LBs and DEs

[kchusker_chris]

at the end of the day we were facing a freshman QB. we should have been sending 6 every play. instead we made him look like a senior Heisman candidate. we might get beat now and then, but tell me how that is any different than what we were seeing.

[admo]

I have posted about this before. But, I rewatched the first half last night. I usually do this just to see if there was something I missed on plays because when I watch it live I'm all worked up and just paying attention to the result. I know...I'm a football junky that way.

 

Anyway, this has been bothering me for a long time. I absolutely don't like a scheme where we only have one or two LBs on the field. Two isn't bad but when we have only one LB on the field, the other team just runs all over us.

 

What happens is we end up having Compton literally being the only one running all over the field trying to make plays. One of the first long plays UCLA had, was a pass to the RB in the flats. Compton was supposed to follow him but he got picked off by the receiver (something that is against the rules but hardly ever called). The next long play showed the exact same thing but Compton made sure he was out there to cover the RB and then a TE just simply ran in the middle and caught a pass because there wasn't any other LBs there to cover him.

 

As far as the DE goes, I still don't get what they are teaching them to do. On most plays, the first move the DE makes is down the line towards the middle of the line. It is like he is trying to compress the line and then look to see if the ball is coming his way. By that time, anyone running his direction is around him. With only one LB on the field, he is either beat to the edge or simply blocked.

 

Now, I usually think the first move a DE should make is up field to contain. BUT, if they are going to have the DE crush down on the line, then there needs to be an LB behind him covering the edge.

I know we go into this one LB set because Bo thinks we need more DBs to cover sets with 4 WRs. But, if we played more man coverage on the edge, it would allow for more LBs for run support and pressuring the QB.

 

This is basically what McBride did and I remember it working GREAT against teams that had multiple WR sets.

 

Thoughts? Sorry for the long post but this is very frustrating to me. This is obviously not working.

 

You had me at "Anyway".

Everything you said...I +1000 you.

Amen brotha.

[BigRedBuster]

4 guys is enough to rush the passer. In this case, they got beat by the OL. Our DL just has not been consistently very good, and that is the problem. Send a man to blitz, and we're sacrificing coverage somewhere. Of course you can bltiz sometimes, but in this case the likely result would have been someone in the flats making a killing, which they did, over and over and over.

 

That one WR didn't really beat three guys. Mainly he was the responsibility of I think, Harvey Jackson, the deep safety on that side of the field, and Jackson let him get behind him. AG wasn't lined up man-to-man on him, so he was probably in a deep zone of his own on the bottom side of the field. SJB, the third guy, was way on the other side. I'd have to say that Jackson blew this coverage big-time.

 

And I remember distinctly from watching the other angle via replay on the TV, which isn't in this highlight, that it wasn't a matter of time. Jackson 'blew it' early on. Bad position.

 

This same theory is why TO originally didn't like the attacking 4-3 that McBride ended up running that was so successful. No matter what defense you run, your giving up something somewhere to the offense. McBride's idea (after he switched to the 4-3) was that he is going to go get the best cover corners he can and then make sure that QB has as short of time as possible to find the WRs. Then, hit him as hard as you can over and over again.

[kchusker_chris]

4 guys is enough to rush the passer. In this case, they got beat by the OL. Our DL just has not been consistently very good, and that is the problem. Send a man to blitz, and we're sacrificing coverage somewhere. Of course you can bltiz sometimes, but in this case the likely result would have been someone in the flats making a killing, which they did, over and over and over.

 

That one WR didn't really beat three guys. Mainly he was the responsibility of I think, Harvey Jackson, the deep safety on that side of the field, and Jackson let him get behind him. AG wasn't lined up man-to-man on him, so he was probably in a deep zone of his own on the bottom side of the field. SJB, the third guy, was way on the other side. I'd have to say that Jackson blew this coverage big-time.

 

And I remember distinctly from watching the other angle via replay on the TV, which isn't in this highlight, that it wasn't a matter of time. Jackson 'blew it' early on. Bad position.

 

This same theory is why TO originally didn't like the attacking 4-3 that McBride ended up running that was so successful. No matter what defense you run, your giving up something somewhere to the offense. McBride's idea (after he switched to the 4-3) was that he is going to go get the best cover corners he can and then make sure that QB has as short of time as possible to find the WRs. Then, hit him as hard as you can over and over again.

it's been effective against Nebraska since about the Texas game in 10'.

[BigRedBuster]

4 guys is enough to rush the passer. In this case, they got beat by the OL. Our DL just has not been consistently very good, and that is the problem. Send a man to blitz, and we're sacrificing coverage somewhere. Of course you can bltiz sometimes, but in this case the likely result would have been someone in the flats making a killing, which they did, over and over and over.

 

That one WR didn't really beat three guys. Mainly he was the responsibility of I think, Harvey Jackson, the deep safety on that side of the field, and Jackson let him get behind him. AG wasn't lined up man-to-man on him, so he was probably in a deep zone of his own on the bottom side of the field. SJB, the third guy, was way on the other side. I'd have to say that Jackson blew this coverage big-time.

 

And I remember distinctly from watching the other angle via replay on the TV, which isn't in this highlight, that it wasn't a matter of time. Jackson 'blew it' early on. Bad position.

 

This same theory is why TO originally didn't like the attacking 4-3 that McBride ended up running that was so successful. No matter what defense you run, your giving up something somewhere to the offense. McBride's idea (after he switched to the 4-3) was that he is going to go get the best cover corners he can and then make sure that QB has as short of time as possible to find the WRs. Then, hit him as hard as you can over and over again.

it's been effective against Nebraska since about the Texas game in 10'.

 

Exactly....Gee....we wouldn't want to try what is successful against us.

[akita]

OK, you can see at :34 on zoogies' video that this is shopped. Thank God. I was about to have kittens.

Knapp, I was wondering what Beer I was on when that play happened and how I missed it/lol. Still a funny photo shop and how to give up 650 yards in a game/lol

[chamrocck]

at the end of the day we were facing a freshman QB. we should have been sending 6 every play. instead we made him look like a senior Heisman candidate. we might get beat now and then, but tell me how that is any different than what we were seeing.

Yep. It is hard driving around SoCal hearing the local radio put both RB Franklin and QB Hundley in their top Heisman candidates. They have them ahead of Matt Barkley for crying out loud. Our defense has a knack for making ordinary players look Heisman-esque. I think Franklin is a solid RB but Hundley is only a freshman and we brought no pressure and allowed him an easy game to manage and dictate. This was not a hard game plan. Ever hear of a corner blitz? Bring some pressure and get the freshman making bad decsions and INT's. We never did this. Guy killed us on short slant routes and short passes in the flat. Got their athletes enough space to fly by our slow defenders for big yards. How much easier could we have made it for him?

 

UCLA fans are jacked up out here. They basically think they have arrived and finally found their coach and QB. I think it is just because they played a sh&88y Nebraska defense. Watch the sacks and pressure Hundley takes in the highlights of a first UCLA loss this season...book it...a defense that does that beats UCLA soundly.