plantcity3
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 7,641
As a mike, i was thought to read the triangle. Both guards to the fullback
The 3-4 is wack. We barely won our 1st NC running it, and JJ had a horrible 1st year being stuck running it.
Read the guard
block steps = drop and read qb
Pulls strong side = read the FB and RB for misdirection, blow up the gap behind the guards ***
Pulls weak side = read backs and rip across the face.
Runs straight at you = get big.
Well that's on U blood. I have NEVER said that and I have been on the fire al train for 2 straight seasons. I just don't enjoy singing like the clone of a a clone of a senseless idiotI'm sold. D'No is doing a good job.
WEZ what is the triangle read for the d-lineman? Would love a breakdown of that
As a mike, i was thought to read the triangle. Both guards to the fullback
No im not a troll. thank u for clarifying WEZ.I like actual football talk. When i played LB for a season we had a 52 package i played the Wolf ILB. I loved it because regardless of coverage the box was packed and the reads were simple.
I hope i didn't come off as sayin 34 sucks. It doesn't, ideally its very very effective. But it takes a lot of variables and a great teacher.
People have to stop thinking 43 or 34 it's the gap philosophy that dictates the trench play.
"attacking 43" is generic as ****, what if i stand up my super athletic WDE but his job is the same? Is it a 34 now? Or what if i drop my SAM shaded outside the TE? Is it a 52? Some people should learn or listen...
Responsibilities of the front 7 determine the flavor of D not their alignment.
1 gap = wave... Flowing fluid defense... O1 Canes
2 gap = Wall... Bama under saban... These are generalizations of course.
As a mike, i was thought to read the triangle. Both guards to the fullback
Talking about DL reads. ILB reads are similar. I was always taught to read through the near guard and to the nearest back. We relied on pull calls from the other ILB (we played a 43/44 over--so we played with two inside backers and an overhang Sam, as opposed to a true 43 over with 3 stacked backers).
I just don't understand our lack of adjustment in that situation, WEZ. It took us until the 2nd half (as usual) to adjust to it when it doesn't seem like a mind-blowing thing to adjust to. It's why I have a complete lack of faith in anything this coaching staff does or purports they will do.See Wake Forest a couple years ago?Legitimate points, OP. Every 1 gap system teaches their defensive linemen a set of triangle reads (I'll be glad to break that down for anyone interested). Proper 1 gap tech still requires reading and engaging blockers. If those reads don't happen, then we're going to get kicked out and trapped all game. Only on obvious passing downs do teams allow their DL to disregard their triangle reads--even a 2 gap team can shade their front and do that.
Only thing I would correct from what you said is in reference to 2 gap defenses being poor against the run. A 2 gap system--when run well and with proper personnel--absolutely murders man blocking schemes (power/counter; isolation; trap; down; sweep; etc.). 50 front alignment makes it very difficult for blockers to get angles on runs that involve pullers (you know, because the DL are head up). The unreduced nature of the 50 front also has a similar effect on ball path.
If you can't get an angle on that presumably massive DL, then it makes it very difficult to get the movement necessary from your doubles or downblocks. If you're not getting movement, then you're not going to create lane. If you don't create wide lanes, then the 2 gap philosophy (overlap in gap responsibilities) works. It's almost suffocating. As to the 50 being an unreduced front: any play that is designed to go off tackle (power/counter, down) is going to have to deal with a stout 4 tech. Not getting movement on a 4 is much more damning than not getting movement on a 3.
Isolation runs can be disastrous as well. Again, assuming you have the correct personnel, 2 gap overlap in gap responsibility allows for any number of players to make a play on isolation. If you double the 0, then the 4 is still available to make the play and vice versa. If you base everyone, including the play side ILB, then all three (the 4, 0, and 30) all have an opportunity to make the play. I don't think there's a more idea situation for that style of defense.
...with all that being said, I think 2 gapping sucks balls against zone/veer. You can just widen your splits and immediately create lanes. Overlapping gap responsibilities only work if you can successfully compress the offense. (see above comments)
I was just as angry as everyone else. TCU did the same **** to Oklahoma and burned them with it. You guys need to understand what my goal is on this board. I try really hard to be objective and to push the conversation toward actual football talk.
I remember watching the broadcast after the game and even the commentators were commenting on how odd it was.
Golden said think players then plays. Those words came from his mouth and then for the last 4 years we have watched him try to fit a round peg into a square hole. Our personnel screams 4-3 attacking defense to me, and yet he was **** bent on fattening up chick and running his 2 gap scheme with no ability to be multiple as he would say.
As a mike, i was thought to read the triangle. Both guards to the fullback
Talking about DL reads. ILB reads are similar. I was always taught to read through the near guard and to the nearest back. We relied on pull calls from the other ILB (we played a 43/44 over--so we played with two inside backers and an overhang Sam, as opposed to a true 43 over with 3 stacked backers).
That means y'all played against run heavy... A lotta hittin goin on, forearm murder! Thats when there was no such thing as finesse backers. Rare football nowdays
The 3-4 is wack. We barely won our 1st NC running it, and JJ had a horrible 1st year being stuck running it.