Quote:Eh, I think a lot of this sounds great on paper.The Jaguars are 0% blitz on 3rd and short. But our base formation already stacks the box. 

 

You then have the 100% blitz on dime and 2 LBs, with Sergio as the blitzer. That's great, but how often do we line up this formation? If we line up this formation 10 times the entire year, is this sample size really an accurate depiction of a tendency?

 

Furthermore, the article confirms what most Jaguar fans already knew (at least those who paid attention): our tendencies changed later in the year when our pass rush just couldn't hit.

 

The 0% blitz on 3rd and short isn't a big deal considering that running plays and short passes are likely. My complaints weren't really about that specific instance. The 0% on 3rd and 12+ is a problem for multiple reasons. One they should have been able to be certain that a four man rush would come in that situation. The other is why haven't we run a single blitz all season in the most obvious of passing situations?

 

To your second point, odds are high that it is an infrequent play in our defense, but that still doesn't excuse the lack of effort put into differentiating the play on our side. If it was something along the lines of 75% of the time we blitz out of the package, I wouldn't really mind. Even if it was 100% of the we blitz, but there is no discernible pattern on who or how many blitzers there are, it wouldn't be that big of a deal either.

 

The problem lies in the fact that an opponent was able to determine that if Sergio is simply in the game while we are in dime and have two LBs, not only will we blitz, but there will be multiple blitzers and one of them is guaranteed to be Sergio. Part of using a blitz is to confuse the offensive linemen on who is coming, so they are not able to slide their protections to account for the additional pass rushers. If they are aware that if this formation comes up during the game that they will have to cover for two additional rushers and one is always Sergio, it makes the blitz much more ineffective. 

---