Linebacker Play

[Count 'Bility]

you have to play your responsibilities against this era of spread out offenses. it's very technical. and there's a lot of give and take. There isnt one single defensive set/call/scheme out there that is capable of stopping anything an offense is going to do on one particular play. it's all about tendancies and the chess match of what you wanna take away on any particular play AND having the ability to stop the leak of something youre not ready for. That's what defense is now. Teams gain yards and score points. it's gonna happen. Sure we see things that are concernign for the future, but we cant second guess the scheme. Cuz it's all about a bigger picture.

If you go back to the OP, I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a bad scheme, I was pointing out there was a lot of grumbling - both here and from media guys - that our linebackers weren't playing well. I don't think it's necessarily a case for them not playing well, I think the scheme we're running doesn't lend itself to LBs making a lot of plays. They have to make the play when it comes into their gap but they're not expected to run all over the field making plays. I think I've documented that to be the case.

I know. it's good stuff. I was just adding my two cents in my own words.

 

[Nebfanatic]

you have to play your responsibilities against this era of spread out offenses. it's very technical. and there's a lot of give and take. There isnt one single defensive set/call/scheme out there that is capable of stopping anything an offense is going to do on one particular play. it's all about tendancies and the chess match of what you wanna take away on any particular play AND having the ability to stop the leak of something youre not ready for. That's what defense is now. Teams gain yards and score points. it's gonna happen. Sure we see things that are concernign for the future, but we cant second guess the scheme. Cuz it's all about a bigger picture.

If you go back to the OP, I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a bad scheme, I was pointing out there was a lot of grumbling - both here and from media guys - that our linebackers weren't playing well. I don't think it's necessarily a case for them not playing well, I think the scheme we're running doesn't lend itself to LBs making a lot of plays. They have to make the play when it comes into their gap but they're not expected to run all over the field making plays. I think I've documented that to be the case.

it seems to me our safeties are the key playmakers when it comes to run defense

 

[Count 'Bility]

you have to play your responsibilities against this era of spread out offenses. it's very technical. and there's a lot of give and take. There isnt one single defensive set/call/scheme out there that is capable of stopping anything an offense is going to do on one particular play. it's all about tendancies and the chess match of what you wanna take away on any particular play AND having the ability to stop the leak of something youre not ready for. That's what defense is now. Teams gain yards and score points. it's gonna happen. Sure we see things that are concernign for the future, but we cant second guess the scheme. Cuz it's all about a bigger picture.

If you go back to the OP, I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a bad scheme, I was pointing out there was a lot of grumbling - both here and from media guys - that our linebackers weren't playing well. I don't think it's necessarily a case for them not playing well, I think the scheme we're running doesn't lend itself to LBs making a lot of plays. They have to make the play when it comes into their gap but they're not expected to run all over the field making plays. I think I've documented that to be the case.

it seems to me our safeties are the key playmakers when it comes to run defense

This is actually a trend across a lot of defenses when it comes to actually making the tackle. often times linebacker are caught up in the proper fits but that doesnt necessarily mean that's where the ball goes but rather, is spilled to where the safety winds up making the play. Safeties have their keys too that they have to read properly to tell them if it's run and dump their coverage responsibilities and get to their fit as well. Lotta good stuff that's a lot more than a lot of folks think of.

 

[Nebfanatic]

you have to play your responsibilities against this era of spread out offenses. it's very technical. and there's a lot of give and take. There isnt one single defensive set/call/scheme out there that is capable of stopping anything an offense is going to do on one particular play. it's all about tendancies and the chess match of what you wanna take away on any particular play AND having the ability to stop the leak of something youre not ready for. That's what defense is now. Teams gain yards and score points. it's gonna happen. Sure we see things that are concernign for the future, but we cant second guess the scheme. Cuz it's all about a bigger picture.

If you go back to the OP, I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a bad scheme, I was pointing out there was a lot of grumbling - both here and from media guys - that our linebackers weren't playing well. I don't think it's necessarily a case for them not playing well, I think the scheme we're running doesn't lend itself to LBs making a lot of plays. They have to make the play when it comes into their gap but they're not expected to run all over the field making plays. I think I've documented that to be the case.

it seems to me our safeties are the key playmakers when it comes to run defense

This is actually a trend across a lot of defenses when it comes to actually making the tackle. often times linebacker are caught up in the proper fits but that doesnt necessarily mean that's where the ball goes but rather, is spilled to where the safety winds up making the play. Safeties have their keys too that they have to read properly to tell them if it's run and dump their coverage responsibilities and get to their fit as well. Lotta good stuff that's a lot more than a lot of folks think of.

yep solid schematic defense. Not enough backers to protect all of the gaps, it takes the whole defense. The idea is to plug up all of the holes with your guys instead of having your guys figure out where to go. Doesn't always work that way, but that's the idea

 

[Mavric]

No Mavric, they were missing RB wheel routes, TE skinny/flat routes and tight ends crossing their paths in the hook zone....and they were missing some tackles. It's not scheme. They've since improved..but that doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't doing well for quite a few games this year.

Considering we've mostly played zone simply saying they were "missing" these routes doesn't really say anything. If they were going out of their zone, they should be "missing" them.

It would be handy if you had some examples instead of just blanket statements.

 

[Count 'Bility]

No Mavric, they were missing RB wheel routes, TE skinny/flat routes and tight ends crossing their paths in the hook zone....and they were missing some tackles. It's not scheme. They've since improved..but that doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't doing well for quite a few games this year.

this isnt smartass. Im saying that first cuz it might come off that way. it's an honest question..

would you rather our linebacker follow these all over the field and drag them out of their run fits (think Madison 2014 #neverforget) or would you rather turn them over to our zone secondary and let the backers focus on run first, then drop into zones on pass call and force throws into windows? Like ive said. Alot of it is about mentality and approach and what you want to take away based on your matchups up front. We have a very young inexperienced Dfront. We HAVE to have the backers free to help the front. But with that comes a bit of sacrafice in letting some of the other stuff go and risking it.

I'm not defending the backers completely. There were some struggles compared to last year. i think schematically in the secondary we've gotten a bit more complex, which has allowed for much better secondary play, but I think that's put a bit more stress on the backers, where theyre maybe not as free to fit as they were a year ago when we were playing straight quarters. The implementation of more conventional zone has forced the backers to be more multiple. Garners more atthention. Lots more stress on their eyes.

 

[Mavric]

No Mavric, they were missing RB wheel routes, TE skinny/flat routes and tight ends crossing their paths in the hook zone....and they were missing some tackles. It's not scheme. They've since improved..but that doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't doing well for quite a few games this year.

Considering we've mostly played zone simply saying they were "missing" these routes doesn't really say anything. If they were going out of their zone, they should be "missing" them.

It would be handy if you had some examples instead of just blanket statements.

For cover 2 zone you'd be correct; the CB would be responsible for flat and wheel routes. For our base defense, you'd be wrong. LB's are responsible for the flat.

However, we run quarters coverage as well. That fits exactly what I've been talking about.

Not trying to be a smartass...I'm trying to tell you what I've seen and where I think we can improve. The backers have a lot of improvement they can make. Indiana was a GREAT start. If they keep getting better, we'll be pretty amazing on D.

Yes, and for about half the routes you mentioned the LB would not be coving them because they wouldn't be in the flat.

That's why you need to show some actual plays to demonstrate what you're talking about.

 

[Mavric]

No Mavric, they were missing RB wheel routes, TE skinny/flat routes and tight ends crossing their paths in the hook zone....and they were missing some tackles. It's not scheme. They've since improved..but that doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't doing well for quite a few games this year.

Considering we've mostly played zone simply saying they were "missing" these routes doesn't really say anything. If they were going out of their zone, they should be "missing" them.

It would be handy if you had some examples instead of just blanket statements.

For cover 2 zone you'd be correct; the CB would be responsible for flat and wheel routes. For our base defense, you'd be wrong. LB's are responsible for the flat.

However, we run quarters coverage as well. That fits exactly what I've been talking about.

Not trying to be a smartass...I'm trying to tell you what I've seen and where I think we can improve. The backers have a lot of improvement they can make. Indiana was a GREAT start. If they keep getting better, we'll be pretty amazing on D.

Yes, and for about half the routes you mentioned the LB would not be coving them because they wouldn't be in the flat.

That's why you need to show some actual plays to demonstrate what you're talking about.

That's why I linked you to chalktalk...so you could go and see actual plays. Please do that.

There's only one play where they actually throw a pass in there and the LB didn't "miss" anything. As is explained in the article - and I've been claiming in this thread - his key is run first so he reacts to the run fake then tries to get back to the passing lane. So he's doing exactly what he was coached to do. Although that wasn't actually a LB, it was the Nickel back.

 

[Mavric]

No Mavric, they were missing RB wheel routes, TE skinny/flat routes and tight ends crossing their paths in the hook zone....and they were missing some tackles. It's not scheme. They've since improved..but that doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't doing well for quite a few games this year.

Considering we've mostly played zone simply saying they were "missing" these routes doesn't really say anything. If they were going out of their zone, they should be "missing" them.

It would be handy if you had some examples instead of just blanket statements.

For cover 2 zone you'd be correct; the CB would be responsible for flat and wheel routes. For our base defense, you'd be wrong. LB's are responsible for the flat.

However, we run quarters coverage as well. That fits exactly what I've been talking about.

Not trying to be a smartass...I'm trying to tell you what I've seen and where I think we can improve. The backers have a lot of improvement they can make. Indiana was a GREAT start. If they keep getting better, we'll be pretty amazing on D.

Yes, and for about half the routes you mentioned the LB would not be coving them because they wouldn't be in the flat.

That's why you need to show some actual plays to demonstrate what you're talking about.

That's why I linked you to chalktalk...so you could go and see actual plays. Please do that.

There's only one play where they actually throw a pass in there and the LB didn't "miss" anything. As is explained in the article - and I've been claiming in this thread - his key is run first so he reacts to the run fake then tries to get back to the passing lane. So he's doing exactly what he was coached to do. Although that wasn't actually a LB, it was the Nickel back.

Article talks about our 'base package' and that's where the LB has that coverage responsibility.

We have plenty of zone plays and plenty of quarters and base package plays. I think we're both right.

The article says the LBs have the flat most of the time - except in blitzes. And considering we're saying the opposite, I don't think we can both be right. Did you actually have any examples that you'd like to explain what is happening on a particular play to illustrate your point?

 

[Mavric]

No Mavric, they were missing RB wheel routes, TE skinny/flat routes and tight ends crossing their paths in the hook zone....and they were missing some tackles. It's not scheme. They've since improved..but that doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't doing well for quite a few games this year.

Considering we've mostly played zone simply saying they were "missing" these routes doesn't really say anything. If they were going out of their zone, they should be "missing" them.

It would be handy if you had some examples instead of just blanket statements.

For cover 2 zone you'd be correct; the CB would be responsible for flat and wheel routes. For our base defense, you'd be wrong. LB's are responsible for the flat.

However, we run quarters coverage as well. That fits exactly what I've been talking about.

Not trying to be a smartass...I'm trying to tell you what I've seen and where I think we can improve. The backers have a lot of improvement they can make. Indiana was a GREAT start. If they keep getting better, we'll be pretty amazing on D.

Yes, and for about half the routes you mentioned the LB would not be coving them because they wouldn't be in the flat.

That's why you need to show some actual plays to demonstrate what you're talking about.

That's why I linked you to chalktalk...so you could go and see actual plays. Please do that.

There's only one play where they actually throw a pass in there and the LB didn't "miss" anything. As is explained in the article - and I've been claiming in this thread - his key is run first so he reacts to the run fake then tries to get back to the passing lane. So he's doing exactly what he was coached to do. Although that wasn't actually a LB, it was the Nickel back.

Article talks about our 'base package' and that's where the LB has that coverage responsibility.

We have plenty of zone plays and plenty of quarters and base package plays. I think we're both right.

The article says the LBs have the flat most of the time - except in blitzes. And considering we're saying the opposite, I don't think we can both be right. Did you actually have any examples that you'd like to explain what is happening on a particular play to illustrate your point?

So the article has 3 plays outlined. 2 of them are not blitzes. In both of them, LB has flat responsibility. My argument is that our LB's are sometimes missing that responsibility when a TE drags or releases there or a RB drags or wheels there.

In 2 out of 3 plays outlined, the LB's have that responsibility. How is that not exactly what I've been saying again?

You claim we mostly run zone.

I claimed the contrary.

Burden of proof is not on me....that's a logical fallacy. You must prove your premise first and if you do, I will acknowledge it is true and will not be able to refute it. Happy hunting.

Uh, so you're contention is that you can make any claim you want and it's up to me to disprove it? That seems pretty backwards. I've shown several examples of what my claims are through this thread. You've shown none.

But if you look in the article you posted, there are three defensive plays shown. On the double blitz, the LBs are in man coverage. In the other two "base" - that is, "most common" - defenses, the LBs are shown to have zone coverage (curl/flat). In fact, you said that yourself in Post #58 and it the immediately proceeding post. "Flat" is not man coverage. it's zone - you have whoever comes into the flat area.

If you have any examples - or anything other than you claiming it - that we run any significant amount of man coverage with the LBs, I'd love to see it.

 

[Mavric]

Dude, come on.

Stop being thick. Seriously. I call you out on a fricking logical fallacy and you try to lob the ball back in my court.

Not happening. Prove your point or GTFO.

The only logical fallacy is you thinking you're making an argument when all you have is assertions.

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[lo country]

Yes indeed...as I said, the LB's have been playing quite a bit better starting with Indiana. D. Young had an awesome pass defended today that really shows how far he's come this year in his pass defense.

Text book coverage.

 

[alwayshusking]

Yes indeed...as I said, the LB's have been playing quite a bit better starting with Indiana. D. Young had an awesome pass defended today that really shows how far he's come this year in his pass defense.

Looks healthy. Earlier in the year he looked labored while he was running.

 

[Mavric]

I was catching up on the Huskers N Side shows last night and ran across a segment that pretty much verifies what we are having our LBs do.

Riley was diagramming our defense and showing the run fits. He talks about all the defenders 'finding their gaps' so that the RB will get tackled in "whatever gap he takes." Also says guys have to "stay in their gaps."

So it's pretty obvious that our run defense it based on having a defensive player in each gap and that player is (basically) only responsible for that gap. That would mean LBs are not supposed to flow to the play but fill their gap. That would also expliain why they aren't making as many tackles as it perhaps seems like they should if they are more responsible for filling a gap than getting to the ball carrier.

Here's a link to that segment