Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Define 'blitz'
- Thread starter Double Barrel
- Start date
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
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.
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
Veteran
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.
Kaiser Toro
Native Mod
It was Blitzen.
powerfuldragon
Enchilada Aficionado.
andre ware is a mensa genius.according to Andre Ware, a blitz is just like "offsides" in soccer...
powerfuldragon
Enchilada Aficionado.
no they can't.
hollywood_texan
All Pro
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.
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?
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
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.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
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 USAs 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."
R
real
Guest
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
Hall of Fame
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
All Pro
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?
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.
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?
The overwhelming majority of people define "blitz" the same way. Guess we're all guilting of politispeak, as well?
R
real
Guest
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
All Pro
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
Dance Lindsay!
Vinny
shiny happy fan
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
All Pro
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
Veteran
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
shiny happy fan
yeah, we aren't getting regular pressure unless we blitz.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
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?
Exactly. It's silly to play the I have a different definition so that makes you a liar game.
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
Hall of Fame
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
All Pro
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!
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?
As with the Carr situation, results are what matter.
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
All Pro
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
shiny happy fan
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
All Pro
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
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
Yeah, that must be why the guy who started the thread titled it inconsistency by the D-Line.
hollywood_texan
All Pro
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
Hall of Fame
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
Veteran
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
All Pro
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.
R
real
Guest
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
All Pro
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
Hall of Fame
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
shiny happy fan
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
Hall of Fame
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
shiny happy fan
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.
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.
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.
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."
R
real
Guest
TK_Gamer
Veteran
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
Hall of Fame
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
All Pro
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.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
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
Hall of Fame
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.
R
real
Guest
According to Andre Ware the defense never knows whether or not they are about to blitz.
Only the offense knows.
Only the offense knows.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
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
Hall of Fame
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.