For those wondering about Formations and Back 7 Depth

[butchs'revenge]

I dont understand how the coaches cant see stuff like this. It boggles my mind

They see it. They know more Xs and Os than everyone on this board put together, I'd imagine. Like I said above, there is difference between what should work in theory and what is happening in reality. This, as I've said for 2 years, is a conscious decision. Ask your 280 pound DL to stack his OT, shed him and make the play. Sure, "player could have been stronger and made a better play." But, you're starting with a disadvantage.

yup, you're right, i bet Golden would have a lengthy well thought out explaination as to why each of those formations were perfect and shouldve worked. And the players probablly blame themselves as to why this defense isnt working. But reality is that it is not workng and our players are more talented than the results at the end of the day. 4 years in and nebraska was the high water mark as far as how far this scheme can take us and its not good enough.

 

[BigCaneAl]

Lu, could you compare some screen shots of our old 4-3 defense (Schiano/Shannon) in the early 2000's. Just curious how the alignment and depth compares. I always remember our safeties playing very deep, although I believe our front was meant to penetrate, so it would be interesting to compare and contrast styles.

Good idea. Just a quick answer as I have to get back.

Two things:

1) As I said in the OP and you stated above, different front. We were a big time upfield DL. Some would say guys like Mcdougle were too upfield and lost contain at times. It changes the flow and timing of a play, naturally.

2) Offensive formations have changed a lot. Zone-read is popular now. 4WR sets are as common, sometimes more, than 21 personnel groupings. The easiest way to compare is to compare how we look against 21 personnel in the original post (so picture #5 from the top), to the below:

View attachment 25868

Like I alluded to, the numbers aren't altogether THAT different. It's the style and broader philosophy. In the picture above, we're headed upfield. 2 of our LBs are standing up at the end of the LOS. The remaining LB isn't at 5+ yards. Our Safeties can be 30 yards deep and I wouldn't care because they're not being asked to fly down and set the edge for the defense. See some of the differences in theory? It's riskier, no doubt.

I just threw up some Subway. It's philosphically inconsistent with south florida/miami hurricane football. In one defense you are asking fire breathing mf'ers to fire off the line and make a play, in the other you asking them to stand up, play patty cake, and stack.....which one would you rather play? That's not even getting to the back 7 who are asking to go through a quadratic equartion before figuring out what they have do. We don't trust our athletes. You'd think we were Navy trying to outsmart everyone and keep it close.

 

[TheSwagger1]

If you've ever talked to a coach before, you realize how much time they put into it and they can rattle **** off to you at the drop of a hat that makes you feel like a moron for questioning them. But that's all on paper, as Lu and others have mentioned. He's right that they probably know more Xs and Os than all of us combined many times over but it's not doing anything for him, nor are his ****bag, condescending interview answers.

 

[Gatorhater]

Lu, could you compare some screen shots of our old 4-3 defense (Schiano/Shannon) in the early 2000's. Just curious how the alignment and depth compares. I always remember our safeties playing very deep, although I believe our front was meant to penetrate, so it would be interesting to compare and contrast styles.

Good idea. Just a quick answer as I have to get back.

Two things:

1) As I said in the OP and you stated above, different front. We were a big time upfield DL. Some would say guys like Mcdougle were too upfield and lost contain at times. It changes the flow and timing of a play, naturally.

2) Offensive formations have changed a lot. Zone-read is popular now. 4WR sets are as common, sometimes more, than 21 personnel groupings. The easiest way to compare is to compare how we look against 21 personnel in the original post (so picture #5 from the top), to the below:

View attachment 25868

Like I alluded to, the numbers aren't altogether THAT different. It's the style and broader philosophy. In the picture above, we're headed upfield. 2 of our LBs are standing up at the end of the LOS. The remaining LB isn't at 5+ yards. Our Safeties can be 30 yards deep and I wouldn't care because they're not being asked to fly down and set the edge for the defense. See some of the differences in theory? It's riskier, no doubt.

That picture looks like a pack of nine sharks about to attack some baitfish. The ones from this year reminds me of three guys splashing in the surf with a bunch of sunbathers looking on for a distance for fear of getting wet.

That picture was 2 and 10 and we were still all on the line. Why, because friggin NE only runs the ball. Flash forward to this year and how many 3 and 2's were our LBs STILL five yards deep-- even on the 6 or 7 yard line.

All this is so depressing. I want to focus on the simple fact that we now have REAL QB. Kid still has problems under center but is deadly from the gun up the field and over the middle. Take Coley little fsu love child WR screen out of the playbook and Kaaya is a classic Miami QB. I like QB under center but watched Brock get tortured by it so just leave the kid in the gun and let him fly. Our Oline is can seem to go smash mouth anyway and looks better in gun.

There is no hope for this defense, but our new coach will have a heck of a QB and that means a lot, a whole lot. Al is done. He can't even show up in public. The only question is firing him Donna's last act or the next president's first act. If we had a real OC, Kaaya might save Al's job but Coley can't get out of his own way(he is to stubborn to see that HIS plays don't work too) so they are all gone.

 

[HurricaneKush]

What's more disturbing is we've played most of the teams on our schedule already so they have the blueprint. I'm still holding out hope we win the coastal but we could lose 6 or 7 just as easily. Not 1 pushover left on the schedule.

 

[HurricaneU]

Look at this. Not only do we not pressure gaps, Guards get a running start to tee off on the backers. They don't even have to worry about A gap pressure.

Sitting on your heels is an invitation for an *** whippin.

 

[itsacanething]

honest question but why couldn't they run the same scheme but be more aggressive? I just kept asking myself why guys were playing so far off the ball when they were running every play.

 

[JerseyCanes]

My question is for the Offensive Staff letting Mary D know that his stuff isn't working or be polite and say where his vulnerabilities may lie in his D....

Oh Wait... its that the Head Coach's job... nevermind.

Man I just wanna Win again... ****...

JC

 

[killa1storm]

Lu's point about theory vs. reality is spot on.

In many of the still's above the theory is that if you're 2-gapping it, those 3 should control the 5 upfront. So in theory 5 or 6 men in the box should be able to contain the run. The 2 linebackers are at a depth where they can defend pass and fill against run if necessary. Their depth allows them to read where a hole will be while the front 3 or 4 tie up blockers. Their gaps are less predetermined in that way. The linebackers walked over the slot can then be force players against an edge run if necessary while also being able to drop into zone. But again...in theory.

 

[sitzee]

They like to be called mentally challenged

At this point it feels like Golden is purposely trying to lose. These defensive formations dont even make sense. Either that or he's simply retarded.

 

[FullyERicht]

Lu's point about theory vs. reality is spot on.

In many of the still's above the theory is that if you're 2-gapping it, those 3 should control the 5 upfront. So in theory 5 or 6 men in the box should be able to contain the run. The 2 linebackers are at a depth where they can defend pass and fill against run if necessary. Their depth allows them to read where a hole will be while the front 3 or 4 tie up blockers. Their gaps are less predetermined in that way. The linebackers walked over the slot can then be force players against an edge run if necessary while also being able to drop into zone. But again...in theory.

For a no good lousy gator, you sure have been killing it with ur posts here. This one sums the whole theory up perfectly.

 

[mydas77]

Next time someone asks any of you for proof that we are being out coached, direct them to this thread. I mean, there is indisputable video evidence of Bo frickin Pellini out coaching our defensive staff!

I bet Nebraska won't put trips that wide to the open side hash in another game this year.

The other huge problem I have with this defense is the fact that the safeties are rarely force players. The only way to get more numbers in the box against trips or 4 wide outs is to make the safeties the force players. It leaves you with deep thirds or quarters on the back end, but that has to be preferable to getting beat by ALIGNMENT! Make it a fricking competition. Why concede all those yards by alignment? It is mind numbing.

 

[bobbydigius]

Lu's point about theory vs. reality is spot on.

In many of the still's above the theory is that if you're 2-gapping it, those 3 should control the 5 upfront. So in theory 5 or 6 men in the box should be able to contain the run. The 2 linebackers are at a depth where they can defend pass and fill against run if necessary. Their depth allows them to read where a hole will be while the front 3 or 4 tie up blockers. Their gaps are less predetermined in that way. The linebackers walked over the slot can then be force players against an edge run if necessary while also being able to drop into zone. But again...in theory.

Exactly, unfortunately Saturdays arent an academic atmosphere. I know its a broken record but the problem is that the coaches show no ingenuity. I know Im nerding out here, but it is very similar to Calculus, someone can ace all the simple tests because they know all the theories and formulas, but the second you get a critical thinking question that involves more than just quantitative and conceptual knowledge you are caught with your pants down.

This staff understands the concepts but doesnt really know what they mean in actual practice. Everything is based on every variable being equal. Unfortunately not every player is equal, not is every coach gonna follow the same cookie cutter mentality. The inability to understand and put into practice the scheme by this staff is retarded. The only way this scheme can remotely work with this staff is if every player on the field is all conference caliber, and even then we would be at a disadvantage the second we play a team of equal talent.

 

[Mangum]

Donofrio with the quote of the year/century:

D'Onofrio defends scheme by noting "Every call we make is designed to have somebody make a tackle."

This is inline with his stance of yards not mattering. It all makes sense now.

 

[Fountain of Canes]

No excuse by this comment but I believe this is partially the blame for our poor tackling by our safeties. 90% of the time they have to make a play one on one when the running back is untouched with 8+ yards gained going full speed with no one deterring their running lane. Why put so much pressure all game on the safeties. Once again I'm not making an excuse of their play it's just almost impossible to play solid at their position for a full game.

Exactly why is there always 1 on 1s i was taught to everyone run to the ball and tackle the ball carrier. we never had more then 1 person at the ball at a time. its bad. when some runs the ball on FSU you better believe 3 or 4 guys are going to be there.

 

[pb5cane]

So, is it supreme arrogance or blind cult-like devotion that would prevent a coach from changing direction when you have a film room full of evidence that your XO theories don't work in the heat of battle. Saying it starts with me over and over, then doing absolutely nothing different game after game won't cut it. Not here.

 

[Fountain of Canes]

Lu's point about theory vs. reality is spot on.

In many of the still's above the theory is that if you're 2-gapping it, those 3 should control the 5 upfront. So in theory 5 or 6 men in the box should be able to contain the run. The 2 linebackers are at a depth where they can defend pass and fill against run if necessary. Their depth allows them to read where a hole will be while the front 3 or 4 tie up blockers. Their gaps are less predetermined in that way. The linebackers walked over the slot can then be force players against an edge run if necessary while also being able to drop into zone. But again...in theory.

For a no good lousy gator, you sure have been killing it with ur posts here. This one sums the whole theory up perfectly.

That was spot on Killa, We play a Run/Pass def all the time. No wonder these guys are lost. that a ton of thinking, that **** is too complex

 

[Canesfan1899]

It ain't getting any better

Barry Jackson ‏@flasportsbuzz 25s

Theme from Mark D'Onofrio today is execution must be better. "Talent is not enough," he said. No indication of scheme changes

**** me! This is getting rediculous. It's hard to execute when you're outnumbered from the snap.

 

[HurricaneU]

Lu's point about theory vs. reality is spot on.

In many of the still's above the theory is that if you're 2-gapping it, those 3 should control the 5 upfront. So in theory 5 or 6 men in the box should be able to contain the run. The 2 linebackers are at a depth where they can defend pass and fill against run if necessary. Their depth allows them to read where a hole will be while the front 3 or 4 tie up blockers. Their gaps are less predetermined in that way. The linebackers walked over the slot can then be force players against an edge run if necessary while also being able to drop into zone. But again...in theory.

In theory, all defensive schemes work beautifully on a chalkboard.

We need some opponents who will play checkers instead of chess I guess.

 

[fincane]

Donofrio with the quote of the year/century:

D'Onofrio defends scheme by noting "Every call we make is designed to have somebody make a tackle."

This is inline with his stance of yards not mattering. It all makes sense now.

The complete quote is "tackle for loss no gain". I read it somewhere. Not that it matters. Nothing about what this defense does says we're looking to get you into in 2nd and 12. Giving up 3 yards has become a win.