Postgame BC

[Boomergump]

Yes, the one long play is better than a 17-play ram it down our throat thing because it seems like cutting out the one big play is easier to fix than getting physically dominated. BUT, there is no validity in throwing it out when looking at our YPP because the YPP stat is going to be one that we use as a comparative stat - we're in competition with every other team. So, throwing out our long play would mean every other team should throw out their long play. You've got to keep the whole body of work in there if you want to have a valid comparison to other teams. I'm not as worried about getting less than 6 ypp as much as I am getting in the top 40 in ypp. We don't have to be a perfect football team to win a NC, we just have to be better than everyone else. Plus, a long TD will beat you (and almost did) on the scoreboard the same as a short one will.

I agree with not removing them from stats analysis, absolutely. I was just expressing my level of stress over them.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

 

[elwoodgt]

A lot of times what people call "aggressive" isn't really what I would like to see. It's not just about blitzing, it's how you blitz. And, what do we even mean by "blitz".

For most in the football business, a blitz is when you send 6 or more and you're playing man or man-free behind it. Tenuta did this some, but more often, he sent 5. This was called a "zone-dog". And, you never knew who the 5 were going to be and where they would be coming from. It could be 4 DL and a LB or 3 DL and 2 LB's or 3 DL a LB and a DB, you get the picture. Now, is this aggressive? Yes and no. I'd call it creative, controlled-aggressiveness. Sending 5 still gives you 6 to cover all of the zones in the passing game, so you've still got 3 deep and 3 underneath or 2 deep and 4 underneath. So, it's got elements of the aggressive blitz and elements of the safe zone coverage and run fits/support. And, a big part of what made it effective is the deception/disguise. Everybody in the back 7 were moving, buzzing up and back, and the OL/QB would be very taxed to try to know before the snap who was coming and where they were going to be coming from. So, sending 5 in this way could very well provide more pressure on the QB than just sending 6 with less disguise.

As ibeeballin pointed out in his vids, we actually ran some similar stunts in the first series against BC. Bench-Falcon-9-Anchor ... a zone dog where the Sam comes off the edge, the DE big sticks (crash inside hard), and the Mike loops through the B-gap. Weak DE actually drops into coverage. We're playing 3 deep behind it. So, you've got the Will covering the middle who is also able to run to the ball freely in case a ball carrier gets through the penetration from the zone-dog, the weak DE covering the hook/curl/flat and acting as an outside force player on that side, a safety buzzed up to cover hook/curl/flat on the other side and acting as outside force defender. Then you've got another safety and 2 corners playing cover 3 behind all that. The buzz-safety and WDE are taught to anticipate and take away the quick throw which takes away the QB's hot route. Again, you have the benefit of aggressive defense without sacrificing the conservativeness of zone support behind it (thus still minimizing chance of a big offensive play that gets by/behind everybody - you heard ibeeballin say it - "Live to play another down").

When we ran this against BC, it was wide open for a big sack (possibly a strip-sack) both times on the first series. The lane for the Mike was wide open, unimpeded to the QB. Once the Mike just inexplicably decided to go into the trash inside instead of looping through the lane in the B-gap. Another time he does loop correctly and is immediately in on the QB for a sack but the QB steps up and easily avoids the Mike who slips down and makes it into a positive run rather than a sack. So, when we run this stuff, it isn't getting home ... why? Lack of disguise or simply lacking making the play. Why didn't the mike make the play? Was it the player, was it lack of coaching up, lack of reps doing that kind of stuff, or maybe we chalk it up to first game mistakes. One was bench-falcon, another was tomahawk I believe ibeeballin said. I don't remember that one as much. Was that a Tenuta stunt @Ibeeballin ? I remember most of his being named after birds and drinks and weather. My mind is getting fuzzier, but I seem to remember bird names being zone-dogs, drink names were blitzes (man free?), and weather names were sending 7 (0 - man-coverage).

My whole point is that simply saying "We need to be more aggressive" or "We need to blitz more" is not going to be sufficient to cause our defense to get better results. It has to be whole-sale systematic defensive play. And, it has to be sound and complimentary to everything else you're doing on defense and compatible with all of your different personnel packages.

Sigh. I miss Tenuta.

 

[Sideways]

I've got a theory about our defense. It also relates to our offense as well. There was a saying, when I was in the army, you train like you fight. Our defense trains the opposite of the way it should fight. Our defense plays our offense. (Scout team As well) So, just like Bc's defense, it is better when playing our offense, to let plays develop and not react off of instinct. This however is a detriment when playing other offenses. The purpose of training being that you don't think, you react. Our defense is most likely pretty good in playing our offense.
Tech gets astronimically better as the season progresses due to unlearning the training of playing itself.

First, permit me to thank you for your service to our country. I have a theory too. Alas, it is simplistic and is not very helpful. We have not recruited well on that side of the ball. Defense, to me, is primarily about the proverbial "Jimmies and Joes" while offense permits talent deficiencies to be covered up to some extent by clever scheming. OTOH there are those who will swear that our scheming on defense has been much too conservative. I happen to agree but the thought of our corners left on an island matched up with some of the wide receiver talent in this league is frightening.

 

[Sideways]

If someone says, "We don't have the players we need to be 'aggressive'", wouldn't the counter-argument to that just be "We don't have the players we need to not be 'aggressive'".

True dat. But if your livelihood depended upon making the decisions regarding defense it just might temper some of those aggressive tendencies. But yes, what you say is correct. Personally, after years of watching the bend don't break defense getting bent back like a slingshot I am more than ready to roll the dice and bring the blitzes. Corner blitz, safety blitz, red dog, zone, and everything in between. I really think the fan base would be more forgiving of an aggressive blitz happy defense that would necessarily give up the big play on occasion.

 

[rosebud78]

True dat. But if your livelihood depended upon making the decisions regarding defense it just might temper some of those aggressive tendencies. But yes, what you say is correct. Personally, after years of watching the bend don't break defense getting bent back like a slingshot I am more than ready to roll the dice and bring the blitzes. Corner blitz, safety blitz, red dog, zone, and everything in between. I really think the fan base would be more forgiving of an aggressive blitz happy defense that would necessarily give up the big play on occasion.

I'm of the belief it's our lack of pressure from the dl, jimmies and joes, which makes us feel the need to scheme blitzes and such.

 

[vamosjackets]

First, permit me to thank you for your service to our country. I have a theory too. Alas, it is simplistic and is not very helpful. We have not recruited well on that side of the ball. Defense, to me, is primarily about the proverbial "Jimmies and Joes" while offense permits talent deficiencies to be covered up to some extent by clever scheming. OTOH there are those who will swear that our scheming on defense has been much too conservative. I happen to agree but the thought of our corners left on an island matched up with some of the wide receiver talent in this league is frightening.

There's a way to do it that doesn't leave your corners on an island, and there really isn't much more risk involved than what we're doing now ...

A lot of times what people call "aggressive" isn't really what I would like to see. It's not just about blitzing, it's how you blitz. And, what do we even mean by "blitz".

For most in the football business, a blitz is when you send 6 or more and you're playing man or man-free behind it. Tenuta did this some, but more often, he sent 5. This was called a "zone-dog". And, you never knew who the 5 were going to be and where they would be coming from. It could be 4 DL and a LB or 3 DL and 2 LB's or 3 DL a LB and a DB, you get the picture. Now, is this aggressive? Yes and no. I'd call it creative, controlled-aggressiveness. Sending 5 still gives you 6 to cover all of the zones in the passing game, so you've still got 3 deep and 3 underneath or 2 deep and 4 underneath. So, it's got elements of the aggressive blitz and elements of the safe zone coverage and run fits/support. And, a big part of what made it effective is the deception/disguise. Everybody in the back 7 were moving, buzzing up and back, and the OL/QB would be very taxed to try to know before the snap who was coming and where they were going to be coming from. So, sending 5 in this way could very well provide more pressure on the QB than just sending 6 with less disguise.

As ibeeballin pointed out in his vids, we actually ran some similar stunts in the first series against BC. Bench-Falcon-9-Anchor ... a zone dog where the Sam comes off the edge, the DE big sticks (crash inside hard), and the Mike loops through the B-gap. Weak DE actually drops into coverage. We're playing 3 deep behind it. So, you've got the Will covering the middle who is also able to run to the ball freely in case a ball carrier gets through the penetration from the zone-dog, the weak DE covering the hook/curl/flat and acting as an outside force player on that side, a safety buzzed up to cover hook/curl/flat on the other side and acting as outside force defender. Then you've got another safety and 2 corners playing cover 3 behind all that. The buzz-safety and WDE are taught to anticipate and take away the quick throw which takes away the QB's hot route. Again, you have the benefit of aggressive defense without sacrificing the conservativeness of zone support behind it (thus still minimizing chance of a big offensive play that gets by/behind everybody - you heard ibeeballin say it - "Live to play another down").

When we ran this against BC, it was wide open for a big sack (possibly a strip-sack) both times on the first series. The lane for the Mike was wide open, unimpeded to the QB. Once the Mike just inexplicably decided to go into the trash inside instead of looping through the lane in the B-gap. Another time he does loop correctly and is immediately in on the QB for a sack but the QB steps up and easily avoids the Mike who slips down and makes it into a positive run rather than a sack. So, when we run this stuff, it isn't getting home ... why? Lack of disguise or simply lacking making the play. Why didn't the mike make the play? Was it the player, was it lack of coaching up, lack of reps doing that kind of stuff, or maybe we chalk it up to first game mistakes. One was bench-falcon, another was tomahawk I believe ibeeballin said. I don't remember that one as much. Was that a Tenuta stunt @Ibeeballin ? I remember most of his being named after birds and drinks and weather. My mind is getting fuzzier, but I seem to remember bird names being zone-dogs, drink names were blitzes (man free?), and weather names were sending 7 (0 - man-coverage).

My whole point is that simply saying "We need to be more aggressive" or "We need to blitz more" is not going to be sufficient to cause our defense to get better results. It has to be whole-sale systematic defensive play. And, it has to be sound and complimentary to everything else you're doing on defense and compatible with all of your different personnel packages.

 

[JCTNJacket]

Picture of Winnings from Bet with MY BC Lawyer Friend

at work

 

[deeeznutz]

Picture of Winnings from Bet with MY BC Lawyer Friend View attachment 1872 at work

Very nice! I've always wondered about that whiskey in stout barrels, you usually see it the other way around (beer in whiskey barrels). I'll expect a report on my desk in the morning.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I always wondered why when making friendly bets we don't say that the winner buys the other guy a drink. Seems to me the losers would need the whisky more than the winners.