re: Does our defense have issues with the zone-read option?

quote:

---

I ready dont know what to tell you other than you are dead wrong. The type of blocking doesn't matter as long a you have gap exchanges built into your scheme. And any defense worth a shite has them. Spacing? You think spacing makes this offense schematically different? You, sir, need a few more years coaching little league before you can start thinking.

---

Yes spacing absolutely makes an offense different. Georgia Tech and Oregon’s spacing are completely different, and it makes the defense adjust accordingly, both from a personnel and schematic standpoint. Against Georgia Tech’s tight splits and quick-hitting sets you’re likely to see teams line up in a 3-3-5 stack like LSU did against Georgia Tech. We played with our studs/spurs/whatever you call them about two yards off their EMOL perpendicular to the LOS to keep their WRs from cracking us. Played games with our NG and MLB to disrupt the dive and then bellied out their option and suffocated it with inside-out pursuit.

No one is going to run a 3-3-5 stack against Oregon, you’d be crazy to do-so. If you’re going to run an odd-man front, which I wouldn’t suggest, you’d have to modify it to a Double Eagle or a Flex. Oregon will play with splits similar to that of Texas Tech. They’re not going to veer you because they’re not trying to get a double-team on the playside. They’re going to zone you because they’re trying to create creases horizontally that they can hit vertically.

Look, in the most general sense of the word, sure the offenses are similar. They are both based on option principles. However, to use the comparison of Georgia Tech and apply it to Oregon is simply not feasible. How many times will one of our DL need to defeat a double team against Oregon? I’d say maybe 2-3 times the entire game. How many times did we see the bubble screen against Georgia Tech? Once, maybe. How about four verticals?

The offenses, from their blocking concepts to their passing attack, are completely different. It’s way too much of a generalization to say the two are similar. It’s like saying a split-back and an I-form offense are the same because they both have two backs in the backfield and they can run some of the same action.

Guy's we will be fine. I hate freshman Landry got hurt. That an along with the RS problem will hamper us in the passing game. But I still think we will win with defense * the running game.

quote:

---

Agree totally. But it makes the way you align different. Not the way you have to defend a scheme. If a team aligns in Ga Techs double wing, you would have your options covered somehow. The possibilities are limited only by your imagination. Now, take the two slots and move them out to a spread alignment. You would have to spread out your defense to cover the field, but you wouldn't have to change your scheme. Gaps are gaps.

---

Yea I guess I’m just saying they’re not great comparisons in the sense of the techniques and personnel you will practice and implement in gametime situations. While your base scheme may stay the same (because I never recommend wholesale scheme changes to combat an opponent’s system as they always leave you playing slow and confused while they’re executing something they’ve run all season), you do need to tweak it some.

What I’m saying is the tweaks will be significantly different between the two teams. You’re not going to see you DL practice how to defeat the double team this week they’ll be drilling on not getting reached and how to maintain leverage. Things of that nature.

O and by the way I love actual football talk on this board

isn't it worth pointing out that our game against Ga Tech had no involvement from Chavis?

Who? Baker maybe. Who else is a senior? Taylor wasn't starting then was he?

He and several others went to practice every didn't they?

quote:

---

yup. i would still say that Oregon runs a much simpler offense, just at a breakneck pace.

---

I’d argue the exact opposite. You could make the argument that Georgia Tech’s running attack is more complicated – although I wouldn’t buy it – but they don’t have any semblance of a passing attack. Oregon actually has a decent passing attack that they use to kill defenses when they overcommit to the run (yes I’m talking about you Monte Kiffin and your USC team that made Darron Thomas look like Steve Young).

I’m all for playing teams aggressive, but we cannot play Oregon like we did Georgia Tech. For anyone who was in the stands during that game, it was embarrassing the lack of respect we gave Georgia Tech’s passing attack. We never had any less than eight guys in the box and zero press or man free behind them. Against Oregon we’ll definitely try to take away their running game, but we will show their passing attack more respect. Combine this with superior athletes and the breakneck pace you mentioned and Oregon is a much more difficult offense to stop.

quote:

---

I think the offense is going to be forced to either complete passes

---

If we keep putting Simon and Claiborne in one on one matchups, we are going to lose. Oregon's passing attack is quick with screens and slants that will negate blitzes. I disgaree, I think we need to keep our safeties in coverage and keep their receivers covered. The key for this game will be the Dline, they will have to contain Oregon's running game.

Last two post or both right to some degree. I think Chavis will have to mix up the defensive scheme. Oregon is nothing like Ga. Tech was and Ga. Tech should really have never in be in this thread because they were so different than Oregon. Chavis better have a good game plan... play it simply like we did against Ga. Tech and we will lose the game to big Oregon plays.

The way I see it is LSU without a doubt player wise has the advantage. But that is assuming all our db's are as good as we hope they are. The advantage I see for Oregon may not manifest it self this year, but last year LSU had hell stopping any team that ran the zone option and we sure as hell had the personnel to do it.