Stopping running QBs...why all the difficulty?

[TheBreeze521]

Defensive front rarely takes a good angle or is in an athletic position as they break down to make a play on the QB. This just in--you might have to change directions before impact so stay balanced and ANTICIPATE it. Heck, I can remember a bunch of times DB's who are good athletes blitzed and ran right past the QB. Shouldn't happen.

 

One thing about running QBs--they can't get hit like a RB. Not even Braxton Miller. Cut off his break angle, get a lot of people around him (dime defense on mid/long yardage), and then treat him rudely.

[Maxconvert]

Related question--what are thoughts on what you would have done differently, schematically, against OSU? (Before someone gets huffy about being an armchair coach remember that's the point of being on a football BBS) My thoughts:

1) continue different blitzes throughout the game--delayed blitzes from Compton, zone blitzes, nickelback blitzes, line stunts

2) Spy on Miller on every play, with spy duties rotating between LBs so OSU couldn't figure out who to lead block on designed QB runs

3) Mix up coverages to confuse Miller--cover 2 zone, man-2, robber, zone blitzes with DEs dropping into coverage, etc

4) Rely more on the strength of the defense--the corners. When OSU lined up with 4 wideouts, put Mitchell, Green, Evans, and Seisay/Jean-Baptiste in 1 on 1, use single deep safety over the top, and use the remaining 2 LBs in blitzes or containment on Miller and RB

 

Other than great athleticism, from my admittedly limited understanding of covering running QBs, you want to pressure them and make them beat you with pinpoint passing, which is usually not their strength. No matter how fast or mobile a QB is, if they're worried about pressure and having to throw on the run, they're usually gonna be less effective than if they have time to read multiple WRs and then take off if nobody's open. The main criticism of Bo's scheme against OSU is that they seemed too concerned with taking away OSU's receivers, but...NEWS FLASH...OSU's passing game isn't exactly Joe Montana and Jerry Rice. We should instead have taken our chances with limited coverage against their WRs, and instead tried to target Miller.

[HuskerNationNick]

Related question--what are thoughts on what you would have done differently, schematically, against OSU? (Before someone gets huffy about being an armchair coach remember that's the point of being on a football BBS) My thoughts:

1) continue different blitzes throughout the game--delayed blitzes from Compton, zone blitzes, nickelback blitzes, line stunts

2) Spy on Miller on every play, with spy duties rotating between LBs so OSU couldn't figure out who to lead block on designed QB runs

3) Mix up coverages to confuse Miller--cover 2 zone, man-2, robber, zone blitzes with DEs dropping into coverage, etc

4) Rely more on the strength of the defense--the corners. When OSU lined up with 4 wideouts, put Mitchell, Green, Evans, and Seisay/Jean-Baptiste in 1 on 1, use single deep safety over the top, and use the remaining 2 LBs in blitzes or containment on Miller and RB

 

Other than great athleticism, from my admittedly limited understanding of covering running QBs, you want to pressure them and make them beat you with pinpoint passing, which is usually not their strength. No matter how fast or mobile a QB is, if they're worried about pressure and having to throw on the run, they're usually gonna be less effective than if they have time to read multiple WRs and then take off if nobody's open. The main criticism of Bo's scheme against OSU is that they seemed too concerned with taking away OSU's receivers, but...NEWS FLASH...OSU's passing game isn't exactly Joe Montana and Jerry Rice. We should instead have taken our chances with limited coverage against their WRs, and instead tried to target Miller.

 

1) We did do this, but you can't blitz the whole game. Just the reality of it. One missed tackle, he is gone.

2) In order to do this, you need fast LB's and the play has to be in your playbook. Spy is something Pelini doesn't do.

3) We did mix up coverages. 16 of 23 for 179 yards. 63 of them was off a blown assignment and a Safety not covering to prevent an even bigger play. Passing wasn't our concern, but to force a turnover in the air, you have to rely on the Dline to pressure him, something that didn't happen.

4) Like I stated before, passing game wasn't our issue, as we did mostly man on man with a Safety playing zone. Safties blew a lot of covers, which caused big plays. Such as Smith's 63 yard reception and Braxton's two huge runs. Not blaming the safties for our loss, as its the whole defense (besides the DB's). LB, DL and Safety spots were the ones who hurt us more than anything on the defense.

 

Taylor went 16-22 for 191 yards. This stat should have been much larger, but due to the lack of execution by the OL, he was pressured, a lot by a 4 man front, which caused him to get rid of the ball or make a poor judgment, leading to a turnover or a quick 3rd and out.

[robsker]

Sorry--new here. Although running qbs are still the kryptonite for Bo, so it's not like problem is being solved

Sorry--new here. Although running qbs are still the kryptonite for Bo, so it's not like problem is being solved

 

An issue is as well personnel. Our DE's are very slow in terms of lateral pursuit and are not quick at all. That is limiting. Our OLB'ers are also very slow --- relative to what is needed to contend with mobile QB's. Normally, when coaches realize that they have insufficient speed, especially at LBer, they coach the LBers to attack the running QB and force the QB to make a move before he is ready --- our LBers do not do this... they set back (play after play), do not attack, and wait on the QB who jukes them, runs past them or around them. Why our guys do this? Not sure.

 

Finally, our whole defense is, generally, very poor at tackling. Miss a tackle and a good running QB kills you.

 

In fairness, a running QB is tough for any defense... but with our defense, confused as it is, with as poor a sense of where to line up as any college team I have ever seen... with lack of speed & tackling issues as well... well the running QB is beyond deadly against us.

[Blackshirt96]

My understanding of Bo's defense: each level 'reads' what the level ahead of them is doing and responds accordingly. DBs reading the LBs, LBs reading the DL, etc. I might be wrong here.

 

Whaley isn't slow-footed by any means, I don't think. But I will give UCLA credit for shifting their formation enough times to leave Compton out on a slot WR. Similarly, a failure on the part of our defense in matching up to offenses that do this.

 

In my opinion you can never scrap the system wholesale and go with something completely different. Coaches have to try new wrinkles and adjust to the situation and I'm sure Bo could do this and come up with solutions, if he is willing, and within "his" defense. Unfortunately, I'm not really an X's and O's guy either. Even if I were, I'm not sure I would know what the answer is. Some of it really is talent, I still think. 2008-10 recruiting failures, come to roost.

This is also my understanding, but the DB's play in man coverage so they have their backs to the QB which takes them out of the play when they run the WR's off & run the QB the other direction.

[KJ.]

The general Pelini defensive philosophy is to put an extra guy in pass defense, which leaves rush defense vulnerable. We'll give up 3-5 yard runs on a consistent basis on the hopes that the offense will either mess up somewhere in their 20 play drive, or will get greedy and try to get bigger chunks of yards and fall into the trap. This is fairly easy to see since our scoring defense ranking (points) is consistently better than our total defense ranking (yards).

 

Now, when the QB can run you are far outnumbered in the run game. 3-5 yard runs turn into 8-10 yard runs. We try to prevent this by putting an extra safety in the box, but now our secondary is playing down a player from what they're used to. That creates problems. And when that extra safety is missing tackles in the run game, you're creating problems for nothing.

[Count 'Bility]

The general Pelini defensive philosophy is to put an extra guy in pass defense, which leaves rush defense vulnerable. We'll give up 3-5 yard runs on a consistent basis on the hopes that the offense will either mess up somewhere in their 20 play drive, or will get greedy and try to get bigger chunks of yards and fall into the trap. This is fairly easy to see since our scoring defense ranking (points) is consistently better than our total defense ranking (yards).

 

Now, when the QB can run you are far outnumbered in the run game. 3-5 yard runs turn into 8-10 yard runs. We try to prevent this by putting an extra safety in the box, but now our secondary is playing down a player from what they're used to. That creates problems. And when that extra safety is missing tackles in the run game, you're creating problems for nothing.

I know that our schemem is widely known as "matchup zone" Simply hybrid of man and zone, but technique wize, it seems as if guys still play it like man, watching their man, not the qb. This is where I always thought a spy would help, but the issue there is designed qb runs and that spy getting caught up in blocks. Makes me think we need to see more straight zone coverage so DB's can be facing the LOS more. It could result in getting picked apart, but it couldnt be any worse than the current philosophy of forcing the offense to pick their way down the field. It could also cause some indecision for guys like Colter and Robinson if they're contained in the pocket and having to navigate the ball into windows. I dont know much, but this is the way I see it.

[KJ.]

The general Pelini defensive philosophy is to put an extra guy in pass defense, which leaves rush defense vulnerable. We'll give up 3-5 yard runs on a consistent basis on the hopes that the offense will either mess up somewhere in their 20 play drive, or will get greedy and try to get bigger chunks of yards and fall into the trap. This is fairly easy to see since our scoring defense ranking (points) is consistently better than our total defense ranking (yards).

 

Now, when the QB can run you are far outnumbered in the run game. 3-5 yard runs turn into 8-10 yard runs. We try to prevent this by putting an extra safety in the box, but now our secondary is playing down a player from what they're used to. That creates problems. And when that extra safety is missing tackles in the run game, you're creating problems for nothing.

I know that our schemem is widely known as "matchup zone" Simply hybrid of man and zone, but technique wize, it seems as if guys still play it like man, watching their man, not the qb. This is where I always thought a spy would help, but the issue there is designed qb runs and that spy getting caught up in blocks. Makes me think we need to see more straight zone coverage so DB's can be facing the LOS more. It could result in getting picked apart, but it couldnt be any worse than the current philosophy of forcing the offense to pick their way down the field. It could also cause some indecision for guys like Colter and Robinson if they're contained in the pocket and having to navigate the ball into windows. I dont know much, but this is the way I see it.

I hear ya. What they play is called pattern matching, and it's even worse than man-to-man. It requires the secondary to watch multiple receivers instead of just one.

 

Here's a quick link. It probably explains why sometimes it looks like we have a bunch of robots out there; it would be easy to spend more time reading than actually playing football.

[zoogs]

And yet, Alabama does it with great success.

 

I'm sure most schemes run at the college level are too complicated for me. I don't think that means they should be simplified, though. Our coverage schemes, not without weaknesses (nothing is impervious), are some of the best and most ingenious in the nation. There are maybe a handful of other teams that have the coach to do what we do.

[Stickney]

And yet, Alabama does it with great success.

 

 

I will give some credit to Bo, he often has players in the "area" to make plays, however, the D-Line is, and has been, atrocious at getting off of blocks. Also, open field tackling has been abysmal since Matt O'Hanlon and company left. O'Hanlon was widely ridiculed his first season to season and a half, but became exemplary by the end.

 

It just doesn't seem like anyone on Defense has developed like he, Dennard, Hagg, Asante, Prince, etc . . . .

 

The common thread? Marvin Sanders? Makes you wonder.

[Maxconvert]

What they play is called pattern matching, and it's even worse than man-to-man. It requires the secondary to watch multiple receivers instead of just one.

 

Here's a quick link. It probably explains why sometimes it looks like we have a bunch of robots out there; it would be easy to spend more time reading than actually playing football.

 

Great link--thanks! Interesting that they list QB scrambles as a specific weakness of the pattern-matching zone schemes...we've certainly seen plenty of that with Bo's defenses. It does seem like a complicated zone for players to execute, which is probably part of the complicated system reasons/excuses Bo gives all the time for not playing younger players.

 

Seems to me that back when Marvin Sanders was DB coach, especially the time Solich was HC and Bo was DC, that our secondary was MUCH more ball-hawking and got a lot more picks. Were we more of a spot-dropping zone coverage scheme then?

 

Finally, since Bo was a former safety at Ohio State himself, it seems like his strength and interest has really been on secondary coverage schemes. I was hoping that bringing in Kaczenski from Iowa would give us quality D-line schemes, but it only seems minimally better than last year. And I'm not sure what the hell is going on with the LBs and safeties. That could be a different thread entirely, especially safety play--TONS of mind-boggling plays from PJ Smith and Stafford this year, like the play against Wisconsin when Stafford was trying to tackle an intended receiver with the ball in the air instead of giving over the top pass coverage help, and the multiple times when safeties that were supposed to be providing over the top coverage were nowhere in the picture.

[HuskerNationNick]

What they play is called pattern matching, and it's even worse than man-to-man. It requires the secondary to watch multiple receivers instead of just one.

 

Here's a quick link. It probably explains why sometimes it looks like we have a bunch of robots out there; it would be easy to spend more time reading than actually playing football.

 

Great link--thanks! Interesting that they list QB scrambles as a specific weakness of the pattern-matching zone schemes...we've certainly seen plenty of that with Bo's defenses. It does seem like a complicated zone for players to execute, which is probably part of the complicated system reasons/excuses Bo gives all the time for not playing younger players.

 

Seems to me that back when Marvin Sanders was DB coach, especially the time Solich was HC and Bo was DC, that our secondary was MUCH more ball-hawking and got a lot more picks. Were we more of a spot-dropping zone coverage scheme then?

 

Finally, since Bo was a former safety at Ohio State himself, it seems like his strength and interest has really been on secondary coverage schemes. I was hoping that bringing in Kaczenski from Iowa would give us quality D-line schemes, but it only seems minimally better than last year. And I'm not sure what the hell is going on with the LBs and safeties. That could be a different thread entirely, especially safety play--TONS of mind-boggling plays from PJ Smith and Stafford this year, like the play against Wisconsin when Stafford was trying to tackle an intended receiver with the ball in the air instead of giving over the top pass coverage help, and the multiple times when safeties that were supposed to be providing over the top coverage were nowhere in the picture.

 

Patience man. Seriously lol. Coach K hasn't even been here for 9 months, and your wanting improvement on a Dline that lacks size and speed? The guy hasn't even been here long enough to make a recruiting impact for last year. Wait, I am sorry, he did have an impact on recruiting last year, as he brought a very talented DT with his transfer, Aaron Curry. This year, look at the Defense commits, and you will see he is doing great things for Nebraska. Let alone, the kids who are red shirted this year, should be making an impact, as they are bigger, faster and stronger than what we have, (IE: Valentine). Ross Els has only been here for 2 years, this being his second, and he is also bringing in great LB recruits. He is still working with other guys recruiting mess, and honestly, these aren't the worst, but he is making the best of it. Look at the Red Shirt Freshman this year he has brought in, including JUCO transfer Zaire Anderson.

[Maxconvert]

Patience man. Seriously lol. Coach K hasn't even been here for 9 months, and your wanting improvement on a Dline that lacks size and speed? The guy hasn't even been here long enough to make a recruiting impact for last year. Wait, I am sorry, he did have an impact on recruiting last year, as he brought a very talented DT with his transfer, Aaron Curry. This year, look at the Defense commits, and you will see he is doing great things for Nebraska. Let alone, the kids who are red shirted this year, should be making an impact, as they are bigger, faster and stronger than what we have, (IE: Valentine). Ross Els has only been here for 2 years, this being his second, and he is also bringing in great LB recruits. He is still working with other guys recruiting mess, and honestly, these aren't the worst, but he is making the best of it. Look at the Red Shirt Freshman this year he has brought in, including JUCO transfer Zaire Anderson.

 

Yes good points, but I was not just talking about recruiting...or have we given up on the concept that coaches should be able to coach up the players they already have? Of course, you could bring in some Mack Brown type of guy who doesn't know jack about Xs and Os but knows how to charm the pants off 5-star recruits, and win that way, but Bo's always had this "defensive guru" rep and you would think his position coaches would know a thing or two about teaching defense.

 

On the question of size, our interior line seems a little underweight, but I wouldn't exactly call the 6'6 Steinkuhler undersized. Our DEs are actually oversized, if anything. My point is that yes, this year's line doesn't exactly contain the Wistroms, Suhs, and Alberts, but it has enough athleticism to manage more than it has this year. I wouldn't exactly call them a "recruiting mess"

[4skers89]

What they play is called pattern matching, and it's even worse than man-to-man. It requires the secondary to watch multiple receivers instead of just one.

 

Here's a quick link. It probably explains why sometimes it looks like we have a bunch of robots out there; it would be easy to spend more time reading than actually playing football.

 

Great link--thanks! Interesting that they list QB scrambles as a specific weakness of the pattern-matching zone schemes...we've certainly seen plenty of that with Bo's defenses. It does seem like a complicated zone for players to execute, which is probably part of the complicated system reasons/excuses Bo gives all the time for not playing younger players.

 

Seems to me that back when Marvin Sanders was DB coach, especially the time Solich was HC and Bo was DC, that our secondary was MUCH more ball-hawking and got a lot more picks. Were we more of a spot-dropping zone coverage scheme then?

 

Finally, since Bo was a former safety at Ohio State himself, it seems like his strength and interest has really been on secondary coverage schemes. I was hoping that bringing in Kaczenski from Iowa would give us quality D-line schemes, but it only seems minimally better than last year. And I'm not sure what the hell is going on with the LBs and safeties. That could be a different thread entirely, especially safety play--TONS of mind-boggling plays from PJ Smith and Stafford this year, like the play against Wisconsin when Stafford was trying to tackle an intended receiver with the ball in the air instead of giving over the top pass coverage help, and the multiple times when safeties that were supposed to be providing over the top coverage were nowhere in the picture.

 

That was a good read and gives an idea of what our players are trying to do. Here are some thoughts I had:

 

1. Seeing the example of the eye progressions that a player should go through it, I can see how their reaction time could be slowed. I'm not sure that is always the problem. A lot of times we seem to over react (over pursue) and get killed on cutbacks.

 

2. Because defenders eyes are not looking at the QB, I can see why they are more susceptible to QB runs in the the pattern matching vs spot dropping.

a) For quarterback run plays where the play is initially read as a pass play and the DBs and safeties are covering receivers 10- 15 yards from the LOS, I don't think they could ever be in a position to tackle someone like Miller. He's too elusive and the DL or LBs need to make the stop. I think a LBs progression should be something like Run/Pass, #3, QB, #2, QB, #1, QB,

b) One advantage to defenders not looking at the QB is defending a play I've seen OSU run. I don't recall them running it against us. They run a pass play but roll Miller out as a run threat. The DBs bite on the run leaving receiver open and Miller hits them. I saw it a couple of times agains MSU for big gains and was the play that they burned Wiscy last year for the win. Since we probably aren't looking at the quarterback, we wouldn't bite on the run.

 

3. It makes sense that a Fresh/Soph or Juco would have difficulty executing the scheme. It would take a while to get the progressions down.

 

4. I imagine a player's progressions change from one offensive formation to the next therefore the various number of progressions would grow exponentially. The example of diagnosing read mistakes was fairly simplistic. I can see that in the real world, during film study it becomes almost comical.

Coach: What was the quarterback doing in this play?

LB: I'm not sure

Coach: He should have been the 3rd thing in your progression.

LB: I'll be sure to add that into my progression (next time I see this formation which is 1 out of 100s that I encounter during a season).

Coach: You didn't execute.

 

5. If the scheme has an inherent flaw (such as we aren't reading the quarterback), is it feasible to install a different scheme for these types of offenses? I know the coaches have limited practice time but considering the results I'm starting to think it would be better to poorly execute a scheme that matches up better.

 

6. The author mentions that a draw back to the pattern-matching is fewer interceptions. That kind of jives with our results.

 

 

I had the same thought about Bo's background. Our secondary seems to usually play well but the DL and LBs are lacking. I was wondering if that was a weakness in Bo's knowledge as to what the DL/LB should be doing.

 

What's up with that Wisconsin play and why aren't we looking back for the ball? I assumed they were coached to never look for the ball in flight. I thought Bo made a comment at halftime was that we need to make a play on the ball so that must not be the case. Are they coached to read the receiver's eyes and we are just doing a really bad job of it?

[Maxconvert]

Coach: What was the quarterback doing in this play?

LB: I'm not sure

Coach: He should have been the 3rd thing in your progression.

LB: I'll be sure to add that into my progression (next time I see this formation which is 1 out of 100s that I encounter during a season).

Coach: You didn't execute.

 

Exactly. The obvious problem is that a coach who thrives on and is passionate about defensive complexity, expects his players to have the same interest, intellectual expertise, and passion to do the same. There are always players out there who have the mind of a coach and end up going into coaching after they get done playing ,but most players don't have that perspective. Of course if you ask Bo why the QB ran for 70 yards or found a wide open tight end streaking down the field, he would immediately explain the schematic breakdown. Expecting players to carry the same expertise is a recipe for disaster a lot of the times. And if a player is struggling to get down all the various reads, then has to deal with a new formation or motion that he hasn't seen on film, well you can imagine the time he's going to waste trying to figure out what's going on. The great ones can make up for that delay with their athleticism, otherwise it's time lost.