Cam Meredith: does he keep his starting position?

[flatwaterfan]

Quite a few of our DE's get caught looking inside and Meredith does not have the wheels to overcome a mistake like that and still be able to chase someone to the corner. That being said, containment is NOT his job. In 2-gap the sun rises and sets with eating blockers and having a uniform push across the line. He does this pretty well. I would love to see him not get beat to the sidelines like everyone else but I would like to see our linebackers doing their jobs too. Full disclosure, last game was definitely an improvement in this regard albeit against Arkansas State.

 

Unfortunately, Eric Martin is a liability. His aggressive play is great but he runs himself out of the play and only eats a single blocker in doing so. He can get better about not getting too far upfield, etc. but I just don't think he is there right now. This, combined with the DT's not getting much push, leaves a gaping hole for a QB to run through when the coverage is good. Yes, the downside of a 2-gap is that you need a DT that can beat 2 guys consistently and we are lacking that. But "unleashing caveman"(or anybody really) is just not an option without significant scheme revisions.

 

And that is why Meredith will not lose his job.

 

I don't know x's & o's. So would appreciate some insight. I thought that one RE must have always containment, the one on the weak side. So doesn't it depends upon the offensive alignment? Do they flop slides? I haven't been watching. (ie elephant - a cosgrove term)

[zeWilbur]

Quite a few of our DE's get caught looking inside and Meredith does not have the wheels to overcome a mistake like that and still be able to chase someone to the corner. That being said, containment is NOT his job. In 2-gap the sun rises and sets with eating blockers and having a uniform push across the line. He does this pretty well. I would love to see him not get beat to the sidelines like everyone else but I would like to see our linebackers doing their jobs too. Full disclosure, last game was definitely an improvement in this regard albeit against Arkansas State.

 

Unfortunately, Eric Martin is a liability. His aggressive play is great but he runs himself out of the play and only eats a single blocker in doing so. He can get better about not getting too far upfield, etc. but I just don't think he is there right now. This, combined with the DT's not getting much push, leaves a gaping hole for a QB to run through when the coverage is good. Yes, the downside of a 2-gap is that you need a DT that can beat 2 guys consistently and we are lacking that. But "unleashing caveman"(or anybody really) is just not an option without significant scheme revisions.

 

And that is why Meredith will not lose his job.

 

I don't know x's & o's. So would appreciate some insight. I thought that one RE must have always containment, the one on the weak side. So doesn't it depends upon the offensive alignment? Do they flop slides? I haven't been watching. (ie elephant - a cosgrove term)

 

The offensive formation matters for initial alignment but flow of the play indicates which hole the lineman is responsible for. Different schools of thought but a common thread is that, ideally, you want everything to be contained on both ends to help funnel LBs to the play. However, a typical 2-gap will sacrifice backside contain to plug the hole inside of the backside OT. Remember, the goal on the d-line is eating blockers before trying to make a play unlike a typical contain strategy where the DE is responsible for making the tackle. The DE will try and maintain containment if a play comes back the other way but he now has to fight back across the face of the tackle to get there, making them look a lot slower. This is also a lot of why speedy linebackers thrive in a 2-gap.

 

Our personnel have been pretty fixed with Meredith on the left and a revolving door on the right. They changed that up last week. They did quit a bit of swapping personnel and twisting/stunting early on against Idaho State to help get some pressure on the pass happy offense. It was nice to see as there hasn't been much adaptation on the line in the past two years that didn't involve everyone standing up. Hard to really measure any progress in a game where we tried not to score for 45 minutes of game time though.

[zoogs]

question: in a scheme where DEs are charged with making the tackle, does that just shift the containment responsibilities to the LBs? In other words, the same responsibilities, only moved around?

 

If so, that is interesting. A lot of the flak the current scheme gets seems to arise from people not being pleased with the "idea" of the word "passive." The way you put it, it sounds like that isn't really the case - that it's just one scheme of many that all try to accomplish similar things.

[zeWilbur]

You are correct, nothing in this defense is more passive than any other. The difference is that the emphasis is not where people expect it to be. Most expect the line to attack and the backers to read and react. When they don't see the line doing that they get mad at Bo for being a defensive genius and not doing what everyone else is. That's why I tend to enjoy the games more when I watch them by myself.

 

Someone is always responsible for containment in some way. Using LBs to set the edge is not uncommon but they need to fast enough to get there(probably why Brown is getting such good reviews so far). Actually you see quite a bit of containment responsibility fall on the corners in our defense. That's why you hear it get mentioned about the corners having to tackle(or just be physical) well. It seems that most assume that was directed at the Peso role but it is all of them and they do a pretty good job of it. This is the main reason that a mobile QB gives us fits. Losing contain to covering a receiver (and the initial contain would be determined by the type of coverage) means a safety will probably have to roll up to accomplish it.

 

In my head the following is Pelini's defense scheme in a nutshell. 3-4 style DL where they are only meant to eat blocks. 4-3 style LB flow to the ball during the play. 4-2-5 personnel where the 5th DB is a free safety to play the Peso and keep more speed on the field. And a match-zone coverage where the people behind you adapt what they are doing to fit how you just adapted to the play. When Pelini says the defense is complicated, he means it.

[zoogs]

Beautifully explained. Thank you!

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

You are correct, nothing in this defense is more passive than any other. The difference is that the emphasis is not where people expect it to be. Most expect the line to attack and the backers to read and react. When they don't see the line doing that they get mad at Bo for being a defensive genius and not doing what everyone else is. That's why I tend to enjoy the games more when I watch them by myself.

 

Someone is always responsible for containment in some way. Using LBs to set the edge is not uncommon but they need to fast enough to get there(probably why Brown is getting such good reviews so far). Actually you see quite a bit of containment responsibility fall on the corners in our defense. That's why you hear it get mentioned about the corners having to tackle(or just be physical) well. It seems that most assume that was directed at the Peso role but it is all of them and they do a pretty good job of it. This is the main reason that a mobile QB gives us fits. Losing contain to covering a receiver (and the initial contain would be determined by the type of coverage) means a safety will probably have to roll up to accomplish it.

 

In my head the following is Pelini's defense scheme in a nutshell. 3-4 style DL where they are only meant to eat blocks. 4-3 style LB flow to the ball during the play. 4-2-5 personnel where the 5th DB is a free safety to play the Peso and keep more speed on the field. And a match-zone coverage where the people behind you adapt what they are doing to fit how you just adapted to the play. When Pelini says the defense is complicated, he means it.

Why does the DL line for far off the line of scrimmage then? We've seen them about a yard off the ball where other teams tend to line up closer.

 

And I'm not trying to nitpick or be an ass. Just trying to get a better understanding of why this defense does what it does

[NUance]

Why does the DL line for far off the line of scrimmage then? We've seen them about a yard off the ball where other teams tend to line up closer.

 

And I'm not trying to nitpick or be an ass. Just trying to get a better understanding of why this defense does what it does

I've been wondering the same thing this year. I asked about it during (or after) the UCLA game. And I asked because I'm not sure why--not because I'm second guessing. Some games our DTs seem to line up farther back than others. With like a 3+ foot space to the O-linemen in front of them. Why is that?

[zeWilbur]

Why does the DL line for far off the line of scrimmage then? We've seen them about a yard off the ball where other teams tend to line up closer.

 

And I'm not trying to nitpick or be an ass. Just trying to get a better understanding of why this defense does what it does

I've been wondering the same thing this year. I asked about it during (or after) the UCLA game. And I asked because I'm not sure why--not because I'm second guessing. Some games our DTs seem to line up farther back than others. With like a 3+ foot space to the O-linemen in front of them. Why is that?

 

I'm not entirely sure why they do that but I have a theory or two.

 

First, basically, it gives them more time to read the o-line. It is tough to get back across the face of an OLman and they can read his direction without giving up much lateral position and a few feet vertically.

 

Second, to address the varying depths, I have two notions. Either the man closer to the line is expecting the double team(invalidating the first statement) so he doesn't need to be as far back or he is better at beating his man so doesn't need as much real estate to accomplish the same thing.

 

Finally, I don't really buy into the "extra momentum for more penetration" argument because I just haven't seen it. A little more jarring to the OL perhaps but not much more. I would think that it would have been obvious last Saturday of all days.

 

Just my two cents worth of brown rabbits.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Finally, I don't really buy into the "extra momentum for more penetration" argument because I just haven't seen it. A little more jarring to the OL perhaps but not much more. I would think that it would have been obvious last Saturday of all days.

 

Just my two cents worth of brown rabbits.

I don't buy into it either. It would seem counterproductive to gain "extra momentum" if the OLman knows you're coming which gives him the chance to gain extra momentum. But, it does seem plausible that setting back from the LOS gives the DL time to recognize which direction the OL is going to move.