Define 'blitz'

[hollywood_texan]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

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]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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.

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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]

Originally Posted by real

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]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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.

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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.

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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."

Originally Posted by Vinny

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]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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]

Originally Posted by Vinny

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]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

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

No thanks.

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

"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]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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.

According to Andre Ware the defense never knows whether or not they are about to blitz.

Only the offense knows.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by hollywood_texan

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]

Originally Posted by real

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.