Coverage or Pass Rush?

[diamondbull424]

12 hours ago, childofpudding said:

Not sure why you're getting so upset about this. My original post was that I wasn't sure if Baltimore primarily values coverage because they blitz a lot. I've been answering the poll question since I started posting in this thread.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I am using facts - Baltimore blitzing more than half of dropbacks and more than any other team in the league, as well as being 2nd in the league in QB hits - to argue that Baltimore clearly thinks pass rush is valuable. I also agree with you that Baltimore, via its FA signings, thinks coverage is valuable as well.

I'm cool with you disagreeing about that, though. I understand your point of view and am not going to get bent out of shape because it's different than mine. Cheers.

I’m actually not upset at all and I’m not bent out of shape, I just find it funny the lengths you’re going to in trying to change the goalposts of this argument, which is fundamentally very simple. The team construction. Because at its core ALL teams value coverage and value pass rush, which is why the bad coverage teams still deploy a coverage versus just sending every player and conversely is why the bad pass rush teams don’t simply drop 11 into coverage without blitzing anyone.

If play calling was what dictated this question then there would be no question because most teams blitz less than 50% of the time. But hey, in such a case in such a universe where that is the understood notion of this question an intelligent poster might argue that because most teams blitz less than 50% of the time that they value coverage over pass rush. In fact since the Ravens are the only team blitzing over 50% of the time than such a person might say that since 96.9% of the league blitzes less than 50% of the time, they value coverage more than pass rush.

In which case in this contrarian viewpoint universe for which you are seemingly arguing, you would be clearly wrong in arguing that teams value pass rush over coverage vs in reality where team construction is the biggest component of the question. Sure in the case of a team that has pretty equally invested highly in their pass rush and coverage one might use play calling as a differentiator, sure. All teams value getting to the QB but the “coverage” built teams value that aspect so as to build a unit that can cover for longer periods so as to buy time to get to the QB. How these teams deploy their front 7/pass rush (or lack thereof in case of the Ravens) is irrelevant so long as they expect their secondary to hold up due to the quality of its construction. So you can choose to agree to disagree, but I typically only reserve that distinction within a debate with people that I believe their POV to be valid within the argument stream, but I simply disagree with their position. With your position, not only do I disagree with it, I also feel its so off base with respect to its classification of this argument stream, that I cannot provide you the benefit of agreeing to disagree. I can however disagree to disagree, so we can go with that one. Based off of your comments on the Ravens, I disagree to disagree.