3 man pass rush

[TejasCat]

I kinda understand running it late in the game with a 2 score lead, so we can drop 8 back and keep them inbounds and clock running, but we also rushed 3 a few other times and it never worked.

Why do we do it? We never get pressure with 3, and the QB has enough time to find someone open.

 

[T_Levine]

Have to agree. Watched other games yesterday. Almost all, playing with a lead late in 4th q rushed four. We always rush 3

 

[iskaboo]

I cringe each time I see three down lineman. I do understand the rationale at the end of a game, but I still hate it.

 

[d'son d]

It's just to put the definition of insanity in a visual perspective: "doing something the same way over and over and expecting a different result " just about sums that up. While the rationale for it exists, watching it happen is never a pleasant thing.

 

[ToledoCat]

It's just to put the definition of insanity in a visual perspective: "doing something the same way over and over and expecting a different result " just about sums that up. While the rationale for it exists, watching it happen is never a pleasant thing.

 

[ToledoCat]

The 3 Man Rush has been a major failure over and over again. We cycle through the misery periodically. After watching the Nebraska loss - it was hard not to think about our loss there and the "Immaculate Protection" where the Nebraskas QB had ridiculous time to throw and had to put every pound and bit of his energy into the throwjust to get to the goal line... had we not let him get to the scrimmage line with time to adjust his weight into the throw - he could not have made it to the end zone. That was a low point. I hate moving away from the defensive scheme that put us ahead. Oh Well we also can remember the Minnesota game we won the same way.. Always take the good and the bad. Great win. Hope we get Kuhar back - wow - solid group.

 

[KramerCat91]

With the 3 man rush against 6 blockers, each of our DL was double teamed and consequently it was impossible to get any pressure. If we had rushed 4, 2 of our DL would have had a shot at getting pressure.

 

[Katatonic]

It's just to put the definition of insanity in a visual perspective: "doing something the same way over and over and expecting a different result " just about sums that up. While the rationale for it exists, watching it happen is never a pleasant thing.

Yep, yep, yep - it still amazes me that DCs think that the 3 man rush is a good idea (unless, maybe, if you have dOSU's or 'Bama's D-line).

Given enough time, a receiver will eventually get open.

But then again, if facing really awful O-line like Penn State's - sending 2 is enough (Hack got sacked even when Temple only sent 2).

 

[Katatonic]

The 3 Man Rush has been a major failure over and over again. We cycle through the misery periodically. After watching the Nebraska loss - it was hard not to think about our loss there and the "Immaculate Protection" where the Nebraskas QB had ridiculous time to throw and had to put every pound and bit of his energy into the throwjust to get to the goal line... had we not let him get to the scrimmage line with time to adjust his weight into the throw - he could not have made it to the end zone. That was a low point. I hate moving away from the defensive scheme that put us ahead. Oh Well we also can remember the Minnesota game we won the same way.. Always take the good and the bad. Great win. Hope we get Kuhar back - wow - solid group.

Exactly.

Put some pressure on the QB and the QB wou;dn't be able to properly step into his heave or he would have to throw before the receivers get into the endzone.

One thing for sure, despite his issues, if Bo were still coaching the Huskers, they wouldn't have sent a 3 man rush.

 

[Just Gary]

I know everyone wants to complain about the 3-man rush but.....it worked yesterday. It is agonizing to watch, however before we went to the 3-man rush, twice in that fourth quarter Stanford receivers got behind our defense and if they would have caught the ball, things may have been different. It was extremely smart yesterday to do what we did. In the end, Stanford never score a touchdown and if the only complaint is that it is agonizing to watch, then I'll take it.

 

[shakes3858]

Everyone is a DC on Sunday.... But yet no one here is DC on Saturday.... We won the game. The 3 man prevent may have given up yards.... What it didn't do is give up the game against Stanford.

Is Mike Hankitz perfect? Hell no... Would I follow him into war (given war is a metaphor for playing defense in college football game). Hell yeah.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Everyone is a DC on Sunday.... But yet no one here is DC on Saturday.... We won the game. The 3 man prevent may have given up yards.... What it didn't do is give up the game against Stanford.

Is Mike Hankitz perfect? Hell no... Would I follow him into war (given war is a metaphor for playing defense in college football game). Hell yeah.

I wouldn't mind sending a DB around the blind side end for a blitz Ismaeli style though. Load up on one end, if they have no back in the backfield to protect because they are sending 5 receivers, then we have a good chance for a sack, and still have 7 back to cover 5. More importantly, they would only have an option to go short, and if we have the nickel and a safety back to help, our defender can be aggressive and step in front of a screen (almost the only way out, and remember, they are trying to go for the sideline) and then you may have a pick six.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Everyone is a DC on Sunday.... But yet no one here is DC on Saturday.... We won the game. The 3 man prevent may have given up yards.... What it didn't do is give up the game against Stanford.

Is Mike Hankitz perfect? Hell no... Would I follow him into war (given war is a metaphor for playing defense in college football game). Hell yeah.

I wouldn't mind sending a DB around the blind side end for a blitz Ismaeli style though. Load up on one end, if they have no back in the backfield to protect because they are sending 5 receivers, then we have a good chance for a sack, and still have 7 back to cover 5. More importantly, they would only have an option to go short, and if we have the nickel and a safety back to help, our defender can be aggressive and step in front of a screen (almost the only way out, and remember, they are trying to go for the sideline) and then you may have a pick six.

 

[shakes3858]

I wouldn't mind sending a DB around the blind side end for a blitz Ismaeli style though. Load up on one end, if they have no back in the backfield to protect because they are sending 5 receivers, then we have a good chance for a sack, and still have 7 back to cover 5. More importantly, they would only have an option to go short, and if we have the nickel and a safety back to help, our defender can be aggressive and step in front of a screen (almost the only way out, and remember, they are trying to go for the sideline) and then you may have a pick six.

Sunday night DC's love em

And the first time they do exactly what you said and get beat deep, you'll be the first one screaming.


Did you happen to see the monster sack by Henry? I'd have to see the replay but memory says they did a far more complex version of what you said.

Bottom line is we held the #21 team in the country without a touchdown and 6 points... Hankwitz was right whether he sent 3, 7, -5, or 52 l after then QB.

Anyone who questions the defensive game plan vs Stanford lacks any leg to stand on. However hank held Stanford to 6 was correct.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Sunday night DC's love em

And the first time they do exactly what you said and get beat deep, you'll be the first one screaming.


Did you happen to see the monster sack by Henry? I'd have to see the replay but memory says they did a far more complex version of what you said.

Bottom line is we held the #21 team in the country without a touchdown and 6 points... Hankwitz was right whether he sent 3, 7, -5, or 52 l after then QB.

Anyone who questions the defensive game plan vs Stanford lacks any leg to stand on. However hank held Stanford to 6 was correct.

First of all, I loved the D's performance (see my many posts during and after the game). I did not question the game plan or even the 3 man rush in this thread at all. Just said I did not mind if we threw in a blind side blitz with it. I am just making a note that instead of pure vanilla, I wouldn't mind adding a blitz to it. The Henry sack is exactly why I would do this - and I would have loved to have seen it during the last drive.

Finally, I would never scream much less be the first one to do so (again, you project BS out of nothing, but then that's your MO) about getting a bit more aggressive. I did not fault Fitz for going for 2 against Auburn, in fact I said I loved the call. I would love throwing a blitz into the vanilla 3 man rush for the same reason. It is worth the risk. And if you risk it and lose, so be it. But, I think the dividends outweigh the risk. Playing scared is not my style and I would prefer not to do it. Ask Nebraska if playing it "safe" was the right call.

 

[GlideCat]

I know everyone wants to complain about the 3-man rush but.....it worked yesterday. It is agonizing to watch, however before we went to the 3-man rush, twice in that fourth quarter Stanford receivers got behind our defense and if they would have caught the ball, things may have been different. It was extremely smart yesterday to do what we did. In the end, Stanford never score a touchdown and if the only complaint is that it is agonizing to watch, then I'll take it.

Nothing to me is more agonizing to watch as when the Cats launch a blitz and it gets picked up. Time seems to slow to a crawl as their quarterback gets to pick which open receiver will hurt us the most.

BUT...

I have never second guessed a coach for an aggressive play call. I will complain bitterly about the three man rush but will always give the DC credit for trying to dictate the pace of the play through blitzing.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Nothing to me is more agonizing to watch as when the Cats launch a blitz and it gets picked up. Time seems to slow to a crawl as their quarterback gets to pick which open receiver will hurt us the most.

BUT...

I have never second guessed a coach for an aggressive play call. I will complain bitterly about the three man rush but will always give the DC credit for trying to dictate the pace of the play through blitzing.

Exactly.