Big vs Fast

[money3189]

Interesting thread on the 3-3-5 against heavy personnel

 

[upperdeck]

It still comes down to make less mistakes.. When we played ND it was an issue but some of that is guys not willing to man up where they should have been and trying to take an easier route to the spot and that created bigger holes.

sometimes you can beat your man and it makes the D unsound.

 

[money3189]

It still comes down to make less mistakes.. When we played ND it was an issue but some of that is guys not willing to man up where they should have been and trying to take an easier route to the spot and that created bigger holes.

sometimes you can beat your man and it makes the D unsound.

Yes but that happens in every defense. Its not specific to scheme.

 

[Chip]

I thought this was going to be a thread about how my wife would take either but gets neither.

 

[Goin' Deep]

Did you see the size of TCU's Nose tackle and DEs?
Their (TCU's)2 deep

DE's 275 NT 320 DE 280
295 320 290

 

[Newhouser]

Did you see the size of TCU's Nose tackle and DEs?
Their (TCU's)2 deep

DE's 275 NT 320 DE 280
295 320 290

Isn't their NT 18 - thought they said he started the season at 17.

 

[Cuse'91]

Did you see the size of TCU's Nose tackle and DEs?
Their (TCU's)2 deep

DE's 275 NT 320 DE 280
295 320 290

Arizona State had similar guys for their 335. Hoping Rocky demands 270-290-270 minimum across our front next season.

 

[money3189]

Arizona State had similar guys for their 335. Hoping Rocky demands 270-290-270 minimum across our front next season.

They were transitioning from a 4-3 so they already had bigger D Lineman on the team. I think it all depends if they are athletic. If they can get more guys like Ingraham

 

[money3189]

Did you see the size of TCU's Nose tackle and DEs?
Their (TCU's)2 deep

DE's 275 NT 320 DE 280
295 320 290

They were also 70th against the run.

 

[TheCusian]

One of the things that gets silly around here is the focus on height/weight when the staff is prioritizing athleticism. Obviously one is easily quantifiable and is posted on the official roster sheet - the other is not.

Not saying it will change, but man a pause before the "we need beefier DL post" x 100 would be awesome

 

[SoBristol]

One of the things that gets silly around here is the focus on height/weight when the staff is prioritizing athleticism. Obviously one is easily quantifiable and is posted on the official roster sheet - the other is not.

Not saying it will change, but man a pause before the "we need beefier DL post" x 100 would be awesome

At one point, there were plenty of posts about how the staff was prioritizing taller DBs; the next year we got a bunch of shorter DBs. A lot depends on which of the dozens of kids we offer want to come to SU. Did we want 6ft 4in 240 lb DEs or is that who wanted to come?

This round, they prioritized extra large OL transfers and at least one full grown DT/DE in Ingraham (6ft 4 298). And I am guessing the staff will want some of our rangier & athletic DEs to add muscle in the off-season. Not so silly to focus on where we need to get bigger.

 

[upperdeck]

we played 13 games.. the size of the dline issue was that after we lost a couple we had no rotation and it cost us in 2-3 games.. It was not an issue in 8-9 of the games..

had the offense played well we still probably win 2-3 more games even with the dline issues..

We cant over look the D put us in position with the 3-3-5 to win a bunch of games where we were down 5-6-7-8 starters on D..

 

[SoBristol]

we played 13 games.. the size of the dline issue was that after we lost a couple we had no rotation and it cost us in 2-3 games.. It was not an issue in 8-9 of the games..

had the offense played well we still probably win 2-3 more games even with the dline issues..

We cant over look the D put us in position with the 3-3-5 to win a bunch of games where we were down 5-6-7-8 starters on D..

Not sure this is accurate. We started 6-0 with a couple of lucky wins (Purdue in particular) against teams that wanted to pass more than run. We won those games when we were down two starters - Thompson and Lockett from early September, and then Williams also went down.
Then we faced Clemson, FSU, ND, Pitt and Wake - and gave up a lot on running downs. Debatable whether the DL put us in position to win those games. Credit to our undersized defense for competing as well as it did, but certainly we were physically outmatched in the trenches, at least to my eyes.
We did beat BC when down a bunch of starters, and with a revised DL (4 DL for the most part) held Minny in check. But that stretch after a 6-0 start was brutal.

I believe our defense will be stronger in 2023 with legit size up front to deal with ACC lines.

 

[BigNastyJon]

Good thing we don’t have to choose between big vs. nasty

 

[money3189]

Not sure this is accurate. We started 6-0 with a couple of lucky wins (Purdue in particular) against teams that wanted to pass more than run. We won those games when we were down two starters - Thompson and Lockett from early September, and then Williams also went down.
Then we faced Clemson, FSU, ND, Pitt and Wake - and gave up a lot on running downs. Debatable whether the DL put us in position to win those games. Credit to our undersized defense for competing as well as it did, but certainly we were physically outmatched in the trenches, at least to my eyes.
We did beat BC when down a bunch of starters, and with a revised DL (4 DL for the most part) held Minny in check. But that stretch after a 6-0 start was brutal.

I believe our defense will be stronger in 2023 with legit size up front to deal with ACC lines.

DL wasnt their strength this year and playing against some of the best O lines during that stretch didnt help either. Most teams struggled to stop them. Rush yards rankings FSU 13th, ND 35th, Pitt 42nd Clemson 45th. The thought that SU's scheme needs legit size is a fallacy. Size has never been a priority.

 

[TheCusian]

At one point, there were plenty of posts about how the staff was prioritizing taller DBs; the next year we got a bunch of shorter DBs. A lot depends on which of the dozens of kids we offer want to come to SU. Did we want 6ft 4in 240 lb DEs or is that who wanted to come?

This round, they prioritized extra large OL transfers and at least one full grown DT/DE in Ingraham (6ft 4 298). And I am guessing the staff will want some of our rangier & athletic DEs to add muscle in the off-season. Not so silly to focus on where we need to get bigger.

That’s not the point. Prioritizing athleticism doesn’t mean you’re not taking kids who are big and athletic.

Plus, main point is we the fans of a message board are solid at comparing heights and weights and less awesome at knowing how athletic a high school junior is relative to other p5 players. So we focus on what we know.

 

[SoBristol]

DL wasnt their strength this year and playing against some of the best O lines during that stretch didnt help either. Most teams struggled to stop them. Rush yards rankings FSU 13th, ND 35th, Pitt 42nd Clemson 45th. The thought that SU's scheme needs legit size is a fallacy. Size has never been a priority.

We and others have gone back and forth on this point. The words “needs” and “priority” may confuse the discussion. If we want to stop Pitt or Wake from pushing us around, we should want a DL with the strength to hold up against power runs.

The staff sought a bigger DT for 2022 - they made an offer or two but did not land one. They found Ingraham for 2023. Maybe it was a priority in each case?

The younger DL guys on the roster (now at 240 - 250) are going to develop into legit size. You think the DL might be stronger when that happens? Better than we saw in 2022 with our undersized bunch?

I expect we can agree we don’t need (and can’t land but surely want) the full grown DTs that tend to select SEC or BiG programs. But 270, 290, 275 across the front with 3rd and 4th year guys would help the scheme.

 

[ImperialOrange]

We need fast at WR/KR. The guys we have that we proclaim as "fast" at playmaker positions currently would be consider maybe considered above average on top teams. Some newer faces on the roster may be this but been awhile since we've had someone running away from defenders in coverage.

Score more chunk plays and getting better field position would help our defense immensely.

 

[DCUNITED13]

It would help if we score early and change the other teams game plan to more passing plays. We did that early in the season (even against Clemson). We moved the ball early in the season and had good field position. I recall our field position was difficult most of the time in the ND-WF stretch. Our offence not able to provide good position put our defense at a disadvantage yet they mostly held up (even with inuries).
When we brought our DB's up to help with the rushing defense we became more beat up in the secondary and allowed big plays (especially passing)

GO CUSE

 

[money3189]

We and others have gone back and forth on this point. The words “needs” and “priority” may confuse the discussion. If we want to stop Pitt or Wake from pushing us around, we should want a DL with the strength to hold up against power runs.

The staff sought a bigger DT for 2022 - they made an offer or two but did not land one. They found Ingraham for 2023. Maybe it was a priority in each case?

The younger DL guys on the roster (now at 240 - 250) are going to develop into legit size. You think the DL might be stronger when that happens? Better than we saw in 2022 with our undersized bunch?

I expect we can agree we don’t need (and can’t land but surely want) the full grown DTs that tend to select SEC or BiG programs. But 270, 290, 275 across the front with 3rd and 4th year guys would help the scheme.

Weight is not the first thing they look for. Speed and explosiveness is. This is not my opinion. This is fact. Its not about how much they weigh. They look for athletic bodies that are twitchy. If they can move with a lot of weight then that's great but they dont want too much weight on them if it limits their lateral movement and ability to bend and change directions. They got Ingraham which fits the mode of the big twitchy D lineman they can use. The problem is that they cant get those guys out of HS.

Good O lines and running backs push around teams with big interior D lineman too. Not sure why you think size is gonna eliminate teams from running against SU.

 

[Ozone!]

Darton is not big and yet he gave fits to opposing offenses! He never quit; he’s our energizer DL stud!

 

[money3189]

Darton is not big and yet he gave fits to opposing offenses! He never quit; he’s our energizer DL stud!

Size dont mean much if you are not strong and cant move. Functional weight is more important

 

[SoBristol]

Weight is not the first thing they look for. Speed and explosiveness is. This is not my opinion. This is fact. Its not about how much they weigh. They look for athletic bodies that are twitchy. If they can move with a lot of weight then that's great but they dont want too much weight on them if it limits their lateral movement and ability to bend and change directions. They got Ingraham which fits the mode of the big twitchy D lineman they can use. The problem is that they cant get those guys out of HS.

Good O lines and running backs push around teams with big interior D lineman too. Not sure why you think size is gonna eliminate teams from running against SU.

I continue to believe you overstate your case.

Good o lines and running backs do well against big lines, they do much better against undersized DLs. I am sure you watched the Wake game where our undersized guys got pushed around. Linton is twitchy -- he got buried.

I think we agree that SU can't recruit the ideal DTs out of HS, so we take 6ft 4 in 240 lb guys and hope to build them into full grown linemen. But you don't want to roll with kids at 240. Not ideal. And if you don't have linemen who have developed into good size, you better hit the portal for help. As the staff did in landing Ingraham (295). So having Ingraham, and having the younger kids add muscle, will make us better in 2023.

 

[money3189]

I continue to believe you overstate your case.

Good o lines and running backs do well against big lines, they do much better against undersized DLs. I am sure you watched the Wake game where our undersized guys got pushed around. Linton is twitchy -- he got buried.

I think we agree that SU can't recruit the ideal DTs out of HS, so we take 6ft 4 in 240 lb guys and hope to build them into full grown linemen. But you don't want to roll with kids at 240. Not ideal. And if you don't have linemen who have developed into good size, you better hit the portal for help. As the staff did in landing Ingraham (295). So having Ingraham, and having the younger kids add muscle, will make us better in 2023.

The idea is to get them strong and explosive. Ideally they want them between 260-280 depending how each D line man does with added weight. So again, they will take bigger lineman if they can still move the way they need them to move. They want them to have functional weight. Darton is a example of that. The staff purposely had him lose 20 pounds because he performs in the scheme better at that weight. Each player is different and can play at different weights.

This is not my case lol. This info comes directly from the staff. Complaining about their approach wont make what you want come to fruition.

 

[Oakland]

One of the things that gets silly around here is the focus on height/weight when the staff is prioritizing athleticism. Obviously one is easily quantifiable and is posted on the official roster sheet - the other is not.

Not saying it will change, but man a pause before the "we need beefier DL post" x 100 would be awesome

Good luck with that - it is now a board mantra.