Active vs Reactive DL

[slugboy]

I saw this set of posts yesterday, and thought it might be useful in looking at our defense, changing out DCs so much over the past few years, and what it means for recruiting

 

[slugboy]

I’ll have to look at this, and our film, but I’d expect us to be more in the “reactive” camp last year, and probably before that. I don’t know that we recruit to fit that mold, or go for “best player available”. NFL teams and some of the programs recruiting in the top group have more of an ability to do that.

It also leads me to think that not all top-20 recruiting classes are the same. Really, I already thought that, but this reinforces that. Miami, FSU, and Florida all recruit in the top 20, but is Miami getting their first choices (pretty much) while FSU gets players that might not fit what they’re doing (or should be doing) but have high star rankings? How much has Auburn been getting “highly recommended” players who don’t work well together?

For what it’s worth, I think Miami recruits a lot better than FSU. Miami is ranked #9 on 247 and FSU is ranked #15, but looking at the last four years Miami’s overall recruiting is clearly more effective. In the 247 Talent Composite, Miami is 15th and FSU is 19th, but do any of us think that the two schools are neck and neck in how talented their rosters are?

How is Indiana doing in picking players that work for them, compared to getting the best available players? Do they shop better than other teams? Are they recruiting more to fit their needs?

For our first game, Colorado is 30th in the 247 talent composite, and we’re 39th.

For us, more on the original topic, do our DEs and Edge players pair up well with our DTs and NTs (and LBs on the back)?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I also wonder if this is completely binary. Is it possible that the different defensive calls in a game might call for a DL to penetrate and disrupt on one play and react and reset the line of scrimmage on another play? This would not preclude a defense having a particular personality or favoring one kind of DL over another.

Can’t wait to see your evaluation of what we are going for on DL. I would imagine recruiters like to see film of players doing exactly what they are going to ask them to do in their scheme.

 

[apatriot1776]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess we were a "reacting" DL under Santucci and an "attacking" front last year (though not a great one).

I notice a lot of the reacting DLs tend to have playmaker LBs capable of going downhill. I feel that matches Santucci's philosophy but not Gideon's. Under Santucci, we barely had any sacks but were really good at stopping the run - the DL stayed in their gaps and the LBs can make plays. Compare to last year, we rushed 4 DL all year to try to get pressure, and our LBs were always backpedaling into deep zone, putting us on the wrong foot to stop the run.

The best reactive DL (Georgia, Saban-era Alabama) can sit back to start the play, have the size to not get blown off the ball, are able to make the read, and are still athletic/talented enough to get pressure on the QB anyway. I don't know what Semore prefers, but given the increased focus on DL size, I wonder if we are trending back in that direction.

 

[vamosjackets]

Another aspect to this: Should we run an offense that is more effective at attacking a particular style of defense? ie If UGAg does that reacting style on their D-front, then we should run an offense that is particularly geared toward effectiveness against that front. OR, if more of our yearly opponents (in-conference) run a particular style, then should that then determine the offensive system we run?

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Unless you have 11 All Americans, you always have to scheme to cover for your weaknesses. Depends on which you want to cover for.

 

[jgtengineer]

Another aspect to this: Should we run an offense that is more effective at attacking a particular style of defense? ie If UGAg does that reacting style on their D-front, then we should run an offense that is particularly geared toward effectiveness against that front. OR, if more of our yearly opponents (in-conference) run a particular style, then should that then determine the offensive system we run?

A good offense has schemes that face both.
Reactive fronts are more vulnerable to Power Schemes. Down hill blocking that reset the line of scrimmage as well as a deep passing game since by nature reactive DL's are a bit less pressure oriented at the start (whcih muddies RPO reads).

Attackign fronts are far more vulnerable to counter play, traps and Option attacks. Since you are now reacting to them. Our offensive scheme if we continue with teh GT offense is actually well situated to face either front the issue comes in in if your facing a reactive front you just can't move.

Part of the reason we ran so much RPO was we faced a lot of attacking fronts last year and the quick screen and RPO game can truly make them wrong.

In old sense it was the conceptual difference behind an Attacking 4-3 defense and a Read and React 3-4 in the pros Now these schemes sort of apply to the 3-3 Tite (3-4 with a nickle instead of extra backer which is typically a attacking DL with a reading LB core) and a 4-2-5 which is usually attacks with the middle 3 (2 interior DL and 1 LB) or more often has stunts on the inside with a Nickle blitz.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess we were a "reacting" DL under Santucci and an "attacking" front last year (though not a great one).

I notice a lot of the reacting DLs tend to have playmaker LBs capable of going downhill. I feel that matches Santucci's philosophy but not Gideon's. Under Santucci, we barely had any sacks but were really good at stopping the run - the DL stayed in their gaps and the LBs can make plays. Compare to last year, we rushed 4 DL all year to try to get pressure, and our LBs were always backpedaling into deep zone, putting us on the wrong foot to stop the run.

The best reactive DL (Georgia, Saban-era Alabama) can sit back to start the play, have the size to not get blown off the ball, are able to make the read, and are still athletic/talented enough to get pressure on the QB anyway. I don't know what Semore prefers, but given the increased focus on DL size, I wonder if we are trending back in that direction.

I think it's pretty much the opposite. I saw us try to 2-gap read and react on the DL way more in 2025 alah Groh whereas 2024 we were knifing into gaps Tenuta-esque. A good example is to go look at the tape from the first defensive series in the Duke games each year. I haven't seen GT have success with a reactive DL, it's always been more attacking fronts that have been successful for us.

All that being said, I don't think we were intending to be THAT drastically different in DL approach between the last two DCs and I wouldn't describe us as being particularly biased to a single approach in this regard. Key in fact emphasized that he didn't want us to change what we were doing up front when we brought in wonderboy. I think the main difference in scheme was what we asked of the LB corps but that's another thread entirely.

 

[iceeater1969]

I think it's pretty much the opposite. I saw us try to 2-gap read and react on the DL way more in 2025 alah Groh whereas 2024 we were knifing into gaps Tenuta-esque. A good example is to go look at the tape from the first defensive series in the Duke games each year. I haven't seen GT have success with a reactive DL, it's always been more attacking fronts that have been successful for us.

All that being said, I don't think we were intending to be THAT drastically different in DL approach between the last two DCs and I wouldn't describe us as being particularly biased to a single approach in this regard. Key in fact emphasized that he didn't want us to change what we were doing up front when we brought in wonderboy. I think the main difference in scheme was what we asked of the LB corps but that's another thread entirely.

Groh plan with pelton - hit ol guy to neutralize push, then peek, then go. Mean while lb is clean for tackle
Problem is we were too small and only helped lb with tackle 5 yards downfield..

Shooting gaps is needed when small.

Key says we are bigger in dl.
Will we be mobile?

 

[stinger 1957]

With our having 22 DLs this fall can and will we do both? I've been wondering why we have 22 DLs, maybe this is the reason. Even if you take out HS recruits, assuming they will RS still a lpt of DLs.

 

[TampaBuzz]

With our having 22 DLs this fall can and will we do both? I've been wondering why we have 22 DLs, maybe this is the reason. Even if you take out HS recruits, assuming they will RS still a lpt of DLs.

Maybe it is nothing more than a big sieve. Put 'em all in, shake it up and see if we can find 6 or 7 really productive gems and craft a defense around their skills. Lack of depth in previous years really limited our defensive options.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Groh plan with pelton - hit ol guy to neutralize push, then peek, then go. Mean while lb is clean for tackle
Problem is we were too small and only helped lb with tackle 5 yards downfield..

Shooting gaps is needed when small.

Key says we are bigger in dl.
Will we be mobile?

Key seemed to select "big" from the portal, but big that didn't get much PT elsewhere (generalizing). Big guys with big production seem to be out of market for us, though I'm told we're "competitive" with NIL. Seems like we're taking a bunch of flyers to me and banking on fresh legs and heavy rotation. Seems to have worked for our WR room.

 

[stinger 1957]

Maybe it is nothing more than a big sieve. Put 'em all in, shake it up and see if we can find 6 or 7 really productive gems and craft a defense around their skills. Lack of depth in previous years really limited our defensive options.

I sense we are much better evaluators than having to do that. We certainly have a set up for some big time competition for playing time. CBK has said he likes to play a lot of DLs. I've always thought it was the most tiring position on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

I sense we are much better evaluators than having to do that.

What gives that impression?

 

[33jacket]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess we were a "reacting" DL under Santucci and an "attacking" front last year (though not a great one).

I notice a lot of the reacting DLs tend to have playmaker LBs capable of going downhill. I feel that matches Santucci's philosophy but not Gideon's. Under Santucci, we barely had any sacks but were really good at stopping the run - the DL stayed in their gaps and the LBs can make plays. Compare to last year, we rushed 4 DL all year to try to get pressure, and our LBs were always backpedaling into deep zone, putting us on the wrong foot to stop the run.

The best reactive DL (Georgia, Saban-era Alabama) can sit back to start the play, have the size to not get blown off the ball, are able to make the read, and are still athletic/talented enough to get pressure on the QB anyway. I don't know what Semore prefers, but given the increased focus on DL size, I wonder if we are trending back in that direction.

U have it flipped

Gt needs attacking. 2gap requires a skillset we will never get here consistently.

 

[stinger 1957]

What gives that impression?

Just an over all feel not any one particular thing and just my opinion, I'm not saying we are as good evaluators as Chan Gailey, but think we do a descent job. Chan was one of the best in FB.

 

[takethepoints]

Key seemed to select "big" from the portal, but big that didn't get much PT elsewhere (generalizing). Big guys with big production seem to be out of market for us, though I'm told we're "competitive" with NIL. Seems like we're taking a bunch of flyers to me and banking on fresh legs and heavy rotation. Seems to have worked for our WR room.

I'd say look at Amier Clarke's high school stats. That young man is a sack/TFL machine and was (I read it somewhere) twice region D player of the year. I think that's what we were looking for.

Now we'll just have to see if that works out.

Update: I think we were playing reactive until the second half with Pitt. The difference afterwards was pretty remarkable, I thought.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I’ll have to look at this, and our film, but I’d expect us to be more in the “reactive” camp last year, and probably before that. I don’t know that we recruit to fit that mold, or go for “best player available”. NFL teams and some of the programs recruiting in the top group have more of an ability to do that.

It also leads me to think that not all top-20 recruiting classes are the same. Really, I already thought that, but this reinforces that. Miami, FSU, and Florida all recruit in the top 20, but is Miami getting their first choices (pretty much) while FSU gets players that might not fit what they’re doing (or should be doing) but have high star rankings? How much has Auburn been getting “highly recommended” players who don’t work well together?

For what it’s worth, I think Miami recruits a lot better than FSU. Miami is ranked #9 on 247 and FSU is ranked #15, but looking at the last four years Miami’s overall recruiting is clearly more effective. In the 247 Talent Composite, Miami is 15th and FSU is 19th, but do any of us think that the two schools are neck and neck in how talented their rosters are?

How is Indiana doing in picking players that work for them, compared to getting the best available players? Do they shop better than other teams? Are they recruiting more to fit their needs?

For our first game, Colorado is 30th in the 247 talent composite, and we’re 39th.

For us, more on the original topic, do our DEs and Edge players pair up well with our DTs and NTs (and LBs on the back)?

Most of the time, the last few years it looked like we were not doing either one just getting blown off the ball.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

With our having 22 DLs this fall can and will we do both? I've been wondering why we have 22 DLs, maybe this is the reason. Even if you take out HS recruits, assuming they will RS still a lpt of DLs.

22? Maybe they are going play 11 on 11 flag football.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Groh plan with pelton - hit ol guy to neutralize push, then peek, then go. Mean while lb is clean for tackle
Problem is we were too small and only helped lb with tackle 5 yards downfield..

Shooting gaps is needed when small.

Key says we are bigger in dl.
Will we be mobile?

The longtime Florida A&M coach (RIP) famously said he wanted his defensive players to be "Mobiiile, Agiiile, and Hostiiile" Seems like a plan.