A Picture that I Think Means So Much More

Didn't we stop them that play?

Probably not. They were 7/10 on 3rd downs. D'NO and Golden really need to start getting a little more aggressive on defense. This team could be 4-0 with a little balls in the play calling. Against Louisville it was the O tonight it was the D.

Ya think?

They need to turn the D loose just like they've done with the O. This D has the talent to be at least a top 30 Defense by the end of the season.
 
Advertisement
View attachment 25745

That may look like a picture of our 3rd and short defense. It may look like I previously tried to show that we were essentially playing a lot of the game - regardless of position on field - with 6 in the box vs 8 (QB was a run threat). 2 of our 6 players are being kept approximately 5 yards off the ball to avoid the wash. The Wash? Yes, basically the wash of our defensive linemen who are asked to 2-gap, play contain and generally control the line so that players could, theoretically, fill. Our 2 Safeties, considering the down and distance, are relatively deep. 1 of the 3 LBs on the field is hedging over the slot WR who the offense has placed there essentially to manipulate our defensive formation.

It might look like a critique or at least a very concerned question about our defensive call. To me, it's more.

I am and have been concerned with the direction of the entire program because that picture is representative of what we saw during low points in previous games and seasons. It shows a seemingly unwavering loyalty to a particular approach. It shows that, if we think something will or should work, we'll stick by it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it won't. On narrower levels, it shows:

- a conservative approach that is predicated on awaiting for the opponent to make mistakes
- a theoretical approach that hinges on players potentially doing things that don't maximize their talents
- that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.

Most of all, it all adds up to something bigger: a program many have associated with aggression now seemingly operates on fear.

Dude I took the same pic and was texting like a mad man. Look at the safeties and lb's depth .

I've been saying this since the Maryland game. My first question is why are we so far off the ball.
 
40871.0.webp
 
Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

That's the thing though, LBs couldn't find any inside gaps to exploit and run through. Nothing.

Our D is a punching bag. We constantly take hits and counter with nothing. sad

You have no idea how I felt for our players during this game. I felt so deeply disturbed for them. I think I was ranting at one point and hoping Perryman would change the defensive call and tell the DL to slant on his own.

By the way, everyone realizes we declined a penalty to allow for a 38 yard FG because we were afraid of 3rd and long (14), right? How is that not asked by a journalist? I don't think I've ever seen a more fearful act with 9 minutes left in a game.

If there for some reason still any supporters of this staff out there, this one single decision should be enough to show them the light. I have never seen such a decision of straight up cowardice in football, ever. Ever! If the penalty pushes them out of high percentage field goal range you take it every time!

I was really in disbelief when I saw that we were declining the penalty...I still can't believe it. Worst coaching decision I have ever seen, ever.
 
Advertisement
Didn't we stop them that play?

I addressed this in my original post, as I was prepared for that type of unfortunate response:

that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.
 
Advertisement
Didn't we stop them that play?

I addressed this in my original post, as I was prepared for that type of unfortunate response:

that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.

I wasn't saying it as support of the defense. I just find it ironic that we actually got a stop. The scheme needs a redux period but we got Stevie wonder as a DC.
 
Didn't we stop them that play?

I addressed this in my original post, as I was prepared for that type of unfortunate response:

that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.

I wasn't saying it as support of the defense. I just find it ironic that we actually got a stop. The scheme needs a redux period but we got Stevie wonder as a DC.

Fair enough. Yeah, we got a stop. Every once in a while, the offense breaks down against us. Apparently, that's what we hope for, but it's not often enough against even average teams.
 
I don't understand who's supposed to be setting the edge on off-tackle plays. We constantly get out-leveraged to both sides of the field. Makes zero sense to me.

I actually noticed that Nebraska was running wide early and somehow we started stopping that. This led them to running the read/option and finding success which we never countered. Game over.
 
Advertisement
Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

That's the thing though, LBs couldn't find any inside gaps to exploit and run through. Nothing.

Our D is a punching bag. We constantly take hits and counter with nothing. sad

You have no idea how I felt for our players during this game. I felt so deeply disturbed for them. I think I was ranting at one point and hoping Perryman would change the defensive call and tell the DL to slant on his own.

By the way, everyone realizes we declined a penalty to allow for a 38 yard FG because we were afraid of 3rd and long (14), right? How is that not asked by a journalist? I don't think I've ever seen a more fearful act with 9 minutes left in a game.

Wow.

I honestly didnt even know that happened. I couldnt watch anymore. I'm glad I didnt.....I like that TV
 
I'd like to state for the record that Lu is killing it. Dropping all kinds of knowledge.

I nominate him as interim head coach.
 
Advertisement
Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?
Wait till they face Pitt's rb James Conner, more like tackling the concert hall that the piano is in coming downhill.
 
We're playing Quarters coverage here. (on the 4 yard line lol)

We're expecting the Safety to "run the alley" (outside the TE) and set the edge.

Why we choose to do this instead of running Cover-3 and allowing the OLB to set the edge is beyond me. *shrug*

Nebraska actually audibled when they saw us in this formation.
 
We're playing Quarters coverage here. (on the 4 yard line lol)

We're expecting the Safety to "run the alley" (outside the TE) and set the edge.

Why we choose to do this instead of running Cover-3 and allowing the OLB to set the edge is beyond me. *shrug*

Nebraska actually audibled when they saw us in this formation.

One of my issues, as we have talked about probably 50x over the past couple years, is that when something inevitably goes wrong with this because the offense has all the leverage, and our Safety fails to make a [great] play, we blame the player. Could they make every tackle and be perfect and we'd look better? Sure. Would it just be easier to adjust and roll the Safety down *early*? I think the players themselves would tell you so. Do players wonder why they're not attacking on the line? Yes.

Listen, this isn't the thread for this, but I alluded to it in the thread where people want to bash Artie Burns (who, I concede, doesn't look good right now): there are a lot of really good athletes and good kids on this team. They'll do basically whatever they're told. Even when they don't believe in it. This is not new. We had guys last year who outright told me they didn't really buy in, but that they'd do whatever. They just wanna get better and get to the NFL, if possible.

We have serious problems and I'm going to, more often than not, place the onus on the professionals. That's not to say I'll blind myself to player errors, laziness or flaws. Last couple seasons, people argued that I was too harsh on Stephen Morris (even though I never got personal and only focused on his areas for improvement). Now, this year, people are saying I only blame coaches and never the players. All over the **** place. I just want to win.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top