-
MTayl72 said...
What you originally said with the aggressive being so much more important, to what you just wrote is very different. Thats why both of us said what we did.
But I am done with this thread, all that can result from here on out is a massive migriane. Good talk appoo
WE ARE! And we will always be...
-
rmj147 said...
Agressive where you need to be... USC Rose bowl, NW every year, Houston last year... You have to blitz, and show diff looks pre snap... I said 3 sentences originally about not blitzing much in the past... And thats true.. I dont know how you can argue with that. When we play inferior opponents, that works. But when we play someone close to our talent, or better, not so much. When our front 4 is stoned and doesnt get pressure, you have to blitz, or zone blitz (covering up for the blitzer), or show a diff look and back out of the blitz. SOMETHING. That is aggressive, showing diff looks, doing something to "affect the QB" as Roof would say. You took blitzing more as blitzing every down.. Not what I meant at all. But where we needed to blitz, we weren't aggressive.
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11091 votes total - (12425)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
What you originally said with the aggressive being so much more important, to what you just wrote is very different. Thats why both of us said what we did.
But I am done with this thread, all that can result from here on out is a massive migriane. Good talk appoo
WE ARE! And we will always be...
-
MTayl72 said...
Thank God you told me what a zone blitz was, never would have known.
All we said was we will blitz as little as possible. The difference now is we actually have the looks to do it from. Our coaches won"t blitz more than is needed or for shits and giggles, theres too much risk in doing so, no matter the blitz.
Nowhere did I argue we didn't blitz enough or much at all in the past. No where did I say we didnt need to affect the QB, in fact Ive said many times the exact opposite. I said what you alluded to originally is not what you are saying now. We havent argued with the last two revised statements, but rather the original one.
This post was edited by rmj147 on 4/9/2012 at 6:27 PM
WE ARE! And we will always be...
-
NittanyEagles ●
- 5 stars Rating: 92
1215 votes total - (1671)
- 19 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
Classic Penn State highlights: http://www.youtube.com/user/vslice02
-
NittanyEagles said...
As a guy that would watch Jim Johnson blitz the hell out of Dawkins and Trotter you learn to realize some teams that's their identity. I'd love to be in a position where you have a front 4 that can create caos and when needed bring a backer or 2 on passing downs. I hated sitting back and hoping for a bad pass, pressure from the front 4 or the receiver would run into our zone coverage. I will tell you I'll take it over the empty feeling in your stomach when you bring 6-7 guys and they're picked up as the qb unloads downfield in one on one coverage though.
WE ARE! And we will always be...
- This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! 30-Day Free Trial
WE ARE! And we will always be...
-
rmj147 said...
Which statement are you talking about... And tell me where i say, blitz every down, or blitz more than necessary???
This one? "I agree somewhat, but I think more blitzing is huge... We hardly ever blitzed-ever- in the past... Fortt with his size and speed could be a monster coming off the edge. No thought there, peel your ears back and go young man"
Or this one? "Not going to stress the multiple, but I think the aggressive part is a huge difference from years past, and could play into an athlete like Fortt's hands..."
Willing to show diff looks and things pre snap- EVEN IF YOU DONT BLITZ- is huge. We were too vanilla in the past IMO. If you disagree with that fine. I dont know where in those 2 statements it says that we should blitz every down. "We hardly ever blitzed- ever- in the past" is talking about where we were picked apart and destroyed with no rush from the front 4. Where again, there are too many examples to list. Fortt could be an incredible blitzer. However, I also said IN A PREVIOUS POST BEFORE THESE 2:
"I would think that the new scheme would make each LB spot somewhat diff as well... Maybe Fortt finds a comfort in the new roles... But his instincts will catch up I think, maybe the light comes on and he "plays fast" as Van would say and stops thinking as much... I will be interested to see his progress this spring... and in the summer"
"Playing fast" to me would be of more importance than blitzing more. And I said that before anything about blitzing. Again, please read what I write. And if there is any question, ask me and lets talk, instead of attacking each other when you didn't understand my prior statement. I don't think that Fortt doesn't have instincts. I think he is "thinking too much." Often the light doesnt come on for guys until their 3rd year on campus. And he is a true JR and still learning. I think he will make major strides.
Again, never said that the coaches would blitz more for shitz and giggles... No where did I ever say that. please let me know where I did. We wont blitz just to blitz, but if we cant get there with 4, you better believe we will do some creative things to get there. Thats the talk that Roof has being saying, and thats what I welcome... Showing diff looks pre snap and showing diff things and backing out of a blitz and zone blitzing are all welcome changes to me. And Im glad that you know what a zone blitz is... Because you make it sound like that just because you blitz, you are at a disadvantage... there are ways to blitz where that is not the case. A zone blitz and blitzing from diff looks while dropping someone off is one way to do that. We wont blitz more than needed, but where needed, we will.
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11091 votes total - (12425)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
I think it would have been the tone of the first two. I have no trouble having the ability to blitz, but like I said a good defense has to blitz as little as possible to be truly effective. If you could line up and show the same thing and go vanilla and generate the rush to disrupt the QB, damn near ever DC would do so because you could have a field day with coverages. Now we cannot do that, and like you said and I agreed withm we often waited too long.
Also, no one jumped down your throat. Yyou have this ultra defensive attitude on here whenever anyone disagrees it makes it impossible to talk to you. You said the other day you want respectful discussion and when you get it you complain about being attacked or jimped on. You weren't You blew it out of proportion. Thats why I said I wanted to be done, you always do this. You turned a fun discussion into us apparently attacking you, and that sucks.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by rmj147 on 4/9/2012 at 7:26 PM
WE ARE! And we will always be...
-
rmj147 said...
Flow of the conversation... And I quote...
"We havent needed to blitz much in the past. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Roof and Co. wont be blitzing anymore than they need to to get pressure.
Also what Appoo meant, I believe, is that Vandy won't put guys out there consistently if they can't be trusted in all facets of the game. From blitzing to pass coverage."
Good point, good conversation, starts off awesome...
"We havent needed to blitz much in the past. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Roof and Co. wont be blitzing anymore than they need to to get pressure."
Disagree with the first part of that... Again, Houston game recently, Wisconsin, USC in the Rose Bowl, NW every year it seems, countless other examples. The hesitancy to blitz when it was obvious we got no pressure from the front 4 is well documented... But the second part... I never said that they would blitz more than needed or blitz every down, but OK...
"Also what Appoo meant, I believe, is that Vandy won't put guys out there consistently if they can't be trusted in all facets of the game. From blitzing to pass coverage."
I agreed with you in my next post... Never disagreed...
Then I asked a serious question about what appoo was disagreeing with me on, because I agreed with most of what he was saying... And tried to clarify myself if there was any confusion as to what I meant... Here is that post again...
"I didn't say blitz every down... However, you basically made my point by mentioning NW every damn year. Also look at the Car Care Bowl again... Pre snap, Houston knew EXACTLY what we were doing. And we were so vanilla that it really didnt matter. Then we tried to blitz out of vanilla looks. Again, didnt work. Showing different looks pre snap and in general is a welcome change. I don't know really what you are disagreeing with here with me... If you can't get pressure with your front 4 (which was a lot of times the case the past couple of years), you blitz and show diff looks, drop a DE into coverage, zone blitz, etc. Like I said, I am not going to argue just to argue... What are you disagreeing with me on? Serious question."
He answered me, saying this...
"You seem to think Blitzing = positive. I'm saying Blitzing = negative, because it means we're deficient somewhere in our defense."
Which isn't what I meant, so I clarified further in my next posts...
But in the mean time, you answered my serious question for him with a snide comment...
"What you originally said with the aggressive being so much more important, to what you just wrote is very different. Thats why both of us said what we did." (this wasnt the snide comment)
Just to jump in here, how is what I said much different? We werent aggressive where we needed to be... And where we were aggressive, we werent even effective because our D was so damn vanilla... but then came the snide comment...
"But I am done with this thread, all that can result from here on out is a massive migriane. Good talk appoo"
What am I supposed to take that as? Again the conversation turns sour... Good talk appoo? Right...
But wait, there's more...
"Thank God you told me what a zone blitz was, never would have known."
Believe it or not, there are some football fans out there that are novices... I played and have family that are coaches... You played. We know, but some dont. I was actually talking about it for them. And to be very clear about what I meant, because apparently when Im not, instead of asking me to clarify you assume to know what Im saying and go from there...
And then, again, you say stuff that I didn't and I have no clue where you got it from...
"All we said was we will blitz as little as possible. The difference now is we actually have the looks to do it from. Our coaches won"t blitz more than is needed or for shits and giggles, theres too much risk in doing so, no matter the blitz. Nowhere did I argue we didn't blitz enough or much at all in the past. No where did I say we didnt need to affect the QB, in fact Ive said many times the exact opposite. I said what you alluded to originally is not what you are saying now. We havent argued with the last two revised statements, but rather the original one."
I agree somewhat. Mostly, you blitz as little as possible, sometimes you force the offense's hand and make them uncomfortable. But that is the beauty of playcalling and having a feel for the flow of the game... But yes, you don;t just blitz all the time and leave yourself vulnerable. You also don't blitz out of the same 4-5 vanilla sets...
I gave no attitude at all, until the "good talk appoo" and "I will get a migrane" statements... and the "thanks for explaining football to me" statement. I did not attack you or appoo. And I dont think appoo attacked me either. Everything started off fine, but then your tone changed and your attitude rubbed me the wrong way. Still in my other long ass post, I asked a serious question. Where did I say those things that you thought I said, and what were your points of disagreement. If you had a problem with my "tone" in the first two things I said in passing, ask me to clarify, because I- in no way from those vague statements, meant what you said.
In addressing specifically what you said in your last post, we were vanilla too often and I think Roof was actually specifically talking about that in one of the interviews he gave... You have to "change the picture" and that include pre snap. But we were successful with vanilla in non-conference and against inferior B1G opponents that had inferior talent or just ran the ball 70% of the time... But against better competition, we struggled for that very reason. I didn't get defensive when you disagreed with me. I tried to clarify what I was saying in passing. Where did I get defensive? Again, serious question, not being a d*ck. I still want to have the discussion, which is why I posted this initially. And Id like you to be involved. I have copied and pasted what you said here to show you exactly how I took specific statements. You certainly dont have to do that, but please let me know where you think I got defensive or was attacking you...
Sorry for the long post guys, just needed to clarify why I said that I felt that the convo took a bad turn.
Waxwingedhitman ●
- 5 stars Rating: 82
115 votes total - (83)
- 25 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
CZ148 said...
Its the constant need to get the last word that drives these discussions into the ditch. No one wants to read a novel on here. That completely defeats the purpose. You guys all have a lot of good knowledge and opinions but its useless if everyone stops listening.
WE ARE! And we will always be...
-
MTayl72 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 73
11091 votes total - (12425)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
MTayl72 said...
I wont quote that whole thing. But you are showing why I said it will result in a massive migraine, you were actling like we were arguing with you. We both answered you and had a fun talk. Then you act likke we're attacking you. That wasn't true at all.
The good talk appoo was because I enjoyed talking football with him in this thread and others the last two days. Once again you read too much into something and think someone is out to get you.
And the zone blitz was in a response directly quoting me, thus it seemed to me. I dont need you teaching me football, thats all I was saying. Im more than willing to learn, but not on here from you. Take that as an attack if you want, I know you will either way.
Now, like I said. Your previous series of posts made it seemed like you wanted to blitz to blitz. All appoo and I were saying is we need to blitz as much as we need to and no more. We clarified that. Your later posts explained more of what you meant. So lay off the "woe is me" crap. No ones attacking you.
WE ARE! And we will always be...
-
Roaringlion
- 5 stars Rating: 94
2897 votes total - (3282)
- 15 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
JC from LP said...
I saw something where someone said everyone is typing too much. I +1'd that. Easy does it fellas....
I personally wanted to see more LB blitzes in past years BECAUSE our DL wasn't getting enough pressure and the secondary was "solid" (depends on the game you're watching I guess)... and the athletes we had at LB were very capable....
I don't see legit DE starters yet = hope to see more LB blitzing.... but less need for them to do so?.... but our secondary scares the s**t outta me....
Soooooooo.... I'm going to bed. No idea what to think / hope for....
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by appoo on 4/10/2012 at 8:43 AM
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | 2 | 3
Gerald Hodges moving to strong side???