Wishful thinking... The perfect combo of O & D

[Rocco]

I would love Shafer's defense to go with Babers' offense.

That would be constant excitement. I frigging loved Shafer's defense. They kept us in most games, but the 3 and outs on offense kept the D gassed all the time.

No way Shafer's defense gets smoked like that last night.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Didn't Shafer's defense give up 59 to Ga Tech?

It happens.

 

[Crusty]

I would love Shafer's defense to go with Babers' offense.

That would be constant excitement. I frigging loved Shafer's defense. They kept us in most games, but the 3 and outs on offense kept the D gassed all the time.

No way Shafer's defense gets smoked like that last night.

While I also prefer Shafer's defense, the cupboard is really bare and that is on him. I don't think any defense would have made a difference last night with the secondary we had on the field. They have no change without really good pass rush.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Shafer's D was hit or miss. There were a lot of stinkers. It usually overwhelmed bad teams and looked lost vs good teams.

I will say that IMO a version of Shafer's Okie look is the way to go in college football. I always wanted him to embrace it every down but he never did. Using players we have had from the Shafer era I would go with:

DEs on 1st down and run downs:
I would want guys who can get penetration and play the run well. So I think I would pick Goggins and Welsh.

DEs on passing downs:
These are guys who can get to the QB and drop into coverage when needed. Arciniega and Sharpe would be my picks.

NT on 1st and passing downs:
Ideally I would want an undersized guy who is quick and disruptive. At the same time they could drop into coverage. Someone like Nikita Whitlock would be the prototype. We didn't have a guy like that so I will go with the best player, Bromley.

NT on running downs:
Here I would want a guy the size of a house, so Raymon is the pick.

ILBs on all downs:
Do it all guys are needed here. They need to be able to stop the run, blitz, and cover. I think this is an easy choice in Smith and Hogue.

SSs on all downs:
These are guys who can cover the slot 1 on 1, blitz, and support the run. Another easy choice in Shamarko and Suter.

CBs on all downs:
They would need to be big physical guys who can play the run well and occasionally blitz. That would best describe Anderson and Merkerson.

FS on all downs:
Guys who can cover in man or play in a zone. I would go with Holmes and Phil Thomas.


These weren't highly recruited kids so I think this D is realistic to the type of talent that we can get here. Heck just about every one of the guys was on the 2010 squad, so we know we can have a roster like this. I think going this route would be highly effective. Oh and I left Chandler off just to show you don't need a guy that good.

Against the pass this D would be a major PIA (see what Shafer did to WV). They could play man coverage and still have 2 FSs over the top. They can bring pressure from any and all angles. An O would have no clue if the D was going to play man, play zone, or blitz. Plus since no one else runs this D it would be hard to prepare for.

Against the run this D can be highly disruptive. It is an undersized D but is physical and fast. It would be vulnerable to power running teams but very few schools run that anymore. Most teams try to beat you with speed in the running game, which this D is built to combat. Against the power running teams you would need to load the box and run blitz a lot. Hope that you can get penetration and be disruptive. Looking at this year's schedule only one team would provide problems, Pitt. The rest of the schedule we would be better off scheme wise.

 

[Crusty]

Shafer's D was hit or miss. There were a lot of stinkers. It usually overwhelmed bad teams and looked lost vs good teams.

I will say that IMO a version of Shafer's Okie look is the way to go in college football. I always wanted him to embrace it every down but he never did. Using players we have had from the Shafer era I would go with:

DEs on 1st down and run downs:
I would want guys who can get penetration and play the run well. So I think I would pick Goggins and Welsh.

DEs on passing downs:
These are guys who can get to the QB and drop into coverage when needed. Arciniega and Sharpe would be my picks.

NT on 1st and passing downs:
Ideally I would want an undersized guy who is quick and disruptive. At the same time they could drop into coverage. Someone like Nikita Whitlock would be the prototype. We didn't have a guy like that so I will go with the best player, Bromley.

NT on running downs:
Here I would want a guy the size of a house, so Raymon is the pick.

ILBs on all downs:
Do it all guys are needed here. They need to be able to stop the run, blitz, and cover. I think this is an easy choice in Smith and Hogue.

SSs on all downs:
These are guys who can cover the slot 1 on 1, blitz, and support the run. Another easy choice in Shamarko and Suter.

CBs on all downs:
They would need to be big physical guys who can play the run well and occasionally blitz. That would best describe Anderson and Merkerson.

FS on all downs:
Guys who can cover in man or play in a zone. I would go with Holmes and Phil Thomas.


These weren't highly recruited kids so I think this D is realistic to the type of talent that we can get here. Heck just about every one of the guys was on the 2010 squad, so we know we can have a roster like this. I think going this route would be highly effective. Oh and I left Chandler off just to show you don't need a guy that good.

Against the pass this D would be a major PIA (see what Shafer did to WV). They could play man coverage and still have 2 FSs over the top. They can bring pressure from any and all angles. An O would have no clue if the D was going to play man, play zone, or blitz. Plus since no one else runs this D it would be hard to prepare for.

Against the run this D can be highly disruptive. It is an undersized D but is physical and fast. It would be vulnerable to power running teams but very few schools run that anymore. Most teams try to beat you with speed in the running game, which this D is built to combat. Against the power running teams you would need to load the box and run blitz a lot. Hope that you can get penetration and be disruptive. Looking at this year's schedule only one team would provide problems, Pitt. The rest of the schedule we would be better off scheme wise.

Big difference between a Shafer defense and a Bullough defense. IMO.

 

[Rocco]

Big difference between a Shafer defense and a Bullough defense. IMO.

Exactly. Shafer's D was very good IMO. He used to always give Geno Smith and WFVU fits. It was truly fun to watch. If we had any offense during those years, we would've won some games.

I was never a fan of Bullough. Not sure what the big issue was.

 

[Briancuse]

I would love Shafer's defense to go with Babers' offense.

That would be constant excitement. I frigging loved Shafer's defense. They kept us in most games, but the 3 and outs on offense kept the D gassed all the time.

No way Shafer's defense gets smoked like that last night.

Can I get Bill Walsh's offense to go along with Tom Landry's defense?

 

[SmilinBob]

I see a lot of similarities with the Georgia Tech and Louisville games with the D being pushed around and not knowing where the ball was. I thought Shafer did a wonderful job as DC but this defense if used correctly with the right parts will be very good as well and yes... it would have been a heck of a ride combining Babers O and Shafers D as they'd have to have the Pee Troughs in the stands because you wouldn't be able to leave your seat, heck...they'd have to make the seats toilet seats.

 

[Ragman2000]

they'd have to have the Pee Troughs in the stands because you wouldn't be able to leave your seat, heck...they'd have to make the seats toilet seats.

Regardless of our offensive or defensive philosophy, this idea is gold. Just sayin'.

 

[TheCusian]

I think we got caught flat footed with the zone read in the 1st Q. Did they show that on film?

Shafer's D would have gotten shredded vs Jackson too. We have a long history on getting crapped on by dual threat QB's.

 

[OrangeFoo]

I think people are overthinking the scheme thing... We were terrible on D last year under one scheme and it looks like we will be terrible on D this year in a complete opposite scheme. I saw the same mistakes and issues last night (receivers running free, zero ability to stop a dual threat qb, etc...) I've been seeing for the last three years. The difference is that we were facing a better than usual dual threat qb and our offense gives the ball back very quickly score or not.

 

[RICuse44]

Regardless of our offensive or defensive philosophy, this idea is gold. Just sayin'.

The other less pleasant option would be urinary catheters with a leg bag.

 

[RICuse44]

I think we got caught flat footed with the zone read in the 1st Q. Did they show that on film?

Shafer's D would have gotten shredded vs Jackson too. We have a long history on getting crapped on by dual threat QB's.

This is true. Shafers D was hardest for the pocket passer. Geno smith was a pocket passer.

 

[SUforme]

If you have the players and decent depth most schemes would be fine.

 

[Chip]

The other less pleasant option would be urinary catheters with a leg bag.

Google Stadium Pal.

 

[TDTOrange]

Exactly. Shafer's D was very good IMO. He used to always give Geno Smith and WFVU fits. It was truly fun to watch. If we had any offense during those years, we would've won some games.

I was never a fan of Bullough. Not sure what the big issue was.

The issue was Shafer's recruiting. Defense got smaller and slower as he started taking guys that didn't fit the checklist Marrone had. Otherwise Bullough ran the exact same defense, you don't think Shafer had input on that D while the HC?