forums

Interesting read on OKs new 3-4 defense

Advertisement
I think we have the horses on D now, maybe not completely at DT yet. Just hope defense executes and live up to their true potential.
 
Advertisement
I don't think there's any doubt that all three Stoops brothers are better defensive coaches than what we have. Would take any of them as a DC.

The question is are our guys good enough.
 
Some fans keep knocking "the scheme" because they are too focused on the end result.

Like somehow, after the defense has success, it's because Coach D and Golden got significantly smarter.

No doubt, they will get smarter. But more talent and experience also makes coaches look smarter.

Talent has not been in place to make this scheme look the way it's supposed to look. And as opposed to just keeping a system to fit the roster, the staff has taught their scheme, and hoped the players could deliver.

Some of the issues with the D has been talent ... It's also been youth. But the scheme we're trying to do has promise. It allows the same personnel to play odd or even fronts, and with the bigger safeties, allows the nickel to still stop the run.

And before anybody cites the "players before plays" mantra ... That means you run what the players can do best in the scheme, not that you completely adjust the scheme to the players.
 
Watching the Sugar Bowl, Oklahoma's secondary is incredibly more aggressive than ours is. Rarely further than 3 yards off the receivers. Very small and very speedy corners.
 
Advertisement
MIATL513 said:
Some fans keep knocking "the scheme" because they are too focused on the end result.

Like somehow, after the defense has success, it's because Coach D and Golden got significantly smarter.

No doubt, they will get smarter. But more talent and experience also makes coaches look smarter.

Talent has not been in place to make this scheme look the way it's supposed to look. And as opposed to just keeping a system to fit the roster, the staff has taught their scheme, and hoped the players could deliver.
Some of the issues with the D has been talent ... It's also been youth. But the scheme we're trying to do has promise. It allows the same personnel to play odd or even fronts, and with the bigger safeties, allows the nickel to still stop the run.

And before anybody cites the "players before plays" mantra ... That means you run what the players can do best in the scheme, not that you completely adjust the scheme to the players.
Click to expand...

LOL, I don't think I've seen someone disprove themselves in single post before...
 
LB play makes this scheme work.

A team like Bama has success because their LBs and Safeties make plays.

Look at Alabama's individual stats. Their DL doesn't do much. I think one guy had 5 sacks, the rest have 2 or 1 or none.
 
canecountry3 said:
LB play makes this scheme work.

A team like Bama has success because their LBs and Safeties make plays.

Look at Alabama's individual stats. Their DL doesn't do much. I think one guy had 5 sacks, the rest have 2 or 1 or none.
Click to expand...

LOL, wrong. Their DT's do a lot. Keep the OL off the LB so they can make plays. Their DT's require double teams. That is what makes this D go.
 
Advertisement
Miami82 said:
canecountry3 said:
LB play makes this scheme work.

A team like Bama has success because their LBs and Safeties make plays.

Look at Alabama's individual stats. Their DL doesn't do much. I think one guy had 5 sacks, the rest have 2 or 1 or none.
Click to expand...

LOL, wrong. Their DT's do a lot. Keep the OL off the LB so they can make plays. Their DT's require double teams. That is what makes this D go.
Click to expand...

I meant in terms of production.

The DTs keep OL off the LB, that's exactly right. A lot of people here want DTs that get to the QB every play, which would be nice but wholly unnecessary if you have competent LB play. If LBs are making wrong reads and missing tackles (I'd argue this was the biggest issue on D next to safety play, not the DL) there is no chance of success.
 
How so?


Miami82 said:
MIATL513 said:
Some fans keep knocking "the scheme" because they are too focused on the end result.

Like somehow, after the defense has success, it's because Coach D and Golden got significantly smarter.

No doubt, they will get smarter. But more talent and experience also makes coaches look smarter.

Talent has not been in place to make this scheme look the way it's supposed to look. And as opposed to just keeping a system to fit the roster, the staff has taught their scheme, and hoped the players could deliver.
Some of the issues with the D has been talent ... It's also been youth. But the scheme we're trying to do has promise. It allows the same personnel to play odd or even fronts, and with the bigger safeties, allows the nickel to still stop the run.

And before anybody cites the "players before plays" mantra ... That means you run what the players can do best in the scheme, not that you completely adjust the scheme to the players.
Click to expand...

LOL, I don't think I've seen someone disprove themselves in single post before...
Click to expand...
 
MIATL513 said:
How so?


Miami82 said:
MIATL513 said:
Some fans keep knocking "the scheme" because they are too focused on the end result.

Like somehow, after the defense has success, it's because Coach D and Golden got significantly smarter.

No doubt, they will get smarter. But more talent and experience also makes coaches look smarter.

Talent has not been in place to make this scheme look the way it's supposed to look. And as opposed to just keeping a system to fit the roster, the staff has taught their scheme, and hoped the players could deliver.
Some of the issues with the D has been talent ... It's also been youth. But the scheme we're trying to do has promise. It allows the same personnel to play odd or even fronts, and with the bigger safeties, allows the nickel to still stop the run.

And before anybody cites the "players before plays" mantra ... That means you run what the players can do best in the scheme, not that you completely adjust the scheme to the players.
Click to expand...

LOL, I don't think I've seen someone disprove themselves in single post before...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

For 3 years they have not gotten smarter. You highlighted why.
 
Advertisement
canecountry3 said:
Miami82 said:
canecountry3 said:
LB play makes this scheme work.

A team like Bama has success because their LBs and Safeties make plays.

Look at Alabama's individual stats. Their DL doesn't do much. I think one guy had 5 sacks, the rest have 2 or 1 or none.
Click to expand...

LOL, wrong. Their DT's do a lot. Keep the OL off the LB so they can make plays. Their DT's require double teams. That is what makes this D go.
Click to expand...

I meant in terms of production.

The DTs keep OL off the LB, that's exactly right. A lot of people here want DTs that get to the QB every play, which would be nice but wholly unnecessary if you have competent LB play. If LBs are making wrong reads and missing tackles (I'd argue this was the biggest issue on D next to safety play, not the DL) there is no chance of success.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We have not had a DT that gets penetration. It has been the joke on the board they stand up and play patty cake.
 
MIATL513 said:
Some fans keep knocking "the scheme" because they are too focused on the end result.

Like somehow, after the defense has success, it's because Coach D and Golden got significantly smarter.

No doubt, they will get smarter. But more talent and experience also makes coaches look smarter.

Talent has not been in place to make this scheme look the way it's supposed to look. And as opposed to just keeping a system to fit the roster, the staff has taught their scheme, and hoped the players could deliver.

Some of the issues with the D has been talent ... It's also been youth. But the scheme we're trying to do has promise. It allows the same personnel to play odd or even fronts, and with the bigger safeties, allows the nickel to still stop the run.

And before anybody cites the "players before plays" mantra ... That means you run what the players can do best in the scheme, not that you completely adjust the scheme to the players.
Click to expand...

Wrong, most bash the scheme b/c A we didn't have the players to run it and B) b/c 4-3 personnel is much more abundant in South Florida
 
Advertisement
Back
Top