Defensive Scheme

[EZ-E]

A ton of teams run a two gap and are very successful with it.

 

[LumberJackSker]

My point is that I don't see other teams using dancing defensive linemen. Other teams aggressively come across the line of scrimmage. The results speak for themselves. The 2012 defense broke several all time futility records.

maybe it has to do with the personel they had last year beside eric martin there wasnt a defensive lineman out there that was a good pass rusher, meredith was to slow Ankrah hasnt proven much either and after baker went down they didnt have anyone on the inside, the d-line sucked but besides burning redshirts i dont think being more agressive would have done much good with that group of guys

 

[knapplc]

We have a bizarre blocking scheme where we release one or more D Linemen on many plays.

Isn't this just called "the zone read"?

Whatever that strategy is, it puts too much pressure on ball handling in the backfield, too early in the play. That's pressure we're putting on ourselves, by scheme, and it's stupid.

And isn't this the exact principle of the zone read, one of our deadliest plays on offense? Read the free defender at the mesh point and make the right call to get a good gain.

We weren't running the same defense in 2009. Have people forgotten so quickly that Suh was allowed to penetrate and wreak havoc back there?

I don't think we're that different. Losing capable 5th and 6th defensive backs has probably forced some changes, but scheme wise the line back then was asked to do the same kind of things; it's what Bo does.

I'm not sure if we adjusted over the course of last year to be more attacking. But I'm with Landlord, Suh was just a special case. It was a huge boon for our defense to be able to wreak havoc like it did while employing that kind of scheme, I think.

No, that is not called "the zone read." The zone read is a specific play where the QB puts the ball in the belly of the RB and "reads" the defensive lineman - whether that's the DE or a DT, depending on the play - and either handing the ball off or keeping it depending on what that player does.

What I'm talking about is a blocking scheme, not a running play. We release D Linemen on pass plays, on diamond formation plays, on... all different kinds of plays. Has nothing to do with the zone read. It has everything to do with deciding that the ball carrier will account for the released lineman, or the scheme of the play will simply flow away from him so he's irrelevant, or the player will make a bad read. It depends entirely on the O Line making the correct blocking read and the D Lineman either being too slow, making the wrong read or not being in position. Unfortunately all teams, from Idaho State to Georgia, have been able to take advantage of this.

I guess I'm not sure what games you guys were watching the past four years. There is a noticeable difference in how the D Line behaves today compared to Suh's era. If you want great example of the Suh-era D Line doing what our line does today, watch them "contain" Tyrod Taylor in the waning seconds of the fourth quarter in 2009. We were so concerned that Taylor would use his legs we made that crazy pocket where we kept him in front of the D Linemen, only to give him all day to throw the ball and make that ill-fated pass. That flew in the face of allowing Suh and Allen to create pressure all day, and we entered that play with several sacks. Matty O'Hanlon even had a sack in that game, as I recall. But then we contain, and it burns us. Prior to that Suh was chasing Taylor up and down the field, and we had him bottled up.

We allowed Suh to attack - to push forward, not to help make the containing pocket - against Todd Reesing as well that year. Reesing was under fire all game and we trounced Kansas because of it. He never got in a rhythm and he was never, ever comfortable in that game.

Fast-forward to 2011 against Washington and "Teeth" Price and we're transitioning into the pocket mode full time, and he doesn't run for hardly anything against us - but he threw passes up and down the field and kept Washington in that game far longer than they deserved to be. We even had Crick that game - who absolutely de-cleated Price, if you recall - and yet we were back to the "make the pocket" defense.

Once Crick was gone, we were left with Baker Steinkuhler... and not much else. And the Containment Era was fully upon us, and we've been torched ever since. Even with LaVonte David to track down mobile QBs behind that slower line we were still gashed for big yards, either on the ground or through the air.

It's just a very different mode of defense than it was when we had Suh. It may be the same general framework, but the way it's implemented is much different.

 

[knapplc]

I have to disagree with the part about Suh being allowed to penetrate and wreak havoc. He wasnt. If you watch his games, he was so quick of the ball and so powerful and he utilized such perfect hand technique that it appeared he was shooting gaps, when actually he was just simply blowing up the offensive lineman within the scheme.

As far as McBride's type of attacking defense not working, that was never stated. I said it was a diferent game. I agree the McBrides scheme would work. There's give and take in any type of defense you choose to use. Unless youre the 85 bears, you cant cover every single angle. The game was different, Charlie Ward was no Braxton Miller, Kordell Stewart was no Vince Young, and the offenses were just flat out a different philosophy.

I'd take Charlie Ward over Braxton Miller any day of the week and twice on Saturdays. Vince Young torched Bo's 2003 defense. So not really sure where we're going with this.

Sure, the offenses are more athletic today than they were in McBride's day. So are the defenses. It balances out. No, you didn't explicitly say that McBride's scheme wouldn't work, but you made a specific point to say that it was "a different era." What does that mean, if not to imply that it would be less effective today than back then? Are you making the statement that McBride's defense would be better today, because that doesn't fit in the context of what I replied to.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I have to disagree with the part about Suh being allowed to penetrate and wreak havoc. He wasnt. If you watch his games, he was so quick of the ball and so powerful and he utilized such perfect hand technique that it appeared he was shooting gaps, when actually he was just simply blowing up the offensive lineman within the scheme.

As far as McBride's type of attacking defense not working, that was never stated. I said it was a diferent game. I agree the McBrides scheme would work. There's give and take in any type of defense you choose to use. Unless youre the 85 bears, you cant cover every single angle. The game was different, Charlie Ward was no Braxton Miller, Kordell Stewart was no Vince Young, and the offenses were just flat out a different philosophy.

I'd take Charlie Ward over Braxton Miller any day of the week and twice on Saturdays. Vince Young torched Bo's 2003 defense. So not really sure where we're going with this.

Sure, the offenses are more athletic today than they were in McBride's day. So are the defenses. It balances out. No, you didn't explicitly say that McBride's scheme wouldn't work, but you made a specific point to say that it was "a different era." What does that mean, if not to imply that it would be less effective today than back then? Are you making the statement that McBride's defense would be better today, because that doesn't fit in the context of what I replied to.

I'm saying that Charlie Ward and Kordell Stewart dual-threat isnt half as dual-threat as the dual-threat that there is in today's styles of offense with the like of talents like Braxton Miller and Vince Young. Again, it's just a different game than it was in 1994.

 

[HuskerShark]

We weren't running the same defense in 2009. Have people forgotten so quickly that Suh was allowed to penetrate and wreak havoc back there? When's the last time we saw a D Lineman do that on a regular basis? A bit with Crick, a bit with Eric Martin, but otherwise the scheme notably changed to a simple containment setup with a slowly collapsing pocket. Bo decided to hold the QB in the pocket and let his (more talented) secondary cover the receivers.

You can't compare what we did the last two years with 2009. There is no Suh on this team, nor is there a Crick. We had nothing remotely comparable to that in this program the last two years, so saying "it worked in 2009" means nothing.

I disagree with this. I distinctly remember Bo saying a number of times how incredible it was that Suh kept leading the team in tackles, because the scheme was set up in a way to where he wasn't supposed to. He was just that other-worldly. I don't know the X's and O's side of things very well, but I think what we ran conceptually was by and large the same idea, just turned more conservative.

Coach-speak.

No. Suh never blew by his man with swim moves. He kept him in front of him but mowed him over and threw him out of the way. That's the same 2-gap technique that we run today, just run with a freak of a man.

 

[knapplc]

We weren't running the same defense in 2009. Have people forgotten so quickly that Suh was allowed to penetrate and wreak havoc back there? When's the last time we saw a D Lineman do that on a regular basis? A bit with Crick, a bit with Eric Martin, but otherwise the scheme notably changed to a simple containment setup with a slowly collapsing pocket. Bo decided to hold the QB in the pocket and let his (more talented) secondary cover the receivers.

You can't compare what we did the last two years with 2009. There is no Suh on this team, nor is there a Crick. We had nothing remotely comparable to that in this program the last two years, so saying "it worked in 2009" means nothing.

I disagree with this. I distinctly remember Bo saying a number of times how incredible it was that Suh kept leading the team in tackles, because the scheme was set up in a way to where he wasn't supposed to. He was just that other-worldly. I don't know the X's and O's side of things very well, but I think what we ran conceptually was by and large the same idea, just turned more conservative.

Coach-speak.

No. Suh never blew by his man with swim moves. He kept him in front of him but mowed him over and threw him out of the way. That's the same 2-gap technique that we run today, just run with a freak of a man.

Doesn't matter how Suh got into the backfield, he still got there. There was no pocket, there was no containment, Suh was allowed to create penetration in any manner he saw fit and harass the ball carrier.

I'll make it easier for you. Here are some of Suh's college highlights. No pocket, no containment, just attack mode:

 

[KJ.]

We weren't running the same defense in 2009. Have people forgotten so quickly that Suh was allowed to penetrate and wreak havoc back there? When's the last time we saw a D Lineman do that on a regular basis? A bit with Crick, a bit with Eric Martin, but otherwise the scheme notably changed to a simple containment setup with a slowly collapsing pocket. Bo decided to hold the QB in the pocket and let his (more talented) secondary cover the receivers.

You can't compare what we did the last two years with 2009. There is no Suh on this team, nor is there a Crick. We had nothing remotely comparable to that in this program the last two years, so saying "it worked in 2009" means nothing.

I disagree with this. I distinctly remember Bo saying a number of times how incredible it was that Suh kept leading the team in tackles, because the scheme was set up in a way to where he wasn't supposed to. He was just that other-worldly. I don't know the X's and O's side of things very well, but I think what we ran conceptually was by and large the same idea, just turned more conservative.

Coach-speak.

Is it, though? Or was Suh just so good that he could blow up lines while still containing?

Especially against mobile quarterbacks, Bo's defensive philosophy (here at least) has always been to contain. While it's easy to remember Suh's highlights, the majority of the season looked more like this:

 

[knapplc]

KJ. I already talked about the fourth quarter of that game HERE. We very clearly changed modes on the drive you've highlighted. Prior to that drive we were putting pressure on Taylor the whole game. We had several sacks, several QB hurries, we did NOT create the "contain pocket" that you see here in the VA Tech comeback clip.

Had we continued to put pressure on Taylor, it's likely we would be talking about that being Bo's first "big win." Instead, we created the containment pocket and we got burned.

 

[The Dude]

I agree the scheme is the same as when Suh was here. The difference being Suh and Crick didn't get blown off the ball 90% of the time like Stein and Rome, or whoever else we through out there. I liked Randle more than anyone else we had, he just couldn't stay healthy. But even with a bum knee, I noticed him getting more push than any of our other tackles. That, I think, is important for a Bo's scheme to be successful. If we're not getting any push up front, the linebackers can't really do their thing properly.

I think Anderson, Santos, and Aflava can be great linebackers, I just hope we have the guys up front to help them reach their full potential - I don't know if any of them are as special as Lavonte David - that's kind of asking for a lot. I'd like to see Randle and Valentine be our main guys. But obviously there's concerns about them staying healthy, and concerns about Valentine being in shape. Although, I don't necessarily think the coaches intend on using Valentine as a 3 down player.

 

[KJ.]

KJ. I already talked about the fourth quarter of that game HERE. We very clearly changed modes on the drive you've highlighted. Prior to that drive we were putting pressure on Taylor the whole game. We had several sacks, several QB hurries, we did NOT create the "contain pocket" that you see here in the VA Tech comeback clip.

Had we continued to put pressure on Taylor, it's likely we would be talking about that being Bo's first "big win." Instead, we created the containment pocket and we got burned.

I don't have the whole game in front of me to verify that bolded part, so I can't really say anything more than I don't think so.

I really don't see a single clip in your Suh highlights posted where Suh is fully aggressive in attempting to sack the QB. He doesn't sprint after the quarterback after shedding his blockers, and he doesn't lose his gap in order to get around the blockers. He mostly shoves them out of the way, and then keeps his balance while approaching the QB which allows him to change direction easily. There's several sacks in there where he waits for the QB to make a lateral move before he goes full speed after him.

In general, containing doesn't have to look as obvious/terrible as it has the last few years. But that's what happens when your defensive line spends more time looking forward to their end-of-the-day-bag of Cheetos than getting better and becoming deserving of the scholarships they absorb. But that's another issue.

 

[Count 'Bility]

KJ. I already talked about the fourth quarter of that game HERE. We very clearly changed modes on the drive you've highlighted. Prior to that drive we were putting pressure on Taylor the whole game. We had several sacks, several QB hurries, we did NOT create the "contain pocket" that you see here in the VA Tech comeback clip.

Had we continued to put pressure on Taylor, it's likely we would be talking about that being Bo's first "big win." Instead, we created the containment pocket and we got burned.

I don't have the whole game in front of me to verify that bolded part, so I can't really say anything more than I don't think so.

I really don't see a single clip in your Suh highlights posted where Suh is fully aggressive in attempting to sack the QB. He doesn't sprint after the quarterback after shedding his blockers, and he doesn't lose his gap in order to get around the blockers. He mostly shoves them out of the way, and then keeps his balance while approaching the QB which allows him to change direction easily. There's several sacks in there where he waits for the QB to make a lateral move before he goes full speed after him.

In general, containing doesn't have to look as obvious/terrible as it has the last few years. But that's what happens when your defensive line spends more time looking forward to their end-of-the-day-bag of Cheetos than getting better and becoming deserving of the scholarships they absorb. But that's another issue.

You know, I was agreeing with your logic and was really impressed with your comments until I got to the bolded part.

What the hell, man?

 

[The King]

In half of Suh's highlights he isn't attacking... I'm not sure why that "proved" your point.

He just doesn't get crushed off of the ball. And when a pass play takes a long time to develop due to coverage or him reading and reacting, then he uses his hands EXTRAORDINARILY well to get off of his block. Notice the other 3 linemen are in contain.

 

[knapplc]

The scheme is not the same. Have you guys forgotten transitioning to the Peso the year after Suh left? Then transitioning again to a much more conservative defense when Hagg graduated?

 

[KJ.]

The scheme is not the same. Have you guys forgotten transitioning to the Peso the year after Suh left? Then transitioning again to a much more conservative defense when Hagg graduated?

The peso was more about personnel in the secondary as opposed to scheme. It hasn't gone away, but we haven't had anyone good enough to do what Hagg did. Just off the top of my head, I know we had Smith and Blatchford do a little bit of it in 2011, and Cooper a tad this year. But those guys are nowhere near Hagg's level of athleticism and can't pull it off more than 3-4 plays.

Eric Hagg was good. Very good.