defense

[RACER]

just wondering what everyone thought next year about the defensive postions.bain,sewell,grant,jones should all be solid players.i think our d-line will be decent ,but not much depth. it would have been nice to have nate one more year to play with bain in a four man front.i think losing corner,pace,tate is a major concern.the main thing jd needs this year is to get pressure on the qb without having to blitz the house.the situation was not addred last year.sewell with another year should be the guy comng off the corner.does anybody think any of the freshman/jc can contribute.

[Quickzips]

The defense is crap and will continue to be crap until JD realizes that this 335 is a gimmick defense that actually makes it more difficult for us to recruit kids that fit in the scheme than if he actually ran a traditional 43 defense. The problem is that 3 man front. Any time you run a 3 man front you need big, strong bodies who can occupy blockers and free things up for your LB's and S's to make plays. Guys like Sewell are playing completely out of place in this defense. Sewell is the prime example in my mind. In a standard 43 scheme he'd be a PERFECT DE. He's a high motor guy whose athletic and can beat blockers off the edge, but he's being asked to take up blockers and is wasting his talent. If anything in this scheme he fits as a rush LB, but because we have noone else to play DE for us Sewell is left wasting his talents playing out of position. Until we either change the defensive scheme to a 43 or magically start landing stud DE's in the 6'3"-6'5" 280-310lb range and stud NT's in the 6'0"-6'4" 310-340lb range our defense is going to drastically underperform because guys are being asked to play out of position.

[duece225]

The defense is crap and will continue to be crap until JD realizes that this 335 is a gimmick defense that actually makes it more difficult for us to recruit kids that fit in the scheme than if he actually ran a traditional 43 defense. The problem is that 3 man front. Any time you run a 3 man front you need big, strong bodies who can occupy blockers and free things up for your LB's and S's to make plays. Guys like Sewell are playing completely out of place in this defense. Sewell is the prime example in my mind. In a standard 43 scheme he'd be a PERFECT DE. He's a high motor guy whose athletic and can beat blockers off the edge, but he's being asked to take up blockers and is wasting his talent. If anything in this scheme he fits as a rush LB, but because we have noone else to play DE for us Sewell is left wasting his talents playing out of position. Until we either change the defensive scheme to a 43 or magically start landing stud DE's in the 6'3"-6'5" 280-310lb range and stud NT's in the 6'0"-6'4" 310-340lb range our defense is going to drastically underperform because guys are being asked to play out of position.

The thing about the 3-3 is that it allows you to adjust to all of the multiple sets, stems and motions that you get with spread offs now. It allows you to bring heat without bogging yourself down with alot of checks. If you get a lot of two-tight stuff you better get some bigger bodies on the field. It does however limit your coverages a little. Its not real condusive to playing much cov 2 without adjusting the fronts.

[Lee Adams]

just wondering what everyone thought next year about the defensive postions.bain,sewell,grant,jones should all be solid players.i think our d-line will be decent ,but not much depth. it would have been nice to have nate one more year to play with bain in a four man front.i think losing corner,pace,tate is a major concern.the main thing jd needs this year is to get pressure on the qb without having to blitz the house.the situation was not addred last year.sewell with another year should be the guy comng off the corner.does anybody think any of the freshman/jc can contribute.

i wanna see Fleming on the field..at 6-3/6-4 if he has any speed at all and a mean streak he could be aheadhunter the D needs...anybody got any more on this kid/

[72 Roo]

No matter what a defensive scheme does, if it can't put pressure on the QB you are doomed to lose. Even in the MAC, which is becoming mediocre at best, opposing QB's will eat you up. Remember what Temple did to us last year when we sat on a 21-3 lead with about 10 minutes left ... we lost. If JD stays wit the 3-3-5 we will be no better than .500 and Jd will be out a job.

[Quickzips]

The defense is crap and will continue to be crap until JD realizes that this 335 is a gimmick defense that actually makes it more difficult for us to recruit kids that fit in the scheme than if he actually ran a traditional 43 defense. The problem is that 3 man front. Any time you run a 3 man front you need big, strong bodies who can occupy blockers and free things up for your LB's and S's to make plays. Guys like Sewell are playing completely out of place in this defense. Sewell is the prime example in my mind. In a standard 43 scheme he'd be a PERFECT DE. He's a high motor guy whose athletic and can beat blockers off the edge, but he's being asked to take up blockers and is wasting his talent. If anything in this scheme he fits as a rush LB, but because we have noone else to play DE for us Sewell is left wasting his talents playing out of position. Until we either change the defensive scheme to a 43 or magically start landing stud DE's in the 6'3"-6'5" 280-310lb range and stud NT's in the 6'0"-6'4" 310-340lb range our defense is going to drastically underperform because guys are being asked to play out of position.

The thing about the 3-3 is that it allows you to adjust to all of the multiple sets, stems and motions that you get with spread offs now. It allows you to bring heat without bogging yourself down with alot of checks. If you get a lot of two-tight stuff you better get some bigger bodies on the field. It does however limit your coverages a little. Its not real condusive to playing much cov 2 without adjusting the fronts.

In theory it might do all that. In practice though, if you don't have the pieces to run a 3 man front it does none of that. Your front 3 gets blown off the ball, blockers can get to the second level and neutralize your LB's and DB's and you're done. I've heard over and over again that the reason we run the 3 man front is because we can recruit enough quality big bodies to run in a 4 man front. In a 4 man front you need 2 DT's in that 280lb or above range who can take up the middle and depth. Your DE's can be guys like Sewell who are in that 245-270 range with speed and athleticism. In a 3 man front you need to have 3 big guys who can take up those blockers and allow your playmakers to make plays. So now instead of needing to have 2 big men plus depth you need to have 3 big men plus depth. It's totally illogical.

[Dr Z]

It has always seemed odd to me that the reason we run the 3-3-5 is "it is hard to recruit defensive lineman"I still don't buy that. How can Appalachian State recruit DLs but we can't? I see NO advantage to this defense.Are we going to change our scheme if we can recruit better?

[Blue & Gold]

I like any defense that can get pressure on the QB. Nothing disrupts an offensive rhythm like blowing up a play in the backfield. I haven't seen the Zips doing much of that for a couple of years now. The 3-3-5 D seems like a "bend-but-don't-break" sort of D. But that really wears a D down. I think we'd all agree that over the last few years, by the end of games our D is completely exhausted. (Of course, that may just as well have to do w/ our lack of offensive production.) I guess we need to revamp both our defense and our offense!!!

[Captain Kangaroo]

Since JD has been here, our defense has "lost" us a lot fewer games that the offense, or lack thereof, has. I'm more concerned with the Zips consistently putting points on the board, and converting in the red zone, than I am debating the merits of the 3-3-5.

[Quickzips]

Since JD has been here, our defense has "lost" us a lot fewer games that the offense, or lack thereof, has. I'm more concerned with the Zips consistently putting points on the board, and converting in the red zone, than I am debating the merits of the 3-3-5.

When JD first got here our defense wasn't bad. Teams in the MAC didn't know how to deal with our defense and we actually had some players to be able to run it with Kiki, Reed, etc. At this point, everyone has adjusted to the defense and it gets worse and worse and worse. It has lost us a lot of games. We shouldn't have to get into offensive shootouts week in and week out just to compete. Put together a defense that you can get the personel to run and that has been proven time and time again to be an effective defense and watch the results change dramatically.

[g-mann17]

Since JD has been here, our defense has "lost" us a lot fewer games that the offense, or lack thereof, has. I'm more concerned with the Zips consistently putting points on the board, and converting in the red zone, than I am debating the merits of the 3-3-5.

When JD first got here our defense wasn't bad. Teams in the MAC didn't know how to deal with our defense and we actually had some players to be able to run it with Kiki, Reed, etc. At this point, everyone has adjusted to the defense and it gets worse and worse and worse. It has lost us a lot of games. We shouldn't have to get into offensive shootouts week in and week out just to compete. Put together a defense that you can get the personel to run and that has been proven time and time again to be an effective defense and watch the results change dramatically.

Hey Quick, where you coaching now? Also how many shoot outs did we have this year? What is your definition of a shootout? Mine is greater then one touchdown per quarter so a score higher then 28-28 would be a "shoot out"? So we would have had 6 shout outs. Two of which were just non-conference blow outs (UConn and IU).Sorry to say that, the biggest problem with our defense is how many minutes they have to spend on the field. Take a look at the TOP and for the most part we are on the losing side of that. But what do I know.

[Zipmeister]

Consider the following figures. I’ll bet no matter which side of the debate you are on, you can use some of them to support your point of view.Is 21 points a lot to score in a college football game?During the last two seasons we have scored 21 or more points in 11 of 24 games played. Our record in those 11 games? 8-3. During the last two seasons we have scored 20 or fewer points 13 times.Our record in those games? 1-12.One subtle issue some people seem to overlook is that it is a combination of the offensive and defensive effort that results in the final outcome.In games where we score more than our opponent, we were a perfect 9-0. But, In games where our opponent scored more points than, us we end up a dismal 0-15.We should focus on doing more of the former.

[Quickzips]

Since JD has been here, our defense has "lost" us a lot fewer games that the offense, or lack thereof, has. I'm more concerned with the Zips consistently putting points on the board, and converting in the red zone, than I am debating the merits of the 3-3-5.

When JD first got here our defense wasn't bad. Teams in the MAC didn't know how to deal with our defense and we actually had some players to be able to run it with Kiki, Reed, etc. At this point, everyone has adjusted to the defense and it gets worse and worse and worse. It has lost us a lot of games. We shouldn't have to get into offensive shootouts week in and week out just to compete. Put together a defense that you can get the personel to run and that has been proven time and time again to be an effective defense and watch the results change dramatically.

Hey Quick, where you coaching now? Also how many shoot outs did we have this year? What is your definition of a shootout? Mine is greater then one touchdown per quarter so a score higher then 28-28 would be a "shoot out"? So we would have had 6 shout outs. Two of which were just non-conference blow outs (UConn and IU).Sorry to say that, the biggest problem with our defense is how many minutes they have to spend on the field. Take a look at the TOP and for the most part we are on the losing side of that. But what do I know.

Ohh please tell me you didn't just play the, "you're not a coach what the hell do you know card." Tired, old argument that makes absolutely no sense when it comes to internet fan board debates. As far as the point about shootouts, go take a look at the scores yourself. Six teams scored 28 or more points on us. By your own logic 28 points is indicative of a shootout if we are gonna have a chance to win. That is half of our games getting into shootouts. In those six games our opponents averaged almost 17 points in the first half of the game and just over 7 in the first quarter alone (remember, you claim that a touchdown a quarter is indicative of a shootout). You can't logically tell me that our offense is so inefficient that our defense is burnt out in the first half or the FIRST QUARTER. If that is the case by all means, we need a new strength and conditioning team because that is just pathetic. Then lets look at the other 6 games that our opponents didn't hit that magical 28 point mark that you speak of. In those 6 games our opponents averaged 18.5 points per game. If you take the Miami game out of the equation it is almost 21 points per game. So by that measure we logically need 24 points a game (I know, technically we only need 22 points per game to win those games, but how many times do you see a team score 22?) in order to win games. I don't think I'm alone in the sentiment that going into a game needing to get 24 points to have any shot at winning the game is indicative of a defense that isn't doing it's job. Those of you who think that all of our problems are going to go away if we can just find a decent QB who can sustain and finish drives to put under center are sadly mistaken. QB is an important position on the field, but this team has a lot more problems than just at QB.

[Dr Z]

I agree that you can use stats to prove both points, but I know one thing, when I watch the defense it irritates me the way they play. I see way to manyRBs get through the line and then get hit by a secondary man that gets drug for another 4 or 5 yards. I see an apposing QB who has plenty of time to checkdown to his third receiver with no pressure. I see receivers running free in our secondary. Stats aside, what I see when I watch our defense upsets me.I hope they turn it around this year, and I will be the first one to post if they do,but I have really have had it with this scheme. I know this works both ways, but if we can improve our defense, it automatically improves your chances on offense.

[skip-zip]

How quickly some people forget....Doesn't anyone remember that we had NO DEFENSE from the mid-90s until the mid-2000s under the LO regime?We've done quite well defensively over the last 5 years. And if we had not lost John Mackey last year, I think we would have done a much better job defensively in a few of those conference games that got away from us. Holding Miami (OH) scoreless, and giving up only two touchdowns against Ohio State showed me that we definitely had some things going right defensively at certain points last year.I must say, I am with those who are not quite ready to throw this defense out the window. It's performed admirably for us. And remember, with the rush linebacker, and the rover, this defense can "play" like a 4-3 on just about any down, if the coaches choose to use it that way. And sometimes they do. Personally, I think the 3-3-5 allows us to get more defensive backs on the field, which has been a strong and deep position for us in recent years. So, this might very well be the right thing for us to do right now. We'll see.

[Quickzips]

How quickly some people forget....Doesn't anyone remember that we had NO DEFENSE from the mid-90s until the mid-2000s under the LO regime?We've done quite well defensively over the last 5 years. And if we had not lost John Mackey last year, I think we would have done a much better job defensively in a few of those conference games that got away from us. Holding Miami (OH) scoreless, and giving up only two touchdowns against Ohio State showed me that we definitely had some things going right defensively at certain points last year.I must say, I am with those who are not quite ready to throw this defense out the window. It's performed admirably for us. And remember, with the rush linebacker, and the rover, this defense can "play" like a 4-3 on just about any down, if the coaches choose to use it that way. And sometimes they do. Personally, I think the 3-3-5 allows us to get more defensive backs on the field, which has been a strong and deep position for us in recent years. So, this might very well be the right thing for us to do right now. We'll see.

I agree that any defense is better than no defense at all. However, if we are going to be happy to play the little bit of defense that we do for a couple games a year just because it is better than what LO gave us, then we really are selling ourselves short. This defense can do a whole lot better. Also, don't kid yourself about OSU. That game was played in bad weather that favored the defense and with Jim Tressel keeping his offensive scheme very close to the vest.As far as the point about defensive backs. You can put as many DB's on the field as you want. If they have to cover for 8-12 seconds at a time while the QB sits in a nice comfortable pocket sipping pina-coloda's and surveying the field because there is no real resemblance of a pass rush to account for it won't make one bit of difference.

[ZippyAlum]

" Jim Tressel keeping his offensive scheme very close to the vest."

[UA1987]

Akron's defense could be very good in 2008. See the position chart below (Yep that's right, I'd put Sewell at LB):Nose - Bain, Lively (Stewart and Pendelton in reserve) Def End/Tackle - M. Davis, H Hazime, - lots of playing time for: Rash, Marcoux, Lemon and Odofin (Lively in mix too)LB - Balaam, Grant and Sewell (both Williams in reserve)DB's - Jones, Anderson, Moore, Richmond, B. Williams, Carter, Flemming and Cobham (some share playing time) Not bad. Could be real good.Offense will be better too now that we have more than one receiver. Andrew Johnson could be the key. If Johnson is a bust, we would have to bring Williams back from defense. Lots of question marks, but we have improved.

[skip-zip]

Quickzips...say what you want about our defensive effort at Ohio State being helped by the rain. I was there, and I can tell you, as much as the rain may have helped us a bit (and it didn't rain very much), the heat and humidity ABSOLUTELY hurt us. In fact, a very accurate article came out after that game from a neutral sportswriter who implied that we may have been able to hang in there much longer if it wasn't for our lack of depth, and the extreme humidity. I can tell you, I am in pretty good shape, and I was sweating my $#& off walking to my car after that game. No, I am not thinking that we should "sell ourselves short" by playing "ok"defensively. But, we've made good strides. And with the 3-3-5 allowing us to get more of our talented DBs on the field, it's worked quite well. I'm not going to get down on the coach for what has amounted to a much improved defense since he came on board. He certainly can evaluate his defensive talent much better than any of us. And if the 3-3-5 worked best for what we have right now, then I'm all for it. Like I said...we'll see what happens down the road. But, this defense has certainly been a nice improvement.And besides that...I agree with what the Captain is saying....I'm much more concerned about scoring points right now.

[Dr Z]

I bet GP1 has this thread bookmarked for Easter day. :lol:Skip, I think everybody remembers the lack of D during the previous regime,but just because we went from horrid to mediocre shouldn't stop fans from critiquing.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Also, don't kid yourself about OSU. That game was played in bad weather that favored the defense and with Jim Tressel keeping his offensive scheme very close to the vest.

I hope all the OSU fans that read this board are embarrassed by that statement. The Zips played K.e.n.t. in a 15 degree below zero blizzard and won 34-6. To make excuses for OSU's offensive output based upon a slightly humid September day, with a little drizzle, is laughable.

[Quickzips]

You guys can nit-pick my statements all you want. Look at the overall body of work for this team over the last 3 years on defense.2007:29.5 points per game183.8 yards per game rushing224.9 yards per game passing408.7 yards per game total2006:22.6 points per game136.2 yards per game rushing186.2 yards per game passing322.4 yards per game total2005:24.5 points per game159 yards per game rushing180.8 yards per game passing339.8 yards per game totalIf I'm the only one that isn't happy with giving up 25.5 points per game, 159.6 yards per game on the ground, 197.3 yards per game passing and 356.9 yards per game total on average over the last 3 years then so be it. The only thing in those statistics that is even mildly acceptable is the passing yards per game for our opponent and how much of that can be attributed to the fact that opponents can get almost 160 yards per game on the ground against this crap defense?

[g-mann17]

Ohh please tell me you didn't just play the, "you're not a coach what the hell do you know card." Tired, old argument that makes absolutely no sense when it comes to internet fan board debates.

Yep I did. Because I doubt very seriously you really know much of anything.

As far as the point about shootouts, go take a look at the scores yourself. Six teams scored 28 or more points on us. By your own logic 28 points is indicative of a shootout if we are gonna have a chance to win. That is half of our games getting into shootouts. In those six games our opponents averaged almost 17 points in the first half of the game and just over 7 in the first quarter alone (remember, you claim that a touchdown a quarter is indicative of a shootout). You can't logically tell me that our offense is so inefficient that our defense is burnt out in the first half or the FIRST QUARTER. If that is the case by all means, we need a new strength and conditioning team because that is just pathetic.

Ah yes by your logic, we were outscored drasitcally in the first quarter. Despite Jacquemain having his best numbers in the first half. Why? Because the offense was off the field way too quickly. Too many 3 & outs. But yeah it's the defenses fault that they have to play 75% of the minutes in the first half. And shoot outs happen. It's football.

Then lets look at the other 6 games that our opponents didn't hit that magical 28 point mark that you speak of. In those 6 games our opponents averaged 18.5 points per game. If you take the Miami game out of the equation it is almost 21 points per game. So by that measure we logically need 24 points a game (I know, technically we only need 22 points per game to win those games, but how many times do you see a team score 22?) in order to win games. I don't think I'm alone in the sentiment that going into a game needing to get 24 points to have any shot at winning the game is indicative of a defense that isn't doing it's job.

Ah yes my magical number. You must use magical because you simply can't come to grips with logical thinking. Use magic to explain what you don't understand. LOL. Also you can't "throw out" games. I mean if that was the case we could just toss out all those shoot outs and say our defense was stellar. But you seem to only want to look at one variable for the losses we have. Not the overwhelming number of different variables. Poor offensive adjustments, poor QB decision making, a defense that played injured most of the season, no pressure on the opposing QB. There are lot of fixes, but the main focus needs to be on finding a way to keep the offense on the field and sustaining drives. Because whether you think offense or defense wins games or championships, the simple fact of the matter is that points are what win games.

Those of you who think that all of our problems are going to go away if we can just find a decent QB who can sustain and finish drives to put under center are sadly mistaken. QB is an important position on the field, but this team has a lot more problems than just at QB.

I don't think anyone thinks a QB is magically going to solve the problems. But an improved offensive scheme and better decision maker controlling that O is going to make a difference.

[Quickzips]

Ohh please tell me you didn't just play the, "you're not a coach what the hell do you know card." Tired, old argument that makes absolutely no sense when it comes to internet fan board debates.

Yep I did. Because I doubt very seriously you really know much of anything.

And your qualifications are????

As far as the point about shootouts, go take a look at the scores yourself. Six teams scored 28 or more points on us. By your own logic 28 points is indicative of a shootout if we are gonna have a chance to win. That is half of our games getting into shootouts. In those six games our opponents averaged almost 17 points in the first half of the game and just over 7 in the first quarter alone (remember, you claim that a touchdown a quarter is indicative of a shootout). You can't logically tell me that our offense is so inefficient that our defense is burnt out in the first half or the FIRST QUARTER. If that is the case by all means, we need a new strength and conditioning team because that is just pathetic.

Ah yes by your logic, we were outscored drasitcally in the first quarter. Despite Jacquemain having his best numbers in the first half. Why? Because the offense was off the field way too quickly. Too many 3 & outs. But yeah it's the defenses fault that they have to play 75% of the minutes in the first half. And shoot outs happen. It's football.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you trying to argue that our defense wasn't giving up more points than a good defense really should in the first quarter and first half? I don't see it. Please explain.

Then lets look at the other 6 games that our opponents didn't hit that magical 28 point mark that you speak of. In those 6 games our opponents averaged 18.5 points per game. If you take the Miami game out of the equation it is almost 21 points per game. So by that measure we logically need 24 points a game (I know, technically we only need 22 points per game to win those games, but how many times do you see a team score 22?) in order to win games. I don't think I'm alone in the sentiment that going into a game needing to get 24 points to have any shot at winning the game is indicative of a defense that isn't doing it's job.

Ah yes my magical number. You must use magical because you simply can't come to grips with logical thinking. Use magic to explain what you don't understand. LOL. Also you can't "throw out" games. I mean if that was the case we could just toss out all those shoot outs and say our defense was stellar. But you seem to only want to look at one variable for the losses we have. Not the overwhelming number of different variables. Poor offensive adjustments, poor QB decision making, a defense that played injured most of the season, no pressure on the opposing QB. There are lot of fixes, but the main focus needs to be on finding a way to keep the offense on the field and sustaining drives. Because whether you think offense or defense wins games or championships, the simple fact of the matter is that points are what win games.

Magical was a reference to the fact that YOU threw out an subjective number based on what YOU think constitutes a shootout. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough in my original post. Again I love the blame the offense for the defenses problems approach. It's all on the offense that the defense gives up too many points. I don't disagree that the defense being on the field to long tends to wear them, but when the defense is giving up points in the first half how is it fair to say that they are worn down at that point? The injuries might be another excuse, if it weren't for the fact that we have been consistently bad when for the last 3 years even in times when our defense HASN'T had a lot of injuries. As far as no pressure on opposing QB's. THAT'S EXACTLEY THE KIND OF THING I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!!!!

Those of you who think that all of our problems are going to go away if we can just find a decent QB who can sustain and finish drives to put under center are sadly mistaken. QB is an important position on the field, but this team has a lot more problems than just at QB.

I don't think anyone thinks a QB is magically going to solve the problems. But an improved offensive scheme and better decision maker controlling that O is going to make a difference.

Again, go back and look at the stats from 2005 and 2006. We gave up over 23 points per game in those two years, around 330 yards per game and over 140 yards per game on the ground. That was with JD running a better offensive scheme with a pretty good QB. So is it still on the offense that our defense was giving up unacceptable amounts of points, yards and rushing yards???

[g-mann17]

And your qualifications are????

7+ years of coaching, planning, scouting.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you trying to argue that our defense wasn't giving up more points than a good defense really should in the first quarter and first half? I don't see it. Please explain.

I didn't think it was that complicated. When you go 3 & out and give a team great field position for 22:30 of the first half. Yeah your defense is going to be tired. And what is your definition of a good defense? OSU? 10.5 points allowed per game? I think we would all love to have that. But How about we settle for a more realistic goal. Say the # 1 team in the country's points allowed per game. LSU and allowing 20.5 ppg. Hmm yeah we are really far off from that with our 25.6 ppg. And that is with LSU having 2 shut-outs. OSU technically had 1 against us where our defense put up more points then our offense. In fact I believe our horrible defense scored the first touchdown against Army if i'm not mistaken.