Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    31,052
    Blitzkrieg is German for "Lightning War"; Blitz=Lightning, Krieg=War.

    The "Blitzkrieg" pass rush concept described above was tried by the Denver Gold USFL team. As I recall, it didn't work and was abandoned.
    Last edited by samparnell; 05-02-2018 at 10:34 AM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    7,680
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    Blitzkrieg is German for "Lightning War"; Blitz=Lightning, Krieg=War.

    The "Blitzkrieg" pass rush concept described above was tried by the Denver Gold USFL team. As I recall, it didn't work and was abandoned.
    I imagine the limited access to tanks and aircraft became problematic for them.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A-town in the Mile High
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    Blitzkrieg is German for "Lightning War"; Blitz=Lightning, Krieg=War.

    The "Blitzkrieg" pass rush concept described above was tried by the Denver Gold USFL team. As I recall, it didn't work and was abandoned.
    Thanks Coach,

    Why didn't it work in your opinion?

    On 3rd and long (situational) I can't see how it would fail with the right personnel.

    *note: thanks on the correction, Krieg and Craig through me off, OP editted

    -GB2

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,791
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    Blitzkrieg is German for "Lightning War"; Blitz=Lightning, Krieg=War.

    The "Blitzkrieg" pass rush concept described above was tried by the Denver Gold USFL team. As I recall, it didn't work and was abandoned.
    Is it basically the same thing that Atlanta used for a while in the ameoba defense?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    668
    It's too many relatively light and slow people close to the line of scrimmage.

    Might work better with a 4 man front of Miller, Harris, walker, chub with barrett or ray strong side with Cravens in the box. That gives you 6 dbs, some beef in the middle and 6 potential good pass rushers in a rushing position and doesnt completely sell put to a draw play.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A-town in the Mile High
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by jdhdiggs View Post
    It's too many relatively light and slow people close to the line of scrimmage.

    Might work better with a 4 man front of Miller, Harris, walker, chub with barrett or ray strong side with Cravens in the box. That gives you 6 dbs, some beef in the middle and 6 potential good pass rushers in a rushing position and doesnt completely sell put to a draw play.
    I like this tweak to keep potential draw plays from killing the 7 lighter rushers.

    Thanks,

    -GB2

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Gtown
    Posts
    4,246
    Frankly, I'm looking for more of a Formula 1 attack now that we have Chubb.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A-town in the Mile High
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by gtown53 View Post
    Frankly, I'm looking for more of a Formula 1 attack now that we have Chubb.
    Would that be something like:

    Chubb-Harris-Walker-Miller front 4?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    14,688
    Quote Originally Posted by 16TheSnake View Post
    Good morning Broncos Country,

    By now most NFL fans are familiar with the NASCAR defense made popular by the NYG front 4 during their SB window years. 4 DL all pass rush specialists generating pressure via matchups.

    With the most recent NFL draft in the books and a new revived Bronco roster I wanted to discuss the viability of a different concept. No doubt the coaches in Bronco Country can place this concept in historical perspective and provide valuable feedback.

    Blitzkrieg (German for "Lightning War"): Used to describe a superior unrelenting strike force with speed and agility

    We have a myriad of pass rushing specialists that are more 3-4 LB types then 4-3 DE types (NASCAR) although some do fit either mold.

    The Blitzkrieg concept is simple: Place the best 7 "pass rushing LB types" on the field as the front 7 in an obvious passing situation. Have all 7 standing up (2 point stance) at the LOS with 5/7 rushing and 2/7 dropping back into coverage... and the opposing offense has no idea which 5 are coming and which 2 are dropping into coverage.

    Example of Blitzkrieg formation:

    Ray - Barret - Miller - Walker - Marshall - Chubb - Holland

    Imagine if you are an OL and you get to the LOS and see those 7 all standing up in a Blitz look and no idea which 1 is the Mike, which ones are coming or which ones are dropping. The attack must be different each time to keep the offense in complete darkness and unable to make the correct blocking read.

    Could this Blitzkrieg concept actually work in obvious passing situations?
    Would it be as effective as the design indicates?
    Has this type of attack been used historically and did it work?

    Let me know your thoughts (especially the coaches).

    -GB2
    I think the biggest issue against it would be screen passes. It would open up screen passes very nicely.

    It would also become predictable who is coming and who is dropping, based on that you'd have to essentially drop one of the last outside 2, otherwise a RB swing is going big.

    You're also going cover 0, essentially (dropping players could have a tough time getting into coverage on quick passes) against a stacked formation, or even a bunch, things could get very ugly, very quickly.

    I would also ask what the adjustment would be if the offense goes with 5 receivers? One of those 7 has to adjust, otherwise you've got an uncovered man. EDIT: If you get a 5 receiver look v this and a mobile QB, you'e really opening yourself up to the QB running for big gains.

    I'm reminded of the Pittsburgh v Denver playoff game in 2005, the Broncos were doing something similar (formation wise and bringing a lot, not personnel) and Pittsburgh just kept 7 or 8 in protection every play and let their 2 receivers run themselves open.

    It's an interesting idea, and in a one time thing could be very beneficial, but if used a lot in multiple games, it could be a big negative.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    31,052
    Quote Originally Posted by 16TheSnake View Post
    Thanks Coach,

    Why didn't it work in your opinion?

    On 3rd and long (situational) I can't see how it would fail with the right personnel.

    *note: thanks on the correction, Krieg and Craig through me off, OP editted

    -GB2
    Scouting indicates what to expect. If seven Backers are standing up in two-point stance in the box, the QB sees it and checks to a run. That personnel package in that alignment can't stop run plays that have been installed in the game plan for that contingency.

    Similar situations have occurred in the past two seasons. Denver uses a split front with two D-linemen in three-point as 2/3 techs with two standup 5/9 techs in a nickel package with five, sometimes six DBs, in 3rd & long situations. Usually there are two Backers somewhere in the box. I used to wonder why teams didn't on run that alignment. Eventually they did. Can't remember offhand which game and opponent, but it was probably in 2016 and opponents were picking up first downs on 3rd & long by running against that alignment/personnel package. I think they mostly fixed it last year probably by lining the two Backers opposite the A Gaps.
    Last edited by samparnell; 05-02-2018 at 06:21 PM. Reason: end punctuation
    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    31,052
    Quote Originally Posted by gtown53 View Post
    Frankly, I'm looking for more of a Formula 1 attack now that we have Chubb.
    IndyCar would be more exciting IMO.
    "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    A-town in the Mile High
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    Scouting indicates what to expect. If seven Backers are standing up in two-point stance in the box, the QB sees it and checks to a run. That personnel package in that alignment can't stop run plays that have been installed in the game plan for that contingency.

    Similar situations have occurred in the past two seasons. Denver uses a split front with two D-linemen in three-point as 2/3 techs with two standup 5/9 techs in a nickel package with five, sometimes six DBs, in 3rd & long situations. Usually there are two Backers somewhere in the box. I used to wonder why teams didn't on run that alignment. Eventually they did. Can't remember offhand which game and opponent, but it was probably in 2016 and opponents were picking up first downs on 3rd & long by running against that alignment/personnel package. I think they mostly fixed it last year probably by lining the two Backers opposite the A Gaps.
    Exceptional explanation!

    I think, like the previous poster, random spot only. It makes sense that it would be less effective the more its seen and adjusted for.

    Thanks,

    -GB2

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,350
    Quote Originally Posted by justabroncosfan View Post
    We were fortunate the Brown's had two of the first four picks, otherwise there's no way Chubb would have still been available at 5. I wonder if Elway's move of bringing the whole front office to see Baker Mayfield's pro day was a successful smoke screen or if Elway just got lucky.
    Easy to say that when Mayfield wasn't even close to being available at 5, if he was then he could have very well have been selected.
    BCMB Div 1 - Rollin' with Mahomies

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,350
    Quote Originally Posted by justabroncosfan View Post
    I can see the potential in trading him, but to some extent we'd be trading for an unknown value while we know what we have in Shane Ray. Chubb's addition will help everyone on the defensive line (I'm thinking Wolfe most of all) so I'm in favor of keeping Shane Ray so that the Bronco's have a stable of fresh pass rushers ready to go for 60 minutes.

    Ultimately I think money will be the deciding factor, and I suspect Ray could make more money elsewhere so he may leave. I'd like him to stay in any case.
    Oh he'll leave! He is from KC and has a Chiefs tattoo so it is just a matter of time. It would be in John's interest to trade Ray now for an O-Linemen and make sure he doesn't play out the season and go to the Chiefs.
    BCMB Div 1 - Rollin' with Mahomies

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,350
    Quote Originally Posted by ArchAngel View Post
    This is my BIGGEST fear. A team can be filled with all world talent but if you have mediocre coaching and game planning, all that talent is for naught. VJ and Joe Woods were a duo disaster. I hope theyve learned from last season and stop fixing what isnt broke (defense) and let the best players play and put them in position to be successful.
    I believe this is where Kubiak continues his work and can give VJ the feedback he needs, because we all know that VJ does not have his ear to the ground and the whole world can see him doing a death march and talk about it in in all the media but VJ never seems to get a clue. It looks bad if Elway has to step in and point these issues out to VJ, but coming from Kubiak John knows he doesn't have to interfere because John trusts Gary. It may take a couple of years until VJ gets it figured out and Kubiak may not be needed as much but in the mean time, John has VJ covered. Now John can sleep at night.
    BCMB Div 1 - Rollin' with Mahomies

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •