Jump to content

New Coach - Same crappy team (*Thread from 2004*)


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Captain Kangaroo changed the title to New Coach - Same crappy team (*Thread from 2004*)
18 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

 

I wouldn't fret too much over game threads or things people say immediately after losses. Generally they're speaking with emotion instead of logic. Most people I've talked to believe Joe will right the ship. He inherited a roster that was bottom 5 FBS in talent. Even with the transfer portal it's going to take some time to build this roster

Whats funny to me, as I recall didn't Lee Owens have at least a .500 season maybe better when he was fired after 2003 season? He left some pretty good talent. Hixon,Blackburn, Charley. And I didn't think that O line was all that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lee Adams said:

Whats funny to me, as I recall didn't Lee Owens have at least a .500 season maybe better when he was fired after 2003 season? He left some pretty good talent. Hixon,Blackburn, Charley. And I didn't think that O line was all that bad.

Honestly, that was before my time of being a Zip. My comment was in regards to the talent (or lack there of) Moorehead inherited from Arth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Honestly, that was before my time of being a Zip. My comment was in regards to the talent (or lack there of) Moorehead inherited from Arth

I agree. There were 3 guys from that 2003 team who ended up in the NFL. The ones I mentioned: Hixon, Blackburn and Frye. Hixon and Blackburn won a Superbowl with the Giants as I recall. Joe inherited nothing close to the talent he and JD had in '04-'05.

'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lee Adams said:

Thanks. I recall not liking his D back then.

I don't like it now, but considering the way the game is played now I don't see a better alternative.  It's wide open football with rules designed to gain a ton of yards through the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GP1 said:

I don't like it now, but considering the way the game is played now I don't see a better alternative.  It's wide open football with rules designed to gain a ton of yards through the air.

I’m not a fan of the 3-3-5 either, unless it’s a spin off on passing downs from a base 3-4. I’ve seen too many teams get ripped apart in the ground game from a 3-3-5 based defense.

Edited by catdaddyp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, catdaddyp said:

I’m not a fan of the 3-3-5 either, unless it’s a spin off on passing downs from a base 3-4. I’ve seen too many teams get ripped apart in the ground game from a 3-3-5 based defense.

That’s precisely what happened to us.
 

JD said it was because good DL were too difficult to recruit.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, catdaddyp said:

I’m not a fan of the 3-3-5 either, unless it’s a spin off on passing downs from a base 3-4. I’ve seen too many teams get ripped apart in the ground game from a 3-3-5 based defense.

You still have to have a good OL to run. The problem now is offensive linemen aren't very good run blockers.

 

The RPO has removed traditional defenses because the triple option does not run from side to side. It is a north/south offense. The RB runs forward and is he is defended then a WR is thrown to downfield. The QB, if he runs, is going to be running immediately forward.  Too many linemen, you get killed with passes. Too many DBs, you get killed with running if the team has a decent running game. Too many Dlinemen against the hurry up offenses today and they will be gassed by the middle of the 3rd quarter than the QB will be able to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. It's a pick your poison game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GP1 said:

You still have to have a good OL to run. The problem now is offensive linemen aren't very good run blockers.

 

The RPO has removed traditional defenses because the triple option does not run from side to side. It is a north/south offense. The RB runs forward and is he is defended then a WR is thrown to downfield. The QB, if he runs, is going to be running immediately forward.  Too many linemen, you get killed with passes. Too many DBs, you get killed with running if the team has a decent running game. Too many Dlinemen against the hurry up offenses today and they will be gassed by the middle of the 3rd quarter than the QB will be able to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. It's a pick your poison game. 

OL play in general has dropped off some due to the younger levels across the nation dropping tackle football and going to flag.

 

As far as not being good run blockers I’d have to disagree if we are talking in terms of run vs pass blocking. 99% of HS OL are more advanced in run blocking than pass blocking. 
 

Every defense has weaknesses, it’s part of the game. But if we want to specifically talk the 3-3-5 defense, it requires a hybrid defensive back that can play the pass and run equally effective. The issue at LB is they are based stacked. You have to shift one way or the other to not give up the edge. When that’s the case you’re asking those LBs or the Hybrid DB to essentially play like a DE. So in my opinion might as well just go to a 3-4 or 4-2-5. 
 

3-3-5 has always felt gimmicky to me and just didn’t make sense. I even went to a coaching clinic on it and came out feeling the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only 3-3-5 scheme that I know of that is notoriously successful is the one Iowa State has been running for the Campbell years. His DC Jon Heacock kind of came up with the particular scheme. He runs it because they’re physically overmatched by the traditional powers in that league and simply has to rely on his guys being smart about doing their job and then using speed to fill gaps on run plays.  It’s quite interesting. Some of their biggest upsets over the past 5-6 seasons have been attributed to their ability to create coverage sacks while also not letting RBs get to the second level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LoyalZIP said:

The only 3-3-5 scheme that I know of that is notoriously successful is the one Iowa State has been running for the Campbell years. His DC Jon Heacock kind of came up with the particular scheme. He runs it because they’re physically overmatched by the traditional powers in that league and simply has to rely on his guys being smart about doing their job and then using speed to fill gaps on run plays.  It’s quite interesting. Some of their biggest upsets over the past 5-6 seasons have been attributed to their ability to create coverage sacks while also not letting RBs get to the second level. 

I remember Charlie Strong running it at South Carolina under Lou Holtz and that was the first time I saw it used extensively. It was all the rage at the HS coaching clinics, but I never saw a HS actually run it effectively. 
 

I believe Joe Lee Dunn was credited with developing the 3-3-5. He ironically also coached at South Carolina - in the late 80’s. They called it “the fire ant defense” at the time because he blitzed like a madman.

Edited by catdaddyp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, catdaddyp said:

I remember Charlie Strong running it at South Carolina under Lou Holtz and that was the first time I saw it used extensively. It was all the rage at the HS coaching clinics, but I never saw a HS actually run it effectively. 
 

I believe Joe Lee Dunn was credited with developing the 3-3-5. He ironically also coached at South Carolina - in the late 80’s. They called it “the fire ant defense” at the time because he blitzed like a madman.

I think these are all kind of gimmicks, it all depends on personnel,  3-3-5 can be a great defense if you have personnel with players that can play safety & linebacker so that defense can be a 3-5-3 as well, flexible players so they can adjust to formations & not get burnt in offensive personnel changes by down & distance, but it’s similar with the 4-3 & 3-4 with it being a DE or OLB, hand in the ground, stand or have a TJ Watt that can do both, great players give you flexibility 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 94zipgrad said:

I think these are all kind of gimmicks, it all depends on personnel,  3-3-5 can be a great defense if you have personnel with players that can play safety & linebacker so that defense can be a 3-5-3 as well, flexible players so they can adjust to formations & not get burnt in offensive personnel changes by down & distance, but it’s similar with the 4-3 & 3-4 with it being a DE or OLB, hand in the ground, stand or have a TJ Watt that can do both, great players give you flexibility 

If you’re banking on a TJ Watt (or multiple players of that stature) to make your defense go, probably isn’t the best defense to run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 94zipgrad said:

You missed the point

We’ll have to disagree about the 3-3-5. There are more reasons why I dislike it than I listed above but the main ones are the issues of stopping the run and also needing a special kind of player to fit that “Spur” position (as Carolina used to call it) to make it effective. I haven’t seen anyone run a 3-5-3 base at the college level unless you’re referring to a goalline/short yardage package?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, catdaddyp said:

We’ll have to disagree about the 3-3-5. There are more reasons why I dislike it than I listed above but the main ones are the issues of stopping the run and also needing a special kind of player to fit that “Spur” position (as Carolina used to call it) to make it effective. I haven’t seen anyone run a 3-5-3 base at the college level unless you’re referring to a goalline/short yardage package?

Again you miss the point, all defenses have a base but adjust to the formation,  West Virginia ran  it pretty well for years but they had players that could play Safety / LB so there base was a 3-3-5 mostly for the spread formation but as you can see by the uploaded image of a team in 21 personnel the defense is in a 3-5 but LB’s can cover, it’s critical or you will get ran all over.  This defense was a craz for awhile

 

I know I’m gonna embarrass myself and age myself but I have probably coached every defense there is out there, 7 diamond, 6-2, 5-3, 4-3, 3-4, 3-3.  I’m older so I’ve seen the evolution of the offense but at one time I use to run a 5-4.  You couldn’t run against it and forced teams to pass which wasn’t what they was comfortable doing and it was very vulnerable to the pass but I adjusted base on formation.  The T, wing t or power I was big back then so you had 32 personnel & 5-4 worked great.  If they got out of their comfort zone and put a WR on the field you could go 5-3, 2 WR’s you could go 5-2, OLB became safeties & all zone coverage but again it was against all running teams you forced into passing if you could.

 

point is better be a hybrid defense, flexibility or these offenses will figure out your weakness & expose you, but you need athletes that can fill that safety / LB mold which is difficult to find that good of an athlete that has the size & speed needed, but great d lineman make all defenses better

 

4F2BCB62-1B02-4BAA-B250-0B6C5899220F.webp

Edited by 94zipgrad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 94zipgrad said:

Again you miss the point, all defenses have a base but adjust to the formation,  West Virginia ran  it pretty well for years but they had players that could play Safety / LB so there base was a 3-3-5 mostly for the spread formation but as you can see by the uploaded image of a team in 21 personnel the defense is in a 3-5 but LB’s can cover, it’s critical or you will get ran all over.  This defense was a craz for awhile

 

I know I’m gonna embarrass myself and age myself but I have probably coached every defense there is out there, 7 diamond, 6-2, 5-3, 4-3, 3-4, 3-3.  I’m older so I’ve seen the evolution of the offense but at one time I use to run a 5-4.  You couldn’t run against it and forced teams to pass which wasn’t what they was comfortable doing and it was very vulnerable to the pass but I adjusted base on formation.  The T, wing t or power I was big back then so you had 32 personnel & 5-4 worked great.  If they got out of their comfort zone and put a WR on the field you could go 5-3, 2 WR’s you could go 5-2, OLB became safeties & all zone coverage but again it was against all running teams you forced into passing if you could.

 

point is better be a hybrid defense, flexibility or these offenses will figure out your weakness & expose you, but you need athletes that can fill that safety / LB mold which is difficult to find that good of an athlete that has the size & speed needed, but great d lineman make all defenses better

 

4F2BCB62-1B02-4BAA-B250-0B6C5899220F.webp

Disagreeing with your opinion isn’t missing your point. If you think 3-3-5 is a great defense that’s fine. I 100% disagree and I’ve already given several reasons why. Using West Virginia’s defense as an example doesn’t help further your point. I’ll toss one back to you. Check out Texas Tech’s defense last year (3-3-5) against Texas. Texas was not a good team but ran all over Tech and they weren’t running anything out of the ordinary. In fact, it was mostly just zone runs.

 

I don’t feel the need to rehash what I’ve already said as it seems to have gotten glossed over. If we are putting our experiences out there as a reason, I coached in two football dominate states in South Carolina and Louisiana. I have over a decade of head coaching experience while also being an AD. I’ve spent countless hours with college coaches and high school coaches going over drills, schemes, best practices - you name it. I’ve seen just about everything. That’s why very little you say will change my mind on this. But again, it’s ok to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, catdaddyp said:

Disagreeing with your opinion isn’t missing your point. If you think 3-3-5 is a great defense that’s fine. I 100% disagree and I’ve already given several reasons why. Using West Virginia’s defense as an example doesn’t help further your point. I’ll toss one back to you. Check out Texas Tech’s defense last year (3-3-5) against Texas. Texas was not a good team but ran all over Tech and they weren’t running anything out of the ordinary. In fact, it was mostly just zone runs.

 

I don’t feel the need to rehash what I’ve already said as it seems to have gotten glossed over. If we are putting our experiences out there as a reason, I coached in two football dominate states in South Carolina and Louisiana. I have over a decade of head coaching experience while also being an AD. I’ve spent countless hours with college coaches and high school coaches going over drills, schemes, best practices - you name it. I’ve seen just about everything. That’s why very little you say will change my mind on this. But again, it’s ok to disagree. 

Last time, you are missing the point, i never said any defense was good, I’m saying don’t get caught up in base defenses they have to be hybrids with offenses having progressed so much, never once did I say I liked the 3-3-5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, catdaddyp said:

Disagreeing with your opinion isn’t missing your point. If you think 3-3-5 is a great defense that’s fine. I 100% disagree and I’ve already given several reasons why. Using West Virginia’s defense as an example doesn’t help further your point. I’ll toss one back to you. Check out Texas Tech’s defense last year (3-3-5) against Texas. Texas was not a good team but ran all over Tech and they weren’t running anything out of the ordinary. In fact, it was mostly just zone runs.

 

I don’t feel the need to rehash what I’ve already said as it seems to have gotten glossed over. If we are putting our experiences out there as a reason, I coached in two football dominate states in South Carolina and Louisiana. I have over a decade of head coaching experience while also being an AD. I’ve spent countless hours with college coaches and high school coaches going over drills, schemes, best practices - you name it. I’ve seen just about everything. That’s why very little you say will change my mind on this. But again, it’s ok to disagree. 

I am also not throwing credentials or questioning yours, your a great poster & bring a lot to the table but a great head coach or person in general is open to listening, I’m not trying to change your opinion on any defense.  I’m just saying no defense stays in a base or they get killed, need to be a hybrid to be able be flexible or the OC will dictate the game

 

please don’t take personal 

 

edit

i guess i did say it CAN be a great defense (can being emphasized)if you have the right personnel, meaning you have great S / LB’s that are versatile & can play both & Im not a big 3-3-5 fan but some have made it work

 

sorry, maybe i missed my own point lol

 

let’s move on

Edited by 94zipgrad
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Blue & Gold said:

That’s precisely what happened to us.
 

JD said it was because good DL were too difficult to recruit.

Yep. As I recall those Akron teams back then had a hard time stopping the run. There were still a few good running teams in the MAC back then. Northern Illinois was one. Akron had a decent run game when Brett Biggs was there and Dennis Kennedy followed him.

Akron had a local kid who played that rover position you guys were talking about. He was the swing LB/DB. Wasn't fast enough to play DB and wasn't big enough to play LB but he would stick his nose in on run plays. Got hurt a few times for it.

I'm still one who thinks the base D should at least be 4-3 to try to control the line. Do situational subbing depending on the situation. But, I have noticed Akron trying to sub 

4-5 guys at once and they have gotten caught out of position. Happened last week on the goal line. Hopefully the D coaches will figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Mackey was the Rover. When he got hurt in 06 the issues with the 3-3-5 really showed. I believe his injury ultimately lead to us not being able to repeat. 

 

Someone mentioned Lee Owens going .500 in his last season. He actually went 7-5 and 5-3 in conference. Which seems crazy now. 

 

I always look back at the 2000's as a magical time in the MAC. All the coaches that came out of that time like Urban Meyer and Brian Kelly. The MAC and what we refer to now as G5 schools developing the spread and the upsets of the bigger schools because they were not equip to handle the speed on offence.  

 

Yes Northern was really good at running the ball. They beat a ranked Alabama in 2003 with Michael Turner running the ball. They followed Turner up with Garret Wolf. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...