forums

Need a Explanation on our Defense ...

S

Swelswel2

Recruit
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
4
I'm putting myself through the **** of re watching some our games this year and for the life of me I can't understand why we refuse to play anything but our Base defense on 1st and 2nd down.

I know some of you all on here are very football Savy and can explain the pros of having your LB split out 10 yards on an island with a WR.

am I going crazy ??? I swear in all my years I've never seen a team split there LBs out as far as we do. If we insist on playing zone why not go nickel and have a CB out there ? **** if we need a big body out there incase of the run bring a safety down or have Bush play that role.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Can we keep this actual football discussion instead of the usual garbage that has been rehashed for the last 4 years...Carry on. Thanks.
 
Swelswel2 said:
I'm putting myself through the **** of re watching some our games this year and for the life of me I can't understand why we refuse to play anything but our Base defense on 1st and 2nd down.

I know some of you all on here are very football Savy and can explain the pros of having your LB split out 10 yards on an island with a WR.

am I going crazy ??? I swear in all my years I've never seen a team split there LBs out as far as we do. If we insist on playing zone why not go nickel and have a CB out there ? **** if we need a big body out there incase of the run bring a safety down or have Bush play that role.
Click to expand...

No, you are not crazy. The scheme is designed to make the other team go 80 yards and beat you without a mistake. Keep everything in front of you and avoid explosive plays (classic golden). This is why it is so effective against mediocre teams. For example look at the UF game in 2013. They moved at will between the 20s but ultimately turned the ball over. Look at Arkansas st and duke this past year (bad snaps galore). The fact is over the past four years, players have changed and the out of conference opponents have changed but the scheme and not surprisingly the results have stayed the same. Any team with a pulse that can excute 5 plays, off tackle, stretch, counter, drag and wr screen on a consistent basis pummels this passive defense 5 yards at a time.
 
Thanks. It jus simple to anybody that flooding a zone with 3 wrs and jus a CB and a 245 lb backer is recipe for disaster. I've accepted the fact that nothing will change but that's not going to stop me from losing it wen AQM is lined up over a 195 lb slot receiver smh
 
Advertisement
Al Golden=Al Groh.

Al Groh was fired for running the same ****** defense at gtech.

Two years later, gtech wins the Orange Bowl on MIAMI's field.

That's all you need to know.
 
There's really no way of avoiding a Linebacker being lined up out there. If the offense lines up with 4 WR's you're gonna have Linebacker lined up across from a slot receiver whether you're playing Cover-3 or Cover-2. Only way to avoid having a Linebacker out there is to sub personnel. (i.e. an extra DB)
 
[/QUOTE]No, you are not crazy. The scheme is designed to make the other team go 80 yards and beat you without a mistake. Keep everything in front of you and avoid explosive plays (classic golden). This is why it is so effective against mediocre teams. For example look at the UF game in 2013. They moved at will between the 20s....[/QUOTE]


This...plus hold teams to field goals.

If UM beat an Average Team 28 - 18 and allowed 400+ yards of offense, Folden would be VERY Happy.

A real Coach would be steaming hot that his team allowed an Average team to sustain 6 long drives that ended in FGs.
 
It's already been established... (or at least I thought it was)...that the LB isn't "covering" a slot WR. He's playing zone. People act like our LB's are manning up slot receivers when that's not the case.

How exactly do you guys expect us to play zone against 4 wide receiver sets?
 
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
There's really no way of avoiding a Linebacker being lined up out there. If the offense lines up with 4 WR's you're gonna have Linebacker lined up across from a slot receiver whether you're playing Cover-3 or Cover-2. Only way to avoid having a Linebacker out there is to sub personnel. (i.e. an extra DB)
Click to expand...

You just defeated your own Statement............
 
Coach Macho said:
It's already been established... (or at least I thought it was)...that the LB isn't "covering" a slot WR. He's playing zone. People act like our LB's are manning up slot receivers when that's not the case.

How exactly do you guys expect us to play zone against 4 wide receiver sets?
Click to expand...

With the proper personnel.............MAYBE.
 
That's why the 4-2-5 is great against spread teams. The 3-4 gets shredded against spread teams with a pulse ala Bama with Ohio st.,Auburn, etc
 
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
It's already been established... (or at least I thought it was)...that the LB isn't "covering" a slot WR. He's playing zone. People act like our LB's are manning up slot receivers when that's not the case.

How exactly do you guys expect us to play zone against 4 wide receiver sets?
Click to expand...

I agree with Coach...and when we change personell they run the ball down our throat..at our HS our biggest run play happened when we had 4 Recievers on the field
 
You switch out Armbrister from that zone and plug Deon in that same exact role and you can't tell me that the results wouldn't be better ala Ramsey at FSU. But safeties in the box don't exist here ..
 
Advertisement
Canesfan43 said:
That's why the 4-2-5 is great against spread teams. The 3-4 gets shredded against spread teams with a pulse ala Bama with Ohio st.,Auburn, etc
Click to expand...

Sonny Long said:
Coach Macho said:
There's really no way of avoiding a Linebacker being lined up out there. If the offense lines up with 4 WR's you're gonna have Linebacker lined up across from a slot receiver whether you're playing Cover-3 or Cover-2. Only way to avoid having a Linebacker out there is to sub personnel. (i.e. an extra DB)
Click to expand...

You just defeated your own Statement............
Click to expand...

Cool.
 
Swelswel2 said:
You switch out Armbrister from that zone and plug Deon in that same exact role and you can't tell me that the results wouldn't be better ala Ramsey at FSU. But safeties in the box don't exist here ..
Click to expand...

Although I wouldn't compare Bush to Ramsey, I see what you're saying...FSU stays with a Nickel or Dime package on the field, and they didn't seem to have a problem stopping the run.
 
CaneSince4Ever said:
Swelswel2 said:
You switch out Armbrister from that zone and plug Deon in that same exact role and you can't tell me that the results wouldn't be better ala Ramsey at FSU. But safeties in the box don't exist here ..
Click to expand...

Although I wouldn't compare Bush to Ramsey, I see what you're saying...FSU stays with a Nickel or Dime package on the field, and they didn't seem to have a problem stopping the run.
Click to expand...

FSU's front 4 were vastly superior to ours over the past 3 seasons. They can control the point of attack man up w/o having to scheme a 5th man or 6th man.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top