The Importance of Picking up the Blitz

I'm in the middle of breaking down a lot of numbers on blitzes trying to put together a research article, so I'll update this thread as I make more discoveries, but this was too good to not post:

We can split all of the Redskins passing plays last year into the amount of rushers the opponent set.

Net (includes penalty yardage) yards per pass attempt when:



Redskins opponents rush with 4 or fewer = 5.9
Redskins opponents rush with exactly 5 = 6.0
Redskins opponents rush with 6 or more = 3.9

I found that really interesting.

Anyway, here's some further reading on the Redskins blitz packages (of the defense):

The Value of Hurries and Hits, Part One - Hog Heaven (http://redskinshogheaven.com/2009/07/the-value-of-hurries-and-hits.html)

Completely unrelated to the blitz, but:

Since 2004, Antwaan Randle El has been considerably worse on second down than either first or third down in every single season going back to Pittsburgh.

Any possible reasons for this? Anyone?

The Pitt. game was the worst. Didn't seem there was any attempt to pick up the blitz though, it looked like the ole ball coach philosophy; let their guys come free cause somebody's open.

good #s gt

Completely unrelated to the blitz, but:

Since 2004, Antwaan Randle El has been considerably worse on second down than either first or third down in every single season going back to Pittsburgh.

Any possible reasons for this? Anyone?Just an "off the top of the head" thought. Both Pitt & us are run-first teams. On first down the threat of run makes the D play more honest with a run-first D, either man coverage or some sort of balanced zone. If 2nd down turns out to be a pass, it's normally because 1st down was an incomplete or the run was 2yds or less. The D is now in a pass D. ARE is small, is an average route-runner and has average hands, so he has a difficult time creating space against a pass D, therefore he's less successful. On third down, if it's a pass, it's either a surprise play call on 3rd and short in which case the D is playing run-first or ARE is some sort of a check down option and makes the catch but may not necessarily pick up the yds for the first.

or I could be completely off-base and it's just coincidence.

I broke it down as well by the number of blockers we used, but the splits aren't nearly as telling

Net (penalties included) Yards per pass attempt, when:



The Redskins offense used 5 blockers = 5.49
The Redskins offense used 6 blockers = 6.41
The Redskins offense used 7 or more blockers = 5.6


So, we're almost a yard better when we protect with 6. Interesting, but again, not very telling.

Just an "off the top of the head" thought. Both Pitt & us are run-first teams. On first down the threat of run makes the D play more honest with a run-first D, either man coverage or some sort of balanced zone. If 2nd down turns out to be a pass, it's normally because 1st down was an incomplete or the run was 2yds or less. The D is now in a pass D. ARE is small, is an average route-runner and has average hands, so he has a difficult time creating space against a pass D, therefore he's less successful. On third down, if it's a pass, it's either a surprise play call on 3rd and short in which case the D is playing run-first or ARE is some sort of a check down option and makes the catch but may not necessarily pick up the yds for the first.

or I could be completely off-base and it's just coincidence.That's my first thought as well. I'll look at some other complementary targets from those two offenses and see if they are also weaker on second down.

I broke it down as well by the number of blockers we used, but the splits aren't nearly as telling

Net (penalties included) Yards per pass attempt, when:



The Redskins offense used 5 blockers = 5.49
The Redskins offense used 6 blockers = 6.41
The Redskins offense used 7 or more blockers = 5.6

So, we're almost a yard better when we protect with 6. Interesting, but again, not very telling.Actually it is. If you've got 6 in pass-pro you've got 4 receivers, field is more spead, more options, D must cover more. You max-protect, you've got less receivers and the D can cheat with less targets to cover. Keeping 7 in often keys an extra defender who may have had coverage responsibility to now blitz.

The first stat shows we aren't going to be running a spread anytime soon...LOL

The first stat shows we aren't going to be running a spread anytime soon...LOL

Well, that's only because we haven't had a true spread offense QB....until now! (http://images.chron.com/blogs/longhorns/ChaseDaniel.jpg)

i wouldn't be surprised if Daniels beats out Brennen- let the onslaught begin:)

Just an "off the top of the head" thought. Both Pitt & us are run-first teams. On first down the threat of run makes the D play more honest with a run-first D, either man coverage or some sort of balanced zone. If 2nd down turns out to be a pass, it's normally because 1st down was an incomplete or the run was 2yds or less. The D is now in a pass D. ARE is small, is an average route-runner and has average hands, so he has a difficult time creating space against a pass D, therefore he's less successful. On third down, if it's a pass, it's either a surprise play call on 3rd and short in which case the D is playing run-first or ARE is some sort of a check down option and makes the catch but may not necessarily pick up the yds for the first.

or I could be completely off-base and it's just coincidence.You know, Heath Miller has the same bizarre second down trend, but only since ARE left for Washington. In Miller's rookie year, he was actually better on second down than any other down.

Seems like just a coincidence, but it's a really, really well traveled coincidence.