Secondary Play

[Mavric]

Ummm....I will guarantee you they know that. No matter how you play defense, you are vulnerable somewhere.

 

I have no problem with their theory on defense. Stop the run and make them beat you through the air.

 

Long passes are a much lower percentage play.

 

Generally, I agree. As long as we haven't gone to the other end of the spectrum. Right now, I'm not sure.

 

And I like our run defense, mainly because of our two (plus one) monster DTs. But our run defense may still be a work in progress. Removing sacks, BYU ran for 156 yards on 23 carries. That's 6.8 yards per carry which is far from stellar, especially for a team known for passing. Their sack-adjusted numbers against Boise State were 90 yards on 35 carries which is 2.6 yards per carry. Last year Boise State was 0.7 yards per carry better than us for the season (obviously without adjusting for strength of competition).

[gbr93]

 

 

Ummm....I will guarantee you they know that. No matter how you play defense, you are vulnerable somewhere.

 

I have no problem with their theory on defense. Stop the run and make them beat you through the air.

 

Long passes are a much lower percentage play.

Generally, I agree. As long as we haven't gone to the other end of the spectrum. Right now, I'm not sure.

 

And I like our run defense, mainly because of our two (plus one) monster DTs. But our run defense may still be a work in progress. Removing sacks, BYU ran for 156 yards on 23 carries. That's 6.8 yards per carry which is far from stellar, especially for a team known for passing. Their sack-adjusted numbers against Boise State were 90 yards on 35 carries which is 2.6 yards per carry. Last year Boise State was 0.7 yards per carry better than us for the season (obviously without adjusting for strength of competition).

How many of those yards against us were Taysom Hill scrambles? I don't know the stats but I'm sure we'll over half.

[Mavric]

 

 

Ummm....I will guarantee you they know that. No matter how you play defense, you are vulnerable somewhere.

 

I have no problem with their theory on defense. Stop the run and make them beat you through the air.

 

Long passes are a much lower percentage play.

Generally, I agree. As long as we haven't gone to the other end of the spectrum. Right now, I'm not sure.

 

And I like our run defense, mainly because of our two (plus one) monster DTs. But our run defense may still be a work in progress. Removing sacks, BYU ran for 156 yards on 23 carries. That's 6.8 yards per carry which is far from stellar, especially for a team known for passing. Their sack-adjusted numbers against Boise State were 90 yards on 35 carries which is 2.6 yards per carry. Last year Boise State was 0.7 yards per carry better than us for the season (obviously without adjusting for strength of competition).

How many of those yards against us were Taysom Hill scrambles? I don't know the stats but I'm sure we'll over half.

 

 

Hill had 9 carries for 72 yards. I don't remember any designed runs for him so I'll assume they were all scrambles. Without those yards, they had 14 carries for 84 yards which is still 6.0 ypc. Of course, if we're going that route you could probably also take out the two runs against our prevent defense at the end which would make it 12 carries for 57 yards (4.75 ypc). That's quite a bit better but still far from great against a team that was #75 in the country in YPC last year.

[cg_8]

 

 

And on this trips play, you can see Banderas begin to cover the third guy in, but as soon as he passes him, he releases him also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoOU5N2PCoM?t=16m40s

 

That play is ingenious, because they attack on one side, leaving two guys having to play m2m. Gerry is robber on the play,but he bites a bit on the PA fake, so that split second keeps him out of the play. And with the LB releasing to Cockrell, he's essentially out as a robber.

 

But you might be right. There might be certain plays where we play that type of role, but I see the m2m with LB's on the under, as well as the release to the Safeties.

I don't think this is right either. Bando is indeed in some sort of zone coverage but there is no receiver within 15 yards of him so he is basically "doing nothing." We are completely manned up on the trips with Gerry as the robber on the other side (Gerry had no chance to help on this play because he was the short route robber and they threw the deep seam route, exactly like the play above). You can tell this because the CB runs deep with the outside receiver and Williams follows the inside slot across the field on the crossing route, ending up in the same place as Gerry. If it was a zone coverage, Williams would have stayed in his quarter of the field and had help for Cockrell over the top. But because they're all in man, Cockrell has no help and is left to try to cover his man anywhere he goes on the field. Since his man is just outside the hashmarks, he can run basically any route imaginable, making that a very tough spot for Cockrell to be all by himself. I don't think the play is so ingenious as it is taking advantage of our man coverage with little pass rush and giving a pretty good quarterback time to find any of three receivers who are able to beat their man.

 

They aren't running a true zone though. It's a pattern match under with the LB's until they release to the safeties. At which point, it becomes m2m. Which is why Williams follows his guy after Bando releases him to Williams. The Trips was a bad example, because there are different ways to cover trips in quarters. In this case it looks like a M technique in a nickel personnel. Which means #1 WR and #2 WR are actually in m2m to CB and NB. The Mike then takes on the role that the usual OLB would take (which is a pattern match on any under routes), and Banderas is playing his "zone" until he releases to Williams, who then plays him m2m. It's not a "true zone" in what some might see as "man has this Quarter of the field". It's more nuanced than that in our case.

 

Our LB's look like they aren't doing anything sometimes, because when the route is deep enough and #3 isn't a threat to their "zone" they are pretty much doing nothing.

 

Like I said, trips was a bad example, I am just using these plays because at the time, I remember watching the LB's release to safety. I haven't re-watched the whole game again, so I am going off of memory.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. We're actually both right, because the safeties do play m2m when LB releases. Which is why it has the m2m look. For example, if both #2's run deep posts, our guys would man up to each #2's and end up on the other side of the field.

 

Maybe there are plays where we man on specific plays. I know we go zone when we blitz, especially on our double A Gap Blitz (which isn't as effective as I thought it was going to be).

 

Listen, I'm not here to say "I know more than anyone" so I don't want this to sound like I'm saying you're wrong. I want this to be more informative than anything, and from what I see, this is what it looks like to me. Maybe I am wrong, and in that case, I am wrong, so be it. I am just merely relaying the information the info I know and applying it to what I remember what I see.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

Ummm....I will guarantee you they know that. No matter how you play defense, you are vulnerable somewhere.

 

I have no problem with their theory on defense. Stop the run and make them beat you through the air.

 

Long passes are a much lower percentage play.

Generally, I agree. As long as we haven't gone to the other end of the spectrum. Right now, I'm not sure.

 

And I like our run defense, mainly because of our two (plus one) monster DTs. But our run defense may still be a work in progress. Removing sacks, BYU ran for 156 yards on 23 carries. That's 6.8 yards per carry which is far from stellar, especially for a team known for passing. Their sack-adjusted numbers against Boise State were 90 yards on 35 carries which is 2.6 yards per carry. Last year Boise State was 0.7 yards per carry better than us for the season (obviously without adjusting for strength of competition).

How many of those yards against us were Taysom Hill scrambles? I don't know the stats but I'm sure we'll over half.

 

 

Hill had 9 carries for 72 yards. I don't remember any designed runs for him so I'll assume they were all scrambles. Without those yards, they had 14 carries for 84 yards which is still 6.0 ypc. Of course, if we're going that route you could probably also take out the two runs against our prevent defense at the end which would make it 12 carries for 57 yards (4.75 ypc). That's quite a bit better but still far from great against a team that was #75 in the country in YPC last year.

 

I think we're in the dangerous part of the year where we need to temper what any stats actually mean, only because we have such a small sample size. We just broke one statistic down three times to try and quantify how good our run defense is. I think that's getting into a really tricky area.

 

I've been pretty pleased with our run defense so far but it's also very tough to figure out what it all means. The BYU game was the first game with an entirely new coaching staff trying to see how a new defensive scheme would play out, and the second game was against a bad opponent. We did what we should have against USA, and that definitely counts for something in my book, but I'm still not sure it tells me enough about how good any one part of our team is.

 

The only thing I feel very confident in saying through two games is Jordan Westerkamp will catch just about anything you throw at him.

[RADAR]

 

 

Definitely an interesting take. USA went deep over and over on the Blackshirts with seemingly no effort to respond from us, but perhaps testing our corners was part of the plan.

 

I could see this if we weren't running the same coverage against BYU. Unless we were fine losing a game as long as we didn't tip our hand to future opponents.

 

So you don't think this staff is capable of holding back schemes for later in the season for specific opponents? McBride did it all the time, worked on schemes all fall and broke them out when needed. These guys have been around the block at least twice, they know better than to show all their cards at once.

Langsdorf said said all fall that he was going to run the fullback and throw to the tightend, yet it really has not happened much yet. I would not be surprised if he did not break out the fullback trap for Miami.

[RedDenver]

FYI, this isn't a media theory on leaving our corners on an island against USA. Here's the quote from Banker:

"We could’ve rolled the corners up and played the safeties over the top, but in that game it wasn’t about statistics, it was about also getting those guys ready to play on the ball because we’re going to see a ton of those [routes] this year. Where we have that on film now, we’re really going to see a ton until we shut them down."

 

link

[Mavric]

 

 

 

Definitely an interesting take. USA went deep over and over on the Blackshirts with seemingly no effort to respond from us, but perhaps testing our corners was part of the plan.

 

I could see this if we weren't running the same coverage against BYU. Unless we were fine losing a game as long as we didn't tip our hand to future opponents.

 

So you don't think this staff is capable of holding back schemes for later in the season for specific opponents? McBride did it all the time, worked on schemes all fall and broke them out when needed. These guys have been around the block at least twice, they know better than to show all their cards at once.

Langsdorf said said all fall that he was going to run the fullback and throw to the tightend, yet it really has not happened much yet. I would not be surprised if he did not break out the fullback trap for Miami.

 

 

So it's more important to hold some things back for later than it is to win games?

[Mavric]

 

 

 

And on this trips play, you can see Banderas begin to cover the third guy in, but as soon as he passes him, he releases him also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoOU5N2PCoM?t=16m40s

 

That play is ingenious, because they attack on one side, leaving two guys having to play m2m. Gerry is robber on the play,but he bites a bit on the PA fake, so that split second keeps him out of the play. And with the LB releasing to Cockrell, he's essentially out as a robber.

 

But you might be right. There might be certain plays where we play that type of role, but I see the m2m with LB's on the under, as well as the release to the Safeties.

I don't think this is right either. Bando is indeed in some sort of zone coverage but there is no receiver within 15 yards of him so he is basically "doing nothing." We are completely manned up on the trips with Gerry as the robber on the other side (Gerry had no chance to help on this play because he was the short route robber and they threw the deep seam route, exactly like the play above). You can tell this because the CB runs deep with the outside receiver and Williams follows the inside slot across the field on the crossing route, ending up in the same place as Gerry. If it was a zone coverage, Williams would have stayed in his quarter of the field and had help for Cockrell over the top. But because they're all in man, Cockrell has no help and is left to try to cover his man anywhere he goes on the field. Since his man is just outside the hashmarks, he can run basically any route imaginable, making that a very tough spot for Cockrell to be all by himself. I don't think the play is so ingenious as it is taking advantage of our man coverage with little pass rush and giving a pretty good quarterback time to find any of three receivers who are able to beat their man.

 

They aren't running a true zone though. It's a pattern match under with the LB's until they release to the safeties. At which point, it becomes m2m. Which is why Williams follows his guy after Bando releases him to Williams. The Trips was a bad example, because there are different ways to cover trips in quarters. In this case it looks like a M technique in a nickel personnel. Which means #1 WR and #2 WR are actually in m2m to CB and NB. The Mike then takes on the role that the usual OLB would take (which is a pattern match on any under routes), and Banderas is playing his "zone" until he releases to Williams, who then plays him m2m. It's not a "true zone" in what some might see as "man has this Quarter of the field". It's more nuanced than that in our case.

 

Our LB's look like they aren't doing anything sometimes, because when the route is deep enough and #3 isn't a threat to their "zone" they are pretty much doing nothing.

 

Like I said, trips was a bad example, I am just using these plays because at the time, I remember watching the LB's release to safety. I haven't re-watched the whole game again, so I am going off of memory.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. We're actually both right, because the safeties do play m2m when LB releases. Which is why it has the m2m look. For example, if both #2's run deep posts, our guys would man up to each #2's and end up on the other side of the field.

 

Maybe there are plays where we man on specific plays. I know we go zone when we blitz, especially on our double A Gap Blitz (which isn't as effective as I thought it was going to be).

 

Listen, I'm not here to say "I know more than anyone" so I don't want this to sound like I'm saying you're wrong. I want this to be more informative than anything, and from what I see, this is what it looks like to me. Maybe I am wrong, and in that case, I am wrong, so be it. I am just merely relaying the information the info I know and applying it to what I remember what I see.

 

 

I agree with you here.

 

I guess there are two things at work. This wasn't what I was expecting when I hear about us playing a Cover 4. Perhaps I'm just the ignorant one but that says "zone" to me but we're actually playing almost entirely man to man with our DBs. Only the LBs (part of the time) and usually (?) one safety are playing zone. That's putting an awful lot of pressure on our DBs.

 

And that's the second thing - it would be a lot for any set of DBs, let alone guys who've played an entirely different system for however long they've been here. I realize they're going to have to learn sometime but even the best guys are going to get beat from time to time. And it seems fairly easy to create matchup and alignment problems where even the simplest of route combinations is leaving guys wide open for easy throws: run the outside guy deep and run the slot on an out and we have no one to cover him. I don't see that type of coverage working out well. Especially against teams like Miami who have a lot more talent at WR than what we've seen so far.

[Atbone95]

 

 

 

 

Definitely an interesting take. USA went deep over and over on the Blackshirts with seemingly no effort to respond from us, but perhaps testing our corners was part of the plan.

 

I could see this if we weren't running the same coverage against BYU. Unless we were fine losing a game as long as we didn't tip our hand to future opponents.

 

So you don't think this staff is capable of holding back schemes for later in the season for specific opponents? McBride did it all the time, worked on schemes all fall and broke them out when needed. These guys have been around the block at least twice, they know better than to show all their cards at once.

Langsdorf said said all fall that he was going to run the fullback and throw to the tightend, yet it really has not happened much yet. I would not be surprised if he did not break out the fullback trap for Miami.

 

 

So it's more important to hold some things back for later than it is to win games?

 

Jesus Mav, come on man. You wouldn't be bitching if we had batted down the Hail Mary. Do you actually believe there was a scheme we could have used on the hail mary that we held back and risked losing? That's insane.

[RADAR]

 

 

 

 

Definitely an interesting take. USA went deep over and over on the Blackshirts with seemingly no effort to respond from us, but perhaps testing our corners was part of the plan.

 

I could see this if we weren't running the same coverage against BYU. Unless we were fine losing a game as long as we didn't tip our hand to future opponents.

 

So you don't think this staff is capable of holding back schemes for later in the season for specific opponents? McBride did it all the time, worked on schemes all fall and broke them out when needed. These guys have been around the block at least twice, they know better than to show all their cards at once.

Langsdorf said said all fall that he was going to run the fullback and throw to the tightend, yet it really has not happened much yet. I would not be surprised if he did not break out the fullback trap for Miami.

 

 

So it's more important to hold some things back for later than it is to win games?

 

No coach wants to lose games and you use your playbook accordingly. The BYU game was not lost until the clock read :00 kind of hard to use any of your playbook after that. As I said earlier, Tom and Charlie always held back a portion of the playbook for later in the season, I believe Riley and Banker are doing the same. I happen to think it is the smart thing to do. If you think they should put everything out on film during the first game, fine, I would think that to seem foolish to most common sense thinking people.

[GSG]

“Always keep your foes confused. If they are never certain who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next. Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you. Remember that, Sansa, when you come to play the game.”

“What . . . what game?”

“The only game. The game of thrones football.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Storm of Swords

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

Definitely an interesting take. USA went deep over and over on the Blackshirts with seemingly no effort to respond from us, but perhaps testing our corners was part of the plan.

 

I could see this if we weren't running the same coverage against BYU. Unless we were fine losing a game as long as we didn't tip our hand to future opponents.

 

So you don't think this staff is capable of holding back schemes for later in the season for specific opponents? McBride did it all the time, worked on schemes all fall and broke them out when needed. These guys have been around the block at least twice, they know better than to show all their cards at once.

Langsdorf said said all fall that he was going to run the fullback and throw to the tightend, yet it really has not happened much yet. I would not be surprised if he did not break out the fullback trap for Miami.

 

 

So it's more important to hold some things back for later than it is to win games?

 

Jesus Mav, come on man. You wouldn't be bitching if we had batted down the Hail Mary. Do you actually believe there was a scheme we could have used on the hail mary that we held back and risked losing? That's insane.

 

 

Have I brought up the Hail Mary play anywhere? Are any of the plays we've been going through in great detail the Hail Mary?

 

I'm talking about the 337 passing yards we gave up BEFORE the Hail Mary. That if we would have played some better defense for the previous 59:59 the Hail Mary could have been inconsequential. So yes, I would have the same complains had we batted down the Hail Mary (other than then it would have just been bad defense, not bad defense that cost us the game).

[Atbone95]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definitely an interesting take. USA went deep over and over on the Blackshirts with seemingly no effort to respond from us, but perhaps testing our corners was part of the plan.

 

I could see this if we weren't running the same coverage against BYU. Unless we were fine losing a game as long as we didn't tip our hand to future opponents.

 

So you don't think this staff is capable of holding back schemes for later in the season for specific opponents? McBride did it all the time, worked on schemes all fall and broke them out when needed. These guys have been around the block at least twice, they know better than to show all their cards at once.

Langsdorf said said all fall that he was going to run the fullback and throw to the tightend, yet it really has not happened much yet. I would not be surprised if he did not break out the fullback trap for Miami.

 

 

So it's more important to hold some things back for later than it is to win games?

 

Jesus Mav, come on man. You wouldn't be bitching if we had batted down the Hail Mary. Do you actually believe there was a scheme we could have used on the hail mary that we held back and risked losing? That's insane.

 

 

Have I brought up the Hail Mary play anywhere?

 

I'm talking about the 337 passing yards we gave up BEFORE the Hail Mary. That if we would have played some better defense for the previous 59:59 the Hail Mary could have been inconsequential. So yes, I would have the same complains had we batted down the Hail Mary (other than then it would have just been bad defense, not bad defense that cost us the game).

 

You're attacking the point of losing. Last I checked we were 1-1, and only have one loss on a 50-50 ball in pass coverage that you're not happy about.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definitely an interesting take. USA went deep over and over on the Blackshirts with seemingly no effort to respond from us, but perhaps testing our corners was part of the plan.

 

I could see this if we weren't running the same coverage against BYU. Unless we were fine losing a game as long as we didn't tip our hand to future opponents.

 

So you don't think this staff is capable of holding back schemes for later in the season for specific opponents? McBride did it all the time, worked on schemes all fall and broke them out when needed. These guys have been around the block at least twice, they know better than to show all their cards at once.

Langsdorf said said all fall that he was going to run the fullback and throw to the tightend, yet it really has not happened much yet. I would not be surprised if he did not break out the fullback trap for Miami.

 

 

So it's more important to hold some things back for later than it is to win games?

 

Jesus Mav, come on man. You wouldn't be bitching if we had batted down the Hail Mary. Do you actually believe there was a scheme we could have used on the hail mary that we held back and risked losing? That's insane.

 

 

Have I brought up the Hail Mary play anywhere?

 

I'm talking about the 337 passing yards we gave up BEFORE the Hail Mary. That if we would have played some better defense for the previous 59:59 the Hail Mary could have been inconsequential. So yes, I would have the same complains had we batted down the Hail Mary (other than then it would have just been bad defense, not bad defense that cost us the game).

 

You're attacking the point of losing. Last I checked we were 1-1, and only have one loss on a 50-50 ball in pass coverage that you're not happy about.

 

 

So you didn't read anything that I just wrote?