Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

It's tough to get a bead on Temple's defense, given that they had to wrestle with Arizona State and Wisconsin. That being said, they are ranked right near BG in the NCAA overall defensive category.

What's behind that ranking, let's take a look.

The notes will tell you that Temple employs a 4-2-5 defense, made popular by Kansas State. Sounds like a nickel, right? Well, two opposing coaches have said that Temple likes to play the run first, so that alignment may be deceiving.

While they've given up a bunch of yards (we all know that feeling, eh?), the Temple defense prides itself on going for the big play. As a result, they have forced eight fumbles (that's two per game) and recovered five. They've intercepted five passes and deflected 10 more. Despite having played from behind most of the year, their line has tallied three sacks and 18 tackles for loss.

So the yards may come, but the Owls will be looking for that big play.

The Owls' lineup has been steady. In four games, they've had only 14 starters, including eight players who've started all four games.

Falconboy will certainly appreciate their line, which goes 6-3/250, 6-4/300, 6-3/315, 6-3/240. Mike Mendenhall is the RE and he can be disruptive. He has one of the team's sacks, a QB hurry, 3.5 tackles for loss, a fumble recover and two passes deflected. He's started 21 consecutive games, so he's seen it all. Watch, too, for big Adam Fitcher, the NT. He doesn't just eat blocks; he's forced fumble, intercepted a pass and made two tackles for loss. Tidbit - DE Rodney Wormley was recruited by BG.

The Owls lost two excellent LBs from last year. This year, the job falls to Ryan Gore and Manuel Tapia. They have been steady, but not dynamic. Tapia flies to the ball; he has 41 tackles, while the next leading tackler has 29. This is a matchup the Falcons could potentially exploit.

Like BG, Temple's pass defense numbers look decent but, like BG, that's mostly a result of poor run defense. How good our the Owl DBs? Who knows? Pass-happy Arizona State ran for 300 yards against the Owls and ended up 19 of 31 passing for 259 yards and 2 picks.

The Owls have been recruiting a lot of JUCO players and that puts a lot of upperclassmen on the field. The front four is made up of four seniors, there are three seniors and three juniors. Only sophomore Willie Hardemon (the "Owl Safety") is an underclassmen. There are also five seniors as backups on the two-deep.

The Owls defense is built to drop seven back into coverage quite easily, which has proven difficult for the Falcons to handle. Their front four is big and pretty athletic, so we will likely see a scheme similar to what Boise State presented.

So they are big up front, but still can't stop the run. Interesting. I see possible negative ramifications for certain posters theories.

UK Peregrine wrote:So they are big up front, but still can't stop the run. Interesting. I see possible negative ramifications for certain posters theories.

UK:

True enough. Their defensive scheme, despite the odd 4-2-5 alignment, is pretty traditional. The line is there to absorb the blocks, the seven guys behind them should swarm to the ball unhindered and stuff the play. That has not happened, obviously, as often as they would like.

1987alum wrote:

UK Peregrine wrote:So they are big up front, but still can't stop the run. Interesting. I see possible negative ramifications for certain posters theories.

UK:

True enough. Their defensive scheme, despite the odd 4-2-5 alignment, is pretty traditional. The line is there to absorb the blocks, the seven guys behind them should swarm to the ball unhindered and stuff the play. That has not happened, obviously, as often as they would like.

Did you ever think that maybe they arent' coached well enough? Lord heavens no, that couldn't be it! Their size on their front four is very ideal, but I never said it always spelled total success. Other factors still have to be in place. Their playing 2 linebackers' , so those guys have to be almost every where to cover the field in defending the run , unless their bringing safteys all the time. Stopping the run is ideal in the 4-3 formation not a 4-2-5 which is great for stopping a very good pass oriented team in my opinion. With that formation if you've got some big safteys you can bring them up to cover the the run and then drop back in pass coverage at anytime you want causing havoc for qb's to know whats going on. Obvioulsy they had no success stopping UT so we should take care of business. But is shocking that Temple a Big East bottom dwellar can recruit a 300lb DT. :coo-coo: They have been bad for quite a while now.

Falconboy:

For the record, the Owls defense is built to stop the run first, at least that's what most of the opposing coaches have said.

Here the quote from my initial post ...

The notes will tell you that Temple employs a 4-2-5 defense, made popular by Kansas State. Sounds like a nickel, right? Well, two opposing coaches have said that Temple likes to play the run first, so that alignment may be deceiving.

While there are technically two linebackers on the field, the Owls like to play 8 in the box, relying on the DBs quickness to either swarm to the ball or drop back into coverage. It's built to stop the run first.

Their starting strong safety is 6-2/235, so it's night like they're giving up size by dropping a LB from a traditional 4-3 alignment.

falconboy wrote:Did you ever think that maybe they arent' coached well enough? Lord heavens no, that couldn't be it! Their size on their front four is very ideal, but I never said it always spelled total success. Other factors still have to be in place.

Very crafty there, Falconboy. So the solution is insert a caveat about other factors and eureka the theory still floats. I know a few scientists just like that, perhaps you should consider changing fields.

So not only do you need size, but you need LBs that can fly to the ball since the DTs won't being moving very far. And then you also need lock-down corners as well, since the LBs have the responsibilty of shallow middle and the safeties have deep middle to outside, which leaves them in a lot of one on one coverage. If that is all it takes, perhaps we should be recruiting more All-American type players that are obviously available on every street corner. <end sarcasm>

UK Peregrine wrote:

falconboy wrote:Did you ever think that maybe they arent' coached well enough? Lord heavens no, that couldn't be it! Their size on their front four is very ideal, but I never said it always spelled total success. Other factors still have to be in place.

Very crafty there, Falconboy. So the solution is insert a caveat about other factors and eureka the theory still floats. I know a few scientists just like that, perhaps you should consider changing fields.

So not only do you need size, but you need LBs that can fly to the ball since the DTs won't being moving very far. And then you also need lock-down corners as well, since the LBs have the responsibilty of shallow middle and the safeties have deep middle to outside, which leaves them in a lot of one on one coverage. If that is all it takes, perhaps we should be recruiting more All-American type players that are obviously available on every street corner. <end sarcasm>

Well, 1987Alum just said Temple has a SS that is bigger than most of our starting linebackers anyway at 6'2 and 235lbs. You can obviosly defend the run fairly decently if your brining that safety that size up quite often in a 4-2-5. BTW Peregrine, your points about needing Lb's that can fly to the ball since DT's won't be moving very far prove my point to a tee, DUH! What good is having DT's that can run a 4.7-4.8 40 if they can't get off a block? You don't need a 300lb DT' to run down a qb very often , a DT that size sole purpose is to eat more than just one blocker to free up your linebackers to run to the ball carrier wether it be a rb or the qb.