Guidry coverages explained.

[Canezum5]

Blades actually would’ve been great at that. Don’t know enough about the young ones, but I would be concerned about aggression as well.

…

I watched all three highlights, and the weaknesses I saw were pointed out by the podcasters. But just to recap, I saw three: the verticals, the quick slant and the QB option. Actually, they didn’t really talk about a mobile quarterback, too much, and how to deal with that, which was surprising to me.

Not an expert, but I'm sure Guidry knows this too, and we should expect lots of variation based upon opponent, down and distance, and packages. Our defense better be smart because they’re gonna have to think in his system.

I agree and disagree. Guidry is a good enough coach where he can do the thinking. That is,essentially and foundationally, what being a coach is. Itd what separates coaches.

This why the Goat Bellycheck$$ mantra is " Do your job". Because he's already done the thinking for you.

The game is a chess match between the coaches. Your players should only need to understand their job and their job should be taught well enough that it's simple to the player and he doesn't have to think but do HIS JOB instinctually at the peak of his athletic ability.

The coach should always be the one outscheming the opponent in putting the players in position for success against the opponents call.

I hate players having to think and nerdy coaches who draw up binders full of intricate plays and try to force players to learn all that crap.

Then go and get smashed by a coach who coaches up 5 plays very well.

 

[grover]

I agree and disagree. Guidry is a good enough coach where he can do the thinking. That is,essentially and foundationally, what being a coach is. Itd what separates coaches.

This why the Goat Bellycheck$$ mantra is " Do your job". Because he's already done the thinking for you.

The game is a chess match between the coaches. Your players should only need to understand their job and their job should be taught well enough that it's simple to the player and he doesn't have to think but do HIS JOB instinctually at the peak of his athletic ability.

The coach should always be the one outscheming the opponent in putting the players in position for success against the opponents call.

I hate players having to think and nerdy coaches who draw up binders full of intricate plays and try to force players to learn all that crap.

Then go and get smashed by a coach who coaches up 5 plays very well.

I don’t know enough about Guidry yet to agree or disagree. But I would be surprised if his defenses are simplistic based on what I’ve seen and read so far.

 

[Canezum5]

I don’t know enough about Guidry yet to agree or disagree. But I would be surprised if his defenses are simplistic based on what I’ve seen and read so far.

Believe what you see my guy. There's a lot of turnover and attrition college football. Look at Guidry defenses. Do they only show success with seasoned and veteran players? Or do they show consistent top 40 success no matter what?

 

[Arehel]

Its match coverage.
See Alabama.

it was talked about how

Blades actually would’ve been great at that. Don’t know enough about the young ones, but I would be concerned about aggression as well.

…

I watched all three highlights, and the weaknesses I saw were pointed out by the podcasters. But just to recap, I saw three: the verticals, the quick slant and the QB option. Actually, they didn’t really talk about a mobile quarterback, too much, and how to deal with that, which was rprising to me.

Not an expert, but I'm sure Guidry knows this too, and we should expect lots of variation based upon opponent, down and distance, and packages. Our defense better be smart because they’re gonna have to think in his system.

Its match coverage, see Alabama.

And yes just sending verticals everywhere hits it, thats how Tennessee did well vs it.

Its a good concept, just need smart DBs. Safeties can play a little lower for run support but corners have to play off a little so they can run with verts so they're limited in the run game, but with two "halfback" ie, nickels, are sniffing the box to help support outside and send it back in.

 

[Coach Macho]

No specific defense is necessarily better at stopping X/Y/Z...or has specific weaknesses that other defenses don't.

We tend to paint with too broad of a brush and make general statements like "the {insert defense} isn't good at stopping the QB runs."

Defense today is way too sophisticated and complex to paint it with such a broad brush.
Everybody today is MULTIPLE. Most defenses base out of a 4-2-5 structure today because that is the best personnel set to use against spread offenses...but just about EVERYBODY employs other sets in their repertoire. Kirby Smart refers to Georgia as a '4 down' defense but when they really want to stop the run they only employ a 3-man front. (their "mint front" to be specific)

Defensive football is about being multiple and having different tools in the tool shed to address different offensive sets, different variables and different concepts.
It's also about IMPLEMENTATION.
It's about "when" and "why".

So again, with that being said, no specific defense is necessarily better at stopping everything.
You have to be creative and flexible in the way you address certain issues.

Example... (using Georgia again)
When they self evaluated their 3rd down defense, they noticed that they were having trouble containing QB scrambles out of their 4-man pass rush DL. The DL would rush upfield, the DB's and LB's would be in coverage, and if the QB found a little crease in the rush lanes he would run up the middle. And even though everybody was covered they found themselves giving up easy 1st downs to the QB run.
Their answers?
Take one Defensive Lineman off the field and replace him with a speedy LB. They employed a 3-man pass rush and used that speedy LB to aggressively spy the QB and essentially become the 4th rusher. As soon as the QB maneuvered throughout the pass rush, that spying LB would "trigger" and track down the QB for a sack or force a bad throw.

If somebody told you that the best way to disrupt a QB was a 3-man rush, you'd probably call them silly. But with THIS specific way of IMPLEMENTATION it works great.

One of the biggest issues with Manny's defense was that it wasn't multiple at all, didn't use creative/modern ways to address specific issues and the implementation (rhyme & reason) was goofy.

 

[grover]

No specific defense is necessarily better at stopping X/Y/Z...or has specific weaknesses that other defenses don't.

We tend to paint with too broad of a brush and make general statements like "the {insert defense} isn't good at stopping the QB runs."

Defense today is way too sophisticated and complex to paint it with such a broad brush.
Everybody today is MULTIPLE. Most defenses base out of a 4-2-5 structure today because that is the best personnel set to use against spread offenses...but just about EVERYBODY employs other sets in their repertoire. Kirby Smart refers to Georgia as a '4 down' defense but when they really want to stop the run they only employ a 3-man front. (their "mint front" to be specific)

Defensive football is about being multiple and having different tools in the tool shed to address different offensive sets, different variables and different concepts.
It's also about IMPLEMENTATION.
It's about "when" and "why".

So again, with that being said, no specific defense is necessarily better at stopping everything.
You have to be creative and flexible in the way you address certain issues.

Example... (using Georgia again)
When they self evaluated their 3rd down defense, they noticed that they were having trouble containing QB scrambles out of their 4-man pass rush DL. The DL would rush upfield, the DB's and LB's would be in coverage, and if the QB found a little crease in the rush lanes he would run up the middle. And even though everybody was covered they found themselves giving up easy 1st downs to the QB run.
Their answers?
Take one Defensive Lineman off the field and replace him with a speedy LB. They employed a 3-man pass rush and used that speedy LB to aggressively spy the QB and essentially become the 4th rusher. As soon as the QB maneuvered throughout the pass rush, that spying LB would "trigger" and track down the QB for a sack or force a bad throw.

If somebody told you that the best way to disrupt a QB was a 3-man rush, you'd probably call them silly. But with THIS specific way of IMPLEMENTATION it works great.

One of the biggest issues with Manny's defense was that it wasn't multiple at all, didn't use creative/modern ways to address specific issues and the implementation (rhyme & reason) was goofy.

@Coach Macho , in a winning multifaceted defense, how much of the thinking is on Guidry, how much on the players?

 

[skyman]

No specific defense is necessarily better at stopping X/Y/Z...or has specific weaknesses that other defenses don't.

We tend to paint with too broad of a brush and make general statements like "the {insert defense} isn't good at stopping the QB runs."

Defense today is way too sophisticated and complex to paint it with such a broad brush.
Everybody today is MULTIPLE. Most defenses base out of a 4-2-5 structure today because that is the best personnel set to use against spread offenses...but just about EVERYBODY employs other sets in their repertoire. Kirby Smart refers to Georgia as a '4 down' defense but when they really want to stop the run they only employ a 3-man front. (their "mint front" to be specific)

Defensive football is about being multiple and having different tools in the tool shed to address different offensive sets, different variables and different concepts.
It's also about IMPLEMENTATION.
It's about "when" and "why".

So again, with that being said, no specific defense is necessarily better at stopping everything.
You have to be creative and flexible in the way you address certain issues.

Example... (using Georgia again)
When they self evaluated their 3rd down defense, they noticed that they were having trouble containing QB scrambles out of their 4-man pass rush DL. The DL would rush upfield, the DB's and LB's would be in coverage, and if the QB found a little crease in the rush lanes he would run up the middle. And even though everybody was covered they found themselves giving up easy 1st downs to the QB run.
Their answers?
Take one Defensive Lineman off the field and replace him with a speedy LB. They employed a 3-man pass rush and used that speedy LB to aggressively spy the QB and essentially become the 4th rusher. As soon as the QB maneuvered throughout the pass rush, that spying LB would "trigger" and track down the QB for a sack or force a bad throw.

If somebody told you that the best way to disrupt a QB was a 3-man rush, you'd probably call them silly. But with THIS specific way of IMPLEMENTATION it works great.

One of the biggest issues with Manny's defense was that it wasn't multiple at all, didn't use creative/modern ways to address specific issues and the implementation (rhyme & reason) was goofy.

This is exactly, EXACTLY how I ran my defense on NCAA back in day AND I was running hurry up no huddle back then too.. I was ahead of my time, coulda been a high dollar college corch..

 

[canes732]

Anyone have any All 22 from Marshall D last year? Would love for the Nd game

 

[simplycanes]

Ray Charles could see one of Mannys blitzes coming,no disguising at all

Miss Cleo, too

 

[skillydoo]

No specific defense is necessarily better at stopping X/Y/Z...or has specific weaknesses that other defenses don't.

We tend to paint with too broad of a brush and make general statements like "the {insert defense} isn't good at stopping the QB runs."

Defense today is way too sophisticated and complex to paint it with such a broad brush.
Everybody today is MULTIPLE. Most defenses base out of a 4-2-5 structure today because that is the best personnel set to use against spread offenses...but just about EVERYBODY employs other sets in their repertoire. Kirby Smart refers to Georgia as a '4 down' defense but when they really want to stop the run they only employ a 3-man front. (their "mint front" to be specific)

Defensive football is about being multiple and having different tools in the tool shed to address different offensive sets, different variables and different concepts.
It's also about IMPLEMENTATION.
It's about "when" and "why".

So again, with that being said, no specific defense is necessarily better at stopping everything.
You have to be creative and flexible in the way you address certain issues.

Example... (using Georgia again)
When they self evaluated their 3rd down defense, they noticed that they were having trouble containing QB scrambles out of their 4-man pass rush DL. The DL would rush upfield, the DB's and LB's would be in coverage, and if the QB found a little crease in the rush lanes he would run up the middle. And even though everybody was covered they found themselves giving up easy 1st downs to the QB run.
Their answers?
Take one Defensive Lineman off the field and replace him with a speedy LB. They employed a 3-man pass rush and used that speedy LB to aggressively spy the QB and essentially become the 4th rusher. As soon as the QB maneuvered throughout the pass rush, that spying LB would "trigger" and track down the QB for a sack or force a bad throw.

If somebody told you that the best way to disrupt a QB was a 3-man rush, you'd probably call them silly. But with THIS specific way of IMPLEMENTATION it works great.

One of the biggest issues with Manny's defense was that it wasn't multiple at all, didn't use creative/modern ways to address specific issues and the implementation (rhyme & reason) was goofy.

Thanks. Really enjoy your input.