forums

Need a Explanation on our Defense ...

CaneSince4Ever said:
Gardenstatecane said:
FSU's front 4 were vastly superior to ours over the past 3 seasons. They can't control the point of attack man up w/o having to scheme a 5th man or 6th man.
Click to expand...

Are you saying FSU only stops the run with 4 people?
Click to expand...

No, but I'm saying that if we measured both instances where UM and FSU have tried using only 4 down linemen (or 4 men in general) FSU would most likely have a significantly higher success rate.

We've had trouble stopping the run crowding the line with 5 and 6. That, to me, speaks to a talent issue, not a scheme issue.
 
Advertisement
Gardenstatecane said:
They can control the point of attack man up w/o having to scheme a 5th man or 6th man.
Click to expand...

Since you edited it to "can", I take it that you are saying that FSU only stops the run with 4 people, and I strongly disagree. I don't think there's a defense in America that would only try to stop the run with 4 people, it takes a MINIMUM of 6-8 people to stop a run play.
 
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...

yeah but our "LB" is really a guy that should be playing a 4-3 DE. he is out of position either way
 
Gardenstatecane said:
No, but I'm saying that if we measured both instances where UM and FSU have tried using only 4 down linemen (or 4 men in general) FSU would most likely have a significantly higher success rate.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with how many down linemen you have. Regardless of if it's a 3-4 or 4-3, you still have to figure out a way to get that 8th,9th, or even 10th hat involved in the run game.
 
Advertisement
UknowWhat said:
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
Click to expand...

Except the extra LBs on the field aren't really a help in the run game because they are spread out on the WRs.

Its one of my major issues with our D, we don't deviate from our base even if the other team has 4 WRs. An extra DB in space is a **** of a lot more effective then a LB.

That is why I'm skeptical of the McCord move, Owens is better in space then McCord IMO.
 
Bigtip 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...

yeah but our "LB" is really a guy that should be playing a 4-3 DE. he is out of position either way
Click to expand...

Maybe true, but that's another issue.
 
We line-up our Linebackers out wide for disguise purposes. Linebackers over the slots usually tells an offense that we're in Cover-2. We'll either stay in Cover-2 or drop a Safety down into the box where the Inside Linebacker normally would be and play Cover-3.

This approach is nice for disguise purposes but not so great in terms of physical matchups. You've got a Linebacker in space against a slot and a Safety basically playing Inside Linebacker.

I run the 3-4 but I do Cover-3 differently. Against spread I'll have the Outside Linebackers aligned over the slots, just chillin while the QB is lining up the offense and making his pre-snap reads. One of those OLB's is the 4th rusher but the objective is not to show the QB which one it is. Once the QB starts his cadence that OLB will start to declare and one of the Safeties will roll down and replace him. (over the slot)

I prefer this approach for several reasons.
 
Advertisement
Just because you're playing zone doesn't mean you put 3/4 lb 's on the field against a spread formation. That's idiotic.

That's putting 240 pound guys in space , which is just asking too much. Even if it is zone.

That's basic football. There's a reason you run nickel,regardless if it's zone or man .
 
Need a Explanation on our Defense ...
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...
Just to add to your post


  1. No gang tackling
  2. 1 and done at point of attack
  3. We never find our men in Zone coverage
  4. Cb suck at getting off blocks
  5. Dl suck at getting off block
  6. LB suck at getting off block


We actually teaching our CB to take on the blocker
instead of shredding the blocker with a outside shoulder..
Now thats some dumb ****..
 
Understand this, Golden goes by a bend-don't break philosophy. Keep everything in front of you, and wait on the offense to make the mistake. When offenses don't make mistakes, we lose by such a philosophy. (see Golden's record against top 25 teams and teams that had 8 or more wins the previous year). If Golden's scheme was more attacking, then we would win majority of our games (see the VT game 2014) We have the ability to be an attacking defense, but Golden freightens at the moment he sees any push-back for some reason....I really don't understand it.
 
Advertisement
The other glaring problem with our defense is that depth is absolutely necessary. It's not an option. If you grind away for 30+ minutes EVERY game, you have to have quality backups. Which is really my biggest issue with Golden and his defensive philosophy. You're not gonna get those players to fill the bench. No one wants to sit and wait for a **** defense that's known to give up big yards. So it fails from the word go.

The only kind of D we should be playing is one focused on getting off the field ASAP. Challenging, hard hitting, aggressive. From great risks come great rewards.
 
Gardenstatecane said:
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.
Click to expand...
Our scheme is dump simple as that. It starts on our DL. And its not talent. Its the bull they are asked to do. Trickles right into the defensive backfield. Period
 
I really appreciate the views you guys have expressed.
One question, can anybody provide an example of a team that runs this defense, or a similar version, with any success?
I have racked my memory and can't come up with any examples, college or pro.
Thanks
 
Advertisement
The reason you don't play zone with 4 Lbs is because teams run the drag routes all game and its virtually unstoppable, especially with no pass rush. Add in a no-huddle or tempo pace and its what we see every Saturday.
 
The issue with our D is the inability of the staff to scheme LOS penetration.

Certainly, adding a DB to the field to guard against the pass versus 4-WR sets makes sense.

But our staff believes giving those LBs extra depth allows them to cover the pass, and still come down hill to stop the run. But, again, our coaches can't scheme penetration, and the talent on the DL doesn't make-up for the poor coaching.
 
The issue with our D is the inability of the staph.....

445797560_640.jpg



and......

paul-williams.jpg



and of course.....

al-golden-page-q-photo.jpg



Unitl you fix this ALbatrossity, nothing will change
 
Advertisement
Back
Top