our run defense

[Danny Bateman]

I have noticed something about our D I'd like to share with you guys.

 

Maybe it's just me, but the Peso we run just seems to put our defenders into a real disadvantage, spatially, as far as shutting down the run. I've noticed the Peso back (usually Hagg) goes out, if the O comes out with a slot man, to cover said slot guy. That leaves us with SIX in the box (I don't count safeties cheating up, unless they're REALLY cheating up, like in a goal line situation, where they're not afraid of getting burnt deep). Six in the box, if the other team has 1 or possibly 2 tight ends, or like ISU did, an offset fullback, back there with the QB and RB, is not enough men to stop the run effectively. You'd need a Suh, Herculean-like effort, x2... from both your DT's... to get good penetration. Hell, our D-lineman reverted last nite and didn't get any penetration, period.

 

So, to stop the run with no line penetration and two linebackers alone in the box, to me, is just asking too much. I suppose having Hagg split out wide could theoretically help stop runs outside by forcing the ball carrier back inside, but on dive plays or right off tackle runs (where teams attack us), Hagg has to come ALL the way over to help on those plays, and he just can't physically get into the backfield fast enough to make tackles for lost. A track star couldn't.

 

Am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills... hope some of you guys can back me up and dispel that notion. It's like the Pelini Bros and Co. want to fit a square peg into a round hole by stopping the run well with the Peso. I know it shuts down passing pretty well, but if we get gashed like this in the run game, we need to try something else and stop being so stubborn.

[RedDenver]

Guys, I think people are overstating how poor our run defense was today. ISU is a run-first team and we held them to 157 yards on 48 carries. That's only 3.27 yards/carry - I'd take that every week. The bigger problem IMO was ISU's 203 yards passing (21 of 32 with 2 INT's) for 6.38 yards/attempt. Even that's not bad.

 

The real issue for me was the fumbles - and that's on the ball carriers not the defense.

[gratefullred]

I have noticed something about our D I'd like to share with you guys.

 

Maybe it's just me, but the Peso we run just seems to put our defenders into a real disadvantage, spatially, as far as shutting down the run. I've noticed the Peso back (usually Hagg) goes out, if the O comes out with a slot man, to cover said slot guy. That leaves us with SIX in the box (I don't count safeties cheating up, unless they're REALLY cheating up, like in a goal line situation, where they're not afraid of getting burnt deep). Six in the box, if the other team has 1 or possibly 2 tight ends, or like ISU did, an offset fullback, back there with the QB and RB, is not enough men to stop the run effectively. You'd need a Suh, Herculean-like effort, x2... from both your DT's... to get good penetration. Hell, our D-lineman reverted last nite and didn't get any penetration, period.

 

So, to stop the run with no line penetration and two linebackers alone in the box, to me, is just asking too much. I suppose having Hagg split out wide could theoretically help stop runs outside by forcing the ball carrier back inside, but on dive plays or right off tackle runs (where teams attack us), Hagg has to come ALL the way over to help on those plays, and he just can't physically get into the backfield fast enough to make tackles for lost. A track star couldn't.

 

Am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills... hope some of you guys can back me up and dispel that notion. It's like the Pelini Bros and Co. want to fit a square peg into a round hole by stopping the run well with the Peso. I know it shuts down passing pretty well, but if we get gashed like this in the run game, we need to try something else and stop being so stubborn.

Great post, and I agree with everything your saying. Bo seems to be willing to give up 6 yards a play without giving up the big play. Bo loves the dime, and it seems to be working although I would like to see another LB in the game. I guess I think adjustments may be needed, but the run isnt killing us. Trust in Bo.

[jkstlrnu1]

Overall, the run D was acceptable. Cant speak for anybody else but what frustrates me is the fact that we give up chunks of yardage at inopportune times. No matter how good the Pelinis are at D, you cant succeed on a regular basis when your opponent has 2nd & 4 every time. Its not the overall yardage, its when its given up.

[adc7236]

Overall, the run D was acceptable. Cant speak for anybody else but what frustrates me is the fact that we give up chunks of yardage at inopportune times. No matter how good the Pelinis are at D, you cant succeed on a regular basis when your opponent has 2nd & 4 every time. Its not the overall yardage, its when its given up.

Spot on!

[The Dude]

our defensive line is vastly overrated and we're paper thin at linebacker.

[Eric the Red]

I think it is that bad. I have heard it is just the scheme we run, The D line is coached to occupy space while the LB come up to make the tackle. I am not buying it though. I think our guys up front need to hit the weight room and grab some heart. If they could put some pressure on the QB once in awhile or stop the 4 and 5 yard runs on first down, the whole D clicks. I guess we miss Suh more than we thought we would.

 

 

We could absolutly stop this by adding an extra guy or two up front....but there is a risk/reward to that.....chances of allowing a big play go up....something we have not allowed at all besides a few against Ok St. That's awfully good "D"..

[krc1995]

I know Compton was present for the coin flip, but what he do after that?

[irafreak]

I think it is that bad. I have heard it is just the scheme we run, The D line is coached to occupy space while the LB come up to make the tackle. I am not buying it though. I think our guys up front need to hit the weight room and grab some heart. If they could put some pressure on the QB once in awhile or stop the 4 and 5 yard runs on first down, the whole D clicks. I guess we miss Suh more than we thought we would.

 

 

We could absolutly stop this by adding an extra guy or two up front....but there is a risk/reward to that.....chances of allowing a big play go up....something we have not allowed at all besides a few against Ok St. That's awfully good "D"..

I agree mostly but just to play devil's advocate...big plays or not we gave up 24 points in regulation to iowa state...

[knapplc]

I have noticed something about our D I'd like to share with you guys.

 

Maybe it's just me, but the Peso we run just seems to put our defenders into a real disadvantage, spatially, as far as shutting down the run. I've noticed the Peso back (usually Hagg) goes out, if the O comes out with a slot man, to cover said slot guy. That leaves us with SIX in the box (I don't count safeties cheating up, unless they're REALLY cheating up, like in a goal line situation, where they're not afraid of getting burnt deep). Six in the box, if the other team has 1 or possibly 2 tight ends, or like ISU did, an offset fullback, back there with the QB and RB, is not enough men to stop the run effectively. You'd need a Suh, Herculean-like effort, x2... from both your DT's... to get good penetration. Hell, our D-lineman reverted last nite and didn't get any penetration, period.

 

So, to stop the run with no line penetration and two linebackers alone in the box, to me, is just asking too much. I suppose having Hagg split out wide could theoretically help stop runs outside by forcing the ball carrier back inside, but on dive plays or right off tackle runs (where teams attack us), Hagg has to come ALL the way over to help on those plays, and he just can't physically get into the backfield fast enough to make tackles for lost. A track star couldn't.

 

Am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills... hope some of you guys can back me up and dispel that notion. It's like the Pelini Bros and Co. want to fit a square peg into a round hole by stopping the run well with the Peso. I know it shuts down passing pretty well, but if we get gashed like this in the run game, we need to try something else and stop being so stubborn.

 

That's a decent run-down of what the Peso Defense is. The entire point of the Peso is to stop big plays, to contain the offense, and to force opponents to score on long, drawn-out drives rather than boom!boom!boom! down the field. Like Eric said - we could throw another linebacker in there, but then we'd take Hagg off the field, and frankly, we don't have a third LB that can give us what Hagg can give us - the ability to assist on the run while still playing blanket coverage on a slot WR. That's a pretty tall bill to pay, but Hagg provides just that.

 

If we put that LB in, our pass coverage is compromised. We immediately create a mismatch on whatever receiver the LB is designated to cover, and the big-play threat opens up.

 

Yeah, we do give up yards, and yes we're nearly dead last in the nation in tackles for loss, but overall it's working. We're 8-1 and we've basically got our spot in the CCG wrapped up. We have a strong shot at winning the conference and making a BCS bowl. No matter how you slice it, the Peso has been a success.

[Jason Sitoke]

I think that the time for this thread has definitely come. No one is saying that our defense sucks or that it's time to rethink what in the hell we're doing out there. However, what we are seeing is how this scheme can be exploited. When everyone in your back seven pretty much has the look of a DB, you're going to get pounded in the run game, unless you've got a couple special lineman that can shed blocks and stuff the run themselves. Last year, we had a man child that wreaked havoc up front. He often times single handedly took away an opponents ability to run. This year, we'd be doing that again, except for the fact that Jared Crick appears to be merely a good, not great and certainly not All-American caliber, interior lineman. His counterpart is a sophomore. The 2 ends are fairly average IMO (some could argue that Meredith shows some real promise I suppose).

 

Many times, we've got LaVonte who's in the only position to make a play on the running back. If an O lineman or fullback get on him, we're looking at a 5 - 8 yard gain before the safety or peso back can fill the gap.

 

I think that in these types of games, where the opposition moves the ball consistently and runs clock, it magnifies each mistake by the offense (or Niles Paul on kickoffs for that matter) because the game is shortened.

 

When your defense is consistently facing 2nd and 4, 3rd and 2, etc, drives are easily extended.

 

I'd like to see a little more blitzing on early downs. TFL and sacks are not coming with any regularity this year. We are very much a defensive cliche (bend but don't break). Sacks and TFL are drive killers, and they force teams to take chances to extend drives. That leads to turnovers.

 

Blitzing is not a long term solution to a defense's struggles. The shortcomings are very real. However, like I said, it's not like this unit is deplorable. They're just not dominant. And with all the pub that Crick and Pierre Allen were getting before the season started, I bought into the hype, even though I really hadn't been starstruck by either at that point.

 

Bottom line is that the offense needs to put up points and extend drives of their own. Iowa St. seemed fairly happy to give up 5 yds a run today. They were bound and determined not to give up the huge play and made us earn each score. I thought the only times we stifled ourselves on offense was when CG was fumbling handoffs and snaps, or the backs got greedy (Helu tried the outside too many times when he probably should have lowered his shoulder and fell forward for 5 more yards) They'll need to be patient and possibly win a couple more high scoring games (with aTm and a possible rematch with OSU in the CCG on the horizon).

[GHOST]

I really dont care anymore I've had my questions with bo in the past. Now after this game he proved what I thought. And now we go to the big 10 next year. We aint winning JACK NEXT YEAR you really think bo wants to beat ohio state? I think alott of people should be asking that \yeah bos a cool guy but Iam not buying him as a coach this ISU game seemed fixxed from the start. Now that the sooners lost lastnight should be intersting to see how bO does from here out. Iamnot buying bo as a coach thoe I can think of 4 games since hes been the coach that looked kinda fixxed or something and iam not the only 1 that thinks that either.

[shyndy]

I really dont care anymore I've had my questions with bo in the past. Now after this game he proved what I thought. And now we go to the big 10 next year. We aint winning JACK NEXT YEAR you really think bo wants to beat ohio state? I think alott of people should be asking that \yeah bos a cool guy but Iam not buying him as a coach this ISU game seemed fixxed from the start. Now that the sooners lost lastnight should be intersting to see how bO does from here out. Iamnot buying bo as a coach thoe I can think of 4 games since hes been the coach that looked kinda fixxed or something and iam not the only 1 that thinks that either.

 

not sure if serious?!?

[Hercules]

I really dont care anymore I've had my questions with bo in the past. Now after this game he proved what I thought. And now we go to the big 10 next year. We aint winning JACK NEXT YEAR you really think bo wants to beat ohio state? I think alott of people should be asking that \yeah bos a cool guy but Iam not buying him as a coach this ISU game seemed fixxed from the start. Now that the sooners lost lastnight should be intersting to see how bO does from here out. Iamnot buying bo as a coach thoe I can think of 4 games since hes been the coach that looked kinda fixxed or something and iam not the only 1 that thinks that either.

:LOLtartar

 

This is why computers should give you a breathalyzer as part of your sign-in process.

[GHOST]

and ur retarted