forums

Lu, How would you fix this defense?

I felt like when we blitzed it was often off the edge and picked up easily, the 1 time I saw D. Perryman blitz he nearly killed Rettig.

Agree that we played way to soft in the secondary, young or not you can't call a scared game and expect positive results. Our LB's are not capable of playing zone coverage, it was painfully obvious all game.

I was against playing R. Jenkins ahead of VT during the pre-season, as I thought we needed senior leadership out there, forget that, VT should be a ST's player and back-up here, he was awful yesterday.

Was it scheme related or has Franklin only taught our DL how to bull rush? Where was A. Chickillo? Curtis Porter isn't going to be enough to fix this atrocity.

And yeah, we should send this game film to Bostwick, Bain, Bryant and Matthew Thomas with a note attached that says PLEASE HELP US!!!!
 
Advertisement
D'Onofrio has destroyed any thought I ever had of The U ever being a predominantly zone defensive team.

And what's the deal with him saying "we're mutliple."
What does that even mean?

He also says you have to be able to play man and zone, everyone in NFL does it.

NFL offenses are super sohpisticated. In college you can play man to man all game (disguise things, timely blitzes, etc) and dominate.
 
DeadPoets said:
D'Onofrio has destroyed any thought I ever had of The U ever being a predominantly zone defensive team.

And what's the deal with him saying "we're mutliple."
What does that even mean?

He also says you have to be able to play man and zone, everyone in NFL does it.

NFL offenses are super sohpisticated. In college you can play man to man all game (disguise things, timely blitzes, etc) and dominate.
Click to expand...

It means he has no ******* clue what to do with what he has.
 
With the current lineup: I'd mix in man with our zones, but do it in a way Dynasty discussed yesterday: we may have to start mixing man WITHIN the zone (e.g. have a LB matchup with the TE). I don't think it'll happen and I imagine we're just going to have to hold on to our butts.

I actually don't think we'll see results as bad as yesterday consistently over the season. BC does a fantastic job (they did last year as well) with their TEs, RBs and generally playing against our confused zone. There were at least 4 monster plays based out of confusion from Cornelius, Armbister or Johnson (or our LBs in general). They simply had no idea how to "pass off" a guy in Zone coverage. I suspect you'll see less of Cornelius next game. I'd blitz more. That's not an end-all, though. It'd mean we'll give up big plays. We simply have to accept what we have and the fact D'Ono may not be creative enough to do more with less.

With the program: scour the earth for a JuCo DE or two. K9 said "Jermone Mcdougal ain't walking through that door." If that's true, Mccord, Hamilton and Hoilett better take a monster leap next year.
 
Advertisement
Lu,

With respect to your first point, this would create another layer of complexity for a defense that I don't think can take it. They are having enough problems with what they have. I'd argue that what they need to do is simplify back quite a bit on defense. I'd argue that they decide their base and be prepared to play it the vast majority of the time. For instance, say we're going to play cover 1/cover 3 and just prepare those two defenses for anything they're likely to see. I'd play like that the vast majority of balanced downs. Then on third down I'd have a small package based on the fact that we can't pressure with 4--either play 5 under 3 deep or zone blitz it. I think that is the best chance this defense has. I don't think they can act like they're going to be fine if the players just "execute" better. They're too young and it's going to get worse IMO.

Maybe if they prove they can succeed with the above, we can start to diversify.
 
Pennmed Canefan said:
Lu,

With respect to your first point, this would create another layer of complexity for a defense that I don't think can take it. They are having enough problems with what they have. I'd argue that what they need to do is simplify back quite a bit on defense. I'd argue that they decide their base and be prepared to play it the vast majority of the time. For instance, say we're going to play cover 1/cover 3 and just prepare those two defenses for anything they're likely to see. I'd play like that the vast majority of balanced downs. Then on third down I'd have a small package based on the fact that we can't pressure with 4--either play 5 under 3 deep or zone blitz it. I think that is the best chance this defense has. I don't think they can act like they're going to be fine if the players just "execute" better. They're too young and it's going to get worse IMO.

Maybe if they prove they can succeed with the above, we can start to diversify.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That's why I said I don't think it will happen.

One thing I still don't understand is why we're one of the major programs who consistently shows the same look pre and post snap. That's not abnormally complicated. I see a lot of other programs switch between their looks.
 
LuCane said:
Pennmed Canefan said:
Lu,

With respect to your first point, this would create another layer of complexity for a defense that I don't think can take it. They are having enough problems with what they have. I'd argue that what they need to do is simplify back quite a bit on defense. I'd argue that they decide their base and be prepared to play it the vast majority of the time. For instance, say we're going to play cover 1/cover 3 and just prepare those two defenses for anything they're likely to see. I'd play like that the vast majority of balanced downs. Then on third down I'd have a small package based on the fact that we can't pressure with 4--either play 5 under 3 deep or zone blitz it. I think that is the best chance this defense has. I don't think they can act like they're going to be fine if the players just "execute" better. They're too young and it's going to get worse IMO.

Maybe if they prove they can succeed with the above, we can start to diversify.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That's why I said I don't think it will happen.

One thing I still don't understand is why we're one of the major programs who consistently shows the same look pre and post snap. That's not abnormally complicated. I see a lot of other programs switch between their looks.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all points Lu. It looked like Perryman was also confused in pass coverage for mush of the night, it seems our LB's have been a liability in pass coverage for a decade.
 
Advertisement
LuCane said:
Pennmed Canefan said:
Lu,

With respect to your first point, this would create another layer of complexity for a defense that I don't think can take it. They are having enough problems with what they have. I'd argue that what they need to do is simplify back quite a bit on defense. I'd argue that they decide their base and be prepared to play it the vast majority of the time. For instance, say we're going to play cover 1/cover 3 and just prepare those two defenses for anything they're likely to see. I'd play like that the vast majority of balanced downs. Then on third down I'd have a small package based on the fact that we can't pressure with 4--either play 5 under 3 deep or zone blitz it. I think that is the best chance this defense has. I don't think they can act like they're going to be fine if the players just "execute" better. They're too young and it's going to get worse IMO.

Maybe if they prove they can succeed with the above, we can start to diversify.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That's why I said I don't think it will happen.

One thing I still don't understand is why we're one of the major programs who consistently shows the same look pre and post snap. That's not abnormally complicated. I see a lot of other programs switch between their looks.
Click to expand...

Not only do we show same look pre and post snap, it seemed yesterday we couldn't get set per snap. BC would get set and we were always scrambling to get set, it was frustrating to watch.

On another note, I have seen enough of Vaughn Telemaque to know he is not a playmaker. Time to move on to a young player who can play and make plays. I recognize he brings experience, but it doesn't seem to help.
 
With regards to the back seven, I simply think we need to squeeze the passing windows in our zone coverages. There is just too much space for QBs to complete passes for chunk yardage. The first issue is determining what concept we’re going to use in coverage. Are we going to drop spot and rally to the football or use match up principles? I don't like the idea of defending grass. Additionally, if we're going to drop spot we need to do a better job of defining landmarks as pertaining to ball placement. We need to get to our landmarks and lookup people. The second issue is defining dispositional exchanges. How far are we going to carry interior receivers horizontally and vertically? One reason why I suggested going man coverage on TE and/or Slot receiver is because they represent the high percentage throw to the middle of the field. It will take a lot of practice in determining just how far to carry receivers before releasing them to other defenders. Take the guess work out of the equation and man up. Let Perryman spot drop and read anything crossing or get proper depth for inside vertical. The question remains, spot drop or matchup? If its spot drop, I'm with Lu, expect more of the same...huge seams.
 
Dynasty said:
With regards to the back seven, I simply think we need to squeeze the passing windows in our zone coverages. There is just too much space for QBs to complete passes for chunk yardage. The first issue is determining what concept we’re going to use in coverage. Are we going to drop spot and rally to the football or use match up principles? I don't like the idea of defending grass. Additionally, if we're going to drop spot we need to do a better job of defining landmarks as pertaining to ball placement. We need to get to our landmarks and lookup people. The second issue is defining dispositional exchanges. How far are we going to carry interior receivers horizontally and vertically? One reason why I suggested going man coverage on TE and/or Slot receiver is because they represent the high percentage throw to the middle of the field. It will take a lot of practice in determining just how far to carry receivers before releasing them to other defenders. Take the guess work out of the equation and man up. Let Perryman spot drop and read anything crossing or get proper depth for inside vertical. The question remains, spot drop or matchup? If its spot drop, I'm with Lu, expect more of the same...huge seams.
Click to expand...

Agree, I'm pretty sure I could make some completions against our defense.
 
Dynasty said:
With regards to the back seven, I simply think we need to squeeze the passing windows in our zone coverages. There is just too much space for QBs to complete passes for chunk yardage. The first issue is determining what concept we’re going to use in coverage. Are we going to drop spot and rally to the football or use match up principles? I don't like the idea of defending grass. Additionally, if we're going to drop spot we need to do a better job of defining landmarks as pertaining to ball placement. We need to get to our landmarks and lookup people. The second issue is defining dispositional exchanges. How far are we going to carry interior receivers horizontally and vertically? One reason why I suggested going man coverage on TE and/or Slot receiver is because they represent the high percentage throw to the middle of the field. It will take a lot of practice in determining just how far to carry receivers before releasing them to other defenders. Take the guess work out of the equation and man up. Let Perryman spot drop and read anything crossing or get proper depth for inside vertical. The question remains, spot drop or matchup? If its spot drop, I'm with Lu, expect more of the same...huge seams.
Click to expand...

This is what scared the **** out of me yesterday.

#1. This isn't an impossible thing to learn. We did this stuff in HS. We exchanged and/or "manned" at 6-8.
#2. There's no way our guys are going to learn this by next week or even the end of the season. It takes a serious amount of repetition and, still, you often get mixed up when you're thrown a look (flood) you haven't previously seen. The way to cover that up is to have safeties with range or unique anticipation. We have neither.
#3. A perfect example of this yesterday was the last touchdown. Cornelius (I believe) carried the eligible WR up to about 10+ yards. Sure, the window between him and VT was extremely tight, but the result was the underneath receiver (out of the backfield) was unusually wide open. This makes me question Golden's explanation that the breakdowns were solely in man coverage. Unless the defensive call was for man under, Cornelius showed zone.
#4. If we spot drop, without a pass rush, it's going to be a free-for-all.
 
Advertisement
We were blitzing on that play and if you rewatch the game you can look at the other player and see it was an obvious man to man coverage and he got himself mixed up with the TE and he did not have to, I am sure it was a mistake of jamming him as you would in zone but it took him too long to get to his responsibility. We ran a ton of different sets yesterday with a lot of different players. Most of the time the set we ran was indicative of the players on the field. I am pretty sure they felt good about having two converted safeties playing backer against the pass, even though we eventually got burned because of it you have to see the logic in it. I think this week with more of a running team coming in we will see more of EJ, Gaines and Obviously Perryman. I thought that 34 actually was much better in run support than he was in pass coverage. Please guys go to espn and rewatch the game and you may too find an appreciation for the work coach D put into the gameplan to fit his players abilities. He really mixed up the line a lot to try to get pressure, but these boys just dont have much for moves. I love the fact that I saw at least twice where we went four DE's, I love the fact that he was willing to try it. I think we will learn a lot from this game and we will improve.

Ohh and one more thing, did you guys notice we dominated the third quarter? you know when your expecting some adjustments? Yeah I would say we got them. If you go read the comments AG made today he was pretty honest in his assessment and he made some pretty good points, like not letting them score from play 16 to like 64 or some crazy number like that. It just lets you know there is a light at the end and we will get there!
 
Bottom line is we need more pressure on the QB. Someone needs to step up. I know BC always has a good O-Line but as the announcers pointed out, it looked like they were playing 7 on 7 out there. No one could get off their blocks or break through.

Keith Bryant is a difference-maker from DT. He's a beast. Cant wait till he suits up for us. We need him bad.
 
jmbflame21 said:
Bottom line is we need more pressure on the QB. Someone needs to step up. I know BC always has a good O-Line but as the announcers pointed out, it looked like they were playing 7 on 7 out there. No one could get off their blocks or break through.

Keith Bryant is a difference-maker from DT. He's a beast. Cant wait till he suits up for us. We need him bad.
Click to expand...

But I feel like we need to mix up where we are blitzing from, I could call out our blitzes pre-snap, so I'm sure Rettig was quick to figure out where pressure was coming from. The one time he was caught was when Perryman blitzed up the middle after a little delay, feel like we need more of that.
 
Advertisement
We will see what kind of coordinator coach D is next weekend. There are no secrets with K state and if we allow those jump passes to the sideline all game long I'm going to lose all hope.
 
Dynasty said:
With regards to the back seven, I simply think we need to squeeze the passing windows in our zone coverages. There is just too much space for QBs to complete passes for chunk yardage. The first issue is determining what concept we’re going to use in coverage. Are we going to drop spot and rally to the football or use match up principles? I don't like the idea of defending grass. Additionally, if we're going to drop spot we need to do a better job of defining landmarks as pertaining to ball placement. We need to get to our landmarks and lookup people. The second issue is defining dispositional exchanges. How far are we going to carry interior receivers horizontally and vertically? One reason why I suggested going man coverage on TE and/or Slot receiver is because they represent the high percentage throw to the middle of the field. It will take a lot of practice in determining just how far to carry receivers before releasing them to other defenders. Take the guess work out of the equation and man up. Let Perryman spot drop and read anything crossing or get proper depth for inside vertical. The question remains, spot drop or matchup? If its spot drop, I'm with Lu, expect more of the same...huge seams.
Click to expand...

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both but I think we're pretty much a drop zone team. I think that matching up in zone puts more stress on the quarterback and obviously makes windows tighter. We did this very well in 2005. Downside is it requires very good coordination, is time consuming to get down well, and it's harder to get turnovers because the players have to be far more cognizant of the opposition. Simply dropping zone allows these guys to watch the quarterback primarily which makes turnovers easier to come by IMO (2005 wasn't great in that respect) and it's frankly easier.

In my mind I think D'onofrio favors drop zone because of the turnover aspect and because he wants to be multiple. If we want to run a host of different things, asking guys to "defend grass" as you termed it is an easier way to go. Asking them to look guys up, run with, pass and release is harder--**** we aren't even identifying and following well in straight man at this point. What I think they overestimated is the ability of their DL--without ANY pressure virtually any qb can do *something* against a drop zone with large gaps. Rather than accept the deficit, they kept asking guys to "step up" which doesn't look like it's going to happen. In either event, they're stuck now and I think they'll be forced to hope that windows get smaller as guys get better at the system and that we get enough turnovers/stops to outscore some people.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top