Question about the New Defense

GTHOSCHTON

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
177
We are going to love the defense.......such a welcome change.....our recruiting will be better because kids will want to play and have FUN!!! if you ever played football who doesn't like to get turned loose and run a stunt....
cut my teeth on the wide tackle 6 went to the 4-3 but came home to the slant 50 and split 50 kids loved playing the 50 much more than anything else and you could find players that fit!!
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,066
I have my hopes up real high that this scheme will prove to be the perfect fit for us long term. I’m just trying not to expect too much in year 1.

Here’s to being completely overwhelmed with a huge improvement year one though. (We need a beer mug emoji)

we had a pretty big year one turn around under roof because in 2013, primarily because he had to play a simple defense. So who knows.
 

Sideways

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,589
Lots of good comments in this thread - very informed, wise, enjoyable fans on here.

I agree with @ilovetheoption, that the name/concept of this defense is the Slant-50 ... kind of like the best name for our offense is the Spread-Option (which is how CPJ thinks of it), as opposed to the wishbone or something like that. I almost had a chance to coach in this defense 15 years ago when I got into high school coaching the first few years of my career. The head coach for a local high school team brought that defense with him and had the defensive coordinator who was there before he got there run that defense. When I interviewed with them, I was coming from Tenuta's attacking 4-3, zone-dog defensive philosophy, and really didn't have a clue as to what the slant-50 was. The HC and DC had been there running that defense for a couple of years, and during the interview, the DC who had been sold on that defense was very high on it. He said he wished he had been (and didn't know why he hadn't) running it long before. He said it was simple for the kids but also effective at creating problems for the offense. The impression I got from that brief encounter was that the front 3 would be doing all kind of stuff (slants, games, etc) to mess up the offense's blocking scheme and create unblocked defenders who would often make plays in the backfield (thus the desire for athletic DL, as compared to huge space eaters, akin to our OL personnel). At the same time the middle 4 (LB's) and back 4 (DB's) would be employing schemes to compliment what's going on in front of them (what the 3 DL are doing) to both aid the attack and/or to minimize the risk of the attack. This philosophy pumps me up big time because it is highly related to what Tenuta was doing with the attacking 4-3, zone-dog scheme. The goal is to pressure the offense, create negative plays, mess with the OL and the QB in their reads, pressure the QB in the passing game, get TFL's in the run game, dictate to the offense what they're going to have to do to beat you (beat you left handed instead of doing what they want and you trying your best to react to that and stop what they're doing). I think it can fit well with our recruiting situation as well - like our offense can use guys on the OL who can be effective due to their athleticism even if they're not an ideal size ... it can use 'tweeners at almost all levels of the defense (a DE/DT 'tweener, a S/LB 'tweener, a DE/LB 'tweener, a CB/S 'tweener, etc). It's a system we can recruit to like our offense, and a system we can try to get better and better at as a single season goes on and as multiple seasons go by. We will have growing pains and we will get "torched" sometimes. We will give up big plays probably at times. BUT, I don't think it will be at a significantly different pace than what we were already doing in these other, less aggressive schemes - we were already getting "torched" at times, giving up big plays at times, etc. AND, I think what this will do is give us a chance to be dominant at times as well, like we were under Tenuta - man I miss those days of a feared, dominant D at GT, can you tell? I would love to see a day of GT being known/feared for what we do on both sides of the ball - can you imagine? Tenuta's worst days were about equal to the last 3 DC's average days, and that's what I would expect/hope for with the new D. We'll have what we've already had as far as getting beat sometimes, but add the aspect of a significant number of negative plays to that to give us a better chance to be more successful overall. I'm probably building expectations up (fantasizing) too much in my own head and maybe building it up too much for others as well with this post, but that's the offseason for you and that's better than doom-and-gloom pessimism any day. I'm sure I'll learn a lot from watching this first year, though I hope my current impressions don't change much.

I now kind of wish I'd taken that opportunity to coach this defense back then, as I'd have a lot better info. I ended up taking a different job where I thought (was told) I had a faster track to being a coordinator. It was a worse situation where the HC was fired the next year, and I ended up getting out of it altogether another year later. Now I coach Church (ministry), and get to study the Bible a lot more instead of playbooks ... still with an offense and a defense against a powerful foe, but with a HC who is out of this world. :)

Vamos that is a really cool story. You thought you were meant to be a football coach but the "MAN UPSTAIRS" had a different plan. Good show bro.
 

buzzed

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
339
I have my hopes up real high that this scheme will prove to be the perfect fit for us long term. I’m just trying not to expect too much in year 1.

Here’s to being completely overwhelmed with a huge improvement year one though. (We need a beer mug emoji)
The good thing is it makes it easier to see improvement in year 1 when the defense has sucked for years. I also think we have some really good young players, but then again, I think that every year.
 
Top