View attachment 25745
That may look like a picture of our 3rd and short defense. It may look like I previously tried to show that we were essentially playing a lot of the game - regardless of position on field - with 6 in the box vs 8 (QB was a run threat). 2 of our 6 players are being kept approximately 5 yards off the ball to avoid the wash. The Wash? Yes, basically the wash of our defensive linemen who are asked to 2-gap, play contain and generally control the line so that players could, theoretically, fill. Our 2 Safeties, considering the down and distance, are relatively deep. 1 of the 3 LBs on the field is hedging over the slot WR who the offense has placed there essentially to manipulate our defensive formation.
It might look like a critique or at least a very concerned question about our defensive call. To me, it's more.
I am and have been concerned with the direction of the entire program because that picture is representative of what we saw during low points in previous games and seasons. It shows a seemingly unwavering loyalty to a particular approach. It shows that, if we think something will or should work, we'll stick by it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it won't. On narrower levels, it shows:
- a conservative approach that is predicated on awaiting for the opponent to make mistakes
- a theoretical approach that hinges on players potentially doing things that don't maximize their talents
- that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.
Most of all, it all adds up to something bigger: a program many have associated with aggression now seemingly operates on fear.
