re: Are we really abandoning the nickel under Chavis?

quote:

---

He said his scheme has always flourished with a hybrid, a player who is a blend of linebacker and defensive back, at the outside linebacker spot. It is that sort of ability that enables Chavis' defenses to avoid nickel and other packages requiring wholesale substitutions on a particular down

---

Sounds like the 2009 version of a DROP LINEBACKER to me. Just hope that the Chavis version works out better than Ole Lou's did.

I like the idea of fewer substitutions. Fewer subs SHOULD mean less thinking which SHOULD mean less confusion.

So basically, we'll see a base 4-2-5 defense, with Coleman being that Hybrid LB/DB "Drop Linebacker, with Cutrera and either Riley or Shepperd being the true LB's.........

It makes sense to have a db trying to tackle demps, but what about the shovel to hernandez or the dreaded Tebow draw.

quote:

---

In the nickel we will have 2 LBs, who more than likely should be covering the box area

---

So you are in favor of having Jai Eugene on the field instead of Coleman?

quote:

---

There is no way Coleman can cover WR's

---

Wasn't Coleman the player that Snead ran over on the five yard line and went in for a TD last season?

Good thread. But, when the other team comes out with 4/5 receivers, who goes in for the dime package?

quote:

---

it would sound like that to you because you're an idiot; plus chavis has the audacity to play a black player there must really piss you off.

---

KABOOM

It's pretty simple and something the entire LSU fanbase is ignoring. We will likely be a predominantly ZONE defense under Chavis. That's the only way you run this scheme effectively, and that is what Tenn did last year.

Now, if you have an alarming pass rush, zone works extremely well and you cause a shitload of turnovers. If you have merely a solid pass rush, it's hit or miss. Thank god we have Alem this year, so I'm actually a little more worried about this in 2010 than 2009.

But this is why I always talk about the need for LSU to get speedier DEs, that's the only way for this type of scheme to be great. The 290lb DEs are no longer going to work at LSU, they don't get to the QB quick enough.

And while I expect us to be better on D this year and Chavis is obviously much better than Malveto, I'd personally rather LSU run a different scheme. I'd rather have Peterson, Hawkins, and Eugene in the slot; than us sitting back in a zone. I think we are wasting Peterson's skills to a degree bc there is no need to attack him as much when you're going against a zone.

nickel, dime, who gives a shite?

quote:

---

Thank god we have Alem this year, so I'm actually a little more worried about this in 2010 than 2009.




Montgomery will fill that roll in 2010. He will be a monster off the edge.

---

And Chancey will be of this ilk too

Cahvis' defenses have generally been pretty stout against the run. There's lots of run blitzing and dominant D Tackles