- 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: Is anyone else optimistic about how good we could be on D?
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:07 pm to THRILLHO
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:07 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
Not going to even try finding the link, but I remember PFF actually gave Butler a positive grade against the run, so he wasn't as one dimensional as some may think. I kept trying to find his metrics in coverage,
In 2012, Butler got the follow rankings among 34 OLB's:
Pass rush = 12th
Coverage = 29th
Run D = 7th
Overall = 8th
This post was edited on 8/30/13 at 10:08 pm
1
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:12 pm to Hoodoo Man
Thanks. So it looks like he was pretty bad in coverage. I'd imagine they would have limited him there and put more responsibility on Lofton and Vaccaro/Jenkins.
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:12 pm to LSUZombie
very. cautiously. optimistic.
sure can't be no worse.
sure can't be no worse.
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:27 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
I'm kind of hoping that in obvious passing situations, we simply put either Vaccaro or Jenkins on the opposing TE and let the other play center field.
Here is where there are actually options this season. If they go 3 wide and a TE or 4 wide both Jenkins and Vaccaro can cover man.
I think where we could struggle but teams don't do it as often as us is when they go 4 wide with a TE or 5 wide. But most teams aren't that deep with WR talent and I think our corners maybe could handle it.
I worry more about base packages and ones where Harper has to cover a TE(while I'm up on him and he has been sticking to his man tight, he still doesn't look for the pass and the TE still catches it). These are where I think TEs can do damage to us.
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:29 pm to THRILLHO
quote:I wouldn't say 29th overall is bad. They have at least 64 ranked OLBs(usually closer to 80-90ish) so finishing in the top half or third is pretty good.
Thanks. So it looks like he was pretty bad in coverage
He's actually a pretty good overall OLB and we will miss what he could have brought but now someone else has to step up. Right now it falls to Haralson and Wilson to take his spot.
Edit:
DOH! Yeah I just saw it said 3-4 OLBs(I was thinking all OLBs). How many were ranked?
It's a good thing Ryan only had his OLBs in coverage 10% of the time for the Jack and 20% for the Sam last season. I expect we see something similar here.
This post was edited on 8/30/13 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:33 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
How many were ranked?
He said 34. Don't worry, I'm a little drunk, too.
ETA: I guess there's confusion over whether it was 34 LB's ranked or it was only 3-4 LB's ranked.
I'm not sure which. Would love to have someone on the site with PFF access. I'm thinking about joining up for this season. This post was edited on 8/30/13 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:36 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
DOH! Yeah I just saw it said 3-4 OLBs(I was thinking all OLBs). How many were ranked?
For PFF, the default is to only include players who have played in 25% of snaps.
at 25%, there are 34 OLB's.
For any snaps, there are 72 OLB's.
His coverage put him at 66th if we include everyone.
But the 25% default is probably a cleaner indicator.
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:39 pm to Hoodoo Man
OK, thanks for the clarification. Either way, his coverage numbers don't look good. I think his rankings make him look more suited for the weakside, but if the aforementioned numbers are correct, Ryan keeps his OLB's out of coverage, which would make him a great fit for either side. We probably won't find out until next year.
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:39 pm to Hoodoo Man
Okay I totally confused the whole thing. I took the 34 as meaning 3-4 OLBs.
So is that just 34 3-4 OLBs or all OLBs? Because you have 32 teams = 64 starting OLBs.
So is that just 34 3-4 OLBs or all OLBs? Because you have 32 teams = 64 starting OLBs.
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:45 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
So is that just 34 3-4 OLBs or all OLBs? Because you have 32 teams = 64 starting OLBs.
Last season, 72 3-4 OLB's played.
Only 34 3-4 OLB's played 25% of snaps.
Posted on 8/30/13 at 10:54 pm to Hoodoo Man
Gotcha. I figured that was the case as I know they track 3-4 and 4-3 guys separate.
So he wasn't great in coverage as far as 3-4 OLBs go, but I wonder how he did compared to 4-3 guys.
Still, sounds like the OLBs will be rushing a lot more than being in coverage. What we saw in preseason is not what we will do in the regular season.
Everyone freaking out about Smith was completely missing this fact. He was in there to be a run defender and to pass rush. He was only going to drop a couple times a game just to keep that what if there.
So he wasn't great in coverage as far as 3-4 OLBs go, but I wonder how he did compared to 4-3 guys.
Still, sounds like the OLBs will be rushing a lot more than being in coverage. What we saw in preseason is not what we will do in the regular season.
Everyone freaking out about Smith was completely missing this fact. He was in there to be a run defender and to pass rush. He was only going to drop a couple times a game just to keep that what if there.
This post was edited on 8/30/13 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:33 pm to LSUZombie
Gonna bump this positive thread 
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News