tampa 2 discussion

[upperdeck]

they had a nice talk about tampa 2 this morning on xm radio. the main gist was

1) good D against QBs that dont have NFL arms , which is most of college
2) good D against teams like oregon/baylor that run lots of short routes
3) good D against Qbs that like to escape
4) good D in the red zone, 3rd and long
5) good D because its simple , doesnt require great cover corners, and its simple to teach and learn since its easier to get back into position

not the base defense for hardly any college teams
struggles against teams that can stress it deep
a) with the 3 holes, middle and deep outs
b) with teams that have multiple speed guys
c) QBs who can throw with a big arm since its mostly zone
d) needs big hitting safeties

 

[TheCusian]

they had a nice talk about tampa 2 this morning on xm radio. the main gist was 1) good D against QBs that dont have NFL arms , which is most of college 2) good D against teams like oregon/baylor that run lots of short routes 3) good D against Qbs that like to escape 4) good D in the red zone, 3rd and long 5) good D because its simple , doesnt require great cover corners, and its simple to teach and learn since its easier to get back into position not the base defense for hardly any college teams struggles against teams that can stress it deep a) with the 3 holes, middle and deep outs b) with teams that have multiple speed guys c) QBs who can throw with a big arm since its mostly zone d) needs big hitting safeties

Clemson and FSU will eat it up. But will they be able to stop us? (Not joking, see year two of this offense)

NC State and Wake might not like us very much.

 

[brian]

http://www.bucsnation.com/2010/5/12/1466315/tampa-2-defense-explained
thought this had some good insight into what our Defense will look like. I know of the Tampa 2 but never really read up on it before..

 

[CousCuse]

I'm not understanding why to use the Tampa 2. Offensive possessions are the prime consideration . I would think a defense would be employed that would maximize turnovers or take risks (blitz) to blow up the opposing offense which may give up big plays but gives your offense the ball back and put their defense back on the field faster.

 

[CU44SE]

Bend but don't break defense. We give up 3 on defense and the we score 7 on offense. 7>3

 

[TheCusian]

I'm not understanding why to use the Tampa 2. Offensive possessions are the prime consideration . I would think a defense would be employed that would maximize turnovers or take risks (blitz) to blow up the opposing offense which may give up big plays but gives your offense the ball back and put their defense back on the field faster.

Teams playing from behind pass the ball a lot. Most QB's in college can't make all the throws you need to make to beat the Tampa2.

Our INT #'s are going to go up x2

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I'm not understanding why to use the Tampa 2. Offensive possessions are the prime consideration . I would think a defense would be employed that would maximize turnovers or take risks (blitz) to blow up the opposing offense which may give up big plays but gives your offense the ball back and put their defense back on the field faster.

We just had a defense that blitzed a lot, didn't create many turnovers, and could be maddeningly ineffective as often as it was staggeringly successful.

 

[NKR1978]

Any defense has to be better than the "opponents are x for x going for it on 4th down for the season," and the "50/50 shot they're going to get the 1st on 3rd and 15" defenses we've employed for the last two years.

 

[CousCuse]

Teams playing from behind pass the ball a lot. Most QB's in college can't make all the throws you need to make to beat the Tampa2.

Our INT #'s are going to go up x2

The new offense only gives an advantage against teams with superior athletes on their defense when you have worn them down , do to better conditioning. If the opposing offense can possess the ball for long drives you never get that point .

 

[CousCuse]

We just had a defense that blitzed a lot, didn't create many turnovers, and could be maddeningly ineffective as often as it was staggeringly successful.

They created lots of turnover's.

 

[CousCuse]

Any defense has to be better than the "opponents are x for x going for it on 4th down for the season," and the "50/50 shot they're going to get the 1st on 3rd and 15" defenses we've employed for the last two years.

The defense 2 years ago was great , the offensive was terrible do to no QB.

 

[PhatOrange]

We just had a defense that blitzed a lot, didn't create many turnovers, and could be maddeningly ineffective as often as it was staggeringly successful.

yet it was a top 35 defense more than once. wonder how good his defense would've been with a respectable offense.

i like an attacking do that forces QBs into quick decisions. hate it when they sit back with all day to throw. it's high risk high reward d though for sure.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

They created lots of turnover's.

Tied for 38th this season. Bowling Green was tied for 13th.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/460

 

[upperdeck]

I think the big question is what does this D need to be to win games.. if we create more TO's and allow less long drives even with the same points allowed we are still better off. 4-5 more possessions a game with a better offense means more points, I hope. if we can get a top 50-60 D that may be enough.. I would have been last year for 2-3 more wins. The attacking D didnt win us games late when a team playing Tampa 2 well might well have done so.. time will tell

 

[upperdeck]

Tied for 38th this season. Bowling Green was tied for 13th.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/460

Anyone seen stats on TO's leading to points in a more meaningful way. It feels like a INT leads to TO's that lead to big returns more often than fumbles do? So I guess are all TO's create equal?

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

yet it was a top 35 defense more than once. wonder how good his defense would've been with a respectable offense.

I don't mean to be a Shafer hater because I genuinely liked the guy and his defenses were fun to watch.

But in 7 years of Shafer being here, our defense was one of the 25% best in terms of yards allowed a couple of times? I don't know how excited that makes me.

The D was solid in 2012 when we had the respectable offense, but also gave up lots of points to Northwestern, USC, and Louisville, and had an annoying penchant for giving up huge plays even at their best.

 

[CousCuse]

Tied for 38th this season. Bowling Green was tied for 13th.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/460

The QB's an receivers in the ACC might be a little better than in the MAC.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

The QB's an receivers in the ACC might be a little better than in the MAC.

So, theoretically, should the defensive players.

 

[upperdeck]

The QB's an receivers in the ACC might be a little better than in the MAC.

tell BC that.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Anyone seen stats on TO's leading to points in a more meaningful way. It feels like a INT leads to TO's that lead to big returns more often than fumbles do? So I guess are all TO's create equal?

I'm looking.

Edit: No luck after a quick search. I did see that our opponents were 13 for 13 on 4th down this year. Shudder.

 

[CousCuse]

I don't mean to be a Shafer hater because I genuinely liked the guy and his defenses were fun to watch.

But in 7 years of Shafer being here, our defense was one of the 25% best in terms of yards allowed a couple of times? I don't know how excited that makes me.

The D was solid in 2012 when we had the respectable offense, but also gave up lots of points to Northwestern, USC, and Louisville, and had an annoying penchant for giving up huge plays even at their best.

This has nothing to do with Shafer. This is about the thesis of employing superior conditioning to wear down better athletes so that later in the game your not as highly rated athletes are more capable of still sustaining play and are superior.

 

[CousCuse]

tell BC that.

BC beat Northern Illinois , which is the super power of the MAC..

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

This has nothing to do with Shafer. This is about the thesis of employing superior conditioning to wear down better athletes so that later in the game your not as highly athletes are more capable of still sustaining play and are superior.

And you're arguing that a Tampa 2 scheme is going to allow for long, sustained drives that lets the defense rests.

I'm arguing that the aggressive defense you want was used and failed here in part because the defense kept getting caught on the field for 10-15 play drives constantly.

 

[NKR1978]

Tied for 38th this season. Bowling Green was tied for 13th.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/460

Our best defense under Shafer was 2010. That defense single handedly won games.

 

[CousCuse]

And you're arguing that a Tampa 2 scheme is going to allow for long, sustained drives that lets the defense rests.

I'm arguing that the aggressive defense you want was used and failed here in part because the defense kept getting caught on the field for 10-15 play drives constantly.

In the new scheme then they should take more risks and be more aggressive.