- 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
For the 1st time in forever, an opposing Def did NOT stack the box
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:32 am
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:32 am
On 1st and 2nd Down! I don't think this has been mentioned enough. Some people were complaining about the heavy run stats from Canada but he was obviously taking what they were given and gaining good chunks of yardage each attempt. Conservative (in the sense of low chance of TOS) and Ball control with easily manageable 3rd down yardage. It was a Les Miles wet dream except he couldn't figure out the required personnel groupings to get it done. Canada appears to have the formula to keep the defense spread out.
Just the simple shift from a FB to more TEs moves a defender out of the box not to mention the WR motion and the 3WR sets. These LITTLE changes were HUGE and it forces the opposing defense to defend the entire width of the field instead of just between the tackle box.
Just the simple shift from a FB to more TEs moves a defender out of the box not to mention the WR motion and the 3WR sets. These LITTLE changes were HUGE and it forces the opposing defense to defend the entire width of the field instead of just between the tackle box.
This post was edited on 9/5/17 at 7:34 am
7
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:36 am to STEVED00
yeah the dc for byu must've lost his mind. if by the 3rd quarter byu hadn't walked guys down and made Etling make plays then something is wrong.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:37 am to STEVED00
Which was dumb. I guarantee sec oppponents will stack the box until we prove we can beat it.
I have no idea why byu did not.
I have no idea why byu did not.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:39 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Which was dumb. I guarantee sec oppponents will stack the box until we prove we can beat it.
I have no idea why byu did not.
BYU didn't trust their DBs at all
SEC teams will be able to play man outside and put more in the box
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:39 am to Rickdaddy4188
I did find it strange that they didn't make Etling beat them. However it did look like the were defending to keep everything in front of them and not give up the big play run or pass. And though we had 470 yds of offense, we only really had one big play and that was from the passing game.
Stacking the box is a risk too. If Guice gets through it's a TD.
Stacking the box is a risk too. If Guice gets through it's a TD.
This post was edited on 9/5/17 at 7:42 am
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:40 am to Turbeauxdog
Maybe BYU didn't trust their corners one on one against our WRs. But SEC defenses will stack the box and force Etling to make plays. Unlike Miles, I have faith that Canada will anticipate this.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:43 am to Turbeauxdog
Yeah, no clue why they didn't. Was their respect of Guice that strong? Best to assume that every other team from here on will be crowding the box.
Playing zone backfield on defense actually did prevent the big play for the most part for BYU. But with Guice back there, it didn't matter. He will kill you with big plays or nickel and dime you to death.
Playing zone backfield on defense actually did prevent the big play for the most part for BYU. But with Guice back there, it didn't matter. He will kill you with big plays or nickel and dime you to death.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:47 am to Chimlim
quote:WR is our weakest skill position, at least the most unproven. why the BYU DC chose to allow us to have our strength in order to take away our weakness made no sense.
Maybe BYU didn't trust their corners one on one against our WRs.
He'd be a good long term hire at DC.
I'm happy for the win but it makes the results of the BYU game harder to project the rest of the season. No one else is going to play that soft off the line against us.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:48 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:Aside from not trusting their athletes in the secondary to make plays, they really trust their front 7 to make tackles...which they did an excellent job of.
I have no idea why byu did not.
It's why you saw LSU tear off 4-5 yards consistently but not breaking super long runs
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:49 am to Salmon
quote:
SEC teams will be able to play man outside
That's when you have to make them pay for it and I actually have confidence now that we have a coordinator who will exploit things like that. Before we just ran it anyway and didn't make teams pay for selling out on the run. I wouldn't get too worried about being just a running team just yet, because BYU couldn't stop it and you don't get away from things they can't stop. It was smart to keep running the ball and controlling the TOP of the game. If a team is giving him the pass I would bet you will see a more pass oriented attack. He's said several times that he adjusts his offense to what the defense is giving them and thats exactly what he did Saturday.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 7:53 am to Pilot Tiger
True. Sometimes stacking the box and bringing the safeties up means if you break that first level you are gone. They didn't want to see Guice bust through the middle and go for 60 yards. They chose death by a thousand cuts instead. It wasn't a horrible strategy. We just rarely had negative plays that forced us out of our gameplan.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:08 am to BayouCowboy
I've been mulling over why BYU played us like they did on D since the game.
I think y'all are right they didn't trust their corners (especially where speed was concerned) and did trust their tackling (rightly so, they did a good job).
There's a missing piece however. If you're basically going to play bend don't break "rushing version", then to play to win you have to have a complementary offensive plan too.
I think they believed the outside media as far as we are concerned and thought they would be able to move the ball through the air on us. Remember, no one had us in top-5 for DBs and many had us below top-25 overall defense. And then the 2 starters on defense suspended, some D depth suspended, and the fact is they had the utmost faith in their OL.
They planned to give us the run, let us eat clock, make some mistakes, and score relatively often themselves. That's the only thing that explains their defense.
It does not explain however why they didn't change after falling behind. We were only ahead by 14 at the half, but by then they could see their offensive game plan was shot to hell, thrice times over, so the defensive plan was null and void even if we weren't moving the chains well. That's where I'm still at a loss.
I think y'all are right they didn't trust their corners (especially where speed was concerned) and did trust their tackling (rightly so, they did a good job).
There's a missing piece however. If you're basically going to play bend don't break "rushing version", then to play to win you have to have a complementary offensive plan too.
I think they believed the outside media as far as we are concerned and thought they would be able to move the ball through the air on us. Remember, no one had us in top-5 for DBs and many had us below top-25 overall defense. And then the 2 starters on defense suspended, some D depth suspended, and the fact is they had the utmost faith in their OL.
They planned to give us the run, let us eat clock, make some mistakes, and score relatively often themselves. That's the only thing that explains their defense.
It does not explain however why they didn't change after falling behind. We were only ahead by 14 at the half, but by then they could see their offensive game plan was shot to hell, thrice times over, so the defensive plan was null and void even if we weren't moving the chains well. That's where I'm still at a loss.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:10 am to Buga
quote:
However it did look like the were defending to keep everything in front of them and not give up the big play run or pass.
true.
quote:
Stacking the box is a risk too. If Guice gets through it's a TD.
agreed. but if I'm a coach in gonna try to force a great running team to beat me throwing the ball. I'm surely not gonna sit back and die a death of a 1000 cuts. but youre right, I think Etling was up for the challenge of asked to
This post was edited on 9/5/17 at 8:12 am
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:11 am to I20goon
quote:
I've been mulling over why BYU played us like they did on D since the game.
I think y'all are right they didn't trust their corners (especially where speed was concerned) and did trust their tackling (rightly so, they did a good job).
There's a missing piece however. If you're basically going to play bend don't break "rushing version", then to play to win you have to have a complementary offensive plan too.
I think they believed the outside media as far as we are concerned and thought they would be able to move the ball through the air on us. Remember, no one had us in top-5 for DBs and many had us below top-25 overall defense. And then the 2 starters on defense suspended, some D depth suspended, and the fact is they had the utmost faith in their OL.
They planned to give us the run, let us eat clock, make some mistakes, and score relatively often themselves. That's the only thing that explains their defense.
It does not explain however why they didn't change after falling behind. We were only ahead by 14 at the half, but by then they could see their offensive game plan was shot to hell, thrice times over, so the defensive plan was null and void even if we weren't moving the chains well. That's where I'm still at a loss.
spot on imo
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:14 am to STEVED00
One possible reason for not stacking the box, especially as the game went on, was to limit the damage the LSU running attack would cause. They didn't want Guice breaking out of the box and taking it for long yardage. They seem to have decided that they could hold him in check and prevent long runs forcing LSU to have to use a lot of plays on drives, hoping for miscues to stop LSU from scoring.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:15 am to STEVED00
And one of the few times they did stack the box is when etling hit chark for the long gain
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:23 am to Ash Williams
Teams only stack the box against stubborn hard headed coaches who refuse to pass the ball and they know it! "Attack their strength and make them bend" les miles , says it all
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:43 am to STEVED00
BYU did not put a lot of guys in the box, because that's one of the last things you want to do against a team that runs a lot of jet sweeps.
The closer the defense is to the LOS, the more screwed they are when a back gets to the corner.
Example - watch what happened to VT on this play: LINK
The safeties bit on the jet sweep, so they were way out of position and the RB ran for 40 yards down the sideline. If they had been playing farther back, that play gains 10 yards.
The closer the defense is to the LOS, the more screwed they are when a back gets to the corner.
Example - watch what happened to VT on this play: LINK
The safeties bit on the jet sweep, so they were way out of position and the RB ran for 40 yards down the sideline. If they had been playing farther back, that play gains 10 yards.
This post was edited on 9/5/17 at 8:44 am
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:47 am to UGATiger26
Jet sweeps do indeed empty the box.
Posted on 9/5/17 at 8:48 am to Pilot Tiger
We won't face too many teams with a line like BYU's... averaged over 300 lbs per man
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News