2 Min Drill From Ryan Williams' Perspective

[LuCane]

Not one 2-gap scheme there, fellas (3-3-5 nickel personnel). Three under looks and three even looks (both with a stand up rush end/LB).

Obvious passing downs (2-minute drill) we don't 2-gap.

Exactly. We're multiple. Appreciate it. I'd rather not go on a rant, but we need to appreciate that we have schematic answers to offenses. If we can get this defense right, then we can pose a lot of problems for teams since we can be so different from one down to the next.

What? We may have a lot of answers, in theory, to offenses. We're not quite flexible in using them. If we had "an answer" schematically to Wake's offense last year, they wouldn't have been moving around our defenders by simply widening their splits across South Florida.

Context. I was commenting in the context of 6 plays we saw in the video. Keep reading the thread. They did it against NC state, and FSU too and had success. C'mon, admin. You're better than that.

This is a discussion in theory. Obviously.

I kept reading and answered to your later post. C'mon, contrarian poster. You're better than that, too. I'm all for discussing the substantive topics, but blind defense of coaches, just like blind hatred, isn't a good starting point for that.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

The 2 gapping thing doesn't even matter...not gonna argue since I don't have an idea what every team in America does in that regard.

But to somehow attempt to extrapolate that point into saying we should be thankful for a system that yielded 500 yards or more to 6 or 7 opponents down the stretch last year, in addition to being torched in general since the Temple boys arrived, is the definition of ASININE.

The scheme has been absolutely torched while at the University of Miami...that's all I care about. Homeboy can't get fired soon enough.

I'm am guilty of always leaning towards the coach's side, that's true. But I do it for a reason. Coaches rarely have anyone on their side, even when things are going well. Uneducated fans will always question decisions, play calling, "scheme", etc. I have a hard time standing idle while our fan base bashes our staff on what people like you call "scheme". People don't realize the importance of positivity to a program. We need to support them.

While the "scheme has been torched," the players have been torched too. Maybe the scheme sucks, but until we have talent AND depth, we can't make that determination. The more time I have spent around football, the more I realize that players are the ones who make coaches look smart. All coaches can do is mess it up [excuse my hyperbole]. Have we had realistic hopes for our defense in the past 3 years? I know I wasn't excited about a senior class that featured Shayon Green and AJ Highsmith.

Be realistic. Sophomore Jamal Carter > Senior KC Rodgers; Junior Tyriq McCord > Senior Shayon Green; Sophomore Alex Figueroa > Senior Tyrone Cornelius; See the trend? We're going to be better this year. Start believing it and support our team.

I think your line of thinking is in line with our coaches'. If we can just execute it all, we'll be good. But we have yet to execute it three years in by their own admission. At some point, one would think that reality will overtake theory. You also believe that the personnel will be so much better but we'll have to see. Sophomore McCord wasn't better than Shayon Green despite his year in the system. Sophomore Kirby wasn't better than Gaines or Cornelius--he couldn't even see the field. They're more talented but they have to show us. We're not exactly on the cusp of greatness--we're terrible. We have so far to go that modest improvements in talent without the execution will land us nowhere.

 

[WestEndZone]

I kept reading and answered to your later post. C'mon, contrarian poster. You're better than that, too. I'm all for discussing the substantive topics, but blind defense of coaches, just like blind hatred, isn't a good starting point for that.

Nah, I'm not blind to it. I know what I'm talking about - no need for humility at this point. This might be controversial, but we are more sound now than with Randy (a HC). That I am sure of. We had a lot of good players back then, and we underachieved tremendously. Randy's system (as a DC) had no answers. It was brutally simple. We were OK at it, but we also had studs running it. Chiano built that defense and Randy rode his coat tails. Does Randy have a job right now? (position coach?)

I've been just as disappointed as everyone else. My fault if I was aggressive. I've been defending that comment all day. I usually explain things better, but I want also to avoid sounding like a snob.

I'm maintaining still that our biggest problem is talent. Second to that is that our system is probably too complex for young kids to play in it. Either we need to dumb it down, or we need to wait for experience and depth to be created with time and recruiting. We looked lost too many times this year to be successful. I can understand it early on, but we regressed.

The VT game was a wash, IMO. A bomb went off in the 2nd qtr with all those turnovers and we couldn't quite recover from it. We're not that good yet. Momentum is real. Duke is totally unacceptable, but hey -- Duke did a good job. I see reality just like everyone else. It just really grinds my gears when people claim to be scheme experts.

 

[LuCane]

I kept reading and answered to your later post. C'mon, contrarian poster. You're better than that, too. I'm all for discussing the substantive topics, but blind defense of coaches, just like blind hatred, isn't a good starting point for that.

Nah, I'm not blind to it. I know what I'm talking about - no need for humility at this point. This might be controversial, but we are more sound now than with Randy (a HC). That I am sure of. We had a lot of good players back then, and we underachieved tremendously. Randy's system (as a DC) had no answers. It was brutally simple. We were OK at it, but we also had studs running it. Chiano built that defense and Randy rode his coat tails. Does Randy have a job right now? (position coach?)

You're preaching to the choir. Dozens of posters here can vouch for my take on Randy's insistence on simplicity and lack of disguise. Actually, the lack of disguise and overall tendency to stay conservative is the common thread between what we see now and we saw then.

I've been just as disappointed as everyone else. My fault if I was aggressive. I've been defending that comment all day. I usually explain things better, but I want also to avoid sounding like a snob.

Don't mind how you sound and didn't take it as aggressive. What we'd like are more substantive topics. At this time of the year, that's not easy without being repetitive.

I'm maintaining still that our biggest problem is talent. Second to that is that our system is probably too complex for young kids to play in it. Either we need to dumb it down, or we need to wait for experience and depth to be created with time and recruiting. We looked lost too many times this year to be successful. I can understand it early on, but we regressed.

I've agreed with everyone that said we had talent issues. I disagree with those that said we max'd out whatever talent we did have. I think they played below their collective and individual talent levels. I think a guy like Luther Robinson, as one example, flashed (and no, not only that random BC game a couple years back) at times and then mostly vanished. I think it's odd that a guy like Curtis Porter looked worse last year, even early in the season or at any small sample, than he ever had here (in his obviously small flashes). I think the answer you propose is fair. Very talented and experienced players would drastically help this system. I just don't think that's a sustainable model.

The VT game was a wash, IMO. A bomb went off in the 2nd qtr with all those turnovers and we couldn't quite recover from it. We're not that good yet. Momentum is real. Duke is totally unacceptable, but hey -- Duke did a good job. I see reality just like everyone else. It just really grinds my gears when people claim to be scheme experts.

To me, the most inexcusable performances were Duke and Louisville. Louisville because it presented real evidence that, even in an opportunity to be prepared, we had nothing in response to their counter. That's a worrisome sign. There was no reason for us to look as outmatched as we did against Louisville. And, hence, my almost frantic hope that there are some philosophical adjustments.

My responses in red.

 

[WestEndZone]

Obvious passing downs (2-minute drill) we don't 2-gap.

Exactly. We're multiple. Appreciate it. I'd rather not go on a rant, but we need to appreciate that we have schematic answers to offenses. If we can get this defense right, then we can pose a lot of problems for teams since we can be so different from one down to the next.

Is this post for real?

You don't 2 gap in a 2 minute situation. How on earth does this somehow disprove the notion that the scheme isn't garbage? Every bad defense that has ever been assembled had "multiple" looks, by your definition.

I'll appreciate Onfrio's scheme a heck of a lot more once he's fired.

Keep reading the thread for an explanation. People do 2-gap in 2-minute/passing situations. I'll quote from my previous post, since you couldn't find it:

"And yes, teams DO 2 gap in passing situations. Many even front teams like to line their defensive tackles in 2-tech's (head up guards) and 2-gap them, looking for screen or draw. The ends are sent to rush or "jet", where they disregard triangle run reads. The jetting ends usually get a good pass rush, while the defensive tackles take up blockers, while fulfilling their spy responsibilities. "

By saying that we're multiple implies that we play multiple techniques. Every defense in America has multiple fronts and coverages. Gary Patterson at TCU, who I respect very much, swears by multiple principles, even though they're a 425. They 2 gap their ends, and they also don't. They run man coverage, they run zone coverage. I spent some time in Ft. Worth to learn about their system, and one point that resonated with me was;

If a team like to run man coverage beating routes, then they will play zone all game, and vice versa. They are different every week, depending on their opponent. He has no problem turning into a man coverage team for an entire season if they need it.

It's the same principles in the run game. If you're playing classic power running team [teams who like man blocking schemes (down, kick, lead)] then the defense should 2 gap. It just works well against it. We were 2 gapping all day vs. UF. If you're playing a zone read or a stretch team, then you want to shade and play gap control. We do it all. That's good. If we can get good at doing it all, then we will be unstoppable.

It's the extremely rare college team that can "do it all" well. For all the 2-gapping you're mentioning on passing downs, a lot of that now is done on ONE HALF of the field (or DLine) while the other half of the DLine is one-gapping. It's essentially what Seattle (in the NFL) does. It's not something I expect to be done well in college. The fact you mention TCU is odd. They have a very aggressive blitz package - with players shooting gaps and flying off the edges (bullets and smoke). I've long "defended" our coaches in saying that they know all of this and know their options, but are just choosing to play a certain way to fit a certain philosophy. The problem is that philosophy is not currently based on aggression. Maybe that's because they didn't trust the players. Maybe that will change now. We shall see.

​

Lol @ posting posting dlb smokes and dogs pics. Want me to explain that to you? Do you know what a 6 tech does? Essentially he's 2gapping a TE. See the single line going through the TE's circle? That refers to a head up alignment. Simple enough. In a base call he's full caging the blocker on a reach or on-block while not getting reached with emphasis on Cgap responsibilities. A lot of teams scoot that DE to a 9 or a 7, where they play a shaded tech. They just don't want to teach the extra technique.

Want me to explain what "spy and replace" means to those D gap blitzers and the defenders covering attached receivers and backs in the backfield? You forgot to post the bullets pic. Everyone has cover 0 blitzes

 

[LuCane]

Exactly. We're multiple. Appreciate it. I'd rather not go on a rant, but we need to appreciate that we have schematic answers to offenses. If we can get this defense right, then we can pose a lot of problems for teams since we can be so different from one down to the next.

Is this post for real?

You don't 2 gap in a 2 minute situation. How on earth does this somehow disprove the notion that the scheme isn't garbage? Every bad defense that has ever been assembled had "multiple" looks, by your definition.

I'll appreciate Onfrio's scheme a heck of a lot more once he's fired.

Keep reading the thread for an explanation. People do 2-gap in 2-minute/passing situations. I'll quote from my previous post, since you couldn't find it:

"And yes, teams DO 2 gap in passing situations. Many even front teams like to line their defensive tackles in 2-tech's (head up guards) and 2-gap them, looking for screen or draw. The ends are sent to rush or "jet", where they disregard triangle run reads. The jetting ends usually get a good pass rush, while the defensive tackles take up blockers, while fulfilling their spy responsibilities. "

By saying that we're multiple implies that we play multiple techniques. Every defense in America has multiple fronts and coverages. Gary Patterson at TCU, who I respect very much, swears by multiple principles, even though they're a 425. They 2 gap their ends, and they also don't. They run man coverage, they run zone coverage. I spent some time in Ft. Worth to learn about their system, and one point that resonated with me was;

If a team like to run man coverage beating routes, then they will play zone all game, and vice versa. They are different every week, depending on their opponent. He has no problem turning into a man coverage team for an entire season if they need it.

It's the same principles in the run game. If you're playing classic power running team [teams who like man blocking schemes (down, kick, lead)] then the defense should 2 gap. It just works well against it. We were 2 gapping all day vs. UF. If you're playing a zone read or a stretch team, then you want to shade and play gap control. We do it all. That's good. If we can get good at doing it all, then we will be unstoppable.

It's the extremely rare college team that can "do it all" well. For all the 2-gapping you're mentioning on passing downs, a lot of that now is done on ONE HALF of the field (or DLine) while the other half of the DLine is one-gapping. It's essentially what Seattle (in the NFL) does. It's not something I expect to be done well in college. The fact you mention TCU is odd. They have a very aggressive blitz package - with players shooting gaps and flying off the edges (bullets and smoke). I've long "defended" our coaches in saying that they know all of this and know their options, but are just choosing to play a certain way to fit a certain philosophy. The problem is that philosophy is not currently based on aggression. Maybe that's because they didn't trust the players. Maybe that will change now. We shall see.

​

Lol @ posting posting dlb smokes and dogs pics. Want me to explain that to you? Do you know what a 6 tech does? Essentially he's 2gapping a TE. See the single line going through the TE's circle? That refers to a head up alignment. Simple enough. In a base call he's full caging the blocker on a reach or on-block while not getting reached with emphasis on Cgap responsibilities. A lot of teams scoot that DE to a 9 or a 7, where they play a shaded tech. They just don't want to teach the extra technique.

Want me to explain what "spy and replace" means to those D gap blitzers and the defenders covering attached receivers and backs in the backfield? You forgot to post the bullets pic. Everyone has cover 0 blitzes

The pictures were posted as references to TCU's far more aggressive blitz packages, which was what I mentioned in my post.

Yes, please explain it all to me. I don't know anything about football. My 15 years writing about Xs and Os on this board and about 4 others are evidence of that. Thankfully, we now have your condescending tone to save us. Look forward to it.

 

[BucCANEers]

Wouldn't mind seeing this on gameday...I know pipe dream, but still it would make the game that much better.

 

[WestEndZone]

My responses in red.

You bring up good points. I don't know if we got the most out of those guys, but thats a development problem. I didn't think the defense played as bad as people thought. Our offense was 3 and out all night. It was the worst experience that ******* stadium, like like Wisconsin. I'm never going back.

If we were playing like we had been playing the second half of the year, and the offense was punting every 3 downs, then their score would have been in the 60's. We didn't play well, but it it was better than earlier in the year. We had time to prepare, but we still had the same players

 

[LuCane]

My responses in red.

You bring up good points. I don't know if we got the most out of those guys, but thats a development problem. I didn't think the defense played as bad as people thought. Our offense was 3 and out all night. It was the worst experience that ******* stadium, like like Wisconsin. I'm never going back.

If we were playing like we had been playing the second half of the year, and the offense was punting every 3 downs, then their score would have been in the 60's. We didn't play well, but it it was better than earlier in the year. We had time to prepare, but we still had the same players

That's actually a good topic for discussion. Is it a developmental problem or is it that players are being asked to do (and think) too many things that ultimately limit their output? I'm not sure there's a singular answer to that question, but it's worth discussing, I think.

 

[WestEndZone]

The pictures were posted as references to TCU's far more aggressive blitz packages, which was what I mentioned in my post.

Yes, please explain it all to me. I don't know anything about football. My 15 years writing about Xs and Os on this board and about 4 others are evidence of that. Thankfully, we now have your condescending tone to save us. Look forward to it.

My tone has been a reaction to all the negativity.

Any defense can be as aggressive as it wants to be. The 425 just features certain moving parts that allow for a pre snap alignment that is favorable to blitz from. Double smokes [double edge bltiz from $'s] Dogs [$ and LB from the same side and Bullets [both LB's].

The 425 can be a 44, 43 over, 42 nickel, whatever. The 5 spoke secondary allows the defense to disguise their intentions. TCU has been a base team, and they have been a blitzing team. Patterson's philosophy is that they need to blitz when they're not good enough to line up and play base.

The 34 is nice because of the head up alignments on the DL. And you're essentially always mirrored. All it takes is for one $ to roll late and you can overload a side. You can never predetermine where a blitz is coming from.

You're right about us 2 gapping only 2 players at times (really its 4, because the LB's do it too from a stacked alignment). I wrote a post about that a couple months ago. Nebraska does the same thing.

I would be glad to post explanations from time to time. I was actually planning on it. I'm really not as condescending as you might think. I'm just going to defend myself when I get insulted. (not that you did)

 

[rok]

He's got a quick release.

 

[Cans4life]

I just threw up.

 

[LuCane]

The pictures were posted as references to TCU's far more aggressive blitz packages, which was what I mentioned in my post.

Yes, please explain it all to me. I don't know anything about football. My 15 years writing about Xs and Os on this board and about 4 others are evidence of that. Thankfully, we now have your condescending tone to save us. Look forward to it.

My tone has been a reaction to all the negativity.

Any defense can be as aggressive as it wants to be. The 425 just features certain moving parts that allow for a pre snap alignment that is favorable to blitz from. Double smokes [double edge bltiz from $'s] Dogs [$ and LB from the same side and Bullets [both LB's].

The 425 can be a 44, 43 over, 42 nickel, whatever. The 5 spoke secondary allows the defense to disguise their intentions. TCU has been a base team, and they have been a blitzing team. Patterson's philosophy is that they need to blitz when they're not good enough to line up and play base.

The 34 is nice because of the head up alignments on the DL. And you're essentially always mirrored. All it takes is for one $ to roll late and you can overload a side. You can never predetermine where a blitz is coming from.

You're right about us 2 gapping only 2 players at times (really its 4, because the LB's do it too from a stacked alignment). I wrote a post about that a couple months ago. Nebraska does the same thing.

I would be glad to post explanations from time to time. I was actually planning on it. I'm really not as condescending as you might think. I'm just going to defend myself when I get insulted. (not that you did)

Look forward to the substance.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Trying to be "multiple" hurts us both long term and short term.

 

[Port Knox]

Cool video. Thanks for finding that.

 

[DHucks]

I just threw up.

I was close. Lot going on there. Things are much simpler on the defensive side of things. See ball, get ball.

 

[canezhonkey]

another thread hijacked by defensive scheme ***** fights....... my God

 

[Classic]

another thread hijacked by defensive scheme ***** fights....... my God

One of the board's most reasoned, restrained, and insightful fights perhaps ever.

Good work, Lu and West. I, for one, enjoyed that. Thanks.

 

[BigDikCane]

This team is a laughing stock right now...

 

[Coach Macho]

I actually enjoyed this derailing.