Anyone have an explanation for the huge cushions we gave the Ole Miss receivers all night?

Extremely soft on defense. Made Ole Miss look better than they really are.

Just trying to be polite

I don’t know what the plan was on defense. I think Baker should explain.

quote:

---

There won't be a good explanation. Keeping things in front of the D ain't worth it when they score TDs once they get in the red zone. The cushions were gigantic and dumb.

---

I understand it maybe if you have a running quarterback who can be an erratic passer, maybe someone like Marcel Reed. Force them to make throw after throw to beat you.

Doesn't make sense when the other quarterback is as accurate as Chambliss though.

That’s the thing. They don’t really have the recievers that can win one on one matchups with our DBs. Made the early game plan on defense so baffling

I honestly hope he runs out this gameplan next weekend, it may work vs A&M. Wasn't going to stop Chambliss though.

It was hard to watch but these things aren’t as simple as they seem in real time. To an extent they probably liked how the plan was working with the number of 3rd and longs we got them into. That’s the goal. They couldn’t get a stop on 3rd and long the entire first half.

If you just man up and send pressure, they mesh you and shallow cross you to death. The key is mixing it up enough where he truly doesn’t know what you’re in, to the extent you can disguise it even with their motion providing tells.

The other reason you play less man is to prevent your guys from gassing out. Again, you could say this actually worked considering our D got much better in the 2nd half. Wasn’t like Louisville game where Chambliss started slow and went off in the 2nd half.

My issue with first half game plan was we went to the simulated pressure and dropping DEs too much. You can tell our pass rushers were holding back and were scared to give up rush lanes. Chambliss sees everything. When we dropped our ends, he sees it. It doesn’t throw him off like it did Vizzina for example. He would just drift and buy his time. Even with 7 or 8 defenders in coverage to guard 4 or 5 in the route, he buys his time and finds the opening EVERY TIME.

My other issue was on the 3rd and mediums, in our zones we were too soft and not really playing the sticks. Too many easy access throws. You can still play a zone shell but tighten up the corners by a few yards to make receivers run real routes and give Chambliss more to think about.

Also the defensive call on the TD with 5 seconds left in the 2nd quarter was the worst call of the game and probably cost us the game.

In summary, I think the plan wasn’t as bad as it seemed, just needed some subtle adjustments. I actually think last nights plan paired with tiger stadium would work pretty well next week against Reed. He likely gets rattled if we’re forcing him to put together long drives and make accurate throws and good decisions. They also run a lot of crossers to get Craver on the move so pressing and man coverage probably not the foundation of that plan.

We did it last year. I expected it and I dont like it.

We can't cover one on one and that's it, simple truth. When the coaches know this they play soft zones trying to put people in throwing lanes and hope the d line can get pressure.