zone defense

H

Hunter94

Heisman Trophy Winner
i find it interesting that bc made the comment that the d should go back to the zone. seems like he is directing coz to reevaluate his coaching philosphy :WTH so i do have to give him credit for getting involved with the d scheme and not just developing the o strategy

hunter

 
I think it would be cool if we could play both man and zone. To complicate the offensive strategy as much as possible. I think if you have the kids to play man, you should be able to play zone.

 
i find it interesting that bc made the comment that the d should go back to the zone. seems like he is directing coz to reevaluate his coaching philosphy :WTH so i do have to give him credit for getting involved with the d scheme and not just developing the o strategy
hunter
Click to expand...
Wow he really made that comment?!?! Seems like something you might want to keep "in house."

 
And then again he may feel he has the speed at LB to do it. You play with what you have. Our rush was poor and our LB's were slow.

03 had Super D that was enough to make it work. Some people just do not realize how importand and how devastating Super D was. Unfortunately when we played better teams they were able to double him and not concern themselves with the others. I would have loved to have seen him play on a 90's blackshirt team. I think he truly was one of the best to ever play at Nebraska if not the best. I think Octavian is in the same mode. We will see.

 
i find it interesting that bc made the comment that the d should go back to the zone. seems like he is directing coz to reevaluate his coaching philosphy :WTH so i do have to give him credit for getting involved with the d scheme and not just developing the o strategy
hunter
Click to expand...
Why the hell didn't we try it last year at all? After how successful it was 2 years ago and after how we struggled in some games you would think that callahan and co might have tried it.

 
Why the hell didn't we try it last year at all? After how successful it was 2 years ago and after how we struggled in some games you would think that callahan and co might have tried it.

THey did play a little xone last year. It is kind of hard to cover wr's when 50% of the DBs don't like the fact that they had to play man to man sometimes.

 
i will say it again.........both Coz and bc coached how they wanted, their own schemes, regardless of talent. maybe after watching film all winter, it occurred to them that you coach to your players talent, not force the same damn square peg in the same damn round hole! if the talent and athletecism is there, sure man to man makes sense, but it takes ALOT of fast, talented players to make it work, so it maybe just makes sense to play zone, while occasionally mixing it up some. as bc said , the Husker D gave up way too many 20 plus yard gains, IMHO, mostly due to man coverage.....think of it in baseball terms, why would you put the best arm (pitcher) on 1st base? same deal, evaluate, measure and mold the D and O around the talent and go with the scheme that takes advantage of your best talent

hunter

 
i will say it again.........both Coz and bc coached how they wanted, their own schemes, regardless of talent. maybe after watching film all winter, it occurred to them that you coach to your players talent, not force the same damn square peg in the same damn round hole! if the talent and athletecism is there, sure man to man makes sense, but it takes ALOT of fast, talented players to make it work, so it maybe just makes sense to play zone, while occasionally mixing it up some. as bc said , the Husker D gave up way too many 20 plus yard gains, IMHO, mostly due to man coverage.....think of it in baseball terms, why would you put the best arm (pitcher) on 1st base? same deal, evaluate, measure and mold the D and O around the talent and go with the scheme that takes advantage of your best talent
hunter
Click to expand...
Gee, and it took this coaching staff 2 spring practices, a fall camp, and one full year to figure that one out??? :wacko: Anyone else could figure that one out after coz's greatest moment, 70-10.

And some of you think that these guys will lead NU to the promised land??? :flush

 
i will say it again.........both Coz and bc coached how they wanted, their own schemes, regardless of talent. maybe after watching film all winter, it occurred to them that you coach to your players talent, not force the same damn square peg in the same damn round hole! if the talent and athletecism is there, sure man to man makes sense, but it takes ALOT of fast, talented players to make it work, so it maybe just makes sense to play zone, while occasionally mixing it up some. as bc said , the Husker D gave up way too many 20 plus yard gains, IMHO, mostly due to man coverage.....think of it in baseball terms, why would you put the best arm (pitcher) on 1st base? same deal, evaluate, measure and mold the D and O around the talent and go with the scheme that takes advantage of your best talent
hunter
Click to expand...
Gee, and it took this coaching staff 2 spring practices, a fall camp, and one full year to figure that one out??? :wacko: Anyone else could figure that one out after coz's greatest moment, 70-10.

And some of you think that these guys will lead NU to the promised land??? :flush
Click to expand...
exactly.

 
I'm not defending Coz/BC in everything here, but keep in mind that zone defense isn't a simple thing to learn or implement - at the very least, it's harder to put in place than man to man.

Last year may very well have been about hiding weaknesses moreso than playing to strengths. Getting a good rush is the first part of an effective pass defense, so that may have played a part as well. Like skers said, slow LBs and no dominant pass rusher means you have to adjust somehow to get the rush or at least try (though I think moving big Titus to the outside would have been a good move).

Seems to me that if the D gives up a 30 yard gain, it doesn't matter much if it's because a CB got burned or a safety bit on a pump fake or took the first man through and forgot the trailing receiver or a LB was out of position on a TE or RB in the flat.

The big difference is if zone breaks down, you get burned a lot more often. At least with M2M there's a jersey in the vicinity instead of the QB having a free shot at a receiver streaking through tumbleweeds.

Could they have moved other guys into the backfield or rotated faster personnel from offense? Absolutely. Allocation of talent was a glaring weakness with last year's coaching effort.

But then, if you had the Bullocks, McPherson and Washington in your defensive backfield, would you be ready to swap in a 3rd string WR because he was a step or two faster?

I think that would be a tough call to make.

IRISH!

 
I think it is good to run both, but this fall we will have the height and talent to run man to man. I would like to see mostly man to man with a bit of zone in there to get some picks and screw up the QB.

 
Those three games were where the OC made Demarrio a non factor. Our defense in 2003 was all Demarrio. He made Bullocks and Washington's job a lot easier. I truly believe he was one of the very best to ever play here. I am very happy that Pelini realized just how important of an impact he would make.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top