Secondary

[JerseyCanes]

I think you'll actually see some improvement from last year's eye-popping discomfort with zone. On multiple occasions (UNC, BC and VT stand out), we saw guys so lost in their zones or exchanges that the results were complete breakdowns. I suspect that will happen less this year through sheer repetition. Apart from that, I think a guy like Howard can find himself on the field very early (even if just outside in Nickel sets) because his skillset and approach both fit well into zone schemes. I think D'Ono was handcuffed last year between not having the talent or confidence in players to mix and match press and zone effectively.

Beating a dead horse: the range of our Safeties is also an obvious deterrent to Zone schemes. Even when we played 2 deep last year, I can remember a specific play against VTech where Ray Ray was "in position" over the top, but got his lead feet stuck in the field. The result was a post right at his face.

Honestly, we've struggled playing cover two zone for years. It is not only an issue of carrying receivers through respective zone areas, but it is also a matter of not looking up receivers. We do a poor job of locating and redirecting receivers. As a result, it puts a lot of stress on the safeties.

I think they were even worse in Cover 3, and it's understandable. Firstly, we're almost a decade removed from having a guy who can legitimately play centerfield and provide a single high look. Kenny Phillips was good here, but didn't have *that* special range. I find it almost weird considering we're in South Florida. Secondly, without comfort and experience in passing guys off in the Cover 3, you get a lot of tense/timid players who end up 2-3 steps slow and ultimately staring at each other after the play.

Although cover three is supposed to provide a balanced approach in both run and pass defense, it isn’t that strong against the pass, particularly running it from a 40 front because you’re playing under quarter coverage. As you are well aware, by playing under quarters from a 40 front it requires the outside LB'ers and inverted safety to cover a lot of ground, from defending intermediate curl/hook/slant routes to working downhill to the flats. As a result, it is difficult to squeeze those interior passing windows. I don’t think it was a coincidence that teams worked us using quick perimeter routes and vertical seam routes when aligned in 2x1, 3x1 and 3x2 receiver sets.

I think one reason why we play a lot of cover three, aside from being dictated to by formation, is because of our safeties lack of outstanding range and instincts. By playing three deep defenders there is less ground to cover as compared to cover two. Now, if we ran cover three out of an odd 30 front, where we could get that extra defender down to create under fifth coverage, it becomes a better underneath three deep coverage against the pass. Both fronts are solid against the run because all gaps are accounted for, even against double TE sets, because they’re eight man fronts.

As mentioned regarding cover two, and the same can be said about cover three, we aren’t very good at looking up receivers and redirecting them with force. Very seldom do we see our underneath defenders jump routes when a receiver crosses their face, and we definitely don’t see them knock people off the routes consistently. Another concern I have about our zone coverages is that I’m not sure we have the basic principles of pattern reading down. As you know, pattern reading isn’t as simple as people think, particularly when there are checks and roll coverage calls.

If you want to see a comedy of errors w/r/t your point about underneath coverage issues, take a peek at last year's Maryland game. Sure, I realize we were undermanned, but we made that QB look like Drew Brees. Besides getting slaughtered up the seam to the point we had to completely get out of coverage, our LBs basically stood still in their "zone" and created unbelievable gaps between themselves and the coverage over the top. That said, it's not really new. Our LBs' inability to get any kind of depth or effectively play that hook/curl/slant has gone on for years. Again, I find it weird because a guy like RBuch has the physical ability. A guy like Spence had the instinct and athleticism. I wonder if it was a matter of scheme or of teaching (lack thereof).

One example by comparison I'd like to hear you discuss is the fact that VTech does a great job of hiding their rover with their deep drops from the Corners and the emphasis Foster places on forcing opposing QBs into quick decisions. I know we're not going to reinvent the wheel this year and hide all of our deficiencies, but my point is there are, in fact, certain things that we can do. We can hedge a lot better than we did last year. Again, I have no idea, but I openly wonder if that was D'Ono just not being creative enough or simply not being confident (in the players, their grasp of any kind of cohesive zone, or otherwise).

It was the latter...
JC

 

[DCH]

With respect to the safeties, they are what they are. Ray Ray has ****** range and will always have ****** range and should have been playing linebacker from day one. He's solid but struggles in space. VT is solid but nothing special. They aren't going to kill us but they aren't going to win us any games. And they weren't the problem last year IMO.

McGee has been atrocious his entire career. He did, however, have a pretty decent spring. A JoJo Nicholas/Randy Phillips passable senior year is not out of the realm of possibility. And that would be a MASSIVE step up for us. I think between Gunter/Finnie/Howard and a passable McGee we will be dramatically improved at corner just because we were so abysmal at that spot last year.

This was a 8 or 9 win team last year with a passable secondary. I think the secondary improves to passable this year.

 

[NorthFlaCane]

Ray Ray did look pretty solid in the spring game. Doesn't count for a lot but its better than him looking like ****.

 

[Dynasty]

I think you'll actually see some improvement from last year's eye-popping discomfort with zone. On multiple occasions (UNC, BC and VT stand out), we saw guys so lost in their zones or exchanges that the results were complete breakdowns. I suspect that will happen less this year through sheer repetition. Apart from that, I think a guy like Howard can find himself on the field very early (even if just outside in Nickel sets) because his skillset and approach both fit well into zone schemes. I think D'Ono was handcuffed last year between not having the talent or confidence in players to mix and match press and zone effectively.

Beating a dead horse: the range of our Safeties is also an obvious deterrent to Zone schemes. Even when we played 2 deep last year, I can remember a specific play against VTech where Ray Ray was "in position" over the top, but got his lead feet stuck in the field. The result was a post right at his face.

Honestly, we've struggled playing cover two zone for years. It is not only an issue of carrying receivers through respective zone areas, but it is also a matter of not looking up receivers. We do a poor job of locating and redirecting receivers. As a result, it puts a lot of stress on the safeties.

I think they were even worse in Cover 3, and it's understandable. Firstly, we're almost a decade removed from having a guy who can legitimately play centerfield and provide a single high look. Kenny Phillips was good here, but didn't have *that* special range. I find it almost weird considering we're in South Florida. Secondly, without comfort and experience in passing guys off in the Cover 3, you get a lot of tense/timid players who end up 2-3 steps slow and ultimately staring at each other after the play.

Although cover three is supposed to provide a balanced approach in both run and pass defense, it isn’t that strong against the pass, particularly running it from a 40 front because you’re playing under quarter coverage. As you are well aware, by playing under quarters from a 40 front it requires the outside LB'ers and inverted safety to cover a lot of ground, from defending intermediate curl/hook/slant routes to working downhill to the flats. As a result, it is difficult to squeeze those interior passing windows. I don’t think it was a coincidence that teams worked us using quick perimeter routes and vertical seam routes when aligned in 2x1, 3x1 and 3x2 receiver sets.

I think one reason why we play a lot of cover three, aside from being dictated to by formation, is because of our safeties lack of outstanding range and instincts. By playing three deep defenders there is less ground to cover as compared to cover two. Now, if we ran cover three out of an odd 30 front, where we could get that extra defender down to create under fifth coverage, it becomes a better underneath three deep coverage against the pass. Both fronts are solid against the run because all gaps are accounted for, even against double TE sets, because they’re eight man fronts.

As mentioned regarding cover two, and the same can be said about cover three, we aren’t very good at looking up receivers and redirecting them with force. Very seldom do we see our underneath defenders jump routes when a receiver crosses their face, and we definitely don’t see them knock people off the routes consistently. Another concern I have about our zone coverages is that I’m not sure we have the basic principles of pattern reading down. As you know, pattern reading isn’t as simple as people think, particularly when there are checks and roll coverage calls.

If you want to see a comedy of errors w/r/t your point about underneath coverage issues, take a peek at last year's Maryland game. Sure, I realize we were undermanned, but we made that QB look like Drew Brees. Besides getting slaughtered up the seam to the point we had to completely get out of coverage, our LBs basically stood still in their "zone" and created unbelievable gaps between themselves and the coverage over the top. That said, it's not really new. Our LBs' inability to get any kind of depth or effectively play that hook/curl/slant has gone on for years. Again, I find it weird because a guy like RBuch has the physical ability. A guy like Spence had the instinct and athleticism. I wonder if it was a matter of scheme or of teaching (lack thereof).

One example by comparison I'd like to hear you discuss is the fact that VTech does a great job of hiding their rover with their deep drops from the Corners and the emphasis Foster places on forcing opposing QBs into quick decisions. I know we're not going to reinvent the wheel this year and hide all of our deficiencies, but my point is there are, in fact, certain things that we can do. We can hedge a lot better than we did last year. Again, I have no idea, but I openly wonder if that was D'Ono just not being creative enough or simply not being confident (in the players, their grasp of any kind of cohesive zone, or otherwise).

I don’t know how UM teaches its cover three zone, but I would suspect that it is based on drop spot principles as opposed to the drop and match concept. I actually prefer the latter because it allows underneath defenders to close decisively on receivers, thus, for the most part, squeezing those stationary hook/curl routes with force. I believe in the theory that you force quarterbacks to demonstrate accuracy. There is nothing more frustrating for a DB/defender then having a QB develop confidence and rhythm by completing stationary intermediate curl and hook routes. At the collegiate level, most quarterbacks are more comfortable throwing those type passes because they’re basically in the middle of the field. To counter that, force them to hit receivers on the move while throwing over defenders.

I haven’t studied the hokies defense in years. However, I would say their cover three is based upon disguising and movement. I don’t know if they drop spot, but I would say probably not. In addition, their front does a fair amount of stemming and it is predicated on creating pressure off the edges. And that is the key. In general, I think it is a function of scheme, as the front works to get off the ball and up the field particularly the edge rushers, and creativity with the back seven.

To answer your question regarding coach D, I honestly think it was a combination of both.

 

[guppycane]

experience + 2nd year in system + youth pushing them makes me optimistic that they can improve over last year.

 

[NorthFlaCane]

experience + 2nd year in system + youth pushing them makes me optimistic that they can improve over last year.

Plus we won't have the last 2 weeks of fall camp disrupted by suspensions

 

[JerseyCanes]

Our Secondary will be better when our front 7 is better... That's the biggest improvement we need IMO

JC

 

[Bennubird]

True, but we also need DBs that make plays. I think several of our young guys give us reason to have hope in the future.

Our Secondary will be better when our front 7 is better... That's the biggest improvement we need IMO

JC

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

Shannon was a matchup guy. I don't think D'Onofrio is but I really don't know. We saw what he did last year but I don't think he had the personnel to do much different. We just don't have the intelligence or athleticism defensively to match guys as they clear through IMO. In truth, Shannon (and/or his DC) began to drop zone more through time. Back circa 2005 all these guys did was match their zone. By 2010 it was a different story. That may have been due to him losing the talent to run that.

Back to a point you made previously, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them play more 5 under this year but I would base that primarily on the defensive line. Given the guys I've seen up front and the fact that the other guys are young, I think our pass rush will probably be quite bad. Thus I think D'Onofrio will be stuck with some combination of zone blitzing and a bad base pass rush. In my mind that lends itself to a 3 man front--either bringing the blitz along with it or playing 8 behind. If you can't get there with 4 regardless , you're better off 8 back than 7.

Honestly, we've struggled playing cover two zone for years. It is not only an issue of carrying receivers through respective zone areas, but it is also a matter of not looking up receivers. We do a poor job of locating and redirecting receivers. As a result, it puts a lot of stress on the safeties.

I think they were even worse in Cover 3, and it's understandable. Firstly, we're almost a decade removed from having a guy who can legitimately play centerfield and provide a single high look. Kenny Phillips was good here, but didn't have *that* special range. I find it almost weird considering we're in South Florida. Secondly, without comfort and experience in passing guys off in the Cover 3, you get a lot of tense/timid players who end up 2-3 steps slow and ultimately staring at each other after the play.

Although cover three is supposed to provide a balanced approach in both run and pass defense, it isn’t that strong against the pass, particularly running it from a 40 front because you’re playing under quarter coverage. As you are well aware, by playing under quarters from a 40 front it requires the outside LB'ers and inverted safety to cover a lot of ground, from defending intermediate curl/hook/slant routes to working downhill to the flats. As a result, it is difficult to squeeze those interior passing windows. I don’t think it was a coincidence that teams worked us using quick perimeter routes and vertical seam routes when aligned in 2x1, 3x1 and 3x2 receiver sets.

I think one reason why we play a lot of cover three, aside from being dictated to by formation, is because of our safeties lack of outstanding range and instincts. By playing three deep defenders there is less ground to cover as compared to cover two. Now, if we ran cover three out of an odd 30 front, where we could get that extra defender down to create under fifth coverage, it becomes a better underneath three deep coverage against the pass. Both fronts are solid against the run because all gaps are accounted for, even against double TE sets, because they’re eight man fronts.

As mentioned regarding cover two, and the same can be said about cover three, we aren’t very good at looking up receivers and redirecting them with force. Very seldom do we see our underneath defenders jump routes when a receiver crosses their face, and we definitely don’t see them knock people off the routes consistently. Another concern I have about our zone coverages is that I’m not sure we have the basic principles of pattern reading down. As you know, pattern reading isn’t as simple as people think, particularly when there are checks and roll coverage calls.

If you want to see a comedy of errors w/r/t your point about underneath coverage issues, take a peek at last year's Maryland game. Sure, I realize we were undermanned, but we made that QB look like Drew Brees. Besides getting slaughtered up the seam to the point we had to completely get out of coverage, our LBs basically stood still in their "zone" and created unbelievable gaps between themselves and the coverage over the top. That said, it's not really new. Our LBs' inability to get any kind of depth or effectively play that hook/curl/slant has gone on for years. Again, I find it weird because a guy like RBuch has the physical ability. A guy like Spence had the instinct and athleticism. I wonder if it was a matter of scheme or of teaching (lack thereof).

One example by comparison I'd like to hear you discuss is the fact that VTech does a great job of hiding their rover with their deep drops from the Corners and the emphasis Foster places on forcing opposing QBs into quick decisions. I know we're not going to reinvent the wheel this year and hide all of our deficiencies, but my point is there are, in fact, certain things that we can do. We can hedge a lot better than we did last year. Again, I have no idea, but I openly wonder if that was D'Ono just not being creative enough or simply not being confident (in the players, their grasp of any kind of cohesive zone, or otherwise).

I don’t know how UM teaches its cover three zone, but I would suspect that it is based on drop spot principles as opposed to the drop and match concept. I actually prefer the latter because it allows underneath defenders to close decisively on receivers, thus, for the most part, squeezing those stationary hook/curl routes with force. I believe in the theory that you force quarterbacks to demonstrate accuracy. There is nothing more frustrating for a DB/defender then having a QB develop confidence and rhythm by completing stationary intermediate curl and hook routes. At the collegiate level, most quarterbacks are more comfortable throwing those type passes because they’re basically in the middle of the field. To counter that, force them to hit receivers on the move while throwing over defenders.

I haven’t studied the hokies defense in years. However, I would say their cover three is based upon disguising and movement. I don’t know if they drop spot, but I would say probably not. In addition, their front does a fair amount of stemming and it is predicated on creating pressure off the edges. And that is the key. In general, I think it is a function of scheme, as the front works to get off the ball and up the field particularly the edge rushers, and creativity with the back seven.

To answer your question regarding coach D, I honestly think it was a combination of both.

 

[LuCane]

Shannon was a matchup guy. I don't think D'Onofrio is but I really don't know. We saw what he did last year but I don't think he had the personnel to do much different. We just don't have the intelligence or athleticism defensively to match guys as they clear through IMO. In truth, Shannon (and/or his DC) began to drop zone more through time. Back circa 2005 all these guys did was match their zone. By 2010 it was a different story. That may have been due to him losing the talent to run that.

Back to a point you made previously, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them play more 5 under this year but I would base that primarily on the defensive line. Given the guys I've seen up front and the fact that the other guys are young, I think our pass rush will probably be quite bad. Thus I think D'Onofrio will be stuck with some combination of zone blitzing and a bad base pass rush. In my mind that lends itself to a 3 man front--either bringing the blitz along with it or playing 8 behind. If you can't get there with 4 regardless , you're better off 8 back than 7.

I think they were even worse in Cover 3, and it's understandable. Firstly, we're almost a decade removed from having a guy who can legitimately play centerfield and provide a single high look. Kenny Phillips was good here, but didn't have *that* special range. I find it almost weird considering we're in South Florida. Secondly, without comfort and experience in passing guys off in the Cover 3, you get a lot of tense/timid players who end up 2-3 steps slow and ultimately staring at each other after the play.

Although cover three is supposed to provide a balanced approach in both run and pass defense, it isn’t that strong against the pass, particularly running it from a 40 front because you’re playing under quarter coverage. As you are well aware, by playing under quarters from a 40 front it requires the outside LB'ers and inverted safety to cover a lot of ground, from defending intermediate curl/hook/slant routes to working downhill to the flats. As a result, it is difficult to squeeze those interior passing windows. I don’t think it was a coincidence that teams worked us using quick perimeter routes and vertical seam routes when aligned in 2x1, 3x1 and 3x2 receiver sets.

I think one reason why we play a lot of cover three, aside from being dictated to by formation, is because of our safeties lack of outstanding range and instincts. By playing three deep defenders there is less ground to cover as compared to cover two. Now, if we ran cover three out of an odd 30 front, where we could get that extra defender down to create under fifth coverage, it becomes a better underneath three deep coverage against the pass. Both fronts are solid against the run because all gaps are accounted for, even against double TE sets, because they’re eight man fronts.

As mentioned regarding cover two, and the same can be said about cover three, we aren’t very good at looking up receivers and redirecting them with force. Very seldom do we see our underneath defenders jump routes when a receiver crosses their face, and we definitely don’t see them knock people off the routes consistently. Another concern I have about our zone coverages is that I’m not sure we have the basic principles of pattern reading down. As you know, pattern reading isn’t as simple as people think, particularly when there are checks and roll coverage calls.

If you want to see a comedy of errors w/r/t your point about underneath coverage issues, take a peek at last year's Maryland game. Sure, I realize we were undermanned, but we made that QB look like Drew Brees. Besides getting slaughtered up the seam to the point we had to completely get out of coverage, our LBs basically stood still in their "zone" and created unbelievable gaps between themselves and the coverage over the top. That said, it's not really new. Our LBs' inability to get any kind of depth or effectively play that hook/curl/slant has gone on for years. Again, I find it weird because a guy like RBuch has the physical ability. A guy like Spence had the instinct and athleticism. I wonder if it was a matter of scheme or of teaching (lack thereof).

One example by comparison I'd like to hear you discuss is the fact that VTech does a great job of hiding their rover with their deep drops from the Corners and the emphasis Foster places on forcing opposing QBs into quick decisions. I know we're not going to reinvent the wheel this year and hide all of our deficiencies, but my point is there are, in fact, certain things that we can do. We can hedge a lot better than we did last year. Again, I have no idea, but I openly wonder if that was D'Ono just not being creative enough or simply not being confident (in the players, their grasp of any kind of cohesive zone, or otherwise).

I don’t know how UM teaches its cover three zone, but I would suspect that it is based on drop spot principles as opposed to the drop and match concept. I actually prefer the latter because it allows underneath defenders to close decisively on receivers, thus, for the most part, squeezing those stationary hook/curl routes with force. I believe in the theory that you force quarterbacks to demonstrate accuracy. There is nothing more frustrating for a DB/defender then having a QB develop confidence and rhythm by completing stationary intermediate curl and hook routes. At the collegiate level, most quarterbacks are more comfortable throwing those type passes because they’re basically in the middle of the field. To counter that, force them to hit receivers on the move while throwing over defenders.

I haven’t studied the hokies defense in years. However, I would say their cover three is based upon disguising and movement. I don’t know if they drop spot, but I would say probably not. In addition, their front does a fair amount of stemming and it is predicated on creating pressure off the edges. And that is the key. In general, I think it is a function of scheme, as the front works to get off the ball and up the field particularly the edge rushers, and creativity with the back seven.

To answer your question regarding coach D, I honestly think it was a combination of both.

I've pleaded for a mix of 3-under and 5-under for the last half decade. At the least, I'd like to see it mixed in at heavier doses. As you said, we might actually be forced into it this year. As to your pass rush commentary, I expected a ton more fire zone blitzes last year, and was left just shrugging my shoulders at the question I raised above (whether it was D'Ono's lack of creativity or his confidence in his players, or both).

For those of you less familiar with fire zone blitzes, here's an uber-short summary:

5 pass rushers (3-4 DL + 1-2 LBs or mix in a DB) with 3 underneath zone defenders and 3 zone defenders over the top. It generally forces opposing QBs into quick decisions and, when played correctly/aggressively, into very tight passing windows and/or dumpoffs. Certainly, there are holes in it like any other defense, but it's a scheme that lends itself to "doing more with less."

We have less. We need to do more. We'll see if we get more of this next season, but I'm skeptical.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

I think we were too young and too stupid. 3 under 3 deep obviously isn't a tough defense to defeat if you know it's coming. The better defenses are about setting it up out of different alignments, bringing/dropping different guys, and knowing when to employ it (ie mixing coverages). You just have to be multiple and I don't think we could do that. Our guys looked confused running his basics. As time went on, D'Onofrio seemed to resign himself to a bend-but-don't-break style of defense that contained big plays and tried it's damndest to get off the field on one pivotal third down--whether that be for punt or field goal. And to his credit, there was some success. We ended the year top 25 in defense and while that may be misleading, I don't think blitzing heavy would've bested it. Unfortunately, in line with what I was suggesting earlier, I'm not sure that we'll be much different. If we want to get more talented players on the field, they are probably going to be young. That sticks us in the same scenario--unable to do a ton of mixing and deception as guys try to figure out what they're doing. Play a down with two freshmen in with a couple guys that lack athleticism and it's the same limit.

When I watched us at the end of last year, I thought it'd take us a full 3 years to be good again. Stuff like this is the reason why. I think the "year in the system" argument is going to be countered by the fact that so many guys left and so many guys left behind have never played.

 

[Dynasty]

After the Maryland game last year we had a brief discussion about the philosophical differences between Shannon and coach D. Shannon used more of an upfield defensive scheme, particularly early on, where the ends defended the run on their way to the quarterback. They were in attack mode constantly pressurizing the pocket. That is an approach I prefer because, if you’re going to cover with seven, it is imperative you get consistent pressure from the down four. Under coach D we saw a more balanced approach where the ends engaged against the run and redirected verses the pass. I don’t think that’s a bad choice providing you get excellent coverage from the back seven. From a philosophical perspective it ultimately becomes an issue of can that scheme produce coverage sacks and/or provide solid passing efficiency numbers. The problem last year was that we got neither on a consistent basis. Of course there were those who said we didn’t have sufficient talent at corner and that led to playing more off coverage (playing seven to ten yards off receivers, especially those aligned outside). While that has some merit, I question why make an adjustment to a unit considered the weakest link. The strength was supposed to be the down front. I would think that if any adjustments were made it should have started here. The emphasis placed on creating pressure upfront while keeping the back seven responsibilities relatively simple. I know it sounds simple in theory, but I think you have to evaluate the purported strengths and weaknesses of the entire unit and adjust accordingly. I completely understand the point about a coach wanting to install his system, but sometimes there are factors such as personnel issues which dictate what you can and cannot install. Therefore, imo, you take exiting personnel and mold the scheme around their strengths. I wouldn’t necessarily call this a change in philosophy but rather a tweak in scheme. As the talent level and football acumen improve I would expect to see that reflective in scheme.

I don’t know what to expect this year from our secondary. You and Lucane made some very interesting points regarding zone/fire blitzes. I just can’t get over the fact that we don’t disguise anything well, especially blitzes. Our blitzes are basically rendered ineffective. If we have to rely on zone/fire blitzing to create pressure we had better disguise them better than we have in the past. Because, if the blitz doesn’t create pressure, those seam and flat windows are huge. I’m not opposed to blitzing as you know. I think blitzing can have a smothering effect providing the play of the down four is disruptive. And really that is an unspoken key to blitzing Teams that are effectively good at blitzing typically get disruptive play from the down four. When the down four is disruptive and reestablishing the line of scrimmage, teams usually are forced to double down/combo, whether it is with a TE and/or backs. Or, they change their passing series to quick, three step drops. To counter those double downs, blitz, preferably inside to create to single blocking matchups.

Having said that, I would think that our first order of business is to place an emphasis on stuffing the run thereby creating favorable down and distance situations to get after the quarterback. I am in agreement, though, that we need to put in work using an eight man fronts, primarily to balance the run gaps. We must get the down and distance in our favor, and that starts by effectively stopping the run.

 

[CanesAreAble]

After the Maryland game last year we had a brief discussion about the philosophical differences between Shannon and coach D. Shannon used more of an upfield defensive scheme, particularly early on, where the ends defended the run on their way to the quarterback. They were in attack mode constantly pressurizing the pocket. That is an approach I prefer because, if you’re going to cover with seven, it is imperative you get consistent pressure from the down four. Under coach D we saw a more balanced approach where the ends engaged against the run and redirected verses the pass. I don’t think that’s a bad choice providing you get excellent coverage from the back seven. From a philosophical perspective it ultimately becomes an issue of can that scheme produce coverage sacks and/or provide solid passing efficiency numbers. The problem last year was that we got neither on a consistent basis. Of course there were those who said we didn’t have sufficient talent at corner and that led to playing more off coverage (playing seven to ten yards off receivers, especially those aligned outside). While that has some merit, I question why make an adjustment to a unit considered the weakest link. The strength was supposed to be the down front. I would think that if any adjustments were made it should have started here. The emphasis placed on creating pressure upfront while keeping the back seven responsibilities relatively simple. I know it sounds simple in theory, but I think you have to evaluate the purported strengths and weaknesses of the entire unit and adjust accordingly. I completely understand the point about a coach wanting to install his system, but sometimes there are factors such as personnel issues which dictate what you can and cannot install. Therefore, imo, you take exiting personnel and mold the scheme around their strengths. I wouldn’t necessarily call this a change in philosophy but rather a tweak in scheme. As the talent level and football acumen improve I would expect to see that reflective in scheme.

I'm no X's and O's guru, but I don't think we had any strengths on defense last year. Perhaps the front was a strength relative to the back 7, but not to the point where we could do any scheming to compensate for coverage deficiencies. Other than Porter who missed around half the season, we didn't have anyone up front who could win an individual matchup with any kind of consistency.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

I don’t know what to expect this year from our secondary. You and Lucane made some very interesting points regarding zone/fire blitzes. I just can’t get over the fact that we don’t disguise anything well, especially blitzes. Our blitzes are basically rendered ineffective. If we have to rely on zone/fire blitzing to create pressure we had better disguise them better than we have in the past. Because, if the blitz doesn’t create pressure, those seam and flat windows are huge. I’m not opposed to blitzing as you know. I think blitzing can have a smothering effect providing the play of the down four is disruptive. And really that is an unspoken key to blitzing Teams that are effectively good at blitzing typically get disruptive play from the down four. When the down four is disruptive and reestablishing the line of scrimmage, teams usually are forced to double down/combo, whether it is with a TE and/or backs. Or, they change their passing series to quick, three step drops. To counter those double downs, blitz, preferably inside to create to single blocking matchups.

Unfortunately, this type of stuff just continues to emphasize reasons I don't think that we'll be good. As you note, if we were forced to be a blitz-heavy team, we are going to need a real, diverse blitz package. That includes blitzes from a variety of positions with the element of disguise. That's the only way that playing a lot of 3 under, 2-3 deep will work for us. That's the Bill Young model had he ever have gotten there IMO. I just don't think that we'll have the experience to do that. We will be forced to be simplistic in our approaches IMO to avoid errors that give up big plays. Furthermore, because we'll be so young (and thus mediocre IMO) up front, I don't think that simple inside blitzes will work well for us because I don't think these guys can win one on one. Teams like the old FSU or Saban's LSU killed with this--cover 1 (in those cases) behind an extra man all with the theory that they can feast off of 1:1. I don't think we can. We don't have the players. I think we'd be forced to run a lot of overloads as opposed to inside blitzes to try to get free runs. That would involve our corners and safeties and making us spin zones at times. This is all making us more prone to errors. I just don't see it working. I foresee us being a lot like last year in terms of trying to get to one third down. And on that third down we may be a bit more varied than we were, but probably not as much as we might like to be given personnel.

As much as people hate to hear it, this team could benefit from the old Shannon approach. That is to focus like **** on getting good at one thing (wide split cover 2 way back when) and forget trying to run a bunch of different stuff. Because I would wager dollars to nickels that whatever we try, we're going to have to be pretty basic once teams get a look at us and the bullets start flying.

 

[LuCane]

I don’t know what to expect this year from our secondary. You and Lucane made some very interesting points regarding zone/fire blitzes. I just can’t get over the fact that we don’t disguise anything well, especially blitzes. Our blitzes are basically rendered ineffective. If we have to rely on zone/fire blitzing to create pressure we had better disguise them better than we have in the past. Because, if the blitz doesn’t create pressure, those seam and flat windows are huge. I’m not opposed to blitzing as you know. I think blitzing can have a smothering effect providing the play of the down four is disruptive. And really that is an unspoken key to blitzing Teams that are effectively good at blitzing typically get disruptive play from the down four. When the down four is disruptive and reestablishing the line of scrimmage, teams usually are forced to double down/combo, whether it is with a TE and/or backs. Or, they change their passing series to quick, three step drops. To counter those double downs, blitz, preferably inside to create to single blocking matchups.

Unfortunately, this type of stuff just continues to emphasize reasons I don't think that we'll be good. As you note, if we were forced to be a blitz-heavy team, we are going to need a real, diverse blitz package. That includes blitzes from a variety of positions with the element of disguise. That's the only way that playing a lot of 3 under, 2-3 deep will work for us. That's the Bill Young model had he ever have gotten there IMO. I just don't think that we'll have the experience to do that. We will be forced to be simplistic in our approaches IMO to avoid errors that give up big plays. Furthermore, because we'll be so young (and thus mediocre IMO) up front, I don't think that simple inside blitzes will work well for us because I don't think these guys can win one on one. Teams like the old FSU or Saban's LSU killed with this--cover 1 (in those cases) behind an extra man all with the theory that they can feast off of 1:1. I don't think we can. We don't have the players. I think we'd be forced to run a lot of overloads as opposed to inside blitzes to try to get free runs. That would involve our corners and safeties and making us spin zones at times. This is all making us more prone to errors. I just don't see it working. I foresee us being a lot like last year in terms of trying to get to one third down. And on that third down we may be a bit more varied than we were, but probably not as much as we might like to be given personnel.

As much as people hate to hear it, this team could benefit from the old Shannon approach. That is to focus like **** on getting good at one thing (wide split cover 2 way back when) and forget trying to run a bunch of different stuff. Because I would wager dollars to nickels that whatever we try, we're going to have to be pretty basic once teams get a look at us and the bullets start flying.

I think the interesting aspect of some of your (both you and Dynasty) views is that there's a balancing approach to "what fits this current personnel" vs. "taking our losses and implementing a system long-term." I don't think it has to be one or the other, but to me, it seems like Golden's staff is at least tipping toward the latter. I agree to an extent. It's not like we have a substantial amount of upperclassmen talent that will take us anywhere, so rather than squeeze out a couple extra victories, I imagine they're inclined to take their lumps with younger guys who'll have a transition period with getting comfortable (in a newer system and in unfamiliar coverages) over an emphasis on the coverages that might *currently* fit their personnel.

Of course, there's a chance they're not thinking about any of these interplays, but I take these guys to be thoughtful in their plans of action.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

To their benefit, we'll be so young that a lot of these guys that will play are their recruits. Therefore at least in theory, a lot of the "system vs personnel" argument should be in the past. They recruited a lot of these guys so their personnel should now begin to fit their system. It's just that we're likely to take some lumps in being reliant on youth and on some mediocre elder talent.

 

[UMFarArcher]

Regardless of the contest, there is one principle that always works to your benefit against your opponent, and hasn't changed through the millennia.

You don't show what you're going to do, and you don't do what you're showing.

Young, experienced, great or mediocre, a bit of concealment always keeps your opponent off balance.

And we haven't concealed what we're going to do on defense since God only knows when.

 

[jevoasis]

Howard will be The starting CB before the end of the year. You're welcome.

 

[Port Knox]

I understand the coach D's D (if I may) was not as talented as Randy's when he was a DC in his day. And after one short, suspension laden year it is hard to put D'Onofrio on a DC level with Randy. Hard to deny Shannon was a pretty good DC. That being said, minus the GT game, I saw nothing in the defensive scheming that wow'd me, or gave me any idea of what kind of scheming to look forward to when the talent catches up. If it weren't for Perryman and Spence, the defense would have been in real trouble last year. I just hope that this year the defensive playbook gets opened to chapter 2 and we see a couple new wrinkles, including something other than 7 yard cushions on the wideouts. Like I said, I know we were lacking in talent last year, espcially at DB. I appreciate you guys expelling some knowledge regarding some zone scheming and other defensive formats that I, and I am sure other armchair QB's overlook. Just looking for some more pressure this year, and crossing my fingers that these young cats are quick learners. Howard, Bush, Jenkins, and Crawford will see some good minutes, especially week 3. I am sure we all hope they are quick learners.