Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Dee Milliner, CB, Alabama
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DawgSoldier wrote:
Entropy wrote:
Reginaldm9 wrote:
Entropy wrote:

I seriously wonder what would happen if we could neutralize an opposing team's best 2 WRs.

Coverage sacks Very Happy

I'm not directing this at you reg, but I'd just like to point out that any sack that doesn't occur directly after the snap is a coverage sack.

I say this because it seems that some think of the term "coverage sack" as being more of a function of DBs maintaining coverage for an extended period of time (thereby creating an "inevitable" sack) than getting good pass rush from members of the front 7.
But when you really examine it, sacks occur most often because the QB was unable to find an open receiver before the number of pass rushers were able to tackle the QB, therefore they are mostly coverage sacks.

First of all, it is nearly impossible to maintain coverage on all receivers for more than 3 or so seconds after the snap without having extra defenders in the secondary, thus decreasing the pass rushers.

Secondly, pass rushers rarely sack the QB within 3 seconds of the snap.

Thirdly, almost every QB in the league averages less than 3 seconds before they will pass even if it's to throw the ball away.

So I think we should look at passing the ball as far more inevitable than not passing the ball.

I think the teamís need, right now, is far greater for better players to defend the inevitable pass than to limit the pass in the first place.

Now, surely a good pass rush does more than produce sacks. A good pass rush can hurry a throw and force a mistake, or force a throw away, BUT it can also play into the opposing team's hand by forcing a checkdown to a player that is covered by DB that is not a good player. And that will have (and has had) a greater impact on the game than getting an occasional sack.

The bottom line is that all the work that pass rushers do can be negated by a weak defensive backfield.

The converse argument is also true.

The Real Bottom line. Pass rushers help vs the run CB's not so much. Wink

Not true at all since I said DBs. Wink

nugpimpen wrote:

Pass rushers can make the secondary look better than the secondary can make the pass rushers look.

Sounds weird, but you get the point.

Pass rush can come from the secondary. And it's not about one unit making another look better, it's about what is more helpful.

Is it more helpful to have a fewer sacks and more PDs or more sacks and fewer PDs?

Maybe look at which is more a far more frequent occurrence in the first place.

Now, if we were getting little pass rush in the first place, that would be a big need, but we're not. What we are seeing is our DBs allow long 3rd down conversions after a sack on 2nd down, our DBs missing chances for PDs, our DBs not getting very many INTs, allowing too many big plays, not playing well covering receivers or runners (or QBs)out of the backfield, and generally losing games.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group