Started By
Message
re: Can we talk about..
Posted on 10/12/21 at 4:01 pm to higgs_boson
Posted on 10/12/21 at 4:01 pm to higgs_boson
??
1
Posted on 10/12/21 at 4:31 pm to auburnnyc94
Sorry not sure what is wrong, I am reading stuff poorly.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 5:02 pm to alpinetiger
quote:
I think you're discounting the complete philisophical shift from Steele to Mason. It couldn't be more different. I've said this 100 times but its going to take a half a season.
This. Switching from 3-4 to 4-3 is not just a formation and personnel shift, although personnel is a BIG part and we are not there yet.
Totally different responsiblities and assingments. 1 gap to 2 gap on the DL.
LB play is completely different. Personnel is different.
The first and IMO most critical need to run a 3-4 is a big dominant NT and a another dominant DT. We had Wright who seemed to fit the bill, and Tony Fair. But we need a Jordan Davis type from UGA. I know those guys don't come along very often, but you get the drift.
We are light on the DL for a 3-4. Wooden makes up for it in hussle and Harris has been a welcomed surprise, but IMO both guys are more suited for a 4-3.
Our LB are somewhat undersized, but are head hunters. OLB in a 3-4 have to be elite. IMO best athletes on the field but also have to be big. Big enough to take on OL and fight them off, but quick enough to be elite pass rushers.
It was always going to be an adjustment going from a 4-3 (or technically I think Steele ran a 4-2-5 base) to a 3-4. Adjustment by personnel recruited for one scheme and pushed into another that their physique may or may not fit the prototype. Factor that in with the different philosophies and assignments and yes it will take a full season and another off-season IMO before we start seeing real progress.
I am glad we are making the move though. Once we get the right guys for a 3-4 and they have a couple seasons worth of it, it will pay huge dividends. Remember Saban's early years and the D he put out there? Won multiple NCs with that. Kirby has had a great D every year. Pruitt was a great D that ran a 3-4.
I will agree with Corch on the playcalling though. It has seemed very vanilla. Not a lot of blitz packages and seemed to mostly play soft zone. PSU was unacceptable. LSU was the best playcalling and gameplan on D side of the season. CDM did a great job moving personnel around and giving different looks...especially with Derick HAll.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 5:09 pm to Tigerpro2a
I too would like to see more of #55 Leota. He has been solid.
I am rather proud of how our Defense has handled run game responsibilities especially when we actually have all our starters (McClain, Pappoe and Smoke). Say what you want about SMoke getting burned, but he is a solid safety in the run game and a lot of fans and coaches from other SEC schools think he is a big time player. Sometimes we can be over critical of our guys. He is the leader of the D which is most important reason we need him out there.
I am confused as to why we haven't seen much of L. Tennison. I had such high hopes for him and he looked great in the reps he got last year. I know KAuffman has played well.
I honestly think our best Lineup for passing downs looks like this
DT-Harris
DT-Wooden
DE- LEota
Edge- Hall/Height
LB-PAppoe
LB-McClain
CB-McCreary
CB - Simpson
NB- Pritchett
S-Kauffman
S- Tennison/Smoke
I would like to see that combo out there. I think Simpson is too good to not have on the field in obvious passing downs as is pritchett. Move pritchett over to NB and move Kauffman to Safety. If Smoke gets toast bring in Tennison.
I am rather proud of how our Defense has handled run game responsibilities especially when we actually have all our starters (McClain, Pappoe and Smoke). Say what you want about SMoke getting burned, but he is a solid safety in the run game and a lot of fans and coaches from other SEC schools think he is a big time player. Sometimes we can be over critical of our guys. He is the leader of the D which is most important reason we need him out there.
I am confused as to why we haven't seen much of L. Tennison. I had such high hopes for him and he looked great in the reps he got last year. I know KAuffman has played well.
I honestly think our best Lineup for passing downs looks like this
DT-Harris
DT-Wooden
DE- LEota
Edge- Hall/Height
LB-PAppoe
LB-McClain
CB-McCreary
CB - Simpson
NB- Pritchett
S-Kauffman
S- Tennison/Smoke
I would like to see that combo out there. I think Simpson is too good to not have on the field in obvious passing downs as is pritchett. Move pritchett over to NB and move Kauffman to Safety. If Smoke gets toast bring in Tennison.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 5:11 pm to CorchJay
quote:
If we are gonna discuss players can we say what a damn steal Harris and Eku have been.
EKu is a good depth guy but ideally wouldn't be starting for AU. He lacks elite athleticism but he's doing the best with what he has
Posted on 10/12/21 at 6:25 pm to Tigerpro2a
quote:
I will agree with Corch on the playcalling though. It has seemed very vanilla. Not a lot of blitz packages and seemed to mostly play soft zone.
That’s what I was wanting to discuss the play calling itself. Not game plan not scheme. Just how it seems we a getting busted on play call. Everyone here has a good grasp of offense for the most part. May not understand why you might run a particular fake on a play how yo set someone else up but generally understand.
I’m no defensive expert but seems we have had the wrong calls at the wrong time. That’s all I was discussing essentially. However I did throw in later about like the 4-3 in college better then the 3-4 but I’m not against either. Let’s the coaches choose what they want to run.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 6:31 pm to AUtigR24
quote:
He lacks elite athleticism but he's doing the best with what he has
Not disagreeing with what you said but what do we have to base this off of? Looks pretty damn athletic out there to me. Or are you saying well polished skilled OLB? I would put him as more of a WDE then an OLB but dude looks pretty damn athletic to me and plays stronger then his size and with very good leverage and technique.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 6:34 pm to CorchJay
quote:
I’m no defensive expert but seems we have had the wrong calls at the wrong time. That’s all I was discussing essentially. However I did throw in later about like the 4-3 in college better then the 3-4 but I’m not against either. Let’s the coaches choose what they want to run.
Yea I am no Defense expert either. I have not been thrilled with the play calling honestly. I will give our last DC credit..he knew when to send the house. CKS was very good at dialing up blitzes on big play downs. I haven't seen that from Mason. I think maybe a lot of it is due to knowing the secondary is adjusting to playing more zone and not having the confidence on the backend??? To me though, that would boost my confidence in the backend if I knew I could dial up more pressure by sending a LB or DB on a blitz and creating pressure to force a mistake. Risk Reward I guess.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 6:51 pm to Tigerpro2a
On the issue of running a 3-4 defense, do you guys remember us running a 3-4 under other defensive coordinators at AU?
Just trying to see if we have ever transitioned to different defenses when their was a coaching change.
I know from an NFL defense, as I have followed the Steelers for years, we always have hired DCs that run the 3-4 as their base. We never waffled between different schemes when we changed coaches or even DCs. Same scheme. Ofc, we have had only 3 HCs in 50 years.
Just trying to see if we have ever transitioned to different defenses when their was a coaching change.
I know from an NFL defense, as I have followed the Steelers for years, we always have hired DCs that run the 3-4 as their base. We never waffled between different schemes when we changed coaches or even DCs. Same scheme. Ofc, we have had only 3 HCs in 50 years.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 6:55 pm to AuSteeler
I only really remember as far back as Tubbs days on what Defense we ran and no I don't remember any huge changes. I could be wrong.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 6:58 pm to CorchJay
Are we legit a pro style offense? We obviously suck but I remember with Loeffler it felt lot more like square peg, round hole.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 7:25 pm to jangalang
We would be considered a multiple pro-spread team on offense. I remember back to Pat Dye and his DC Wayne Hall and we have always been a 4-3. Prior to that would have been what was called a 50 defense a 5 man front 3 line backers 2 corners and 1 safety. Also more called a Bear front from when the Chicago Bears used it in the 80’s but was a lot more flexible the standard 50 base.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 8:11 pm to CorchJay
I should correct that last statement I remember before Dye but vividly remember when Dye was hired and the types of offense and defenses. Before that I don’t remember the schemes and such but just about all teams in the 70s played a base 50 defense to stop the option teams.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 8:25 pm to CorchJay
I Vaguely remember the 44, 52, and 53 defenses.
As a freshman in high school we played a “base 83” defense.
It was weird.
2 defensive tackle, 2 ends, 2 inside LBs, a Sam LB, and a Willie.
A deep safety and 2 corners.
Nobody threw very much.
As a freshman in high school we played a “base 83” defense.
It was weird.
2 defensive tackle, 2 ends, 2 inside LBs, a Sam LB, and a Willie.
A deep safety and 2 corners.
Nobody threw very much.
Posted on 10/12/21 at 8:41 pm to makersmark1
quote:
I Vaguely remember the 44, 52, and 53 defenses. As a freshman in high school we played a “base 83” defense. It was weird. 2 defensive tackle, 2 ends, 2 inside LBs, a Sam LB, and a Willie. A deep safety and 2 corners. Nobody threw very much.
All of those were just variations of the Base 50 with the exception of the 44. That was the first variation from the Base 50 when more throwing started up and teams moving away from the triple option.
This post was edited on 10/12/21 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 10/12/21 at 8:55 pm to Tigerpro2a
quote:that is a solid lineup
DT-Harris
DT-Wooden
DE- LEota
Edge- Hall/Height
LB-PAppoe
LB-McClain
CB-McCreary
CB - Simpson
NB- Pritchett
S-Kauffman
S- Tennison/Smoke
Posted on 10/12/21 at 9:17 pm to ChexMix
On paper a very good line up. Probably not enough beef against run teams on the DL. Wooden can play inside on occasion but is more of an end. Harris is definitely not a 0-tech guy. More of a 3-tech DT.
Posted on 10/13/21 at 5:58 am to CorchJay
Are most teams 4-2-5 base or 3-3-5 base?
I guess it depends on what type of defensive linemen you have, and the speed of your linebackers.
Is dime package 4-1-6?
Or 3-2-6?
I guess it depends on what type of defensive linemen you have, and the speed of your linebackers.
Is dime package 4-1-6?
Or 3-2-6?
Posted on 10/13/21 at 6:21 am to threedog79
Great DL can mask so many problems. Ours is gone
Posted on 10/13/21 at 8:52 am to CorchJay
quote:
On paper a very good line up. Probably not enough beef against run teams on the DL. Wooden can play inside on occasion but is more of an end. Harris is definitely not a 0-tech guy. More of a 3-tech DT.
Fully agree. That is why I said I would like to see that in our obvious passing downs.
Page 2 of 3
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News