forums

Coach Macho and Lu Breakdown?

9

954CaneBoi

Redshirt Freshman
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
181
Would enjoy reading your thoughts on what Miami did differently vs Duke with respect to its defense in your opinion? Was it scheme change, execution, alignment, skill mismatch, or a combination? Enjoy reading posts from people with actual football knowledge and experience.

Thanks in advance.
 
Advertisement
This.

I could've sworn I saw 2 dt's in the game at the same time and our dl pushing upfield other than on 3rd down.

Quite frankly, however, I don't think our pass rush, although more much aggressive, was that successful. We brought more men in the box, disguised our blitzes a little bit better, and stopped a team that is clearly one-dimensional. When we play teams that can throw and run the ball I think we're in trouble because our corners aren't good enough and pressure isn't disruptive enough. Boone, on some plays, had a lot of time to throw the ball but he just flat out sucks in the pass game.
 
We simply played more aggressive IMO. We used a lot of press coverage, whether it was zone or man. On 3rd downs we sent pressure and played "man free" (cover-1). I saw our "typical" stuff a few times but it didn't end up killing us.

Our pass rush is still lacking IMO but I loved the more aggressive approach overall.
 
I didn't get to see the whole game (or watch it yet on DVR), what I did see was end of the 3rd and most of the 4th. I actually saw our DL players take a DL stance vs. their usual OL stance they have been doing in previous games. There were a few plays they still did the OL stance, but far less than normal.

Other little bits I saw, we played cover 1 and had our DBs in the WR's faces. The LBs were closer to the line and we blitzed from multiple angles. A few times it looked like the 3 DL/1OLB lined up and crashed the middle with an OLB coming around the end. Another looked like the DE went wide taking the tackle with him as the guard turned to help the center with the DT, a LB came through that gap and took out the RB for next to no gain.

A few times near the end of the game, I saw our front four get pressure on their QB. I did see a hand full of stunts, which I honestly couldn't tell you the last time we did that. It seemed every time we ran a stunt, it was effective. So it seems to me that the DL was taking 1 gap and getting up the field.

Honestly I liked what I saw but the season is more than one game long and we have other teams that are better than Duke. Hopefully they keep the aggressiveness up and continue to play like they did last night.
 
Coach Macho said:
We simply played more aggressive IMO. We used a lot of press coverage, whether it was zone or man. On 3rd downs we sent pressure and played "man free" (cover-1). I saw our "typical" stuff a few times but it didn't end up killing us.

Our pass rush is still lacking IMO but I loved the more aggressive approach overall.
Click to expand...


Wsup with chad Thomas?
 
Advertisement
Same "multiple" fronts ... So, same scheme.

But they were more aggressive with the play calls for the back defenders, and sent some different pressures than normal.

The pressures left some pass plays to be made. But the DBs just have to up their game. They have the talent to do it ... Question is, will the coaches trust them to do it?
 
MIATL513 said:
Same "multiple" fronts ... So, same scheme.

But they were more aggressive with the play calls for the back defenders, and sent some different pressures than normal.

The pressures left some pass plays to be made. But the DBs just have to up their game. They have the talent to do it ... Question is, will the coaches trust them to do it?
Click to expand...

It was a way more aggressive version. We were dictating for once, not the other way around. More man / press, S's near Los, lb's closer to Los and the dl was getting up field . Saw DP/ RK line up in A gaps multiple times.

Also noticed the Dl in what Sapp calls the "motorcycle stance "a bunch.

It looked nothing like previous weeks / years.
 
Last edited:
Agree.

A welcomed change from what we had been seeing.

The scheme could always be played like this ... They just weren't calling it in games.

Cribby said:
MIATL513 said:
Same "multiple" fronts ... So, same scheme.

But they were more aggressive with the play calls for the back defenders, and sent some different pressures than normal.

The pressures left some pass plays to be made. But the DBs just have to up their game. They have the talent to do it ... Question is, will the coaches trust them to do it?
Click to expand...

It was a way more aggressive version. We were dictating for once, not the other way around. More man / press, S's near Los, lb's closer to Los and the dl was getting up field . Saw DP/ RK line up in A gaps multiple times.

Also noticed the Dl in what Sapp calls the "motorcycle stance "a bunch.

It looked nothing like previous weeks / years.
Click to expand...
 
MIATL513 said:
Agree.

A welcomed change from what we had been seeing.

The scheme could always be played like this ... They just weren't calling it in games.

Cribby said:
MIATL513 said:
Same "multiple" fronts ... So, same scheme.

But they were more aggressive with the play calls for the back defenders, and sent some different pressures than normal.

The pressures left some pass plays to be made. But the DBs just have to up their game. They have the talent to do it ... Question is, will the coaches trust them to do it?
Click to expand...

It was a way more aggressive version. We were dictating for once, not the other way around. More man / press, S's near Los, lb's closer to Los and the dl was getting up field . Saw DP/ RK line up in A gaps multiple times.

Also noticed the Dl in what Sapp calls the "motorcycle stance "a bunch.

It looked nothing like previous weeks / years.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

We're not supposed to agree , you know the deal.
 
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
We simply played more aggressive IMO. We used a lot of press coverage, whether it was zone or man. On 3rd downs we sent pressure and played "man free" (cover-1). I saw our "typical" stuff a few times but it didn't end up killing us.

Our pass rush is still lacking IMO but I loved the more aggressive approach overall.
Click to expand...

Our DBs aren't real burners outside of Burns but ****, it's about time we dared a team to beat us over the top. We have played scared to death of the deep ball despite not being challenged much or allowing much. All the while getting torched for 5-6 yards every play. Mind numbing. Use your athletes on the outside they like being physical.
 
SOTU on Sbnation had a great article showing pics and describing the differences etc..
 
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
We simply played more aggressive IMO. We used a lot of press coverage, whether it was zone or man. On 3rd downs we sent pressure and played "man free" (cover-1). I saw our "typical" stuff a few times but it didn't end up killing us.

Our pass rush is still lacking IMO but I loved the more aggressive approach overall.
Click to expand...

We played cover 1 because their qb was awful.

Let's see what d'onofrio calls against a competent passing game - I bet he calls a much more conservative game.
 
JHallCanes said:
Coach Macho said:
We simply played more aggressive IMO. We used a lot of press coverage, whether it was zone or man. On 3rd downs we sent pressure and played "man free" (cover-1). I saw our "typical" stuff a few times but it didn't end up killing us.

Our pass rush is still lacking IMO but I loved the more aggressive approach overall.
Click to expand...

Our DBs aren't real burners outside of Burns but ****, it's about time we dared a team to beat us over the top. We have played scared to death of the deep ball despite not being challenged much or allowing much. All the while getting torched for 5-6 yards every play. Mind numbing. Use your athletes on the outside they like being physical.
Click to expand...

This

I get until we get an influx of top end talent teams like FSU and UL with Teddy Bridgewater are going to torch us. However its nice the likes of Duke aren't getting their 500 yards against us. We are talented enough to play aggressive against the UVAs, Pittsburghs, VTs, etc of the world. These teams just don't have the playmakers to play scared against yet all got 500 yards on us last year.

To have a 80 something rated defense in the ACC is pathetic. Its like like we are in the Big12/PAc10 where some teams have some truly explosive offenses. Now if we go start winning 9, 10 games every year we can start getting these 5 star studs to like us compete with FSU and the rest of the top 15.
 
Last edited:
AUcane said:
Coach Macho said:
We simply played more aggressive IMO. We used a lot of press coverage, whether it was zone or man. On 3rd downs we sent pressure and played "man free" (cover-1). I saw our "typical" stuff a few times but it didn't end up killing us.

Our pass rush is still lacking IMO but I loved the more aggressive approach overall.
Click to expand...

We played cover 1 because their qb was awful.

Let's see what d'onofrio calls against a competent passing game - I bet he calls a much more conservative game.
Click to expand...

Not many competent passing games on the schedule. FSU and Cincy. UNC is so **** bad defensively it might not matter.

Last night's approach keeps the rest from looking competent.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Duke was bad on defense also and we only scored 22. Be careful what you wish for...
 
Advertisement
Back
Top