USC: What Did We Learn

BigRedBuster said:
If people are so tired of our 3-4 defense. Well.....

Click to expand...


This.

Complaining about running a 3-3-5 is the same lazy complaint as complaining about lack of offensive identity. It sounds like something that is good to say but it really means basically nothing. The only difference between a 3-3-5 and a regular 4-2-5 nickel package is whether our JACK is in a three-point stance or a two-point stance.
 
One fun thing I noticed defensively - we actually adjusted to our opponent taking advantage of an element of our scheme. In certain formations, the CB was coming up in the run fit. I don't think they were blitzing, I think they were in the run fit - but this was a 9 yard completion:
1762274330967.png


This one went for 16:
1762274458748.png

We tried faking the look and bailing out pre-snap a few times, but they didn't take the bait. But then first defensive play of the second half, Marshall is both inching inside before the snap, and takes one jab step in post-snap:
1762274896503.png

But then rather than taking 2-3 steps in like the first few play, he immediately bails after that first step:
1762274920733.png

I think the plan was run fit > cloud coverage all along, just a nice adjustment to get back into coverage faster.
 

Attachments

  • 1762274355826.png
    1762274355826.png
    793.5 KB · Views: 0
Husker_In_WI said:
One fun thing I noticed defensively - we actually adjusted to our opponent taking advantage of an element of our scheme. In certain formations, the CB was coming up in the run fit. I don't think they were blitzing, I think they were in the run fit - but this was a 9 yard completion:
View attachment 22857


This one went for 16:
View attachment 22859

We tried faking the look and bailing out pre-snap a few times, but they didn't take the bait. But then first defensive play of the second half, Marshall is both inching inside before the snap, and takes one jab step in post-snap:
View attachment 22860

But then rather than taking 2-3 steps in like the first few play, he immediately bails after that first step:
View attachment 22861

I think the plan was run fit > cloud coverage all along, just a nice adjustment to get back into coverage faster.
Click to expand...

Interesting wrinkle. I don't think I'd noticed us running that much before.

Obviously the bail leading to the INT was huge. We also gave up a big play early when we got caught in no-man's-land. And I'm not sure fitting a CB against a heavy Counter Trey look was a great choice. But it was creative.
 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Thanks for this. Can you make sure this chart gets put up in every Game Day Thread, where the whining about anti-Husker bias is exhasuting.
Click to expand...

The refs just suck across the board - imagine if Raiola didn't fumble and we converted with this uncalled tackle by Lutovsky:

1762281845736.png

And of course their final offensive play of the game easily could've been defensive holding on us. The refs are not out to get us, they are just really really bad at their jobs (which are tough, to be fair).
 
Mavric said:
This.

Complaining about running a 3-3-5 is the same lazy complaint as complaining about lack of offensive identity. It sounds like something that is good to say but it really means basically nothing. The only difference between a 3-3-5 and a regular 4-2-5 nickel package is whether our JACK is in a three-point stance or a two-point stance.
Click to expand...
Or we can say we are too light with our front 6, which hurts the run support (specifically the 3 LB positions).

Shavers been playing with one hand lately.
MWT is little (maybe 5-10).
McCullough doesn't add much other than a pass rusher.
Javin Wright is in his 7th year and 24 yrs old.
McGahee is redshirting.
Merritt is a freshmen and got hurt.
Ochoa is missing.
Which leaves a few plays for Bauer

I don't dislike the 3-3-5, but we are light with LBs and that group either makes a few plays or gets blocked out of the play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top