what was up with this defensive pre-snap alignment?

[Coach Macho]

This is the result of the fact that if they show nickel, it is telegraphing to the opposing OC they are in man2man. So they can't really do it. Instead they have to have LBs covering. The second issue is for some reason we refuse to play Cover-1, which would have had one of the safeties cover the TE where Green is, and Green rushing from the LOS, or showing rush and dropping into a zone.

Of course the other thing is b/c this is a run play we don't really know what the call was. They could have showed this man-2 look and dropped into cover-3 with the OLBs Covering the flats, and one of the safeties taking a middle zone with the other two backers (though that would be foolish on a 2nd and 5). They could have played straight up Cover-2 and zone blitzed the WILL. Or they could have simply played man 2 knowing that there was safety help. It is very common for a SOLB in a 3-4 to cover a TE. Smart OC's, knowing this, simply align them outside, and while this doesn't change the nature of the SOLB's role in covering, it changes how many defenders are in the box, and opens up the run.

The real issue isn't that Green is covering. It's not uncommon to ask this of your OLBs. It's that the defense is predicated on so many moving parts, and that they don't trust a single high safety ever, and a DL that is playing a 2-gap front they can't handle, that there are constant breakdowns.

Who says Nickel means man-to-man? You can play any coverage out of Nickel.

You can try to justify our alignment anyway you want to but the fact is that it's extremely flawed. We're out-numbered in the box. We have no edge player to bottom.

They don't play nickel in any of their zone coverages, which is their bread and butter. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF RUNNING THE 3-4 for them: to be able to defend spread attacks with base personnel. Have you read their playbook? You constantly spout off about stuff, without any context. Btw, the C gaps are the responsibility of the DE's who are lined up head up on the OTs in this play. I haven't fully studied the run fits, but I imagine the two ILB are involved in run defense. This is why they run a two gap 3-4. Do i think it's worth it? NO. But stop acting like you know more than they do. I'd love to read your playbook, and see if it is even half as intricate as theirs is.

The system doesn't work b/c A) they aren't able to teach it B) the front is nearly impossible to do successfully C) the talent level forces them into cover-2 and 3 all game.....

First off, pull your panties at your *** lil' girl. I wasn't insulting you so don't come at me like an angry lil' broad on her period.

Second, they do play zone out of the Nickel. I've seen us play zone with Crawford, Howard and Gunter all out there at the same time.

Oh, the C-gaps are the responsibility of the DE's huh? Go look at that still picture and tell me if that DE can defend the C-gap, ****head.

I constantly spout off **** without context? WTF? I'm FULL of context. I don't talk out of my *** like you do. If I attempt to prove a point I come with substance and actual schematic **** that makes sense. You just don't understand it so to YOU think I'm just spouting off.

And no, I'm sure my playbook isn't as intricate because I keep things simple which allows my players to think less and play fast.

SIMPLE FOR MY KIDS TO UNDERSTAND AND EXECUTE
HARD FOR OPPOSING OFFENSES TO FIGURE OUT

That's the key.

 

[Coach Macho]

WCD: again, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, we don't really know what they were running coverage wise b/c it ended in a run. My honest guess was they showed man-2, and were going to drop into cover 3 with Green covering the flat. If green doesn't flex out with the TE there, you'd be complaining that no one was there to cover the TE on a quick throw.

I want to be extremely clear here: I would fire D'Ono, and scrap the defensive front in favor of a single gap front. I'd simplify the run fits, keep all the simple zone blitzes and make things extremely basic and simple. But this idea that our coaches are sitting there and "cluelessly putting our best 4-3 run stuffer in coverage" is inaccurate and unfair.

If we're in Cover-3 then why are both the Safeties back-pedaling?

And if they're showing man-2 then why is the OLB up top so tight to the LOS? He's not lined up on that man. And if we were in Cover-3 then the Safety up top should be rolling down to replace that OLB. He's not.

I don't want Green flexed out with the TE. I want the Safety out there instead so Green can get back in the box and help stop the run.

And if we're playing Cover-3 and Green has flats then he shouldn't be anywhere near head-up on the TE.


The problem is...

You keep trying to justify this garbage *** alignment but no matter which way you slice it, IT SUCKS!

Is Shayon playing man on the TE? If so, that sucks.
Is Shayon responsible for flats? Is so, that sucks. It leaves us vulnerable to flat+slant combo.
And BOTH of those variables suck because we now have 6 defenders in the box.

I don't need to know what's called. I'm looking at alignments and leverage. (just like an OC would be)

 

[FullyERicht]

This is the result of the fact that if they show nickel, it is telegraphing to the opposing OC they are in man2man. So they can't really do it. Instead they have to have LBs covering. The second issue is for some reason we refuse to play Cover-1, which would have had one of the safeties cover the TE where Green is, and Green rushing from the LOS, or showing rush and dropping into a zone.

Of course the other thing is b/c this is a run play we don't really know what the call was. They could have showed this man-2 look and dropped into cover-3 with the OLBs Covering the flats, and one of the safeties taking a middle zone with the other two backers (though that would be foolish on a 2nd and 5). They could have played straight up Cover-2 and zone blitzed the WILL. Or they could have simply played man 2 knowing that there was safety help. It is very common for a SOLB in a 3-4 to cover a TE. Smart OC's, knowing this, simply align them outside, and while this doesn't change the nature of the SOLB's role in covering, it changes how many defenders are in the box, and opens up the run.

The real issue isn't that Green is covering. It's not uncommon to ask this of your OLBs. It's that the defense is predicated on so many moving parts, and that they don't trust a single high safety ever, and a DL that is playing a 2-gap front they can't handle, that there are constant breakdowns.

Who says Nickel means man-to-man? You can play any coverage out of Nickel.

You can try to justify our alignment anyway you want to but the fact is that it's extremely flawed. We're out-numbered in the box. We have no edge player to bottom.

They don't play nickel in any of their zone coverages, which is their bread and butter. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF RUNNING THE 3-4 for them: to be able to defend spread attacks with base personnel. Have you read their playbook? You constantly spout off about stuff, without any context. Btw, the C gaps are the responsibility of the DE's who are lined up head up on the OTs in this play. I haven't fully studied the run fits, but I imagine the two ILB are involved in run defense. This is why they run a two gap 3-4. Do i think it's worth it? NO. But stop acting like you know more than they do. I'd love to read your playbook, and see if it is even half as intricate as theirs is.

The system doesn't work b/c A) they aren't able to teach it B) the front is nearly impossible to do successfully C) the talent level forces them into cover-2 and 3 all game.....

First off, pull your panties at your *** lil' girl. I wasn't insulting you so don't come at me like an angry lil' broad on her period.

Second, they do play zone out of the Nickel. I've seen us play zone with Crawford, Howard and Gunter all out there at the same time.

Oh, the C-gaps are the responsibility of the DE's huh? Go look at that still picture and tell me if that DE can defend the C-gap, ****head.

I constantly spout off **** without context? WTF? I'm FULL of context. I don't talk out of my *** like you do. If I attempt to prove a point I come with substance and actual schematic **** that makes sense. You just don't understand it so to YOU think I'm just spouting off.

And no, I'm sure my playbook isn't as intricate because I keep things simple which allows my players to think less and play fast.

SIMPLE FOR MY KIDS TO UNDERSTAND AND EXECUTE
HARD FOR OPPOSING OFFENSES TO FIGURE OUT

That's the key.

Again, have you read the playbook? Who is responsible for the C gaps in a Okie front?????

I'm not surprised we have run, on obvious passing downs on third and long, a nickel defense. On second and ten or less? Philosophically, they see no reason to play a lot of nickel zone b/c the entire purpose of playing so much zone is such that they can use base front personnel. Read the **** playbook man.

 

[Coach Macho]

Here's what I don't understand.

Why are we supposedly "scared of getting burnt deep" when our CB's are the best kids on our defense?

And why can't we go Cover-3 if we're scared?

So we won't bring extra guys in the box cause we're scared of being beat deep but we'll allow teams to run down our throat the whole game?

Lemme tell you something, if I had to choose stopping the run vs. stopping the deep ball I'M STOPPING THE RUN. The deep ball is harder to execute than a running play and our CB's are stout.

I agree, but FWIW, we were stopping the run pretty effectively earlier in the season. Then offenses started to kill us with the short crossing routes, and we seemed to start playing more man, and trying to sell out against the pass to stop it, which is when Duke came in and just ran hog wild on us as we were outmanned in the box almost ever play. Its like Donofrio kept expecting Duke to attack us the same way everyone else had, but Cutcliff was smart enought to realize that we were selling out to stop the pass, and so we gift wrapped him the middle of the field to run to their hearts content.

We were stopping the run vs. 21 personnel. We suck at stopping the run when teams spread us out. We have no clue what to do.

Man isn't ideal vs. short crossing routes. Matter of fact, short crossers kill man defense.


You keep trying to justify these decisions by D'Onofrio but none of the justifications make sense. Just come to the realization that the dude sucks. LOL

Im not trying to justify sh*t. Im simply trying to understand the thought process by which they are doing what they are doing. Because it doesnt seem to make sense or work, but there has to be SOME rationale behind it, even if its flawed, or he sucks as a DC. Im just speculating on what it is he has been trying to do.

Well we certainly have that in common.

 

[Boarcane]

once we get a few 275 DE that runs a sub 4.5 with quick hips……..
we are Golden

 

[Coach Macho]

This is the result of the fact that if they show nickel, it is telegraphing to the opposing OC they are in man2man. So they can't really do it. Instead they have to have LBs covering. The second issue is for some reason we refuse to play Cover-1, which would have had one of the safeties cover the TE where Green is, and Green rushing from the LOS, or showing rush and dropping into a zone.

Of course the other thing is b/c this is a run play we don't really know what the call was. They could have showed this man-2 look and dropped into cover-3 with the OLBs Covering the flats, and one of the safeties taking a middle zone with the other two backers (though that would be foolish on a 2nd and 5). They could have played straight up Cover-2 and zone blitzed the WILL. Or they could have simply played man 2 knowing that there was safety help. It is very common for a SOLB in a 3-4 to cover a TE. Smart OC's, knowing this, simply align them outside, and while this doesn't change the nature of the SOLB's role in covering, it changes how many defenders are in the box, and opens up the run.

The real issue isn't that Green is covering. It's not uncommon to ask this of your OLBs. It's that the defense is predicated on so many moving parts, and that they don't trust a single high safety ever, and a DL that is playing a 2-gap front they can't handle, that there are constant breakdowns.

Who says Nickel means man-to-man? You can play any coverage out of Nickel.

You can try to justify our alignment anyway you want to but the fact is that it's extremely flawed. We're out-numbered in the box. We have no edge player to bottom.

They don't play nickel in any of their zone coverages, which is their bread and butter. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF RUNNING THE 3-4 for them: to be able to defend spread attacks with base personnel. Have you read their playbook? You constantly spout off about stuff, without any context. Btw, the C gaps are the responsibility of the DE's who are lined up head up on the OTs in this play. I haven't fully studied the run fits, but I imagine the two ILB are involved in run defense. This is why they run a two gap 3-4. Do i think it's worth it? NO. But stop acting like you know more than they do. I'd love to read your playbook, and see if it is even half as intricate as theirs is.

The system doesn't work b/c A) they aren't able to teach it B) the front is nearly impossible to do successfully C) the talent level forces them into cover-2 and 3 all game.....

First off, pull your panties at your *** lil' girl. I wasn't insulting you so don't come at me like an angry lil' broad on her period.

Second, they do play zone out of the Nickel. I've seen us play zone with Crawford, Howard and Gunter all out there at the same time.

Oh, the C-gaps are the responsibility of the DE's huh? Go look at that still picture and tell me if that DE can defend the C-gap, ****head.

I constantly spout off **** without context? WTF? I'm FULL of context. I don't talk out of my *** like you do. If I attempt to prove a point I come with substance and actual schematic **** that makes sense. You just don't understand it so to YOU think I'm just spouting off.

And no, I'm sure my playbook isn't as intricate because I keep things simple which allows my players to think less and play fast.

SIMPLE FOR MY KIDS TO UNDERSTAND AND EXECUTE
HARD FOR OPPOSING OFFENSES TO FIGURE OUT

That's the key.

Again, have you read the playbook? Who is responsible for the C gaps in a Okie front?????

I know that there's somebody responsible for it. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we can do it or not. I'm sure that DE is responsible for C-gap, but can he properly defend the C-gap against zone-read with the technique we're asking him to execute? THAT IS THE ISSUE...cause in this particular picture he does not have C-gap. If the RB gets the ball and hits the outside with a full head of steam then he's getting atleast 6+ yards.

And THAT is our defense. RB's get the ball and they're not even contested for atleast 4 yards.

 

[FullyERicht]

WCD, if you'd bothered to do your research instead of had this arrogant "well i could do better" attitude, you wouldn't have made the absurd statement that we "don't pattern read".

 

[Gatorhater]

Lu and a lot of you guys actually know something about football. I know little other than basic fan stuff. We use to make lots of tackles for loss and lots of action on the other side of the line of scrimmage. Teams would try to use our aggressiveness against us and it sometimes worked. Now it seems we leave about 5 yards on our side of the line of scrimmage as some sort of neutral zone our defenders are not allowed to enter and we hardly make tackles at all. Plus it seemed like before our DBs were in the general vicinity of the receivers and again did that tackling thing. Now the opponent's receivers have some sort of cone of protection before the catch.

As a fan two things are apparent: 1) Defensive coaching staff is completely incapable of getting effective defense out of the players we have using the scheme they have chosen. 2) Players we have suck at the defense they are being asked to play, and maybe just suck period.

Possible solutions seem to be to me: 1) Wait and see if staff can acquire whatever type of players they think can effectively execute the scheme they want. 2) Pray the staff comes up with a scheme the players can execute. 3) Cry as we watch the further destruction of our program. 4) Start cheering for the Dolphins, wait that is even worse isn't it--They haven't done crap for 40 years.

 

[Coach Macho]

WCD, if you'd bothered to do your research instead of had this arrogant "well i could do better" attitude, you wouldn't have made the absurd statement that we "don't pattern read".

I don't care to do research. I believe my eyes. I watch our LB's stare at the QB so a long time ago I asked if we were spot dropping. I continued to see our LB's stare at the QB every week so that leads me to believe that 1) Our LB's spot drop or 2) We don't teach pattern matching very well cause we haven't mastered it in 3 years.

And stay on topic chief. Stop trying to attack me personally.

 

[FullyERicht]

WCD, if you'd bothered to do your research instead of had this arrogant "well i could do better" attitude, you wouldn't have made the absurd statement that we "don't pattern read".

I don't care to do research. I believe my eyes. I watch our LB's stare at the QB so a long time ago I asked if we were spot dropping. I continued to see our LB's stare at the QB every week so that leads me to believe that 1) Our LB's spot drop or 2) We don't teach pattern matching very well cause we haven't mastered it in 3 years.

And stay on topic chief. Stop trying to attack me personally.

Ok but here's why you need to do research. You see Jimmy Gaines staring at a QB, the defense get burned, and your automatic assumption is we don't teach pattern reading.

On the other hand, I read the playbook, in which pattern reading is a staple of their zone coverage concepts. This leads me to believe that it is a major part of our D, and if it's not being done it's bc the players can't execute it. If the players can't execute it, the LB coach needs to be fired, a new system needs to be installed, and or players who can execute it and not 2 star jags from Buffalo need to be brought in.

 

[RiDLer80]

It's not about stars.

We have 2-star jags like Gaines and Thurston, 3-star average players like Cornelius and 4-5 star players like Grace, Kirby and DP. It's about being coached up, which obviously isn't happening.

 

[fivecent]

Reading you guys go back and forth trying to figure out what dorito is doing, has me thinking that this must be what the defensive team meeting are like on a weekly basis.


Then any player X ask, "Coach D, you want me to do what......sheeeeeet?"

 

[FullyERicht]

It's not about stars.

We have 2-star jags like Gaines and Thurston, 3-star average players like Cornelius and 4-5 star players like Grace, Kirby and DP. It's about being coached up, which obviously isn't happening.

It's clearly not happening. But it's not b/c the coaches "don't know about pattern reading" or "don't know how to play man coverage" or any of that nonsense. It's bc we run a very complex system that has only really worked with a bunch of 5th year senior nerds at Stanford.

And if you want to ***** and moan about the lack of development of our LBs, why does Barrow always get a pass? Barrow never played in pattern matching zone systems or 3-4 fronts. And he never coached anything before Randy hired him. If you want to complain about development, be fair about it.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

WCD, if you'd bothered to do your research instead of had this arrogant "well i could do better" attitude, you wouldn't have made the absurd statement that we "don't pattern read".

I don't care to do research. I believe my eyes. I watch our LB's stare at the QB so a long time ago I asked if we were spot dropping. I continued to see our LB's stare at the QB every week so that leads me to believe that 1) Our LB's spot drop or 2) We don't teach pattern matching very well cause we haven't mastered it in 3 years.

And stay on topic chief. Stop trying to attack me personally.

THIS I agree with. That is ALL our LBs do. They get locked in to staring at the QB forever, and then clearly miss the read, or react way to late. This is a bad combination of mediocre talent, sub par position coaching, and not enough time and experience to learn the system. And THAT, means we need to change the scheme.

I mean Donofrio had a halfway decent defense their first year. It wasnt great, but it was viable. Moving to this new system of theirs has been a trainwreck, and they need to drop it and go back to something simple. They dont have another 3 years to get this just the way they want it. Maybe at Temple, where there were no expecations or pressure, they could take their time and build it up, but they dont have that kind of time here.

 

[sebastian91]

Just saw the 'Skins have Ryan Kerrigan lined up on Anquan Bolden in the slot. It seemed to confuse Kaepernick, and he called a time out.

 

[LuCane]

Just saw the 'Skins have Ryan Kerrigan lined up on Anquan Bolden in the slot. It seemed to confuse Kaepernick, and he called a time out.

What a curious oversimplification of what just happened. The guy audibled, defense checked out, clock was running out and he couldn't change again.

 

[sebastian91]

Just saw the 'Skins have Ryan Kerrigan lined up on Anquan Bolden in the slot. It seemed to confuse Kaepernick, and he called a time out.

What a curious oversimplification of what just happened. The guy audibled, defense checked out, clock was running out and he couldn't change again.

What's curious about it? I wasn't trying to deceive you. I posted what I saw, which looked a lot like what people have been talking about in here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another thing I'm noticing, following from WildCat's discussion about us always being outnumbered in the box...the SF defense appears to be out-numbered in the box on every play.

 

[FullyERicht]

Just saw the 'Skins have Ryan Kerrigan lined up on Anquan Bolden in the slot. It seemed to confuse Kaepernick, and he called a time out.

What a curious oversimplification of what just happened. The guy audibled, defense checked out, clock was running out and he couldn't change again.

What's curious about it? I wasn't trying to deceive you. I posted what I saw, which looked a lot like what people have been talking about in here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another thing I'm noticing, following from WildCat's discussion about us always being outnumbered in the box...the SF defense appears to be out-numbered in the box on every play.

A still picture cannot ever diagram what actually is happening, particularly in a 2-gap front with multiple zone coverages behind. This playbook has everything from m2m blitzes, simple zones, simple zone blitzes, to an entire section for fire zones and 0 cover 4-3 under packages. It's extremely complicated. Fault the coaches for their arrogance and not being able to implement it, but they aren't the clueless morons that WCD makes them out to be.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

Just saw the 'Skins have Ryan Kerrigan lined up on Anquan Bolden in the slot. It seemed to confuse Kaepernick, and he called a time out.

What a curious oversimplification of what just happened. The guy audibled, defense checked out, clock was running out and he couldn't change again.

What's curious about it? I wasn't trying to deceive you. I posted what I saw, which looked a lot like what people have been talking about in here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another thing I'm noticing, following from WildCat's discussion about us always being outnumbered in the box...the SF defense appears to be out-numbered in the box on every play.

WCD is correct in that we are very often outnumbered in the box. I notice that all the time. Any time a team spreads us out, that is when the trouble starts. The alignment itself is not inherently flawed, which is where I disagree with WCD. Like you mentioned, you will see other teams do this too. The difference is, how the defense adjusts and reacts. You have to have LBs and Safeties that react very quickly. Which we do not. You also have to have them go to where they need to be after the snap. We do not. On a running play, instead of the safeties crashing down on the LOS to shut down running lanes, our guys are backpeddling. And because they are already lined up so far back, by the time they realize its a run, the RB is well into our second level, and now they are trying to make an open field tackle, on a guy that has a full head of steam. But it gets WORSE. Because our safeties are bad. So you top it off with them taking bad angles, or missing a tackle, and you get the sh*t show we have been seeing the last few weeks.

The problem isnt that the alignment CANT work. Its that its not working here, and we shouldnt be running it. We dont have the personnel for it. Our DL is mediocre on a good day, and outside of DP, our LBs are mediocre at best. Our safeties are also mediocre. And slow. And we are running an NFL type defense which requires players to react very quickly, move very quickly, and people to play their assignments perfectly. Its just not a good fit here.

 

[FullyERicht]

Just saw the 'Skins have Ryan Kerrigan lined up on Anquan Bolden in the slot. It seemed to confuse Kaepernick, and he called a time out.

What a curious oversimplification of what just happened. The guy audibled, defense checked out, clock was running out and he couldn't change again.

What's curious about it? I wasn't trying to deceive you. I posted what I saw, which looked a lot like what people have been talking about in here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another thing I'm noticing, following from WildCat's discussion about us always being outnumbered in the box...the SF defense appears to be out-numbered in the box on every play.

WCD is correct in that we are very often outnumbered in the box. I notice that all the time. Any time a team spreads us out, that is when the trouble starts. The alignment itself is not inherently flawed, which is where I disagree with WCD. Like you mentioned, you will see other teams do this too. The difference is, how the defense adjusts and reacts. You have to have LBs and Safeties that react very quickly. Which we do not. You also have to have them go to where they need to be after the snap. We do not. On a running play, instead of the safeties crashing down on the LOS to shut down running lanes, our guys are backpeddling. And because they are already lined up so far back, by the time they realize its a run, the RB is well into our second level, and now they are trying to make an open field tackle, on a guy that has a full head of steam. But it gets WORSE. Because our safeties are bad. So you top it off with them taking bad angles, or missing a tackle, and you get the sh*t show we have been seeing the last few weeks.

The problem isnt that the alignment CANT work. Its that its not working here, and we shouldnt be running it. We dont have the personnel for it. Our DL is mediocre on a good day, and outside of DP, our LBs are mediocre at best. Our safeties are also mediocre. And slow. And we are running an NFL type defense which requires players to react very quickly, move very quickly, and people to play their assignments perfectly. Its just not a good fit here.

History has proven it's not a very good fit at 95% of college programs. It would behoove the staff to adapt the playbook to a much easier to play front, with a simplification of their zone coverages.