Looking at the Defense

[CTMike]

Yes, I know, you are not comfortable with the concept of using facts and observation to support a position.

But you're truly remarkable with name calling and hysteria.

Perhaps if you opened your eyes and watched us play the 3-3-5, you might notice that we don't play it well.

There was no hysteria or name calling, just facts.

There is no debating that the defense has been very poor.

You still haven’t proven that the 3-3-5 is the cause.

You haven’t remotely proven that switching to a 4-3 would fix anything at all.

 

[JMick]

Yes, I know, you are not comfortable with the concept of using facts and observation to support a position.

But you're truly remarkable with name calling and hysteria.

Perhaps if you opened your eyes and watched us play the 3-3-5, you might notice that we don't play it well.

Why do you refuse to use advanced statistics? Oh right, they don't fit your narrative.

 

[Pudge]

The 2011 defense finished 51th in the FBS.
The 2012 defense finished 9th in the FBS.
The 2013 defense finished 53th in the FBS.
The 2014 defense finished 50th in the FBS.
The 2015 defense finished 44th in the FBS.
The 2016 defense finished 65th in the FBS.

They are currently 128th in the country, only East Carolina is worse.

As was previously stated, we returned 7 starters. The difference in our performance is MASSIVELY worse. It's an outlier. It's the scheme.

This is BS

Would you rather have 70-31 games giving up 700+ yards - WITH HOPE ... or 20-3 games giving up 400 yards - WITH NO HOPE.

65th in the country to 128th in the country is directly correlated to how we are playing the Lashlee offense. And while I accept the point about our depth ... what I liked about HCRE, always, is he can manage a roster.

I'm not that down on Crocker.

 

[Purple Stein]

What exactly do we do WELL as a defense? What are we capable of executing given the bodies on the team? Shouldn't we build from that question?

I don't know enough about the 3-3-5 to know whether it plays to our strengths, but I do know giving up 70 sucks. I also know that no "scheme" will hide bad tackling.

 

[uconnric]

I don’t think you are going to find anyone who would shed a tear if the 3-3-5 is scrapped. But scheme is not the issue here. It’s a lack of talent. We have don’t have much speed and athleticism. And it’s at all levels - d line, linebacker, and DB. One thing I would be a fan of is moving players up a level - convert a linebacker to d end, or a ss to LB. We have to find a way to increase speed.

Right. Edsall has admitted privately that he was surprised by the slow 40 times when he arrived. That's why we've seen alot of db-athletes being recruited.

We also need recruits on both lines. We don't have any true cover guys, but we're also not getting any pressure on the qb. I see some bright spots on the oline, but dline Is going to be a huge rebuild. We've been losing games in the trenches.

As ugly as Friday's game was, turnovers really killed us and made things go from bad to horrendous.

 

[BlueDogs]

A couple of points:

• In a league full on gunslingers and no huddle offenses why would you not play 5 d-backs?
• What are people advocating a 4-3-4, 5-2-4, 4-4-3? Explain why another alignment would be better?
• Unlike Diaco's alignment, where they lined up like blocking dummies in basically the same spot, I see lots of movement and different looks.
• Anything they could do to keep blockers off Junior would be a good adjustment. He's aggressive and probably needs to make at least 15 tackles a game.
• It would be great if they could game plan to try and take away the things teams to well.
• 3-3-5 makes sense. Need to execute better and to free up playmakers (maybe just Junior) to make plays.

The benefits of. 4-3 over a 3-3 have been articulated like 100 times now. Can we stop asking the same question as a rhetorical device to make a false point.

If you want to argue personnel, fine. The personnel analysis posted is thoughtful, but flawed. You don't need 20 DBs on the roster. You don't need 10 -12DL. It's nice to have. It's not a need.

How many DLs does it take to run a 4-3? Four. Actually more like two or three, because you can use hybrids for the DEs. So, we can have "light" or "heavy" packages. We have tight ends sitting on the bench that can convert to DL. We can likely get by with 6 deep.

You guys are getting bamboozled by RE . I'm ecstatic he's back, but let's not forget he was a stubborn no change guy before. If you watched CFB yesterday, you'll see most big boys playing out of 4-3 or 3-4 base all day, even the speed teams. There is no substitute for getting upfront pressure and you have to have leverage on the edge. If you don't, you're dead...ala...being shredded for 600 yards a week.

 

[Exit 4]

I don't care what defense we run, but I do know we don't get any pressure on the QB, don't disrupt the qb's timing or throwing lanes, we have DBs that don't get many pass defenses, a defense that doesn't get many TFLs, don't have secondary guys that can see the ball in the air, don't have catch up speed, and too many of the defensive players that don't seem they like to hit people. We don't lite anyone up.

Opposing QBs are looking like video game heros becuaee they have zero fear we can make a play on their throws.

I don't have the answers, but this both a coaching and talent issue, it's not one or the other. And unlike the offense, it's going in the wrong direction on recruiting.

 

[Nostical]

It was interesting watching Wash State's defensive approach. Sure, they have speedier guys than we do but their D line moves (shifts) before each snap and all their players are in a leaning forward, balls of their feet kinetic position. I'd like to see that kind of ready confidence on our D.

 

[gopher2]

What exactly do we do WELL as a defense? What are we capable of executing given the bodies on the team? Shouldn't we build from that question?

I don't know enough about the 3-3-5 to know whether it plays to our strengths, but I do know giving up 70 sucks. I also know that no "scheme" will hide bad tackling.

I think the most important thing is to find a way to get quick pressure on opposing QBs. Send whatever combination and number of LBs and DBs is necessary to start getting some sacks/fumbles/INTs. Play tighter on the outside to take away the quick passes to the wide outs that have been killing us. The increased numbers crossing the LOS will also blow up some running plays. We will surely get burned a few times each game doing this but at least we will have a chance to be more disruptive and force some turnovers.

 

[Bubba1957]

The benefits of. 4-3 over a 3-3 have been articulated like 100 times now. Can we stop asking the same question as a rhetorical device to make a false point.

If you want to argue personnel, fine. The personnel analysis posted is thoughtful, but flawed. You don't need 20 DBs on the roster. You don't need 10 -12DL. It's nice to have. It's not a need.

How many DLs does it take to run a 4-3? Four. Actually more like two or three, because you can use hybrids for the DEs. So, we can have "light" or "heavy" packages. We have tight ends sitting on the bench that can convert to DL. We can likely get by with 6 deep.

You guys are getting bamboozled by RE . I'm ecstatic he's back, but let's not forget he was a stubborn no change guy before. If you watched CFB yesterday, you'll see most big boys playing out of 4-3 or 3-4 base all day, even the speed teams. There is no substitute for getting upfront pressure and you have to have leverage on the edge. If you don't, you're dead...ala...being shredded for 600 yards a week.

I must have missed the point on the 4 down linemen. If it's to apply more pressure - I don't buy it. Why would putting another slow unathletic guy on the field help with that? If we were getting beaten up by fullbacks up the middle, I might agree. We do not have 4 D1 linemen on the roster. Why would insist on playing with 4 down lineman if they are not good enough. Agree that pressure is important but I don't see anyone on the bench that could supply that. I also think that applying pressure from more looks is the only way. Ferguson was actually under pressure a few times and made some great throws.

 

[gioff23]

I don't agree. The current coaches have taken the worst offense in FBS and made it respectable. I see so much offensive improvement. I see an OL that creates a pocket for Shirreffs. I see Shirreffs step up in the pocket instead of bailing. I see WRs and TEs that were totally forgotten under the last regime utilized and actually make plays. Clearly, there was talent on offense, but the past coaching was suspect.

On defense, I have stated the issues that I have seen so I won't repeat them.

My biggest complaint is that the coaches haven't seemed to find a way to utilize our defensive players in a way to make them effective. We know that the roster doesn't fit the 3-3-5 scheme and that the DBs are very young, but what adjustments are the coaches going to make?

Um, the discussion is about the "Defense".

 

[kemba]

The benefits of. 4-3 over a 3-3 have been articulated like 100 times now. Can we stop asking the same question as a rhetorical device to make a false point.

If you want to argue personnel, fine. The personnel analysis posted is thoughtful, but flawed. You don't need 20 DBs on the roster. You don't need 10 -12DL. It's nice to have. It's not a need.

How many DLs does it take to run a 4-3? Four. Actually more like two or three, because you can use hybrids for the DEs. So, we can have "light" or "heavy" packages. We have tight ends sitting on the bench that can convert to DL. We can likely get by with 6 deep.

You guys are getting bamboozled by RE . I'm ecstatic he's back, but let's not forget he was a stubborn no change guy before. If you watched CFB yesterday, you'll see most big boys playing out of 4-3 or 3-4 base all day, even the speed teams. There is no substitute for getting upfront pressure and you have to have leverage on the edge. If you don't, you're dead...ala...being shredded for 600 yards a week.

So your solution to getting upfront pressure and leverage on the end is to throw some backup tight ends out there and hope they can do it?

 

[Marty Jackson]

The 2011 defense finished 51th in the FBS.
The 2012 defense finished 9th in the FBS.
The 2013 defense finished 53th in the FBS.
The 2014 defense finished 50th in the FBS.
The 2015 defense finished 44th in the FBS.
The 2016 defense finished 65th in the FBS.

They are currently 128th in the country, only East Carolina is worse.

As was previously stated, we returned 7 starters. The difference in our performance is MASSIVELY worse. It's an outlier. It's the scheme.

it's obviously the scheme. But, the personnel is likely compounding the issues. I think we'll start to see improvements over the next couple weeks. The key is that the players can't give in. They gave up on PP, they gave up on Diaco.

They have to buy what the coaches are selling, soak it up, and execute. I think the offense is doing that. Defense, not so much.

 

[Marty Jackson]

This is BS

Would you rather have 70-31 games giving up 700+ yards - WITH HOPE ... or 20-3 games giving up 400 yards - WITH NO HOPE.

65th in the country to 128th in the country is directly correlated to how we are playing the Lashlee offense. And while I accept the point about our depth ... what I liked about HCRE, always, is he can manage a roster.

I'm not that down on Crocker.

how is the fact that our defense is now last, directly correlated to the boost we're seeing from Lashlee's offense?

 

[RSTuthill]

I dunno, but it is time to start thinking outside the box. Example in point: one of Iowa States QBs yesterday played on both sides of the ball (also at LB). They beat the number 3 team in the nation. Maybe it is time to convert a little used TE like Tommy Meyers and make him a middle LB in a 3-4. He's tall and could bat stuff down on a pass rush or on those quick passes up the middle. That would a derivative of what they are doing now, more of a tweak than a scheme change.

 

[housekeys]

My biggest complaint is that the coaches haven't seemed to find a way to utilize our defensive players in a way to make them effective. We know that the roster doesn't fit the 3-3-5 scheme and that the DBs are very young, but what adjustments are the coaches going to make?

Just posted on another thread. Basically, we are too clean and have very few defensive penalties to show for it. Coach your players to be a little "dirty" when they get beat. Maybe that will translate to playing clean, aggressive football at some point in the future. This is football after all.

 

[huskymedic]

A little dad pride for his true freshman...

 

[hardcorehusky]

RE and Crocker knew coming in the speed wasn't there. They also realized that losing a 2nd round safety who was a physical freak covered up a lot of ills last year. They did not realize that the DL was basically decimated. In a league of spread offenses- having the nickel back in a base defense makes sense. And there is talent there- young talent. Young talent does not translate into results. Mature talent does. As I said in another thread- Obi was terrible his first two and half years. He had the talent- but once his game caught up to his talent, he became a force. Herring - Wilson, Fortt, Coyle, Swenson have talent.

Also, no fan realized that while we had the worst offense in college football- the other teams in this league have really good offenses.

Not that this makes any of us feel any better, mark this under misery loves company. Tulsa gave up 63 to TULANE. UCF never punted and put up 51 at Cincinnati in 2 1/2 qtrs- had that game gone full time- UCF would have put up over 70 in Nippert.

Bottom line, this year will be historically bad, but the future looks better. Edsall we need to recruit at least a few JUCO D linemen. The rest will fall into place. He has done it before and will do so again.

 

[Stainmaster]

I dunno, but it is time to start thinking outside the box. Example in point: one of Iowa States QBs yesterday played on both sides of the ball (also at LB). They beat the number 3 team in the nation. Maybe it is time to convert a little used TE like Tommy Meyers and make him a middle LB in a 3-4. He's tall and could bat stuff down on a pass rush or on those quick passes up the middle. That would a derivative of what they are doing now, more of a tweak than a scheme change.

Convert players to positions they either haven't played since high school or have never played in the middle of the season (in Tommy's case, his last)? You're insane.

 

[RSTuthill]

Convert players to positions they either haven't played since high school or have never played in the middle of the season (in Tommy's case, his last)? You're insane.

Thought you'd like it mainly because the DBs are doing so well. (Not.) The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, however. That is what you want to do. I guess in the hope that against Tulsa a light bulb will go off and all will be right with the world.

 

[Stainmaster]

Thought you'd like it mainly because the DBs are doing so well. (Not.) The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, however. That is what you want to do. I guess in the hope that against Tulsa a light bulb will go off and all will be right with the world.

You want to propose something different? Sure. But just because it's "different" doesn't exclude it from being mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[kris1]

I don't know enough about the 3-3-5 to know whether it plays to our strengths, but I do know giving up 70 sucks. I also know that no "scheme" will hide bad tackling.

The 3-3-5 plays to the positional make up of the current roster and the offensive landscape of the AAC (and college football in general).

 

[J187Money]

We lost:

Obi: 118 tackles (1st on the team) - who is on an NFL roster
Walsh: 72 tackles (4th on the team)
Jh Williams: 55 tackles (6th on team)
Myers: 51 tackles (7th on team)

Sure we brought back 7 starters on D, but we lost 4 key contributors and one NFL level talent. I'm not suggesting the cupboard is bare, but our D is really green at this point. We do not have a lot of depth, and very little experience.

(and Obi/Williams were also 5 of our 7 interceptions)

 

[kris1]

I dunno, but it is time to start thinking outside the box. Example in point: one of Iowa States QBs yesterday played on both sides of the ball (also at LB). They beat the number 3 team in the nation. Maybe it is time to convert a little used TE like Tommy Meyers and make him a middle LB in a 3-4. He's tall and could bat stuff down on a pass rush or on those quick passes up the middle. That would a derivative of what they are doing now, more of a tweak than a scheme change.

Wait...what??? I love the kid at Iowa St, but he's a very rare breed. There is nothing about Tommy Meyers that screams LB....and I love Tommy Meyers. Jay Rose....maybe???

 

[kris1]

We lost:

Obi: 118 tackles (1st on the team) - who is on an NFL roster
Walsh: 72 tackles (4th on the team)
Jh Williams: 55 tackles (6th on team)
Myers: 51 tackles (7th on team)

Sure we brought back 7 starters on D, but we lost 4 key contributors and one NFL level talent. I'm not suggesting the cupboard is bare, but our D is really green at this point. We do not have a lot of depth, and very little experience.

I agree. But, when you SS is your leading tackler, that's not a good thing.