Excited about defense.

[Carl Spackler]

I think that it will be unexpected if any of the incoming freshmen don't redshirt (DB's, LB's.). What they will do, is make competition on the practice fields, the practice squad, the push for starting jobs, more intense - and that's how football teams get better.

There are two plays in that WVU game cut up that stand out to me right now as I write. One is play early on where we are bringing an overload pressure to the weakside ( I think - from memory) A/B gaps on the offensive line and Geno rolls out away from it on the snap and fires a ball back to the weakside skinny post where #16 is out there on an island in single coverage, and has gotten beaten badly on the route. He recovers to make a great tackle on the catch, but definitely one of those examples where somethign wasn't right in how he read the play and reacted off the line of scrimmage and into the route - don't think it was a pure speed, burst thing. On that play, my opinion from the film is that he should have known he was in single coverage on that side and should have done everything he could at the line of scrimmage to leverage that receiver out of that post position and running with him stride for stride off the line. Too much looking in the backfield at the snap... my opinion. He was a true frosh playing I think his first game at corner - to his defense.

THe second I'm thinking of, is a play where #7 on the other side, is beat on a post pattern. THis time, Geno was under pressure from the pass rush on the drop, and misfired. If the ball was on target, it's a TD. This to me, is again another problem with reading and reacting and communication/assignments, because #7 is better than that. #7 either thought he had help over the top from a safety on that route, or he simply got beat badly off the line. I go with the former rather than the latter. My guess, is that the veteran corner was correct in thinking he had help, and a rookie safety, or Jerome Junior, got caught playing run first, and looking in the backfield and wasn't where they were supposed to be to help on that post route. Defensive line did their job, and saved that TD.

And now I"m remembering another play, where #3 gets toasted for another post pattern at the goal line. Somethign wrong with the pass coverage in the backside of that defense again in the coverage shells.

I expect much better play from the safeties this year.

One last commment for now on that cut up. #16 was playing like a man possessed in the defensive backfield. Been a long time, since we had players roaming back there in the defense that brought the wood like he was doing and were tackling machines in open space and could diagnose and beat an offensive player to the punch. There's one playing in Oakland for the Raiders now. I expect a lot more of that from #40 and #16,and the players coming in behind them on the depth chart.

 

[businesslawyer]

I agree. I think that we had a defensive secondary that for some reason, always looked like they were playing run first at the snap, rather than pass first. Don't know how else to say it. I think that changes this year.

Far, far more this than our LBs got tired in the second halves of games because there was no depth. Maybe one day we will, but we have never subbed out our LBs just to give them breathers -- only our DL -- and it never led to our defense wearing out at end of games. They didn't get the schemes, or the schemes were not working, but it was not that more depth at LB would have solved the fact that our LBs just were inadequate at pass coverage last year.

I also don't think the problem was primarily lack of speed. Guys who were adequate in the past in the secondary were just not as good last year. Again, the most obvious conclusion is that they weren't comfortable with the change in schemes and responsibilities.

But, with last year under their belt, we'll see.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Far, far more this than our LBs got tired in the second halves of games because there was no depth. Maybe one day we will, but we have never subbed out our LBs just to give them breathers -- only our DL -- and it never led to our defense wearing out at end of games. They didn't get the schemes, or the schemes were not working, but it was not that more depth at LB would have solved the fact that our LBs just were inadequate at pass coverage last year.

I also don't think the problem was primarily lack of speed. Guys who were adequate in the past in the secondary were just not as good last year. Again, the most obvious conclusion is that they weren't comfortable with the change in schemes and responsibilities.

But, with last year under their belt, we'll see.

I agree BL, about your comments in the past, but our defense under Edsall was about as far different as you can possibly be as we are under Don Brown now. In the past, we ran essentially the same defensive formation on first and second downs against every single opponent, and then if we got into specific third down types of situations, we would start creating some movement in the defensive front, but it was limited, and any blitzing at all, was of the zone variety. Linebackers primarily were evenly spaced across the field and backpedaled quite a bit to keep offensive players in front of them at all times. I can remember only one game where we really changed anything up on D, and that was the West Virginia game the week after Jazz was killed.

This defense now, my opinion, requires linebackers that attack and pursue, constantly, not backpedal. Much harder on the legs, and much easier to run when you're 4,5,6 deep in the linebackers and have multiple packages designed for your personnel groupings.

 

[mattp]

last year with the new scheme our LBs were a little unsure of themselves, but another year in the system should be the difference between having to think about where to go and it being more instinctual. speed can be harmful if the LB goes where they're not supposed to go. we knew going into last season that there would be a big adjustment period defensively and then a big improvement in year 2. that's what the Don Brown fans at MD predicted and so far they have the first half right. i think we'll show a big step up in year 2.

 

[businesslawyer]

I agree BL, about your comments in the past, but our defense under Edsall was about as far different as you can possibly be as we are under Don Brown now. In the past, we ran essentially the same defensive formation on first and second downs against every single opponent, and then if we got into specific third down types of situations, we would start creating some movement in the defensive front, but it was limited, and any blitzing at all, was of the zone variety. Linebackers primarily were evenly spaced across the field and backpedaled quite a bit to keep offensive players in front of them at all times. I can remember only one game where we really changed anything up on D, and that was the West Virginia game the week after Jazz was killed.

This defense now, my opinion, requires linebackers that attack and pursue, constantly, not backpedal. Much harder on the legs, and much easier to run when you're 4,5,6 deep in the linebackers and have multiple packages designed for your personnel groupings.

Well, if the change requires better athletes just to achieve comparable results, then I'm against the change and the change would seem stupid ab initio. I am hoping that it's more than that. I'm hoping that our players can achieve the same or better results in the new scheme, but they weren't acting in it instinctively enough last year for it to work. I would think the definition of a good scheme is one that gets better results out of the same players than a scheme that would work great if you're starting players who are more athletic than what you have.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Here's a clip of the defense under Edsall, against the exact same Y-stick/ three step drop triangle QB read based offensive system....in 2010. Compare and contrast to what the defense looked like in this cut up of offensive plays against Oklahoma, vs. how it looked against Holgorsen's offense he brought from OSU to WVU in 2011. To me the play of our linebackers and they way they tend to move, is what stands out the most. Gratz TD return for an INT came on a classic what's called MESH pattern where two receivers are crossing horizontally in the middle of the field.

 

[businesslawyer]

last year with the new scheme our LBs were a little unsure of themselves, but another year in the system should be the difference between having to think about where to go and it being more instinctual. speed can be harmful if the LB goes where they're not supposed to go. we knew going into last season that there would be a big adjustment period defensively and then a big improvement in year 2. that's what the Don Brown fans at MD predicted and so far they have the first half right. i think we'll show a big step up in year 2.

I am hoping that this, rather than Karl's, is the correct analysis. Because if it's Karl's, and our schemes are too optimistic for our talent, this is going to be a really long season.

I am willing to give P the benefit of the doubt and assume the schemes will work better this year with the same personnel just because of familiarity. We'll see.

 

[businesslawyer]

Here's a clip of the defense under Edsall, against the exact same Y-stick/ three step drop triangle QB read based offensive system....in 2010. Compare and contrast to what the defense looked like in this cut up of offensive plays against Oklahoma, vs. how it looked against Holgorsen's offense he brought from OSU to WVU in 2011. To me the play of our linebackers and they way they tend to move, is what stands out the most. Gratz TD return for an INT came on a classic what's called MESH pattern where two receivers are crossing horizontally in the middle of the field.

I think your description of Edsall's defense is absolutely correct. But if it allowed mediocre athletes with little behind them to perform consistently year in and year out, one would have to be a moron to change it. And I am not and have never called our coach a moron.

I will hope that the same athletes will perform this year like they did in '10, but with more experience and size, and the D will be good. If our schemes will never work on D until we have a roster with an entirely different type of athlete, we're screwed. Because I don't see more than a marginal gain in the athletes coming in to the program.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Well, if the change requires better athletes just to achieve comparable results, then I'm against the change and the change would seem stupid ab initio. I am hoping that it's more than that. I'm hoping that our players can achieve the same or better results in the new scheme, but they weren't acting in it instinctively enough last year for it to work. I would think the definition of a good scheme is one that gets better results out of the same players than a scheme that would work great if you're starting players who are more athletic than what you have.

? Wouldn't you rather have better athletes than inferior? Always? What does getting results have to do with that? I think you're putting apples and oranges together there. Trying to define a "good scheme" in the fashion you do...is well....too Edsallian for me.

A good defensive scheme, is one that puts players in position to make plays to stop an offense, and forces offensive players to have to make plays and adjust their play call design to advance the ball. A bad defensive scheme, is one that has players out of position, and an offensive team has simply to run the play they've called as it's drawn up to advance the ball.

We constantly forced teams to change what they were doing on offense last year. The WVU game is a perfect example. Holgorsen completely changed his game plan at half time, and exploited our weaknesses, which should be much stronger this year.

I don't think our defensive coaches put players in positions,a t any time, last year, where they weren't capable of succeeded due to physical restrictions.....if that's what you're trying to say. I do think that we were limited by having only three linebackers, physically - by simple fatigue. You disagree, that's fine.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I am hoping that this, rather than Karl's, is the correct analysis. Because if it's Karl's, and our schemes are too optimistic for our talent, this is going to be a really long season.

I am willing to give P the benefit of the doubt and assume the schemes will work better this year with the same personnel just because of familiarity. We'll see.

Where did I write that BL? If i did, I need to go correct it. I'm not tryign to convey that message at all.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Where did I write that BL? If i did, I need to go correct it. I'm not tryign to convey that message at all.

You didn't say that. But, that's the concern that BL has (and I share).....that we don't know if we have the right personnel on D to run Brown's schemes. I'm not saying we do or we don't. We'll find out this fall.

But this was my biggest gripe with the staff last year. They tried to force too much too soon regardless of the personnel. I still maintain, that if they dialed it back a notch and implemented schemes that fit the personnel we had, we probably would've gone bowling last year. Too often for my taste I saw the staff trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (that's what she said).

 

[Carl Spackler]

BTW - our DL destroyed the WVU OL in that game. We didn't have as much success with Oklahoma OL in 2010. Oklahoma never had to change a thing they were doing against us our defensive backers and coverage to put up 48 points through the entire game. WVU, had to change everythign they were doing by halftime, because they couldn't handle us at the line of scrimmage, but our coverage shells were blown apart on assignments in the middle of the field as we were playing a completely different defensive scheme, with completely new players.

Both teams, played the exact same kind of offensive schemes against us to start.

I expect that against a similar offensive attack in 2012, an offense that's really good, our defense will be able to keep the point totals under 20, rather than over 40.


AND....the reason I expect to be better, has nothing to do with needing different athletes. We're going to do it with the same players we had last year, just better depth behind them pushing them, and more linebackers to bring in and out with the varying defensive fronts.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You didn't say that. But, that's the concern that BL has (and I share).....that we don't know if we have the right personnel on D to run Brown's schemes. I'm not saying we do or we don't. We'll find out this fall.

But this was my biggest gripe with the staff last year. They tried to force too much too soon regardless of the personnel. I still maintain, that if they dialed it back a notch and implemented schemes that fit the personnel we had, we probably would've gone bowling last year. Too often for my taste I saw the staff trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (that's what she said).

I think that if they were to do it again, they wouldn't do anythign differently. Remember, this is a coaching staff, that went into 2011, with essentially zero knowledge of their player's capabilities, and learned on the fly what they were capable of not capable of, and they challenged them to succeed.

I don't know, if I'ma player, that's exactly what I want from my coaches, put me in position to make somethign happen, and expect me to do it.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Our defense will also be helped by the fact that we won't see an offense in 2012 that's in the same stratosphere as WVU or Oklahoma.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The most important thing though, to help our defense be as good as they can be this year, is to actually have some kind of potent, diverse offensive attack to put up points.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Our defense will also be helped by the fact that we won't see an offense in 2012 that's in the same stratosphere as WVU or Oklahoma.

Don't be so sure. I'm concerned about NC State, and our schedule is not nearly as easy people would tend to think.

 

[Dann]

ncst offense isn't anything special but some writers think there defense will be very good.

i actually think lville and usf will have great offenses this year. its bj's last shot to do something and down in the ville ppl are loving that bridgewater kid and crew.

 

[businesslawyer]

Where did I write that BL? If i did, I need to go correct it. I'm not tryign to convey that message at all.

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

If we struggled for a year learning new ways of doing things, fine. I can live with that. But if it's not that -- if we're asking a D that can achieve results playing conservatively and repetitively to play in a different way that they are not able to accomplish -- how would that not be coaching?

And, I'm not saying that will happen this year. I'm giving P and crew the benefit of the doubt and assuming we will be able to defend a pass this year. But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Louisville 2012 game is this year's version of 2011 West Virginia, for me at least. Different outcome desired of course. I want to beat that team. Badly. Lot of work to do before we go to Kentucky though.

 

[Carl Spackler]

If we struggled for a year learning new ways of doing things, fine. I can live with that. But if it's not that -- if we're asking a D that can achieve results playing conservatively and repetitively to play in a different way that they are not able to accomplish -- how would that not be coaching?

And, I'm not saying that will happen this year. I'm giving P and crew the benefit of the doubt and assuming we will be able to defend a pass this year. But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

No. No. No. Go back and take the time, if you've got it to actually watch the two cut ups I've put up. Pause and play liberally. It will take a good 1/2 hour to do it if you're not used to looking at clips. The linebackers are plenty athletic enough - two of them were new by the way from 2010, and only one in 2011 played regularly under Edsall anyway. I'm not arguing that they need plays off. I think that a LOT was asked of those three players, adn they performed as well as they could, adn that fatigue was inevitable. Go to the film.

#1. I think that an attack style, pursuit, horizontally and vertically, constantly - by the linebackers, is more physically taxing, than a step, read nad backpedal or pursue type of play. The style of play in 2011, was that attack/pursuit, while the style of play in 2010.

#2. If you look at the film from 2011 especially, we are in all kinds of different formations on defense, 3 man down, 4 man down, all different kinds of spacing and pressure from different places. We did it all witht he same 3 linebackers. I'm saying that with all those different looks, and situations, it's ideal to have specific personnel groupings to run in and out. a fourth linebacker to bring in and out, will give the defense flexibility it didn't have in 2011.

I think Jimmy was talking aobut nickel coverage packages (5 DB's). Well, another option to a nickel, espeically if you're going to put 3 men down on the line, is the extra linebacker, rather than the extra DB. We were pretty effective with nickel coverage packages - I think - last year, but you give up a lot in the front by doing that regularly, and you need to be able to stop the run first and foremost and always.

So it's not about spelling, or resting linebackers on purpose, it's about the style of play that the dfense brings, and having designed personnel groupings, with enough players, that by default, keeps legs fresh.

 

[mattp]

But this was my biggest gripe with the staff last year. They tried to force too much too soon regardless of the personnel. I still maintain, that if they dialed it back a notch and implemented schemes that fit the personnel we had, we probably would've gone bowling last year. Too often for my taste I saw the staff trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (that's what she said).

would you have sacrificed some development of the system last year to get to 6-6 or 7-5 if it meant it took us an extra season to accomplish what they're trying to do?

while it's nice to go to a bowl, i'm glad they did what they did so the players will be better prepared for this season. it's not an easy decision but ultimately i think you have to let the coaches do their thing. if we just wanted to maintain continuity we could have hired Foley as HC, but our decision was to go with P so i think you have to let them fully implement their system, even if it means growing pains. besides there's no guarantees that a slowed down implementation would have resulted in more wins

 

[sdhusky]

But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?

Seems like you are forgetting another possibility - that Edsall's defense wasn't the absolute best possible. Maybe, just maybe, its possible to have a defense that can win against top 25 competition? Maybe, its possible to actually finish in the top 10?

Those are the goals of PP. Edsall's summit was 8-5 and top 35

 

[businesslawyer]

Seems like you are forgetting another possibility - that Edsall's defense wasn't the absolute best possible. Maybe, just maybe, its possible to have a defense that can win against top 25 competition? Maybe, its possible to actually finish in the top 10?

Those are the goals of PP. Edsall's summit was 8-5 and top 35

Not even going to engage you. This coach needs to win games for this program using whatever players he can get and whatever schemes he thinks he can win with.

 

[businesslawyer]

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

No. No. No. Go back and take the time, if you've got it to actually watch the two cut ups I've put up. Pause and play liberally. It will take a good 1/2 hour to do it if you're not used to looking at clips. The linebackers are plenty athletic enough - two of them were new by the way from 2010, and only one in 2011 played regularly under Edsall anyway. I'm not arguing that they need plays off. I think that a LOT was asked of those three players, adn they performed as well as they could, adn that fatigue was inevitable. Go to the film.

#1. I think that an attack style, pursuit, horizontally and vertically, constantly - by the linebackers, is more physically taxing, than a step, read nad backpedal or pursue type of play. The style of play in 2011, was that attack/pursuit, while the style of play in 2010.

#2. If you look at the film from 2011 especially, we are in all kinds of different formations on defense, 3 man down, 4 man down, all different kinds of spacing and pressure from different places. We did it all witht he same 3 linebackers. I'm saying that with all those different looks, and situations, it's ideal to have specific personnel groupings to run in and out. a fourth linebacker to bring in and out, will give the defense flexibility it didn't have in 2011.

I think Jimmy was talking aobut nickel coverage packages (5 DB's). Well, another option to a nickel, espeically if you're going to put 3 men down on the line, is the extra linebacker, rather than the extra DB. We were pretty effective with nickel coverage packages - I think - last year, but you give up a lot in the front by doing that regularly, and you need to be able to stop the run first and foremost and always.

So it's not about spelling, or resting linebackers on purpose, it's about the style of play that the dfense brings, and having designed personnel groupings, with enough players, that by default, keeps legs fresh.

No, that's not my implication. That is what I thought you were implying.

Have a nice day.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

If we struggled for a year learning new ways of doing things, fine. I can live with that. But if it's not that -- if we're asking a D that can achieve results playing conservatively and repetitively to play in a different way that they are not able to accomplish -- how would that not be coaching?

And, I'm not saying that will happen this year. I'm giving P and crew the benefit of the doubt and assuming we will be able to defend a pass this year. quote]


But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?


Again....NO NO NO. That's not what I'm saying. Lawyers. I'm saying exactly what I write! not something else LOL.

We don't need 6 to win Brown's way. I'm saying our defense will be more flexible, and able to do more, with at least one more linebacker available to put into personnel packages, and that will help keep legs fresh, and we didn't really have that last year....among many other things it will help with. And btw, I'd rather have 6 linebackers that I can put into a game at any time over three, any day, no matter who's coaching.