Defensive scheme
- Thread starter BigRedBuster
- Start date
Saunders
Administrator
We're going to spend alot less time in a 2-high safety look in this system. We'll push one safety closer to the box, and have the other patrol the middle of the field.
cg_8
New member
The scheme, from what I understand is very similar to MSU. Which is exciting, considering that's a good scheme. But they also have their off games.
I expect us to struggle a bit with highly refined passing schemes. For example, MSU allowed 550 passing yards to Baylor. We aren't playing any teams with that type of high octane offense, but I expect us to be more "bendable" to guys like Brad Kaaya. I can still see us winning the game, similar to last year, but I can see Kaaya throwing 350 yards against us, but it not mattering in the end.
Then again, MSU only struggled on D against teams like Oregon, Baylor and OSU. All conference champions, all of which had an argument to be in the playoff. We struggled with teams like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and USC. Teams that are decent (except Iowa, they suck... we had no business strugglin' with them), but not great teams with amazing offenses.
I think it comes to how resilient we are to that "bending" and whether our offense can pick up some of the slack. It's hard for me to picture being "dominating" on D this year. But I picture us being a lot more competitive in situations that we struggled with previously.
I expect us to struggle a bit with highly refined passing schemes. For example, MSU allowed 550 passing yards to Baylor. We aren't playing any teams with that type of high octane offense, but I expect us to be more "bendable" to guys like Brad Kaaya. I can still see us winning the game, similar to last year, but I can see Kaaya throwing 350 yards against us, but it not mattering in the end.
Then again, MSU only struggled on D against teams like Oregon, Baylor and OSU. All conference champions, all of which had an argument to be in the playoff. We struggled with teams like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and USC. Teams that are decent (except Iowa, they suck... we had no business strugglin' with them), but not great teams with amazing offenses.
I think it comes to how resilient we are to that "bending" and whether our offense can pick up some of the slack. It's hard for me to picture being "dominating" on D this year. But I picture us being a lot more competitive in situations that we struggled with previously.
True2tRA
Banned
True2tRA
Banned
And that's the big one. We were burned by some teams with those short crosses. UCLA and MSU comes to mind. A lot of teams have taken advantage of our Lb'ers in coverage over the recent years. I'd like to see that safety help, like a rover, helping with the middle of the field and as extra help on those HB Swing passes we've been burned on.
BigRedBuster
Active member
I would much rather take the risk of getting burned by the pass than letting it be easy just running all over us.
cg_8
New member
I'm not sure if True is joking or not... haha! But I would say that, yes, we don't have anything scary like Baylor. MSU could be scary. Miami is scary only because of Kaaya.
I'd agree with getting burned. Truth be told, we still got burned in Bo's scheme. We just got burned differently in the passing game. Like discussed before, the short passes and RB passes. I am still very surprised Miami didn't throw to Duke Johnson more often, considering he'd burn us majorly on his 5 receptions.
junior4949
New member
Ditto! I'm not overly concerned about our DL or our secondary, but I am overly concerned about out LBs. This group had better step it up big time, or we will still be suspect against the run.
Last edited by a moderator:
Treand3
New member
I remember Leach saying something to the effect of crossing routes being the way you beat Bo's coverages. Go back and look at ucla/msu games(as you mentioned) 2011 NW, bowl game against UGA, even Southern Miss. Also misdirection always gave his defense issues as well.
