Jump to content

seccountry.com reporting


aubiefifty

Recommended Posts

Which puts us at a disadvantage against three of the SEC West programs and the one SEC East program we play every year.

That it does... Looking at the conference it's more beneficial to be run heavy. If we're going to compare ourselves to our counterparts in the SEC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What defense do the Carolina Panthers run? I like what they're doing with both their offense and defense, lol...

4-3 Base. They play Kuchely who is a tall LB with great ball feel and coverage ability, Thomas Davis Jr. Who is also a freaking amazing cover backer but can easily pursue the ball weaving through blockers, and Shaq Thompson, who was really seen as a tweener because of his coverage ability, but plays a traditional LB's role. Basically they don't use too much nickel because all of their LBs are talented enough to cover extremely well and play the run. They run a lot of iso with Josh norman over to the boundary (correct me if I'm wrong.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which puts us at a disadvantage against three of the SEC West programs and the one SEC East program we play every year.

That it does... Looking at the conference it's more beneficial to be run heavy. If we're going to compare ourselves to our counterparts in the SEC.

Of course the counter to that is an offense that averages 38 plus a game. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What defense do the Carolina Panthers run? I like what they're doing with both their offense and defense, lol...

4-3 Base. They play Kuchely who is a tall LB with great ball feel and coverage ability, Thomas Davis Jr. Who is also a freaking amazing cover backer but can easily pursue the ball weaving through blockers, and Shaq Thompson, who was really seen as a tweener because of his coverage ability, but plays a traditional LB's role. Basically they don't use too much nickel because all of their LBs are talented enough to cover extremely well and play the run. They run a lot of iso with Josh norman over to the boundary (correct me if I'm wrong.)

So I guess we would need bigger linemen to keep the LBs clean and faster LBs then.

Any thoughts on Safeties that might be able to convert to Linebackers? I want to say both Thomas Davis and our own Travis Williams started out as safeties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What defense do the Carolina Panthers run? I like what they're doing with both their offense and defense, lol...

4-3 Base. They play Kuchely who is a tall LB with great ball feel and coverage ability, Thomas Davis Jr. Who is also a freaking amazing cover backer but can easily pursue the ball weaving through blockers, and Shaq Thompson, who was really seen as a tweener because of his coverage ability, but plays a traditional LB's role. Basically they don't use too much nickel because all of their LBs are talented enough to cover extremely well and play the run. They run a lot of iso with Josh norman over to the boundary (correct me if I'm wrong.)

So I guess we would need bigger linemen to keep the LBs clean and faster LBs then.

Any thoughts on Safeties that might be able to convert to Linebackers? I want to say both Thomas Davis and our own Travis Williams started out as safeties.

This is a position that is most often used for a transition to LB outside of RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What defense do the Carolina Panthers run? I like what they're doing with both their offense and defense, lol...

4-3 Base. They play Kuchely who is a tall LB with great ball feel and coverage ability, Thomas Davis Jr. Who is also a freaking amazing cover backer but can easily pursue the ball weaving through blockers, and Shaq Thompson, who was really seen as a tweener because of his coverage ability, but plays a traditional LB's role. Basically they don't use too much nickel because all of their LBs are talented enough to cover extremely well and play the run. They run a lot of iso with Josh norman over to the boundary (correct me if I'm wrong.)

So I guess we would need bigger linemen to keep the LBs clean and faster LBs then.

Any thoughts on Safeties that might be able to convert to Linebackers? I want to say both Thomas Davis and our own Travis Williams started out as safeties.

Hard to really figure, because when you get large linemen, you stunt your pass rush significantly. One of the reasons the 3-4 required the Buck and Rush Sam in the 1st place. But I'd say that if you want a 4-3 where instead of playing gaps, you assign your LBs to scrape over the top and pursue, then yes. Otherwise you run a 4-3, have everyone run gap, make the Mike play opposite A gap, Sam at C and then let the Will be your cleanup guy. Carolina does this a lot too.

And well depending on who our least coverage gifted SS is, that would be who would have the most potential, though they'd need a bit more height for some bulk I'd think. It is usually a safety like MT said though. (See Urlacher with the Lobos.)

Also Monta is actually an LB now. He was brought in as a DB originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flex, if you don't mind my asking, why aren't you playing anymore? Sounds like you have the acumen, and if that pic is of you, the size.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flex, if you don't mind my asking, why aren't you playing anymore? Sounds like you have the acumen, and if that pic is of you, the size.......

That's a tough situation to really explain. And yeah, that's me lol. Basically they had an offensive preference with taking the walk ons when I transferred and we only found out later that I wouldn't be able to get my 6th year unless I was on the team, which unfortunately I need to be able to tryout again. My old schools won't be able to put it in for me either, due to rules or staff shortages. So I'm pretty much dead in the water now.

And yeah, It's rare to find a 6'4 ILB I've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flex, if you don't mind my asking, why aren't you playing anymore? Sounds like you have the acumen, and if that pic is of you, the size.......

That's a tough situation to really explain. And yeah, that's me lol. Basically they had an offensive preference with taking the walk ons when I transferred and we only found out later that I wouldn't be able to get my 6th year unless I was on the team, which unfortunately I need to be able to tryout again. My old schools won't be able to put it in for me either, due to rules or staff shortages. So I'm pretty much dead in the water now.

And yeah, It's rare to find a 6'4 ILB I've heard.

Flex I am being very serious here. With your knowledge and athletic size, if you don't march right down there and sit in either Lance, Rodney or Gus's office and present yourself, then you are doing yourself (and them) a disservice. You have too much going for you to do less. They can help you with the eligibility stuff but, even if you cant get that back, with your knowledge there are ways for you to benefit the program right now. After that they can open other doors for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not the scheme, but how well a coach can teach and execute the defense. I never liked the 3-4 that Muschamp ran. I think XCWM was probably the most overpaid and underachieved DC in the history of modern college defenses. I think with Allen, we will get energy but not stupidity that contributed greatly to the loss of the Iron Bowl.

If I was Gus, I would want about a $1,000,000 refund from Muschamp. If Ellis Johnson had the drive and energy that Allen has, he could likely still be at Auburn as our DC. That is history though, and we need to hire a DC that will have the right amount of energy; albeit controlled energy.

I think scoring 13 points, abandoning your running game, and calling pass after pass even when your QB couldn't hit receivers and your receivers couldn't catch was more of a reason we lost than Muschamp's defense giving up 22 points before the camel finally got it's back blown out.

Revisionist history though I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna hold back any opinions till a hire is made...

but I'm not a fan of 4-2-5 :lol:/>

That makes two of us. There are different approaches to it but that defense seems to be a little too passive. I am a fan of an attacking 4-3/3-4 defense with a nickel package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flex, if you don't mind my asking, why aren't you playing anymore? Sounds like you have the acumen, and if that pic is of you, the size.......

That's a tough situation to really explain. And yeah, that's me lol. Basically they had an offensive preference with taking the walk ons when I transferred and we only found out later that I wouldn't be able to get my 6th year unless I was on the team, which unfortunately I need to be able to tryout again. My old schools won't be able to put it in for me either, due to rules or staff shortages. So I'm pretty much dead in the water now.

And yeah, It's rare to find a 6'4 ILB I've heard.

Well Flex, with your knowledge and athletic size, if you don't go down and sit yourself in either Lance, Rodney or Gus's office and present yourself, then you are doing yourself (and them) a disservice. You have too much going for you to do less.

Well after meeting the defensive staff thanks to Garner, getting told they wanted me, and then getting let down by player personnel, I suppose I'd have nothing else to lose in this situation.

It is not the scheme, but how well a coach can teach and execute the defense. I never liked the 3-4 that Muschamp ran. I think XCWM was probably the most overpaid and underachieved DC in the history of modern college defenses. I think with Allen, we will get energy but not stupidity that contributed greatly to the loss of the Iron Bowl.

If I was Gus, I would want about a $1,000,000 refund from Muschamp. If Ellis Johnson had the drive and energy that Allen has, he could likely still be at Auburn as our DC. That is history though, and we need to hire a DC that will have the right amount of energy; albeit controlled energy.

I think scoring 13 points, abandoning your running game, and calling pass after pass even when your QB couldn't hit receivers and your receivers couldn't catch was more of a reason we lost than Muschamp's defense giving up 22 points before the camel finally got it's back blown out.

Revisionist history though I guess

In all honesty, this probably did a fair amount of damage to that game. And I think our defense did adequate, especially seeing how terrible our stats were against ground and pound man blocking offenses with large running backs.

Gonna hold back any opinions till a hire is made...

but I'm not a fan of 4-2-5 :lol:/>

That makes two of us. There are different approaches to it but that defense seems to be a little too passive. I am a fan of an attacking 4-3/3-4 defense with a nickel package.

That would make 3..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we start using a 4-2-5, I don't see any real disadvantage to it as far as the conference goes

We can have a more athletic "star" in for defensive back purposes (like Therezie) when it's a passing situation for the O

And a more hybrid LB for run situations (I believe we used Garret for that?)

And having 4 up front with certain players that have experience with the "buck" position could help Allen throw together some unique packages from a 4-2-5 standpoint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually never liked Therezie at that spot. He didn't have the mentality for it. He was a playmaker, but he wasn't a hitter. In the hybrid role, you kind of need a crazy person that plays above his weight class, ala Travis Williams, AT Williams, or Serderius Bryant at Ole Miss. If the 210 pounder can't hold up against the run, the scheme suffers against ground-and-pound teams (which is Flex's point). Those cats are rare. Therezie definitely made his plays, but I can only think of a few that came against run-based teams. His best moments were against Ole Miss (the INT for a TD) and the like.

There is a reason Garrett was expected to be our starter at Star before his foot injury. We wanted a guy closer to a LB with some coverage skill. Heck, what you really want is Karlos Dansby (an overgrown Safety with rush skills) or Kam Chancellor, but those guys are generational talents.

Honestly, I truly believe that the story of the defense, regardless of scheme, is going to be told by the development of the interior linemen and Carl Lawson's decision. If Lawson, James III, Cowart, and Holland are all back, we're going to have incredible pass rush skills. The question mark is whether Adams returns, Russell makes a leap, Lawrence continues to develop, Swain makes a leap, etc. If they do, the combination of the defensive line and the skill in the secondary will make the scheme less relevant. Davis is a future lockdown CB, and again, I think Roberts is a game-changing Safety due to his versatility. Combining those two with Ford, Matthews, Ruffin, and Irvin gives us incredible depth/versatility at Nickel/Safety. You can hide one decent CB by rolling coverage away from Davis. We did it with Montae Pitts and Carlos Rogers. If those two units develop together as you hope/expect, the LB issue and the base defense become less dangerous or relevant.

There are a lot of moving pieces, but it's the most encouraged I've been about our defense in a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a tough situation to really explain. And yeah, that's me lol. Basically they had an offensive preference with taking the walk ons when I transferred and we only found out later that I wouldn't be able to get my 6th year unless I was on the team, which unfortunately I need to be able to tryout again. My old schools won't be able to put it in for me either, due to rules or staff shortages. So I'm pretty much dead in the water now.

And yeah, It's rare to find a 6'4 ILB I've heard.

Flex I am being very serious here. With your knowledge and athletic size, if you don't march right down there and sit in either Lance, Rodney or Gus's office and present yourself, then you are doing yourself (and them) a disservice. You have too much going for you to do less. They can help you with the eligibility stuff but, even if you cant get that back, with your knowledge there are ways for you to benefit the program right now. After that they can open other doors for you.

Well after meeting the defensive staff thanks to Garner, getting told they wanted me, and then getting let down by player personnel, I suppose I'd have nothing else to lose in this situation.

Don't let player personnel bureaucrats stop you. Go get 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been watching football for 40 years and posts like flex's make me realize I know sh*t about football. :)/>

Seconded. (Well, more like 30 for me. :P) What a post, though. Fantastic insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flex, if you don't mind my asking, why aren't you playing anymore? Sounds like you have the acumen, and if that pic is of you, the size.......

That's a tough situation to really explain. And yeah, that's me lol. Basically they had an offensive preference with taking the walk ons when I transferred and we only found out later that I wouldn't be able to get my 6th year unless I was on the team, which unfortunately I need to be able to tryout again. My old schools won't be able to put it in for me either, due to rules or staff shortages. So I'm pretty much dead in the water now.

And yeah, It's rare to find a 6'4 ILB I've heard.

Flex I am being very serious here. With your knowledge and athletic size, if you don't march right down there and sit in either Lance, Rodney or Gus's office and present yourself, then you are doing yourself (and them) a disservice. You have too much going for you to do less. They can help you with the eligibility stuff but, even if you cant get that back, with your knowledge there are ways for you to benefit the program right now. After that they can open other doors for you.

^^This. Your football IQ is amazing. We need men like you in our program! If it's not in the cards playing it on the field then it's coaching it from the sidelines, but there is no doubt it is in your heart and soul to be a part of football in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flex, if you don't mind my asking, why aren't you playing anymore? Sounds like you have the acumen, and if that pic is of you, the size.......

That's a tough situation to really explain. And yeah, that's me lol. Basically they had an offensive preference with taking the walk ons when I transferred and we only found out later that I wouldn't be able to get my 6th year unless I was on the team, which unfortunately I need to be able to tryout again. My old schools won't be able to put it in for me either, due to rules or staff shortages. So I'm pretty much dead in the water now.

And yeah, It's rare to find a 6'4 ILB I've heard.

Well Flex, with your knowledge and athletic size, if you don't go down and sit yourself in either Lance, Rodney or Gus's office and present yourself, then you are doing yourself (and them) a disservice. You have too much going for you to do less.

Well after meeting the defensive staff thanks to Garner, getting told they wanted me, and then getting let down by player personnel, I suppose I'd have nothing else to lose in this situation.

It is not the scheme, but how well a coach can teach and execute the defense. I never liked the 3-4 that Muschamp ran. I think XCWM was probably the most overpaid and underachieved DC in the history of modern college defenses. I think with Allen, we will get energy but not stupidity that contributed greatly to the loss of the Iron Bowl.

If I was Gus, I would want about a $1,000,000 refund from Muschamp. If Ellis Johnson had the drive and energy that Allen has, he could likely still be at Auburn as our DC. That is history though, and we need to hire a DC that will have the right amount of energy; albeit controlled energy.

I think scoring 13 points, abandoning your running game, and calling pass after pass even when your QB couldn't hit receivers and your receivers couldn't catch was more of a reason we lost than Muschamp's defense giving up 22 points before the camel finally got it's back blown out.

Revisionist history though I guess

In all honesty, this probably did a fair amount of damage to that game. And I think our defense did adequate, especially seeing how terrible our stats were against ground and pound man blocking offenses with large running backs.

Gonna hold back any opinions till a hire is made...

but I'm not a fan of 4-2-5 :lol:/>

That makes two of us. There are different approaches to it but that defense seems to be a little too passive. I am a fan of an attacking 4-3/3-4 defense with a nickel package.

That would make 3..

Please try again Flex! Really enjoy your posts, thanks so much!

Please don't give up, keep trying!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What defense do the Carolina Panthers run? I like what they're doing with both their offense and defense, lol...

4-3 Base. They play Kuchely who is a tall LB with great ball feel and coverage ability, Thomas Davis Jr. Who is also a freaking amazing cover backer but can easily pursue the ball weaving through blockers, and Shaq Thompson, who was really seen as a tweener because of his coverage ability, but plays a traditional LB's role. Basically they don't use too much nickel because all of their LBs are talented enough to cover extremely well and play the run. They run a lot of iso with Josh norman over to the boundary (correct me if I'm wrong.)

So I guess we would need bigger linemen to keep the LBs clean and faster LBs then.

Any thoughts on Safeties that might be able to convert to Linebackers? I want to say both Thomas Davis and our own Travis Williams started out as safeties.

Hard to really figure, because when you get large linemen, you stunt your pass rush significantly. One of the reasons the 3-4 required the Buck and Rush Sam in the 1st place. But I'd say that if you want a 4-3 where instead of playing gaps, you assign your LBs to scrape over the top and pursue, then yes. Otherwise you run a 4-3, have everyone run gap, make the Mike play opposite A gap, Sam at C and then let the Will be your cleanup guy. Carolina does this a lot too.

And well depending on who our least coverage gifted SS is, that would be who would have the most potential, though they'd need a bit more height for some bulk I'd think. It is usually a safety like MT said though. (See Urlacher with the Lobos.)

Also Monta is actually an LB now. He was brought in as a DB originally.

Now we're talking....thanks for your insight Flex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great insight and commentary by all (regarding defense and x's and o's). Who knows who we end up with but one thing that bothers me from the exchanges is this "player personnel" branch of our football program. If Coach Garner or Coach Thompson sees value in a player (Flex in this case) why in the hell is there an override from a branch of off the field coaches?

Flex, is this normal in College Football these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great conversation guys! (Much needed on this board right now!)

Another thing that I like about flexible sets is particular to our situation. We play in the same division as MS St, Ole Miss, and A&M. As well as bama, LSU, and Arkmart.

That's 3 power run offenses and 3 HUNH Spread"ish" offenses. We need to be able to beat both types of offenses.

Any base set has its strengths and weaknesses. I totally agree with many on here who have said a 4-2-5 isn't best suited for power run offenses, regardless of which variation of it you run.

The more traditional 7 man fronts are usually more susceptible to mismatches in the passing game vs HUNH offenses (slot receivers, more soft spots in zone, or they get stuck in one on ones vs the #1 receiver). --> Go back and watch 2013 bama game. That was Nick Marshall torching their defense!

So, basically, I want to see more flexibility to put our best 11 guys on the field in a position to be successful against the variety of well-coached and very athletic offenses that we face in our league.

Also, "our best 11" will likely be different based on the offensive match up.

A good DC who can provide this flexibility so that we can defend these various offenses well is good with me. I don't care what his "base set philosophy" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flex, if coaching isn't in the cards for you (because you don't believe your playing days are over), have you considered professional ball? I am sure you have, but you never know. Don't become me. I sustained too many injuries throughout my career, and wound up playing again at 40 y/o. The game was so engrained in me I couldn't let it go. though healthy at the time, I reinjured some things that were not easy to get over at that age. Attack and take advantage while you are still young. Regardless of your decision, good luck! I believe you have what it takes to succeed in whatever you do. A few doors open along the way, and you will be the success you have always wanted to be. God Bless, and WE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we go back to 4-2-5 how does that affect all the kids that were highly rated that came to Auburn that fit CWM's scheme? Seems like we lost alot of kids before their eligibility was up due to them not fitting in the scheme. If we lose Davis, Holland, Cowart etc due to switching back that would really hurt us tremendously down the road IMO

It will probably be a big blow to them. Auburn is already hurting in terms of secondary, and a lot of my friends on the team loved the 3-4 multiple D as it was a much more fun D to run, a lot of attacking principles without having to worry about spilling constantly and wrong shouldering pullers (spilling is a lifestyle), just with a lot of complicated reads pre-snap, especially with the shifting aspect of it. With a 4-2-5 which was one of the reasons I left J'ville, LBs end up being displaced, as you go from utilizing 3 LBs to 2 pure ones and a load of DBs. That makes it MUCH harder to get a job, and with the 2 LBs being inside type LBs there ends up being a lot of the "quarterbacking" of the defense aspect shared among the 2. This means that it's less likely to get a rotation because you need 2 established "captains" of the D and don't want to really switch them up. For all intents and purposes, it makes getting LBs that might be dominant players a LOT harder.

Pros of it are the increased coverage potential and possibility of finding a safety that's physical and gives a lot more versatility to covering either Jumbo Y-slot guys, or smaller H receivers. Still, recruiting those guys is very hard as Shaq Thompsons don't grow on trees. It's easier to find classic SAM LBs like I used to play and simply having us switch out with Nickel corners in Trips and Duece situations, rather than finding a do-it-all hybrid. You're getting into really muddled territory trying to find DBs that like to hit and can be asked to set an edge at times and still cover slots, much like you are trying to find a large OLB that can be trusted to take on pulling guards and FBs (And not dodge, go around, or under them like we so often tend to do.) and can still possess the agility to work in space when their zone is being attacked and stretched by multiple receivers. There is also the issue of when simulating an eagle look with the 2 inside LBs playing as edge rushers, the middle of the field is left wide open for a lot of intermediate and slants to really attack it. You don't want those fast slots getting inside leverage if you don't have multiple LBs to set up camp and enforce the middle of that field.

As far as running the single hybrid DE, it's somewhat of a step up, but still a gimmick. Whether they're in a 2pt or 3pt stance, they're still a glorified end, and on passing downs, they'd rather rush from the 3 for the extra advantage of capturing a tackle's outside shoulder for a bob-swipe or undercut move. You could run a 2-4-5 base and the 2 edge players would still be rushing every single passing down so it'd be the same as just running the 4 down nickel base. Just can't do a whole lot with a hybrid DE outside of giving him a fancy name when you've only got 6 in the box standard. Unless you have 3 marquis pass rushers at the other positions that can get pressure in a 3 man front..... Also with a 4-2-5, typically a lot of guys who would end up being LBs at other places are often urged to play ends. Some who like this might take to it, but a majority of the players tend not to like playing a straight up end. Finesse positions like LBs and DBs are always seen as more attractive prospects.

4-2-5 is best left as a package, not a base D. Doesn't attract a lot of good players.

Thanks for the insight, kind sir. I have a much better understanding of the 4-2-5 now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...