100th Post about the Defense (different question..I promise)

[Dghustla]

Hello this is my first post. Don't kill me.

I've been reading a lot of post in regard to D'onfrio's scheme asking the DL to control gaps and not get up-field to make TFLs. Obviously we are not executing this scheme correctly; so my questions are

A) What other teams in college football are running a scheme like this? Because all of the games I watch it appears D Coordinators are putting an emphasis on creating pressure with their front 4.

B) What are the advantages to running this scheme? What is the defense trying to achieve by not getting into the backfield? When executing this scheme properly how does it create disadvantages and problems for the offense?

 

[moshated305]

I think the defense is being given a wrong interpretation. It doesn't call for guys to not get push, and not get up field. It just looks that way because our DL was continually getting pushed backwards so people claim its the scheme. It does call for our guys to engage with the OL first and shed the block which is more difficult but DL still have to get push and get into the backfield. Our guys just can't get push or shed blocks so the gap scheme isn't working. I honestly, don't think it would make that much of a difference. You aren't always going to immediately get into the backfield with an upfield rush and you are still required to get push and shed a block when the OL gets his hands on you. Our guys sit there with the OL and play patty cake. That is not what the scheme calls for.

Bama runs this type of defense but in a 3-4 base. They get into the backfield and are disruptive. We don't even need to compare the talent levels between the two teams. Many people are yelling the scheme, scheme, scheme, others say the players but IMO, its both. With what we have we would be better off getting upfield and attacking. We probably force KSU to punt a couple of times the other day but we probably still give up 40 points because talent is definitely lacking on that side of the ball, especially on DL. My main problem with the scheme is how we match up behind it. We force our LBs to cover the slot too much. Which is why they get confused on who they are covering. They don't know if they are supposed to cover the shallow zone, man the slot or cover the back. Which is why we are seeing guys running wide open a ton.

 

[TotesMagotes]

This would be much easier if you guys would just recycle posts from 2008 and replace Coker's name with Shannon's and Shannon's name with Golden's. Would save all you apologists a lot of time.

 

[CaneSuger]

We are running Penn State's defense from the mid-90's with a few twists. It will be good once we get experienced and physically bigger.

The disadvantage of Randy Shannon's attacking scheme can be seen in the 2010 game vs FSU where we got killed with all different sorts of screen passes and runs up the middle. It is very easy to take advantage of an overly aggressive front. You can see it schematically in that game.

During the K-State game, we got beat around the edges and in the passing game, not up the middle. That says to me 1.) we are undersized at linebacker to where they are ineffective taking on blocks 2.) Our defensive ends are not athletic enough 3.) Our safeties and corners didn't play physical enough

 

[Dghustla]

I think the defense is being given a wrong interpretation. It doesn't call for guys to not get push, and not get up field. It just looks that way because our DL was continually getting pushed backwards so people claim its the scheme. It does call for our guys to engage with the OL first and shed the block which is more difficult but DL still have to get push and get into the backfield. Our guys just can't get push or shed blocks so the gap scheme isn't working. I honestly, don't think it would make that much of a difference. You aren't always going to immediately get into the backfield with an upfield rush and you are still required to get push and shed a block when the OL gets his hands on you. Our guys sit there with the OL and play patty cake. That is not what the scheme calls for.

Bama runs this type of defense but in a 3-4 base. They get into the backfield and are disruptive. We don't even need to compare the talent levels between the two teams. Many people are yelling the scheme, scheme, scheme, others say the players but IMO, its both. With what we have we would be better off getting upfield and attacking. We probably force KSU to punt a couple of times the other day but we probably still give up 40 points because talent is definitely lacking on that side of the ball, especially on DL. My main problem with the scheme is how we match up behind it. We force our LBs to cover the slot too much. Which is why they get confused on who they are covering. They don't know if they are supposed to cover the shallow zone, man the slot or cover the back. Which is why we are seeing guys running wide open a ton.

Thanks for the insight. I personally think it's both also. The DL is weak and Chick is the only guy I see with a decent Motor. I agree we aren't running enough Nickel and it's causing our LB to play in areas of the field where currently they are not good enough to compete in.


Totes...I'm not sure what your getting at. No apologist here, Just trying to get an understanding of what the unit is trying to achieve.

 

[RepTheGables]

We are running Penn State's defense from the mid-90's with a few twists. It will be good once we get experienced and physically bigger.

The disadvantage of Randy Shannon's attacking scheme can be seen in the 2010 game vs FSU where we got killed with all different sorts of screen passes and runs up the middle. It is very easy to take advantage of an overly aggressive front. You can see it schematically in that game.

During the K-State game, we got beat around the edges and in the passing game, not up the middle. That says to me 1.) we are undersized at linebacker to where they are ineffective taking on blocks 2.) Our defensive ends are not athletic enough 3.) Our safeties and corners didn't play physical enough

That's a solid response.

Totes might need some more lithium.

 

[DeadPoets]

We are running Penn State's defense from the mid-90's with a few twists. It will be good once we get experienced and physically bigger.

The disadvantage of Randy Shannon's attacking scheme can be seen in the 2010 game vs FSU where we got killed with all different sorts of screen passes and runs up the middle. It is very easy to take advantage of an overly aggressive front. You can see it schematically in that game.

During the K-State game, we got beat around the edges and in the passing game, not up the middle. That says to me 1.) we are undersized at linebacker to where they are ineffective taking on blocks 2.) Our defensive ends are not athletic enough 3.) Our safeties and corners didn't play physical enough

Penn St in the mid 90's was a defense developed to predominantly stop the run (as the big ten, especially in the 90s, was a run first, blando offensive conference).
Today is SO much different than the 90s our scheme seems archaic in such ways (aka thinking a LB can cover a slot, soft zone to prevent big plays, etc)

I don't know that I've seen ANYONE run as soft a zone as us under Golden/D'Onofrio. Seriously... ever.
QBs continuously have 80%+ completion rates. That's unheard of.

Get this Big Ten shiznit out of here. There's a reason we beat those archaic defenses (remember Bernie Kosar's quote in the documentary?) in the past.
And spare me the Testaverde '86 game. We could have ran all obver that hogwash. That was more Canes over-confident vs PSU defense out-scheming us.

 

[CaneSuger]

Bro... Kansas State's offense on Saturday was straight out of the 90's. Get out of here with that. It's not like we lost to Oregon or some new gimmick modern offense.

Coach Snyder is god**** fossil, and we got beat by an old-school coach playing old-school ball.

Also, the defenses you are calling "archaic" are what they are running in the NFL today. Nobody runs it the way Randy did. An NFL offense would pick that apart just like Jimbo did.

We are running Penn State's defense from the mid-90's with a few twists. It will be good once we get experienced and physically bigger.

The disadvantage of Randy Shannon's attacking scheme can be seen in the 2010 game vs FSU where we got killed with all different sorts of screen passes and runs up the middle. It is very easy to take advantage of an overly aggressive front. You can see it schematically in that game.

During the K-State game, we got beat around the edges and in the passing game, not up the middle. That says to me 1.) we are undersized at linebacker to where they are ineffective taking on blocks 2.) Our defensive ends are not athletic enough 3.) Our safeties and corners didn't play physical enough

Penn St in the mid 90's was a defense developed to predominantly stop the run (as the big ten, especially in the 90s, was a run first, blando offensive conference).
Today is SO much different than the 90s our scheme seems archaic in such ways (aka thinking a LB can cover a slot, soft zone to prevent big plays, etc)

I don't know that I've seen ANYONE run as soft a zone as us under Golden/D'Onofrio. Seriously... ever.
QBs continuously have 80%+ completion rates. That's unheard of.

Get this Big Ten shiznit out of here. There's a reason we beat those archaic defenses (remember Bernie Kosar's quote in the documentary?) in the past.
And spare me the Testaverde '86 game. We could have ran all obver that hogwash. That was more Canes over-confident vs PSU defense out-scheming us.

 

[razrcane]

Bro... Kansas State's offense on Saturday was straight out of the 90's. Get out of here with that. It's not like we lost to Oregon or some new gimmick modern offense.

Coach Snyder is god**** fossil, and we got beat by an old-school coach playing old-school ball.

Also, the defenses you are calling "archaic" are what they are running in the NFL today. Nobody runs it the way Randy did. An NFL offense would pick that apart just like Jimbo did.

We are running Penn State's defense from the mid-90's with a few twists. It will be good once we get experienced and physically bigger.

The disadvantage of Randy Shannon's attacking scheme can be seen in the 2010 game vs FSU where we got killed with all different sorts of screen passes and runs up the middle. It is very easy to take advantage of an overly aggressive front. You can see it schematically in that game.

During the K-State game, we got beat around the edges and in the passing game, not up the middle. That says to me 1.) we are undersized at linebacker to where they are ineffective taking on blocks 2.) Our defensive ends are not athletic enough 3.) Our safeties and corners didn't play physical enough

Penn St in the mid 90's was a defense developed to predominantly stop the run (as the big ten, especially in the 90s, was a run first, blando offensive conference).
Today is SO much different than the 90s our scheme seems archaic in such ways (aka thinking a LB can cover a slot, soft zone to prevent big plays, etc)

I don't know that I've seen ANYONE run as soft a zone as us under Golden/D'Onofrio. Seriously... ever.
QBs continuously have 80%+ completion rates. That's unheard of.

Get this Big Ten shiznit out of here. There's a reason we beat those archaic defenses (remember Bernie Kosar's quote in the documentary?) in the past.
And spare me the Testaverde '86 game. We could have ran all obver that hogwash. That was more Canes over-confident vs PSU defense out-scheming us.

Smh..yea k state offense is very 90s. Also most of bamas tfl come from lb and not dl