(09-30-2014 09:07 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  The excuse that tackling high is what they are teaching in the NFL doesn't wash. These guys aren't NFL caliber players with NFL caliber size.

Whether Mick or TT, I filtered out the crazy sh!t these guys try to sell the masses every week long ago. Case in point.

Takes a brilliant staff to decide they don't match up well with an opponent's weakness, so they choose to play to the opponent's strength instead. One might also think you'd reverse course on that decision after witnessing the first two drives.

(09-30-2014 10:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 09:07 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  The excuse that tackling high is what they are teaching in the NFL doesn't wash. These guys aren't NFL caliber players with NFL caliber size.

Whether Mick or TT, I filtered out the crazy sh!t these guys try to sell the masses every week long ago. Case in point.

EXACTLY

LBs and DTs are certainly big enough, so they SHOULD tackle high. But, much smaller CBs/Ss??

(09-30-2014 09:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  We did both. At times we had guys in the box and other times dropped a bunch into coverage. When the opposing teams rips off big yardage on 1st down the entire game the scheme does not matter.

Scheme would make a difference if you fixed your player groupings. Since our weakness appears to be with defensive linemen that can't get off their blocks because they are either too small or too inexperienced.

Then why not change the defense to a 3-4 with 4 D1 college linebackers on the field at all times except for 3rd and long when the nickel makes sense. That will keep the OL guessing who to block and give us much more athleticism in the middle for gang tackling. We can alternate our DT's frequently to keep them fresh at nose guard, and give Hartsfield and Mouhon the ability to put their hand down or stand up. They wouldn't be ripping off big yards on first down if we went with a 3-4.

3-4? Do we have anyone remotely strong enough on the d-line to play 3 technique?

Yeah let's cram another system down their throats. They can't even adjust to the one they got...

uh...do these guys know how to coach?!?!?!?!?

(10-01-2014 05:48 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 09:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  We did both. At times we had guys in the box and other times dropped a bunch into coverage. When the opposing teams rips off big yardage on 1st down the entire game the scheme does not matter.

Scheme would make a difference if you fixed your player groupings. Since our weakness appears to be with defensive linemen that can't get off their blocks because they are either too small or too inexperienced.

Then why not change the defense to a 3-4 with 4 D1 college linebackers on the field at all times except for 3rd and long when the nickel makes sense. That will keep the OL guessing who to block and give us much more athleticism in the middle for gang tackling. We can alternate our DT's frequently to keep them fresh at nose guard, and give Hartsfield and Mouhon the ability to put their hand down or stand up. They wouldn't be ripping off big yards on first down if we went with a 3-4.

This makes sense. Adjust your scheme to your personnel. Kinda like if you have spread personnel you should play the spread rather than a pro. We do not have playmakers at dt, so lets use the extra lb. Can it get worse?

I liked the comment at halftime by TT about how we had some wrinkles on D we were going to use in the 2nd half. Then they ran 2 entire snaps out of the double eagle/bear that Va Tech used against OSU before going back to what has not worked for 3 straight weeks in playing an outnumbered 6 in the box against the run.

(10-01-2014 05:53 PM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  3-4? Do we have anyone remotely strong enough on the d-line to play 3 technique?

Yeah let's cram another system down their throats. They can't even adjust to the one they got...

The 4-2 nickel is working so well. You must be right.

The 3-4 would get more athletic players with size and speed in the box, and allow them to have room to roam by by keeping OL from instantly engaging.