- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/15/19 at 2:49 pm to DmitriKaramazov
quote:
For example, imagine a QB sees a blitz coming and quickly slings the ball into the flat or underneath without moving. That counts as unpressured, even though it was a blitz.
Well, he wasn't pressured. Blitzed =/= pressured.
quote:
Conversely, imagine a QB sits in the pocket for three/four seconds without moving as routes develop, then climbs the pocket when a rusher finally reaches him and throws a long strike. That counts as "pressured," even though the pass rush was totally ineffectual by conventional standards and the QB had eight hours (hyperbole) to throw.
Climbing the pocket doesn't usually count as a pressure unless the pocket collapses from the interior. It's kind of arbitrary, but it's pretty much accepted that tackles let the ends run up field for this exact reason.
A "pressure" on a non-sack is usually the ends forcing the QB out of the pocket or the interior collapsing the pocket.
ETA: Obviously, it can also be when a QB makes a throw with bodies all around him from inside of the pocket. Big Ben is the king of this.
Hence the reason it can be very arbitrary.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 2:59 pm to RB10
quote:
Well, he wasn't pressured. Blitzed =/= pressured
Right, but the original poster drew the conclusion that the stats don't support a "mantra" of blitzing. However, if you are right about the definition, then the lower success rate on "unpressured" downs could still be attributable to blitzes. The stats dont tell you much about the efficacy of blitzes that force bad or hurried throws where the QB simply doesn't move from the spot.
If you wanted to really measure the effectiveness of blitzes, there are more straightforward statistics you could use, such as QB rating versus 3/4 rushers and QB rating versus 4+ rushers.
quote:
Climbing the pocket doesn't usually count as a pressure unless the pocket collapses from the interior. It's kind of arbitrary, but it's pretty much accepted that tackles let the ends run up field for this exact reason.
A "pressure" on a non-sack is usually the ends forcing the QB out of the pocket or the interior collapsing the pocket
Okay. Fair enough. Then change my hypothetical. Instead of climbing the pocket, the QB is flushed after 3/4 seconds and then throws a completion downfield. That would count as pressured, even though the pass rush was ineffective and the QB had lots of time to throw.
In any event, it doesn't seem you can draw many sound conclusions from the data, except that Trask seemed to throw better off of his spot.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:00 pm to DmitriKaramazov
quote:
How are "pressured" and "unpressured" defined in this context and who made that determination for purposes of compiling the statistics?
As someone else mentioned, typically it is based on whether the QB was forced to move in the pocket.
One thing for certain is that it's not necessarily counting blitzes. If you send 7 but no one gets pressure, then it doesn't count.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:01 pm to DmitriKaramazov
quote:
In any event, it doesn't seem you can draw many sound conclusions from the data, except that Trask seemed to throw better off of his spot.
I think you can draw the conclusion that the staff decided it was best to try and pressure Trask with just 4 because, as this stat points out, he's good against the blitz. I'm sure they saw that on the tape.
When it didn't work, they made the adjustment for the 2nd half.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:01 pm to bayou85
My guess is a play on which extra defenders aren't brought/blitzing players that ultimately ends in a sack (presumably by a DL)-?
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:18 pm to RB10
quote:
I think you can draw the conclusion that the staff decided it was best to try and pressure Trask with just 4 because, as this stat points out, he's good against the blitz. I'm sure they saw that on the tape. When it didn't work, they made the adjustment for the 2nd half.
We were clearly trying to keep everything in front of us and bank on an eventual error during a drive. We weren't forcing the issue on defense.
If you look at his stats vs no pressure, 89% of his yards (157 out of 177) were in the air, meaning YAC was limited to only 20 yards on 13 completions.
On plays where he was pressured, only 38% of his 133 yards were air yards. That means we gave up 82 YAC on only 10 completions when we got pressure.
That might be the most telling statistic of the game there. We know we've had tackling issues, so keeping everything in front may have been a better strategy than risking a big play after a missed tackle.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:18 pm to RB10
quote:
the staff decided it was best to try and pressure Trask with just 4 because, as this stat points out, he's good against the blitz. I'm sure they saw that on the tape.
He played a few series on the road at Kentucky. Most staffs would try to make a guy with limited road game experience uncomfortable. The game plan sucked in the first half but at least we made adjustments.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:19 pm to slackster
quote:
Seems a bit counterintuitive to the "blitz blitz blitz" mantra we've heard on here since Saturday.
I’m actually not surprised after re-watching. Mullen got smart in the 4th quarter and adjusted to the blitz. They started hitting screens and quick slants and having success on the two drives that eventually broke down in the red zone.
My biggest concern after watching again is less with whether we are playing zone or man and how predictable the defense is this year. I much prefer how they mixed the numbers up on pressure in the second half, but at least 90% of that additional pressure was between the tackles by three positions. And if you watch, they tip their hand often and rarely fake and back out. If the O Line can hold up for a couple of seconds, the QB knows exactly where to throw.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:19 pm to slackster
quote:
On plays where he was pressured, only 38% of his 133 yards were air yards. That means we gave up 82 YAC on only 10 completions when we got pressure.
That might be the most telling statistic of the game there. We know we've had tackling issues, so keeping everything in front may have been a better strategy than risking a big play after a missed tackle.
People keep talking about 4-D chest and nonsense like that, but I believe it's much more simple.
The staff doesn't trust LSU's back end in man coverage, or to blitz too often, because they have so much trouble tackling.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:21 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
He played a few series on the road at Kentucky. Most staffs would try to make a guy with limited road game experience uncomfortable. The game plan sucked in the first half but at least we made adjustments.
Most staffs trust their DBs to tackle. LSU's staff doesn't seem to, and for good reason.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:45 pm to RB10
quote:
Even when they didn't come, they showed it.
Not really. Go back and watch the second half. There were a few times that we showed five at the line and a guy dropped. There were a few exchanges where one man moved up while someone at the line dropped in coverage, mostly in the 3rd quarter. There were few if any fakes and disguises. All the drops and exchanges I saw occurred at the snap.
Other than that, if we showed pressure, we blitzed exactly where we showed. If we didn’t, the LBs and Safeties played back. Almost all extra pressure was between the tackles.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 3:52 pm to bayou85
quote:
How would one get an "Unpressured" sack?
I suspect it would be a coverage sack. Not sure what the metrics would be.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:08 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
I would love to see a drive by drive breakdown of when we pressured him and didn't pressure him...also how many blitzes we ran. These stats aren't showing the whole story. The eye test says we sucked at getting pressure on him and the HC even said that was the focus for the second half.
I didn’t keep a chart on the first half, but I only counted three blitzes of 5 or 6 men. 2 almost resulted in turnovers. We had a couple of exchanges, but it was mostly base looks with a 4 man rush, with 5 or 6 3 man rushes. Dropping 8 was completely ineffective.
Here are the first four drives of the 2nd half, or at least what the replay showed. They skips some plays here and there.
1st Drive
6 man blitz
4 man
5 man on run
5 man blitz
4 man
4 man on run
4 man on run
5 man line on goal line
2nd drive
4 man. Holding.
6 man. Run.
6 man blitz. Tipped pass.
4 man. Sack by Brooks on stunt.
3rd drive- Jones at QB
4 man. Run.
4 man with switch. Run.
5 man blitz. Hurry.
4th drive
5 man with a switch on outside. Should have been grounding.
3 man. Dropped 2 off line.
5 man on run
4 man. Stunt.
4 man with switch on run
4 man with 5th man drop
6 man on run
4 man on run
4 man. Stingley pick
I didn’t record UF’s last drive. I only marked the pass plays as blitzes, as 5 or 6 attacking the LOS on a run play may be a read or recognition of a play through film study. Also, goal line plays aren’t the same since you usually have a stacked line firing at the line. That’s not really a blitz.
We were aggressive during UF’s opening drive and it didn’t really work. Trask handled it pretty well, even though we did make him move some.
Pressure worked very well on UF’s back-to-back 3 and Out drives.
I did not note how often 4 men got pressure. They did a better job in the 2nd half of at least making Trask move around.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:19 pm to misey94
good stuff 
I would have loved to see us be more aggressive in the first half. I think we would have forced more turnovers and blown UF out.
I would have loved to see us be more aggressive in the first half. I think we would have forced more turnovers and blown UF out.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:21 pm to RB10
quote:
Most staffs trust their DBs to tackle. LSU's staff doesn't seem to, and for good reason.
Playing aggressive can help tackling at times
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:25 pm to slackster
quote:
I thought this was a pretty interesting breakdown. Trask was actually better, on average, against pressure, but he was more likely to make a big mistake (intecerptable percentage) and obviously more likely to get sacked.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but these seem to make sense to me.
If a QB is "unpressured" then that leaves more in coverage, making it theoretically more difficult to complete a pass. A QB is pressured then there is a much more likely result of chaos in the form of a sack, interception, throwaway, whatever.. A poised QB should be able to somewhat consistently read a blitz and identify who is likely to be open because of that pressure, pre-snap (which is one reason why Joe/Joe always try to get a read on the defense pre-snap)
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:30 pm to slackster
He threw two interceptions under pressure so there is that.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:30 pm to slackster
Considering Orgeron attributed the defense's success in the second half to pressuring the QB and mixing things up at the line of scrimmage, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they discussed halftime adjustments and that was one of them. And that directly led to the defense winning in the trenches in the second half. And even if there wasn't "pressure," however you would like to define that, there was pure fricking chaos up front for Florida. Shelvin and the whole line were jumping the snaps and were just wreaking havoc. Even if they didn't hit home, they made Trask jumpy.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 5:00 pm to slackster
You don’t want to be predictable on defense the same way you don’t want to be predictable on offense. There are only so many concepts in terms of an offense countering blitz.
I’ve said this before, and it’s not an argument against any particular point — but it’s worth noting that getting pressure doesn’t have to be about sending extra bodies.
I would have liked to see more pressure on Trask in the 1st half, but I also didn’t expect him to be as poised & accurate as he was. It wasn’t an insane strategy to come out playing coverage.
I’ve said this before, and it’s not an argument against any particular point — but it’s worth noting that getting pressure doesn’t have to be about sending extra bodies.
I would have liked to see more pressure on Trask in the 1st half, but I also didn’t expect him to be as poised & accurate as he was. It wasn’t an insane strategy to come out playing coverage.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 5:02 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News