forums

Someone explain this defensive formation to me please

HurricaneU said:
Looks like TCU style of 3-2-5 formation. Would expect to see a safety cheating closer to line of scrimmage though. Between McCord and Gunther, someone seems out of position - unless they are double teaming a jag receiver.
Click to expand...

TCU runs a 4-2-5

TCU_wide_DL.jpg

fid23170.jpg

107576546.jpg
 
Advertisement
rokulika said:
In case anyone is wondering:

2nd and 7 at ARST 43 Johnston White run for 6 yds to the ArkSt 49
3rd and 1 at ARST 49 Johnston White run for 6 yds to the MiaFl 45 for a 1ST down
Click to expand...

We're multiple...

"Multiple" rushing yards compiled.
 
Advertisement
I hate this defense, not a big fan of the offense either, come to think of it, the special teams **** me off as well
 
Looks like an 8-drop coverage with McCord pressing #1 and playing the flats with Gunter over top. Dropping 8 is good for taking away "quick game". (quick throws) But against 11 personnel you better check to something else or the offense is just gonna run the ball.

We only have 5 in the box. Smh
 
I'd love for someone to make a video critique of all of these bizarre formations, post it on youtube, and let's make it go viral. I want someone on this coaching staff to explain why we do the **** we do.
 
RBhurricane87 said:
HurricaneU said:
Looks like TCU style of 3-2-5 formation. Would expect to see a safety cheating closer to line of scrimmage though. Between McCord and Gunther, someone seems out of position - unless they are double teaming a jag receiver.
Click to expand...

TCU runs a 4-2-5

View attachment 25568

View attachment 25566

View attachment 25567
Click to expand...

Note how many defenders has in the box. Almost 8. We have 5 in the box and there is a big gap between first and second level. It's just non-sensical.
 
Advertisement
What makes it so confusing is that not only does it put us in a matchup nightmare against the pass, with McCord or Harris lined up against a receiver out in space, but it also doesn't make any sense against the run. The only justification for staying in a base defense against 3+ WRs would be to stop the run, but the only way you stop the run is to outnumber the other team in the box (by having McCord, Armbrister and Perryman along with the 3 down lineman close to the LOS). But by leaving McCord on the field and having him way out on the perimeter, he's not going to be able to help against the run and he's clearly not going to be able to get to the QB in time. Even if they run in his direction, now you have him way out in space, trying to stop the run like a true OLB, which he is not.

What we end up with is a guy who is a very effective pass rusher either covering a WR (bad), trying to stop the run from way out wide (bad) and playing a reactionary role instead of an attacking role, where he has proven to be much more effective (bad).
 
Against a team with more than 1 decent player this play goes for at least 15 yards. They have 7 blockers when you take into account the QB is a running threat versus our 5 men in the box.

**** is baffling.
 
RaiseCane said:
What makes it so confusing is that not only does it put us in a matchup nightmare against the pass, with McCord or Harris lined up against a receiver out in space, but it also doesn't make any sense against the run. The only justification for staying in a base defense against 3+ WRs would be to stop the run, but the only way you stop the run is to outnumber the other team in the box (by having McCord, Armbrister and Perryman along with the 3 down lineman close to the LOS). But by leaving McCord on the field and having him way out on the perimeter, he's not going to be able to help against the run and he's clearly not going to be able to get to the QB in time. Even if they run in his direction, now you have him way out in space, trying to stop the run like a true OLB, which he is not.

What we end up with is a guy who is a very effective pass rusher either covering a WR (bad), trying to stop the run from way out wide (bad) and playing a reactionary role instead of an attacking role, where he has proven to be much more effective (bad).
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the reason they put a DE on the WR is to bait the offense to throw there and they scheme so someone else just flies in and (hopefully) makes the immediate tackle. That's got to be the dumbest strategy i've ever heard.
 
Advertisement
If you want to puke into your hands, imagine us lining up like this vs Nebraska.. but instead of two bums in the backfield they have Abdullah and Armstrong.

Should end well.
 
Advertisement
valid said:
RaiseCane said:
What makes it so confusing is that not only does it put us in a matchup nightmare against the pass, with McCord or Harris lined up against a receiver out in space, but it also doesn't make any sense against the run. The only justification for staying in a base defense against 3+ WRs would be to stop the run, but the only way you stop the run is to outnumber the other team in the box (by having McCord, Armbrister and Perryman along with the 3 down lineman close to the LOS). But by leaving McCord on the field and having him way out on the perimeter, he's not going to be able to help against the run and he's clearly not going to be able to get to the QB in time. Even if they run in his direction, now you have him way out in space, trying to stop the run like a true OLB, which he is not.

What we end up with is a guy who is a very effective pass rusher either covering a WR (bad), trying to stop the run from way out wide (bad) and playing a reactionary role instead of an attacking role, where he has proven to be much more effective (bad).
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the reason they put a DE on the WR is to bait the offense to throw there and they scheme so someone else just flies in and (hopefully) makes the immediate tackle. That's got to be the dumbest strategy i've ever heard.
Click to expand...

Scheme comes directly from AG's coaching manual
index.jpg
 
I swear, looking at our D in pre snap pics makes my jawdrop. Our base 3-4 actually looks soft. We play so deep that we look soft and reactionary even before the snap. The photographical evidence only reinforces what we already know.

We play a soft prevent defense from the first play of the game and make minimal and I mean minimal adjustments. Amazing, we actually look soft and porous before the snap. Then we play passive, read react after the snap. GTFOH already. This is gross.
AUcane said:
RBhurricane87 said:
HurricaneU said:
Looks like TCU style of 3-2-5 formation. Would expect to see a safety cheating closer to line of scrimmage though. Between McCord and Gunther, someone seems out of position - unless they are double teaming a jag receiver.
Click to expand...

TCU runs a 4-2-5

View attachment 25568

View attachment 25566

View attachment 25567
Click to expand...

Note how many defenders has in the box. Almost 8. We have 5 in the box and there is a big gap between first and second level. It's just non-sensical.
Click to expand...
 
This isnt baffling at all. Our coaches are that cot dammed stupid. Believe that. Anyone think its coincidence since these idiots started patrolling the sidelines we have had historically bad defenses? It's not. We have made every bad team look reasonable. We make horrible QB's look serviceable. It's like the reverse of the 80's when we took Heisman candidates and flushed their chances down the toilet, then mocked them for being Heisman candidates.

Yabba Dabba Ahmed is gonna murk this defense and will be the leader of the Heisman watch come Saturday 11:30 PM Eastern time. With Bo Pelini as coach. Un friggen fathomable. My head hurts and my eyes bleed thinking about it. Except, oh yeah, we actually have a worse staph than Nebraska has assembled. This game isnt exactly New Years Day 1984 out there.

But, hey, I'm along for the ride, so I'll kick back and enjoy the game. I'm so used to blowouts and losing, I don't get mad anymore. Something like "that's about right" is about all I can muster up the guts to speak these days.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top