Bend but don't break

[LumberJackSker]

11 hours ago, southernoregonhusker said:

Yep, I thought we'd see a lot of zone blitzes and pressure on the passer.  What we've been handed instead is a junior high defense.  UCONN fans are right.  Diaco sucks.  

Why did people think this? There were plenty of articles after he was hired that said he used soft coverages and didn't send pressure. Just because its a 3-4 doesn't mean its going to be an aggressive defense.

[southernoregonhusker]

1 hour ago, LumberJackSker said:

Why did people think this? There were plenty of articles after he was hired that said he used soft coverages and didn't send pressure. Just because its a 3-4 doesn't mean its going to be an aggressive defense.

Because Riley talked about using it in the CFL and how they put tons of pressure on the QB.

[BIG ERN]

I remember during the spring that Diaco said he was going to be 'multiple' and go 3-4 and some 4-3....Was he only talking about Gifford putting his hand in the dirt on occasion? Still would like to see a true 4 man front from time to time with DT with the other 3 starters. 

[Mavric]

22 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

I remember during the spring that Diaco said he was going to be 'multiple' and go 3-4 and some 4-3....Was he only talking about Gifford putting his hand in the dirt on occasion? Still would like to see a true 4 man front from time to time with DT with the other 3 starters. 

 

Yes.

 

People made a big deal about not showing our 3-4 during the spring game.  All we were doing is having Davis (now Gifford's spot) put his hand down.  That's all it is.

[The Dude]

I didn't expect all kinds of crazy blitz packages, but I also didn't expect to see a 3 man rush so often.

[Stumpy1]

9 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Not covering does not equal confusion.

It can though.  I'm sure some of it has to do with confusion and some with just losing sight of the responsibility.

[Mavric]

Just now, Stumpy1 said:

It can though.  I'm sure some of it has to do with confusion and some with just losing sight of the responsibility.

 

It can.  But just assuming that is a pretty lazy observation.

 

I haven't found any play where it looked like we were confused on who we were supposed to be guarding.  There were a lot of plays where we were just simply not very close to the receivers.  If someone has an example they'd like to point to, please feel free.

[RedDenver]

9 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Not covering does not equal confusion.

The way Riley was talking it sounded like he meant that the player was covering the wrong route, as in it was a mental lapse. He mentioned that we covered the post better in the 2nd half and got an INT off of it.

[Mavric]

Just now, RedDenver said:

The way Riley was talking it sounded like he meant that the player was covering the wrong route, as in it was a mental lapse. He mentioned that we covered the post better in the 2nd half and got an INT off of it.

 

Like I said, that is still assuming confusion.  It's not necessarily the case.  If you have a specific play you'd like to point out, go ahead.

 

Riley is the king of coach speak.  He knows how to say what people want to hear.  And he can talk for a long time without ever saying anything very specific about what happened.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Like I said, that is still assuming confusion.  It's not necessarily the case.  If you have a specific play you'd like to point out, go ahead.

 

Riley is the king of coach speak.  He knows how to say what people want to hear.  And he can talk for a long time without ever saying anything very specific about what happened.

I'm telling you what Riley said because it is different than your take. You may very well be right.

[Mavric]

And Riley isn't going to come out and say "I think our game plan really sucked today" no matter how bad it was.

 

So since he's always talking in generalities, it's pretty hard to really gain anything about what worked or what didn't.