forums

A Picture that I Think Means So Much More

LuCane said:
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.
Click to expand...

makes me want to throw up!!! I was screaming at my tv all night with this ****** as defense!!! You can't be aggressive in this if you are giving the offense the advantage at the snap. that big boy running down hill with his low center is not a contest and it showed. But Al throwing the players under the bus with the lack of tackling. **** Ray Lewis would have the same issues as the players last night.
 
Advertisement
I just don't understand, as a D coordinator or a head coach, how you can watch your passive, vanilla defense getting steadily pushed down the field drive after drive all game long and not think that something different needs to be tried in order to stop the onslaught. I just can't believe that anybody in a head coaching or D-coordinating position in major CFB today can be so inept , so utterly clueless that they have absolutely no answer on how to change the in-game narrative in any discernible way. Al and Coach D saw we are getting gashed by UN's running game yet kept trotting out the same passive, vanilla, no pressure defense all night long. Is there any other coaching staff in America, when getting bullied the way we were getting bullied by UN's running game, wouldn't bring more defenders closer to the LOS, wouldn't try to dial up more pressure, gamble with more run blitzes, wouldn't try to disrupt what the offense was doing or force the O to make quicker decisions? No other coaching staff in CFB would sit there and watch their team getting bullied the same way for 4 quarters and just passively take it.....except ours.
 
LuCane said:
Coach Macho said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I feel you.


Can the Safety make a play in the alley here? Sure, but it would take a great read and a great play. So in theory, it should work.

Personally, I've always had pretty poor athletes on my defense so I never called plays that way. I always call plays as if my players sucked. I'd rather put the burden of execution on myself rather than expecting (or relying on) a kid to make a great read and/or great play.

I saw this formation a hundred times during our kick-off classic (pre-season) game. I'd go Cover-3 (press bail) here, since we're near the goaline. Roll the Strong Safety down over #2. Line that OLB outside shoulder of the TE. Now we have somebody setting the edge.
 
hoover437 said:
LuCane said:
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.
Click to expand...

makes me want to throw up!!! I was screaming at my tv all night with this ****ty as defense!!! You can't be aggressive in this if you are giving the offense the advantage at the snap. that big boy running down hill with his low center is not a contest and it showed. But Al throwing the players under the bus with the lack of tackling. **** Ray Lewis would have the same issues as the players last night.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Trying to come up from 7-15 yards off the line of scrimmage and trying to tackle AA in space with a full head of steam (sometimes with a FB or O-lineman leading the way) probably contributed to a lot of those missed tackles. Coaching/scheme does play a part in that respect.
 
We'd be much more sound lined up like this.

CAM02691.webp
 
Advertisement
NotoriousJJE said:
I keep asking this question.

At what point do you stack 8 against 8 in the box?

At what point do you abandon your base formation?

At that point do you stop asking players to do what they seemingly can't do?

At What t point do you realize that they are going to run the ball and commit to stopping it?

At 100 yards? 200? 300?

What is going to take? What does the other team have to do to convince you that you should out more people in the line of scrimmage to prevent there other team from running it down your throat?

If LB's can't make plays, when do you start adding lineman to the equation? Bringing safeties up?

When do you decide to do what every other team in the nation does when they are getting gashed?

Are you that scared that they might throw the ball over the top?

I don't ******* understand. They dug their own grave tonight. And Lu is right, we have seen it from the first game against Maryland.

I'm hurt and sad man.
Click to expand...


This. Golden and Donofrio apparently are so married to this purported "bend don't break defense" that they refuse to acknowledge the facts on the ground.

I don't even get mad watching the games anymore, bc I know they're going to stick with their plan irrespective of how it sets our players up for failure
 
If we do this...

We have the edge set.
We have all gaps accounted for.
We have a double-team on the single WR side with the Corner and the "Rush" Outside Linebacker.
We have somebody to cover the #2 (slot) WR if he goes out, if he goes vertical or if he goes inside.

View attachment 25791
 
Coach Macho said:
If we do this...

We have the edge set.
We have all gaps accounted for.
We have a double-team on the single WR side with the Corner and the "Rush" Outside Linebacker.
We have somebody to cover the #2 (slot) WR if he goes out, if he goes vertical or if he goes inside.

View attachment 25791
Click to expand...

So you do admit there are schematic and alignment problems with our D then right?

Not that you are dodging it but we just got run the fvck over by an average Cornholer team.
 
Cane Dynasty said:
Coach Macho said:
If we do this...

We have the edge set.
We have all gaps accounted for.
We have a double-team on the single WR side with the Corner and the "Rush" Outside Linebacker.
We have somebody to cover the #2 (slot) WR if he goes out, if he goes vertical or if he goes inside.

View attachment 25791
Click to expand...

So you do admit there are schematic and alignment problems with our D then right?

Not that you are dodging it but we just got run the fvck over by an average Cornholer team.
Click to expand...

At times, yes.

Seems like more often than not, lately.
 
Advertisement
Cane Dynasty said:
Coach Macho said:
If we do this...

We have the edge set.
We have all gaps accounted for.
We have a double-team on the single WR side with the Corner and the "Rush" Outside Linebacker.
We have somebody to cover the #2 (slot) WR if he goes out, if he goes vertical or if he goes inside.

View attachment 25791
Click to expand...

So you do admit there are schematic and alignment problems with our D then right?

Not that you are dodging it but we just got run the fvck over by an average Cornholer team.
Click to expand...
Its obvious. Unless you are trying to keep a safety closer to a scrambling QB, why would you send the OLB to the flats and have the saftey cover the curl/hook?
 
We never ever make an offense uncomfortable or force them to adapt to our play. It is absolutely maddening to watch.
 
attachment.php

Both the LBs and safeties are 2-2.5 yards deeper than any COACH should ever line em up. This would be an ok pre-snap look if you were gonna roll your SS down but staying in this crap lets Nebraska do what they love to do with little or no resistance.

We don't play like this, man!!! This is that timid Temple bs!! Better to die on our feet than live on our knees...
 
From a friend of mine who has no rooting interest and lives in Lincoln: Damon Benning [talk show host] was wondering why Golden had them playing this scheme, when on Thursday during their interview with him, Golden was talking about how having a running qb made it an 11-on-11 game. Guess Golden didn’t like those odds. He wanted to try 6-on-8 instead.
 
Advertisement
It's amazing to me that the kids are playing as hard is they play in this busted scheme. The kids didn't quit on Saturday night despite the fact that they were put in position to fail. You would have to think that these kids know that they basically have no chance out there in this dog **** scheme.
 
At first i thought the photo was fake. Thats how unbelievable the formation was/ is.

I havbe given up. As a 35 year ST holder, I am going on strike. Not attending Duke to protest this awful joke of a defensive ( alleged) coordinator.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top