Defensive Scheme

accountability said:
KJ. said:
knapplc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
If there's anything I hate more in this world than the dwindling panda population, it's the lack of work ethic and talent that is pretty apparent amongst the veterans on the defensive line.

 
I dont remember anything changing from '09 to '10 scheme wise. Maybe there were some little things here and there that arent too noticeable. All that really changed was they actually gave a name for what they were doing. In '09, we used 5-6 DBs the majority of the time in conference play (Asante, Ohanlon, Prince, Fonzo, and Gomes and/or Hagg). Basically, Dillard was usually the only linebacker on the field. Only against Kansas St did we have to use a lot of base defense because they were significantly different offensively from the rest of the conference. Will Compton was the other linebacker to get a lot of playing time in that game as a reshirt freshman.

Suh was just a damn beastchild that wouldve made any scheme look like a world-beater.

 
KJ. said:
accountability said:
KJ. said:
knapplc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
If there's anything I hate more in this world than the dwindling panda population, it's the lack of work ethic and talent that is pretty apparent amongst the veterans on the defensive line.
Click to expand...
What the hell do you know about their work ethic? Please elaborate.

By the way, pandas suck. And they are a legitimate waste of endangered species resources.

 
accountability, google "2010 nebraska peso defense" and you'll recall how that changed.

And don't you two get into anything personal here. If you have a gripe, you both know where to air it.

 
knapplc said:
accountability, google "2010 nebraska peso defense" and you'll recall how that changed.

And don't you two get into anything personal here. If you have a gripe, you both know where to air it.
Click to expand...
I dont know for sure what you want me read, but I read the bleacher report article (1st link) and also the one of the NEStatepaper where Carl pelini was quoted saying "not one call will change, just the base is being named peso".

These are supportive of the point I'm trying to make, unless I'm wording things wrong, which has happened to me before.

Nothing really changed from an overally scheme standpoint from 2009 to 2010. They just decided to put a name to this hot idea for attacking spread offenses as opposed to defending them. I remember after the Big 12 championship game against Texas the gameday crew breaking down that defensive performance and pointing out how revolutionary it was what Bo was doing to attack spread offenses.

One huge issue we ran into in the Big 10 was the offenses suddenly became more balanced. They werent nearly as pass happy as the big 12 offenses were. Playing teams like Missouri, Ok St, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, we knew they were going to drop back and throw it 3 out of 4 plays. That takes a lot of stress of the Dline for they can pretty much tee-off. They still stay in lanes, but regardless, it's easier to rush the passer when you know it's going to be a pass.

 
OK, so clearly I'm wrong here. I've got this notion in my head that the defense changed, and I think I'm alone in this thought in this thread.

So everyone help me wrap my head around why this defense is so different. Is it purely personnel?

 
I should also add that the lack of Suh in 2010 probably made it appear to be a different scheme as well. His absence really changed the complection of a lot of the defense. All a sudden we were getting gashed by the run through the middle. Everyone was panicked going into the Kstate game. It all worked out because the the pass coverage was so stout that the running game was simply not enough.

 
knapplc said:
OK, so clearly I'm wrong here. I've got this notion in my head that the defense changed, and I think I'm alone in this thought in this thread.

So everyone help me wrap my head around why this defense is so different. Is it purely personnel?
Click to expand...
I really believe so. It's all centered around a dominate defensive line. We havent had that since 2010. Probably more like 2009. Even McBride himself said 2-gappin relies too much on a dominate interior DT or two. To me though, the defensive talent has been lacking overall all across the board the last couple years that I really dont know what couldve been dont differently. But's that's why I'm not a coach.

 
Also, the overall defensive base has change quite significantly from 2010 to now if maybe that's what youre thinking of Knapp. But the philosophy of the Dline as an individual unit has not in my eyes anyway. Suh just made it appear to be different. Even in 2010 when many of us thought Crick was gonna be the next Suh, it quickly became obvious Suh was no longer here, and there was never going to be another one.

 
accountability said:
KJ. said:
accountability said:
KJ. said:
knapplc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
If there's anything I hate more in this world than the dwindling panda population, it's the lack of work ethic and talent that is pretty apparent amongst the veterans on the defensive line.
Click to expand...
What the hell do you know about their work ethic? Please elaborate.

By the way, pandas suck. And they are a legitimate waste of endangered species resources.
Click to expand...
On Sharpe and Benning, they often speak of what they name as the "Fivesome", who are five DL players in the first two recruiting classes who both Sharpe and Damon agree have highly underperformed and a lot of it is due to work ethic according to them. I don't know either one of you, but my guess is that both Sharpe and Benning are closer to the program and know people closer to the program than either of you, and if they call into question certain player's work ethic and diet, it's a concern. They even mentioned medical hardships and relieving them of their scholarships, something Bo would probably never do. But it's telling when people close to the program and former players are thinking that of some of those DL players.

 
ObamaRocks91 said:
On Sharpe and Benning, they often speak of what they name as the "Fivesome", who are five DL players in the first two recruiting classes who both Sharpe and Damon agree have highly underperformed and a lot of it is due to work ethic according to them. I don't know either one of you, but my guess is that both Sharpe and Benning are closer to the program and know people closer to the program than either of you, and if they call into question certain player's work ethic and diet, it's a concern. They even mentioned medical hardships and relieving them of their scholarships, something Bo would probably never do. But it's telling when people close to the program and former players are thinking that of some of those DL players.
Click to expand...
Thank You. That's very enlightening. I seriously did not know that and it's the first Ive ever heard of it. I dont have access to listen to that particular show. That's all I wanted to know, because I had never heard that perspective before.

It's still kind of a cheapshot comment in my eyes at some student athletes whom even Sharpe and Benning definitely do not know 100% of the story.

 
accountability said:
ObamaRocks91 said:
On Sharpe and Benning, they often speak of what they name as the "Fivesome", who are five DL players in the first two recruiting classes who both Sharpe and Damon agree have highly underperformed and a lot of it is due to work ethic according to them. I don't know either one of you, but my guess is that both Sharpe and Benning are closer to the program and know people closer to the program than either of you, and if they call into question certain player's work ethic and diet, it's a concern. They even mentioned medical hardships and relieving them of their scholarships, something Bo would probably never do. But it's telling when people close to the program and former players are thinking that of some of those DL players.
Click to expand...
Thank You. That's very enlightening. I seriously did not know that and it's the first Ive ever heard of it. I dont have access to listen to that particular show. That's all I wanted to know, because I had never heard that perspective before.

It's still kind of a cheapshot comment in my eyes at some student athletes whom even Sharpe and Benning definitely do not know 100% of the story.
Click to expand...
I know, I agree and was really surprised they went "there" (to the point of bringing in medical hardship). But like I said, they are closer to me, so I can't disagree with them

 
knapplc said:
OK, so clearly I'm wrong here. I've got this notion in my head that the defense changed, and I think I'm alone in this thought in this thread.

So everyone help me wrap my head around why this defense is so different. Is it purely personnel?
Click to expand...
Ndamukong Suh.

 
Back
Top