Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

every team this year can beat us if rivera doesn't make adjustments from the broncos game.


PhillyB

Recommended Posts

I spent today in Florida scouting set locations for a film, and on the way back up I-95 I drove over the St. Johns River. Off to my right I spotted the Jacksonville Jaguars stadium - modern, humungous, a miracle of modern architecture and home to a really really bad football team. I laughed at their misery all the way to the Florida-Georgia state line, but then I started thinking about the hubris of Super Bowl losers and how even great teams gravitate to the mean. By the time I stopped to take a shit in Brunswick I was downright sober at the prospect of the Panthers actually losing the opener, and when I reached Savannah I promptly pulled over to get gas and write a piece about how Ron Rivera got his ass kicked by the blue-dog blitz.

Today's actually the first time I've watched highlights of the Super Bowl. It's still a raw wound. Douchebag was offsides on that field goal, and Cotchery caught that fucking ball.

But what really hurt the most was watching the Broncos negate our MVP offense by using the blue dog blitz, and watching Ron Rivera, Mike Shula, and John Matsko stand befuddled for three quarters without an answer. So it ended like this.

 

ron-rivera-super-bowl-50.jpg

 

What the hell is blue dog blitzing, you might be asking. "Blue Dog" is simply a type of blitz package that negates extra blockers on the offensive line. Teams with poor offensive lines will often keep in extra blockers - usually a tight end - to assist in pass protection. Check out the following formation:

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 6.34.12 PM.png

Notice the offensive formation: pretty simple. Greg Olsen is offset, which makes him an eligible receiver, but he can also stay in and block. Lots of times tight ends will chip a man to slow him down and then leak into the flat as an outlet. At any rate, he's set up to give Mike Remmers help here. This is the most common way to help out a tackle getting abused.

Fast forward to the Super Bowl:

camfumble.0.gif

 

We all have PTSD from this game, but keep your eyes open anyway. Remmers gets his ass kicked here, and Ron takes notice. His response is to start adding it tight ends to Remmers's side of the line. This ostensibly gives extra help and buys extra time.

What do the Broncos do? Well, Wade Phillips whips up the blue dog, a Jim Johnson favorite, and starts blitzing the guy who's facing off the extra blocker. In our original blocking scheme, Olsen can no longer help Remmers block his man because he's busy stopping one of his own.

Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 6.34.12 PM.png

 

Remmers has no help. It's back to one-on-one - just the way defenses like it when they've identified a weak cog. Wade Phillips identified it watching game tape of the Panthers, who betrayed Remmers's limitations first against the Falcons in week sixteen and then again versus the Seahawks in the divisional round. For three quarters, every time Shula kicked a blocker over to help him out, Phillips's defense audibled and sent an extra blitzer on that side of the field.

The result?

camsack.0.gif

camfumble2.0.gif

 

Ugh.

 

It's tempting to say that the Broncos provided the rest of the league the blueprint to stopping the Panthers. That's only half true. The Falcons actually figured it out, but they are stupid idiots so we give them zero credit for it. Wade Phillips just caught on and made it work on a national stage. And you can bet your sweet ass he's going to throw the exact same thing at us in week one to see if we've decided to make adjustments, or to see if Remmers has gotten any better. And twelve other teams will be watching to see how that works out for them. If they get consistent pressure again and Shula can't scheme around it, teams will do the same thing until somebody figures out how to stop it.

We'll see what happens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. it was still a fucking catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other thoughts:

 

1) Not every team has a Von Miller. But teams don't need to hold us to 7 offensive points. Allow double that and run an efficient passing attack against a neophyte secondary and you've beaten the Panthers. Rivera and co. should be taking every pass rusher seriously now that this weakness has been betrayed.

2) One way to slow down blitzes like this is delayed releases and RB chips. Burning a couple of absent linebackers with a quick toss over the top or into the flat will keep them at bay and let blocks do what they're meant to do. This is largely why Fozzy is a much more valuable asset than people give him credit for: he's a great blocker and has veteran patience to navigate the screen game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

You really like opening old wounds. Those gifs are the most I've watched of the SB fiasco since it happened.

I know, I felt filthy just writing it. I'm going to take a shower as soon as I get home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheRumGone said:

Not every team had that talented of pass rushers. Too simple in theory for teams to just not figure that out, they simply didn't have the talent to make it happen. 

actually most of them were committed to containing cam and bracketing olsen, remember? the broncos were the first ones to not give a poo about olsen. they just didn't give him enough time to cut past his coverage, and it worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...