Started By
Message

Read scheme on defense is Odom's decision

Posted on 9/13/16 at 11:39 am
Posted by Zou brownmajic
Member since Sep 2013
3472 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 11:39 am
Gabe DeArmond Retweeted
Dave Matter ? @Dave_Matter
On his radio show, Odom says he wanted to run the read scheme along the defensive front last year but didn't have time to fully install
Posted by surgicalvenom
Omaha
Member since Jan 2014
6596 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 12:38 pm to
So was this the source of the rift between BO and Kul?

I just read a story about "the U" returning to an aggressive penetrating defense and getting rid of the former coaches Read and React defense. A move that was applauded by the DL. 1 DL described the defense as a "Bumass Scheme."

However for the sake of recruiting, most NFL teams run a variant of Read and React because of the OL talent at the NFL level. I have read several articles on the subject, and R&R is a good defense with lots of flexibility, but there is a steep learning curve. Recruits will need to be smart and versatile. I have to admit, I feel better now that I've educated myself instead of just reacting to what I see in games so far.
Posted by wubilli
Columbia
Member since Apr 2014
5517 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 12:42 pm to
No, Kul didn't like being passed over for DC.
Odom also doesn't want an exclusive read and react scheme.
Posted by Supreme Tiger
Member since Sep 2016
642 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 1:15 pm to
It should be obvious that contributed to the riff.

Not only did BO take the job he wanted, he had a totally different philosophy for the DL.

"Didn't have time to install" has as much or more to do with who the DL coach was as it has to do with time.

BO is a first rate guy. He's not even going to hint at a riff with Kuligowski. He's just going to say he didn't have time to install it.

This is easy 2+2 arithmetic.
Posted by Zou brownmajic
Member since Sep 2013
3472 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 1:20 pm to
He just went and got somebody who ran the same defense.
Posted by Zou brownmajic
Member since Sep 2013
3472 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 3:47 pm to
Question from the Tiger Mailbag


Mizzou Mule asks: Did Kul or any other staffer actually give our D playbook to any competitors? Why did the coaches feel the D had to be changed from last year?

GD: The first question is one that's simply unlikely to ever have a definitive answer. That's the rumor going around and I've certainly heard it, but I doubt anyone in a position to confirm it is ever going to actually say it happened on the record. As far as why the defense was changed, DeMontie Cross said last week that it is a different team. I asked Barry Odom that exact question on Monday and he didn't really answer it, but said he thinks the defense and the defensive line will be good as time goes on. On Tiger Talk Monday night, Odom said that he actually wanted to install a similar scheme last year but didn't feel he had enough time. It may not end up being the right decision, but that's not a judgment we should be making after two games (even though I know we like to make judgments much more quickly than that).
This post was edited on 9/13/16 at 3:49 pm
Posted by Supreme Tiger
Member since Sep 2016
642 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 4:10 pm to
Sounds like the playbook got sent out.

I can appreciate the mature approach of Odom, but I'd like to see Kul boiled alive for this.

Also sounds like the difference in philosophy -- read vs full press for sacks -- contributed to an already shaky relationship due to Odom's promotion to DC.

Posted by semotruman
Member since Nov 2011
23188 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 4:16 pm to
Reading between the lines...
Yes, Kul passed around the playbook, but it won't ever be confirmed. Maybe not the entire playbook, but enough to be an issue. Too much smoke for there to be no fire here.

That, combined with Odom's desire to change up the defensive scheme made the change happen this season. It's not a "different team" - too many of the same personnel on D. That's just coach-speak. Odom wanted to transition, and the advantages we may have had from Kul's scheme were pretty much gone. He has new coaches that share his philosophy. So, he pulled the trigger.

He knows they aren't there yet, but believes they will improve weekly. He figured this season wasn't going to be much anyway, thinking it would take the offense at least a year under Heupel to be really competitive. Maybe the offense is further ahead than he anticipated, and now there is increased pressure for the D to step it up. Most new coaches don't plan to come in and compete for a championship in year 1 - they know it'll take time. Odom is no different.
Posted by SemperFi
St Louis
Member since Nov 2015
1537 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 4:26 pm to
quote:

I can appreciate the mature approach of Odom, but I'd like to see Kul boiled alive for this.




1. How does anyone find verifiable proof, this indeed occurred?

2. What, if anything, can happen to Kul?
Posted by semotruman
Member since Nov 2011
23188 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 4:32 pm to
I would think the only way to find verifiable proof is if a coach who received info from him came forward on the record. Which is unlikely to happen, IMO, because they wouldn't want to be the one to rat on a fellow coach, and they wouldn't want it known they accepted proprietary information/intellectual property.

IF someone did come forward on the record, I would assume Mizzou could sue Kul for violating his contract with the University - which I'm sure has clear rules regarding the use of proprietary info and intellectual property. But Mizzou likely wouldn't do it because they wouldn't want the black eye.

Initially, I thought there was no way Kul would have done this. The more I think on it though, the more I think it seems likely. And the more I become convinced nothing will ever come of it. Apparently the resentment and bad blood between him and Odom is pretty deep. That's a real shame.
Posted by Mizz-SEC
Inbred Huntin' In The SEC
Member since Jun 2013
22315 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 5:00 pm to

I hope Odom knows what he's doing.

You take the signature element of Mizzou football for over a decade and trash it rather than incorporate it.

At least he's going to rise or fall on his own terms, balls out.
Posted by semotruman
Member since Nov 2011
23188 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 5:43 pm to
quote:

You take the signature element of Mizzou football for over a decade and trash it rather than incorporate it.

I read Matter's article about this today. It made me think he doesn't intend to NOT incorporate it. More that the players are learning, thinking, adjusting. Maybe he wants them focused on doing it his way and getting that down pat before bringing in the aggressive pass rush. He doesn't want them falling back to their comfort zone, but getting comfortable with the new stuff first and bringing the aggression second. They're now supposed to "read and react," and that's still a little slow - so it looks like they're waiting for the OL to come at them rather than coming at the OL. I don't know - I don't pretend to be an expert. I just hope it's more energetic this weekend against Georgia, or Chubb will have a field day.
Posted by navynuke
Member since Jun 2016
6522 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 6:11 pm to
I would point out that while the defensive line was a large part of MU's successes, it was completely neutralized in the worst losses. Think back to the losses to OU in the conference championship games, the losses to NU and TTU in 2010, the losses in both SECCGs. Attempting to create pressure predominantly with the front 4 lends to predictability and therefore exploitability when the talent levels are even or tipped to the other side. Once installed the system will allow for disguising pressure while maintaining gap control at the LOS. While unpopular right now, I get why Odom is moving to the system.
This post was edited on 9/13/16 at 6:13 pm
Posted by semotruman
Member since Nov 2011
23188 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 6:29 pm to
quote:

While unpopular right now, I get why Odom is moving to the system.

I do too. It just feels like the DL has been neutered so far. Hopefully as they get more comfortable with the changes the aggression will come back.

I did notice in some of the stats that ASU's and TCU's systems generated most of their sacks and TFL from personnel other than the front 4, so there's that to consider too.
Posted by MIZ_COU
I'm right here
Member since Oct 2013
13771 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 6:35 pm to
It makes sense. It's going to be rough while they learn it.
Posted by Mizz-SEC
Inbred Huntin' In The SEC
Member since Jun 2013
22315 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 7:00 pm to

You obviously are much more of a student of the game than most of us, so I'll trust your insights that this is more or less the growing pain stage.

Question: So are the playmakers of this system the LBs? If not them, who?
Posted by surgicalvenom
Omaha
Member since Jan 2014
6596 posts
Posted on 9/13/16 at 11:28 pm to
LBs and Safeties must tackle in R&R.
Posted by navynuke
Member since Jun 2016
6522 posts
Posted on 9/14/16 at 7:11 am to
quote:

LBs and Safeties must tackle in R&R.


This.

The defensive line will be able to get theirs as well but it is predicated on down and distance. 3rd and long and you will see the LBs dropping in coverage on the snap and the front 4 pinning their ears back. But you have to do your job on 1st and 2nd down to do that. That is what Cross meant by his statement, "We haven't earned the right to rush the passer." in Matter's article that was linked in another thread.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on X and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter