The defensive scheme is garbage. | Page 4 | The Boneyard
.-.

The defensive scheme is garbage.

hardcorehusky said:
the 3-3-5 is here to stay. First of all, those of you pining for 4 down linemen, You do realize we only have 3 Interior Linemen in the rotation!!. It's not like we have lots of depth on the d line. Connor Freeborn was the 2nd string DE.

Those looking for different linebackers- here is the whole crew: Stapleton, Diggs, Joseph, Britton, Santana, Hahn and now Beavers took off the redshirt. Again, not so much depth.

Bottom line, Obi. took care of half the field and Williams was underated. The cupboard was not left stocked at any defensive level. The secondary can't keep people in front of them and can't tackle well. That said, they are young and will get better. Crocker has more levels to his scheme but is hamstrung right now. We haven't seen his defense and really won't until some point NEXT year.
Expand ...
thank you. some people just don't get it.
 
metsfan2323 said:
- I strongly disagree, going with 4 down lineman changes the gap assigments for the entire front 7

-Our two DE's are undersized to be lineman in the 3-3-5 scheme. Add a second interior lineman and that problem is fixed.

-adding a second interior lineman will also free up Fatukasi to be more of a playmaker.

- our LB's lack the playmaking ability required for the 3-3-5. Add a 4th D-linemen, make JJ your MLB (his natural position), and make Hahn and Beavers your 2 outside LB's (speed).

I also strongly reject this notion that we can't change because the 3-3-5 is here for the long run. Screw that Diacoesque bullcrap. Go with the best scheme for our personnel this year and worry about next year next year. If Crocker is worth keeping he should be smart enough to adjust on the fly and find a scheme that fits this team right now. The mandate is to give the team the best chance to win each week.

It's only September. Fix the Defense and beat SMU.
Expand ...

This is the first post that actually gave some explanation as to why the 3-3-5 might be the problem. So thank you for a thoughtful post. That said, I still don't buy that the schema is the problem. Look at the way most offenses are today. Empty backfields and 5 receiver sets. Last year we were burned several times when our linebackers were isolated against a receiver downfield. The idea of having more fast athletic guys seems to make sense against today's offenses. Understand that the results have been terrible so far and that is frustrating. But I think they will improve.
 
JMick said:
ah. just as I expected. an old white faux christian.
Expand ...
You're big on bringing race, age and religion into the midst of stuff you know nothing about...you're a classic loser punk. Go play somewhere else.
 
BlueDogs said:
You're big on bringing race, age and religion into the midst of stuff you know nothing about...you're a classic loser punk. Go play somewhere else.
Expand ...
you went after my age first. you have jesus in the huddle as your avatar. you attacked my avatar. keep playing the victim, but know you brought all of this upon yourself first.

also know, the avatar is really for the cesspool. if you'd like to really get into it and get ripped a new one join us in the 'pool some time. we all enjoy fresh meat.
 
.-.
BlueDogs said:
Only in football can you vastly underperform and expect to get paid 900K. Crocker's in charge of the D. He gets paid to put a competitive D on the field. That's his job. He's not even close to doing his job. He's producing the worst performing D in the FBS.
Expand ...

He’s also playing Freshman’s and inexperienced players on D. He’s proven the 3-3-5 works. Give it time sheez.
 
hardcorehusky said:
the 3-3-5 is here to stay. First of all, those of you pining for 4 down linemen, You do realize we only have 3 Interior Linemen in the rotation!!. It's not like we have lots of depth on the d line. Connor Freeborn was the 2nd string DE.

Those looking for different linebackers- here is the whole crew: Stapleton, Diggs, Joseph, Britton, Santana, Hahn and now Beavers took off the redshirt. Again, not so much depth.

Bottom line, Obi. took care of half the field and Williams was underated. The cupboard was not left stocked at any defensive level. The secondary can't keep people in front of them and can't tackle well. That said, they are young and will get better. Crocker has more levels to his scheme but is hamstrung right now. We haven't seen his defense and really won't until some point NEXT year.
Expand ...

Thank you!
 
hardcorehusky said:
the 3-3-5 is here to stay. First of all, those of you pining for 4 down linemen, You do realize we only have 3 Interior Linemen in the rotation!!. It's not like we have lots of depth on the d line. Connor Freeborn was the 2nd string DE.

Those looking for different linebackers- here is the whole crew: Stapleton, Diggs, Joseph, Britton, Santana, Hahn and now Beavers took off the redshirt. Again, not so much depth.

Bottom line, Obi. took care of half the field and Williams was underated. The cupboard was not left stocked at any defensive level. The secondary can't keep people in front of them and can't tackle well. That said, they are young and will get better. Crocker has more levels to his scheme but is hamstrung right now. We haven't seen his defense and really won't until some point NEXT year.
Expand ...
Exactly....
As others have said, we rushed four for a majority of the game. We still didn’t get pressure. So, based on personnel how can this team (which is already thin on the DL) go to a 4-man front? Because, I don’t see many 6’3-6’5, 300+ DTs on the roster. To run a 4-man front you have to have at least an 8-man rotation and at least 6 DTs that could rotate. Where are those DTs coming from? Because, only 7 guys played(*) and 3 would be considered “true” DTs (without Okounam). We don’t have the personnel or the depth at that position to run a 4-front.
 
kris1 said:
Exactly....
As others have said, we rushed four for a majority of the game. We still didn’t get pressure. So, based on personnel how can this team (which is already thin on the DL) go to a 4-man front? Because, I don’t see many 6’3-6’5, 300+ DTs on the roster. To run a 4-man front you have to have at least an 8-man rotation and at least 6 DTs that could rotate. Where are those DTs coming from? Because, only 7 guys played(*) and 3 would be considered “true” DTs (without Okounam). We don’t have the personnel or the depth at that position to run a 4-front.
Expand ...
we barely have the personnel to run a defense at all. I get that it's frustrating but hopefully in a couple years we'll be more worried about finding a new OC and DC because the current guys got the ball rolling. I just hate the idea that people want to throw away crockers defensive identity 1/4 way through year 1.
 
.-.
kris1 said:
Exactly....
As others have said, we rushed four for a majority of the game. We still didn’t get pressure. So, based on personnel how can this team (which is already thin on the DL) go to a 4-man front? Because, I don’t see many 6’3-6’5, 300+ DTs on the roster. To run a 4-man front you have to have at least an 8-man rotation and at least 6 DTs that could rotate. Where are those DTs coming from? Because, only 7 guys played(*) and 3 would be considered “true” DTs (without Okounam). We don’t have the personnel or the depth at that position to run a 4-front.
Expand ...
Kris1, I'm not looking to hijack the thread, but do you think Travis Jones may end up a DT for us next year rather than on the Oline? I see him as the kind of kid we need to anchor the 3 man d line next year.
 
Exit 4 said:
Kris1, I'm not looking to hijack the thread, but do you think Travis Jones may end up a DT for us next year rather than on the Oline? I see him as the kind of kid we need to anchor the 3 man d line next year.
Expand ...
his coach thinks he's a dlineman. he was really, really good against X on the dline. I could see it, but I'm sure we won't know until camp.
 
JMick said:
we barely have the personnel to run a defense at all. I get that it's frustrating but hopefully in a couple years we'll be more worried about finding a new OC and DC because the current guys got the ball rolling. I just hate the idea that people want to throw away crockers defensive identity 1/4 way through year 1.
Expand ...
Because it works on Madden???
 
Exit 4 said:
Kris1, I'm not looking to hijack the thread, but do you think Travis Jones may end up a DT for us next year rather than on the Oline? I see him as the kind of kid we need to anchor the 3 man d line next year.
Expand ...
That’s a decision the staff will have to make. I haven’t seen enough of him defensively to say. I think on the HS level, he’s dominating kids he’s got 80-100 lbs on. But as @JMick said, his HC thinks he’s a DT at the next level, and he’s produced some good ones.
 
3 down lineman with the LB's 3 to 4 yards off the ball when we are defending 3rd and short. We did this more than once today. It is like living in a high crime area and leaving your front door unlocked. We can't coach up a different scheme for situational football? This we are what we are, a 3-3-5 team is bullsh.
 
.-.
kris1 said:
Exactly....
As others have said, we rushed four for a majority of the game. We still didn’t get pressure. So, based on personnel how can this team (which is already thin on the DL) go to a 4-man front? Because, I don’t see many 6’3-6’5, 300+ DTs on the roster. To run a 4-man front you have to have at least an 8-man rotation and at least 6 DTs that could rotate. Where are those DTs coming from? Because, only 7 guys played(*) and 3 would be considered “true” DTs (without Okounam). We don’t have the personnel or the depth at that position to run a 4-front.
Expand ...
96 James Atkins 6-5/266 Defensive Line RS JR (INJURED)
95 Noel Brouse 6-5/265 Defensive Line RS FR (DNP)
*15 Luke Carrezola 6-3/255 Defensive Line SR
*93 Folorunso Fatukasi 6-4/303 Defensive Line RS SR
*88 Connor Freeborn 6-5/255 Defensive Line RS SO
46 AJ Garson 6-7/237 Defensive Line RS FR (DNP)
*50 Sheriden Lawley 6-4/290 Defensive Line RS JR
59 Andrew Migliaccio 6-3/266 Defensive Line RS FR (DNP)
*94 Kevin Murphy 6-1/280 Defensive Line RS SO
58 Philippe Okounam 6-5/290 Defensive Line RS SO (INJURED)
*57 Cole Ormsby 6-3/264 Defensive Line RS SR
92 Carlton Steer 6-2/255 Defensive Line JR (DNP)
*52 Caleb Thomas 6-0/289 Defensive Line FR
 
jdb50 said:
3 down lineman with the LB's 3 to 4 yards off the ball when we are defending 3rd and short. We did this more than once today. It is like living in a high crime area and leaving your front door unlocked. We can't coach up a different scheme for situational football? This we are what we are, a 3-3-5 team is bullsh.
Expand ...
If you have the right guys to run three down lineman then you want your LB's off the ball. otherwise they can't see anything. we just don't have enough beef at the DE positions
 
JMick said:
you went after my age first. you have jesus in the huddle as your avatar. you attacked my avatar. keep playing the victim, but know you brought all of this upon yourself first.
Expand ...
I'd suggest you take a look at the sequence of conversation and make an earnest effort to divine where the problem started. I think we will find "idiot". In effect, you're calling half the Board stupid when it's clear you lack any understanding of how college defenses are prepped. So, I revert to a basic concept. College defenses have many sets based on personnel and situation. They don't stay in a base D. When your getting your butt kicked in a particular look, you get the heck out if it. When your gimmick D is not working after 2 and half games, you adjust and, yes, you do practice in different fronts and alignments that allow you to switch. That's the way it works. It's not high school where you have a dumbed down base D with a limited number of varients off your base look. There is nothing wrong with a nickel look. There is nothing wrong with Crocker's version of it per se. There is everything wrong with a 3-3 that has 5 DBs getting shredded and zero pressure on the QB. Add to that getting gashed up the gut. If you say the players are too slow or not athletic, I don't see it. I see ill prepared, tentative players not making basic plays that simply don't require extreme athleticism. Wrapping up and swarming on tackles is not about athleticism. Getting up on receivers is not athleticism. Not turning to look for the ball is not about athleticism. Coming up hard to make tackles is not athleticism. If Joseph isn't making super human plays, we are screwed. If freshman are not making one on one open field tackles (due to scheme) we are screwed. The reason the wideout pass is open all day is because of scheme. There is no inside out help when there is no DE or Strong Side LB and the slot is dragging the other DB away from the play in man cover. I'm sorry but opposing OCs are shredding this scheme by isolating and forcing one on one with a QB having all day to throw.
Saab04 said:
He’s also playing Freshman’s and inexperienced players on D. He’s proven the 3-3-5 works. Give it time sheez.
Expand ...
At Nova, yes. I have no inherent problem with the scheme. I have an issue with forcing schemes on players that don't fit resulting in the worst D in FBS.
 
BlueDogs said:
I'd suggest you take a look at the sequence of conversation and make an earnest effort to divine where the problem started. I think we will find "idiot". In effect, you're calling half the Board stupid when it's clear you lack any understanding of how college defenses are prepped. So, I revert to a basic concept. College defenses have many sets based on personnel and situation. They don't stay in a base D. When your getting your butt kicked in a particular look, you get the heck out if it. When your gimmick D is not working after 2 and half games, you adjust and, yes, you do practice in different fronts and alignments that allow you to switch. That's the way it works. It's not high school where you have a dumbed down base D with a limited number of varients off your base look. There is nothing wrong with a nickel look. There is nothing wrong with Crocker's version of it per se. There is everything wrong with a 3-3 that has 5 DBs getting shredded and zero pressure on the QB. Add to that getting gashed up the gut. If you say the players are too slow or not athletic, I don't see it. I see ill prepared, tentative players not making basic plays that simply don't require extreme athleticism. Wrapping up and swarming on tackles is not about athleticism. Getting up on receivers is not athleticism. Not turning to look for the ball is not about athleticism. Coming up hard to make tackles is not athleticism. If Joseph isn't making super human plays, we are screwed. If freshman are not making one on one open field tackles (due to scheme) we are screwed. The reason the wideout pass is open all day is because of scheme. There is no inside out help when there is no DE or Strong Side LB and the slot is dragging the other DB away from the play in man cover. I'm sorry but opposing OCs are shredding this scheme by isolating and forcing one on one with a QB having all day to throw.

At Nova, yes. I have no inherent problem with the scheme. I have an issue with forcing schemes on players that don't fit resulting in the worst D in FBS.
Expand ...

We have no beef up front to switch schemes. We lack talent, depth and experience on D. Don’t you see how many Frosh and inexperienced players has taken over the depth chart on defense? I completely understand your frustration and I’m sure many others are equally as frustrated, however, there’s nothing Croc can really do but keep at it with what he knows best, and that’s the 3-3-5. It’ll work, the secondary will gain experience as the season goes on. I see the growth. Be patient.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
4,174
Total visitors
4,259
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,287
Messages
4,430,333
Members
10,276
Latest member
swede23


p
p
Top Bottom