Which is more important, rushing the QB or defending the pass?

[OldDevilDawg]

If you had to chose one or the other, which would you prefer? I'll give my answer later, but my mind is already made up.

 

[Wunder.Noid]

Elite pass rushers.

 

[RTR...USN (ret)]

Any top tier QB will eat you alive unless you are able to apply pressure and affect his timing, throwing lanes, and ability to go through his progressions. With the modern game, and the rules tailored to the offense there is no such thing as a "shut down corner" anymore. I don't care how good a DB you are, you can only cover a good receiver so long before he's able to get separation. Sacks are not the tell all stat about how you affect a QB, but you MUST make him uncomfortable and get his timing off.
Short answer? Elite pass rush.

 

[Duckboy33]

Any top tier QB will eat you alive unless you are able to apply pressure and affect his timing, throwing lanes, and ability to go through his progressions. With the modern game, and the rules tailored to the offense there is no such thing as a "shut down corner" anymore. I don't care how good a DB you are, you can only cover a good receiver so long before he's able to get separation. Sacks are not the tell all stat about how you affect a QB, but you MUST make him uncomfortable and get his timing off.
Short answer? Elite pass rush.

This exactly. It's so hard for defensive backs to guard people for extending periods of time, even the most elite defensive backs will give up plays.

 

[ALADAMYA]

 

[Deathroll]

There is no substitute for consistent pressure on the QB - without blitzing.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

This exactly. It's so hard for defensive backs to guard people for extending periods of time, even the most elite defensive backs will give up plays.

Why would it be any harder to cover a player than it would be to break through the O-line? Sorry, I'm not buying it. I never excelled at athletics (putting it mildly) buy a game is won or lost in the trenches. Pressure straight up the middle is what I'm talking about. I only played one season. But defensive pressure is what makes it real.
If you have problems in the secondary, you're simply outmanned. I think it's embarrassing how many yards teams surrender. Thus isn't Madden. A good coach ought to know how to counter and make adjustments. In my opinion it's the depth of s team that makes the difference. I was never one for All-Stars.
People put too much focus on the quarterback. A good philosophy isn't about individual players but the team! Image and likeness can kiss my ass. That's not teamwotk. Penn State is sn example of s team going out there and kicking ass. Players are not what motivates. It's about playing to your full potential. Regardless of who is out three getting it done. I never bought into the idea that s player wins a Championship. Tom Brady has yet to win a Super Bowl. The Patriots have won many.

 

[RTR...USN (ret)]

Why would it be any harder to cover a player than it would be to break through the O-line? Sorry, I'm not buying it. I never excelled at athletics (putting it mildly) buy a game is won or lost in the trenches. Pressure straight up the middle is what I'm talking about. I only played one season. But defensive pressure is what makes it real.
If you have problems in the secondary, you're simply outmanned. I think it's embarrassing how many yards teams surrender. Thus isn't Madden. A good coach ought to know how to counter and make adjustments. In my opinion it's the depth of s team that makes the difference. I was never one for All-Stars.
People put too much focus on the quarterback. A good philosophy isn't about individual players but the team! Image and likeness can kiss my ass. That's not teamwotk. Penn State is sn example of s team going out there and kicking ass. Players are not what motivates. It's about playing to your full potential. Regardless of who is out three getting it done. I never bought into the idea that s player wins a Championship. Tom Brady has yet to win a Super Bowl. The Patriots have won many.

Why would it be any harder to cover a player than it would be to break through the O-line? Sorry, I'm not buying it. I never excelled at athletics (putting it mildly) buy a game is won or lost in the trenches. Pressure straight up the middle is what I'm talking about. I only played one season. But defensive pressure is what makes it real.
If you have problems in the secondary, you're simply outmanned. I think it's embarrassing how many yards teams surrender. Thus isn't Madden. A good coach ought to know how to counter and make adjustments. In my opinion it's the depth of s team that makes the difference. I was never one for All-Stars.
People put too much focus on the quarterback. A good philosophy isn't about individual players but the team! Image and likeness can kiss my ass. That's not teamwotk. Penn State is sn example of s team going out there and kicking ass. Players are not what motivates. It's about playing to your full potential. Regardless of who is out three getting it done. I never bought into the idea that s player wins a Championship. Tom Brady has yet to win a Super Bowl. The Patriots have won many.

Stick with relative proficiency and leave the actual football talk to people who know what the hell they’re talking about.

 

[NoleKing]

Pass rush

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Any top tier QB will eat you alive unless you are able to apply pressure and affect his timing, throwing lanes, and ability to go through his progressions. With the modern game, and the rules tailored to the offense there is no such thing as a "shut down corner" anymore. I don't care how good a DB you are, you can only cover a good receiver so long before he's able to get separation. Sacks are not the tell all stat about how you affect a QB, but you MUST make him uncomfortable and get his timing off.
Short answer? Elite pass rush.

In my experience it seems the team with the strongest, meanest and fastest players has a distinct advantage. As far as pressure that's obviously part of defensive strategy. If there isn't pressure then the opposing offense can improvise. I'm of the opinion, particularly with respect to the college game, and I assume we are limiting our scope to college, it's all about strategy.
In short if the opposing defense can penetrate, you develop s strategy to exploit that as a weakness, rather than s strength.
Admittedly I'm a novice as to all things football related, but it's possible to pass, pitch or shovel the football in those circumstances.
The simple fact is it isn't only about personnel. Surely people can be taught to strategize. Alabama has enjoyed an advantage which remains particular to personnel. You might wonder when or if that will ever become a detriment. I think it already is. Evidenced at least in part by the plethora of teams not even given preferential status by those running the show.
Liberty is s force to be reckoned with. Simple as that and I believe he was at Alabama. Hugh Freeze. Not long ago. Credit Alabama if you feel that's appropriate. I credit Freeze
They (Alabama) can't confiscate talent.
I credit Alabama for remaining relevant. But Liberty of all teams might have challenged. But for a field goal blocked against N. Carolina St. We are talking about Liberty. In the same sentence as Clemson. Amazing!

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

This exactly. It's so hard for defensive backs to guard people for extending periods of time, even the most elite defensive backs will give up plays.

Why would it be any harder for a defensive back to cover than it would be to penetrate the offense line? Someone still needs to answer that question. A defensive back can also defend his side of the line of scrimmage. I think the hardest assignment is to get beyond an offensive tackle. I understand there are things to which maybe a DB isn't necessarily talented in. But as far as the physical part I see absolutely no comparison. Defensive backs are on vacation compared to an interior lineman.

 

[batchaps4me]

Why would it be any harder for a defensive back to cover than it would be to penetrate the offense line? Someone still needs to answer that question. A defensive back can also defend his side of the line of scrimmage. I think the hardest assignment is to get beyond an offensive tackle. I understand there are things to which maybe a DB isn't necessarily talented in. But as far as the physical part I see absolutely no comparison. Defensive backs are on vacation compared to an interior lineman.

Simple, the rules changed to favor the offense. The rules changed allowing linemen downfield three yards instead of one struck at the core of defensive reads. This may not sound like much but that was the initial read for the linebackers to determine run or pass. Simply put, the effect was that the D can not be the as aggressive in their reads and therefore coverage is softer to compensate. Saban did not change his defensive and game control philosophy because he was bored or ran out of good defensive payers.

 

[LyquidMetal]

In my experience it seems the team with the strongest, meanest and fastest players has a distinct advantage. As far as pressure that's obviously part of defensive strategy. If there isn't pressure then the opposing offense can improvise. I'm of the opinion, particularly with respect to the college game, and I assume we are limiting our scope to college, it's all about strategy.
In short if the opposing defense can penetrate, you develop s strategy to exploit that as a weakness, rather than s strength.
Admittedly I'm a novice as to all things football related, but it's possible to pass, pitch or shovel the football in those circumstances.
The simple fact is it isn't only about personnel. Surely people can be taught to strategize. Alabama has enjoyed an advantage which remains particular to personnel. You might wonder when or if that will ever become a detriment. I think it already is. Evidenced at least in part by the plethora of teams not even given preferential status by those running the show.
Liberty is s force to be reckoned with. Simple as that and I believe he was at Alabama. Hugh Freeze. Not long ago. Credit Alabama if you feel that's appropriate. I credit Freeze
They (Alabama) can't confiscate talent.
I credit Alabama for remaining relevant. But Liberty of all teams might have challenged. But for a field goal blocked against N. Carolina St. We are talking about Liberty. In the same sentence as Clemson. Amazing!

If I'm correct. Freeze may have interviewed at BAMA for the oc job a few years back. That's it.
Liberty might have challenged? BAMA? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Maybe for this butt babble belt thing some bandy about.
But, uh, did you see the way BAMA plastered osu for the, you know TROPHY?

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

If I'm correct. Freeze may have interviewed at BAMA for the oc job a few years back. That's it.
Liberty might have challenged? BAMA? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Maybe for this butt babble belt thing some bandy about.
But, uh, did you see the way BAMA plastered osu for the, you know TROPHY?

All I do is post what I consider to be relevant information. I said Liberty nearly ran the table. Is that an exaggeration? No. I'll be fair, because I AM fair. Had they beaten N. Carolina St. A game they very nearly won, didn't (obviously) and unlike SOME people vI know I make no excuses for losing games I (speaking metaphorically) might have won!
That's all Im asking. I'm not asking for the Moon. I don't want to EVER (and I mean EVER)! Hear again why Alabama, Georgia, Florida, S. Carolina, Tennessee or WHOMEVER clearly DNGAF about beating Liberty, Coastal Carolina, Arkansas St , Boise St., Charleston S. , Or X, Y, Z.
I don't want you hear it because it's blasphemous, at least to my train of thought.
It's also poor sportsmanship. I remember in grade school occasionally a team without any business being on the field would ride yo the occasion and pull the upset. It didn't happen very often, but when it did (and we are talking about grade school here) the excuse was always the same. You know,vee weren't really trying to win don't you? Because if we'd been trying, it would have been a rout, obviously, so you can't count it the same as if we'd taken it seriously (or something to that effect). Maybe that shit flies in grade school, I don't know. It surprised me, however, because I always suspected the opposite. The dog finally got his day. But the sun set on the dog, immediately afterwards for some reason.

I am more surprised to see it happen at the collegiate level. I'll maybe buy that you didn't expect to lose. That maybe if you'd known ahead of time what the result would be you might have taken more time and preparation. Maybe even beaten us soundly. But given that both teams prepare to win and the fact any opponent is deserving of your attention, to me,.in that circumstance, losing only proves the better team won.
So let's save the excuses for a rainy day.
The season is actually too short to ever blame a osst on not being prepared. Even Nick Saban disappointed me when he failed to congratulate Utah after the Sugar Bowl. He assumed responsibility, but didn't allow Utah to revel in their win. A win they deserved! To me that's not s champion.
A champion admits when he's been beaten.
Saban came close but not close enough for my taste. I don't really care if you think Liberty would be crushed by Alabama. Utah wasn't. Actually Utah played with a chip on they shoulder. Saban had disrepected Utah. In s way they more Utah players angry. Yeah I suppose it's possible Alabama wasn't as interested in playing Utah as they might otherwise had been. Big deal! If you agrer to play you are responsible for losing. Simple as that. No excuses. That's the aggravating part. If you aren't there to win forfeit. O.K? In short quit making excused when you lose! O.k.? TYVM. Plus there's really no excuse I can think of other than poor sportsmanship got not trying. What if after besting the Sivirte they claimed they weren't interested in besting the U.S? Would that shit have flown? I don't think do. Why not? It's poor sportsmanship that's why not. Why should it be any different in intercollegiate arletics Own your mediocrity if that's what it's about.
We sucked that's why X, Y, X win. O.K. fine. I can live with that but wait making excuses. The people we had on the field sucked ass.I can learn very either that but nit the 'we actually weren't trying to win'. GMAFB. The wouldn't have scheduled the game, if that were the case and you could forfeit it.

 

[Bama Believer]

Any top tier QB will eat you alive unless you are able to apply pressure and affect his timing, throwing lanes, and ability to go through his progressions. With the modern game, and the rules tailored to the offense there is no such thing as a "shut down corner" anymore. I don't care how good a DB you are, you can only cover a good receiver so long before he's able to get separation. Sacks are not the tell all stat about how you affect a QB, but you MUST make him uncomfortable and get his timing off.
Short answer? Elite pass rush.

This !

 

[Duckboy33]

Why would it be any harder for a defensive back to cover than it would be to penetrate the offense line? Someone still needs to answer that question. A defensive back can also defend his side of the line of scrimmage. I think the hardest assignment is to get beyond an offensive tackle. I understand there are things to which maybe a DB isn't necessarily talented in. But as far as the physical part I see absolutely no comparison. Defensive backs are on vacation compared to an interior lineman.

I think you're confused about the question or possibly misread it. The question is about whether it's more important to have elite pass rushers or elite corners. We all seem to be agreement that elite pass rushers are more important.

My point was that because of the nature of the rules, it's so hard to be a defensive back if your team isn't getting any pressure. It's almost worthless to have good corners if you can't rush the passer at all.

 

[OldDevilDawg]

So here's my answer. Good to know I'm in the majority. Pass rush hands down. Lots of reasons have been posted by all of you. IMO, the game, no matter what rule changes take place, will always be won in the trenches.

For a military analogy, no matter how good your Intel is, no matter how good your Air Support is, no matter how good your supporting Supply Chain is, your frontline Infantry will always be the deciding factor in every ground battle. Football will always be an old school ground battle that is won or lost by the big uglies in the trenches.

Upsetting your opponent's battle plan will always be the most important aspect of winning the war.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

I think you're confused about the question or possibly misread it. The question is about whether it's more important to have elite pass rushers or elite corners. We all seem to be agreement that elite pass rushers are more important.

My point was that because of the nature of the rules, it's so hard to be a defensive back if your team isn't getting any pressure. It's almost worthless to have good corners if you can't rush the passer at all.

So we are talking about coverage in the secondary against pressure against the pass. O.K. but unless I'm mistaken, and I probably am, not having played football, it would seem any defense would be about coverage. Meaning defensive pressure would be applied within the package, itself.
I remember Oregon's defense. Vs. Auburn.
It seemed to rely heavily on pressure.
I like how teams play package defense. I think that's what makes a team successful.
I wish there was some kind of tutorial. I don't understand the difference between nickel and dime but that's probably what we are getting at, in a roundabout way.

 

[Wunder.Noid]

So we are talking about coverage in the secondary against pressure against the pass. O.K. but unless I'm mistaken, and I probably am, not having played football, it would seem any defense would be about coverage. Meaning defensive pressure would be applied within the package, itself.
I remember Oregon's defense. Vs. Auburn.
It seemed to rely heavily on pressure.
I like how teams play package defense. I think that's what makes a team successful.
I wish there was some kind of tutorial. I don't understand the difference between nickel and dime but that's probably what we are getting at, in a roundabout way.

You seem to "seem" a lot...

Not very "kingly" of someone with overtures of "stats and relative proficiencies"...

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

You seem to "seem" a lot...

Not very "kingly" of someone with overtures of "stats and relative proficiencies"...

It's not rocket science. None of it. Relative Proficiency isn't a difficult concept, either. I've already addressed it. 100% R.P. = N.C.
It doesn't get much simpler than that! I tested it on 1984 and Brigham Young/Iowa measured at 96% cumulative (together) R.P.
Why do you guys have to give me so much shit? This isn't exactly fun for me. I'm trying to help people out. It might not appeal to everyone, I understand that. But it isn't nonsense and it actually helps simplify it.
Now, instead of debating the merits of a team many (possibly justifiably) wasn't quite up to snuff, we can give credit, judiciously, to the teams (U.C.L.A., Florida) who were!
It's clearly a win, win, win! For all parties.
I'm actually disappointed nobody recognizes it. That's the sad part. Read a book.
I've spent a fair amount of time doing this.
I think there's some merit to it and I probably ought to be congratulated for my contribution. At least that's how I look at it.