forums

Goal Line Defense With Linebackers 4-5 Yards Deep

MiamiVice7

MiamiVice7

Senior
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
5,039
I'm trying to understand the thinking behind this approach. I know I've seen it at least a few times. For instance, I'm pretty sure I remember Duke was at around the 2 yard line going in, at least once, and we lined up with 3 or 4 backers several yards deep in the end zone. I've seen us do this before as well, so I don't think it was some fluke occurrence.

Can someone who knows football explain this to me? While I expect the requisite "Dorito sucks" and "our coaches are just idiots," I'm really trying to understand if there is some approach, some defensive philosophy, under which this makes sense. Even if you disagree with the philosophy or think it's a terrible approach, I'm looking for an explanation as to why it might work in theory... if there is, in fact, a theory to this.

I consider myself a reasonable person. Regarding our defensive struggles and approach, while I get as ****ed as anyone when we get embarrassed, I tend to question and try to understand moreso than thinking I know better than the coaches. This is because I concede there are some things that I just don't know (e.g. I don't watch practice, I've never coached and I don't know the ins and outs of defensive schematics, etc.). I also see the tendency of fans griping about something (e.g. we didn't blitz enough against x team!) only to find out that things aren't what they seem (maybe it turns out we blitzed a bunch but it just didn't work).

So I recognize that there are some philosophies that appear ridiculous to me, but they nevertheless are sound and in reality coaches aren't actually complete morons for implementing them.

All that considered, this goal line thing is one I really don't get. I have a hard time thinking this makes sense. The only thing I can figure is maybe they're worried about the pass/play action? But if that's the case (1) you can still have guys that key on TEs or RBs, and (2) it seems the odds favor getting the most people up on the line to stop the more likely run play. More than most situations, I can't understand why you wouldn't attack the line, or at the very least get everyone up near the goal line so you have a CHANCE. WTF are the 6 or 7 guys playing five yards deep going to do when the other team runs the ball? Isn't that just physics? They can't get there in time, right?

It just seems like you're consciously giving up a mismatch, and a likely TD if they run the ball, by basically lining up 4 or 5 guys in front of their 7/8/9 guys.

What's the theory here?

This is just one of many things I question, but it's a very specific (and seemingly egregious) example that I would love an explanation for.

That was longer than it needed to be, I'm sure, but hey I'm just trying to get through the week. Sigh.
 
Advertisement
Bennubird said:
Simply, we don't want to get beat deep!
Click to expand...

On the goal line? (I am laughing w/ you...)

Furthermore, why so deep when Duke puts in a qb we KNOW is going to run b/c that is all he's done for 4 years...? Maybe we didn't scout that guy... :(
 
Our goal line defense is just a give up formation. It's like we don't even try to stop teams when they get inside the 5.

We let that QB walk through the A gap 4 times virtually untouched for walk-in TDs. That was one of the most disgraceful elements of that miserable Puke game. We didn't even put a hat on the fcking QB. Just let him tip toe through the tulips and prance into the endzone with no resistance.
 
Advertisement
On the bright side, half the defense wasn't on one side of the field trying to figure out where the **** to line up. So we got that going for us.
 
Advertisement
That's what I'm getting at, though. I can't fathom that professional coaches at the college level (no matter what we think of them) sit in meetings and decide "hey, if they get to the 2 we'll just concede the score. Keep guys off the line and if they punch it in then whatever." I HAVE to think that there is some line of thinking to this approach. That there is some precedent, philosophy, something, that they are considering. That's what I'm trying to understand. Again, even if it's a "bad" or "minority" philosophy....what is the thinking? There has to be something, right?
 
At least our player were in the field as opposed to out of bounds like that hail mary against UNC.
 
Advertisement
Unfortunately it's the way we are for the entire length of the field. We are afraid to get beat deep. Bend but don't break is getting old when everyone on our schedule exploits the soft coverage and lack of pressure we generate. I wish we would line up in their face and bump them off the line every play with the occasional sprinkling in of zone. If we get beat that way I am good. But this whole BS of playing 5-10 yds off across the field is crap....
 
marshallrc13 said:
Unfortunately it's the way we are for the entire length of the field. We are afraid to get beat deep. Bend but don't break is getting old when everyone on our schedule exploits the soft coverage and lack of pressure we generate. I wish we would line up in their face and bump them off the line every play with the occasional sprinkling in of zone. If we get beat that way I am good. But this whole BS of playing 5-10 yds off across the field is crap....
Click to expand...

Right, I hear you. Obviously most of us hate this passive approach.

But before the other team gets to the goal line at least there is a theory that I can comprehend (whether I agree with it or not). There's an approach, a philosophy, that in theory can work. You can draw it up on a board and explain to me why it could work.

But on the goal line I don't see any upside at all. I can't come up with a plausible explanation for why this *might* work in that scenario. I'd love to know if there is such an explanation.
 
Advertisement
If we played them closer to the line, they'd get all tangled up when our DL get blown off the ball by Duke OL. This way gives them some nice space to try to get around DL who are now two yards into the end zone.
 
I'm close being serious when I say this:

It's almost as if they are TRYING to lose. What they have done on D the last two weeks is incomprehensible.
 
LuCane said:
If we played them closer to the line, they'd get all tangled up when our DL get blown off the ball by Duke OL. This way gives them some nice space to try to get around DL who are now two yards into the end zone.
Click to expand...

This may have been tongue-in-cheek, but wouldn't we STILL have a better chance of stopping the run at the goal line if we had more bodies (albeit tangled up) in the immediate area, instead of far back enough to basically not impact the play?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top