Shafer on the 3-4 switch

[rocklloyd]

I've flushed the game. Gone from my memory. On to wake

 

[SoBristol]

When we made some adjustments, or started looking for the option, GT threw over the top in the third quarter for an easy score. They pretty much had their choice of how to beat us.

Shafer isn't going to say this, but we would not have done any better in 4-3 -- same personnel except Hodge on the field instead of Crume. Still comes down to blocking vs tackling, their speed versus our guys trying to defend the QB and the pitch man.
It isn't as if our 4-3 was strong against NW or Clemson. In the first halves, just as at GT, we got run over, run around, or passed over.

Believe it was just bad coaching if you want.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Any reason why Arciniega wasn't used on the inside to try and contain the dive, and to let Spruill focus on getting to the outside?

 

[TheCusian]

I will say - there was a 3 and out in the 2nd (I think) where Spruill and the D were very aggressive. I thought we'd figured it out. They looked great.

Then the rest of the game happened.

 

[PAcuse]

This quote from Chris Carlson's article on Syracuse.com today.
"A little more speed on the field," Shafer said. "Trying to research it and how we matched up athletically, we thought that was the way to go. As a coach you fight the 20-20 hindsight but you also learn from it. It's a difficult lesson because we didn't do a good job. At the end of the day, from a scheme point of view, the scheme had soundness in it but we didn't play it as well as we needed to. We weren't as disciplined as we needed to be."

I can't believe my eyes. I thought the kids played their hearts out. I distinctly recall a GT drive when the game was well out of reach where the defense came out fired-up, hit hard and did everything they good to get to the ball despite being in what seemed like an insurmountable hole. I don't see how one can say that the result on the scoreboard was a product of discipline and execution on the field and not due to poor planning from the coach's box.

That scheme was doomed from the start.

The kids where fired up and might have looked like they where playing their hearts out on some plays, but they where way out of position a lot of times and lots of stupid penalties. As far as the scheme goes do a little research on how to stop the triple option. You will teams like Boise St, against Air Force, used a base 3-4 defense and mixed in the 5-2 front as well. If your players read the plays and play disciplined football this works.

 

[anglerman]

The pr

we lost because the dline was more worried about getting cut then playing the play.. the 3-4 was not the issue, even on the goal line plays we got blown off the ball and they weren't in 3-4 down there..

you can see plays with 3 guys in position and all 3 messed up the assignment.. its the same thing we are seeing on pass plays, guys are missing assignments and it leads to big plays.

so if it was our scheme why did GT avg almost 5 yds a play against BYU since that scheme worked so well? they avg 5.8 against us and 5.5 against Miami, 4.6 against UNC and 5.7 against Duke..

we did only marginally different than every other team.. had the offense scored 20+ like we expected and take two GT drives away they get the same 300 yds they get against every one else.. only one team has stopped them and thats VT.. BYU didnt stop them they got ahead so they passed 25 times. they never stopped the run..

I blame the offense more than the D its the score that makes it seem like it all on the D.. as tomcat said we turned at 35-20 loss into much worse that it really seemed..

The problem was scheme No question about it. I garauntee that you won't see that again the next time they play them. The players weren't disciplined because they didn't know what the hell they were doing.

 

[tbonezone]

this. you won't hear
"I'm an idiot, I really screwed up"..

but when i read" the scheme had soundness..."
sorry. but there was no sound. no fury. and all apologies to faulkner...
no sir . you screwed the pooch. swallow it.

 

[Crusty]

this. you won't hear
"I'm an idiot, I really screwed up"..

but when i read" the scheme had soundness..."
sorry. but no sound. no fury. and all apologies to faulkner
no sir . you screwed the pooch. swallow it.

Eloquent.

 

[Doctor44]

Wouldn't a 4-4 or a 5-3 have made more sense? You want to stack the box and give GT more guys to block than they plan for. You know they aren't going to throw a whole lot, so you divide the field into 3 zones with 2 cb's and a safety, except on 3rd and long.

Maybe do something crazy and do 7 down lineman each taking a gap and having a true outside rusher immediately crashing the backfield on each end, and having 5 true guys up the middle stopping the dive. You leave an athletic guy in the middle of the field as the spy, and have a 3 deep zone behind them.

These schemes make more sense to me if youre going to change the scheme - get another guy in the box, dont just change where one guy is.

 

[TheCusian]

this. you won't hear
"I'm an idiot, I really screwed up"..

but when i read" the scheme had soundness..."
sorry. but there was no sound. no fury. and all apologies to faulkner...
no sir . you screwed the pooch. swallow it.

Can a scheme be sound and the players not feel comfortable enough to execute? The scheme can be both sound and be the wrong move.

If a scheme falls in the woods, is it still sound?

 

[retro44]

The only thing I want to know at this point was...did Tajh Boyd take G.T. minus the points

 

[Entropic]

He's not going to come out and say, "I'm an idiot, I really screwed up"... He resorted to typical coach speak.

And lastly, the players get alot of the blame as well. They missed really, really easy assignments at times and did not keep contain at all.

Can't generally prepare a group of kids to make an entire scheme change and learn assignment football against an unknown offensive scheme. It was wrong for the coaches to make that change on 4 days of practice. Set the kids up to fail.

 

[SmilinBob]

OK, we got our butts handed to us and now my biggest question is, did this staff learn from this? Will it be a well it didn't work...this time. Or, will HCSS realize this wasn't the best move and grow as a coach from it. To me, the greatest gains of growth are from failure and recognizing the whats and whys.

 

[Rocco]

Can't generally prepare a group of kids to make an entire scheme change and learn assignment football against an unknown offensive scheme. It was wrong for the coaches to make that change on 4 days of practice. Set the kids up to fail.

They started prepping during summer camp. Everyone is to be blamed for this. Coaches, players, etc. Regardless of the scheme, players still need to tackle. Would like to know how many missed tackles there were in that game.

 

[SmilinBob]

They started prepping during summer camp. Everyone is to be blamed for this. Coaches, players, etc. Regardless of the scheme, players still need to tackle. Would like to know how many missed tackles there were in that game.

What bothered me were the fans...the running up to the guy with the ball and watching the runner fan him without being touched. Spruill for example would bust up the middle and then proceed to have the play easily go to his right with him completely being a non factor. Not putting this on Spruill, just citing him as one of the examples. Players were too upright and getting pushed back too easily thus absolutely no time for others to do anything as containment was always lost.

 

[storange]

What bothered me were the fans...the running up to the guy with the ball and watching the runner fan him without being touched. Spruill for example would bust up the middle and then proceed to have the play easily go to his right with him completely being a non factor. Not putting this on Spruill, just citing him as one of the examples. Players were too upright and getting pushed back too easily thus absolutely no time for others to do anything as containment was always lost.

One play we got penatration and the QB had to make a quick pitch. Spruill took an inside route to the QB allowing containment loss and 12 yd gain. Play should have ben stopped for a loss. We had no idea how to play against this offense

 

[jgeorge322]

Well THAT is really the question, for which I have absolutely no answer!

the only explanation i have is chuck b. felt our defense was full of whimps and wanted to toughen them up. the only analogy i can come up with is a father who makes his son fight a neighborhood bully who he knows is going to beat the crap out of his kid because the father things it will pay dividends later in life. the only issue is chuck b. never stepped in after the bully curb stomped the child and the child was left with no pulse, rendering the lesson moot.

 

[orangenirvana]

we lost because the dline was more worried about getting cut then playing the play.. the 3-4 was not the issue, even on the goal line plays we got blown off the ball and they weren't in 3-4 down there..

you can see plays with 3 guys in position and all 3 messed up the assignment.. its the same thing we are seeing on pass plays, guys are missing assignments and it leads to big plays.

so if it was our scheme why did GT avg almost 5 yds a play against BYU since that scheme worked so well? they avg 5.8 against us and 5.5 against Miami, 4.6 against UNC and 5.7 against Duke..

we did only marginally different than every other team.. had the offense scored 20+ like we expected and take two GT drives away they get the same 300 yds they get against every one else.. only one team has stopped them and thats VT.. BYU didnt stop them they got ahead so they passed 25 times. they never stopped the run..

I blame the offense more than the D its the score that makes it seem like it all on the D.. as tomcat said we turned at 35-20 loss into much worse that it really seemed..

We knew going in that our offense reeks and our D should be SU's strength and must carry the team.

All three units were horrible, but allowing 56 points was a bigger shock and disappointment than scoring 0.

 

[NovaOrange]

First let me start off by saying the triple option is harder to defend then people think. With that said the 4-4 is a nightmare for the option. If you stunt and twist while using a heavy dose of blitzing you confuse the line and delay there cutting. Once you confuse the line you dominate the option attack IMO. I have never coached at the college level but it has been effective for me in the past

 

[Madbiker]

Change the whole defensive scheme and give college players 5 days to install it...and then be surprised when it's not played well. I hope the coaching staff learned a lesson.

 

[Crusty]

Wouldn't a 4-4 or a 5-3 have made more sense? You want to stack the box and give GT more guys to block than they plan for. You know they aren't going to throw a whole lot, so you divide the field into 3 zones with 2 cb's and a safety, except on 3rd and long.

Maybe do something crazy and do 7 down lineman each taking a gap and having a true outside rusher immediately crashing the backfield on each end, and having 5 true guys up the middle stopping the dive. You leave an athletic guy in the middle of the field as the spy, and have a 3 deep zone behind them.

These schemes make more sense to me if youre going to change the scheme - get another guy in the box, dont just change where one guy is.

First let me start off by saying the triple option is harder to defend then people think. With that said the 4-4 is a nightmare for the option. If you stunt and twist while using a heavy dose of blitzing you confuse the line and delay there cutting. Once you confuse the line you dominate the option attack IMO. I have never coached at the college level but it has been effective for me in the past

Interesting - now I have to look up the 4-4!

 

[tbonezone]

you do understand the 4 x 4 ? that's what we got smacked with buford pusser style.

 

[kuethstheman]

you do understand the 4 x 4 ? that's what we got smacked with buford pusser style.

Now THERE was a man!