ATTN: Xs and Os folks — Run defense?

[Scooch]

Can someone explain what our defensive run strategy was to start the game? And what adjustments did we make throughout the game to stop BC’s overwhelming success?

I mean, we must have tried something, or somethings. Obviously every attempt failed miserably. I just want to understand what we tried to do, because to this layman it looked like nothing. But that can’t be it, right?

 

[Crusty]

Can someone explain what our defensive run strategy was to start the game? And what adjustments did we make throughout the game to stop BC’s overwhelming success?

I mean, we just have tried something, or somethings. Obviously every attempt failed miserably. I just want to understand what we tried to do, because to this layman it looked like nothing. But that can’t be it, right?

I am afraid you may be correct.

 

[SYRtoBOS]

Can someone explain what our defensive run strategy was to start the game? And what adjustments did we make throughout the game to stop BC’s overwhelming success?

I mean, we just have tried something, or somethings. Obviously every attempt failed miserably. I just want to understand what we tried to do, because to this layman it looked like nothing. But that can’t be it, right?

I think announcers (in this instance) were right the whole game, they kept putting 6 in the box against 6, sometimes 7 guys on the line. You are going to lose that every time.

 

[anomander]

Imagine stating you want you're identity to be a physical, hard hitting football team who bangs in pads in practice all season and you let BC run the ball down your throat. TWO BC Rb's account for 350 yards on the ground alone. We knew it was coming and couldn't stop it. No adjustment. Nothing. Two ACC losses to 2 teams with a total of 3 wins, 2 of them vs Syracuse. Vomited all over ourselves.

 

[upperdeck]

It looked to me that we had no DT/DL left to even try to slow it down

 

[Scooch]

It looked to me that we had no DT/DL left to even try to slow it down

I wonder what Mr “Next Man Up” thinks about that?

 

[Oakland]

I thought the 3 man DL was leaving with Dino. I know we lost a couple to injuries, but we must have 4 DL on the roster available to play - especially against a run team like BC.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Imagine stating you want you're identity to be a physical, hard hitting football team who bangs in pads in practice all season and you let BC run the ball down your throat. TWO BC Rb's account for 350 yards on the ground alone. We knew it was coming and couldn't stop it. No adjustment. Nothing. Two ACC losses to 2 teams with a total of 3 wins, 2 of them vs Syracuse. Vomited all over ourselves.

They all want to out meathead each other.

We out meatheaded GT earlier this season.

BC got us today.

It happens.

Again other teams try to win too.

BC was 4 and 4. They want to make a bowl. They had work to do. They did some of that work today.

 

[orange_in_VA]

I don't think the injury excuse holds water when week 1 went down how it did. We put on our Orange colored glasses and made up all kinds of excuses for it but it's been apparent all season

 

[orange_in_VA]

3 man front, no pass rush and zone coverage with a 8 yard cushion. All season long

 

[Cuse181]

I don't think the injury excuse holds water when week 1 went down how it did. We put on our Orange colored glasses and made up all kinds of excuses for it but it's been apparent all season

That tyus kid (NFL caliber super star) has ran for over 100 yards ONCE since Ohio played Syracuse

 

[OttosShoes]

Not much. Most teams base defense is 4-3-4 or 3-4-4 (Linemen/linebackers/secondary). Linemen and linebackers are run coverage "in the box" so that's 7. This should represent a decent base run coverage. We tend toward "Nickel (5)" which is a 3-3-5 or 4-2-5. Even if you rush four, you still only have 6 in the box, with the removed player going to the secondary as the "Star". More secondary is better pass coverage, but your lineup is smaller and usually further away from most runs.

They were running the ball all day long, and yet, we pretty much stayed in nickel, just kinda moved a little closer. That's what the color guy was getting at; BC was eating that up. Later in the game we actually *did* load the box a few times, but we loaded it so hard it was telegraphed and they called passes. That 4 and short TD pass was a good example. We didn't even leave a safety with a deep zone; both safeties stuck around at the back of the box and the pass sailed over them.

One positive change was made though; we did blitz a couple times on 3rd downs and it was pretty successful.

Otherwise, yeah, it was probably defensive playcalling that lost this one.

 

[anomander]

They all want to out meathead each other.

We out meatheaded GT earlier this season.

BC got us today.

It happens.

Again other teams try to win too.

BC was 4 and 4. They want to make a bowl. They had work to do. They did some of that work today.

Nothing against BC. They played great and told us they were going to run it down our throats and proceeded to slam it down. Hats off too them. I'm more frustrated with the lack of adjustment on our side of the ball. If you're going to come out and state this is what I want our identity to be and have it thrown back in your face then it's time to look in the mirror. It's a shame they're wasting a pretty special offense.

 

[007]

Not much. Most teams base defense is 4-3-4 or 3-4-4 (Linemen/linebackers/secondary). Linemen and linebackers are run coverage "in the box" so that's 7. This should represent a decent base run coverage. We tend toward "Nickel (5)" which is a 3-3-5 or 4-2-5. Even if you rush four, you still only have 6 in the box, with the removed player going to the secondary as the "Star". More secondary is better pass coverage, but your lineup is smaller and usually further away from most runs.

They were running the ball all day long, and yet, we pretty much stayed in nickel, just kinda moved a little closer. That's what the color guy was getting at; BC was eating that up. Later in the game we actually *did* load the box a few times, but we loaded it so hard it was telegraphed and they called passes. That 4 and short TD pass was a good example. We didn't even leave a safety with a deep zone; both safeties stuck around at the back of the box and the pass sailed over them.

One positive change was made though; we did blitz a couple times on 3rd downs and it was pretty successful.

Otherwise, yeah, it was probably defensive playcalling that lost this one.

Good post, OS. It looked like the 3-3-5 was the base defense, which is head scratching as a game plan going in. To be fair, there were some in game adjustments - they walked the LB to a 7 technique; went straight 4-2 some; some late blitzing - but 3-3-5 was the default. I don't know if this was a personnel decision (lacking DLs) and/or thinking the best chance to win was with the LBs and S making the run fits work while trying to help the secondary in pass coverage. BCs RBs were running over and past defenders all day regardless of the scheme. So, this was more than just, admittedly poor, play calling to my eye.

 

[Scooch]

Not much. Most teams base defense is 4-3-4 or 3-4-4 (Linemen/linebackers/secondary). Linemen and linebackers are run coverage "in the box" so that's 7. This should represent a decent base run coverage. We tend toward "Nickel (5)" which is a 3-3-5 or 4-2-5. Even if you rush four, you still only have 6 in the box, with the removed player going to the secondary as the "Star". More secondary is better pass coverage, but your lineup is smaller and usually further away from most runs.

They were running the ball all day long, and yet, we pretty much stayed in nickel, just kinda moved a little closer. That's what the color guy was getting at; BC was eating that up. Later in the game we actually *did* load the box a few times, but we loaded it so hard it was telegraphed and they called passes. That 4 and short TD pass was a good example. We didn't even leave a safety with a deep zone; both safeties stuck around at the back of the box and the pass sailed over them.

One positive change was made though; we did blitz a couple times on 3rd downs and it was pretty successful.

Otherwise, yeah, it was probably defensive playcalling that lost this one.

Good post, OS. It looked like the 3-3-5 was the base defense, which is head scratching as a game plan going in. To be fair, there were some in game adjustments - they walked the LB to a 7 technique; went straight 4-2 some; some late blitzing - but 3-3-5 was the default. I don't know if this was a personnel decision (lacking DLs) and/or thinking the best chance to win was with the LBs and S making the run fits work while trying to help the secondary in pass coverage. BCs RBs were running over and past defenders all day regardless of the scheme. So, this was more than just, admittedly poor, play calling to my eye.

Great, enlightening posts. Thanks to you both!

I’m thoroughly discouraged about Robinson. His D stinks. Sometimes we keep the points down while we give up yards. Sometimes we don’t. But we frequently look undisciplined and tactically unsound.

But this is ultimately on Fran. He wanted the recruiting guy who’s never really run a D before. I sure hope we have a treasure trove of front 7 defenders coming through the pipeline ASAP. If not this was a colossally mistake.

 

[PAcuse]

It really does help that we have 3 DL out for the season

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Great, enlightening posts. Thanks to you both!

I’m thoroughly discouraged about Robinson. His D stinks. Sometimes we keep the points down while we give up yards. Sometimes we don’t. But we frequently look undisciplined and tactically unsound.

But this is ultimately on Fran. He wanted the recruiting guy who’s never really run a D before. I sure hope we have a treasure trove of front 7 defenders coming through the pipeline ASAP. If not this was a colossally mistake.

Honestly if our DBs just took better angles on the plays that bust the defense would be a whole lot better.

I don't love the scheme either but as shaky as it is some stuff gets cleaned up and it performs a lot better.

It's discouraging that our HC is a former DB coach and this is a huge problem tho.

 

[007]

Great, enlightening posts. Thanks to you both!

I’m thoroughly discouraged about Robinson. His D stinks. Sometimes we keep the points down while we give up yards. Sometimes we don’t. But we frequently look undisciplined and tactically unsound.

But this is ultimately on Fran. He wanted the recruiting guy who’s never really run a D before. I sure hope we have a treasure trove of front 7 defenders coming through the pipeline ASAP. If not this was a colossally mistake.

It will be interesting to see how FB handles the off season with respect to staff (coaching and support). I wouldn't be surprised to see a staff move or two, and/or additional consultants.

It's not hard to point fingers from the couch (this not aimed at you). The coaches know what the issues are. Fran will not throw players, coaches or staff under the bus publically. But, I think those who "know" what we see on the field is mostly related to questionable coaching decisions are underestimating the relative lack of talent, playmakers, and depth. Improvements are needed across the board.

 

[007]

Honestly if our DBs just took better angles on the plays that bust the defense would be a whole lot better.

I don't live the scheme either but as shaky as it is some stuff gets cleaned up and it performs a lot better.

It's discouraging that our HC is a former DB coach and this is a huge problem tho.

I know I'm in the minority here, but some/many of those poor angles are more about speed than technique.

The bigger issue to me is the consistently poor tackling when in position to make the play.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Im not defensive alignment expert but with a new QB and 90% rush attempts I was shocked both safeties were 10-15 yards off the line of scrimmage most plays.

I don't understand how you don't move the safeties in the box and challenge them to go over the top. This rarely happened despite run after run. Put the CB on an island and make that QB make a contested throw. Ugh.

I don't think the 4th down and 1 play where everyone sold out to the run is a good example of what it would looked like either as that was circumstantial.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It will be interesting to see how FB handles the off season with respect to staff (coaching and support). I wouldn't be surprised to see a staff move or two, and/or additional consultants.

It's not hard to point fingers from the couch (this not aimed at you). The coaches know what the issues are. Fran will not throw players, coaches or staff under the bus publically. But, I think those who "know" what we see on the field is mostly related to questionable coaching decisions are underestimating the relative lack of talent, playmakers, and depth. Improvements are needed across the board.

There are some no brainer changes to make. Might make some other moves easier since obvious staff changes will happen.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I know I'm in the minority here, but some/many of those poor angles are more about speed than technique.

The bigger issue to me is the consistently poor tackling when in position to make the play.

You're not wrong, and maybe faster players make it seem like the angle works, but it's been noticeable all year that guys are angling themselves out of tackles.

 

[OttosShoes]

Going through film. Another point is that the BC offense play calling was, frankly, really good. Take this one (6:34 if the link doesn't work):

BC is lined up in a pretty typical shotgun, and we're in a cover 3 zone. Even with the benefit of hindsight--and the indemnity of being an armchair coach--I can't criticize that at all.

But BC must have watched a lot of tape, because they drew and split a gap in coverage just about perfectly. Watch Clarence (3). His play is likely to cover his man (BC #4) unless his route goes more than around 10 yards, in which case coverage gets handed off to the deep zone, Duce (0). That spot is *exactly* where No 4 ends his curl route, tying up Clarence. Meanwhile, BC #11 runs into that gap, and Duce--who's covering a deep zone--is forced to come up, but the pass was timed too perfectly for him to get there.

 

[Offthedome]

I know I'm in the minority here, but some/many of those poor angles are more about speed than technique.

The bigger issue to me is the consistently poor tackling when in position to make the play.

At one point, one of our DB's (I think it was Grant?) came up and upended the BC running back. Announcers raved about how it was perfect the way he stayed low and got leverage. I was yelling, "No, it's not perfect! He didn't wrap!" I'm so sick of our 175 pound DB's throwing their bodies at guy's shins and not driving through a tackle. That is when they actually take a good angle and front a guy up.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think part of the problem is having no real system.

If you have no real system, why not play a 4-3 this game? 3-3-5 was just asking for it.

I don’t get how we use Diggs. Kid has talent but has no defined role.

We seem to play just straight up on the DL. We will never have the talent to pull that off. By blind luck you should be able to get some penetration every now and then. Hard to do though when you just line 3 DL up and have them simply run into the OL.

We never have anyone closing in from the edge. Whether against the run or pass rush. Never seen a D like this. BC ran a bunch of delay and we never even tried coming from a DE or OLB spot.

We are just way too passive on D.