Chinander Defense

[Toe]

Freedom seemed just fine as a 4-3 DE...

[Husker in WI]

3 minutes ago, KCBuc said:

Please bring back the attacking 4-3. Extra guys coming to disrupt the offense. Before you say they don’t have the DEs to run it, they don’t have the DT to run a 3-4. 

 

4-3 and 3-4 can both work, and this is only year two of the 3-4. Also the "extra guys coming" is more of a 3-4 thing, obviously you can blitz out of either but most of the time you're rushing four. I don't think the specific scheme we're running is the biggest issue, although at this point we're not a perfect fit for either since most of the upperclassmen were recruited for a 4-3. Talent and knowledge in the scheme are a little lacking at the moment, and you don't fix either of those with a change to the 4-3. You'd also need a new coordinator since I can't think of any coordinator who has switched things that drastically - give Chinander some time.

 

We also do have the DTs for the 3-4, they're just young (Daniels), out of football shape (Vainuku), learning/growing into the position (C. Davis) or not on campus yet (Fair/any other recruits). Stoltenberg is a man but definitely out of position as a 3-4 nose, and Newell is pretty undersized. I don't think we'd do any better as a 4-3 at this point - Freedom would be better as a 4-3 end, but I don't think enough better to want to change schemes entirely.

[Undone]

Back to the OP's point, the problem we're seeing in basically every game outside of Colorado is too many times where the other team is lined up in a power set but we're not bringing guys up to the line to man up. 

When you combine this with a severe lack of individual pass rushing ability it just makes for a bad defense, no matter whether we're getting the right personnel into the starting roles or not.

[Mavric]

2 hours ago, KCBuc said:

Please bring back the attacking 4-3. Extra guys coming to disrupt the offense. Before you say they don’t have the DEs to run it, they don’t have the DT to run a 3-4. 

 

3-4s can be at least as attacking and possible more.  Just look at the Steelers under Dick LeBeau.  

 

The problem isn't the front (alignment).  We attacked a lot against Colorado.  We haven't as much since.  Probably a combination of reasons.  Guys still learning the defense.  Not all the packages installed yet.  And maybe needing a few more Jimmys and Joes.  

 

From the way they've talked since they got here, either they are working up to what they want the defense to be (but haven't gotten there yet) or they are completely blowing smoke.  I'm fairly certain it's the former.

[admo]

23 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Can't find it in any of the highlights. I'm assuming the game will be posted at some point.

 

It was.  And as I was about to post it on Monday but it got quickly removed.  Because the BTN wanted to show the game in 60 minutes on it's show this week

 

So yeah, maybe it'll be unprotected/released again in a 40 minute version at some point soon (or within 2 weeks, day by day).

[BoSolich]

this will likely be the 2nd straight year we don't have a player drafted on defense. 

 

doesn't matter who the DC is, the talent is not there.

[Ratt Mhule]

No matter how many people want Chinander to be a magician and magically turn this terrible defense around in 5 games, you cant turn chicken s#!t into chicken salad. 

[Undone]

14 hours ago, Mavric said:

The problem isn't the front (alignment).  We attacked a lot against Colorado.  We haven't as much since.  Probably a combination of reasons.  Guys still learning the defense.  Not all the packages installed yet.  And maybe needing a few more Jimmys and Joes.

 

So you think that despite the fact that attacking worked really well in game one of year one of a totally new program and defensive coordinator that a combination of reasons then immediately culminated after that game to change Chinander's mind to stop attacking?

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here.