PDA

View Full Version : Defensive Pressure rankings from 2011



BeatYale
10-04-2012, 07:46 PM
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2012/2011-pressure-plays-defense

I think we tied for second in the league with 48 sacks last year, but sacks don't tell the whole story in regards to how consistent we were at annoying the opposing QB. According to this, we were ranked closer to the bottom than top.

giantsfan420
10-04-2012, 07:49 PM
our DL sucked most of the reg season aside from JPP. we all know that would be the statistical outcome.

whats so troubling is the DE's are again playing like crap opposed to how they looked on our dominant run

Moke
10-04-2012, 07:57 PM
These STATS are all wrong... Giants are the best. All homerism aside.

bg79
10-04-2012, 08:23 PM
Shows we're ranked #2 when we actually get pressure on the QB, ranked #22 when we don't. It sort of reinforces what I already know, that when Perry sits back on the 3 or 4 man rush with no blitz it tends to not yield results in our favor. One thing about it is that there isnt a single team that yields more yards per pass with pressure than without. So it reinforces my belief that we should be applying pressure on all plays, I hate the sitting back and giving a QB time to find someone open. Another thing to note from those stats which further pushes this point. The Giants have the largest differential between yards per play with pressure vs yards per play without pressure.

joemorrisforprez
10-04-2012, 08:35 PM
Shows we're ranked #2 when we actually get pressure on the QB, ranked #22 when we don't. It sort of reinforces what I already know, that when Perry sits back on the 3 or 4 man rush with no blitz it tends to not yield results in our favor. One thing about it is that there isnt a single team that yields more yards per pass with pressure than without. So it reinforces my belief that we should be applying pressure on all plays, I hate the sitting back and giving a QB time to find someone open. Another thing to note from those stats which further pushes this point. The Giants have the largest differential between yards per play with pressure vs yards per play without pressure.

Agreed....we should be rushing 5 guys when possible.

Toadofsteel
10-05-2012, 12:50 AM
Shows we're ranked #2 when we actually get pressure on the QB, ranked #22 when we don't. It sort of reinforces what I already know, that when Perry sits back on the 3 or 4 man rush with no blitz it tends to not yield results in our favor. One thing about it is that there isnt a single team that yields more yards per pass with pressure than without. So it reinforces my belief that we should be applying pressure on all plays, I hate the sitting back and giving a QB time to find someone open. Another thing to note from those stats which further pushes this point. The Giants have the largest differential between yards per play with pressure vs yards per play without pressure.

I'm specifically hoping both Prince and Hosley can play. PF sends blitzers more often when his secondary is healthy and doesn't need linebacker help. Also he at least seems to get the message on not telegraphing your moves to the offense (like that Stevie blitz last week, I didn't see that coming)...

Also, it's more important to send more guys when the offense is using more max protect. The Eagles would constantly keep 2 TE's in to block (sometimes Celek would roll out of this formation as a checkdown option), along with the FB blocking as well. We could have 4 JPP clones lined up on our D-line, and still not be able to pressure the QB against all that. When max protect comes in, you HAVE to blitz. Linebackers have to realize that if they're covering a TE in man coverage and that TE stays in to block, they have to rush as well. Chase at least seems to get the message...

In all honesty, the base Nascar scheme seems to have a counter with these max protect schemes. Honestly at this point, it would almost be nice to sprinkle some 3-4 ideology on this package: line up the extra pass rushers at OLB positions instead of replacing DT's with DE's, and let the line open up holes for these LB. Just pure theory, but if the nascar has been figured out, we need to find a new way to rush the passer on 3rd and long...

Captain Chaos
10-05-2012, 06:25 AM
The real story is in the Win and Loss column. Right now we are in the middle of the pack!

Rat_bastich
10-05-2012, 07:22 AM
I'm specifically hoping both Prince and Hosley can play. PF sends blitzers more often when his secondary is healthy and doesn't need linebacker help. Also he at least seems to get the message on not telegraphing your moves to the offense (like that Stevie blitz last week, I didn't see that coming)...

Also, it's more important to send more guys when the offense is using more max protect. The Eagles would constantly keep 2 TE's in to block (sometimes Celek would roll out of this formation as a checkdown option), along with the FB blocking as well. We could have 4 JPP clones lined up on our D-line, and still not be able to pressure the QB against all that. When max protect comes in, you HAVE to blitz. Linebackers have to realize that if they're covering a TE in man coverage and that TE stays in to block, they have to rush as well. Chase at least seems to get the message...

In all honesty, the base Nascar scheme seems to have a counter with these max protect schemes. Honestly at this point, it would almost be nice to sprinkle some 3-4 ideology on this package: line up the extra pass rushers at OLB positions instead of replacing DT's with DE's, and let the line open up holes for these LB. Just pure theory, but if the nascar has been figured out, we need to find a new way to rush the passer on 3rd and long...


They should bring in more safety blitzes or even corner blitzes. Maybe pull in a safety closer to the line and have them sitting behind the Mike. From the perspective on the field it should hide the safety and once the D-line engages the block, the safety should be able to slip in. The other DB's are going to have to cover tight.

The defensive unit though definitely needs a new look. Some stunts, misdirections, movement...something to disguise coverage and blitzes.

Hell, maybe a zone blitz to confuse the bad guys.

bg79
10-05-2012, 06:22 PM
They just need more blitzes of any type. The disparity between the success of when we apply pressure and when we don't is the largest in the league and that should be telling to Fewell. The problem is he doesnt seem to realize it and plays soft way more often than not (80% of the time according to those stats).

ShakeandBake
10-05-2012, 06:53 PM
How is PF going to send blitzes when we have our 4th and 5th string corners in the backfield? Remember what happened in Tampa with Vincent Jackson? The fact of the matter is our defensive ends are healthy, and they are supposedly the strongest unit on the team, yet they haven't done anything this season. Chase Blackburn leads this team in sacks which speaks for itself. Our defense is built to get a rush with 4, no matter what people think, we are not a 3-4 and we do not send someone on every play. PF sends the blitz often enough considering how banged up our backfield is.

bg79
10-05-2012, 08:00 PM
How is PF going to send blitzes when we have our 4th and 5th string corners in the backfield? Remember what happened in Tampa with Vincent Jackson? The fact of the matter is our defensive ends are healthy, and they are supposedly the strongest unit on the team, yet they haven't done anything this season. Chase Blackburn leads this team in sacks which speaks for itself. Our defense is built to get a rush with 4, no matter what people think, we are not a 3-4 and we do not send someone on every play. PF sends the blitz often enough considering how banged up our backfield is.

Whats better for a depleted secondary? Giving an opposing QB all the time in the world to pick them apart, or getting some pressure on that QB to force him into making mistakes? I just don't get that mentality that our secondary is crap so we therefore can't blitz. The statistical evidence is overwhelming that our team does significantly better when we pressure the QB as opposed to not pressuring them. It's a no brainer to send an extra body or two regardless if it's considered risky. To me it's riskier to just let a QB have enough time to find the inevitable open receiver/s.

OX1
10-05-2012, 08:29 PM
Whats better for a depleted secondary? Giving an opposing QB all the time in the world to pick them apart, or getting some pressure on that QB to force him into making mistakes? I just don't get that mentality that our secondary is crap so we therefore can't blitz. The statistical evidence is overwhelming that our team does significantly better when we pressure the QB as opposed to not pressuring them. It's a no brainer to send an extra body or two regardless if it's considered risky. To me it's riskier to just let a QB have enough time to find the inevitable open receiver/s.

Yup any QB in the league is going to find a man after 7-8 seconds. Need to bring it home once every 10 or so plays.
Nothing more frustrating than getting sack and then sending a 3 man rush so they convert on 3rd and 17, UGH!!!

ShakeandBake
10-05-2012, 09:01 PM
Whats better for a depleted secondary? Giving an opposing QB all the time in the world to pick them apart, or getting some pressure on that QB to force him into making mistakes? I just don't get that mentality that our secondary is crap so we therefore can't blitz. The statistical evidence is overwhelming that our team does significantly better when we pressure the QB as opposed to not pressuring them. It's a no brainer to send an extra body or two regardless if it's considered risky. To me it's riskier to just let a QB have enough time to find the inevitable open receiver/s.

And if they don't get there, its a TD for the offense because of who we have in our defensive backfield. It isn't a smart decision to leave Coe or Tryon alone on the outside because any opposing QB with half a brain who knows how to read a defense will just throw it to whoever they are covering. Anyway, you clearly didn't read what I wrote because I didn't say we shouldn't blitz at all, I said I think we have been blitzing enough. The pressure just hasn't been there, and that falls on our front four. Our pass rush isn't going to be there until they start to perform better, blitzing more won't solve the problem, at best it is a temporary fix.

It's funny how fans get upset at PF for not blitzing enough then get upset when our secondary gets toasted when the rush doesn't get there. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

bg79
10-06-2012, 12:13 AM
And if they don't get there, its a TD for the offense because of who we have in our defensive backfield. It isn't a smart decision to leave Coe or Tryon alone on the outside because any opposing QB with half a brain who knows how to read a defense will just throw it to whoever they are covering. Anyway, you clearly didn't read what I wrote because I didn't say we shouldn't blitz at all, I said I think we have been blitzing enough. The pressure just hasn't been there, and that falls on our front four. Our pass rush isn't going to be there until they start to perform better, blitzing more won't solve the problem, at best it is a temporary fix.

It's funny how fans get upset at PF for not blitzing enough then get upset when our secondary gets toasted when the rush doesn't get there. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know what Giants team you're watching but we do not blitz enough. PF relies way too much on a 4 or in some cases just a 3 man rush to get the job done. More often than not it fails as is easily predictable. Also, if he is blitzing and the pressure is not getting to the QB that falls on his shoulders as that is in many ways scheme dependent.

I'll just admit though, I just flat out don't like the style of defense Perry Fewell runs. For some reason he decided to show us a completely different defense that was aggressive in the Playoffs and it was absolutely fantastic, I was loving it. But his regular season defense which we've seen much more of than his playoff d is this boring safe crap that yields little results.