JKool

WhoDat,

When I get really drunk, I like to use big words.

Cheers.

Euphoria

\"Time is money but money isn\'t time\"-Euphoria. Would be nice but it does not work that way. Pass rush makes the secondary look good but the secondary doesn\'t make the front good. You can have the best CB in the league eventually the WR will get open. You have to have a pass rush... with a pass rush your cb are still near the DBs and a rush passed could be broken up or int. Give a qb 3 plus seconds before he sees a rush coming for him he can get rid of the ball... finding a reciever.

E U P H O R I A

lumm0x

More than anything else we need to do a better job of tackling. That begins with every player on the defense not just one of the three tiers....everybody. We were piss poor tacklers last season. A 2 yard dump off always became a first down because the first man there couldn\'t wrap up.

We need a pass rush, we need a secondary that can sustain coverage for 4 seconds minimum, and we need to tackle with the first man.

JKool

Euphoria, I guess we disagree. I played SS for a long time, and I will swear up and down that there were a few sacks that came when the QB saw that the TE was covered and panicked. Now, I agree, that those studs up front made me look good more often than not, but if they were to claim it was all them, I know the boys in the defensive backfield would be upset with them. When the QB checks down or off - we were the ones who registered that sack as much as the guy who finally pulled him down.

Of course, with zero pass rush eventually you will get beat (so long as the QB doesn\'t suck; arm strength and accuracy make that the case - without those, there is a time where you don\'t really have to cover anymore, since there is no way for the pass to get to your man). Thus, I agree that a secondary, no matter how good, will eventually get shredded without a good pass rush; however, a pass rush can look much better if the QB doesn\'t see an open man - I don\'t see how that can be denied.

LummOx, I agree. Tackling is key no matter how you slice it up. However, a QB on the run is easier to tackle than one who gets to throw before anyone is near him, right?

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

PS - If you have enough money, all you have is time.

Euphoria

ahhh but see we are capitalist and you can never have enough money. If you have enough money then all you really have is money. You can buy someone else\'s time but to them its still time is money. Time is money, money isn\'t time... it doesn\'t work the other way because if you have enough money its because you bought that time with that money already.

But you seem to say you disagree with me in your post yet you agreed??? \"that those studs up front made me look good more often than not\", \"no matter how good, will eventually get shredded without a good pass rush\"

Now I am talking about the 3-4 second range... if your average CB\'s and SS\'s can stand there in place maybe back pedal a few feet with the WR/TE\'s the QB sees he is covered results, Sack, blocked pass, funble, int. So on average A better rush is better than a better secondary...

E U P H O R I A

JKool

Euph,

(1) I enjoyed the money-time aside, it made me laugh.

(2) When you said this, \"Pass rush makes the secondary look good but the secondary doesn\'t make the front good,\" I thought you were denying that the secondary had any effect on the guys up front. That is not true (and we seem to agree on this, given your last post). Thus, I got a little uppity - since I do think that the secondary can make the pass rush look very good.

Perhaps the relationship is not an even one (as we seem to agree), but there clearly is one (which is not suggested by the money case). Without a defensive backfield there would be NO pass rush - i.e. the QB can just fling the ball over the heads of the oncoming mack trucks and some WR will run under it. That is the parallel case for all those who keep suggesting that without a pass rush the secondary will eventually get shredded. Of course that is true, but it doesn\'t show that there is a one way relationship (i.e. pass rush makes secondary look good but good secondary does not make pass rush look good).

Also, I\'m not sure why you think that sacks, fumbles, ints, and so on should get credited to the pass rush any more than to the secondary? That was a point of mine: sometimes the secondary is just as capable of making the pass rush look good. I am just wondering if we disagree on (1) how often that is true or (2) if it is true. I think (1) is in question, but (2) is clearly the case IMO.

I actually don\'t think we\'re very far apart on this, so I hope I didn\'t make it sound that way.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Euphoria

well its very obvious the secondary can be apart of the rush... CB blitz ect. But it has to be disguised very well... if your front can blitz and they are knowing its coming and scared of it then you can send a cb from outsdie and fake a lb coming in ect.

JKool

Euph,

You do agree that there is such a thing as a \"coverage sack\", right? That happens when the coverage is good enough to by the DL a second shot at the QB - in those cases, at the very least, the DBs are the main reason for the sack.

JKool

Also, why do you believe that you have to disguise the corner or safety blitz to make it effective? The key to a DB blitz is speed, error in the blocking scheme, and too many men to handle - it doesn\'t have to be hidden at all (so long as you have a LB who can cover long enough for the DB to get to the QB or you have a good rolling zone cover).