ProgRock 0 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I think that particular scheme doesn't work well for our personell,it can work...I remember Tracy Rocker,Ron Stallworth,and....Benji Roland(correct me if I'm wrong) putting big pressure from a 3 man rush.To do this you MUST have guys of this calliber.I really hope we don't run this anymore even if we're up a couple of TD's.If I had to list a improvement chart mine would be as follows. 1)The DL must get pressure on the QB with containment 2)The DB's must play zone and watch the QB's eyes more...I noticed several times a couple of DB's and LB's turning almost completely backwards to point (I GUESS) another player to a position.while they we're pointing with their heads turned the ball was hiked and they didn't know where their guy was? 3)Cox has to run or a least move the pocket from holding the ball too long I know of a least one time he could have ran for the 1st down easily...he ran a little but dump it to KI and threw it out of bounds over his head 4)WR need to get open quicker. OH Yeah!!! I got to ask you guys something odd about the game I didn't want to open another topic just for this.If anyone has the game on tape notice in the 3rd quarter at exactly 9:10 the ball was ran foward by KI INBOUNDS and they didn't start the clock again for like 1:30 later.Check it out.Did anyone else noticed this and please give a check off list...for a things to work on for our TIGERS. War Eagle keep wining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weagle98 119 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I agree on your points. On the clock, I think ESPN was having issues. There were times that the clock wasn't running when it was supposed to and then it would quickly take 10 seconds or more off to catch up. It was AFU. I was yelling why isn't the clock running, then blip it would be correct and continue to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProgRock 0 Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 I agree on your points. On the clock, I think ESPN was having issues. There were times that the clock wasn't running when it was supposed to and then it would quickly take 10 seconds or more off to catch up. It was AFU. I was yelling why isn't the clock running, then blip it would be correct and continue to run. OH so it WAS corrected then.I didn't really noticed if it was corrected or not.I just figured that would have help us out a great deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I think that particular scheme doesn't work well for our personell,it can work...I remember Tracy Rocker,Ron Stallworth,and....Benji Roland(correct me if I'm wrong) putting big pressure from a 3 man rush.To do this you MUST have guys of this calliber.I really hope we don't run this anymore even if we're up a couple of TD's.If I had to list a improvement chart mine would be as follows. 1)The DL must get pressure on the QB with containment 2)The DB's must play zone and watch the QB's eyes more...I noticed several times a couple of DB's and LB's turning almost completely backwards to point (I GUESS) another player to a position.while they we're pointing with their heads turned the ball was hiked and they didn't know where their guy was? 3)Cox has to run or a least move the pocket from holding the ball too long I know of a least one time he could have ran for the 1st down easily...he ran a little but dump it to KI and threw it out of bounds over his head 4)WR need to get open quicker. OH Yeah!!! I got to ask you guys something odd about the game I didn't want to open another topic just for this.If anyone has the game on tape notice in the 3rd quarter at exactly 9:10 the ball was ran foward by KI INBOUNDS and they didn't start the clock again for like 1:30 later.Check it out.Did anyone else noticed this and please give a check off list...for a things to work on for our TIGERS. War Eagle keep wining Cox isn't 100%. Don't know how bad it really is, but he's struggling. Running would be a bad, bad idea for him right now. Looks to me like he's even hesitant to step up in the pocket because it requires him to push off with his right leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Didn't know cox wasn't 100%. Seems like we started the rush 3 thing against russel and lsu last year. We coulda/should/didn't win that one. We used it a lot against him this year and won. We used it against newton and barely won. All I can say is that I feel for these defensive caoches who have to try to stop these athletic qb's of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Didn't know cox wasn't 100%. Seems like we started the rush 3 thing against russel and lsu last year. We coulda/should/didn't win that one. We used it a lot against him this year and won. We used it against newton and barely won. All I can say is that I feel for these defensive caoches who have to try to stop these athletic qb's of today. They say he's 100%, but you can tell by the way he moves that his right leg is still problematic. It would have been good to get him off the field in the first quarter against Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Didn't know cox wasn't 100%. Seems like we started the rush 3 thing against russel and lsu last year. We coulda/should/didn't win that one. We used it a lot against him this year and won. We used it against newton and barely won. All I can say is that I feel for these defensive caoches who have to try to stop these athletic qb's of today. They say he's 100%, but you can tell by the way he moves that his right leg is still problematic. It would have been good to get him off the field in the first quarter against Buffalo. I've noticed he doesn't seem as mobile lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtweeks 0 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Robert Dunn talked about Cox being hurt during the postgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-zoner 0 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 It doesnt matter how good you contain when you rush 3, an athletic quaterback can just find a seem between your tackles and run for 8 yards. If you rush more than three, that leaves less db's in the secondary, and that leaves your defense open to be picked apart. With Wilhite out last night, they didnt want to put alot of pressure on Pat Lee and Powers so they just rushed three. This is the kind of predicament that an athletic quarterback can put you in as vick, vince young, and all other athletic quarterbacks have proven. The bottom line is Muschamp had to pick his poison last night, and he picked rush 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValleyTiger 2,894 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I was surprised that Muschamp didn't play a 3 DE alignment as it seemed that Newton step up quite a few times and the DT(s) simply weren't athletic enough to chase him down. I still Auburn could have defended USC better with the base defense on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 It doesnt matter how good you contain when you rush 3, an athletic quaterback can just find a seem between your tackles and run for 8 yards. If you rush more than three, that leaves less db's in the secondary, and that leaves your defense open to be picked apart. With Wilhite out last night, they didnt want to put alot of pressure on Pat Lee and Powers so they just rushed three. This is the kind of predicament that an athletic quarterback can put you in as vick, vince young, and all other athletic quarterbacks have proven. The bottom line is Muschamp had to pick his poison last night, and he picked rush 3. Bingo! You normally want to rush more then three against a QB that is not as quick as Newton is. Even with our fast defense, Newton can outrun those guys. And the way our secondary was blowing coverages and he was able to pick us apart, I don't think you want to leave more targets open for him. But, you can rush all you want, but if you are not tackling and covering the receivers, any type of blitz is not going to matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 It doesnt matter how good you contain when you rush 3, an athletic quaterback can just find a seem between your tackles and run for 8 yards. If you rush more than three, that leaves less db's in the secondary, and that leaves your defense open to be picked apart. With Wilhite out last night, they didnt want to put alot of pressure on Pat Lee and Powers so they just rushed three. This is the kind of predicament that an athletic quarterback can put you in as vick, vince young, and all other athletic quarterbacks have proven. The bottom line is Muschamp had to pick his poison last night, and he picked rush 3. Agreed, I said as much last night. How many times last year against Shockley did Auburn blitz and he just scampered away. 97 with Craig was the same way for Auburn. Young did it for two years with Texas and WVU beat Georgia with it last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aukooze91 11 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Didn't know cox wasn't 100%. Seems like we started the rush 3 thing against russel and lsu last year. We coulda/should/didn't win that one. We used it a lot against him this year and won. We used it against newton and barely won. All I can say is that I feel for these defensive caoches who have to try to stop these athletic qb's of today. I am pretty sure Cox hurt his knee more severely than we all were told or led to believe. I watched him in the Buffalo game and it seemed that he couldn't push off the injured knee. All his passes looked like punts. His passes last night were more crisp and with some zip on them. Of course we don't throw deep balls anymore. As for the rush 3, in my opinion that is more of a CTT thing. We always would run that defense against the CSS Gator teams. We won a few and lost a few. We seemed to always give up a lot of passing yards with some rushing. Now, it seems we give up a lot of passing yardage AND a lot of rushing yardage. Personally, I am more dissappointed that we can't stop the run. I got to thinking about one thing today: I remember the days when all my friends and me would fuss and cuss about the losses and how we lost. Now, we fuss and cuss about how we win games! Go figure. War Eagle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerGlide 1 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I got to thinking about one thing today: I remember the days when all my friends and me would fuss and cuss about the losses and how we lost. Now, we fuss and cuss about how we win games! Go figure. War Eagle! I told a friend today, at least their 5-0 with problems to solve, they could be 3-2 and still trying to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebdawg 5 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I have always hated the three-man rush. IMO there is never a time to use it. It has no place in football. If I were up 72 - 0 with 10 seconds left and my opponent is on their own 2 I would still rush 4. The three-man rush is bad coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbo 0 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 But, you can rush all you want, but if you are not tackling and covering the receivers, any type of blitz is not going to matter. You are dead on with that post! the defence couldnt cover rushing 3, 4 may have made it worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.