Question about defensive schemes

Donate To GopherHole
B

BulldogGopher

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Hi All,

Lifelong Gopher fan here. I've been visiting GopherHole regularly for about a decade now, and finally decided to create a profile and join the fray!

I've got a question about defensive schemes, and I apologize if this has already been covered. I'm not super knowledgeable when it comes to X's and O's - never played a minute of organized football in my life - so for those that are, what are some of the key differences between the defensive scheme that Claeys/Sawvel ran, and the one Smith was trying to implement here. Are the two systems radically different from one another, and if so do they require vastly different types of players to run effectively? Many of our defensive starters were recruited by the previous staff, so is it possible Smith was asking them to do things they simply were not recruited to do? I know good coaches fit the scheme to the players and not the other way around - has this staff been doing that? I think I'm still just trying to wrap my mind around the magnitude of our defensive struggles this season. Appreciate any insight anyone is able to provide!
 



I know there are way more differences than this, but one difference I know is that the DB's are taught to turn around and look for the ball under Smith, where they were taught to watch the defender under Claeys/Sawvel. That leads to fewer PI penalties, but allows the receiver to adjust when the DB turns around. I don't know that one is better than the other, but I know the commentators pointed that out a couple weeks ago.

I'm not sure the overall scheme was so much the problem. I think you had a combination of:

1. Players playing out of position because there aren't enough players at certain positions (attrition/injuries).
2. Too many inexperienced players playing for same reason.
3. Calling the wrong formations at the wrong time.
4. Opponents realizing their tendencies and exploiting them.
 

Base schemes were similar in that they were 4-3.
Biggest difference other than the DB coaching pointed out above, was Claeys/Sawvel had more of a pressure the Offense with blitzes and trying to force the QB to get rid of the ball quicker. They didn't rely on just the 4 DL to get that pressure as they had blitz schemes using any of the other personnel on the field. They were more of an attacking defense.
With Smith, that wasn't the case. They were more read and react to what the offense was doing. He relied on the 4 DL to put pressure on the QB. Didn't blitz much.
 




I do not know the difference in what we are coaching on this level, but our biggest issue this year is lack of discipline and/or bad coaching in our gap assignments. I know in the Nebraska game Durr list contain on at least 2 of the big plays. Last week I saw one play where our defensive tackle was kicked outside by their Right Tackle, and Coughlin was outside of our tackle obviously, and he was basically taken out of the play (a run behind the right guard) by the same blocker. This left a lane wide enough to literally drive a truck through for their RB to hit. I can’t tell you if a player got out of Position by lack of discipline or if it had to do with our coaching, but gap responsibility has been our main undoing from what I’ve seen.
 

As far as I know, they're both ran a base 4-3, here.

I don't have statistics about what percentages they tended to run different zones or man coverages, difference percentages of blitzing, etc. Or what some of the other different philosophies are. Without having inside info, it's tough to say on some of that stuff.
 



Claeys/Sawvell relied on putting their corners on an island in coverage, this allowed for flexibility with play calling, but relies on corners holding their coverage


I'm sure there more than that. Claeys was very good at adjustment at half time

Both had bit of bend bu dont't break philosophy, only one mastered dot't break
 

IIRC Claeys put his ends out at the “wide 9” position and forced runners inside to the backers and safeties. I don’t recall being gashed as much off tackle back then. In addition the press man quarters, etc as others mentioned. More blitzing, changing coverages to confuse QBs. Not an elite defense but considering his personnel pretty damn impressive. Everyone seemed to fly to the ball, solid tackling.

Watching WSU last weekend he’s still doing it.
 

salzie said:
Claeys/Sawvell relied on putting their corners on an island in coverage, this allowed for flexibility with play calling, but relies on corners holding their coverage


I'm sure there more than that. Claeys was very good at adjustment at half time

Both had bit of bend bu dont't break philosophy, only one mastered dot't break
Click to expand...

This allowed the safeties to be more aggressive in run support.
 

When you have good corners you can do that kind of stuff. In fact, in this day and age, good cornerback play in imperative to your defense. That said, this defense seems to really be lacking against the run as well.
When I have played back some of the games, its rare to see our linebackers fill the gap they are supposed to and attack and shed blocks. They run around like chickens with their heads cut off and get out of position. Also, our defensive line
is terrible against the run. They are continually being blown on the ball and frequently take themselves out of plays by trying to sidestep blocks, d -ends crashing down when they shouldn't be a getting killed on the edges, etc.
 



What's more likely, that a college level QB is going to have the time, composure, and ability to throw a long-bomb TD .... or you screw up the defense and allow a huge TD run on a basic, well executed running play???

I'm going with the latter.

Put our damn Corners on islands. STOP the run! Make them beat us in the air. Enough with the damn 60-70+ yard TD runs!!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom