Report card for Woody's D so far

[stech81]

Good question?
Hope he could be added within the staff.

Would Woody want him ? Does he know him ? Only questions that Coach Woody can answer . Right now Joe Speed is coaching the CB's ( a CPJ guy ) Shiel Wood coaching the safeties ( I have no idea how good of a job he is doing ) . If you bring him in to coach the CB's what are you going to do with Coach Speed I think at one time ( I could be wrong) he coached the Inside LB's but that is where Andy McCollum is now and I don't think anyone wants to see him go. And last would Coach Kelly want to come back.

 

[danny daniel]

So Shiel Wood is coaching safeties (and they’re great this year). Nate Woody doesn’t have a position. I thought Roof had LBs last year. Any reason Nate Woody wouldn’t get hands on with the LBs the way CPJ did with QBs?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Woody coaches the OLBs and Cam the ILBxs.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The corners getting in game experience cause their damn sure not getting it in practice. So their performance is what I expect.

I disagree. We have a scout team quarterback that gives the look of the other team’s offense. Our defense drills against passing constantly. I’m sure there’s some affect on the D to having an option offense, but it’s way overblown. Remember Georgia Southern had great defenses in the CPJ era.

 

[grandpa jacket]

I am pleased with how the defense has progressed. It IS a work in progress, but the improvement in a couple of areas is evident.
I was hoping for a change in mindset and I can see that. Guys are looking to making a play , and not sitting back waiting for a mistake. Turnovers are happening , and at very important times.
Are we as consistent as we need to be ? Obviously not. But that will come with further coaching and recruiting to the style of play and attitude in the coming years. ASA is one great playmaker and I see others on the depth chart who seem to developing that game changing attitude. Great days are coming , IMO.
What say you ??

Ct

 

[33jacket]

I disagree. We have a scout team quarterback that gives the look of the other team’s offense. Our defense drills against passing constantly. I’m sure there’s some affect on the D to having an option offense, but it’s way overblown. Remember Georgia Southern had great defenses in the CPJ era.

I dont' think its the option part thats the issue. Its the immature and lack of route tree and pass combos you see in today's offenses. That has way more affect than the fact we are an option based team. We certainly rep a TON against our own O all Spring and Fall. Scout teams don't start until season and those are slow...very slow. Recognition has to happen quicker in game time.

But simply just the combos you see now, with trips, stacks, rpo, TE and HB passes and wheel routes, the many many screens. Our guys just do not see that much. Nor do they see continual full and accurate route trees in 3 WR sets etc. So for me, thats the biggest gap, and IMO it does hurt us a bit. How much is impossible to quantify. But for 11 years we have A LOT of secondary busts....and that maybe is a reason why.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I dont' think its the option part thats the issue. Its the immature and lack of route tree and pass combos you see in today's offenses. That has way more affect than the fact we are an option based team. We certainly rep a TON against our own O all Spring and Fall. Scout teams don't start until season and those are slow...very slow. Recognition has to happen quicker in game time.

But simply just the combos you see now, with trips, stacks, rpo, TE and HB passes and wheel routes, the many many screens. Our guys just do not see that much. Nor do they see continual full and accurate route trees in 3 WR sets etc. So for me, thats the biggest gap, and IMO it does hurt us a bit. How much is impossible to quantify. But for 11 years we have A LOT of secondary busts....and that maybe is a reason why.

Thanks for the long reply and I agree for the most part. But recently our woes in coverage have been improper cushions, not playing the sticks properly and especially man on incompetence, mainly poor ball skills.

 

[iceeater1969]

I dont' think its the option part thats the issue. Its the immature and lack of route tree and pass combos you see in today's offenses. That has way more affect than the fact we are an option based team. We certainly rep a TON against our own O all Spring and Fall. Scout teams don't start until season and those are slow...very slow. Recognition has to happen quicker in game time.

But simply just the combos you see now, with trips, stacks, rpo, TE and HB passes and wheel routes, the many many screens. Our guys just do not see that much. Nor do they see continual full and accurate route trees in 3 WR sets etc. So for me, thats the biggest gap, and IMO it does hurt us a bit. How much is impossible to quantify. But for 11 years we have A LOT of secondary busts....and that maybe is a reason why.

I know nothing about route trees, cover 2 etc so I ask serious question of the approach to defense that has been a gt staple since I have watched last 10 years. During that time we have played a soft coverage early in the season . We only tightened up in red zone or late and behind.
One more point. At unc the true freshman came in and true long ju.p balls to their stud freshman WR.
With our offense rolling should se come up and play press coverage w zome blitzes by CB etc AS OUR GO TO DEFENSE. ( Ofcourse we would often drop into coverage).
How bout trying it w Miami's terrible passing.

 

[slugboy]

But simply just the combos you see now, with trips, stacks, rpo, TE and HB passes and wheel routes, the many many screens. Our guys just do not see that much. Nor do they see continual full and accurate route trees in 3 WR sets etc. So for me, thats the biggest gap, and IMO it does hurt us a bit. How much is impossible to quantify. But for 11 years we have A LOT of secondary busts....and that maybe is a reason why.

A ton of fans of NFL teams wonder why their teams can't cover the tight end or running back out of the backfield. Same with a ton of college teams. No one aside from fans of a few top defenses think that they even try to cover the other team's tight end. People think that it's just their team that doesn't cover those players. The fact that it's usually a tight end that's 4" taller than the linebacker who's covering him gets overlooked.

I'm sure we line up receivers in all sorts of formations in practice to get our defenders ready. We're not scrimmaging all practice, so I don't think it's our offense. We've done well with DBs in the past--although maybe not with tight ends--and I think it's more coaching than what we have on offense. I think we covered the tight end position well in 1990; possibly the last time we did.

 

[ATL1]

I agree @33jacket it’s hurts. No way of knowing who much, but it definitely does.

 

[GTonTop88]

I like seeing us get pressure, force turnovers and bringing the lumber when given the opportunity. All the technical stuff will come with time and experience, I really like the mindset he has instilled.

 

[Ibeeballin]

My man, we've got in your tank on the players and their performance production, but what do you think about the scheme and calls themselves? Are you a fan?

I love it. Fast, physical defense while bring pressure from every level of the defense. The scheme has caused more turnovers and TFLs than any of us could ask for

 

[33jacket]

A ton of fans of NFL teams wonder why their teams can't cover the tight end or running back out of the backfield. Same with a ton of college teams. No one aside from fans of a few top defenses think that they even try to cover the other team's tight end. People think that it's just their team that doesn't cover those players. The fact that it's usually a tight end that's 4" taller than the linebacker who's covering him gets overlooked.

I'm sure we line up receivers in all sorts of formations in practice to get our defenders ready. We're not scrimmaging all practice, so I don't think it's our offense. We've done well with DBs in the past--although maybe not with tight ends--and I think it's more coaching than what we have on offense. I think we covered the tight end position well in 1990; possibly the last time we did.

Having been to more practices than i can count, i can assure you the final period of live ball and all seven on sevens are vs our offense in all spring and all fall. Its 2 wr 2 ab almost every snap. This includes every live scrimmage.

Only in scout do we do what you say which is line up as the opponent. This happens usually tues through thurs. friday is a final walk through. Scout starts one week before the first game or so.

Tues through thurs only 2 days are live.

So. If you think the scout teams can replicate route trees, route combos etc as well as teams we play against that do it for a living ok. But realistically they cant. And even if they give them the lineup and routes its 2/3 speed and only a couple days of it by no means solidifies repetition. We have no personnel to adequately give a defender a feel against a true TE.

It has to have some impact imo. How much who knows. Could it be 1-2 critical plays a game. Maybe. But maybe thats the difference

 

[Lavoisier]

Do ILBs have a lot more responsibilities or more complicated keys in this scheme than other position groups or the OLBs in particular? They definitely look the worst as far as knowing what they are supposed to be doing on a play which leads me to believe that it's a coaching problem, but maybe it has a higher learning curve.

 

[g0lftime]

I dont' think its the option part thats the issue. Its the immature and lack of route tree and pass combos you see in today's offenses. That has way more affect than the fact we are an option based team. We certainly rep a TON against our own O all Spring and Fall. Scout teams don't start until season and those are slow...very slow. Recognition has to happen quicker in game time.

But simply just the combos you see now, with trips, stacks, rpo, TE and HB passes and wheel routes, the many many screens. Our guys just do not see that much. Nor do they see continual full and accurate route trees in 3 WR sets etc. So for me, thats the biggest gap, and IMO it does hurt us a bit. How much is impossible to quantify. But for 11 years we have A LOT of secondary busts....and that maybe is a reason why.

Coach Cutcliffe agrees.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Do ILBs have a lot more responsibilities or more complicated keys in this scheme than other position groups or the OLBs in particular? They definitely look the worst as far as knowing what they are supposed to be doing on a play which leads me to believe that it's a coaching problem, but maybe it has a higher learning curve.

No

 

[lv20gt]

Compared to last year we are...

Fwiw we are facing almost the exact same number of plays defended this year as last.

5.7 ypp this year compared to 5.52 last year.
362 ypg this year compared to 354 last year
28.2 ppg allowed this year compared to 26.5 last year.
1.44 sacks per game this year compared to 1.55 last year
4.33 tackles for loss per game this year compared to 4.27 last year.
4.25 yards per rush this year vs 4.53 last year.
7.2 yards per attempt given up this year vs 6.6 last year
2.2 turnovers per game this year vs .9 last year
48.1% third down defense this year vs 30.9 last year.
5.2 points per red zone attempt this year vs 4.3 points last year. (in general we get more stops but give up more TDs as well)
4.33 red zone attempts per game vs 3.27 last year.
2.2 passes broken up per game this year vs 3.2 last year
2.8 hurries per game this year vs 2 last year.
4 punts per game forced this year compared to 5.2 last year.
3.2 20+ yards plays given up this year vs 4 last year.

In general we are way better at creating turnovers but worse at most other things and significantly worse on third downs. That leads to us having significantly more redzone defenses and being significantly worse at defending them. To put it this way the extra turnover per game likely is worth about a 7 point swing but the extra redzone attempts and the worse defense when there almost certainly negates that. Otherwise we aren't giving up more big plays like people feared but are also not getting more sacks like people thought. In general we are only slightly better at tackles for loss than last year (to the point where it is maybe one more per year, yes year not game). Overall I know people are happy with more turnovers, and for some that is enough, but in the grand scheme of things this is a typical Johnson defense. And that's not a good thing.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Compared to last year we are...

Fwiw we are facing almost the exact same number of plays defended this year as last.

5.7 ypp this year compared to 5.52 last year.
362 ypg this year compared to 354 last year
28.2 ppg allowed this year compared to 26.5 last year.
1.44 sacks per game this year compared to 1.55 last year
4.33 tackles for loss per game this year compared to 4.27 last year.
4.25 yards per rush this year vs 4.53 last year.
7.2 yards per attempt given up this year vs 6.6 last year
2.2 turnovers per game this year vs .9 last year
48.1% third down defense this year vs 30.9 last year.
5.2 points per red zone attempt this year vs 4.3 points last year. (in general we get more stops but give up more TDs as well)
4.33 red zone attempts per game vs 3.27 last year.
2.2 passes broken up per game this year vs 3.2 last year
2.8 hurries per game this year vs 2 last year.
4 punts per game forced this year compared to 5.2 last year.
3.2 20+ yards plays given up this year vs 4 last year.

In general we are way better at creating turnovers but worse at most other things and significantly worse on third downs. That leads to us having significantly more redzone defenses and being significantly worse at defending them. To put it this way the extra turnover per game likely is worth about a 7 point swing but the extra redzone attempts and the worse defense when there almost certainly negates that. Otherwise we aren't giving up more big plays like people feared but are also not getting more sacks like people thought. In general we are only slightly better at tackles for loss than last year (to the point where it is maybe one more per year, yes year not game). Overall I know people are happy with more turnovers, and for some that is enough, but in the grand scheme of things this is a typical Johnson defense. And that's not a good thing.

Thanks for doing this. I knew that statistically, at least in most categories, this D was not significantly better, and maybe worse, than last year's D. People hated Roof's methods, but honestly, we were suspect against the pass last year, and we are this year. To me, the 3rd down D was much better last year, at 31% vs. the 48.1% this year. I tell everyone that when it is 3rd and long, the opposing O has us right where they want us, sadly.

 

[Lavoisier]

I think we've played a harder schedule this year so far as far as offenses go. I think Duke, Pitt, and especially Clemson with Trevor Lawrence are much better teams than last year. But even without that, like I said if we haven't regressed with a brand new system in place and replacing so many starters then Woody gets an A from me.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Compared to last year we are...

Fwiw we are facing almost the exact same number of plays defended this year as last.

5.7 ypp this year compared to 5.52 last year.
362 ypg this year compared to 354 last year
28.2 ppg allowed this year compared to 26.5 last year.
1.44 sacks per game this year compared to 1.55 last year
4.33 tackles for loss per game this year compared to 4.27 last year.
4.25 yards per rush this year vs 4.53 last year.
7.2 yards per attempt given up this year vs 6.6 last year
2.2 turnovers per game this year vs .9 last year
48.1% third down defense this year vs 30.9 last year.
5.2 points per red zone attempt this year vs 4.3 points last year. (in general we get more stops but give up more TDs as well)
4.33 red zone attempts per game vs 3.27 last year.
2.2 passes broken up per game this year vs 3.2 last year
2.8 hurries per game this year vs 2 last year.
4 punts per game forced this year compared to 5.2 last year.
3.2 20+ yards plays given up this year vs 4 last year.

In general we are way better at creating turnovers but worse at most other things and significantly worse on third downs. That leads to us having significantly more redzone defenses and being significantly worse at defending them. To put it this way the extra turnover per game likely is worth about a 7 point swing but the extra redzone attempts and the worse defense when there almost certainly negates that. Otherwise we aren't giving up more big plays like people feared but are also not getting more sacks like people thought. In general we are only slightly better at tackles for loss than last year (to the point where it is maybe one more per year, yes year not game). Overall I know people are happy with more turnovers, and for some that is enough, but in the grand scheme of things this is a typical Johnson defense. And that's not a good thing.

Considering that the players had a new defense to learn and there are definitely learning curves here, I am OK with this. I am expecting next years defense to make a significant step forward. Also, the stats are not taking into account the slow but steady improvement we are seeing with the defense.
I am looking forward to seeing how the defense plays these last three games.

 

[Milwaukee]

C+ or B- it's an improvement in scheme, I do like the blitzes but still want more. I've been extremely frustrated at times this year due to the cushions by the corners in situational instances where I'm left scratching my head. Not nearly as bad as Ted did it, but Woody has dropped the corners past the sticks as well, which infuriates me in the college game. Make these young quarterbacks beat you, most of them can't. Another gripe I have is telegraphing blitzes. I love his blitzes from the corners and what not but we should teach the guys to disguise it a lot better. The video below is a good example, Saban teaches his dbs to do this better than anyone but I couldn't find a clip. Overall I'm happy with what he's doing scheme wise.