AUinfusion 390 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Like everyone, I've been pondering the problems AU has continued to have on defense. Something that struck me, going on things others have said, is a basic problem with combining the "Chizik" style and the "Roof" style of defense. Supposedly, Chizik is the Tampa 2 "Bend but don't break" guy, and Roof is the more attacking DC who teaches his players to go for the kill shot to try and create more turnovers. Think about that for a second. If both of those statements are correct, we're trying to pair a defensive philosophy which says "keep everything in front of you, give up small yardage consistently to avoid the big play" with a tackling / individual player style that is high risk / high reward. That is almost guaranteed to fail. You can't play "bend but don't break" defense while teaching a lower percentage tackling technique. If you're playing "bend but don't break" you have GOT to stop the guy when you get to him. You can't take use higher risk techniques that can turn a 3 yard play into a 15 yard play. Anyway, that was a thought I had. I don't know if any of the above actually describes what our defense is being taught, of if the thought has merit. It's just something that I started thinking about the other day, and this being a message board and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaotic_zx 1,051 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 As good of a reason as any other I've seen. Youth, Coaching, Oil & Water philosophy all are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDUBB4AU 5,138 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Tampa 2 IS irrelevant with size players are now days.and roofs mess of a defense is and has been awful ..wanting to blow up the ball carrier is fine but u miss on tackles more often than not.and that's what were famous for right now .a 3 and out is just as good as a turnover ...we had a 250 qb that mashed LBS DBS and DTs..and qbs like that are popping up all over the place ....we need a new D philosophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Oak 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Seems like there is a conflict on the defensive side of the ball. One play I see our CB slapping a pass away from a receiver on a 10 yard out pattern and then on 3rd and twenty we give away the center of the field for an easy pitch and catch that nets 20+ yards and a first down. It's frustrating as Hell to watch. I can't imagine how frustrating it is for the players to lay their guts on the line and then have some candy a$$ scheme called that takes away all aggression and puts you in the See receiver catch ball, see receiver run with ball, chase receiver, waive goodbye to receiver as he runs into the endzone style of defense. What I would change is simple. Defense, get off a freakin' block. I swear I thought we were dancing a waltz out their Saturday. Every defender was stuck like glue to his blocker. If one more defender dives for a tackle in the backfield bench him. Either wrap him up or hold him up until help arrives. Line and LB's it is up to you to stop the run, CB's knock the WR's off their routes at the line and then stay in their hip pocket the rest of the play. If they get past you a Safety better clean his clock as soon as the ball touches his finger tips. Get nasty, get mean, play DEFENSE! War Eagle!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaotic_zx 1,051 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 In a Tampa 2 defense the middle third of the field HAS to be commanded by the MLB. Part of the problem with the middle being open is Holland not getting a deep enough drop. To simplify things, the MLB dropping deep middle third is the difference in a cover 2 zone and a Tampa 2 zone. There are other nuances but that is the D is for dummies(so I can understand it) look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecaturAU 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I know for fact that roof teachers them to try and blow the ball carrier up. It's obviously not working because we miss more tackles than any other team. Either his philosophy needs to change or chizik needs to make a change. It's doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDUBB4AU 5,138 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The only thing I've seen us blow or blow up is a 2 touchdown lead the past 2 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU lb's are beasts 2 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 In a Tampa 2 defense the middle third of the field HAS to be commanded by the MLB. Part of the problem with the middle being open is Holland not getting a deep enough drop. To simplify things, the MLB dropping deep middle third is the difference in a cover 2 zone and a Tampa 2 zone. There are other nuances but that is the D is for dummies(so I can understand it) look at it. This. I really do think Holland is gonna be a stud. But hes gotta get some depth in the T2. Weve gotten burned between the hashes right behind him on 3rd down and in the red zone a couple of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chizhead 618 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 i am prepared for the assault that i am sure is coming my way after i write this,so feel free to fire away,but the truth of the matter is simple,if you stop and think about....remember paul rhoads(whom i consider,next to bill oliver to be the best DC that we have ever had) comment after he got the iowa state job following chizik?....he stated that they had to spend a lot of time teaching basic tackling techniques because they were fundamentally terrible....ted roof did not coach at iowa st....who did?....i didn't want chizik at AU,having my own reasons for that,but i warmed up to him after the last 2 years,and i respect him for being a good and decent Christian man,along with ability to run a football program and i am firmly satisfied with him on an overall scale as the HC at AU.....i won't embrace him like i did ralph jordan,pat dye or tommy tuberville,again,for my own reasons,but i will support him as long as i live ,as HC of AU.....that being said,it should be obvious where the source of the defensive philosophy is coming from...check out ted roofs defensive philosophy at ga. tech. and minnesota....it is nothing like we have seen the last 3 years.....chizik gets credit for being a defensive genius....why?.....he had good defenses at AU under TUBERVILLE but left to go to texas.....why did he leave?....do you not think there was a conflict that caused him leave,that was attributed to a "better opportunity to become a head coach"....it would appear that tuberville had his hand in the defense and chizik wanted to be the sole person responsible for the defense,and i understand that.....if you will go back and check his defense at texas,you will find that it wasn't a vise grip defense at all....it gave up a lot of yardage and points,but vince young had a monster year and they won the NC....we do not have the players to run his defense right now and they are not going to work in this type defense....we just don't....i'm not saying that chiziks philosophy is a bad one,but i am saying it won't work with these players,players that don't know how to tackle....fire away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDUBB4AU 5,138 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Good points bro..I've got no problems with anything u have said ..it really makes u wonder what's goin on behind closed doors ...I'm not a fan of bend don't break defenses how bout a shut down take no prisoners D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 If this speculation is close to correct, the best thing that Coach Chizik can do is to back off and let Coach Roof coach as he sees fit. If he succeeds and turns things around, CTR will have earned his autonomy. If he fails to turn things around, he (and we) will have no one else to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurules16 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 So we should slick the players up in oil so they will be harder to tackle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollsroyce5 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 i am prepared for the assault that i am sure is coming my way after i write this,so feel free to fire away,but the truth of the matter is simple,if you stop and think about....remember paul rhoads(whom i consider,next to bill oliver to be the best DC that we have ever had) comment after he got the iowa state job following chizik?....he stated that they had to spend a lot of time teaching basic tackling techniques because they were fundamentally terrible....ted roof did not coach at iowa st....who did?....i didn't want chizik at AU,having my own reasons for that,but i warmed up to him after the last 2 years,and i respect him for being a good and decent Christian man,along with ability to run a football program and i am firmly satisfied with him on an overall scale as the HC at AU.....i won't embrace him like i did ralph jordan,pat dye or tommy tuberville,again,for my own reasons,but i will support him as long as i live ,as HC of AU.....that being said,it should be obvious where the source of the defensive philosophy is coming from...check out ted roofs defensive philosophy at ga. tech. and minnesota....it is nothing like we have seen the last 3 years.....chizik gets credit for being a defensive genius....why?.....he had good defenses at AU under TUBERVILLE but left to go to texas.....why did he leave?....do you not think there was a conflict that caused him leave,that was attributed to a "better opportunity to become a head coach"....it would appear that tuberville had his hand in the defense and chizik wanted to be the sole person responsible for the defense,and i understand that.....if you will go back and check his defense at texas,you will find that it wasn't a vise grip defense at all....it gave up a lot of yardage and points,but vince young had a monster year and they won the NC....we do not have the players to run his defense right now and they are not going to work in this type defense....we just don't....i'm not saying that chiziks philosophy is a bad one,but i am saying it won't work with these players,players that don't know how to tackle....fire away I started to ponder some of these same possible scenarios when watching CGC at all of stops after leaving AU in '05. There may be done merit to this. I just could never convince myself of it before mostly because of how dominating the D was in '04 & good it was in '02 & '03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chizhead 618 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 i am listening to max round table and scarbinsky was on and he just verified what i wrote in my post in this thread...this not a ted roof defense...i don't think there is personal conflict between the coaches,but in which defensive philosophy to run this year with all the youth and inexperience....it doesn't matter what damn defense you run if you can't tackle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourthvision 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Chizik gives his guys room to coach, but ultimately everything falls on the head one in charge. At the same time though while there appears to be a difference in philosophy the real issue is tackling, which falls on the MAIN guys who coach them every day. The philosophy is problem 1b. Jmo though, but I feel Chizik will get it fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFan21 58 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Did anyone hear Pat Dye on Finscum yesterday? he said he went and "talked" to the coaches on Monday morning. He also said something about some differences between defensive coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaric 4 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Did anyone hear Pat Dye on Finscum yesterday? he said he went and "talked" to the coaches on Monday morning. He also said something about some differences between defensive coaches. Need more specifics. I don't listen to scumbag because I can't stand him but I also didn't know Dye was going to be on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvilletiger 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Did anyone hear Pat Dye on Finscum yesterday? he said he went and "talked" to the coaches on Monday morning. He also said something about some differences between defensive coaches. If that's the case, Chizik needs to get a hold of things QUICK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDUBB4AU 5,138 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 If these issues between chizik and roof are true .what does this say to a recruit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFan21 58 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Did anyone hear Pat Dye on Finscum yesterday? he said he went and "talked" to the coaches on Monday morning. He also said something about some differences between defensive coaches. Need more specifics. I don't listen to scumbag because I can't stand him but I also didn't know Dye was going to be on there. he has dye on every Monday around 3 or 4 I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaric 4 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Did anyone hear Pat Dye on Finscum yesterday? he said he went and "talked" to the coaches on Monday morning. He also said something about some differences between defensive coaches. Need more specifics. I don't listen to scumbag because I can't stand him but I also didn't know Dye was going to be on there. he has dye on every Monday around 3 or 4 I believe. Good to know. So how do we find out whether or not there is issues between the staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFan21 58 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Did anyone hear Pat Dye on Finscum yesterday? he said he went and "talked" to the coaches on Monday morning. He also said something about some differences between defensive coaches. Need more specifics. I don't listen to scumbag because I can't stand him but I also didn't know Dye was going to be on there. he has dye on every Monday around 3 or 4 I believe. just like anything else, watch the ticker on ESPN. I kid I kid. Good to know. So how do we find out whether or not there is issues between the staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
around4ever 4,139 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I know for fact that roof teachers them to try and blow the ball carrier up. It's obviously not working because we miss more tackles than any other team. Either his philosophy needs to change or chizik needs to make a change. It's doesn't work. And how do you know this for a fact. His comments Sunday and Coach Chizik's comments were they teach tackling technique just like everybody else does. Head up, focus on the hips, balance, lead with face and shoulders, wrap up and drive through the ball carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkey 0 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Did anyone hear Pat Dye on Finscum yesterday? he said he went and "talked" to the coaches on Monday morning. He also said something about some differences between defensive coaches. This may not be between Chizik and Roof. From what I can tell, that's not Chizik that's defensive coaches. Hmm...it could be a number of different people. You can bet they're arguing with each other from time to time. That's part of football. I just hope it's not spilling over to the players. This does tell me there's something deeper going on than what we know. I don't like this feel. It's 2008 all over again only it's the defense this time instead of the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.