BVG defense vs Roof's

[OffensiveAlchemy 6]

Question for those that know more about football than myself.  BVG's defense has been consistantly referred to as an Attacking defense.  Read the play, see ball, react, hit ball I have read.  Someone please explain how this concept will work as compared to Roof's defense so that I can better explain my gut feeling that this years defense will be night and day better than what we had to endure last year.  Thanks.  War Eagle.

[Charleston Tiger 134]

From what I observed it seemed Roof's defense was based more around containing rather than actually going after the sack and getting to the ball. Instead, we were waiting on what they were going to do and moving from there.

Again, this is what I THINK, not what I know, someone please feel free to correct me.

[Warbird82 160]

I'll try to help.  The scheme is the same for both...4-3 Tampa 2 defense.  The difference is that one uses a gap control style of execution while the other uses an attacking style of execution.  One tries to control the line of scrimmage latterally while the other controls it vertically (i.e., getting penetration and getting up field).  The biggest difference in the two, I think, is that the attacking style disrupts the opposing offense, while the other allows the offense to run their play then reacts to it.

I prefer the attacking style myself.  I also think this is what Tracy Rocker preferred, but that ran head on into CTR's philosophy.  I think this contributed to Tracy's early departure, IMNSHO.  No proof, just putting pieces together.

Hope this helps...

[auburnphan 6,050]

I'll try to help.  The scheme is the same for both...4-3 Tampa 2 defense.  The difference is that one uses a gap control style of execution while the other uses an attacking style of execution.  One tries to control the line of scrimmage latterally while the other controls it vertically (i.e., getting penetration and getting up field).  The biggest difference in the two, I think, is that the attacking style disrupts the opposing offense, while the other allows the offense to run their play then reacts to it.

I prefer the attacking style myself.  I also think this is what Tracy Rocker preferred, but that ran head on into CTR's philosophy.  I think this contributed to Tracy's early departure, IMNSHO.  No proof, just putting pieces together.

Hope this helps...

Roof's defense also had all the calls made by the middle linebacker.  In BVG's defense the linebackers and secondary are both responsible for reading and reacting from what I have read.  Players will be allowed to play at full speed which should be a better use of their natural talents

[alabamapaper 0]

Question for those that know more about football than myself.  BVG's defense has been consistantly referred to as an Attacking defense.  Read the play, see ball, react, hit ball I have read.  Someone please explain how this concept will work as compared to Roof's defense so that I can better explain my gut feeling that this years defense will be night and day better than what we had to endure last year.  Thanks.  War Eagle.

This concept would not work well at all if true.

The defensive line is extremely aggressive in VanGorder's scheme, but not nearly as much for the linebackers and defensive backs.

The biggest difference is that VanGorder believes in getting quick and effective pressure into the backfield to disrupt the decision making process of the quarterback. This gives the offense a much smaller window of time to execute a successful play. Sometimes this smaller window forces mistakes to be capitalized upon. It also reduces the coverage time required of defensive backs most of the time. 

In Roof's 2011 scheme it appeared he had every defensive player waiting until they had diagnosed what the opposition offense was doing and then reacting. This appeared to give the quarterback ample time to perform at their best level. It also left Auburn defensive backs on an island for well over the effective coverage time. 

Ted Roof was attempting to outsmart and react to the offensive play.

Brian VanGorder attempts to force the play of the offense by attacking first.

[keesler 5,942]

Question for those that know more about football than myself.  BVG's defense has been consistantly referred to as an Attacking defense.  Read the play, see ball, react, hit ball I have read.  Someone please explain how this concept will work as compared to Roof's defense so that I can better explain my gut feeling that this years defense will be night and day better than what we had to endure last year.  Thanks.  War Eagle.

This concept would not work well at all if true.

The defensive line is extremely aggressive in VanGorder's scheme, but not nearly as much for the linebackers and defensive backs.

The biggest difference is that VanGorder believes in getting quick and effective pressure into the backfield to disrupt the decision making process of the quarterback. This gives the offense a much smaller window of time to execute a successful play. Sometimes this smaller window forces mistakes to be capitalized upon. It also reduces the coverage time required of defensive backs most of the time. 

In Roof's 2011 scheme it appeared he had every defensive player waiting until they had diagnosed what the opposition offense was doing and then reacting. This appeared to give the quarterback ample time to perform at their best level. It also left Auburn defensive backs on an island for well over the effective coverage time. 

Ted Roof was attempting to outsmart and react to the offensive play.

Brian VanGorder attempts to force the play of the offense by attacking first.

I think Roof's defensive plan would have worked fine if he had just taught his players how to tackle and the proper angle pursuit.  We sorely lacked "fundamental football" last season. 

[marshallcotiger 0]

BVG philosophy is much more like the old Auburn defenses under Tuberville and Chavis at LSU and UT. He wants his front 4 to be disruptive but he wants the back 7 to keep everything in front of them in a bend but don't break fashion. Roof is much more like Saban philosphically in that he wants to fight you for every yard and uses his DL to keep his LB's clean. Chizik coached and prefers a bend but don't break style much like BVG and those mentioned and was never a good match with Roof as DC.

[Rednilla 5,438]

Question for those that know more about football than myself.  BVG's defense has been consistantly referred to as an Attacking defense.  Read the play, see ball, react, hit ball I have read.  Someone please explain how this concept will work as compared to Roof's defense so that I can better explain my gut feeling that this years defense will be night and day better than what we had to endure last year.  Thanks.  War Eagle.

This concept would not work well at all if true.

The defensive line is extremely aggressive in VanGorder's scheme, but not nearly as much for the linebackers and defensive backs.

The biggest difference is that VanGorder believes in getting quick and effective pressure into the backfield to disrupt the decision making process of the quarterback. This gives the offense a much smaller window of time to execute a successful play. Sometimes this smaller window forces mistakes to be capitalized upon. It also reduces the coverage time required of defensive backs most of the time. 

In Roof's 2011 scheme it appeared he had every defensive player waiting until they had diagnosed what the opposition offense was doing and then reacting. This appeared to give the quarterback ample time to perform at their best level. It also left Auburn defensive backs on an island for well over the effective coverage time. 

Ted Roof was attempting to outsmart and react to the offensive play.

Brian VanGorder attempts to force the play of the offense by attacking first.

This is an outstanding description, IMO. Because of Roof's penchant for blitzing linebackers to get pressure, and Coach Chizik's insistence that we remain in the Tampa 2 with the safeties playing back, the middle of the field was often left wide open. Van Gorder's emphasis on getting penetration from the D-line will, in theory, reap the benefits of getting pressure while not compromising the pass coverage.

[keesler 5,942]

BVG philosophy is much more like the old Auburn defenses under Tuberville and Chavis at LSU and UT. He wants his front 4 to be disruptive but he wants the back 7 to keep everything in front of them in a bend but don't break fashion. Roof is much more like Saban philosphically in that he wants to fight you for every yard and uses his DL to keep his LB's clean. Chizik coached and prefers a bend but don't break style much like BVG and those mentioned and was never a good match with Roof as DC.

^^^This bothers me somewhat.  I really wanted to see a much more aggressive defense that's ready to fight, attack, and just refuses to bend to the will of the opponent.  I want a defense that dictates the game, not a defense that takes what the offense gives them.

Now I feel like you're saying we will still be a bend-don't-break defense ..............

[bigbird 60,926]

The main difference in the two, as has been stated, it is in the way the DL plays.  In CTR's scheme, he preferred the DTs hold up the blocks and let the LBs scrape and make the play.   This is one reason CTR and Rocker didn't always see eye-to-eye.  A lot of the time, Fairely did his own thing and attacked anyways, but CTR didn't/couldn't say much due to the results.  Another aspect of CTR's scheme is he had his DE's read and react rather than create pressure.  You could see this especially in the first half of the USU game. This technique drove people on here, and I'm sure in the stands crazy.  This type of play required the DE to close down on the QB and then shuffle laterally creating equal distance between the QB and RB.  In effect the DE slow plays the QB until he pitches or turns upfield and then closes on the ball carrier.  This also allows the OLB and the MLB to fill.  The OLB taking the RB and the MLB taking the QB.  However, if either get blocked, it usually results in a long gain.

CBVG's scheme is predicated on pressure, both internally with the tackles and off the edge with the ends. In this scheme the DTs will fight/shoot the gaps rather than taking on blocks and holding their ground. While CTR's is effective in freeing up LBs, it limits the amount of pressure a defense can get with out blitzing. CTR also utilized a rush end and a pass end...basically strong side and weak side.  In CBVG's he will not designate field strength for the line.  Right end or left end, your job is to get up field and squeeze the pocket.  This, in combination with the tackles pushing upfield, creates a collapsing pocket.  One issue with this is the DE can not lose outside containment.  If they do, then the outside will be open for long gains.  Lemonier had issues with this at the beginning of last season.  Another difference viewed from the DE position is on option plays their responsibility will to attack the QB and force a quick or bad pitch.  The quicker the pitch the better for the defense most of the times, but then again, the success depends on the ability of the LBs to fill and close properly. 

To me, a simplistic view of the two would be, CTR's defense was a read and react scheme that not only required the right personnel, but almost flawless execution.  We were beginning to get the first, but lacked in the second.  CBVG's scheme is a controlled attack.  It requires size and speed, but heavily relies on the individual's skill as well.  We will have the first two, the latter comes with time and experience.  I believe we will see flashes of greatness all over the field this season, but next year we will see it all come together and there will be a reckoning.

[aurules16 0]

BVG philosophy is much more like the old Auburn defenses under Tuberville and Chavis at LSU and UT. He wants his front 4 to be disruptive but he wants the back 7 to keep everything in front of them in a bend but don't break fashion. Roof is much more like Saban philosphically in that he wants to fight you for every yard and uses his DL to keep his LB's clean. Chizik coached and prefers a bend but don't break style much like BVG and those mentioned and was never a good match with Roof as DC.

^^^This bothers me somewhat.  I really wanted to see a much more aggressive defense that's ready to fight, attack, and just refuses to bend to the will of the opponent.  I want a defense that dictates the game, not a defense that takes what the offense gives them.

Now I feel like you're saying we will still be a bend-don't-break defense ..............

The defense (in theory) is not as bad as it seems. BVG can execute it better, which is why he will be a better fit with Chizik than Roof was. Chizik ran this same scheme in 04 and lead the country in scoring defense, that should tell you enough.

[Wareagletd 0]

I knew BB would explain it. Thanks BigBird.

[DyeEraTiger 0]

BVG philosophy is much more like the old Auburn defenses under Tuberville and Chavis at LSU and UT. He wants his front 4 to be disruptive but he wants the back 7 to keep everything in front of them in a bend but don't break fashion. Roof is much more like Saban philosphically in that he wants to fight you for every yard and uses his DL to keep his LB's clean. Chizik coached and prefers a bend but don't break style much like BVG and those mentioned and was never a good match with Roof as DC.

^^^This bothers me somewhat.  I really wanted to see a much more aggressive defense that's ready to fight, attack, and just refuses to bend to the will of the opponent.  I want a defense that dictates the game, not a defense that takes what the offense gives them.

Now I feel like you're saying we will still be a bend-don't-break defense ..............

The "bend but don't break" philosophy prob involves multiple schemes that I certainly cannot begin to understand--but I do know that it has helped win a heap of championships.

[WarEagle10 77]

From what I observed it seemed Roof's defense was based more around containing rather than actually going after the sack and getting to the ball. Instead, we were waiting on what they were going to do and moving from there.

Again, this is what I THINK, not what I know, someone please feel free to correct me.

I agree. I am not an x's and o'x guy, but know people who are. From what I was told....Coach Roof's D was a read and react D. Meaning we were trying to let the O do what it wants, but make sure it was limited per play. A "bend but don't break" philosophy. Coach BVG's D will try to dictate what the O does. Try to take away their strengths, and limit their weaknesses. In other words try to dominate from snap one. An '80's style D under Coach Dye.

[Rednilla 5,438]

The main difference in the two, as has been stated, it is in the way the DL plays.  In CTR's scheme, he preferred the DTs hold up the blocks and let the LBs scrape and make the play.   This is one reason CTR and CGC didn't always see eye-to-eye.  A lot of the time, Fairely did his own thing and attacked anyways, but CTR didn't/couldn't say much due to the results.  Another aspect of CTR's scheme is he had his DE's read and react rather than create pressure.  You could see this especially in the first half of the USU game. This technique drove people on here, and I'm sure in the stands crazy.  This type of play required the DE to close down on the QB and then shuffle laterally creating equal distance between the QB and RB.  In effect the DE slow plays the QB until he pitches or turns upfield and then closes on the ball carrier.  This also allows the OLB and the MLB to fill.  The OLB taking the RB and the MLB taking the QB.  However, if either get blocked, it usually results in a long gain.

CBVG's scheme is predicated on pressure, both internally with the tackles and off the edge with the ends. In this scheme the DTs will fight/shoot the gaps rather than taking on blocks and holding their ground. While CTR's is effective in freeing up LBs, it limits the amount of pressure a defense can get with out blitzing. CTR also utilized a rush end and a pass end...basically strong side and weak side.  In CBVG's he will not designate field strength for the line.  Right end or left end, your job is to get up field and squeeze the pocket.  This, in combination with the tackles pushing upfield, creates a collapsing pocket.  One issue with this is the DE can not lose outside containment.  If they do, then the outside will be open for long gains.  Lemonier had issues with this at the beginning of last season.  Another difference viewed from the DE position is on option plays their responsibility will to attack the QB and force a quick or bad pitch.  The quicker the pitch the better for the defense most of the times, but then again, the success depends on the ability of the LBs to fill and close properly. 

To me, a simplistic view of the two would be, CTR's defense was a read and react scheme that not only required the right personnel, but almost flawless execution.  We were beginning to get the first, but lacked in the second.  CBVG's scheme is a controlled attack.  It requires size and speed, but heavily relies on the individual's skill as well.  We will have the first two, the latter comes with time and experience.  I believe we will see flashes of greatness all over the field this season, but next year we will see it all come together and there will be a reckoning.

Outstanding explanation!

[WarEagle10 77]

Bird.................do you expect to see more blitzing?

[BPI 0]

We endured it every year he was there. Even in 2010. Roof's style was just plain ineffective in the SEC. I will know real quick what kind of changes are made by BVG in the first game. If I see our d.b.'s playing 10 yards off the reciever for no apperant reason, i'm choking my t.v.

[bigbird 60,926]

We endured it every year he was there. Even in 2010. Roof's style was just plain ineffective in the SEC. I will know real quick what kind of changes are made by BVG in the first game. If I see our d.b.'s playing 10 yards off the reciever for no apperant reason, i'm choking my t.v.

you better get start working on your grip strength.

[OffensiveAlchemy 6]

Thanks Bird.  I love this website!

[BPI 0]

We endured it every year he was there. Even in 2010. Roof's style was just plain ineffective in the SEC. I will know real quick what kind of changes are made by BVG in the first game. If I see our d.b.'s playing 10 yards off the reciever for no apperant reason, i'm choking my t.v.

I know there are times when your d.b.'s play off the recievers, but not every  tome. And 10 yards was being nice. Last year they played further than that at times.

[CTsaysWDE 3]

We endured it every year he was there. Even in 2010. Roof's style was just plain ineffective in the SEC. I will know real quick what kind of changes are made by BVG in the first game. If I see our d.b.'s playing 10 yards off the reciever for no apperant reason, i'm choking my t.v.

you better get start working on your grip strength.

We have gone over (in some excellent explanations) how the DL will play differently.  In light of different play by the DL, how will the play we see from the rest of the D change?  I've seen lots of comments saying how our improved DL will take pressure off of the secondary, how does everyone predict they will play differently because of this?

[bigbird 60,926]

We endured it every year he was there. Even in 2010. Roof's style was just plain ineffective in the SEC. I will know real quick what kind of changes are made by BVG in the first game. If I see our d.b.'s playing 10 yards off the reciever for no apperant reason, i'm choking my t.v.

you better get start working on your grip strength.

We have gone over (in some excellent explanations) how the DL will play differently.  In light of different play by the DL, how will the play we see from the rest of the D change?  I've seen lots of comments saying how our improved DL will take pressure off of the secondary, how does everyone predict they will play differently because of this?

when a DL gets pressure the amount of time a DB has to cover a receiver is dramatically reduced.  This alone will improve our pass defense.  However, alone it will not put us where we need to be.  We need better individual technique/ ball skills.  I believe that the talent upgrade along with the pressure from the DL will show this year and will be great next.  I predict more man/zone combination coverages...man on one side and zone on the other.

[BPI 0]

I hope so. The short / medium routes have torn us up for the last few years.

[bootskii 264]

Where is Stattiger when you need him. That guy could break it down for us with pics and everything.

[txtigerfan 0]

Quick pressure on a QB also reduces his progressions, breaks down his mechanics, and increases the number of throws to outlet receivers.  All of this usually adds up to a much less efficient offense ...