 43 line up it doesn't matter. If someone other than the guys that are standing/hands on the ground as lineman at the line of scrimage goes after the QB, it's a blitz.Agreed! You bring anybody other than a lineman, you're blitzing. The o-lineman have their assignments to block those down linemen. When somebody comes other than those guys, adjustments have to be made, aka, picking up the blitz.

Vinny
10-04-2007, 07:28 PM
I just kinda define a blitz when a man who is usually in a coverage technique rushes the passer in passing downs or shoots a gap in a "run blitz".

Yankee_In_TX
10-04-2007, 07:33 PM
Under Andre's definition, could you not "Blitz" (let's say two extra men, a CB and LB), and say the TE and FB jump onto the line and help block. Does that change it from a "blitz" to "pressure?"

So this is correct (correct as in a flaw in Andre's argument), correct? (sorry all, remember, I never played football!)

Specnatz
10-04-2007, 08:14 PM
So this is correct (correct as in a flaw in Andre's argument), correct? (sorry all, remember, I never played football!)

That would be correct under Andrea's line of thinking. :pirate:

hollywood_texan
10-04-2007, 08:23 PM
This is a great topic. Bottom line, it's probably going to boil down perspective and your experience playing football.

First thing to consider is when did the term come about and what was the intent of the definition at that time. The term blitz came around in 50's I believe. I think we can all agree the game has changed a lot since then. Back then, I believe this strategy was developed to overwhelm the blockers by sheer numbers while giving up the advantage on the coverage side. Which supports Andre's contention.

Second, you have to take into account the term stunt. That is a defensive manuever that uses the same amount of lineman/rushers but is used to confuse the blocking scheme.

Now, if you start dropping lineman back into coverage and rushing a LB or defensive back, do you really want to call that a blitz? That really sounds like a stunt to me if you are only rushing 4 to 5 guys at end of the play. You are just trying to confuse the blocking scheme, not overwhelm it with sheer numbers.

Vinny
10-04-2007, 08:27 PM
This is a great topic. Bottom line, it's probably going to boil down perspective and your experience playing football.

First thing to consider is when did the term come about and what was the intent of the definition at that time. The term blitz came around in 50's I believe. I think we can all agree the game has changed a lot since then. Back then, I believe this strategy was developed to overwhelm the blockers by sheer numbers while giving up the advantage on the coverage side. Which supports Andre's contention.

Second, you have to take into account the term stunt. That is a defensive manuever that uses the same amount of lineman/rushers but is used to confuse the blocking scheme.

Now, if you start dropping lineman back into coverage and rushing a LB or defensive back, do you really want to call that a blitz? That really sounds like a stunt to me if you are only rushing 4 to 5 guys at end of the play. You are just trying to confuse the blocking scheme, not overwhelm it with sheer numbers.
a stunt is when you cross over and take the the gap of the player beside you. ie Mario taking an inside rush and pressuring the Guard while Okoye swings wide and taking on the Offensive Tackle

pappy
10-04-2007, 08:29 PM
This is a great topic. Bottom line, it's probably going to boil down perspective and your experience playing football.

First thing to consider is when did the term come about and what was the intent of the definition at that time. The term blitz came around in 50's I believe. I think we can all agree the game has changed a lot since then. Back then, I believe this strategy was developed to overwhelm the blockers by sheer numbers while giving up the advantage on the coverage side. Which supports Andre's contention.

Second, you have to take into account the term stunt. That is a defensive manuever that uses the same amount of lineman/rushers but is used to confuse the blocking scheme.

Now, if you start dropping lineman back into coverage and rushing a LB or defensive back, do you really want to call that a blitz? That really sounds like a stunt to me if you are only rushing 4 to 5 guys at end of the play. You are just trying to confuse the blocking scheme, not overwhelm it with sheer numbers.

This is a definition i support and i think both views are legit :d:

texasguy346
10-04-2007, 08:36 PM
I just kinda define a blitz when a man who is usually in a coverage technique rushes the passer in passing downs or shoots a gap in a "run blitz".

That's pretty much how I've always thought of a blitz. I listened to this exchange with Andre & Marc, and it definately got pretty heated between the two of them. You could actually hear Andre get up towards the end of it & say something to the effect of "out" or "break". I've always thought of a blitz much like Marc explained it, but I guess Andre didn't like having a radio guy telling him what a blitz is live on the air with his 30 years of football experience.

hollywood_texan
10-04-2007, 08:37 PM
a stunt is when you cross over and take the the gap of the player beside you. ie Mario taking an inside rush and pressuring the Guard while Okoye swings wide and taking on the Offensive Tackle

What is the purpose of a stunt?

To confuse the blocking scheme.

Take a step back and look at the objective.

You are looking at a stunt too literally.

Bottom line, the Texans didn't blitz 27 times against the Falcons. Kubiak sounds like a politician playing with budget numbers.

ObsiWan
10-04-2007, 08:38 PM
This is a great topic. Bottom line, it's probably going to boil down perspective and your experience playing football.

First thing to consider is when did the term come about and what was the intent of the definition at that time. The term blitz came around in 50's I believe. I think we can all agree the game has changed a lot since then. Back then, I believe this strategy was developed to overwhelm the blockers by sheer numbers while giving up the advantage on the coverage side. Which supports Andre's contention.

Second, you have to take into account the term stunt. That is a defensive manuever that uses the same amount of lineman/rushers but is used to confuse the blocking scheme.

Now, if you start dropping lineman back into coverage and rushing a LB or defensive back, do you really want to call that a blitz? That really sounds like a stunt to me if you are only rushing 4 to 5 guys at end of the play. You are just trying to confuse the blocking scheme, not overwhelm it with sheer numbers.

Excellent summary. You should have called in and straightened them both out.

And I always thought that "pressure" was the intended result of a blitz or a stunt, not a scheme unto itself.

hollywood_texan
10-04-2007, 08:47 PM
I think Andre is probably right technically if you think back to when the term came into play and the strategy was developed. It's just the game has changed so much over the last 20 years or so. The term was never intended for this type of stuff.

I'll give you an scenario. What if a defense decides to rush 4 DBs and 1 LB and drops back the 4 down lineman to assist the 2 LBs in a coverage. This is assuming a typical 4-3 defense.

Would you call that a blitz?

I wouldn't.

But, I can see how someone could look at as a blitz though. My opinion, it isn't, your just trying to confuse the offense, not knock the QB's block off.

Bottom line, you have to factor in the stunt concept when discussing this topic and these so-called "exotic blitzs".

I believe the term blitz is overused and was probably the bigger point Andre was making.

pappy
10-04-2007, 09:05 PM
What is the purpose of a stunt?

To confuse the blocking scheme.

Take a step back and look at the objective.

You are looking at a stunt too literally.

Bottom line, the Texans didn't blitz 27 times against the Falcons. Kubiak sounds like a politician playing with budget numbers.

Kubiak is a very conservative type and i guess he views anything other than a four man rush a blitz .

real
10-04-2007, 09:14 PM
In a 3-4 your OLB's are not normally looked at as "blitzers" when they rush the QB...


A stunt has nothing to do with a blitz...Two totally different things that really don't have much of a connection...

Most of the time your D-line is running stunts, and any LB or DB that rushes is merely blitzing...


This really isn't that difficult...I think people are making it harder than it has to be..

Andre may have meant something totally different, but from the definition that I read he's just flat out wrong...


How could a defense have a "blitz package" if they don't know who is going to be staying in to block ?

When Demeco rushes the QB it's called a blitz....even if they don't send out one reciever and the whole team and all their fans are back there pass protecting...it's called a blitz...

The Pencil Neck
10-04-2007, 09:15 PM
I think Andre is probably right technically if you think back to when the term came into play and the strategy was developed. It's just the game has changed so much over the last 20 years or so. The term was never intended for this type of stuff.

I'll give you an scenario. What if a defense decides to rush 4 DBs and 1 LB and drops back the 4 down lineman to assist the 2 LBs in a coverage. This is assuming a typical 4-3 defense.

Would you call that a blitz?

I wouldn't.

But, I can see how someone could look at as a blitz though. My opinion, it isn't, your just trying to confuse the offense, not knock the QB's block off.

Bottom line, you have to factor in the stunt concept when discussing this topic and these so-called "exotic blitzs".

I believe the term blitz is overused and was probably the bigger point Andre was making.

I'd call that a blitz because according to my understanding of it, it's not about numbers. If a DB is coming, it's a blitz. If a LB is coming, it's a blitz. If a lineman is falling back into coverage and a LB is coming, it's still a blitz because he's not a down linemen.

I don't think the concept of trying to confuse blocking schemes needs to be taken into account at all. It's not that complicated. And I don't think the term is overused because it's still an accurate description of what's happening when an LB or DB is coming and trying to shoot a gap and get penetration. Whether that's to tackle the QB or the RB.

real
10-04-2007, 09:16 PM
Bottom line, you have to factor in the stunt concept when discussing this topic and these so-called "exotic blitzs".


D-lines run stunts....There can be a LB or DB directly involved with that D-linemans stunt, but that LB or DB is still blitzing....not stunting...

Get it?

The whole thing together is called a "stunt"...But the term for what the D-lineman is doing is called stunting and that LB or DB is blitzing, but are involved with the stunt...

If you combine the two then you would say: "hey they ran a stunt. The LB blitzed a gap and the DE stunted around him"...




It doesn't matter if they drop all four D-lineman and one lonely CB rushes the passer...

That corner is still blitzing...

Please don't let Andre Ware confuse you..

real
10-04-2007, 09:28 PM
Then what is it?

In a 3-4, like Spec said, you normally are going to have atleast one of those OLB's if not both rushing on every down...

Watch the Cowboys play...

Normally they are going to be up on the line of scrimmage also...

Those guys have special roles so it's kind of hard and just a kind of situational thing as to whether you would truly say that an OLB in the 3-4 "blitzed"...

Most of the time you would just say "they came on that one"...

OLB's in a 3-4 are essentially D-lineman that have a little more athletic ability and can move a little bit in space...

hollywood_texan
10-04-2007, 09:29 PM
I'd call that a blitz because according to my understanding of it, it's not about numbers. If a DB is coming, it's a blitz. If a LB is coming, it's a blitz. If a lineman is falling back into coverage and a LB is coming, it's still a blitz because he's not a down linemen.

I don't think the concept of trying to confuse blocking schemes needs to be taken into account at all. It's not that complicated. And I don't think the term is overused because it's still an accurate description of what's happening when an LB or DB is coming and trying to shoot a gap and get penetration. Whether that's to tackle the QB or the RB.

Like I said, the game has changed so much since that term was coined.

My opinion, what's the point of calling a play a blitz if all you have to do is send one LB or DB in addition to the four down lineman on a 4-3. Let's just get rid of the term in my opinion.

I didn't hear the conversation in context. If Kubiak said they blitzed 27 times, meaning they made a concerted effort to hit the QB, then what is the meaning of the term blitz? Because the term blitz means we are going to go after the QB with abandon and leave the defensive secondary exposed.

As I said, the game has changed so much that it's really an old term that it is hard to apply to today's game.

My opinion, in the spirit of the invention of the defensive scheme called the "blitz", I don't think just sending 1 DB or LB would qualify as a blitz.

Either way, the defense has a problem getting to the QB and really are not making a concerted effort. Meanwhile, Kubiak wants to say they went after the QB 27 times using a blitz against Atlanta. It's misleading regardless of the agruement of the term of the definition of the term the "blitz". Which was probably Andre's point.

hollywood_texan
10-04-2007, 09:33 PM
D-lines run stunts....There can be a LB or DB directly involved with that D-linemans stunt, but that LB or DB is still blitzing....not stunting...

Get it?

The whole thing together is called a "stunt"...But the term for what the D-lineman is doing is called stunting and that LB or DB is blitzing, but are involved with the stunt...

If you combine the two then you would say: "hey they ran a stunt. The LB blitzed a gap and the DE stunted around him"...




It doesn't matter if they drop all four D-lineman and one lonely CB rushes the passer...

That corner is still blitzing...

Please don't let Andre Ware confuse you..

Whatever, these terms were developed well before the game changed over the last 20 years or so.

Which means you are using old terminology to fit a new game.

GET IT????

I am not saying anyone is wrong. You guys are like old women arguing over curtains or drapes. What matters is your perspective.

Bottom line, the Texans have a hard time putting pressure on the QB outside of the 4 down linemen. Which means, if you wanna call it a "blitz", IT STILL SUCKS!

Don't let Kubiak confuse you that they blitzed 27 times and they are going after the QB.

DO YOU GET THAT?????

Ole Miss Texan
10-04-2007, 09:48 PM
I'm pretty sure Al Gore invented the Blitz.

Specnatz
10-04-2007, 10:18 PM
In a 3-4, like Spec said, you normally are going to have atleast one of those OLB's if not both rushing on every down...

Watch the Cowboys play...

Normally they are going to be up on the line of scrimmage also...

Those guys have special roles so it's kind of hard and just a kind of situational thing as to whether you would truly say that an OLB in the 3-4 "blitzed"...

Most of the time you would just say "they came on that one"...

OLB's in a 3-4 are essentially D-lineman that have a little more athletic ability and can move a little bit in space...


It is almost a 5 man front versus a 4 man line, in a 3-4 compared to a 4-3.

Vinny
10-04-2007, 10:22 PM
What is the purpose of a stunt?

To confuse the blocking scheme.

Take a step back and look at the objective.

You are looking at a stunt too literally.

Bottom line, the Texans didn't blitz 27 times against the Falcons. Kubiak sounds like a politician playing with budget numbers.I'm not looking at a stunt too literally....you are just confused with the terms. It's harder to see a run blitz because they aren't after the QB...run blitzes are when a linebacker or a S shoots gaps inside to take away every gap....he was talking about pass and run blitzing. The danger in a run blitz is no support at the second level. When you run blitz you better get every gap covered because you take away most of your safety net once the back breaks the line of scrimmage.

In a 3-4 your OLB's are not normally looked at as "blitzers" when they rush the QB....
correct....in a 4-3 the DE's are your primary edge rushers. In a 3-4 your OLB's are your primary edge rushers...they just work in space like a linebacker and have more diverse responsibilities.....one reason the 3-4 is harder to stock than a 4-3

ChrisG
10-04-2007, 10:48 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_American_football#B


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_%28American_football%29



never use wikipedia - anyone change make it say whatever they want

real
10-04-2007, 11:02 PM
Whatever, these terms were developed well before the game changed over the last 20 years or so.

Which means you are using old terminology to fit a new game.

GET IT????

I am not saying anyone is wrong. You guys are like old women arguing over curtains or drapes. What matters is your perspective.

Bottom line, the Texans have a hard time putting pressure on the QB outside of the 4 down linemen. Which means, if you wanna call it a "blitz", IT STILL SUCKS!

Don't let Kubiak confuse you that they blitzed 27 times and they are going after the QB.

DO YOU GET THAT?????

You're guessing...and reaching...and losing it....

eriadoc
10-05-2007, 12:12 AM
I like Ware, but if he's adhering to the definition set forth in the original post, then he's wrong. We can throw semantics at it all day and discuss the different possible meanings, and that's fun, but Ware is wrong.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 12:51 AM
Like I said, the game has changed so much since that term was coined.

My opinion, what's the point of calling a play a blitz if all you have to do is send one LB or DB in addition to the four down lineman on a 4-3. Let's just get rid of the term in my opinion.

I didn't hear the conversation in context. If Kubiak said they blitzed 27 times, meaning they made a concerted effort to hit the QB, then what is the meaning of the term blitz? Because the term blitz means we are going to go after the QB with abandon and leave the defensive secondary exposed.

As I said, the game has changed so much that it's really an old term that it is hard to apply to today's game.

My opinion, in the spirit of the invention of the defensive scheme called the "blitz", I don't think just sending 1 DB or LB would qualify as a blitz.

Either way, the defense has a problem getting to the QB and really are not making a concerted effort. Meanwhile, Kubiak wants to say they went after the QB 27 times using a blitz against Atlanta. It's misleading regardless of the agruement of the term of the definition of the term the "blitz". Which was probably Andre's point.


Huh?

I don't understand what you're saying. What's misleading about the term? What's changed in the past 50 years that has changed the meaning or purpose of the word? 50 years ago it meant that you were sending an LB or a DB and now it means exactly the same thing. The purpose of those positions haven't changed. Nothing has changed.

Back in the 50's and 60's, teams were mostly running 4-3 defenses and if you were sending a corner or a safety or a LB, it was just like today. It was a blitz. There were teams playing 3-4 in the 60's and 70's just like today. (There were probably more 3-4 teams in the late 70's than today.) You probably would see more 5-2 defenses in the 60's and less nickle and dime packages but all that stuff has been done in one way or another since those times. Zone defenses (to the best of my knowledge) developed in the 60's. Zone blitzes developed in the late 80's because prior to that, you only ran man to man coverage while you blitzed.

Nothing major has changed. Just minor tweaks and minor accretions over the years.

If Kubiak said they blitzed 27 times then we should be able to look at the plays and see 27 times that 1 or more LB's/DB's were sent. In the KC game, I went through and counted the blitzes and iirc, I saw 1 blitz on a pass play (and 2-3 on run plays). I think we brought a blitz 1 or 2 times during the Panther game. I doubt we blitzed at all during the Colt game. During the Falcon game, we were blitzing left and right but I didn't bother to count.

One of the problems with our blitzes during the Falcons game is that most of them didn't bring much pressure. Although that blitz by Demeco where he got the sack was a thing of beauty.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 12:56 AM
Whatever, these terms were developed well before the game changed over the last 20 years or so.

Which means you are using old terminology to fit a new game.

GET IT????

I am not saying anyone is wrong. You guys are like old women arguing over curtains or drapes. What matters is your perspective.

Bottom line, the Texans have a hard time putting pressure on the QB outside of the 4 down linemen. Which means, if you wanna call it a "blitz", IT STILL SUCKS!

Don't let Kubiak confuse you that they blitzed 27 times and they are going after the QB.

DO YOU GET THAT?????

I think you're confused. And I don't mean that in an argumentative way or anything.

Although the purpose of the blitz is usually to get pressure on the QB, most blitzes don't even get to the QB. If the offense reads the blitz correctly, they can reassign blockers to pick it up. They may have one or more players forego going into a pass pattern so that they can stay home and block or they can designate certain guys as hot reads. Sometimes if you've got a hot read, you may even let some guy come in un-blocked on purpose. We did that on AJ's 30 yard TD against the Panthers.

But your belief that the meanings of these words have changed over time and don't apply to the "new" game of today is flat out wrong. The words haven't changed. Their meanings haven't changed. And the game hasn't changed.

HJam72
10-05-2007, 02:36 AM
I thought it was some kind of drink. :beerfunnel:

infantrycak
10-05-2007, 08:40 AM
I didn't hear the conversation in context. If Kubiak said they blitzed 27 times, meaning they made a concerted effort to hit the QB, then what is the meaning of the term blitz? Because the term blitz means we are going to go after the QB with abandon and leave the defensive secondary exposed.

I'd say Kubiak doesn't accept your definition and has made pretty clear that there are two types of plays in his mind--bringing pressure with the front 4 and blitzing, which conforms to the definition of blitz Vinny and others have mentioned.

You guys are like old women arguing over curtains or drapes. What matters is your perspective.

Don't let Kubiak confuse you that they blitzed 27 times and they are going after the QB.

DO YOU GET THAT?????

This is a perfect example of why it matters for people to have a common definition for a conversation to make sense. Kubiak isn't confusing anyone who understands his definition of blitz--he is saying on 27 plays, they brought someone other than the DL away from their normal duties.

If you are all into changes in the game then get with the program and realize Ware is 100% wrong on the current use of blitz even if there is some historical basis for his definition. On any sunday you will hear commentators (both pundits and former players) talk for example about a single LB coming on a delayed pass rush as a blitz. According to Andre, a single LB can never blitz.

Tulip
10-05-2007, 09:38 AM
never use wikipedia - anyone change make it say whatever they want

I heard this heated exchange when I was a few minutes from work yesterday, so I looked it up on Wikipedia as soon as I arrived to see what conventional wisdom says.

This was an interesting section of the entry, which I captured maybe 15 minutes after the argument and sent to my carpool buddy via e-mail:

There is some confusion among average fans as to what constitutes a blitz. Blitz is colloquially used to describe any time a linebacker or defensive back crosses the line of scrimmage when in actuality, a blitz is defined as the defense rushing the quarterback with more men than the offense has accounted for and can block. For example, when the defense rushes 5 men against the offense's 5 blockers, the defensive attack is not a blitz. For the defensive scheme to be a blitz in this instance, the defense would have to rush 6 to the offense's 5.

That makes sense to me that blitz has become somewhat of a generic term for any extra pressure. It's shorthand.

Kaiser Toro
10-05-2007, 10:12 AM
Blitzer was one of Santa's raindeer.

It was Blitzen.

powerfuldragon
10-05-2007, 10:45 AM
according to Andre Ware, a blitz is just like "offsides" in soccer...:confused:
andre ware is a mensa genius.

HJam72
10-05-2007, 10:48 AM
I used to think it was when YKW ran into somebody. :)

powerfuldragon
10-05-2007, 10:55 AM
never use wikipedia - anyone change make it say whatever they want
no they can't.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 11:01 AM
And the game hasn't changed.

The NFL game hasn't changed in the last 30 to 40 years?

What about the West Coast Offense? What about speed rushers and the left tacke position? I guess those example aren't changes in the way the game is played?

Again, like I said, you are going to have to look at what someone's perspective is. I bet, Andre had a coach in high school or maybe someone at UH that defined it this way.

For some of you to think that all defensive coordinators agree on the exact definintion of a generic term is laugable.

For the record, I am not saying anyone is wrong. It's a matter of perspective and how you were trained!

The bigger point of this whole thing and the reason why Andre got upset, as I understand it and I didn't hear the show, is Kubiak said they blitzed 27 times. Meaning, they are going after the QB. Kubiak making that statement is like a politician defending his voting record. It's a confusing statement and isn't honest regarding the overall issue of putting heat on the QB.

Double Barrel
10-05-2007, 11:06 AM
Again, like I said, you are going to have to look at what someone's perspective is.

The bigger point of this whole thing and the reason why Andre got upset, as I understand it and I didn't hear the show, is Kubiak said they blitzed 27 times. Meaning, they are going after the QB. Kubiak making that statement is like a politician defending his voting record. It's a confusing statement and isn't honest regarding the overall issue of putting heat on the QB.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

What if Kubiak's perspective is defining a blitz as anyone not a lineman coming in? You take underhanded swipes at the head coach while failing to apply the logic you mentioned in the same post.

If it's a "matter of perspective" and nobody is "wrong", then how can you fault Kubiak and equate him to a worthless politician? :um:

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 11:10 AM
The NFL game hasn't changed in the last 30 to 40 years?

What about the West Coast Offense? What about speed rushers and the left tacke position? I guess those example aren't changes in the way the game is played?

No.

They aren't. Not from an essential standpoint.

You think there weren't left tackles and defensive ends 50 years ago? Do you think there weren't short passes and yac before the West Coast Offense? What do you think the West Coast Offense changed?

The West Coast Offense took things that were being done and put them together in a new way. It didn't change the game from the standpoint of what things are. A pass is still a pass. A linebacker is still a linebacker.

What Walsh did was to take the things he had learned from other coaches and put them together. He changed the way receivers ran routes and he changed the emphasis of certain things.

If you want to get into a term that has changed over time, then it's West Coast Offense. Not Blitz.

HOU-TEX
10-05-2007, 11:11 AM
Out of the "27" blitzes, how many were run blitzes? Not every blitz is designed "for getting to the QB". I would bet there were several that weren't recognizable by watching TV.

I'm not going to go into detail over this, but I believe "The Voice" was correct.:cowboy1:

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 11:12 AM
I heard this heated exchange when I was a few minutes from work yesterday, so I looked it up on Wikipedia as soon as I arrived to see what conventional wisdom says.

This was an interesting section of the entry, which I captured maybe 15 minutes after the argument and sent to my carpool buddy via e-mail:



That makes sense to me that blitz has become somewhat of a generic term for any extra pressure. It's shorthand.

From Football 101:
http://www.4malamute.com/definitions101.html
"Blitz

The linebackers and defensive backs keep their hands off the ground, although a hand may need a “wipe” during the game (see USA’s “Monk” TV series for the definition of obsessive-compulsive behavior).
When a linebacker(s) and/or defensive back(s) joins the defensive linemen in rushing the quarterback, it is called a blitz. One, two, three, or four of them may blitz the quarterback, overwhelming the offensive linemen. Cagey quarterbacks look for blitzes, anticipating vacant areas to throw to, maybe to a "hot receiver," such as the tight end."

real
10-05-2007, 11:15 AM
I really don't see Kubiak as the kind of coach that will say..."yeah we blitzed 27 times", and it not be true...atleast in "his perspective"....

threetoedpete
10-05-2007, 11:18 AM
I always defined it as when a player who normally doesn't rush the QB, does rush. In a 4-3, this means the LB's and/or DB's.

In a 3/4, OLB's also double as down lineman on pass plays, so I would not consider those players as blitzing players. But, if an ILB or DB rushed, then I would consider that a blitz.

That's the way I see it, and in this case I would side with the defintion given by Marc Vandemeer.

I'm with you. Sending more than four people and exposing the back seven constitutes a blitz to me. I think the QB should stick to the things he knows something about. Next time we need an expert opinion on running the spread and busting out in the NFL Andre Ware is your guy.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 11:21 AM
You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

What if Kubiak's perspective is defining a blitz as anyone not a lineman coming in? You take underhanded swipes at the head coach while failing to apply the logic you mentioned in the same post.

If it's a "matter of perspective" and nobody is "wrong", then how can you fault Kubiak and equate him to a worthless politician? :um:

Look, Kubiak is trying to handle a tense situation regardless of how you feel about the term "blitz".

Kubiak is a man just like anyone else. If a family member or friend of mine starts blowing stuff out of their A hole, I call them on it. It doesn't mean I think they are worthless or any less of a person that I knew before they made the statement. We are all human.

Overall, I think Kubiak is doing a good job. He is dancin' on glass regarding this topic and I prefer that he not. But, please understand I don't think any less of him as a coach if he does. He is dealing with a tense situation right now considering the investment on the defensive line and I am just calling it like I see it.

Double Barrel
10-05-2007, 11:24 AM
HT, you are not answering my point: What if Kubiak considers those plays "blitzes" as his perspective? There is no politician speak. He is calling it like he sees it (i.e. "perspective").

The overwhelming majority of people define "blitz" the same way. Guess we're all guilting of politispeak, as well?

real
10-05-2007, 11:25 AM
Again, like I said, you are going to have to look at what someone's perspective is. I bet, Andre had a coach in high school or maybe someone at UH that defined it this way.

For the record, I am not saying anyone is wrong. It's a matter of perspective and how you were trained!

I agree with this.

Though he is still wrong IMHO, I do agree with the point you are making here.



And I could actually see why someone would have taught him that way...

As a QB you need to know when a blitzing DB or LB will be coming in free because there won't be enough blockers to pick it up, so the clock in your head needs to be faster.....The coach may have broke it down to him as saying something like "if we have 6 guys in to block, and they bring 6 don't look at the play as a blitz because since we have enough guys to pick up the extra pressure you should have a little more time to make a read"

Basically, the coach probably didn't want the term "blitz" to get the QB frazzled...Basically saying that even if you see a LB coming don't go crazy on me and get flustered...Just relax and make your read...In fact we won't even call that a blitz...We'll just say they are bringing some extra pressure...

But yeah, I could definitely see some unorthodox coach saying a blitz is only a blitz when they bring more than we can block...

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 11:26 AM
You think there weren't left tackles and defensive ends 50 years ago?

The qualities and skills looked for in a successful left tackle and defensive end have change dramatically in the last 25 years or so.

The terminology has stayed the same, but the way the game has played has progressed significantly.

Yankee_In_TX
10-05-2007, 11:28 AM
never use wikipedia - anyone change make it say whatever they want

HUH?

Before entering the NFL, Turk also punted for the Racine Raiders, a minor league football team located in Racine, Wisconsin In 2008 Michelin won a bid on a contract with the Houston Texans to fabricate an efficient patching system for their practice bubble. Part of the contract was a clause regarding a new rule stating that Matt Turk was to do all punting outdoors.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 11:30 AM
The qualities and skills looked for in a successful left tackle and defensive end have change dramatically in the last 25 years or so.

The terminology has stayed the same, but the way the game has played has progressed significantly.

good lord....give it up. I've been watching the game for 25 years and I even played it 25 years ago. It's essentially the same game.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 11:35 AM
HT, you are not answering my point: What if Kubiak considers those plays "blitzes" as his perspective? There is no politician speak. He is calling it like he sees it (i.e. "perspective").

The overwhelming majority of people define "blitz" the same way. Guess we're all guilting of politispeak, as well?

I didn't hear the exchange. But, I listen to the Marc and Andre on Sundays and listen to post game on 610 on the Internet.

From your explanation and Andre's heated exchange with Marc, then taking into consideration listening to other radio shows, I gather that Kubiak was saying they are going after the QB and validating his point by saying they blitzed 27 times.

I guess maybe this discussion should really be about getting real heat and pressure on the QB regardless of how the term the "blitz" is defined.

Look, I like Kubiak, Marc, and Andre. I don't want anyone of them to go anywhere.

I just see things a little differently. As for Kubiak, I don't care what you define as a blitz, the Texans need to start getting some serious pressure on the QB when they are playing lower tier QBs that throw to marginal WRs.

This whole thread is about some arcane terminology and there is no discussion about the problem at hand.

Can we at least agree there is a problem getting to the QB?

TK_Gamer
10-05-2007, 11:38 AM
I like Ware, but if he's adhering to the definition set forth in the original post, then he's wrong. We can throw semantics at it all day and discuss the different possible meanings, and that's fun, but Ware is wrong.

Actually no, I think in the true nature of a blitz you have to look at assignments and what they call "covering a rusher" . It really doesnt matter how many are on either line because the QB or the defensive playcaller {usually the safety or the MLB } can change assignments at any time. Let say the offesnse is in a 3 wide single back set, with a tight end on the right. that would mean 5 guys across on the offense. The defense is running a base 4-3 wich would have 4 lineman. so right off the bat, the offense outnumbers the defense on the line. Now the defense can either play a linebacker or DB away from the line to cover the TE or they can actully put them on the line. but wait, just like we dont know if the defense lined up on the line are rushing or covering, we also dont know if the TE is blocking or going on a pass route. but regardless if we assign the LB on the TE to blitz the QB it's his assignment that decides if its a blitz or not, if the TE goes on a pattern or if he stays and blocks really changes nothing as far as if it's a blitz or not. Its an assignment question. 4 d-lineman allways rush, if your are not a down lineman and you are assigned to rush the QB its a blitz. they offense can allways change their assignments too, and go with what is called "Max Protect" wich means the every offensive player in the blox including all RB's changes their assignments from pass routes to blocking incomming rushers. Anyway I ramble. I hope I cleared up something for someone.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 11:38 AM
Can we at least agree there is a problem getting to the QB?yeah, we aren't getting regular pressure unless we blitz. :heart:

infantrycak
10-05-2007, 11:38 AM
You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

What if Kubiak's perspective is defining a blitz as anyone not a lineman coming in? You take underhanded swipes at the head coach while failing to apply the logic you mentioned in the same post.

If it's a "matter of perspective" and nobody is "wrong", then how can you fault Kubiak and equate him to a worthless politician? :um:

Exactly. It's silly to play the I have a different definition so that makes you a liar game.

It's a confusing statement and isn't honest regarding the overall issue of putting heat on the QB.

Isn't honest? Can you not see the difference between the goal of a play and whether or not the play or call succeeds? For whatever reasons, a QB could attempt 20 passes and have 0 completions. That wouldn't mean the coach was being dishonest if he said we called 20 passing plays. Same thing here--they called 27 blitzes--doesn't mean he is lying if they don't get 27 sacks.

FYI--the Texans are tied for 14th in number of sacks. No that doesn't adequately measure pressure, but it isn't the doghouse of the NFL like it was under Capers where they entered the 2nd half of the season with 6 sacks.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 11:55 AM
The qualities and skills looked for in a successful left tackle and defensive end have change dramatically in the last 25 years or so.

The terminology has stayed the same, but the way the game has played has progressed significantly.

Terminology has progressed as schemes have gotten more and more advanced. But the rudiments are still the same.

You don't change the meaning of the word "blitz" because guys are bigger, faster, and stronger.

A linebacker is still a linebacker with the same basic responsibilities that linebackers had 50 years ago. A left tackle is still a left tackle with the same basic responsibilities that he had 40 years ago. Their reads and what they do in different situations have changed as offenses and defense have gotten more complicated.

There were speed rushers 40 years ago and the left tackle still had to protect the QB's blind side 40 years ago.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 12:01 PM
Isn't honest? Can you not see the difference between the goal of a play and whether or not the play or call succeeds?

Yes, but can you understand that someone can play with terminology to keep them from being on the hot seat? Furthermore, that doesn't make Kubiak any less of a man or a coach if he does that.

I think he is doing a fine job!


For whatever reasons, a QB could attempt 20 passes and have 0 completions. That wouldn't mean the coach was being dishonest if he said we called 20 passing plays.

Do you really want to use that example? David Carr tied the record for most consecutive completed passes. How legit of a record do you think that is?


Same thing here--they called 27 blitzes--doesn't mean he is lying if they don't get 27 sacks.

As with the Carr situation, results are what matter.

FYI--the Texans are tied for 14th in number of sacks. No that doesn't adequately measure pressure, but it isn't the doghouse of the NFL like it was under Capers where they entered the 2nd half of the season with 6 sacks.

I believe the issue is significant meaningful pressure over the course of the entire game. The front four is inconsistent. Which is really the reason why this thread exists in my opinion.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 12:05 PM
Terminology has progressed as schemes have gotten more and more advanced. But the rudiments are still the same.

You don't change the meaning of the word "blitz" because guys are bigger, faster, and stronger.

A linebacker is still a linebacker with the same basic responsibilities that linebackers had 50 years ago. A left tackle is still a left tackle with the same basic responsibilities that he had 40 years ago. Their reads and what they do in different situations have changed as offenses and defense have gotten more complicated.

There were speed rushers 40 years ago and the left tackle still had to protect the QB's blind side 40 years ago.


40 years ago, defensive lineman were not dropping back in coverage.

I take issue with a scheme that drops a defensive lineman in coverage and rushes a LB instead and call that a blitz.

It seems like you guys want to call that a blitz. Which is fine by me, there are different perspectives on the use of the term. I just wouldn't call it a blitz if I was the coach.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 12:08 PM
40 years ago, defensive lineman were not dropping back in coverage.

I take issue with a scheme that drops a defensive lineman in coverage and rushes a LB instead and call that a blitz.

It seems like you guys want to call that a blitz. Which is fine by me, there are different perspectives on the use of the term. I just wouldn't call it a blitz if I was the coach.
That's known as a "zone blitz" and what you are doing is "blitzing" a guy who is usually in a coverage technique. If the man is generally in coverage and rushes the passer...he is blitzing.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 12:12 PM
That's known as a "zone blitz" and what you are doing is "blitzing" a guy who is usually in a coverage technique. If the man is generally in coverage and rushes the passer...he is blitzing.

Agreed, but it is a relatively recent qualification of an already existing term.

Which brings me back to Pencil Neck, the game has changed.

I am not saying you guys are wrong.

There are coaches that view terminology different. Which is probably why Andre brought the point up in the first place and the use of the context in a convesation.

infantrycak
10-05-2007, 12:12 PM
Yes, but can you understand that someone can play with terminology to keep them from being on the hot seat? Furthermore, that doesn't make Kubiak any less of a man or a coach if he does that.

It does if you insult his honesty. Unless you can come up with a prior instance in which Kubiak used a different definition for blitz then there is zero merit to your accusation. By my recollection he has always differentiated front four plays and blitzes.

Do you really want to use that example? David Carr tied the record for most consecutive completed passes. How legit of a record do you think that is?

Facts are facts and you are just trying to twist the example to the absurd. 20 passing plays are 20 passing plays regardless of the result. 23 completions in a row are 23 completions in a row period. How impressive that fact is, is a totally different discussion and regardless of anyone's opinion, the fact remains so it isn't dishonest to say it.

Which is really the reason why this thread exists in my opinion.

Yeah, that must be why the guy who started the thread titled it inconsistency by the D-Line.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 12:18 PM
It does if you insult his honesty. Unless you can come up with a prior instance in which Kubiak used a different definition for blitz then there is zero merit to your accusation. By my recollection he has always differentiated front four plays and blitzes.

How can anyone be competely honest when being interviewed by the media and say exactly how they feel?

Kubiak is doing fine job in my opinion. He isn't perfect, but things are going in the right direction regardless of how he defines the "blitz".

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 12:25 PM
40 years ago, defensive lineman were not dropping back in coverage.

I take issue with a scheme that drops a defensive lineman in coverage and rushes a LB instead and call that a blitz.

It seems like you guys want to call that a blitz. Which is fine by me, there are different perspectives on the use of the term. I just wouldn't call it a blitz if I was the coach.

Dude. That's a ZONE BLITZ. That's the definition of a zone blitz. You can call it Chopped Liver if you want, it's just that no one is going to know what you're talking about unless you use the words "ZONE" and "BLITZ" together.

And the reason it's a zone blitz is because a linebacker is rushing the paser.

TK_Gamer
10-05-2007, 12:31 PM
Dude. That's a ZONE BLITZ. That's the definition of a zone blitz. You can call it Chopped Liver if you want, it's just that no one is going to know what you're talking about unless you use the words "ZONE" and "BLITZ" together.

And the reason it's a zone blitz is because a linebacker is rushing the paser.

I would say zone blitz is a loose term in itself, there is not just 1 way to run a zone blitz, sometimes you pull back one lineman in coverage but rush 2 linebackers sometimes you pull back 2 lineman in coverage but rush 2 linebackers. In the latter case you would not be sending additional rushers, but it's still called a zone blitz because a down lineman is moving to zone coverage. It's just a confusion tactic similar to stunting. In the first example where an additional LB is blitzing (now more rushers than accounted for by the number lining up on the defesive line) this is now not only a zone blitz but a true blitz or "overload" blitz.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 12:33 PM
Dude. That's a ZONE BLITZ. That's the definition of a zone blitz. You can call it Chopped Liver if you want, it's just that no one is going to know what you're talking about unless you use the words "ZONE" and "BLITZ" together.

And the reason it's a zone blitz is because a linebacker is rushing the paser.


Agreed, but it is a relatively recent qualification of an already existing term.

The meaning of the term blitz has changed over time.

Andre played high school and college ball in the late 80's/early 90's.

Chances are, he was coached by some guys that had been around the game for a long time and trained him as such in that regard.

Again, I am not saying you guys are wrong. It's a matter of perspective and how you were trained. Furthermore, you have the context of a conversation with Kubiak and saying they blitzed the QB 27 times in Atlanta.

BAM!!!!

You got this thread and 4 pages.

Life is worth living when discussing this stuff.

real
10-05-2007, 12:36 PM
Which is probably why Andre brought the point up in the first place and the use of the context in a convesation.

Just because you are taught something doesn't make it right.


Andre Ware was wrong.

I can guess all day about how or what he was taught, but the fact is that he was wrong.

If your LB or DB rushes the passer he is blitzing.

Defending Andre in the manner in which you are defending him is like taking up for back woods people who still believe women shouldn't have the right to vote and should only be relegated to house work...

Times change...He was wrong...despite what he may or may not have been taught....

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 12:43 PM
If your LB or DB rushes the passer he is blitzing.

So in a 3-4 defense, you are probably going to be blitzing every pass play?

Some defensive plays are intended to confuse the blocking schemes (for example, stunts), and other defensive plays are solely intended to overwhelm the blocking scheme.

Andre would prefer to use the later in calling that a blitz.

We are discussing curtains or drapes.

Neither is wrong, it's the results that matter.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 12:44 PM
Agreed, but it is a relatively recent qualification of an already existing term.

Which brings me back to Pencil Neck, the game has changed.

I am not saying you guys are wrong.

There are coaches that view terminology different. Which is probably why Andre brought the point up in the first place and the use of the context in a convesation.

OK.

We're both guitar players.

What you're basically saying is that we shouldn't call the things on our guitars "strings". Why? Well, music has changed. It's totally different than it was 200 years ago. Back then, they only had cat-gut strings. Now, they have steel and nylon. Therefore, they're not strings.

That's wrong. They're still strings.

And the original definition of a blitz was bringing 1 or more linebackers or defensive backs on a rush. At the time, the coverage was assumed to be man-to-man. If a QB saw a LB or DB about to rush, he could know that he had man-to-man coverage and he could throw to his hot read and voila! Well, as things evolved, defensive coordinators tried to do things different than what the QB was expecting. So, instead of getting man-to-man, they started getting ZONE coverage behind the blitz. Which made things more complicated for the QB.

So, things changed... but the blitz was still a blitz.

At that same time, they decided that it would be cool if one of the lineman dropped back into coverage along with the guy blitzing. And they called that the Zone Blitz.

It's a blitz, even though there aren't more guys coming than there are blockers for, because a LB or a DB is coming.

So, the definition of a blitz hasn't changed. It's still the same.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 12:44 PM
Agreed, but it is a relatively recent qualification of an already existing term.

Which brings me back to Pencil Neck, the game has changed.

I am not saying you guys are wrong.

There are coaches that view terminology different. Which is probably why Andre brought the point up in the first place and the use of the context in a convesation.the game hasn't changed much since I was a kid and played ball in the 70's and 80's. The "blitz" in "zone blitz" is where the stand up guy rushes and "zone" in "zone blitz" is where the lineman drops back into a "zone".....it started in the 90's as a way to confuse blocking schemes. Guys like Carl Mecklinburg and lots of other Elephant techniques were used the same way in the 60's and 70's.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 12:45 PM
So in a 3-4 defense, you are probably going to be blitzing every pass play?

Pretty much. Unless you're only rushing your 3 down lineman, which does happen.

Part of the confusion of a 3-4 is that you can't tell who's blitzing. It's harder to read where the blitz is coming from.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 12:47 PM
Pretty much. Unless you're only rushing your 3 down lineman, which does happen.

Part of the confusion of a 3-4 is that you can't tell who's blitzing. It's harder to read where the blitz is coming from.not really though. OLB's are your primary edge rushers in a 3-4. everyone expects the OLB's to come rush the passer in a 3-4. Lot's of this thread is nit picky stuff though...not saying your post is or mine or whatever.

Double Barrel
10-05-2007, 12:47 PM
Yes, but can you understand that someone can play with terminology to keep them from being on the hot seat? Furthermore, that doesn't make Kubiak any less of a man or a coach if he does that.

Kubiak has never shied away from answering tough questions or avoided hot seat questions. So I'm not sure where you keep getting that he's dodging issues. He's always the first to admit failure in post game interviews, regardless if we won or lost.

If you watch NFL Network for any length of time, the common definition of "blitz" is in line with the way Kubiak describes it. Perhaps the term has evolved over time, but the English language is flexible that way.

There are coaches that view terminology different. Which is probably why Andre brought the point up in the first place and the use of the context in a convesation.

Andre was being an arrogant asshat and would not allow his 'superior football knowledge' to be questioned. He basically acted like his definition was the only right one, in spite of a league full of coaches and players that use the modern definition of the word.

I've even heard Tom Brady mention that he audibled to "pick up the blitz". Andre Ware is saying what the offense does defines if a defense is blitzing or not. But there is ample evidence that the rest of the league, media, and fans, disagree with his perspective.

This whole thread is about some arcane terminology and there is no discussion about the problem at hand.

Then start a thread about "the problem at hand". This one was clearly started for discussion about defining the word "blitz".

"Arcane" is defined as "known or understood by very few". But I do not see that applicable to this thread.

Your take reminds me of a favorite Abe Lincoln quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

real
10-05-2007, 12:53 PM
the game hasn't changed much since I was a kid and played ball in the 70's and 80's. The "blitz" in "zone blitz" is where the stand up guy rushes and "zone" in "zone blitz" is where the lineman drops back into a "zone".....it started in the 90's as a way to confuse blocking schemes. Guys like Carl Mecklinburg and lots of other Elephant techniques were used the same way in the 60's and 70's.

Elephant techniques...

first time I heard that one...

I like it though...

TK_Gamer
10-05-2007, 12:55 PM
Pretty much. Unless you're only rushing your 3 down lineman, which does happen.

Part of the confusion of a 3-4 is that you can't tell who's blitzing. It's harder to read where the blitz is coming from.


NO, actually its where the extra attacker is comming from. he is not blitzing, he is just rushing from off the line to make up for the defecit of 3 D-lineman to 4 O-lineman. It still comes down to assignments, but since noone has bothered to even read my description, continue disregarding me. it's all about gaps and covers and assignments. x's and o's , basic math, whatever.....

threetoedpete
10-05-2007, 12:55 PM
the game hasn't changed much since I was a kid and played ball in the 70's and 80's. The "blitz" in "zone blitz" is where the stand up guy rushes and "zone" in "zone blitz" is where the lineman drops back into a "zone".....it started in the 90's as a way to confuse blocking schemes. Guys like Carl Mecklinburg and lots of other Elephant techniques were used the same way in the 60's and 70's.

Actually, to be acurate, Bill " Wild Bill " Thompson The DC of Baytown Lee was using this "the zone blitz" way back to 1968. Stunted takcels and Ends with the Ends coreving the Flat. Drop NT sent the Mike...sent the Mike and NT and drop The DT. It's on film. Got a Picture out there some where of our RDT in the Flat covering the flat twenty five yards away from their end zone. a ball hitting him square in the chest and him dropping it against Aldine 1973.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 12:55 PM
Then start a thread about "the problem at hand". This one was clearly started for discussion about defining the word "blitz".
No thanks.


"Arcane" is defined as "known or understood by very few". But I do not see that applicable to this thread.

Your take reminds me of a favorite Abe Lincoln quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

I could agrue that quote to Andre's point. Just because you call something a zone blitz, doesn't make it a blitz.

I don't have an issue with Kubiak, Marc, Andre, or any of you guys regarding this terminology.

You wanted a discussion regarding the nuasances of term "blitz" and I came to the table to show you guys a different perspective.

I was merely showing you a different perspective, which is the point of this thread and it appears you have an issue with that.

Well, let's just shut down the MB then. Because what is the point?

Starting another thread would be point less then.

Again, no thanks.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 12:56 PM
Andre would prefer to use the later in calling that a blitz.


According to Andre Ware's definition, a Zone Blitz is not a Blitz. According to Andre Ware's definition, 99.9% of all blitzes are not blitzes.

Andre Ware is wrong.

infantrycak
10-05-2007, 12:57 PM
So in a 3-4 defense, you are probably going to be blitzing every pass play?

Several folks in this thread have made a refinement on Vandermeer's general definition of bringing anyone but the DL to note the OLB's in a 3-4 have primary edge rushing responsibility so bringing them is not having them leave their primary responsibility and is not generally considered blitzing.

real
10-05-2007, 12:59 PM
According to Andre Ware the defense never knows whether or not they are about to blitz.

Only the offense knows.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 01:01 PM
No thanks.



I could agrue that quote to Andre's point. Just because you call something a zone blitz, doesn't make it a blitz.

I don't have an issue with Kubiak, Marc, Andre, or any of you guys regarding this terminology.

You wanted a discussion regarding the nuasances of term "blitz" and I came to the table to show you guys a different perspective.

I was merely showing you a different perspective, which is the point of this thread and it appears you have an issue with that.

Well, let's just shut down the MB then. Because what is the point?

Starting another thread would be point less then.

Again, no thanks.


It's not a matter of a different perspective.

It's a matter of being right and wrong. A cat is a cat. It's not a matter of perspective. If you call a cat a crocodile, it's still a cat and you're wrong to call it a crocodile. Andre Ware was wrong in saying that a blitz is only a blitz if you've got more rushers than blockers. That's not a matter of opinion.

If I play an A minor and call it a G diminished, I'm wrong. I can argue that it's a G dim all day but it's not a matter of perspective or a different point of view. (Now, I could play an A minor and say that it's a C Major 6 without the 5th and I could argue that. But G dim, no.)

threetoedpete
10-05-2007, 01:01 PM
Elephant techniques...

first time I heard that one...

I like it though...

We called ours a monster. Basically it is a disguised odd man front with a safty/LB guy free lancing . We had a fity monster slant tight called that ment my job was to crash the center/gaurd gap on the right side. Take as man heads with me as I could ...get as deep into the back feild as I could and the LBs and monster would clean up (scape off ) the left side. Basically a gap run stoping "blitz" with six guys coming.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 01:02 PM
the game hasn't changed much since I was a kid and played ball in the 70's and 80's. The "blitz" in "zone blitz" is where the stand up guy rushes and "zone" in "zone blitz" is where the lineman drops back into a "zone".....it started in the 90's as a way to confuse blocking schemes. Guys like Carl Mecklinburg and lots of other Elephant techniques were used the same way in the 60's and 70's.

Actually, to be acurate, Bill " Wild Bill " Thompson The DC of Baytown Lee was using this "the zone blitz" way back to 1968. Stunted takcels and Ends with the Ends coreving the Flat. Drop NT sent the Mike...sent the Mike and NT and drop The DT. It's on film. Got a Picture out there some where of our RDT in the Flat covering the flat twenty five yards away from their end zone. a ball hitting him square in the chest and him dropping it against Aldine 1973.If we are discussing the NFL, the zone blitz became popular in the 90's. Just like the RnS didn't become popular in the NFL till way after a bunch of College teams used it.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 01:03 PM
Several folks in this thread have made a refinement on Vandermeer's general definition of bringing anyone but the DL to note the OLB's in a 3-4 have primary edge rushing responsibility so bringing them is not having them leave their primary responsibility and is not generally considered blitzing.

If there's any grey area, this is one of them.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 01:08 PM
the game hasn't changed much since I was a kid and played ball in the 70's and 80's. The "blitz" in "zone blitz" is where the stand up guy rushes and "zone" in "zone blitz" is where the lineman drops back into a "zone".....it started in the 90's as a way to confuse blocking schemes. Guys like Carl Mecklinburg and lots of other Elephant techniques were used the same way in the 60's and 70's.

Elephant techniques...

first time I heard that one...

I like it though...
I'm old school....here is a nice read...

http://usctrojanfootballanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/02/uscs-elephant-defense.html

The base defense has been and still technically is a 4-3 under alignment scheme. 2006 was confusing for sports announcers and fans alike as Brian Cushing lined up in an upright stance and played a defensive end technique spot for most of the season. In zone blitz schemes not discussed here he even dropped back into coverage on some downs to play pass protection. That has been done with defensive ends however since Pete Carroll arrived at USC and is nothing new. We'll see if USC continues the use of Brian Cushing in the "Elephant" role in 2007 or if USC moves him back to a traditional SLB role. My guess is that with Dallas Sartz now gone to graduation Brian will move to the strong side linebacker spot. However that decision will probably depend upon the improvement of Kyle Moore and the development of incoming freshmen Everson Griffin. At least USC has the flexibility to use Brian Cushing at the stand up "Elephant" end position in the 4-3 under defense if needed. For more information on Pete Carroll's concepts on defense I'll post some of the speeches he gave at Nike clinics. That should further help to clarify any confusion.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 01:11 PM
If I play an A minor and call it a G diminished, I'm wrong. I can argue that it's a G dim all day but it's not a matter of perspective or a different point of view. (Now, I could play an A minor and say that it's a C Major 6 without the 5th and I could argue that. But G dim, no.)

Who cares what it is called as long as it sounds good.

The reason this is even being discussed is because whatever you want to call it, it isn't working consistently. If Kubiak said they blitzed the QB 27 times, well they sucked blitzing the QB against Atlanta.

Oh, I am sorry, I need to go start another thread to discuss that matter all togehter.

But, this whole thread was started because of what Andre said, and he brought it up for a reason besides just to debate what people consider to be a blitz.

Maybe this thread is really about people wanting to say Andre is a jerk and doesn't know crap about football. Because that is what this thread seems to really be about.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 01:16 PM
Maybe this thread is really about people wanting to say Andre is a jerk and doesn't know crap about football. Because that is what this thread seems to really be about.
If some would slow down and listen to some of us older guys instead of trying to be brilliant re-defining the game out of their keysters, someone may learn a thing or two

threetoedpete
10-05-2007, 01:16 PM
Who cares what it is called as long as it sounds good.

The reason this is even being discussed is because whatever you want to call it, it isn't working consistently. If Kubiak said they blitzed the QB 27 times, well they sucked blitzing the QB against Atlanta.

Oh, I am sorry, I need to go start another thread to discuss that matter all togehter.

But, this whole thread was started because of what Andre said, and he brought it up for a reason besides just to debate what people consider to be a blitz.

Maybe this thread is really about people wanting to say Andre is a jerk and doesn't know crap about football. Because that is what this thread seems to really be about.



Well I wouldn't presume to tell andre ware how to run a veer offense that's for sure. I'm not dening AW's right to have his rice bowl filled. But I do think he should stick to his area of expertise.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 01:21 PM
Well I wouldn't presume to tell andre ware how to run a veer offense that's for sure. I'm not dening AW's right to have his rice bowl filled. But I do think he should stick to his area of expertise.

A big part of running an offense is understanding the defensive scheme you are playing against.

real
10-05-2007, 01:26 PM
I'm old school....here is a nice read...

http://usctrojanfootballanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/02/uscs-elephant-defense.html

Nice Article...

Really informative....Especially the part where it breaks down the Dallas 3-4 vs. USC's 4-3 with a stand-up DE...

It also goes to show the different terminology for these kind of "mixed breed" positions...When I played in college we had a Safety/OLB hybrid that we called a Joker....I have seen that defensive front before, but I never heard the term "elephant"...learned something new...

real
10-05-2007, 01:27 PM
A big part of running an offense is understanding the defensive scheme you are playing against.

Too easy.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 01:30 PM
If some of you would slow down and listen to some of us older guys instead of trying to be brilliant re-defining the game out of your keysters, you may learn a thing or two

I am not trying to redefine anything. My very first post in this thread I stated first that this is an exellent topic to discuss the nuasances and meaning of the term "blitz". I had a pretty good idea it was going to down this way.

I understand where you guys are coming from and I don't think you guys are wrong. How many times have I said that?

It's a matter of general terminology and the training someone received while playing the game years ago.

To some people, the term blitz is very generic, which means it could be almost any defensive maneuver during a pass play. Or, it could be something very specific as described by Andre.

Either way, the Texans have problems with whatever you want to call it. Which is what Andre was probably trying to say but got sidetracked similar to how this thread is.

I enjoy threads like this anyway. I don't care what you guys say or think about me, you guys are ok!

threetoedpete
10-05-2007, 01:33 PM
A big part of running an offense is understanding the defensive scheme you are playing against.

Well don't know about AW, but there were a lot of befuddled QBs when REL baytown went against them in the 60's and early 70's. We loved playing the veer. Anything that had a spread to it was DOA. We didn't care what they did with the fake we were taught to beat the gap and get to the ball. and admister as much damage as we could when we got there.

Vinny
10-05-2007, 01:38 PM
I'm old school....here is a nice read...

http://usctrojanfootballanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/02/uscs-elephant-defense.html

Nice Article...

Really informative....Especially the part where it breaks down the Dallas 3-4 vs. USC's 4-3 with a stand-up DE...

It also goes to show the different terminology for these kind of "mixed breed" positions...When I played in college we had a Safety/OLB hybrid that we called a Joker....I have seen that defensive front before, but I never heard the term "elephant"...learned something new...outside of some of the chronic emotional crud that infests forums, this is a great place to learn a thing or two about the game. I learn quite a bit from some of the better posters here and it helps me enjoy the game more. Sometimes a message board can give me nothing but headaches but once I learned to spot the guys who know what they are talking about I tend to tune out the "noise" that tends infests all mb's.

This hasn't been all that bad a thread once you pick out some of the dumb stuff.

HOU-TEX
10-05-2007, 01:45 PM
I am not trying to redefine anything. My very first post in this thread I stated first that this is an exellent topic to discuss the nuasances and meaning of the term "blitz". I had a pretty good idea it was going to down this way.

I understand where you guys are coming from and I don't think you guys are wrong. How many times have I said that?

It's a matter of general terminology and the training someone received while playing the game years ago.

To some people, the term blitz is very generic, which means it could be almost any defensive maneuver during a pass play. Or, it could be something very specific as described by Andre.

Either way, the Texans have problems with whatever you want to call it. Which is what Andre was probably trying to say but got sidetracked similar to how this thread is.

I enjoy threads like this anyway. I don't care what you guys say or think about me, you guys are ok!

Off topic: Are you the one that called 610 this morning and told Marc he shouldn't have questioned Andre yesterday because of the experience that Andre has?

If so, I feel sorry for you.

If not, sorry nevermind

infantrycak
10-05-2007, 01:45 PM
But, this whole thread was started because of what Andre said, and he brought it up for a reason besides just to debate what people consider to be a blitz.

Maybe this thread is really about people wanting to say Andre is a jerk and doesn't know crap about football. Because that is what this thread seems to really be about.

Actually the fight was entirely about how to define blitz and Andre got his knickers in a twist that his word was not being accepted carte blanche by Vandermeer.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 01:54 PM
Who cares what it is called as long as it sounds good.

The reason this is even being discussed is because whatever you want to call it, it isn't working consistently. If Kubiak said they blitzed the QB 27 times, well they sucked blitzing the QB against Atlanta.

Oh, I am sorry, I need to go start another thread to discuss that matter all togehter.

But, this whole thread was started because of what Andre said, and he brought it up for a reason besides just to debate what people consider to be a blitz.

Maybe this thread is really about people wanting to say Andre is a jerk and doesn't know crap about football. Because that is what this thread seems to really be about.

If I call an A minor chord a G diminished and then I go to play with someone and tell them to play a G diminished, then we're going to have a problem if I'm playing an A minor. If we aren't using words to mean the same things, then we're going to miscommunicate and misunderstand each other.

It's like the word "stunt". That applies to some very specific things that linemen and linebackers do. The word has other, non-football definitions that can make it confusing if you're talking about football and then use the word in a non-football context.

I find it very odd that Andre would have this off-the-wall definition of blitz in his mind. I have no problem with Andre but I think he's seriously wrong about this. And like I said, I don't think it's a matter of perspective or context.

And most blitzes don't get to the QB. And, yes, our blitzes were sucking. We are not normally a blitzing team. Harrington has a history of getting rattled when blitzed so we tried blitzing him but since we're not normally a blitzing team, we sucked at it. The best blitz was when Demeco came free right up the middle for the sack. But... according to Andre's definition, that probably wasn't even a blitz. I think we were bringing the 4 down linemen and the MLB on that play... and they had at least 5 linemen in to block and possibly the RB, too. According to almost every else in the world, that's a blitz.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 02:07 PM
Off topic: Are you the one that called 610 this morning and told Marc he shouldn't have questioned Andre yesterday because of the experience that Andre has?

If so, I feel sorry for you.

If not, sorry nevermind

No, I didn't call in to Marc and say that. I wouldn't say that anyway.

Have you read any of my posts? I have never said to anyone in this thread that they are wrong because of broadly defining the term blitz. I love to listen to Marc and Andre during the games, I think they are great team! Geez, reading comprehension skills please? Talk about taking a thread off topic.

While we are doing that...

You never need to feel sorry for me, pray for me, or do anything else for that matter but treat with respect like anyone else.

I'll make my mistakes and/or got to hell regardless of what any human being says, prays, or thinks about me.

The self-rigtheousness people do is amazing...

No, let's get back to the topic...

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 02:17 PM
If I call an A minor chord a G diminished and then I go to play with someone and tell them to play a G diminished, then we're going to have a problem if I'm playing an A minor. If we aren't using words to mean the same things, then we're going to miscommunicate and misunderstand each other.


The people I play with, we don't get into that.

This is how it goes:

Does it sound kick ass?

Regardless of the answer.

Where is the beer at?

Double Barrel
10-05-2007, 02:23 PM
I could agrue that quote to Andre's point. Just because you call something a zone blitz, doesn't make it a blitz.

I don't have an issue with Kubiak, Marc, Andre, or any of you guys regarding this terminology.

You wanted a discussion regarding the nuasances of term "blitz" and I came to the table to show you guys a different perspective.

I was merely showing you a different perspective, which is the point of this thread and it appears you have an issue with that.

Well, let's just shut down the MB then. Because what is the point?

Starting another thread would be point less then.

Again, no thanks.

I have no problem in talking about different perspectives. Hence the reason for this thread to begin with. Andre and Marc provided the different perspectives, not you. That was clearly indicated in the first post of the thread.

But the Abe quote was directed at you because you were implying that our head coach was erroneously using a word to cover his ass and do some kind of politician maneuver.

I think that particular take is a load of horse crap, because 1) that's not Kubiak's style, and 2) it is clear that his use of the word "blitz" could be considered normal by the way modern NFL has defined it.

Actually the fight was entirely about how to define blitz and Andre got his knickers in a twist that his word was not being accepted carte blanche by Vandermeer.

Thank you. Nail on the head. :howdy:

HOU-TEX
10-05-2007, 02:24 PM
No, I didn't call in to Marc and say that. I wouldn't say that anyway.

Have you read any of my posts? I have never said to anyone in this thread that they are wrong because of broadly defining the term blitz. I love to listen to Marc and Andre during the games, I think they are great team! Geez, reading comprehension skills please? Talk about taking a thread off topic.

While we are doing that...

You never need to feel sorry for me, pray for me, or do anything else for that matter but treat with respect like anyone else.

I'll make my mistakes and/or got to hell regardless of what any human being says, prays, or thinks about me.

The self-rigtheousness people do is amazing...

No, let's get back to the topic...

I said it was off topic and it was only a question. There's no need to bust out in a tantrum.

What topic? I know what a blitz is. Many members have made nice educated posts about "a blitz", but you continue to rant on about people having different perceptions of the term.

If you played the game, you should know what a blitz is.

If you never played the game and do not know what a blitz is, then read every post in this thread except yours.

Good Day! :heart:

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 02:28 PM
The people I play with, we don't get into that.

This is how it goes:

Does it sound kick ass?

Regardless of the answer.

Where is the beer at?

And what if you asked someone where the beer is at, and for them left is right and right is left and you try to follow their directions and end up locked out of the rehearsal studio with no beer and no band? Or if you ask someone for the beer and to them "beer" means "motor oil" and you end up chugging 10W-30?

HoustonFrog
10-05-2007, 02:32 PM
Blitzed definition

http://i21.tinypic.com/5vybf4.jpg

Wrong thread:)


Blitz

I am not reading 6 pages. Sorry guys, I know there is alot of good info but I'm hustling out of here to help with baby and to buy a 1 year anniversary gift. In high school we played a 4-3 and our blitzes were anyone rushing the passer that did not include the down linemen. Corners, safeties, LBs. I know there are hybrids now and differences with the 3-4 since part of the 4 are standup rushers..that is my simple answer. I do know the zone blitz and have seen it talked about in a previous page in this thread. I didn't hear Andre today

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 02:51 PM
And what if you asked someone where the beer is at, and for them left is right and right is left and you try to follow their directions and end up locked out of the rehearsal studio with no beer and no band? Or if you ask someone for the beer and to them "beer" means "motor oil" and you end up chugging 10W-30?

Now you want to debate with me the usage of the term "left" and "right" in reference to directions given to some one?

There are words that have precise meanings and some that are more generic than precise.

I am merely giving you guys perspective of where Andre may have been coming from.

Not everyone was taught football the exact same way using the exact same terms and meanings. As a result some people use terminology differently, particularly the blitz term. Which is why I never said any of you guys are wrong. Because you are not.

I can clearly understand that a guy learning football in the 80's would have this type of perspective.

My opinion, the term blitz is overused.

So what?

But, it definitely doesn't make me stupid, think Kubiak is a bad coach, that I never played football, know a diminished chord, or any other conclusion you guys come to.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 03:33 PM
Now you want to debate with me the usage of the term "left" and "right" in reference to directions given to some one?

There are words that have precise meanings and some that are more generic than precise.

I am merely giving you guys perspective of where Andre may have been coming from.

Not everyone was taught football the exact same way using the exact same terms and meanings. As a result some people use terminology differently, particularly the blitz term. Which is why I never said any of you guys are wrong. Because you are not.

I can clearly understand that a guy learning football in the 80's would have this type of perspective.

My opinion, the term blitz is overused.

So what?

But, it definitely doesn't make me stupid, think Kubiak is a bad coach, that I never played football, know a diminished chord, or any other conclusion you guys come to.

I'm trying to use analogies to show you the problem with what you're saying. You think that the term "blitz" has some sort of fluid meaning when it doesn't. You think that the term "blitz" has changed in meaning over the years, when it hasn't. You think that some people have been taught other meanings for the word and to some people, it might mean something different, when it doesn't and they haven't. An A minor chord is an A minor chord, left is left, and a blitz is a blitz.

It's not overused. It's used to describe something that actually happens and happens a lot.

A long time ago, I had just started posting on a weight training newsgroup. I was wanting to learn more about weight training (and that's were the Pencil Neck name comes from.) A guy made a comment that Creatine makes you retain water in your cells and is a salt (because salt makes you retain water.) A couple of posters came down on this guy like a ton of bricks and I defended him because it seemed to me that they were being way too harsh. I didn't (and don't) know much about the chemical composition of Creatine and argued that it COULD be a salt (I just didn't know for sure.) And those guys came down on me really hard. And we argued for a bit. I didn't know who these guys were. Well, it turned out I was arguing with two of the best supplement chemists in the business who knew EXACTLY what the chemical composition of Creatine is and that it's NOT a salt. I was wrong.

Right now, you're in the same basic position I was in back then. You're defending Andre on the basis that maybe he was taught something different and that maybe different people use the term to mean different things and that Andre was just as right as anyone else. That's wrong. There's not a lot of give about what a blitz is or is not. It's very odd that Andre would have this definition wrong but no one's perfect. If someone taught him this, then they taught him wrong.

It's like arguing over what an A minor chord is. There's one right answer and then everything else.

hollywood_texan
10-05-2007, 03:43 PM
I'm trying to use analogies to show you the problem with what you're saying. You think that the term "blitz" has some sort of fluid meaning when it doesn't. You think that the term "blitz" has changed in meaning over the years, when it hasn't. You think that some people have been taught other meanings for the word and to some people, it might mean something different, when it doesn't and they haven't. An A minor chord is an A minor chord, left is left, and a blitz is a blitz.

It's not overused. It's used to describe something that actually happens and happens a lot.

A long time ago, I had just started posting on a weight training newsgroup. I was wanting to learn more about weight training (and that's were the Pencil Neck name comes from.) A guy made a comment that Creatine makes you retain water in your cells and is a salt (because salt makes you retain water.) A couple of posters came down on this guy like a ton of bricks and I defended him because it seemed to me that they were being way too harsh. I didn't (and don't) know much about the chemical composition of Creatine and argued that it COULD be a salt (I just didn't know for sure.) And those guys came down on me really hard. And we argued for a bit. I didn't know who these guys were. Well, it turned out I was arguing with two of the best supplement chemists in the business who knew EXACTLY what the chemical composition of Creatine is and that it's NOT a salt. I was wrong.

Right now, you're in the same basic position I was in back then. You're defending Andre on the basis that maybe he was taught something different and that maybe different people use the term to mean different things and that Andre was just as right as anyone else. That's wrong. There's not a lot of give about what a blitz is or is not. It's very odd that Andre would have this definition wrong but no one's perfect. If someone taught him this, then they taught him wrong.

It's like arguing over what an A minor chord is. There's one right answer and then everything else.

Pencil Neck, I like you and I hope we can hook up during the San Diego game. I need to make sure I still have your number.

But comparing the term blitz and it's usage to a scientific term developed precisely due to it's physical composition isn't even in the same ball park, isn't even the same league, isn't even the same sport...

Get it?

We are talking about foot massages here...

And let me tell you, I am the foot f*#$ing master. I got my technique down. I don't even tickle...

Battle Red Flash
10-05-2007, 04:18 PM
Mark argued that a blitz is anytime you bring someone for a pass rush that is not a lineman. He mentioned a 'zone blitz', where a lineman drops into coverage and the defense brings a LB or CB into the rush. Andre continue to insist that this is NOT a blitz, regardless of what anyone calls it, and it is strictly "bringing pressure" if there are not more defenders than blockers.


Andre is wrong. Marc is right.
Probably why Andre did not make it in the league, and still won't admit that it had to do with his talent level. It's all Detroit's fault.

The Pencil Neck
10-05-2007, 04:41 PM
Pencil Neck, I like you and I hope we can hook up during the San Diego game. I need to make sure I still have your number.

But comparing the term blitz and it's usage to a scientific term developed precisely due to it's physical composition isn't even in the same ball park, isn't even the same league, isn't even the same sport...

Get it?

We are talking about foot massages here...

And let me tell you, I am the foot f*#$ing master. I got my technique down. I don't even tickle...

That's not a foot you're massaging.