Defensive Change is on the way

99jacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
105
Location
South Georgia
I think in order to defend the spread offenses of the day we are recruiting tweeners so that we can change looks and matchups without mass substitutions. Offenses have been doing this for a few years with hybrid WR/TE, RB/WR and even athletic OL who line up as a TE. So to me it makes sense to add tweeners on defense that can cover all the multiple looks offenses use today. Especially with the no huddle being so popular. Sometimes you have to adjust with what you have on the field. Tweeners are probably the best way to accomplish this.
 

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
One of the problems I see necessitating a change in defensive philosophy is our talent issues on the interior d-line. I've been rewatching some games from this year, and we have nobody even close to Pat Gamble returning on the interior d-line for 2017. I really think Desmond Branch is going to be our best interior d-lineman next year. Adams is fat right now, Glanton is smallish and lacks technique, and, let's be honest, Kyle Henderson, despite what the gameday program might say, is 5-10 270, maybe. We are going to get knocked off the ball so bad next year, your heads will spin. And we will sorely miss Justin's ability to pass. After the crappy, injury-ridden season of 2015, Justin had his best passing year by far. I like what Coach West has done with our o-line in terms of pass blocking, but I can't at this time see Matt Jordan being able to get it done in this part of our game. One's only hope is that one of the redshirted freshmen will somehow master the option while being able to sling it like Justin did very adeptly in 2016. Not likely. One has to wonder if some of our former players who recently transferred foresaw this and bailed.
I like to wait till the season starts to start making statements. (Nothin against you) jmo.

And Kyle cerge-henderson only 270? I don't see that.

 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,095
I don't mean to be picky or to throw off the thread, but theses are changes in defensive schemes. Calling something like this a "philosophy" is a misuse of the word, imho.

So, enough.
 
Messages
2,034
Look putting in some kind of hybrid defense with 7 DBs is fine, until we play Georgia who will line up and run the ball down our throats. We still need 4 stout D line man and 2 stout LBs. I am not concerned about the teams that throw 70 times a game.
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
@Ibeeballin made the original post about Roof switching the defense up to be multiple.
I think conceptually the base will still be a 4-3 Under which is kind of a hybrid defense in itself. (Mess of 4-3 & 3-4)

Depending on the team GT will play players to fit. I expect more man and less zone, a little more attacking (which hasn't been Roof's m.o.). Probably will remind you of the Falcon's D which isn't a bad thing.

Dline is still an issue regardless.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,652
Look putting in some kind of hybrid defense with 7 DBs is fine, until we play Georgia who will line up and run the ball down our throats. We still need 4 stout D line man and 2 stout LBs. I am not concerned about the teams that throw 70 times a game.
May not translate but u of H beat Louisville and frequently lined up 2-3 dl and 1 lb and the rest db. I did not see the whole game but when I watched they either rushed very few or a bunch. The smaller guys didn't stay blocked and there were no long runs and no qb scrambles past slow dl and lb. They had U of L totally confused and off the field.
 

Philhutch80

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
221
May not translate but u of H beat Louisville and frequently lined up 2-3 dl and 1 lb and the rest db. I did not see the whole game but when I watched they either rushed very few or a bunch. The smaller guys didn't stay blocked and there were no long runs and no qb scrambles past slow dl and lb. They had U of L totally confused and off the field.

Well they also have a stud 5-star freshmen on the DL who was giving the mediocre at best UL OL fits all night. 11 sacks by your OL is just unexcusable. Hopefully our D becomes this effective.
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
19,550
@Ibeeballin made the original post about Roof switching the defense up to be multiple.
I think conceptually the base will still be a 4-3 Under which is kind of a hybrid defense in itself. (Mess of 4-3 & 3-4)

Depending on the team GT will play players to fit. I expect more man and less zone, a little more attacking (which hasn't been Roof's m.o.). Probably will remind you of the Falcon's D which isn't a bad thing.

Dline is still an issue regardless.
Thanks for helping me remember where we saw this before. Merged the 2 threads together.
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,613
As in all things regarding defense, I trust Ibeeballin's judgement. I would maintain that our primary problem is personnel and a lack of speed at linebacker. I agree that we must change things up on defense but seriously doubt this will be the holy grail we all want.

I suspect this is a scheme to bolster our third down defense where some kind of change is needed.
 

Josh H

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
394
Look putting in some kind of hybrid defense with 7 DBs is fine, until we play Georgia who will line up and run the ball down our throats. We still need 4 stout D line man and 2 stout LBs. I am not concerned about the teams that throw 70 times a game.

Clemson throws it 70 times a game and has slaughtered us the past 2 years. UNC as well. I'm a little bit concerned about matching up with them.

UGA under Mark Richt was kind of a pro spread team, they'd go run heavy on early downs but were not afraid to pass out of the shotgun on 3rd and long. Kirby Smart seems to be going the Alabama route with monster O-lineman that just blow you off the ball and a suffocating defense. It remains to be seen whether or not he can pull that off. Alabama accomplishes this by having probably the best defensive coach in college football along with signing 30+ of the best athletes available every year.

In any case, we would not win by playing UGA's game. Saban *wants* you to try and match up with Alabama. Look at all the close games with LSU and how Alabama has destroyed any pro-style team in the past 4 years (I'm looking at you, Michigan State). They have more athletes and will wear you down. The teams with success against Alabama does something that nullifies, or at least slows down, the advantage of those athletes.

Of course, I'll also take 4 stout D lineman and 2 stout LBs as well :)
 

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
The reason I started and titled the thread is that imo it is more of a philosophical change than merely scheme changes. CTR has historically employed a bend don't break has D wherever he's been and his recruiting trends have confirmed this. What I see in recruiting, especially the last 2 classes, is multiple players that can play inside or outside. Players that can play in multiple scheme. Again, to me, this reflects a fundamental change in our DC. I asked originally if anyone knew if TR has had any interaction with DQ as what I'm seeing reflects very much what DQ did in Seattle and is doing in Atlanta. We truly won't know until fall and beyond but I hope that TR decided to become much more aggressive with the D!
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
I don't mean to be picky or to throw off the thread, but theses are changes in defensive schemes. Calling something like this a "philosophy" is a misuse of the word, imho.

So, enough.

Potato, potata, patatoe
Scheme,alignment,philosophy - These words are often used interchangeably even though their reference in discussing D can be apples and oranges in reference.

How the players are utilized, attacking vs more read and react etc., makes more of a difference between comparative Ds than the number of wide bodies vs hybrid type guys (LBs / safeties) used inside the box. Ditto for one gap vs 2 gap responsibilities.

Any of the above can be just as effective as the rest so long as the players fit the approach and are implemented properly. Bama could switch to a 4-3 and be just as effective as previously so long as they keep comparitive philosophy and talent on par with prior years. Changing the alignment matters less than philosophy of use and talent level IMO.
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
I like the players in this class particularly the DB's are big, long, & physical. It speaks to the philosophy change. Players that can play multiple positions and be hybrids that won't have to leave the field against the uptempo spreads.
 
Top