Nebraska's Chance Against Our Schedule

[Redux]

Ok. So. The wait and see defense will 100% work 100% of the time against every type of play designed to fool the defense?

[jmfb]

D line wise in that game we played a wait and see scheme that torched us. If we go up against a fake that exposesbour lack of pressure we could get burned. No promise we even see that though.

Lack of pressure means slow playing, reading, two gapping

When you DONT get upfield quickly, you are in MUCH better position to handle typical "trickeration" (hate that word) plays like draws, screens, shovels. traps, waggles, boots, reverses or other dispy doodle stuff

And no we wont see that against well coached teams and we havent yet because they are suboptimal plays against the type of defense we play

They Can and Do work well against teams that run the exact opposite of what we run

[jmfb]

Ok. So. The wait and see defense will 100% work 100% of the time against every type of play designed to fool the defense?

Changing the question- common, Not what we were "debating"

The SCHEME we USE NOW is MUCH more effective against all the dipsy doodle stuff I described than aggressive defenses

That is why you havent seen the 4 teams we played already run any of it

They have all stuck to basic zone, power and a little pin and pull stuff.

Yes, philosophicaly if you asked 100 HS or College coaches that question, all 100 would all agree with me, Im absolutely positive of that

 

When you play aggressive defenses- you run: traps, draws, screens, boots, waggles, reverses, play action passes, counters, shovels, roll outs, run pass options- and even some more elaborate deception plays

When you play defenses that arent aggressive you run: powers, straight zone runs, pin and pull runs, split flow runs, drop back passes

[I am I]

Again, I understand the logic. You can coach speak it all you want. If the guys up front dont know how to react to something theyve never seen, a big gain CAN happen. The talent is raw, but the progress is obvious. I think they will be able to do enough to win.

 

True they are normaly a yard away from the line of scrimmage. But if they leave a window open regardless of pressure or a lack thereof, you can get burned. Just because the playbook says a+b=c doesnt mean it will develop that way. If it did Sportscenter top ten would be boring.

Its NOT coach speak

Talk to 100 High School coaches

Talk to 100 College coaches

You will get 200 of the same exact answer

In the football coaching world that concept is as basic as 2+2= 4, it's not debateable

Let me invite you to the next coaching clinic in the area, please go and ask that question and see what you hear

 

Again WHY DONT TEAMS SCREEN, WAGGLE, BOOT, TRAP, SHOVEL, REVERSE against us? Huh? It's because of what Ive been trying to explain to you, you choose not to learn.

BTW- a Jet sweep despite what the yahoos on TV call is it NOT a reverse or even an end around. Unfortunately many TV announcers are entertainers and dont understand let along try and explain the game. So TV learners dont get much help.

 

Further evidence is when we finally left the gate open w an all out blitz against GA they went 80 yds on a screen pass.

[Redux]

Again. I get your reasoning. But the whole point of a trick play is fooling your opponent to the extreme of gaining a certain chunk of yardage. Wheher its a screen pass on a 4and1 or a draw on 3and10 or a Statue of Liberty for a 2 pt conversion.

 

Call it a double fake then. We expect them to expect us to not pressure but they were expecting that so they throw a run at us expecting us to expect them to pass boom 13 yards. Mind. Blown.

[jmfb]

You are right and 100 out of 100 HS or College Coaches you would ask about this are wrong, you win

 

I totally get why these college coaches get so frustrated with "fans" poor fellas. Like telling a 5 year old not to touch a hot stove, yet they continue to do so and tell you they like it LOL Pointless

[Redux]

You are right and 100 out of 100 HS or College Coaches you would ask about this are wrong, you win

 

I totally get why these college coaches get so frustrated with "fans" poor fellas. Like telling a 5 year old not to touch a hot stove, yet they continue to do so and tell you they like it LOL Pointless

 

Are you trying to tell us youve coached at the high school or college level? I think I gathered that from your mentioning coaching every post. Good lord, I dont give two oompa loompas what the book you bought at the dime store says. You could have a signed copy of Bear Bryants playbook. If the players do not reaxt properly to a play designed to fool them. Yards will be gained. The pressure doesnt matter. The prevent doesnt matter. What matters is if the players react properly to a play rhey werent ready for. Im not talking formations and schemes. Black and White. Delayed/Improper reaction to tricky play MAY end in big yardage. Verbatim. Even if you and your coach friends drew it up different. Man alive, why didnt Bo hire youas DC? Obviously you know more than JP himself. Or are you John Papuchis?

[True2tRA]

 

Further evidence is when we finally left the gate open w an all out blitz against GA they went 80 yds on a screen pass.

 

That was simply a well timed play call on their part. They called screen and caught us in a blitz. Nothing more, nothing less. It certainly doesn't mean we should not blitz. IMO this defense needs to do quite a bit more blitzing.

[Redux]

Please more blitzing. If were gonna give up big gains we may as well try to sack the qb.

[I am I]

Oh, I agree. I wish we'd bring more heat. A lot more heat.

 

But pertaining to the awesome argument at hand, we play pretty 'read and react'. A good example of getting burned was that particular play.

 

I was saying when a defense is selling out to the ball one way or the other, those plays can happen more often. I like Bo's philosophy of making teams run (hopefully) 9-12 plays to score rather than giving up HUGE chunks over the top a lot.

 

But it goes both ways, if a defense blitzes at great times, it has rewards. If an offense runs "trick" or misdirection plays at the right time it burns a defense.

 

I think Bo constantly harping "execution" means:

 

We don't need a TFL or a sack or some crazy blitz every 3rd play, because--if executed properly--our defense forces offenses to play pretty mistake free football. Which is hard to do drive after drive.

 

Which is why I think mobile QBs give us suc trouble. We can play our D very very well--but a mobile QB "keeps plays alive" outside our Defensive box and can gash us.

 

I'd like to see pressure when pressure isn't expected like 1st and 2nd down to force teams out of THEIR box.

[jmfb]

Oh, I agree. I wish we'd bring more heat. A lot more heat.

 

But pertaining to the awesome argument at hand, we play pretty 'read and react'. A good example of getting burned was that particular play.

 

I was saying when a defense is selling out to the ball one way or the other, those plays can happen more often. I like Bo's philosophy of making teams run (hopefully) 9-12 plays to score rather than giving up HUGE chunks over the top a lot.

 

But it goes both ways, if a defense blitzes at great times, it has rewards. If an offense runs "trick" or misdirection plays at the right time it burns a defense.

 

I think Bo constantly harping "execution" means:

 

We don't need a TFL or a sack or some crazy blitz every 3rd play, because--if executed properly--our defense forces offenses to play pretty mistake free football. Which is hard to do drive after drive.

 

Which is why I think mobile QBs give us suc trouble. We can play our D very very well--but a mobile QB "keeps plays alive" outside our Defensive box and can gash us.

 

I'd like to see pressure when pressure isn't expected like 1st and 2nd down to force teams out of THEIR box.

Good

Someone that has actually played and probably coached

Basic agreed upon football philosophy

[Redux]

Honestly other than wanting to argue with someone I dont know why hes so hell bent on this argument. I never said I disagreed with him. Im just happy I got to throw an oopty op in.

[Redux]

Holy crapes. Here we go again with the coaching requirement to have an opinion on a play breaking down.

[Mavric]

Not necessarily coaching but a more comprehensive understanding of the game, which is often found in coaches.

[Redux]

jmfb, does this mean we cant be friends?