Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

"We faced two pretty strong running football teams in Wisconsin and Boise, but even against weaker running teams on our schedule, we're still giving up too many yards," Brandon said. "We just need to keep working on that area of our defense. It's no secret, we're well aware of the problems and the issues. We're going to keep working on that and try to shore that up."

Does anyone happen to know why this is? :-\ Oh.....wait I do!!!!

falconboy wrote:"We faced two pretty strong running football teams in Wisconsin and Boise, but even against weaker running teams on our schedule, we're still giving up too many yards," Brandon said. "We just need to keep working on that area of our defense. It's no secret, we're well aware of the problems and the issues. We're going to keep working on that and try to shore that up."

Does anyone happen to know why this is? :-\ Oh.....wait I do!!!!

I think you know part of the problem, but clearly, the size of our linemen isn't the only issue. Oversimplifying the issue isn't going to make it any easier to fix.

1987alum wrote:

falconboy wrote:"We faced two pretty strong running football teams in Wisconsin and Boise, but even against weaker running teams on our schedule, we're still giving up too many yards," Brandon said. "We just need to keep working on that area of our defense. It's no secret, we're well aware of the problems and the issues. We're going to keep working on that and try to shore that up."

Does anyone happen to know why this is? :-\ Oh.....wait I do!!!!

I think you know part of the problem, but clearly, the size of our linemen isn't the only issue. Oversimplifying the issue isn't going to make it any easier to fix.

Okay fair enough, but if we're still giving 160yds rushing a game at the end fo the season what will be the problem then? You can't say they needed time to gel or mesh. Can't say the coach hasn't had his chance to teach the proper fundamentals and techiniqes so what then? :shrug:

falconboy wrote:Okay fair enough, but if we're still giving 160yds rushing a game at the end fo the season what will be the problem then? You can't say they needed time to gel or mesh. Can't say the coach hasn't had his chance to teach the proper fundamentals and techiniqes so what then? :shrug:

What could it be, beside sheer bulk up front? Here are few possibilities - I am not saying any or all of this is true, just raising possibilities ...

1) The scheme that Lovett has installed has still not been properly learned. Not saying he hasn't had time to teach it, but that the players still don't grasp it.

2) The scheme that Lovett has installed does not fit our personnel. There has been speculation on these boards that one of the main things that Lovett did in regard to altering the defense was to eliminate many of the reads upon which Beckman relied to put players in positions to make plays. It's quite possible that Lovett's defensive philosophy requires a different skill set than our current personnel possesses.

2a) As a corollary to #2, it appears that the Zone Blitz that Beckman is/was so fond of has all but disappeared. While BG didn't have a reputation for a lot of jailbreak blitzes, I believe under Beckman the linebackers did a lot more moving (likely based on the reads alluded to above). When I've watched our LBs this year, it seems like they sit back and wait for the play to develop before breaking on the ball.

3) Lovett is overrated as a defensive coordinator and we're just getting flat out-coached.

4) The depletion of the defensive line hurt us much more than anyone expected. It's easy to forget that Mitch Crossley was second team all-MAC, despite his inconsistencies and that Matt Leninger was arguably the most disruptive force on the line. Add to that the medical loss of highly regarded defensive tackle Lance Lactiewicz (sp?) before he ever even suited up.

5) Our linebackers just aren't that good. We just haven't been able to replace Mitch Hewitt and Jovon Burkes. The LBs we have are OK, but not good enough to get the job done.

These are all possibilities beyond just being too light upfront.

Add that Campbell kid from Indiana to the list of linemen we lost. He was a backup DT as a true freshman until he left last year.


I think the departure of so many DT's has hurt us mor than most. It must be difficult to implement a system with so many guys that play the same position leaving.

1987alum wrote:

falconboy wrote:Okay fair enough, but if we're still giving 160yds rushing a game at the end fo the season what will be the problem then? You can't say they needed time to gel or mesh. Can't say the coach hasn't had his chance to teach the proper fundamentals and techiniqes so what then? :shrug:

What could it be, beside sheer bulk up front? Here are few possibilities - I am not saying any or all of this is true, just raising possibilities ...

1) The scheme that Lovett has installed has still not been properly learned. Not saying he hasn't had time to teach it, but that the players still don't grasp it.

2) The scheme that Lovett has installed does not fit our personnel. There has been speculation on these boards that one of the main things that Lovett did in regard to altering the defense was to eliminate many of the reads upon which Beckman relied to put players in positions to make plays. It's quite possible that Lovett's defensive philosophy requires a different skill set than our current personnel possesses.

2a) As a corollary to #2, it appears that the Zone Blitz that Beckman is/was so fond of has all but disappeared. While BG didn't have a reputation for a lot of jailbreak blitzes, I believe under Beckman the linebackers did a lot more moving (likely based on the reads alluded to above). When I've watched our LBs this year, it seems like they sit back and wait for the play to develop before breaking on the ball.

3) Lovett is overrated as a defensive coordinator and we're just getting flat out-coached.

4) The depletion of the defensive line hurt us much more than anyone expected. It's easy to forget that Mitch Crossley was second team all-MAC, despite his inconsistencies and that Matt Leninger was arguably the most disruptive force on the line. Add to that the medical loss of highly regarded defensive tackle Lance Lactiewicz (sp?) before he ever even suited up.

5) Our linebackers just aren't that good. We just haven't been able to replace Mitch Hewitt and Jovon Burkes. The LBs we have are OK, but not good enough to get the job done.

These are all possibilities beyond just being too light upfront.

Well I'll give you that our linebackers arnt 'that good to begin with at this point , but their lack of talent is magnified with a d-line that gets moved around like a mobile home getting tossed around by a hurricane. Yes, Lovetts schemes not being totally learned yet could be a possibiltiy but we've been bad even when we the d totally knew Beckmans schemes too. About the only way we would be better at the run with out the d-line not being bigger than we are now is if we had Ohio St's starting 3 linbackers. I see more physical domination than the schematic breakdowns although that's probably a part of the puzzle.

I will say this , last game vs Temple I did see some movement by the d-line for once finally If I remember correctly it resulted in a very good play with some penetration for the d-line and getting a loss on the play. Coach B said that using that is kind of a feast or famine thing , but I see it we've have famine for a run d all year so I'd go full bore for some more of that.

GO FALCONS!!!!!!!!!!! CRUSH THE BOBKITTIES!!!!!!!!

Flipper wrote:Add that Campbell kid from Indiana to the list of linemen we lost. He was a backup DT as a true freshman until he left last year.


I think the departure of so many DT's has hurt us mor than most. It must be difficult to implement a system with so many guys that play the same position leaving.

Hey Flip, good catch. I forgot about Campbell. Geez, we've got quite a defensive line there: Crossley, Leninger, Campbell, Latkiewicz.

You've got an inconsistent, but often-effective end in Crossley, a very good DT in Leninger and a kid who was good enough to back up Leninger and Thaler as a freshmen (Campbell), not to mention another who had an awful lot of potential.