Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I decided once and for to do a little investigative work and find out if our size on defensive line and linebacker were comparable to other teams with possibly the same talent as us. I went to Northwesterns official football site and looked down their roster at "certain" positions. What I found out was pretty much what I thought. NU's has at least 2 DT's that were 300+ the other lineman were in the 290lb range. I also looked at the Lb's and most if not all of there upper-clasmen LB's were in the 6'2 ,6'3 and 240 range. Went to Utah's football roster and saw that they have 4 D-linman that went 330, 318 , and 305 and 320. The other sub 300lb. guys were all around 290. As far as heigth goes , there were some guys that weren't particularly tall though had major girth. 6'1 was the shortest d-lineman but was also 318 pounds. Alot of them seemed to be Somoan or from California. I've heard that many big and athletic DT's come from the left coast. Just thought it be interesting to stack our roster size against someone really good in the mid-majors. I'd say Urban has done pretty good job so far getting talent over there. Plus most of these huge d-lineman probably came in before Urban was even there. Wow. Even though Utah's a "mid-major" the gap in size between us and them is more staggering than I thought. Mmmm......I wonder if Utah's has let a team get back in a game before on road. Now obviously this is just the physical part of college football , but you gotta admit its still a big part of it.

And we give up 15 fewer yards a game on the ground than Utah, too.

Next?


http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?div=4

TG1996 wrote:And we give up 15 fewer yards a game on the ground than Utah, too.

Next?


http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?div=4

And we lost 3 games, 2 of which were to teams that are not nearly as good as teams Utah has destroyed.

Next?

Anyone here who believes our defense is stopping the run is deluding themselves. Our offense, when working properly, stops the run, our defense cannot & never has.

What about teams in our arena of competition : toledo, Miami OH, No. IL, the WAC and MWC higher ranked teams ?

I would guess Northwestern and Utah to probably be bigger.

Is that where we need to be ??



[ I'd look 'em up but, don't want to get fired, yet !]

hammb wrote:
And we lost 3 games, 2 of which were to teams that are not nearly as good as teams Utah has destroyed.

Next?

Anyone here who believes our defense is stopping the run is deluding themselves. Our offense, when working properly, stops the run, our defense cannot & never has.

I'm not saying we're stopping the run, its painfully obvious that we're not. I'm just pointing out that we've listened to this argument that our D-line is too small, and while he marveled at the size of Utah's d-line, he didn't care to check that they give up more yards on average than we do. Stopping the run obviously has alot more to do with schemes and tackling and ability than it does with sheer size, yet we seem to get hung up every week on guys being too small.

And I agree with the post about "what about teams in arena of competition", too, (if you're going to judge run defense simply based on the size of the D-Line) I can see matching us up against Utah, since this year they are where mid-majors want to be, but why Northwestern? Just curious.

I have no idea where he got NW...they are obviously not a midmajor school.

I think our problems with stopping the run stem from many areas:


1) We lack size in the middle. Everyone always argues about this or that, but the fact is we are VERY small at the DT position by D1A standards. At some point being big IS a talent, and is quite valuable in the middle. It is more difficult for a OL to push around a 320 pound person than a 270 pound one. That's just a fact of the game.

2) We lack discipline at the DE and/or OLB positions. Many of the big runs we gave up to NIU weren't pure overpowering of our DTs they were cutback runs to the backside. Watch those replays and you'll continuously see the backside DE or OLB overpursuing into the backfield trying to get to the ball carrier, rather than trusting his teammates. Then Wolfe was able to cut back where the player I mentioned had completely lost his backside containment, which was his main job on the play. So rather than giving up 3-4 yards up the middle our backside guy tried to make a play, lost his contain, and we gave up 20 to the cutback run.

3) Our LBs didn't have a real good season this year. They're all undersized, and quick. Sideline to sideline they seem okay, and on the blitz (however rare) they do a good job as well. However, they weren't all stars in reading the run and filling the hole. Ideally a LB would take on the FB in the hole, fight off the block, and make a play on the ball carrier, but our guys don't do that. Too often they don't get to the hole in time, and when they do, they cannot get off the block.

4) Poor tackling across the board. As a team we are VERY poor tacklers. We have guys trying to make a big hit, but not wrapping up. We have guys constantly trying to strip the ball, and not trying to bring the ball carrier down. This is a trend that is ongoing throughout college & NFL football, but it is still disturbing how poor we tackle. Some solid tackling could make all the difference in the world to our run defense.

The combination of all these things made our run defense as a whole, poor. Very rarely did they all contribute on the same play, but as a general rule you could see one of these problems pop up on any given play to make our run defense just a touch worse. Maybe we get shoved around in the middle one play and give up 5. Then our LBs are late on the next play and we give up 6. Then we miss a tackle in the backfield and the RB gets 3 where he should've gotten -2. Then we lose backside containment and the RB gets into the 2nd level for 25 yards. In the end we just couldn't put it all together.

Hopefully the staff will work on this for the bowl game

I wasn't narrowing it down to just run or our inability to stop it this year. But you have to admit. Utah has been able to land 4 d-lineman at 300+ lbs. You don't go 11-0 with bend but don't break defense.

I have to admit, Utah's defensive numbers are awfully similar to ours. Sacks, tackles for loss, INT's, pass break-ups, rushing yards. All very close. I still don't buy the "more size is better" argument.

Hammb summed up the argument best, and we all know he's the new D.C. when we fire Beckman.

Thank God this thread didn't include the mutilation of a player's name.

But, as has been stated every other time this thread pops up, our recent DL and LB recruits are larger. Not that it means better, just larger.

Makes one wonder about the style of defense we play...not the players. Does Utah run the same type of defense? They run the same type of offense and the results are similar...hmmm

BelieveNBG wrote:Makes one wonder about the style of defense we play...not the players. Does Utah run the same type of defense? They run the same type of offense and the results are similar...hmmm

This is EXACTLY right. My comments on size have nothing to do with the players. The fact is that our coaches are specifically recruiting these guys who are on the small end of the spectrum because they fit what they have in mind as their ideal. What I don't understand is why our defensive scheme doesn't appear to fit in with the types of players we get.

For instance, Jovon Burkes is a great blitzer and has good speed. He isn't the most sure open field tackler, and doesn't seem to make the reads as quick as possible. So instead of blitzing him and letting him wreak havoc, we make him sit back in a read & react defense, which appears to my untrained eye as his biggest weakness?

If you're going to recruit smallish LBs and DL that's fine, but then utilize their speed effectively. Blitz your LBs and let them wreak havoc in the backfield. Tell your DL not to eat up blocks, but to shoot a gap and use your speed advantage to get into the backfield. This sort of defense will give up more big plays, for sure, but you should also get more 3 & outs or turnovers. More importantly, I just think that it fits the personnel decisions we've made better.

Option has talked about going to a 3-4, which also seems to fit our talents better. I do think we are undersized as a defense for Division 1A football, but more importantly I think we play away from the strengths that an undersized defense has. I just don't see why you'd play a read & react, bend, but don't break, defense when you have players that are more suited to use their speed to their advantage.

But of course I'm no football coach and could be completely wrong about all this.

A 3-4 wouldn't work because you REALLY need a big NG and we don't have that.

hammb:

I think you're on in regards to playing to the strengths of our players. We put Toledo on the ropes with what I believe was a well-conceived and well-executed package that included a mixture of coverages and blitzes. Once we got away from that and relied on 1-on-1 coverage and open field reads & tackling, we got smoked.

Yes, I agree with that. We should have kept the pressure on Bruce

The odd thing about Brucie is that when he's moving own his own volition as a part of a designed play, he's an accurate thrower. They love that little TE waggle play! When he's running for his life, he makes very bad decisions and throws some very bad balls.

Jelani couldn't cover Lance Moore with a harpoon gun and a net. Why were we asking him to cover him man to man?

Not to drag this down into a nitpick session, but I really don't blame Jelani. When we mixed coverages, we shut Lance & Brucie down. Our DBs are not shut-down coverage guys. Period. Why would you consistently put them in man coverage against a team that loves to throw the ball.