- 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
re: Why You Can't "Stack the Box" vs. Auburn (with graphics/pics)
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
just b/c you have LBs in, does not mean you're leaving WRs open
No, it doesn't. But if you "stack the box" with them against a spread attack, it does. It doesn't really matter what personnel you have in there, if you are sticking 8 men in the box you are leaving people uncovered unless you are sitting back in a zone.
You sit back in a zone and your guys are naturally dropping, which automatically gives space to the runners.
1
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:07 pm to OBUDan
Good job.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
hard to generate a push when you're told to play contain pretty much all game
This is basically a myth you created in your own mind.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:09 pm to Broham
quote:
You trying to say 5 is stacking the box....not hardly man.
Never said anything about 5 stacking anything.
I said we already had 6 defenders in there to account for their 5 man line. It's more or less "stacking the box" just as much as having 8 to counter a 7 person line.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:10 pm to OBUDan
quote:
But if you "stack the box" with them against a spread attack, it does
no it doesn't
quote:
It doesn't really matter what personnel you have in there, if you are sticking 8 men in the box you are leaving people uncovered unless you are sitting back in a zone.
we sat back in a zone anyway, so i don't see your point
quote:
You sit back in a zone and your guys are naturally dropping, which automatically gives space to the runners.
no it doesn't
you don't have to drop far back in a zone
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:10 pm to Factsman
quote:
there was no reason for us to play with a deep safety
Is 10 yards deep?
Because that's where our safeties were on the McCallebb 70 yard run.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:11 pm to OBUDan
quote:
We chose to play them with 5 DBs most of the game. If you went "big" in terms of bringing in LBers, you have major liabilities in pass coverage.
Their formations dictate how we line up
I guess we were defeated before we even got there. Auburns offense is unstoppable? I am glad we didn't attempt to change anything to stop the major liabilities we had against the run.
Defense can't dictate to the offense? Lets see how ole piss and bama do against them when they BLITZ him like crazy. If other teams play a different defensive scheme and shut him down what will be your answer?
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:11 pm to OBUDan
quote:
This is basically a myth you created in your own mind.
there is more evidence for our DL playing contain (namely our DEs barely speed rushing) than for leaving open WRs by playing 3 LBs
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:12 pm to OBUDan
i meant deep as per your diagram
i would have played that safety up by the line tilll they beat us with the pass
i would have played that safety up by the line tilll they beat us with the pass
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:12 pm to OBUDan
one other note, anyone that has watched our defense since Chavis has been here has to be able to tell that his aggresion is dependant on field position. When the team we are playing is on their side of the field he plays "softer" and tries to avoid giving up the big play. When they get on our side of the field he gets more aggresive and takes chances.
My personal opinion is that had we brought 7 in the box and not had a safety deep, more of their 10-15 yd runs would have been 50+ for tds.
My personal opinion is that had we brought 7 in the box and not had a safety deep, more of their 10-15 yd runs would have been 50+ for tds.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:13 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Because that's where our safeties were on the McCallebb 70 yard run.
our D was tired by that point and our point man on that play was brandon taylor, who is pretty clutch at making huge mistakes
that play wasn't on scheme, other than letting brandon taylor be in the role of playmaker
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:13 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
Give it up. This defense of the nickel D against that offensive setup is ridiculous
You have a problem with 5 dbs in against a 4 WR set?
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:13 pm to moneyg
quote:
You have a problem with 5 dbs in against a 4 WR set?
against a rushing team, i do
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Teams beat the spread with line play. That's the bottom line.
You say play a cover 3, etc. etc. We did.
You are acting like we are sitting with safeties 25 yards down the field every play. Not so.
Our safeties were 10-15 yards deep off the LOS on most plays.
We weren't concerned with getting beat over the top.
My main point is the everyone is arguing "stack the box" and that's just not the way to beat this offense. If you put 8 defenders in the middle of the field, you give them the edges of the field to make plays in the running game as well as leave men unmarked in the passing game.
And this whole "DL played contain" bullshite you've spouted in just about every thread so far is just stupid and wrong. DL got outplayed completely, but to suggest they played "contain" or some shite is dumb.
You say play a cover 3, etc. etc. We did.
You are acting like we are sitting with safeties 25 yards down the field every play. Not so.
Our safeties were 10-15 yards deep off the LOS on most plays.
We weren't concerned with getting beat over the top.
My main point is the everyone is arguing "stack the box" and that's just not the way to beat this offense. If you put 8 defenders in the middle of the field, you give them the edges of the field to make plays in the running game as well as leave men unmarked in the passing game.
And this whole "DL played contain" bullshite you've spouted in just about every thread so far is just stupid and wrong. DL got outplayed completely, but to suggest they played "contain" or some shite is dumb.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
our D was tired by that point and our point man on that play was brandon taylor, who is pretty clutch at making huge mistakes
Why were they tired?
They only played maybe 5-6 more total plays than Auburn's defense. Auburn only won TOP by about 3:30 minutes.
They haven't been tired in other games when we've lost TOP by a significantly larger margin and had larger number in play discrepancy.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:16 pm to moneyg
Not if the CB is coming off the corner occasionally on the weak side so the QB can't sit in the pocket all day and decide what to do. If CB pressure came, most likely coupled with an OLB dropping back into a zone blitz coverage (but not necessarily), I suppose that would be okay.
But either way, going man-to-man on the 4 WRs while bringing pressure off the corner would be better than either what I wrote above, or what LSU did.
And LSU didn't change up anything. The defense did the same thing time after time despite knowing that it couldn't possibly stop Auburn's running attack.
Auburn ran 26 times in their last 27 plays of the game, with the one throw being a stupid arse incompletion of 4th down. What does that tell you about what the Auburn coaches thought about our defense?
But either way, going man-to-man on the 4 WRs while bringing pressure off the corner would be better than either what I wrote above, or what LSU did.
And LSU didn't change up anything. The defense did the same thing time after time despite knowing that it couldn't possibly stop Auburn's running attack.
Auburn ran 26 times in their last 27 plays of the game, with the one throw being a stupid arse incompletion of 4th down. What does that tell you about what the Auburn coaches thought about our defense?
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:17 pm to Factsman
quote:
i meant deep as per your diagram
i would have played that safety up by the line tilll they beat us with the pass
It was more a hypothetical than an actual diagram.
I am going to rewatch closely and see how far off our safeties played, but in the plays I watched they were 10-15 yards off.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:17 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Teams beat the spread with line play.
Absolutely false. Teams beat the spread with LB play. Any fool should recognize that.
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:18 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Teams beat the spread with line play. That's the bottom line.
no it's much more back 7 than front 7
your LBs and Ss have to play disciplined and make tackles
OSU and BSU didn't have great DLs last year, but they did well against UO, for example
quote:
My main point is the everyone is arguing "stack the box" and that's just not the way to beat this offense.
every time i've seen a good spread option stopped, it was done with 8 in the box
quote:
If you put 8 defenders in the middle of the field, you give them the edges of the field to make plays
are our players retarded?
first, there is only one side where you have to be worried about wide, and this side is typically easy to diagnose. the only spread option team who ever really was dangerous on both was WV with slaton/white/devine
UF did used to have a nice counter, but the only player who could pull it off was percy harvin (and AU does not have percy harvin)
quote:
but to suggest they played "contain" or some shite is dumb.
our DEs barely attacked, even on 3rd and long
Posted on 10/26/10 at 3:19 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Why were they tired?
we could sub more in other games and we haven't played a power team with talent yet
Page 3 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News