Nonsense. I think anyone can tell when an overload blitz is called. Moreover, the analysts will tell you if your own eyes and brain are too overloaded to tell that many defensive backs are creeping up toward the LoS OR that each receiver has a defender in tight coverage. Of course, these defenders may back off, which, again, is there in plain sight. Is your TV too small?
Just because you utilize an overload blitz does not mean you are utilizing man coverage behind it. A defensive back creeping to the LOS does not mean he's going to blitz, or has man coverage responsibility, or zone responsibility (or responsibility to jam a receiver and then blitz, etc). Within a second of the snap of a ball, on a typical pass play, most receivers and defensive backs are out of view of the television camera (as it is fixated on the quarterback until the ball is thrown). To say it's "in plain sight" is just wrong.
"I do know this though ... at some point, if you have no talent, it doesn't matter what scheme you're in, the other team is going to move the football. And last year's defensive backfield had no talent." Again, NONSENSE. "NO Talent??!" All these guys have SOME talent. You don't get to the NFL with NO talent. (Well, except perhaps Kyle Wilson, but even he has SOME talent, it's not not between his ears...) What I saw last season was that Ryan coached scared. Instead of bending the schemes to fit the personnel--rookies and DBs not familiar with playing alongside each other and/or having to play man coverage every down--Rex called the same defenses he would for guys like Revis and Cromartie. Moreover, he called blitzes where the QBs KNEW they were coming. They had seen tape of it, so it was no real surprise and if you're asking Pace or Coples or Richardson to cover a receiver, for even a short period, the results could be expected: Opponent's FIRST DOWN!! Yeah, a lack of talent was evident. BUT, a lack of reasonable plan to use the talent was also clearly evident.
"Just because you utilize an overload blitz does not mean you are utilizing man coverage behind it." True...But they were. Or does a receiver running with a trailing DB and NO SAFETY in the picture not indicate that? Actually, I think if you're running an overload blitz, you kinda can't play zone behind it because you've committed the players to the overload blitz that would be available to be in zone coverage.
Sure, except for ... ya know ... that whole zone blitz thing that was being used all over the NFL for decades now. Let's see, off the top of my head, you had the Steelers, Packers, Panthers, Texans, Dolphins, Titans all using it a lot - and pretty much every other team in the league uses it from time to time. Hell, even the Patriots had Fatfork dropping off into coverage against some teams - are you telling me he was in man?
I dont really know how to navigate the pro football focus website. Does anyone have any advanced numbers on Rex's defense? His yardage numbers are nice for sure, but yards arent everything. How did the Jets match up in points given up? How many points did he give up per possession? How many turnovers did his defenses force? How did he fair on third down? In the redzone? Lets compare that to Bowles defense in Arizona the last couple years. If we're going to try to evaluate Rex's defenses, lets delve a little deeper than just total yards against. Unfortunately, like I said, I dont really know how to navigate those advanced football sites.
I'm not sure what your point is. Your original argument is that you can't tell what schemes are in use. Well, that's simply untrue. Now, it seems like you're saying that zone blitzing employs blitzing and zone coverage. Well, that's in the name, so, sure. An overload blitz generally means that you've forced the offense to throw to one side of the field--the opposite side of the field to where you've overloaded--and generally employs man coverage because to overload one side of the field you generally have to devote a significant number of defenders, defenders that would otherwise be used in zone coverage, which requires more than a single defender per receiver. Either way, Rex Ryan's blitzing generally used Man Zero coverage. So, again, I think that was a mis-utilization of resources.
I'm sorry, I called your nonsense comments nonsense. Coaching scared = coaching to save his job...taking ill-advised risks. capische?
Excellent post. It's amazing to me how many people are blinded to Rex's deficiencies because they like his personality so much. IMO Rex coached scared for most of 2011- onwards. He started coaching more not to lose, rather than being aggressive and trying to win. It showed on offense settling for FGs and it showed on D when he would go into the passive prevent-type D rather than staying aggressive. He undermined what talent the Jets had by being too lax and too undisciplined. The team beat itself with stupid penalties and lax attitudes. They often weren't prepared to play. The D wouldn't show up for a half. Losing 97% (or whatever it was) of games following the BYE week is shameful and inexcusable. He was stubborn or incapable of making quick changes...when his game plan didn't work, he'd stick with it for far too long. He seemed to come up with great and creative game plans only when he was playing the Patriots. I don't recall many games aside from Patriots games where one could say he out-coached his opponent or came up with some creative new wrinkle that kept opponents off balance.
I'm not apologizing for Rex -- blitzing on every single third down when your best DB is Marcus Williams is just stupid. HOWEVER, graphing "Points Against" is just as dumb, or dumber, than "Yards Against" for grading his defense. Aside from the quarter billion times Sanchez and Geno threw pick-sixes or gave up fumbles for TDs or safeties, there were just as many (or more) bad turnovers with our backs to our own goal line. All of those lead to a ridiculous number of points against and those short field situations really account for why we didn't give up more yards--they weren't available for us to give. I lost count of how many times the D caused a 3-and-out, only to walk back out to a goal line situation before they even had their helmets off.
Kyle Wilson has lots of talent. He stores it between his C2 and C3 vertebrae. Unfortunately, that keeps him from turning his neck and head.
"By far" better D-line? Come on. There's only 1 line in the NFL that's "far" better than ours and it's in St. Louis. The Bills are marginally better.
No it doesn't. It generally employs dropping linemen, on the other side of the blitz, off into zone coverage. It can employ man coverage, but to say "Hey, they blitzed a lot of guys that down so they must have been playing man" is both simplistic and wrong.
Not really, since it's the exact opposite of what most normal people would call "coaching scared". Typically, when someone says a person is "coaching scared" they mean the person is taking absolutely no risks and just sitting there and praying nothing goes wrong (see Herm Edwards and Paul Hackett).
I think it will be equal on the whole with buffalo having a better pash rush and the jets having a better secondary. But from a birds eye id say total defense will be equal. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Um... The Overload Blitz: http://blitzology.blogspot.com/2015/03/7-man-overload-blitz-from-bear-front.html The Rush:Ends: Contain Rush, Peel if the running back crosses your face in a route Tackles : Inside Rush through the B gap, Read the block of the Guard Nose - Engage the Center, Spy the running back Mike & Will - Inside blitz your A gap The Coverage: Corners - Man #1 Safeties - Man #2 or #3 in a 3x1 formation away from you. In any event, Rex's Overload Blitzes incorporated MAN coverage, which is what I said. Of course, there can be deviations, but, generally speaking, an overload blitz uses MAN coverage and is not a zone blitz scheme.
