forums

Our aggressive Scheme on D

Advertisement
nyctfl said:
TheMatador said:
Wasn't it Paul Johnson who fired Al Groh midseason because Groh's 3-4 defense wasn't working? Johnson probably has a real good insight into the shortcomings of the Groh/Golden 3-4. Like Nebraska, GT ran through us at will. He must have watched a lot of Nebraska film.

Jimmy Johnson always seemed to have a good handle on how to defense the wishbone and, I think, the option. The fullback never got a head of steam--or so it seemed. I wish somebody with real good X and O knowledge would explain exactly how we should have defensed GT's option, including explaining which defensive player should have had the assignment for which GT player. It was obvious guys either didn't understand their proper assignments or they kept busting them. There were times the pitch men were totally uncoverded--much of the time the fullback up the middle had wide running lanes. Should we have been scared of GT's passing as we seemed to be? Why was the MLB playing so far back?

I just don't get it, I don't understand enough about X's and O's, and I don't understand why the pros are so enamored of the 3-4. Is it our talent, or lack thereof?
Click to expand...

One of the most fascinating interviews I ever heard was Barry Switzer on sports talk radio in Dallas. Basically, the veer offense he ran in Oklahoma was unstoppable. They used to routinely put 600+ of offense of err'ybody. Then he talks about JJ's Miami teams and how effective they were at defensing the veer. In a nut shell, it was about athletes and philosophy: undersized but fast, aggressive athletes, and an attacking approach where tackles too away the dive, defensive ends that would hit the QB EACH AND EVERY PLAY, regardless of whether or not he had the, ball, and corners coming up to take away the pitch. On the off chance that there was a rare pass play, the safeties were able to rotate over. In any even, our defenses dictated the action. We didn't go the Bobby Knight rape approach ("might as well lie back and enjoy it.")
Click to expand...

As far as I know, Barry Switzer did not run the veer; he ran the wishbone. There's a difference. Yes, the '85 defense was able to bottle up Jamelle Holloway when Jerome Brown stopped the fullback play after play. He would do that and still move on to be in on the action down the line. He was amazing. Or maybe it was the '86 game, although I think it was '85. I believe we beat them three years in a row.

Just as an aside, Jim Martz, in his book on the history of Hurricane football, described Howard Schnellenberger's offense as the pro-veer, with the pro passing attack and the veer running attack. I'm not sure if that was true or not.
 
You are correct in terminology. The wishbone was a veer-principled offense with 3 backs instead of two. How the defense attacks these offenses is fundamentally the same.
 
nyctfl said:
You are correct in terminology. The wishbone was a veer-principled offense with 3 backs instead of two. How the defense attacks these offenses is fundamentally the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, I guess the veer is a component of Paul Johnson's triple option. It is apparently defensed in a manner similar to how JJ defensed the wishbone with the 4-3. I was wondering about "block down, step down." I had never heard the phrase before. This is what I found:

http://coachhoover.blogspot.com/2010/07/4-3-vs-flexbone-dt-play.html

Notice that the GT offense is called the Flexbone. Notice also the critical role of the 4-3 defensive tackle, and continuing to play assignments instead of freelancing. Maybe the pro infatuation with the 3-4 is not necessarily suitable when we play college teams that have more option. You almost never see an option play in the pro's. Once a year you might see a team throw in one play in a game just for surprise, but never a whole offense.

Yet we've seen two option teams and we've been destroyed by them. We used to be known for our prowess against wishbone and option teams.

One thing I take from reading the linked article--and I haven't fully absorbed it yet--is that it would be very very difficult for the center to run free to attack the middle linebacker using "block down, step down."

Then you have the DE crashing the QB. I remember Bill Hawkiins smothering the Oklahoma QB, Charles Thompson, in the '88 OB. I guess you force the pitch as much as you can. Take away the fullback, and then smash the QB early forcing him to pitch. Then the CB takes the pitch.

You have to keep assignments, no freelancing, and you do have one guy essentially who is assigned to make the tackle. i guess, in reality, other players will come in to help clean up but the first thing is to stay on your assignment no matter what and let the play--hopefully--end up with the pitch, since you've smothered the fullback dive and the QB keeping it. You don't put Chad in the position of having to try to cover the QB and pitch at the same time--which he did beautifully--but that is asking too much. He should smash the QB early and always, and let the other guys worry about the pitch.

Am I right?
 
Last edited:
Someone previously noted that the dive is the first thing you take away from an option team, irrespective of alignment. Then, the ends aggressively fuerce the pitch and hit the QB each and every play. The his add up. There is some flexibility as to who takes the pitch. Regardless, there should be someone there to head of the back before he breaks the line of scrimmage.

You are correct that it is simply assignment football. The offense's goal is to attempt to force linebackers to deal with a blocker. Lining up deep as we do means the MIKE should have remained clean. However, because of the 3 down alignment, Perryman always had someone in his face or at his feet. At best, he was making the tackle 5 yards down the field.
 
Advertisement
And Thomas could not cover both. While the dive killed us, we weren't much better covering the pitch man. I remember a couple of plays where Bush came down the alley but got sucked into the line, leaving the pitch man wide open. It was exacerbated when our corners consistently failed to get off the blocking wide receiver.
 
Quick question. Why wasn't the fullback and QB getting hit every option play last night? What makes an option O go is the toughness of the QB except when they play us. Their QB should have been picking himself up after every play had we been attacking the O, instead of playing passive all night.
 
Agreed. They should have been lighting those cats up. The damage from those hits is cumulative and leads to being tentative as well as fumbles. We never force the action.
 
We hit the QB one time on the pitch last night and it was in the 4th quarter and only because Thomas held on to the ball forever before pitching it.
 
Advertisement
Brutal. They were facing a team that runs the ball 99% of the time yet they had 5 guys at least 10 yards away from the LOS on 3rd and 2.
 
TheMatador said:
nyctfl said:
You are correct in terminology. The wishbone was a veer-principled offense with 3 backs instead of two. How the defense attacks these offenses is fundamentally the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, I guess the veer is a component of Paul Johnson's triple option. It is apparently defensed in a manner similar to how JJ defensed the wishbone with the 4-3. I was wondering about "block down, step down." I had never heard the phrase before. This is what I found:

http://coachhoover.blogspot.com/2010/07/4-3-vs-flexbone-dt-play.html

Notice that the GT offense is called the Flexbone. Notice also the critical role of the 4-3 defensive tackle, and continuing to play assignments instead of freelancing. Maybe the pro infatuation with the 3-4 is not necessarily suitable when we play college teams that have more option. You almost never see an option play in the pro's. Once a year you might see a team throw in one play in a game just for surprise, but never a whole offense.

Yet we've seen two option teams and we've been destroyed by them. We used to be known for our prowess against wishbone and option teams.

One thing I take from reading the linked article--and I haven't fully absorbed it yet--is that it would be very very difficult for the center to run free to attack the middle linebacker using "block down, step down."

Then you have the DE crashing the QB. I remember Bill Hawkiins smothering the Oklahoma QB, Charles Thompson, in the '88 OB. I guess you force the pitch as much as you can. Take away the fullback, and then smash the QB early forcing him to pitch. Then the CB takes the pitch.

You have to keep assignments, no freelancing, and you do have one guy essentially who is assigned to make the tackle. i guess, in reality, other players will come in to help clean up but the first thing is to stay on your assignment no matter what and let the play--hopefully--end up with the pitch, since you've smothered the fullback dive and the QB keeping it. You don't put Chad in the position of having to try to cover the QB and pitch at the same time--which he did beautifully--but that is asking too much. He should smash the QB early and always, and let the other guys worry about the pitch.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

Yep. The step down is way important. Disrupt those down blocks. Have to keep the center off of the Mike so that's one reason he lines up deeper. If there is no step down there's a gap. Take away fullback and force the pitch.
 
We didn't put any hits on the QB. You hit that motherfcker every play, and you slow him down. Eventually, he'll get the yips and turn the ball over.

We're softer than Stay Puft. And it all starts at the top.
 
TheMatador said:
As far as I know, Barry Switzer did not run the veer; he ran the wishbone.
Click to expand...

Correct. I've heard Switzer speak at length at why he preferred the wishbone to the veer. Basically it was all the permutations available with 3 backs instead of 2, and greater power component with lesser tendency to get away from the running game and throw the ball.

The principal veer team of that era was the Houston Cougars. They raped terrorized defenses. The last college team to score 100+ points in a game was the Houston veer team in 1969. I believe it was against Tulsa. The Miami Herald sports headline was, "Houston defeats Tulsa, 100-6 (That's right, 100-6!)"

The Canes played at Houston in the Astrodome during that era. I'll never forget it. Kelly Cochrane threw a long touchdown bomb on Miami's first play. The Canes were in control throughout and it looked like we would steal an upset win. Then Houston rallied in the final minutes. They pulled it out on a long pass play with seconds remaining. My dad stood up, grabbed the chair he had been sitting in, and bashed it against the terrazzo floor, breaking the chair in pieces. Wow. It was the first time I realized it was possible to take a sporting event that seriously.

IMO, the flexbone is vastly inferior to the wishbone. I still have tapes of wishbone teams in their heyday. They were so dangerous with all the wrinkles, like the belly play in faking to the fullback and then sending the trail halfback through the adjacent hole. The flexbone offers nothing like that. Oklahoma combined speed and power. It was gorgeous. Miami had a very, very rare combination of superior personnel to be able to stop that offense. I was in Las Vegas and winning bets on those Sooner teams week after week. Switzer didn't try to run away from it. He was terrific. In his book Bootlegger's Boy he said he looked forward to the 1987 season immensely because Miami was the only team that could stop them and Miami wasn't on the schedule. Then he drew the Canes again in the bowl game, on the road.

Joe Paterno also had a very astute plan defensive plan against the wishbone, BTW. He lost two major bowls to Oklahoma but it was solely due to the offense. Oklahoma throttled Penn State's offense both times, once 14-0 in the 1972 season Sugar Bowl and then 25-10 in the 1985 season Orange Bowl for the national title. Penn State borrowed from what Miami had done earlier in that 1985 season at Norman. The formations and emphasis they used were nearly identical, only with lesser athletes. It still could have been enough to steal a victory other than Switzer being so admirably patient throughout the game. Instead of panicking he was content to punt the ball back and rely on his defense. It worked perfectly. They forced turnovers and Oklahoma inched ahead via field position. Then in the final 2 minutes the fullback finally popped for 80 yards. That was the only running play of note all night, and accounted for the misleading 15 point margin.

When we faced the same Penn State team a year later in the Fiesta Bowl I was extremely concerned, based on how well prepared Paterno had been for the wishbone a year earlier. Obviously the Canes should have won. But I knew it would be low scoring and he would attack our skill position guys, just like he attacked the wishbone a year earlier.

It's still hard for me to believe Barry Switzer is considered an overrated coach when his bowl record was 5-0 combined against Paterno, Bowden and Osborne. The same simpletons who denounce the option as a high school offense without knowing a **** thing about it are the ones who belittle Switzer.
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
We didn't put any hits on the QB. You hit that motherfcker every play, and you slow him down. Eventually, he'll get the yips and turn the ball over.

We're softer than Stay Puft. And it all starts at the top.
Click to expand...

Same with the FB. You punish these guys... basic defense against any option.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top