- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
A thought concerning the defensive scheme...
Posted on 9/29/13 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 9/29/13 at 9:55 pm
I am by no means an expert and do not claim to be such, and Chavis obviously knows more about the defensive aspect of football than I could ever hope to learn BUT....
With the players that we have in the secondary right now, it's obvious that the cover 2/tampa 2 scheme isn't getting the job done. It's less about the physical aspect than it is the mental aspect.
These young guys in the secondary are simply blowing assignments and not covering well in the zone, at all.
What would the rant think if we came out in a cover 0 or cover 1 look? We could line up our best against theirs and go full man to man coverage with occasionally a safety to help over top and commit the other 6-7 players to run stopping/blitzing. This could potentially slow down the running games for teams like Alabama/Florida/Arkansas who want to establish the run, while possible creating a few more sacks and possible produce some turnovers.
Yes, eventually the corners are going to get beat and they will give up a big play, but as it is now, they are getting torched anyways because the opposing offenses seem to understand the defensive concepts better than our own defense.
TL:DR/Cliffs Notes - Would it be worth it to play man or have 1 safety over top and bring multiple extra defenders blitzing to create turnovers and stop the run while giving up the big play possibility?
With the players that we have in the secondary right now, it's obvious that the cover 2/tampa 2 scheme isn't getting the job done. It's less about the physical aspect than it is the mental aspect.
These young guys in the secondary are simply blowing assignments and not covering well in the zone, at all.
What would the rant think if we came out in a cover 0 or cover 1 look? We could line up our best against theirs and go full man to man coverage with occasionally a safety to help over top and commit the other 6-7 players to run stopping/blitzing. This could potentially slow down the running games for teams like Alabama/Florida/Arkansas who want to establish the run, while possible creating a few more sacks and possible produce some turnovers.
Yes, eventually the corners are going to get beat and they will give up a big play, but as it is now, they are getting torched anyways because the opposing offenses seem to understand the defensive concepts better than our own defense.
TL:DR/Cliffs Notes - Would it be worth it to play man or have 1 safety over top and bring multiple extra defenders blitzing to create turnovers and stop the run while giving up the big play possibility?
8
Posted on 9/29/13 at 9:59 pm to NWLATigerFan12
I'm all for blitzing.. agree totally, but dline has to get better..
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:00 pm to NWLATigerFan12
I'd like to see cover 1. I thought these young players were supposed to be pretty fast. The only problem I see is if we still do not get enough pressure on the QB (or the QB is a runner.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:02 pm to NWLATigerFan12
quote:
With the players that we have in the secondary right now, it's obvious that the cover 2/tampa 2 scheme isn't getting the job done. It's less about the physical aspect than it is the mental aspect.
well we've mixed it up pretty well during the years, but I just don't think loston is good enough for a cover 2 or a cover 1 scheme. He needs to be used like Roman Harper from now on and in the box.
At some point in the defensive arse whooping, we should have started blitzing just because we weren't slowing them down anyways. A sack would have been huge
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:02 pm to TigerTerez0307
quote:
Posted by TigerTerez0307 I'm all for blitzing.. agree totally, but dline has to get better..
D-line needs some steroids, lots of food and time with Moffit!
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:02 pm to Paluka
quote:
The only problem I see is if we still do not get enough pressure on the QB (or the QB is a runner.
Which is why we should have done it this game. The problem was the same result
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:03 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
At some point in the defensive arse whooping, we should have started blitzing just because we weren't slowing them down anyways. A sack would have been huge
That's exactly what Georgia did to us the last 2 drives...doesn't always work, but it did on the last drive. Had we done that at some point, who knows.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:06 pm to NWLATigerFan12
I commented on this earlier and I totally agree. IMO, we need a high risk high reward style D this year. Yes we'll give up big plays and yards, but we can also create turnovers and havoc. Hell the Saints won a Super Bowl with this style of defense.
This post was edited on 9/29/13 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:08 pm to TheBaker
Need to create turnovers by putting pressure on the QB. D'backs can't cover well enough to give any opposing QB time to throw.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:10 pm to TheBaker
quote:
we need a high risk high reward style D this year.
That is what Oklahoma State did the year that they had Weeden and Blackmon on offense...the year that they should have played us in the BCSNCG
They led the nation in turnovers if I remember correctly, but did allow alot of big plays at the same time. They just had an offense good enough to capitalize on nearly every turnover. We actually have that for a change right now. With our offense like it is now, I think we can sacrifice some big plays given up to steal 2-3 possessions off of turnovers.
This post was edited on 9/29/13 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:13 pm to NWLATigerFan12
Thing is, zone assignments require more chemistry in the secondary and are more mentally challenging than man coverage. I don't think you would normally sit in zone on the outside until these guys get more experienced working together and communicating.
We should be primarily in man anyway with the athletes we recruit at DB.
But it becomes a problem if you can't get pressure. We haven't gotten pressure even when bringing 5 or 6. When you can't get pressure in man coverage, you're going to get torched. Too much time for the DB's to hang on their man.
To compensate for this lack of pressure Chavis runs more zone than he would otherwise. It's really a Catch 22 until the front 7 improve.
We should be primarily in man anyway with the athletes we recruit at DB.
But it becomes a problem if you can't get pressure. We haven't gotten pressure even when bringing 5 or 6. When you can't get pressure in man coverage, you're going to get torched. Too much time for the DB's to hang on their man.
To compensate for this lack of pressure Chavis runs more zone than he would otherwise. It's really a Catch 22 until the front 7 improve.
This post was edited on 9/29/13 at 10:15 pm
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:13 pm to NWLATigerFan12
Exactly. We can't scheme like 2011 or last year and expect to just line up and out muscle offenses. We HAVE to recognize our personnel and scheme accordingly.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:27 pm to TheBaker
Honestly the biggest thing we are lacking is a Patrick Peterson, Mo Claiborne, or Tharold Simon. I know that Simon is nowhere as good as the other two and he catches alot of hell for giving up big plays last year, but he did a good job of taking away one side of the field. When he got beat (and that happened more often for him than for the other 2, which is why we noticed) he was all alone on an island. PP7 and Mo very rarely got beat but were isolated on the number 1 receivers every single week.
Since we have always had that one side of the field on 1 on 1 coverage, we had an extra man who could just drift in the nickle and create havoc (TM7, Brooks). Now we can't have a drifter like that because we don't have anybody we can trust on the island. We have to have that extra man in zone coverage helping out.
Since we have always had that one side of the field on 1 on 1 coverage, we had an extra man who could just drift in the nickle and create havoc (TM7, Brooks). Now we can't have a drifter like that because we don't have anybody we can trust on the island. We have to have that extra man in zone coverage helping out.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:34 pm to TheBaker
D-line is where is starts and we are weak there. Hopefully the Chief will cook up something good going forward.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:45 pm to NWLATigerFan12
quote:
A thought concerning the defensive scheme
The biggest mistake we made defensively yesterday was trying to stop them on their last drive, which ran the clock down under 2 minutes. If we had simply accepted reality and known we had no chance whatsoever of stopping them, we could have just let them score on the first play and saved time for our offense to answer.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:48 pm to SpookeyTiger
quote:
Hopefully the Chief will cook up something good
Not even Emeril can cook a pile of shite and make it taste like anything other than a pile of shite. There's no talent to work with on this defense. Nothing the coaches can do but recruit players. Couldn't plan on 11 guys leaving early last year, but hell even high school players are better than this, and for some reason we didn't have even high school talent waiting in the wings.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:53 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
If we had simply accepted reality and known we had no chance whatsoever of stopping them, we could have just let them score on the first play and saved time for our offense to answer.
quote:
but hell even high school players are better than this, and for some reason we didn't have even high school talent waiting in the wings.
and the hits just keep on coming...
Posted on 9/29/13 at 10:57 pm to ForeLSU
I was just talking about this very topic with my buddy today. You would atleast eliminate te confusion that was apparent in the secondary this year.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 11:00 pm to NWLATigerFan12
Blitz baby, blitz. Kill it before it gets started.
Posted on 9/29/13 at 11:08 pm to Nuts4LSU
Anybody that thinks we don't have talent on the defense has zero information about recruiting. We're swimming in it. The problem is that they aren't gelling yet. And we're weak at DB which is completely new territory for us. As much as I hoped Loston would live up to the hype, he's just not that 'cerebral'. He's all physical. Mills/Collins/White is not anywhere near what we've had the last six years. White will be, but asking him to be versus a serious QB/Receiver like what he went against this week is wishful thinking. He's going to have to be worked in slowly. Problem is that once again, Collins is not a DB genius. He's a physical specimen.
That's an NFL kind of mindset in recruiting which is part of why so many LSU guys go to the NFL. But we've got to be more selective. Mathieu was not an NFL kind of DB based on his physical stats but the dude had a gift and that's showing itself in the NFL. We've got to take into account the intangibles. While Loston is a beast when he's on, he's no Reid.
We will get better as the year goes along. Especially on the line, but the DB's are going to be vulnerable because the problems there are all in their head.
That's an NFL kind of mindset in recruiting which is part of why so many LSU guys go to the NFL. But we've got to be more selective. Mathieu was not an NFL kind of DB based on his physical stats but the dude had a gift and that's showing itself in the NFL. We've got to take into account the intangibles. While Loston is a beast when he's on, he's no Reid.
We will get better as the year goes along. Especially on the line, but the DB's are going to be vulnerable because the problems there are all in their head.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News