Please, No More "rush Three"

[hawkprey]

The Texans had two long touchdown drives in the 4th quarter on our defense, and what were we doing? Rushing three every time. No surprise that we got dominated, gassed, and winded.

Rushing only three is extremely ineffective for a number of reasons.

1) [u]No pressure.[/u] Of course, it's designed to prevent a "big play". Instead, it allows their offense to get first downs consistently and eat up the clock. When you drop eight, you're playing into the hands of a good offense. They have time because all of the pressure on our secondary. You need to keep the pressure at their end, not ours.

2) [u]Why have Ngata and Suggs if they're going to be double-teamed on every play?[/u] When you rush three, those three rushers are going to have to go against 5 or more lineman guaranteed. Not even Suggs and Ngata can be consistently good against a double-team. That means replacing them with backups wouldn't change much. Anyone behind a wall of lineman is going to stall.

3) [u]Rushing with four is twice as effective.[/u] I shouldn't have to tell you that 3 up front and 8 in the backfield is unbalanced. If you rush one more guy, you are increasing the pressure 50%. Two rushers are now in single coverage rather than one guy in double-coverage, and they will get to the QB much faster that way. Meanwhile in the backfield, all you lose is 1/8 of the coverage.

4) [u]Our team is getting winded.[/u] While we don't give up big plays this way, we are allowing teams to methodically drive down the field. The plays are also lasting longer because the QB has so much time. Our defense plays much, much better when they are not winded (see: last game). So stop letting that happen!

5) [u]We are rendering Ed Reed useless.[/u] Ed can't get picks when QBs have eight seconds to throw the ball. No one can. We aren't allowing him to make a play because there's so much time to pick a good location to throw the ball. If a receiver is locked down, the QB just won't throw it that way. He can make great decisions and we can't jump any routes.

6) [u]You don't have to blitz to bring pressure.[/u] I know we've gotten gashed on blitzes before. But we have the personnel to get pressure with only four or five rushers. How do you think we got that pick yesterday to end the game? Mattison needs to stop being afraid that we'll give up a big play and send a some more heat.


You have Ngata and Suggs. You have Ed Reed in the backfield. You even have Ray Lewis at your disposal. Why are we giving offenses a chance? Enough about Cam. We aren't giving our offense enough possessions. Get them off the field.

[Ed_Reed20]

When guys weren't completed spent, Mattison sent four d-lineman after the QB.

[PuRock]

It's tough to send a heavy blitz when you guys are dead tired. 3 man rush is meant to compensate the tiredness and help against the pass. It didn't work.

Heavy blitzes with a bunch of dead tired guy probably would've led to even quicker scores.

[NeoZer0]

The defense was not tired when they started the 3 man rush. The defense was tired BECAUSE of the 3 man rush!!!

[Alexir]

Games like this where I dont understand why we got rid of Barnes.

[Ngata92NT]

Don't worry, Mattison and I have been working on an all new new defensive formation. I don't want to give away anything, but it involves dropping 10 into coverage and launching Ngata out of a catapult.

[Twistidfunk]

All good defenses NEVER rush three people starting in the 3rd freakin quarter. Take a look around the league. Hell, we used to do it. Good teams save it for lock down time when the game is out of hand.
This should have been the Ravens last night.....

I also think that the D was gassed partly because we only rushed 3.

It is inexcusable to let up the pressure like that. If something is working, why change it? You have got to keep bringing it. This is Ravens football, [i]<deleted>

[/i]We just watched something typical of bad football teams like the Bills or Lions and Bengals who find new ways to lose every week. Now the Jets are in that bunch but I really really do not want the Ravens to go down that road. We almost are better off playing from behind.

[bdravens]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1292353306' post='575248']
Games like this where I dont understand why we got rid of Barnes.
[/quote]
Agreed. And it would definitely help to have Kindle right now...

[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1292356658' post='575381']
All good defenses NEVER rush three people starting in the 3rd freakin quarter. Take a look around the league. Hell, we used to do it. Good teams save it for lock down time when the game is out of hand.
This should have been the Ravens last night.....

I also think that the D was gassed partly because we only rushed 3.

It is inexcusable to let up the pressure like that. If something is working, why change it? You have got to keep bringing it. This is Ravens football, [i]<deleted>[/i]

We just watched something typical of bad football teams like the Bills or Lions and Bengals who find new ways to lose every week. Now the Jets are in that bunch but I really really do not want the Ravens to go down that road. We almost are better off playing from behind.
[/quote]

It bothers me that our coordinators change the plans when we have a big lead like that. We completely changed our gameplan in the 2nd half, and I can't understand why you wouldn't stick with what got us to a 28-7 lead. It's like the guys are afraid to blow people out for some reason, because we have the capability to do so.

[hawkprey]

[quote name='PuRock' timestamp='1292353097' post='575240']
It's tough to send a heavy blitz when you guys are dead tired. 3 man rush is meant to compensate the tiredness and help against the pass. It didn't work.

Heavy blitzes with a bunch of dead tired guy probably would've led to even quicker scores.
[/quote]

As I and Nerozer0 (thank you BTW) have said, the three man rush is WHY the defense is getting tired. It elongates the play and increases the number of plays.

Three man rushes result in methodical drives of short first downs that eat up the clock. Our guys would not be tired if they got to the quarterback and either forced sacks and turnovers or a big play (given up). But their offense wouldn't have many big plays because the defense plays well when they aren't tired and we have Ed Reed scouring the backfield, not just playing the "over" in one of many double-teams.

[bmorefan444]

I understand that we don't want to give up the big play, but we need to disrupt the quarterback when he is slicing through our defense. Bring a little heat every now and then so Schaub isn't so comfortable.

[The King]

Does anyone else remember The Drive? Elway pulled that off because the Browns only rushed three all game, and it didn't matter that he was going up against probably the best cornerback tandem in NFL history. Given that much time, receivers will get open, and no one can cover for ten seconds. A three man rush simply will not work to create pressure, and without pressure on the QB coverage cannot be effective.

[hawkprey]

One more point:

Think about this: when we drop 8, we're not getting interceptions or turnovers because there's no pressure on their offense, right? (Both our INTs came when we rushed 4.) That means all Schaub has to do is complete one of four attempts to pick up a first down. We had success breaking up some passes, but four in a row is impossible. That's the key flaw in rushing only three every down.

[omar586]

no more 3man rush, it suks, it killed the D,

[CapoRocky]

It sure seemed that our ability to pressure the QB dropped almost 75% in the second half. There was no pressure on the TD and 2-point conversion to tie the game. We need to seriously address this before the playoffs begin.

[Ed_Reed_Pick_Six]

Agree, the formation did not work time and time again.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='The King' timestamp='1292360626' post='575466']
Does anyone else remember The Drive? Elway pulled that off because the Browns only rushed three all game, and it didn't matter that he was going up against probably the best cornerback tandem in NFL history. Given that much time, receivers will get open, and no one can cover for ten seconds. [b]A three man rush simply will not work to create pressure,[/b] and without pressure on the QB coverage cannot be effective.
[/quote]
Well, it does work if the defense is playing against Baltimore or Pittsburgh, but I agree... death to three man rushes!

[PeRK82]

I ve been saying it all year, nothing good comes out of it, i think are secondary is playing well enough and has been. the only time are secondary messes up is when it blown coverage, miss communication.

I think we need to atleast rush 5 everytime , let alone 4 , but never ever 3.

Im sick of the Prevent b.s

[PeRK82]

[quote name='bmorefan444' timestamp='1292359495' post='575450']
I understand that we don't want to give up the big play, but we need to disrupt the quarterback when he is slicing through our defense. Bring a little heat every now and then so Schaub isn't so comfortable.
[/quote]

But you do understand everytime we rush 3 we more than likely give up a big play, its happenned every game this year with every team we have played , and we have played some crappy offenses.

[bmorefan444]

[quote name='PeRK82' timestamp='1292394189' post='576099']
But you do understand everytime we rush 3 we more than likely give up a big play, its happenned every game this year with every team we have played , and we have played some crappy offenses.
[/quote]

When we have a 3 man rush, we don't give up the big play but a bunch of smaller ones that add up into a 99 yard drive.

[NeoZer0]

3 man rush = Ngata and Suggs double teamed 3rd man 1 on 1. Who is the 3rd man? Cory Redding, Kelly Gregg, does it matter? 4 man rush = Either Ngata or Suggs double teamed, not both. Everyone else 1 on 1. Ngata single man = Sack or hurry, Suggs single man = Sack or hurry. Any questions?

So pick? 3 on 5 or 4 on 5? Which is better?

Long story short, 3 man rush sucks and needs to be used now and again, not used consistently.

3 man rush lost the New England game, almost lost us the game in Houston.

[ravensfan160]

[quote name='NeoZer0' timestamp='1292426123' post='576229']
3 man rush = Ngata and Suggs double teamed 3rd man 1 on 1. Who is the 3rd man? Cory Redding, Kelly Gregg, does it matter? 4 man rush = Either Ngata or Suggs double teamed, not both. Everyone else 1 on 1. Ngata single man = Sack or hurry, Suggs single man = Sack or hurry. Any questions?

So pick? 3 on 5 or 4 on 5? Which is better?

Long story short, 3 man rush sucks and needs to be used now and again, not used consistently.

3 man rush lost the New England game, almost lost us the game in Houston.
[/quote]
Well said.

Frankly, I cringed when I heard Harbaugh say that they decided to change up their defense at halftime to the 3 man rush. Why would you do that?! Except for one blown coverage by Reed at the end of the 1st half we dominated the Texans offense. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Also...I think the argument could be made that either Mattison or Harbaugh (if Harbaugh told Mattison what to do) is insane calling all the 3 man rushes. Afterall, the definiton of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result.

[berad]

[quote name='NeoZer0' timestamp='1292426123' post='576229']
3 man rush = Ngata and Suggs double teamed 3rd man 1 on 1. Who is the 3rd man? Cory Redding, Kelly Gregg, does it matter? 4 man rush = Either Ngata or Suggs double teamed, not both. Everyone else 1 on 1. Ngata single man = Sack or hurry, Suggs single man = Sack or hurry. Any questions?

So pick? 3 on 5 or 4 on 5? Which is better?

Long story short, 3 man rush sucks and needs to be used now and again, not used consistently.

3 man rush lost the New England game, almost lost us the game in Houston.
[/quote]

That's over simplification to believe that every time Suggs or Ngata gets a one-on-one they'll get a sack or a hurry. As good as both are, it's not always the case - especially in Haloti's case.

[NeoZer0]

[quote name='berad' timestamp='1292426905' post='576244']
That's over simplification to believe that every time Suggs or Ngata gets a one-on-one they'll get a sack or a hurry. As good as both are, it's not always the case - especially in Haloti's case.
[/quote]


But still, single man on Suggs or Ngata is better than hem getting doubled the whole second half.

[berad]

[quote name='NeoZer0' timestamp='1292427191' post='576247']
But still, single man on Suggs or Ngata is better than hem getting doubled the whole second half.
[/quote]

I agree with that. I'm not a fan of the 3-man rush, either. Has never worked, going back years...

[flynismo]

[quote name='PeRK82' timestamp='1292393930' post='576096']<br />I ve been saying it all year, nothing good comes out of it, i think are secondary is playing well enough and has been. the only time are secondary messes up is when it blown coverage, miss communication.<br /><br />I think we need to atleast rush 5 everytime , let alone 4 , but never ever 3.<br /><br />Im sick of the Prevent b.s<br />[/quote]


who is miss communication? Is she hawt?

Lemme ask you a question. How good is Carr, Webb and Wilson? I hope that your answer is "the best trio of CB in the NFL" because if we blitz 5 all three of them are going to be playing one on one every time we send in 5.

[ravensfan160]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1292428256' post='576255']
who is miss communication? Is she hawt?

Lemme ask you a question. How good is Carr, Webb and Wilson? I hope that your answer is "the best trio of CB in the NFL" because if we blitz 5 all three of them are going to be playing one on one every time we send in 5.
[/quote]
How about just doing whatever we did in the first half. Harbaugh acknowledged they specifically changed the defense in the 2nd half in an attempt to stop the big play. If it ain't broke don't fix it! And when it is broke, then fix it!

[flynismo]

[quote name='ravensfan160' timestamp='1292426769' post='576241']Afterall, the definiton of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result.[/quote]

no, it isn't lol ... Just some quote from an unknown source.

But I know what you are saying. Sometimes the 3 man rush is ineffective. More often than not though, it is. You ever notice the only time people make a big deal out of it is if our defense has a bad game?

[NeoZer0]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1292428866' post='576265']
no, it isn't lol ... Just some quote from an unknown source.

But I know what you are saying. Sometimes the 3 man rush is ineffective. More often than not though, it is. You ever notice the only time people make a big deal out of it is if our defense has a bad game?
[/quote]

Not I, I can't stand running 3 man rush unless it's everyone once and a while.

[MoJoe1]

If I'm not mistaking the 3 man rush has done nothing but crush us. If you can't get to the QB and he has all the time in the world, it is useless.

[ravensfan160]

[quote name='MoJoe1' timestamp='1292441615' post='576458']
If I'm not mistaking the 3 man rush has done nothing but crush us. If you can't get to the QB and he has all the time in the world, it is useless.
[/quote]
I agree. Used occationally, a 3 man rush can be used to surprise QB's who are in rhythm and throw their timing off by forcing them to hold the ball longer than expected.

It should NOT be a base defense. Except maybe against young QB's who lack the patience to wait for his receivers to get open. Against veteran QB's we get torched as we saw Monday night and other times this season.