Leininger done for the season????

[Falconboy]

Warhog , you've got a great point there. The linbackers are also responsible for run containment as well. But maybay I've forgotten to mention again that our linebackers ar very small with the exception of Burkes. Guys that are 5'11 and 213 pounds aren't going to be able to fight off blocks from a fullback or a TE . Thats why you saw alot of our linebackers lying on their backs instead of getting any where near the ball carrier. A good , big ,strong middle linbacker can fight off a TE's block if he's athletic enough and knows how to stay in his lanes. Their supposed speed was negated because of power & strength. Speed only is not the run-defense cure-all. It helps but its not the only thing.

falconboy
GO BG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SMASH THE CHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hammb]

Hammb, I think you and falconboy put way too much blame on the defensive lineman for our run defense problems. The Llinebackers must be held more accountable. The duty of the DL is to just clog up space and keep the OL from getting to the LB. It is NOT necessarily their job to make tackles. That is the job of the LBs. The DL and LB must work together to stop the run. While our DL may be undersized (I don't want to argue about that so I will just accept that point of view), the LBs need to come off the blocks better and make more tackles. When you see Newson and Carswell leading the team in tackles, it tells me that the linebackers are not doing their job.

First of all, I am of the opinion that our entire front 7 is drastically undersized with a few exceptions (Burkes, Leininger, Crossley).

However, I don't see our defensive scheme as you do. If that is in fact our defensive scheme then our DL is WAYYYYYY TOO UNDERSIZED. I was under the impression that we were a 1 gap team. Perhaps ironmike could clue us in? My thoughts were that it was the job of the DL to attack a gap and get into the backfield to create disruption. Once you disrupt a RB in the backfield, the pursuit will usually get there before he has a chance to make a play. With that attacking style you require smaller DL players, who are quick. Even for this scheme I believe our DL guys are grotesquely undersized to the point that even their quickness cannot make up for it against a good OL. This sort of scheme requires the LBs to get off blocks more often as the DL is trying to penetrate rather than clog up the middle.

What you describe sounds more like a system similar to what the Ravens used to get to the superbowl a few years back. DTs clog the middle to allow playmaking LBs to get to the ball carrier. If this is in fact our system then I would be even MORE upset. This is the sort of system where being fat is, quite honestly, a talent. You plug a 320 pound fat boy in there that can bench about 400 and you tell them to just clog up the middle. That keeps the blocks off the LBs and they can then flow to the ball to make the actual tackle. You certainly shouldn't be asking 250 pound DTs to clog up the middle though, should you!? It certainly doesn't make sense to me, and I really don't think this is the way the scheme is designed. If this is how it is designed, then still the DL is not doing their job as the LBs shouldn't have to be dealing with coming off blocks as often.

Either philosophy can certainly work when executed well with the proper personnel. My belief is that we run the former of the systems, and are trying to get quicker DL guys that can get penetration. My contention is that we have sacrificed so much size in looking for that quickness that the quickness advantage is actually negated against a good OL. I really think that 275-280 should be the absolute minimum for a DT. DEs should be at least 250. Obviously these weights are fairly arbitrary, but it is apprent to me that our DL has not gotten it done in recent years against the better OL we have faced.

If it is not the size issue then it must be something. Be it coaching or what have you. What I don't like is that in our losses over the past 3 seasons you can look at that film and see that our defense got dominated in the trenches in EVERY SINGLE LOSS. That is a trend, and one I haven't begun to see any improvement in. We do well against the crappy teams, then against a quality OL we get dominated. I'm pointing to the size as the reason, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps they're too slow. Perhaps they haven't gotten the guys they wanted for those positions. Perhaps they're poorly coached. I could be totally wrong about size being the issue. So can you tell me what you think the reason is? It really doesn't matter because no matter what I say is wrong with our DL I'll get told to shut up and be happy with the wins that we get. Its pointless to continue harping on this issue, I suppose, but rest assured we'll lose more games in this & the coming seasons. If the past is any indication, our front 4 getting dominated will play a major reason in those losses.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it

[Warthog]

I was not referring to any system in particular. Just a general rule of defense is that the linebackers are supposed to make the tackles while the DL tries to keep the O-line off the LB so they can do their job. Whether you do it with quick DL or big, fat hogs is just a matter of choice. But it is not the job of DL to make tackles. The LB are for that. But if the DL is not doing thier job , then yes, the LB can't do thiers. It all works together.

[1987alum]

hammb:

you and i are on the same page here. if you're going to let the LBs make all the plays, the DL must absorb more of the OL, which means more size, period. We play a swarming gap defense, which I personally love, but I think you're right, we've put too much emphasis on quickness and sacrificed too much in size. We need a happy medium!

[ironmikecw]

TG1996, You bet I am. The pic in my avitar was taken at last years toledo game. it was Brad running off the field and jumping into Jim's arms. The boys gave me a framed picture of that.

As far as our d-line goes I don't dissagree that we are undersized, but we nor the players decide where they play or when. They must all give 110% and do the best they can every play. Besides all the harping here is not going to change anyting so we just have to accept it for how it is and go on with life. Brad wanted to play linebacker very bad (almost asked out of his scholly after the move to d-line cause Penn State still wanted him at linebacker.) He is a player and will do whatever it takes to play. He may be like Jim and be close to 300# as a jr and sr.

[hammb]

hammb:

you and i are on the same page here. if you're going to let the LBs make all the plays, the DL must absorb more of the OL, which means more size, period. We play a swarming gap defense, which I personally love, but I think you're right, we've put too much emphasis on quickness and sacrificed too much in size. We need a happy medium!

Thanks '87. Of the two philosophies I actually prefer the attacking hit the gap style myself. It is what the Browns transitioned into under Dave Campo and they have fared pretty well. This sort of scheme generally gives up more big runs, but also will have more runs for zero or negative gains. This scheme also tends to get a bigger pass rush when they have attacked the gaps well.

I think '87 sees what I'm saying. Overall I think we have sacrificed too much size for the quickness. The result is that our guys might be so small that the size differential is negating their quickness advantage. Again this only manifests itself against the better OL that we play against.

I really don't have a vendetta against the DL. I have just noticed a disturbing trend that when we lose it is usually because our front four gets totally dominated. It seems to be the one constant among all of our losses the past few years. I'm sorry that I'm setting the bar high. I think BG football can get to the point where an undefeated season is possible and we could be that "BCS Buster" that ESPN is talking about. Unfortunately that cannot happen if we cannot manage to finish a season undefeated.

I love what we're doing, and what we've done over the past couple years. I just have higher hopes for this program.

[BGSU33]

I didn't have time to read through everything on here. Has anything been determined with Matt's status yet with his injury?

[hammb]

As far as our d-line goes I don't dissagree that we are undersized, but we nor the players decide where they play or when. They must all give 110% and do the best they can every play.

This is something I try to re-iterate in my "rants". I do not blame the players, not at all. I "question" the philosophy, and that is all. As for the players, I actually think MORE of them. To even be respectable at 259 playing DT against Oklahoma & other big OL's is simply phenomenal. Brad plays his butt off, as does every one of our guys. I just think the coaching staff is not putting some of these guys in their best place to succeed. Brad would make one heckuva MLB.

Besides all the harping here is not going to change anyting so we just have to accept it for how it is and go on with life. Brad wanted to play linebacker very bad (almost asked out of his scholly after the move to d-line cause Penn State still wanted him at linebacker.) He is a player and will do whatever it takes to play. He may be like Jim and be close to 300# as a jr and sr.

You are right, we are not going to change a darn thing, but its fun to argue sometimes isn't it I'm glad that Brad stuck it through, I'm sure it will reward him in the future! At the very least he'll end up winning more games here than he would've at PSU, I'll bet

If we leave him at DT, I do hope that he grows like Jim. A 300# DT with a few years starting experience would be quite valuable down the road.

[TG1996]

TG1996, You bet I am. The pic in my avitar was taken at last years toledo game. it was Brad running off the field and jumping into Jim's arms. The boys gave me a framed picture of that.

VERY COOL! I assumed it was the two brothers, but couldn't quite squint enough to be sure. The end of the Toledo game made us ALL feel like that picture, I think!!!

[77 91 92 94]

Hey Big Mike, I could be wrong but it looks like you might have scanned that picture (love that pic too by the way!!) but anyways, if you did you might be able to make it clearer by copying he pic off of the BGSU athletic website. It's on there too. Just trying to help!

[Falconfreak90]

I spoke with one of the managers today and they told me that Matt rehurt his shoulder in practice this week and could need surgery again which would end his season. He didn't make the trip to Philly for tomorrow's game cuz I saw him walking on campus today. If this is true it's a huge blow to the defensive line.

No, Matt is NOT done for the season. I got an email back from Coach Beckman saying "He will be fine, shoulder's getting better".

I guess we'll see in the coming weeks just how much Matt can play.

GO FALCONS!!! BEAT CMU!!!

[ironmikecw]

I did scan it in But Grant had to configure it so it would fit

[Falcon52]

I'm glad to here he is not done. We need all the D-Line we can get. No matter how big they are.

[hammb]

I'm glad to here he is not done. We need all the D-Line we can get. No matter how big they are.

Agreed.

The best defenses rotate 6-8 bodies in and out on their DL. You can never have too many capable bodies.

[BGSU33]

Great news if Matt can come back and play!