Jump to content

Pass Rush Nonexistent


Guest Negatorris

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another fact is Mallett completed over 60% of his passes last week. Another fact is we played man in order to disrupt the timing, which contributed to his inaccuracy. Another fact is Tru had perfect coverage on his accurate passes, which deflected into an interception. Another fact is that Alford had excellent coverage with several deflections. Another fact is we forced fumbles, which you can't put on Mallett's accuracy. Another fact is we completely shutdown their running game, which you can't put on Mallett's accuracy. Another fact is they were 1 of 8 on 3rd down before our backups came in. Another fact is we moved the ball at will converting over half our first downs against a defense that was 2nd in the NFL at getting off the field on third down.

And last but not least, Mallett got hit several times early. The passrush was there, it just wasn't getting him down before the throw.

Grrrreat.

What does any of that have to do with a pass rush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grrrreat.

What does any of that have to do with a pass rush?

They are all components that collectively make up a pass defense. The jamming at the line reduces the likelihood of success on quick passes. QB hits make the QB feel pressure, which results in him trying to get the ball out earlier. Good coverage with low success on short passes will lead to sacks when QB's start trying to press the ball downfield.

This game got out of hand really quickly and our starters were not on the field when teams tend to rack up the most sacks, while the other team has to throw deep to catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the type of defense we are playing, we may not have a very high sack total.This defense is predicated off of giving up quick dink and dunk passes. We only rush four and rarely blitz. As long as we dont miss tackles and give up explosive plays, this defense is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

Edited by FentayeJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the type of defense we are playing, we may not have a very high sack total.This defense is predicated off of giving up quick dink and dunk passes. We only rush four and rarely blitz. As long as we dont miss tackles and give up explosive plays, this defense is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

This^^^^^^^ we applied pressure and they folded, they had 0 points and 3 turnovers after 3 quarters.They could not run or pass effectively. Period

This is known as good defense

Sack totals are far less important than points allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Torris is cool and I'm cool with the thread. But I see nothing but goodness in this defense. It's good enough to compliment our high octane offense and win a super bowl

I'd love to have had this D in San Fran

Plus we have a running game. Honestly if we our draft next year went:

1) DE/OLB

2) OC

3) LB or DE

And kept repeating I'd get it...it'll take another offseason to get Seattle good.mbut the scheme is tight and there's enough talent at each level to keep us more than just competitive

Don't want to sound like Mike Smith but sacks are kinda overrated...because some sacks come on 3rd and 39...junk time when it doesn't matter. We are getting pressure. We are hurrying the passer and all levels are playing in the scheme

And let's not forget..it's game 4 in young Beasleys career. Game 4 for all the starters and game one for brooks Reed...it'll get better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think it's what you said as much as how you said it. If you would have said "Pass Rush, still needs some work", I dont think anyone would have a problem with it.

Starting out w/ "The Pass rush is just as pathetic as last year" is what makes you look like a troll. You know it's a BS pot stirring, chicken-little statement w/ absolutely no truth behind it.

A. No, it's nowhere near as pathetic as last year and the previous 3 games is all the proof we need.

B. It was beyond obvious that the defensive gameplan was not to throw as much pressure as possible at Mallett.

Edited by RubberDucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pass rush is as pathetic as last year. We should have got rid of Bryan Cox with the rest of the others. There was plenty of excuses about QBs throwing quick passes, but Mallet is living in the pocket.

Or, they realize that Mallet is going to give the ball to them if they let him, which they did.

If you aren't just straight trolling with this thread, which appears to be the most likely possibility, then you really have no situational awareness. There was no need to ratchet up the pressure on Mallet, no need to waste any blitz packages on him, save them for Brees or Luck.

As someone pointed out, if they were going against a better passer, they'd have different players and packages in the game.

If they'd kept the starters in, they'd have gotten a ton of sacks because the Texans would have had to take deeper drops to make plays. Then, if a D starter gets hurt, you'd be b#cth#ng about why they left them in the game.

If they play the same D against a really good passer, then you'll have something to complain about. But they won't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pass rush is as pathetic as last year. We should have got rid of Bryan Cox with the rest of the others. There was plenty of excuses about QBs throwing quick passes, but Mallet is living in the pocket.

Mallet always throws like all the demons of Hades are after him. I think Mallet throwing the ball was better for us than Mallet lying on his back wondering why there are stars inside the dome.

I can't remember many recent QB's that are flat out worse than Mallet, despite having a good line and good receiving targets and a good running game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, they realize that Mallet is going to give the ball to them if they let him, which they did.

If you aren't just straight trolling with this thread, which appears to be the most likely possibility, then you really have no situational awareness. There was no need to ratchet up the pressure on Mallet, no need to waste any blitz packages on him, save them for Brees or Luck.

As someone pointed out, if they were going against a better passer, they'd have different players and packages in the game.

If they'd kept the starters in, they'd have gotten a ton of sacks because the Texans would have had to take deeper drops to make plays. Then, if a D starter gets hurt, you'd be b#cth#ng about why they left them in the game.

If they play the same D against a really good passer, then you'll have something to complain about. But they won't

we also had a street rookie free agent starting at free safety, I assure you we felt it would be best to keep an extra guy in coverage than up on the line.

I hardly ever saw the LOS getting crowded the entire game when our defense was on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...