forums

Play a eight and nine man front.

Advertisement
Advertisement
That means playing Cover 0. Bad ******* move. Lovitt did that ignorant **** against Wake when we actually had real corners and we got toasted. It doesnt matter who the QB is. Eventually you are going to give up big plays playing that way.
 
I don't know about an 8 man front, but I sure as **** would like to see us in nickel most of the game. We need to stick a CB on Eifert, or that TE is going to eat us alive up the seam. I would play man cover 1 and blitz right up the gut.
 
Advertisement
While I am certainly no aficionado of Notre Dame and their offensive and defensive philosophies, as I recall from his Cincinatti days Brian Kelly is a spread guy that is big on pushing tempo. If we were to commit more guys to stopping the run our secondary would get the equivalent of dropping the soap from the ND passing game - even if their QB licks donkey ********s.

The problem is, we haven't found an effective way to stop a spread look yet with MDO's two-gap philosophy. We give up huge amounts of open grass in the passing game and we get no leverage against the run, it's a Catch 22 that yields the results you have seen to this point. If we can't find a way to stop the zone read we are going to keep getting blasted, and I don't think dropping another guy in the box fixes that by itself. Our DL has to be able to take away lanes for the RB and the LB's still have to properly fill gaps and we haven't done it yet. Even with guys we all know are very talented like Eddie Johnson and Denzel.

I think we should all just accept the fact that we are going to have to outscore even the most anemic of offenses until we can find some sort of front 7 combination that can slow the running game on its own.

What I would like to see is a combination of blitzing both to stuff the run and to pressure the quarterback, start dictating to the offense rather than being reactive. Yes, that leaves open the possibility of the O hitting an explosive play, but nothing else is working.

I know that is totally contrary to MDO's philosophy though, and I know that it's pointless to hope for it because it won't happen.
 
A nine man front is simply inverting both safeties. The corners, however, will typically align off the LOS at about 10 yards plus. They are responsible for deep halves. This is commonly known as double inverted cover 2.
 
Advertisement
Dynasty said:
A nine man front is simply inverting both safeties. The corners, however, will typically align off the LOS at about 10 yards plus. They are responsible for deep halves. This is commonly known as double inverted cover 2.
Click to expand...

You can't be the only guy here who understands football. Some of the answers here lead me to believe some do not realize how many guys are on the field.
 
Dynasty said:
A nine man front is simply inverting both safeties. The corners, however, will typically align off the LOS at about 10 yards plus. They are responsible for deep halves. This is commonly known as double inverted cover 2.
Click to expand...

Corners 10 yds off? Sounds like the 2011 base defense.

I really dont understand his philosophy on defense. We're giving up huge chunks of yardage on nearly every drive to begin with. What harm would it do to be much more aggressive?
 
Advertisement
It is a really a methodical defensive philosophy. The premise is to force offenses to execute without giving up big plays. Problem is we give up huge chunk plays. It's a decent approach, providing the defense forces mistakes, turnovers.

I prefer aggressive d-line play while keeping the back seven relatively simple.

Yes, the corners last year aligned off the LOS roughly 8-10 yards. That's typical cover 3 and 4 alignment for corners. The safeties in double inverted cover 2 will be force and have what is known as "sky" responsibility.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top