- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
4-2-5 Scheme or Personnel far fetched ?
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:09 pm
Weak DE: Teuhema, Clark, Neal
Strong DE: Bower, Herron, Washington
DT Space Clogger: Lacoture, Valentine, Bain, Gilmore
DT Gap Shooter: Godchaux, Thomas, LMAO
Sam: Beckwith, Louis, Garrett
Will: Debo, Feist, Riley
Spur: Adams, Thompson, Voorhies
Bandit(Nickel): D.Thomas, Paris, Lewis
FS Ballhawk: Mills, Cutrer, Jefferson
CB 1: Tre, Jackson (lock)
CB2: Robinson or Tolliver
Undersized attacking defense that causes chaos, tackles and swarms to the ball
Possibility of adding Fields, Ugo, Peters, Key, and Reid.
Ugo flipped to Oregon
Strong DE: Bower, Herron, Washington
DT Space Clogger: Lacoture, Valentine, Bain, Gilmore
DT Gap Shooter: Godchaux, Thomas, LMAO
Sam: Beckwith, Louis, Garrett
Will: Debo, Feist, Riley
Spur: Adams, Thompson, Voorhies
Bandit(Nickel): D.Thomas, Paris, Lewis
FS Ballhawk: Mills, Cutrer, Jefferson
CB 1: Tre, Jackson (lock)
CB2: Robinson or Tolliver
Undersized attacking defense that causes chaos, tackles and swarms to the ball
Possibility of adding Fields, Ugo, Peters, Key, and Reid.
Ugo flipped to Oregon
This post was edited on 1/8/15 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:19 pm to NamariTiger
Man I hope the DEs pack on weight this offseason. 230lb-240lb is awfully light.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:21 pm to NamariTiger
4-2-5 is pretty much the nickel. We run that at least 50% of the time already.
Spur and bandit = SS and nickel.
Spur and bandit = SS and nickel.
This post was edited on 1/8/15 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:22 pm to jtran1988
I think that would be a great scheme...
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:30 pm to KG5989
Yeah but TCU runs their's like 4-3 under scheme with a 2 robber and cloud coverage on opposite sides of the field.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:34 pm to NamariTiger
I would love this system but I feel like you have to have a dominant DLine to keep the OLine off our undersized back 7 if you run it.. And I am not sure we got the talent for that up front
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:44 pm to wesman21
4-2-5 base defense would be ill-advised for LSU, especially with the power teams in the SEC. It requires a dominant interior to stop the run and plays towards a passing offense. We use our linebackers a lot in run defense.
I would prefer a base 4-3 and then just run a Nickle as necessary. Which we do a lot anyway.
I would prefer a base 4-3 and then just run a Nickle as necessary. Which we do a lot anyway.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 9:55 pm to NamariTiger
Ok... Should have just said we should run TCUs D, and not just the 4-2-5
And while we have the CB and nickel to run it, Mills would struggle as the lone safety. Would rather him in 1 of the nickel spots and put Adams as the lone safety.
Plus, you sacrifice some beef up front which would come back to hurt us vs the run considering how we struggled agaianst it this year. You would be taking out a LB and have 2 DBs playing outside the tackle box. And it takes away from Debos strength, which is playing in space. . He would struggle, so would LL. Beckwith and Kwon could have done it though.
And at the same time, I don't see the need for it considering we were 1 of the best in the nation agaisnt the pass and have a lot of talented DBs. Patterson started running this D because he was struggling on the back end vs talented offenses. We have the DBs to matchup with anyone in the nation. Our big problem is stopping the run inside.
And we ran something similar to it in 2011 when we had Mo and Simon as the CBs with Ron Brooks and TM as the slot CBs. We just went man to man a lot because we had the players to do it.
And while we have the CB and nickel to run it, Mills would struggle as the lone safety. Would rather him in 1 of the nickel spots and put Adams as the lone safety.
Plus, you sacrifice some beef up front which would come back to hurt us vs the run considering how we struggled agaianst it this year. You would be taking out a LB and have 2 DBs playing outside the tackle box. And it takes away from Debos strength, which is playing in space. . He would struggle, so would LL. Beckwith and Kwon could have done it though.
And at the same time, I don't see the need for it considering we were 1 of the best in the nation agaisnt the pass and have a lot of talented DBs. Patterson started running this D because he was struggling on the back end vs talented offenses. We have the DBs to matchup with anyone in the nation. Our big problem is stopping the run inside.
And we ran something similar to it in 2011 when we had Mo and Simon as the CBs with Ron Brooks and TM as the slot CBs. We just went man to man a lot because we had the players to do it.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:15 pm to KG5989
Chavis called this the mustang package.. we ran it a lot
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:15 pm to NamariTiger
Do you like getting run over by teams like MSU, Auburn, Bama, etc?
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:19 pm to FavoriteAnon
Actually the Mustang is a 3-2-6
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:22 pm to NamariTiger
how did that work against Notre Dame?
Anyone who can run with power will give us a major issue.
Anyone who can run with power will give us a major issue.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:36 pm to SammyTiger
This is TCU's 'base' D. My guess would be they adapt it for the particular O they're facing. But it's hard for me to see Notre Dame running all over them.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:40 pm to KG5989
quote:
Ok... Should have just said we should run TCUs D, and not just the 4-2-5 And while we have the CB and nickel to run it, Mills would struggle as the lone safety. Would rather him in 1 of the nickel spots and put Adams as the lone safety. Plus, you sacrifice some beef up front which would come back to hurt us vs the run considering how we struggled agaianst it this year. You would be taking out a LB and have 2 DBs playing outside the tackle box. And it takes away from Debos strength, which is playing in space. . He would struggle, so would LL. Beckwith and Kwon could have done it though. And at the same time, I don't see the need for it considering we were 1 of the best in the nation agaisnt the pass and have a lot of talented DBs. Patterson started running this D because he was struggling on the back end vs talented offenses. We have the DBs to matchup with anyone in the nation. Our big problem is stopping the run inside. And we ran something similar to it in 2011 when we had Mo and Simon as the CBs with Ron Brooks and TM as the slot CBs. We just went man to man a lot because we had the players to do it.
I'm glad to know someone actually knows something about defense. I see your point of LSU having so many talented DB's why not put them to use? A lot of them do get used when they have matured enough to play. The issue is facing a balanced offense. Against A&M or Ole Miss we might as well just play out of a based 4-2-5. Heavy passing offenses. But as far Arky, Auburn, Miss St, and Alabama who all run effectively, you really need that extra linebacker. DB matched up against a tight end or an offensive lineman is no bueno. We have recruited a ton of DBs in the past too. I don't know. It's preference. You could easily run a base 4-2-5 with a 4-3 package or even a 4-4, but with Arky's emergence and most of the east still running power offenses it would be wise to keep 4-3.
Our troubles don't like in schematics but in personnel. We've been decimated up front and pay the price. Before you start anywhere on a defense, that's where you need to start. A good defensive line can hide a bad secondary. Our issues come from not being able to pressure the QB with four down lineman. It doesn't have to be every play but it certainly helps ha.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:49 pm to USARMYDasher
Yea I agree...
And when we play the spread offenses of the world, TAMU, Oregon, Ole Miss, etc. we pretty much run a 4-2-5 nickel most of the time, with some dime. Vs power running teams, it's s base 4-3 most of the time.
I love that we have guys that are so versatile and allow us to run multiple defensive schemes. IMO, your personnel should dictate what you run. You want to play to your players strengths. And we have been lucky enough to have a lot of talented and versatile players and are able to run a lot of different looks.
And when we play the spread offenses of the world, TAMU, Oregon, Ole Miss, etc. we pretty much run a 4-2-5 nickel most of the time, with some dime. Vs power running teams, it's s base 4-3 most of the time.
I love that we have guys that are so versatile and allow us to run multiple defensive schemes. IMO, your personnel should dictate what you run. You want to play to your players strengths. And we have been lucky enough to have a lot of talented and versatile players and are able to run a lot of different looks.
Posted on 1/8/15 at 10:50 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
This is TCU's 'base' D. My guess would be they adapt it for the particular O they're facing. But it's hard for me to see Notre Dame running all over them.
We ran a 4-2-5 the entire bowl game.
And they ran all over us.
TCU's defense has been sort of boom or bust. 61 points to Baylor, 33 to Oklahoma, 30 to WVU, 30 to Kansas and them som 3 points games and a shutout.
a base 4-2-5 is going to have match up issues. Team that can run take advantage of it.
This post was edited on 1/8/15 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:04 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
a base 4-3-5
That's 12 players
Posted on 1/8/15 at 11:10 pm to KG5989
If you can get away with it....
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News