stwasm Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/061128 Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Carolina led 13-10 and had the Redskins, quarterbacked by Jason Campbell in his second career start, facing third-and-8 on their 34 with about four minutes remaining. Since the average NFL play gains about 5 yards, all the Cats had to do was play straight defense and the odds favored a stop. Instead, it's a blitz! The result was a 66-yard, game-winning pass to Chris Cooley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 :applause: love dem Skins!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/061128Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Carolina led 13-10 and had the Redskins, quarterbacked by Jason Campbell in his second career start, facing third-and-8 on their 34 with about four minutes remaining. Since the average NFL play gains about 5 yards, all the Cats had to do was play straight defense and the odds favored a stop. Instead, it's a blitz! The result was a 66-yard, game-winning pass to Chris Cooley. Nice find, stwasm! Just looking at JC, it's hard to believe that he's only played in 2 NFL games. He looks like a cool, composed veteran out there. Too bad he didn't mention that Jason called that play himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yeah, blitzing on obvious passing downs doesn't make any sense, especially against a guy making his second start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwasm Posted November 28, 2006 Author Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yeah, blitzing on obvious passing downs doesn't make any sense, especially against a guy making his second start. I actually remember a game against the Cleveland Browns where the Skins had them at third-and-34. Washington blitzed, the Browns called a screen and ended up picking up the first down. :doh: :doh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 One of the announcers pointed out during the game that they werent blitzing because they didnt want to leave guys in single coverage knowing Campbell might be able to beat them. I dunno but thats what I heard and I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 The article also gives props to the Redskins' cheerleaders in a couple of places: Talking about USC's squad, he says "USC claims. Innovative choreography? Their performance was nothing close to the complex hip-hop done by the Washington, Philadelphia and Tampa NFL cheerleaders, among other squads. . ." Also, below a nice pic of one of the First Ladies of Football: "Kickoff temperature 60 degrees, the Redskins' cheerleaders wore bikini-like outfits. Do you even need to ask who won the game?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I actually remember a game against the Cleveland Browns where the Skins had them at third-and-34. Washington blitzed, the Browns called a screen and ended up picking up the first down. :doh: :doh: :doh: Oh, I'm not saying blitzes can't be burned. But to suggest it's bad policy to blitz on 3rd and 8 is sheer idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yeah, blitzing on obvious passing downs doesn't make any sense, especially against a guy making his second start. Good point. Problem with the play wasn't that they blitzed, but that the DBs played huggy bear with Cooley instead of tackling him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/061128Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Carolina led 13-10 and had the Redskins, quarterbacked by Jason Campbell in his second career start, facing third-and-8 on their 34 with about four minutes remaining. Since the average NFL play gains about 5 yards, all the Cats had to do was play straight defense and the odds favored a stop. Instead, it's a blitz! The result was a 66-yard, game-winning pass to Chris Cooley. You mean like GW calling blitzes all season long on third down, on obvious passing downs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bounce Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 TMQ has this crusade against blitzing on third and long that I will never, ever understand. He has somehow reached the conclusion that, if you don't blitz, the opposing team will, more often than not, only gain the "average" amount of yards for an NFL pass play. Nevermind that the NFL average is affected by situation, down, distance, field position, play call, score, various quarterbacks, and so on. It's a ludicrous argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 LOL...."Huggy Bear" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt'n Obvious Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 It is smart to bring a blitz against a young QB like Campbell, but he proved that he can beat it with that play. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HapHaszard Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Its really nice when the other team can't tackle. We know what that feels like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Jaworski's write up of Campbell's performance in the Tampa game pointed out that Campbell failed to make a hot read on a safety blitz and check down to Randle El, so it's not like Jason's immune from rookie foibles under pressure. I'm just sort of taking it all in and enjoying the ride. He made a great play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwasm Posted November 28, 2006 Author Share Posted November 28, 2006 Also, below a nice pic of one of the First Ladies of Football:"Kickoff temperature 60 degrees, the Redskins' cheerleaders wore bikini-like outfits. Do you even need to ask who won the game?" That was dearest Brittany getting some face time on the Tuesday Morning Quarterback column. Here's a better pic of her: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 He's been going on this anti-blitz thing for a while. It's quite ridiculous. So every week he goes and finds a few plays where teams get burnt when they blitz and uses it as evidence that the blitz is always a bad call. The only thing he ever proves is that he's got 20/20 hindsight. The guy only barely grasps football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant15fromNJ Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Campbell was amzing on that play but you got to give a hand to the o line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamaGoliath Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yeah, blitzing on obvious passing downs doesn't make any sense, especially against a guy making his second start. Of course it's a good idea. Teams that have faced us had the luxury of knowing that they weren't going to get burned by blitzing us. The only difference is that now we have have a qb who, at the very least, is capable of making opponents pay the price for blitzing. If Campbell is able to keep this up, it may make things easier for our rbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 That's not exactly "praise" for Campbell there...more like finding fault in Carolina's defensive playcalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abshir Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Cooley for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 That's not exactly "praise" for Campbell there...more like finding fault in Carolina's defensive playcalling. Exactly. If he had said a good defense predictably blitzed in an obvious passing situation and our young QB showed enough poise to stand in the pocket and deliver a perfect strike to his TE, hitting him in stride for a TD, then I might consider sifting through Easterbrook's work for that small fraction of his column that isn't self-indulgent gobledygook ... but lambasting the defense for blitzing? Does he even WATCH football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 He's been going on this anti-blitz thing for a while. It's quite ridiculous. So every week he goes and finds a few plays where teams get burnt when they blitz and uses it as evidence that the blitz is always a bad call. The only thing he ever proves is that he's got 20/20 hindsight.The guy only barely grasps football. He doesn't only barely grasp football. He understands it quite a bit. He just challenges conventional wisdom - which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Check out the 2006 Pro Football Prospectus. There is a section in the book about Easterbrook's arguments. They charted every play in the NFL and broke them down by down and distance, and counted the number of rushers, and charted the results. They found that in 3rd and long (7 yards +), sending 3 pass rushers stopped the offense 78% of the time. Sending 7 rushers stopped the offense only 70% of the time. Sending 4, 5, or 6 rushers stopped the offense 72, 73, and 77% of the time, respectively. So, the most effective way to stop a team from gaining a first down on 3rd and 7 or more was to send three rushers. That's not theory or conjecture, that is actual fact. Sending 7 or more rushers was begging the opposing team to get the first. So, it looks like his grasp isn't so bare, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 He doesn't only barely grasp football. He understands it quite a bit. He just challenges conventional wisdom - which makes a lot of people uncomfortable.Check out the 2006 Pro Football Prospectus. There is a section in the book about Easterbrook's arguments. They charted every play in the NFL and broke them down by down and distance, and counted the number of rushers, and charted the results. They found that in 3rd and long (7 yards +), sending 3 pass rushers stopped the offense 78% of the time. Sending 7 rushers stopped the offense only 70% of the time. Sending 4, 5, or 6 rushers stopped the offense 72, 73, and 77% of the time, respectively. So, the most effective way to stop a team from gaining a first down on 3rd and 7 or more was to send three rushers. That's not theory or conjecture, that is actual fact. Sending 7 or more rushers was begging the opposing team to get the first. So, it looks like his grasp isn't so bare, after all. With all due respect, what Easterbrook is suggesting is akin to seeing that a RB averages 3.5 yards a carry and suggesting that giving him the ball 4 times in a row will give you the best chance to gain a first down. Because a one year sampling shows that rushing 3 bears out a 1% better chance of stopping a play than rushing 6, rushing 6 is a just plain bad idea? That's nuts. Statisitics are helpful, but only when analyzed with a modicum of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I actually remember a game against the Cleveland Browns where the Skins had them at third-and-34. Washington blitzed, the Browns called a screen and ended up picking up the first down. :doh: :doh: :doh: Yes, but I remember several 3rd downs that we've been blitzed and we didn't even get off a pass. It's typically a pretty good bet. I'm glad that Campbell beat it though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.