re: Why You Can't "Stack the Box" vs. Auburn (with graphics/pics)

I'll post this again...this was Cam's long run for a TD...you can go watch the video if you don't think I've drawn it up right:



For all of you that say "we should have crowded the box...walked safeties down....crowded the box"

Hell! Walk 2 safeties down in the box, we left both DEs unblocked...we got a blocker for them.

Point is,the score was tied at 17 with 7 minutes to go and WE had the ball with a chance to take the lead. I'd say aside from giving up a ton of yards the d had us in the game. What hurt was the 3 big plays in the seond half. Even still we had a shot on the road to win the game and their defense owned us. fairly almost got the handoff on first down on that series and sacked the qb on 3rd down.

quote:

---

What will they do?

---

1. Show various looks
2. Runblitz
3. Try to disrupt blocking schemes with stunts
4. add a 5th d-linemen to plug the middle
5. or add a 3rd lb and take out a db (in lsus's case)
That would be things I believe dc's will concentrate on.

Since you contend that LSU ran the correct gameplan to stop or contain Auburn I assume you believe every team will run the same gameplan LSU ran?

You also contend that the d-line didn't execute the gameplan so i am going to ask your "expert" opinion since you claim that you know so much more than everyone on this board....if the d-line and defense in general is not executing, tackling, etc what should have been done? From your arguements it seems in your infinite wisdom and coaching expertise that you would have stuck with the gameplan hoping the players started executing it properly. My whole contention has been to try something different so please inform me what would have worked or an alternative to allowing 440yds rushing?

quote:

---

Newton ran right up the middle for about 15 yards

---

I see Shepard wasn't playing in the middle. It was an easy read obviously on Newtrons part.

quote:

---

1. Show various looks
2. Runblitz
3. Try to disrupt blocking schemes with stunts
4. add a 5th d-linemen to plug the middle
5. or add a 3rd lb and take out a db (in lsus's case)
That would be things I believe dc's will concentrate on.

Since you contend that LSU ran the correct gameplan to stop or contain Auburn I assume you believe every team will run the same gameplan LSU ran?

You also contend that the d-line didn't execute the gameplan so i am going to ask your "expert" opinion since you claim that you know so much more than everyone on this board....if the d-line and defense in general is not executing, tackling, etc what should have been done? From your arguements it seems in your infinite wisdom and coaching expertise that you would have stuck with the gameplan hoping the players started executing it properly. My whole contention has been to try something different so please inform me what would have worked or an alternative to allowing 440yds rushing?

---

I knew that type of response was coming at some point. I claimed no expertise, and I didn't claim anything about LSU's execution. My wisdom is primarily in realizing that I don't know defense at that level of football despite having watched as much on TV or in person as anybody in their mid 40s can have watched as a fan. As well as realizing I'm not at practice every day, don't know what LSU has talent wise, and am not in the lockerroom at half time or pregame. Nowhere in this thread have you seen me suggest any scheme, or defense as an alternative to what LSU did. Nor did I say they "did the correct thing". I said I thought they did well considering. I wouldn't know the correct thing except in the aftermath IF it worked. Which is kinda one of my major points I've tried to make with all the other "experts" here. The only thing I've done here is illustrate plays we ran using video, and say that I though LSU appeared to do what I thought was a pretty good job of "containing" Cam for most of the game. I've offered no real expertise, except showing the simple math of how many players in the box favors who. That's nothing but math. The only way I've even approached anything like any suggestion was to agree with OBU that walking down the safeties and going man free the entire game would have been VERY risky. That, in fact, along with good run blitzes would be the ideal things to do, IF you could pull it off...but it's fraught with risks, especially when a team can pass effectively. As with all things, it's often much simpler "in theory" than in practice. I never said it was wrong to walk safeties down, only risky, and I don't know the talent level of all your DBs in man coverage. I suspect Chavis has an idea what they are capable of.

quote:

---

This is a topic for another time, but it's worth a word on how you defend the spread offense. It's not difficult -- in theory. And clearly, teams have gotten better at it. But defending a team like Florida, with all their talent, is quite the chore. Defending a spread team where the quarterback is not a threat to run, whether by design or talent (ahem, Michigan) is the simpler task. But if the quarterback can run, the offense gains the advantage of an extra blocker when it can spread receivers and the quarterback can run.

Against the old option attacks, the quarterback's counterpart had to line up on the line of scrimmage and hit the quarterback on the line, and the defense basically had to play without a safety (are you listening, Georgia?). Against the I formation attacks so popular in the '90s (and earlier), the quarterback's counterpart -- the free safety -- could stand back in the middle of the field and keep the quarterback from throwing against single coverage. Indeed, the rage in the '90s was the rise of the "eight-man front" defense, and this was the defense the spread developed to counter. But against the spread where the quarterback is a legitimate dual threat, like Florida has with their Heisman winner, the defense must do both of the above. The quarterback's counterpart has to be on the line of scrimmage to hit the quarterback on runs (as with the option attacks), and back in the middle against passes (as against traditional formations). This is not a debatable point; as Homer Smith said, "this is arithmetic, not theory." The answer is that you have to have safety-type players who can play the quarterback but also can, if it is a pass play, race back and play as either a robber or as a safety. The defense simply must be able to play man, and it must have the ability to blitz and attack both the quarterback and any other backfield player. (Though this is not easy; faking is better than ever, partially because it involved reading and not faking.) Finally, you must have the ability to zone-blitz to put pressure on the quarterback but still take away the short slants and quicks (or at least threaten to be able to do so).

In other words, you have to play defense like Nick Saban does. But there is no foolproof system; speed is king; and players win games. And there is no doubt that a spread like Florida's is a beautiful thing to watch because it forces the defense to play perfect and to succeed it must be able to multi-task like defenses have never been asked to do before.

---

LINK

I don't know what other coaches will do. Other coaches may not run the same base schemes as LSU and Chavis. Other Coaches certainly have different talent sets at different positions. Others may be capable of doing things that LSU wasn't capable of, or isn't used to doing...they may be able to do some things better, and may not be able to do some things as well. Some may do exactly the same thing and execute it better.

Your suggestion of stacking the box is good, in theory...IF, IF other things are in place to make it such that the potential rewards outweigh the potential risks. IF they are at LSU, and IF they didn't do it, then maybe you have a point. Do you KNOW what your defensive talent is capable of the way Chavis does? Im guessing that the plan they put together was sound on paper and geared to the talent they have in place. JMHO, YMMV.

Oh, I'll go out on a limb here, and say that I doubt anyone will be running a 5 man line vs our 4 wide look, or running a 4 man line with 3 LBs vs that look either...not intentionally anyway. Some of you act as if Cam is completely inept at throwing the ball.

quote:

---

Buck Sweep

---

As noted above appreciate the informative posts. AU punted only three times the entire game. Curious on what your thoughts were on why we actually did stop you 3X verses the absolute steamrolling we got the rest of the afternoon?

LINK

And I will comment on one thing on execution, and adjustments. In the play I diagrammed here, LSU had adjusted the both the play of the DE...having him step down in the hole vacated by a down blocker, which is a standard time tested adjustment, and changed the alignment of the Will LB...which I think was played by #11. But our #80, a WR blocked him on the play, AND your FS crashed down to the LOS scrimmage in plenty of time to make the tackle, but whiffed. Leaving only Peterson to beat after the other WR's did their job blocking. So, in theroy, they had it defensed, just as described by the Smart Football guys...with a S that was supposed to play the pass, but solid run support, and with a LB and DE working in tandem. On this play, the coaches made the adjustment, the players didn't execute. You asked what do changes do you make when players aren't executing? Well the obvious answer is you make substitutions...with 2nd stringers of course.

This is what gets me about fans saying "they didn't make the adjustments." The coaches clearly adjusted, and to a good enough scheme...the players failed to execute.

quote:

---

If anyone can stop Newton, it will be Saban. He will have the advantage of seeing what everyone else has done, and what did not work. From there, I am sure he will cook up a gameplan.

---

I just want to add that Saban's defense looked hapless against the Florida attack in 2008. Florida's offense lost the dynamic of Harvin last year and took a step backward. They were still good, but Harvin gave Florida that versatile guy that could take any play the distance.

He shut them down last year without Harvin and again this year in their identity crisis offense.

It should be very interesting to see what he does to try and contain the monster that is becoming Newton.

quote:

---

The only two teams who really slowed them down were MSU and Clemson, but the more you watch them play the more you get the feeling that had less to do with those teams having great plans and executing and more to do with Auburn still meshing and finding out what works and what doesn't for their offense.

---

We didn't start running the option as our base play until we played USCe. Prior to that, Malzahn still had in mind to be a balanced run/play action team, with a smattering of zone read. Because they never ran full speed hitting vs the QBs in practice, they really didn't know what they had in Cam until he got on the field. Another tribute to Malzahn's ability to adjust on the fly IMO. Most simply credit Cam, but Malzahn adjusted to him, and had the knowledge and ability to do so.

quote:

---

We didn't start running the option as our base play until we played USCe. Prior to that, Malzahn still had in mind to be a balanced run/play action team, with a smattering of zone read. Because they never ran full speed hitting vs the QBs in practice, they really didn't know what they had in Cam until he got on the field. Another tribute to Malzahn's ability to adjust on the fly IMO. Most simply credit Cam, but Malzahn adjusted to him, and had the knowledge and ability to do so.

---

This is what I suspected.

I felt really confident heading into the game having only watched Auburn play some against MSU, some against Clemson and then a good bit against Arkansas. I thought the Arkansas game was simply a product of a shootout.

I'm now of the opinion that Auburn's offense is just that good. I say this, not just because they beat LSU, but now reviewing the evolution of the team... if Auburn doesn't have a let down game, I don't see anyone beating them with the way this offense is humming.