Define 'blitz'

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.

I think Andre is losing it.

If a LB or DB blitzes...

It's called a blitz...

real said:

I think Andre is losing it.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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_(American_football)
"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.

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.

Click to expand...

About Football

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.

Click to expand...

Link

Kaiser Toro said:

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.

Click to expand...

They were blitzing in the first half, too.

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

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.

The Pencil Neck said:

They were blitzing in the first half, too.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

real said:

I think Andre is losing it.

If a LB or DB blitzes...

It's called a blitz...

Click to expand...

My take as well, all the way around.

real said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Picking up pressure...???

LMAO...

NitroHonda said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

according to Andre Ware, a blitz is just like "offsides" in soccer...

real said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Then what is it?

NitroHonda said:

Then what is it?

Click to expand...

Bringing Pressure?

michaelm said:

Bringing Pressure?

Click to expand...

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

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.

michaelm said:

Bringing Pressure?

Click to expand...

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.

michaelm said:

Bringing Pressure?

Click to expand...

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.

Porky said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

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.

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.

edo783 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 said:

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?"

Click to expand...

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

Yankee_In_TX said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

hollywood_texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

hollywood_texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Vinny said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Vinny said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

hollywood_texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

hollywood_texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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...

hollywood_texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

hollywood_texan said:

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

Click to expand...

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..

NitroHonda said:

Then what is it?

Click to expand...

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...

The Pencil Neck said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

real said:

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..

Click to expand...

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'm pretty sure Al Gore invented the Blitz.

real said:

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...

Click to expand...

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

hollywood_texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

real said:

In a 3-4 your OLB's are not normally looked at as "blitzers" when they rush the QB....

Click to expand...

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

The Pencil Neck said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_American_football#B


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_(American_football)

Click to expand...

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

hollywood_texan said:

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?????

Click to expand...

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

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.

hollywood_texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

hollywood_texan said:

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?????

Click to expand...

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.