1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Safety Blitz???

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by JbShell, Oct 10, 2006.

  1. JbShell

    JbShell Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well alot has been said about our secondary. Mostly Bad.

    I think that I have an observation that may hold water then again maybe not. Holmgren was a big believer in the safety blitz. Now when Sherman got here the pack went away from that.

    I believe for the pack to be successfull they need to get away from a LB blitz it is plain old getting ate up with the occasional success.

    A Saftey blitz may be what the doctor ordered. On Passing downs the RB has to stay in for a bit then filters out A safety blitz by it nature causes the RB to stay home and effectively takes away that threat in the short flat (AN area that has killed the pack) it also pushes a pocket left or right. squeeze one side and general olinemen get caught flowing on bad angles.
    This also creates situations that cause trouble for the WR QB communications. LB Blitzes tend to be inside pressure that QBS at this day and age deal with very well.

    I remeber watching old Leroy employing the blitz very effectively even Sharper had some success with it. I say MM and sanders need to get away from the LB blitz and mix a little safety in. even if he doesnt blitz a creeping safety does grab attention
     
  2. jdlax

    jdlax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +0
    I never did notice the lack of it, but now that you bring it up it does seem like forever since I've seen it. You listening, Sanders? It's not like the safeties are doing any good back in coverage!
     
  3. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Yep like I said in the other thread. May as well blitz them. They aren't covering anybody.
     
  4. Packersfan43084

    Packersfan43084 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    295
    Ratings:
    +0
    yeah that makes a lot of sense. :roll: All you would be doing is putting Harris, Woodson, and DENDY on an island against receivers. I guarantee you, that they would get beat deep and/or get flagged for interferance or illegal conduct, or holding.
     
  5. jdlax

    jdlax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +0
    ^ And how is that worst case scenario any worse than what we're already seeing? The upside is the QB may be on his *** befor he can exploit it. Nobody is asking for both safeties to blitz, by the way.
     
  6. Packersfan43084

    Packersfan43084 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    295
    Ratings:
    +0
    for one, i don't think our safeties are that great that they could blitz and get to the QB on a consistent basis. Don't get me wrong, I like Collins, but he's not what you would call a top notch safety just yet. I'm sure he could there at times, but I don't you can justify it to where your leaving your CB's and Manuel back in the secondary.
     
  7. jdlax

    jdlax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +0
    ^ I can see how it would be a problem. I'd say between Collins and Manuel I prefer Collins both as a blitzer and as the coverage guy, so in both situations Manuel would probably stink at it.
     
  8. Tiger

    Tiger Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,090
    Ratings:
    +0
    you can safety blitz if you had stud CB's. We don't have stud CB's.
     
  9. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    We also don't have safeties helping the corners when we don't blitz. The key is to get there and hope your linebackers can cover the backs and tightends.
     
  10. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    I would send Manuel on the blitz since he's lost in coverage anyway. We did some corner blitzes last year with Harris when Carroll was playing opposite. I mean if Carroll is clearly faster and a worse cover guy, wouln't you send him after the QB?

    I think the Safety blitz is a great idea, and it leaves another LB to cover the RB dump off. Our safeties never get involved in the passing game anyway, so I'd send him regularly.

    If somewhere in that process, Manuel gets run over by an Offensive lineman and gets injured, it's still a plus for the Pack. :)
     
  11. agopackgo4

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Ratings:
    +0
    Doesnt seem like too bad of an idea. But if they blitz on a pass someone needs to take their spots. Which would be the linebackers right? Dont hold me to that its just an assumption. But if it is the case, I dont think its a good idea. Brady P. cant cover guys ,and Hawk has shown in some cases that he isnt ready to cover recievers either. You might be leaving yourself wide open to big gains. Unelss the blitz works.
     
  12. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Our defense leads the NFL in big gains (20 yards+) given up, so I wouldn't be too worried about it. But you are right we would need to have corners or a speedy safety on the wide receivers. Our LB's would have to be able to stay with the tight ends and RBs. Barnett is decent in coverage and I think Hawk does an excellent job for a rookie.
     
  13. agopackgo4

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Ratings:
    +0
    For a rookie yes I think he does. occasionally gets a little turned around it seems like but no big deal when your playing on a 1 and 4 team. Ah heck go for it. Do it anyway no matter who we have I guess. What more could we loose??? We arent getting anywehre the way we are playing now anyway. Might as well try new things.
     
  14. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The flip side of this is that in almost every case where we have given up a big play there was no pressure. We get our fair share of sacks but have lapses where the QB has plenty of time and a clear view to deliver the ball right on the money.
    The WR's have the rules in their favor. Pressure is what negates that.

    Blitzes are fine in the right situation against the right formations but consistant pressure has to come from the front four.

    When we do blitz the ends have to be in a position to make the play. We blitzed McNabb and got pressure from the middle only to see Kampy out of position allowing him to take off to the area Hawk would have been had he not been blitzing. McNabb got a lot of room to run as a result.

    Kampman went way to wide when those middle blitzes were called.

    I was worried before the season that with KGB and Kampy we would not get a consistant pass rush. They have their moments but way to often they aren't getting in there and the QB is carving us up back there.

    My wish list for next year has a stud pass rusher at the top. No QB is nearly as accurate when they are forced to move around. We need to see that more often.
     
  15. agopackgo4

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Ratings:
    +0
    Im sure Kampman and KGB would get a lot more presure if we had more around them. A point i was going to bring up on this topic before and it fits now is this: In the original post JB talked about how Holmgren liked to blitz from the safety position. Well in those days look who we had on the team to fill in when the safetys blitzed. Look who we have now. The same thing goes for the D line. Reggie was great, but without the other guys on the line...I dont think there is anyway he is as effective.
     
  16. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, Kampman and KGB would get a lot more pressure if the OL had to worry about the blitz coming from everywhere.
     
  17. agopackgo4

    agopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,365
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree, the only thing is that then we would have to worry about the recievers being covered by the rest of our defense. Which with the acception of Barnett probably isnt going to happen.
     
  18. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    The way I see it, if the opposing QB gets rocked a few times, he's going to be thinking more of survival than of waiting the extra second to find that open WR. I've seen this time and time again. Yes, receivers will get open. Will the opposing QB be able to find them? Not if he's running for his life.

    Besides, it's not like the rest of the defense covers opposing receivers anyways. :(
     

Share This Page