4-2-5 Study Hall | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

4-2-5 Study Hall

sdhall01 said:
I’m not saying that he’s not. I’m saying I’m surprised. This is either a very good thing or a VERY bad thing.
Expand...
I agree. It may work or it may not. Its a risk coaches take when trying to fix things. We will see
 
money3189 said:
You can question coaches all you want because I do too. I dont dislike you doing that. You should question things you dont understand. Im trying to help you better understand what the coaches are doing. Through my experience the undersized players works when you are replacing with more speed, athelticism and instincts. Big is not always better when you can't even get in position to make the play. IMO you dont have to be too concerned about that combination of size. We've already mentioned how it will be based on personnel of the opponent. You should have questioned the scheme last year. We played a 4-3 with LB's that were 209 and 215. Thats more alarming. Its also more proof that size have to be overlooked because at one point we were a decent defense with those undersized LB's.
Expand...
Look, I'm trying to be pleasant, but I'm not sure how many more times you can tell me I don't understand things and that's going to continue. You're treating me like I'm a 10 year old child learning the sport and you're the wise old man with all the answers.

Because I don't agree with you and the coaches, doesn't mean I don't understand. I've played football and watched it at all levels religiously since I was 5 years old. And I've been a coach. Not football, but I understand the decisions you need to make to get the most out of your team. Decisions you feel are best that not everyone paying attention is going to agree with.

As for a 4-3 defense being successful with undersized players, that is essentially my point. My belief is that if you have undersized linebackers you need to play with more of them not less. Using 3 undersized linebackers to help stop the run and still have good pass coverage is better than having 2 undersized linebackers to stop the run and have good pass coverage.

I hope that we can just agree to disagree and move on cordially.
 
Digable5 said:
Look, I'm trying to be pleasant, but I'm not sure how many more times you can tell me I don't understand things and that's going to continue. You're treating me like I'm a 10 year old child learning the sport and you're the wise old man with all the answers.

Because I don't agree with you and the coaches, doesn't mean I don't understand. I've played football and watched it at all levels religiously since I was 5 years old. And I've been a coach. Not football, but I understand the decisions you need to make to get the most out of your team. Decisions you feel are best that not everyone paying attention is going to agree with.

As for a 4-3 defense being successful with undersized players, that is essentially my point. My belief is that if you have undersized linebackers you need to play with more of them not less. Using 3 undersized linebackers to help stop the run and still have good pass coverage is better than having 2 undersized linebackers to stop the run and have good pass coverage.

I hope that we can just agree to disagree and move on cordially.
Expand...

He’s a football coach
 
Digable5 said:
Look, I'm trying to be pleasant, but I'm not sure how many more times you can tell me I don't understand things and that's going to continue. You're treating me like I'm a 10 year old child learning the sport and you're the wise old man with all the answers.

Because I don't agree with you and the coaches, doesn't mean I don't understand. I've played football and watched it at all levels religiously since I was 5 years old. And I've been a coach. Not football, but I understand the decisions you need to make to get the most out of your team. Decisions you feel are best that not everyone paying attention is going to agree with.

As for a 4-3 defense being successful with undersized players, that is essentially my point. My belief is that if you have undersized linebackers you need to play with more of them not less. Using 3 undersized linebackers to help stop the run and still have good pass coverage is better than having 2 undersized linebackers to stop the run and have good pass coverage.

I hope that we can just agree to disagree and move on cordially.
Expand...
sorry I just didnt think you understood because I mentioned packages for certain personnel and you still seem confused. I listen and learn from everyone on this board. You don't have to agree with me and Im just trying to reduce your concern. They are not going to be in that package as much as you think. Thats why Im not concerned. Cordy is a senior and it was a way to list him as a starter in the program. The other LB will be on their field brother. No worries
 
Last edited:
money3189 said:
sorry I just didnt think you understood because I mentioned packages for certain personnel and you still seem confused. I listen and learn from everyone on this board. You have to agree with me and just trying to reduce your concern. They are not going to be in that package as much as you think. Thats why Im not concerned. Cordy is a senior and it was a way to list him as a starter in the program. The other LB will be on their field brother. No worries
Expand...

I didnt think he understood for the same points you bring up. Just because the "base" defense on paper says those 2 will be in those positions...doesnt mean thats what will be on the field...all depending on what offense we are going up against and the scheme.
 
GoCuse14 said:
I didnt think he understood for the same points you bring up. Just because the "base" defense on paper says those 2 will be in those positions...doesnt mean thats what will be on the field...all depending on what offense we are going up against and the scheme.
Expand...
Even though I literally said:

"We agree that the defense will change based on the offensive personnel which renders a lot of this moot. "

"Its a complex situation and their defense will surely change for strategic purposes, but in theory, base offense against base defense is to our disadvantage unless playing the spread."

?????????
 
TheCusian said:
He’s a football coach
Expand...
lol, I understood why he was concerned but he didnt want to understand why I wasnt. I like his thoughts on packages against Wr sets which I agree with but then he counters back with issues about size. The personnel will change based on what the opponents are doing. Anyone on the board can answer that. He kept mentioning Bailey, I had to go back to see who he was referring to. You dont have to be a coach to know that. Its pretty obvious.
 
Last edited:
I can be down with the 4-2-5 for a few reasons:

1) Cordy is essentially the 3rd linebacker, and that's fine by me because he is always looking to knock the schnit out a ball carrier. He hits better than any linebacker or tackle out there.

2) This could actually give them the ability to play more linebackers. You could sub 2 in and 2 out all game long and keep your linebackers fresh for the season. Do I realistically think they will do this? Unfortunately, no. But maybe.

3) Ward knows what he is doing with a defense. He proved that for the first 9.5 games last year. I'll trust it here. For now
 
money3189 said:
lol, I understood what his concern was but he didnt want to understand why I wasnt. I like his thoughts on packages against Wr sets which I agree with but then he counters back with issues about size. The personnel will change based on what the opponents are doing. Anyone on the board can answer that. He kept mentioning Bailey, I had to go back to see who he was referring to. You dont have to be a coach to know that. Its pretty obvious.
Expand...
I referred to Cordy as Bailey in 1 post.

You "understood" and I was "confused". Got it.
 
Digable5 said:
Even though I literally said:

"We agree that the defense will change based on the offensive personnel which renders a lot of this moot. "

"Its a complex situation and their defense will surely change for strategic purposes, but in theory, base offense against base defense is to our disadvantage unless playing the spread."

?????????
Expand...
then you followed that up with taking shots at the coaches. I was getting confused. Not sure why you went there. Ward knows his stuff, just like Shafer and Bullough does. Shafer had early success but those two had their scheme implemented for 7 years. Its taking a few years to remove themselves from that scheme.
 
Orijinal said:
I can be down with the 4-2-5 for a few reasons:

1) Cordy is essentially the 3rd linebacker, and that's fine by me because he is always looking to knock the schnit out a ball carrier. He hits better than any linebacker or tackle out there.

2) This could actually give them the ability to play more linebackers. You could sub 2 in and 2 out all game long and keep your linebackers fresh for the season. Do I realistically think they will do this? Unfortunately, no. But maybe.

3) Ward knows what he is doing with a defense. He proved that for the first 9.5 games last year. I'll trust it here. For now
Expand...
Good points plus, the coaches don't want Cordy playing on too many early (run personnel downs). They dont want him to get him hurt. Babers has been vocal about finding ways to keep him healthy.
 
money3189 said:
I think you over analyzing the scheme. What he's doing is not unorthodox. It makes sense to why he's doing it. I dont see guys line up wrong or out of position. I see common stunts blitzes and coverages that most teams uses. Of course there is head scratching plays. Mostly I see guys losing match ups and having brain farts. That will all get better with more physically and mentally mature players. As far as Ward, he's a sharp guy that knows what he's doing. He needs all his players to do it. I didnt like the collapse at the end of the season.. I was vocal about that. I understand they were worn out but I also thought some of the players stopped playing for him. I could be wrong. Its just what it looked like. Some times its matter of being a prink and demanding accountability without the players turning on you. How fired does he gets? I dont know.
Expand...
No ur right money. Seemed to quit a bit at the end. Didn’t have the fight they had earlier.
 
I think we are gonna be faster and better at open field tackling such as sweep, jet motion, and other stuff. I am concerned a little on up the gut stuff but if they ain’t doing the job, next man up.
 
So, one theory (and just guessing) --the staff gives Cordy and Whitner top billing in the depth chart to get these two seniors some props. How much they actually use that line-up - depends; who starts, who plays, depends on August practices. It is a pre-August depth chart not a game plan.

And thanks for the discussion above.
 
SoBristol said:
So, one theory (and just guessing) --the staff gives Cordy and Whitner top billing in the depth chart to get these two seniors some props. How much they actually use that line-up - depends; who starts, who plays, depends on August practices. It is a pre-August depth chart not a game plan.

And thanks for the discussion above.
Expand...
I would say you're right on.
 
Bambrewer said:
You guys do realize they ran this a lot last year right?
Expand...

It looked like they were in the nickel a lot more than base 4-3 most of the year. No different this year. As for the T2...I think the bigger difference is we are going to see a lot more press coverage at the corners and attempts at man under.
 
upperdeck said:
I dont think most people know we ran so little base Tampa 2 or that we actually ran an attacking D most of the season,. that last 2 1/2 game stretch skewed most peoples memories of the season.
Expand...
Not sure why they don't see it. People have Tampa 2 in their minds and automatically want to blame the scheme for our defensive struggles. We were agressive last season. I know we were beat up during the Louisville game but re watch it and see how much we blitzed and got shredded more when we did.
 
money3189 said:
Not sure why they don't see it. People have Tampa 2 in their minds and automatically want to blame the scheme for our defensive struggles. We were agressive last season. I know we were beat up during the Louisville game but re watch it and see how much we blitzed and got shredded more when we did.
Expand...

That game was classic “less effecient tempo O combined with more aggressive D = score gets out of hand quick”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SWC75
    • Like
Why Miami might win
Replies
2
Views
559
SmilinBob
S
SWC75
    • Like
Why Connecticut might win
Replies
7
Views
934
VTAaron
V
SWC75
    • Like
Winning Plays: California
Replies
2
Views
295
upperdeck
U
SWC75
Why California might win
Replies
1
Views
474
SWC75
SWC75
SWC75
Winning Plays: Connecticut
Replies
1
Views
378
SWC75
SWC75

Forum statistics

Threads
172,092
Messages
4,994,273
Members
6,021
Latest member
OldeOstrom

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
2,227
Total visitors
2,417
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom