What is the best scheme for a Tech defense?

[JacketFromUGA]

I'm down for a 5-5-5 scheme

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I actually would like our base to be a 3-4/3-3-5. I think we recruit athletes better than DL. I want the 4th guy in pass rush to be coming from anywhere.

I thought the exact same thing preGroh. A 3/4 D as our base....needs war daddies at NT n DT/DE. The position that has absolutely been the toughest for us to recruit is DTs. We need even more of this type in a 34. It hamstrung us.

 

[jeffgt14]

I thought the exact same thing preGroh. A 3/4 D as our base....needs war daddies at NT n DT/DE. The position that has absolutely been the toughest for us to recruit is DTs. We need even more of this type in a 34. It hamstrung us.

Funny thing is I don’t really remember Groh having any great NTs at UVA. He had some hellacious LB’s and DE’s though.

 

[AE 87]

I thought the exact same thing preGroh. A 3/4 D as our base....needs war daddies at NT n DT/DE. The position that has absolutely been the toughest for us to recruit is DTs. We need even more of this type in a 34. It hamstrung us.

Groh schemed for a 2-gap system. Most 3-4 today are 1-gap systems, and so the need for the huge NT isn't as severe.

 

[tech_wreck47]

i am serious, our defensive ends, minus Simmons, dont get any pass rush. If we recruited some faster DEs, we could use that formation and blitz from the LB spots

That would be a 4-3 pretty much with standing DE's at the los, if your talking about them playing off the los 4 or 5 yards we would get eaten up by opposing offenses. You have to have someone setting the edge so it would be pretty obvious the OLB would be blitzing the end he every time. And if you didn't have them blitz the edge you would get beat bad on the edge by only having 2 linemen at the los.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Groh schemed for a 2-gap system. Most 3-4 today are 1-gap systems, and so the need for the huge NT isn't as severe.

Agree but when I said adam type guys in another post I didn't mean at the size he is now I just meant bigger like 300 plus. Imo you still need that to clog holes, or at the least its an upside to have a bigger NT.

 

[Jmonty71]

With our players. I think a 4-3 is probably the best. However; that doesn't mean we play a vanilla, prevent style defense. We can mix in a LB to line up on the LOS, whether he blitzes are not. It will confuse the QB and possibly cause him to audible into the wrong play. There are way to disguise a blitz and ways to telegraph it. Roof telegraphs it, so everyone knows we're blitzing. I think he can help the kids by letting them be aggressive, play a cover 2 bump and run and learn proper A gap blitz techniques. We don't have the skill set on our D line to operate a 2 gap control system defense.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Bend don't break allows our opponent to increase their time of possesssion.

We need to have a style of defense that minimizes opponents time of possession.

Imagine we keep the ball for 8 minutes and score. Then go all out in defense blitzing, etc and get a stop (or give up a touchdown). Then we run our O back out against their defense after :45 seconds to face another 16 plays and 8 minutes of offense.

What opponent will have a defense that can still stand in the fourth quarter?

Our defense will still be fresh.

So I think Tanuta's style would complement our O best.

/

If the other team scores every possession, does it really matter how much time it takes? I know it's not likely, but playing a high risk/high reward d with the guys we got will lead to way more risk (points) than reward, imo.

 

[elwoodgt]

Ok, so we agree that aggressive D is better than bend and break. Now how do we do that?

I like the option - and the option works at Tech - because it's smart. It puts the opponent in a bad situation by putting the ball into space. When we make our reads, whatever the defense does is wrong. If they crash the line we run it outside. If they back off to cover the slots we dive. Run well, it's beautiful. Go to YouTube and watch last weeks Navy-Houston game to see what I'm talking about.

How do we play defense like that? How can we put the opposing offense in a bad position by blitzing from where they don't expect? How do we confuse QBs by disguising coverages? Is it a scheme issue?

I mean, I see us blitz from time to time. But it's never a mystery who the blitzer is, right? You see a linebacker walk up to the line just after the offensive line sets, he pauses till the snap, then tries to rush the gap. That guy is never running free, he always has to beat a blocker.

And I see us play zone... and I'm no expert, but it looks like a vanilla 2-deep zone. We never have that guy hanging out in the flats that the QB didn't see till it was too late. Am I wrong? Is there more going on schematically than I can see, and we're just not executing well?

What I want to see is blitzing at unexpected times, from unexpected directions. I want to see the defense coordinating the way our offense does, where the whole defense shifts at the snap to send extra pass rushers from one side while the other side picks up the open receivers. I want to see our secondary look like a zone before the snap, and shift to a man free corner blitz at the last second. I want to see the opposing QB call timeout because he doesn't know what the heck we're about to do next.

So is that scheme? Or execution? And don't say it's because we don't have the right players yet - the whole reason the option works at Tech is because Paul can succeed with the kind of players the factories turn down.

 

[awbuzz]

a 7-4-2-1 might work

Agree, but a bigger devil D would be a 6 - 6 - 6 ...

 

[iceeater1969]

If the other team scores every possession, does it really matter how much time it takes? I know it's not likely, but playing a high risk/high reward d with the guys we got will lead to way more risk (points) than reward."


When jerry glanville came to gt under bud carson he was a high risk type of guy. Lots of turnovers but big plays again't us. . Some times bailed out by holding. By end of game lots of hits on qb.
Rules allow holding as long as the defender is in front of the blocker and . you can't touch the qb.

When I say "aggressivel" I am saying at least try a gap rush by one dl fairly often. Now we ( even on 3 rd and long) have our guy stand right infront, bull rush, then peek, then go to best side. This is basic football and with our offense should beat lessor or equal teams
The trouble with not rushing gaps on a regular basis is that when you need it you are not experienced with the technique to be effective.
Last year we had uga in the end zone and got zero penetration.

We are almost 100%:the same in dl technique on every play. Stunts? Never. Gap rush w lb fill almost never, 7 man line and drop into regular coverage.
Moving off of 0 aggressive does not mean go to 100% aggressive.

 

[alentrekin]

I like the option - and the option works at Tech - because it's smart.
[....]
So is that scheme? Or execution? And don't say it's because we don't have the right players yet - the whole reason the option works at Tech is because Paul can succeed with the kind of players the factories turn down.

The option works for tech/navy because *primarily* because it's an arbitrage on the hardest thing to recruit, and the biggest advantage that factories maintain: the interior line.

1. OL to second level
Factories recruit and produce interior lineman.
Ignore (option) them and recruit short linemen who like run blocking.

It also does similar tricks with...
2. WRs who block like TEs
Factories attract track stars with highlight reels.
Ignore them and recruit tweener TEs with a mean streak.
3. Strong, deep backfield
Recruit QBs and convert them.
Recruit shortish badasses that wouldn't be factory feature backs.
4. Jack of all trades QB
strong armed mannequins and
Recruit guys with one thing missing (JT is tiny, Tevin throws a changeup, Nesbitt had no touch
But make sure they are ok getting hit by monsters every snap (Vad...)

Is there a mirror of this for D?

1. DLs who drop and twist
2. CBs who play the edge
3. Strong, deep LB corps
4. Jack of all trades safeties

A gap blitzing is a way to force the ball outside without recruiting 2 gap grendels, but there really is no way around not having big strong fast people up front. You can add more tenuta schemes, but guessing the play is not so much a scheme as a coordinator issue.

 

[zhavenor]

should we try a 2-5-4? have two defensive tackles, then 3 linebackers covering the middle and close to the hashes, 2 close to the sideline?

Isn't that just a reworking of a 4-3 defense except you call the DEs OLB? I'm not necessarily against it but how is it going to be different? I suppose you could drop the olb if there is a slot but then you are going to have a really weak edge on that side. If you did that the dts could shift to a 4i and 1 technique and have the opposite olb go to a 4 technique. You would really have problems with slots on either side but you would probably be in some sort of dime at that point. That would be a what 2 3 6 or 1 3 7? I'm intrigued. Somebody formulate a fully functioning 2-5-4 defense. I would like to see it work.

 

[1BearJACKET]

Hybrid of 85 Bears 46 Defense and a Tampa 2.

 

[alentrekin]

Hybrid of 85 Bears 46 Defense and a Tampa 2.

Glad you mentioned. Got me reading..

For kicks, I'll try to make sense of that...

The "2" is a widened cover 2+a tracer from the middle of the field. That implies 2 players at safety depth to cover the jamming corner's over top.
The 46 is an understacked 8 man-for-man front with one safety. Kinda makes no sense unless you run something like a man free robber, which allows a similar front and CB play, but it's not a "2".

It might work with someone like curry or AJ Gray at robber, but it puts a lot of pressure on the backside 3tech and the frontside LB, not to mention they would be ISO'd all day. And from what I saw on tape, AJ and David are not big enough to get off a power block.

I am not sure who we would want to feature, who could take more pressure off than they are now...

 

[Techster]

The fact is, all these defenses sound great in theory. In reality, it's the coach that matters more than the scheme. If you can't communicate what you need from your defense or you don't know how to get the most out of your personnel, all the great theories and playbooks in the world won't help you.

Groh, and CPJ said this himself, is one of the most knowledgeable guys about defense. He's a defensive scholar that loved to talk to various coaches at all levels and take away great ideas from them. Unfortunately, he just couldn't communicate what he wanted from his scheme to his players and his defenses were a swinging gate.

 

[Boomergump]

I know we would all like our CBs to be pressing more and giving less room, but we have to be real about some limitations we have out there. If you look at the Austin brothers, neither one of them is long and neither one is fast. They both have good short space quickness and way above average tackling ability. Turning and burning or defending high pointed footballs is really not their thing. Step runs pretty well when he is healthy. I don't have a strong opinion on Simmons, but he does have some length. Walker looks legit fast to me, but he is inexperienced and maybe not so physical (too early to call at this point). Gray has a good body and athletic ability for the position, but Griffin is a little undersized. Additionally, we are not long at the LB position either and our footspeed is very average. Asking us to cover all over the place, up in people's faces is a tall order.

If we try and press, we are going to need safety help against the bulk of the teams we play. It is just a reality at the present time. I want an aggressive D too, but I understand some of what we are doing.

 

[ilovetheoption]

I know we would all like our CBs to be pressing more and giving less room, but we have to be real about some limitations we have out there. If you look at the Austin brothers, neither one of them is long and neither one is fast. They both have good short space quickness and way above average tackling ability. Turning and burning or defending high pointed footballs is really not their thing. Step runs pretty well when he is healthy. I don't have a strong opinion on Simmons, but he does have some length. Walker looks legit fast to me, but he is inexperienced and maybe not so physical (too early to call at this point). Gray has a good body and athletic ability for the position, but Griffin is a little undersized. Additionally, we are not long at the LB position either and our footspeed is very average. Asking us to cover all over the place, up in people's faces is a tall order.

If we try and press, we are going to need safety help against the bulk of the teams we play. It is just a reality at the present time. I want an aggressive D too, but I understand some of what we are doing.

Yes, i get it too, but the point is, they're getting smoked as is. Yes, they might get smoked playing aggressive, but they might make a play too.

If you were sacrificing something by playing aggressive, that'd be one thing, but you're not. Pitt scored every possession playing one way, it's not like it's going to get WORSE, and maybe it'll get better.

 

[alentrekin]

Yes, i get it too, but the point is, they're getting smoked as is. Yes, they might get smoked playing aggressive, but they might make a play too.

If you were sacrificing something by playing aggressive, that'd be one thing, but you're not. Pitt scored every possession playing one way, it's not like it's going to get WORSE, and maybe it'll get better.

Not to point out a detail in an argument that's more about possibility and counter factuals than facts, but they didn't score on every drive. We recovered a fumble that led to a score and a pick six bounced off Austin twin #17.

I think part of the strategy is assuming that more, plays (bend) avails more weird bounces (good breaks), especially when those plays are more difficult to execute (short passes to wideouts, perimeter runs).

It seems satisfying to be "more aggressive", but how with this team? And if it's not a sexy scheme, do you think that our scheme affects recruiting, and how?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I have wondered if a 5-2 would be better for us. Ill trust the coaches to make calls on schemes.