Sentinel Defense Story

[BelieveNBG]

Once the RB was out, we could rush differently, cover passes differently. We played better on D than we had against NIU and UT--that's true. But, he was running like crazy on us when he was in the game.

Him being in or out had no bearing on why the pass coverage improved in the second half. It was totally safeties adjusting to the new scheme and being where they were supposed to be. As far as him running, look at 3rd quarter. Even in the first half, we had a tackle against him for a loss and several other 2 yard gains. He had 2 runs over 10 yards. I wouldn't call that running all over us.

[TG1996]

As far as him running, look at 3rd quarter. Even in the first half, we had a tackle against him for a loss and several other 2 yard gains. He had 2 runs over 10 yards. I wouldn't call that running all over us.

I think he actually broke his leg very early in the third quarter, at least got it started. There was one play where he limped off really good, got treated for a bit then came back, the play where he fell in the open field and left the game just finished it off. He was playing most of the third quarter on a badly injured, if not broken, leg.

[Warthog]

Once the RB was out, we could rush differently, cover passes differently. We played better on D than we had against NIU and UT--that's true. But, he was running like crazy on us when he was in the game.

Him being in or out had no bearing on why the pass coverage improved in the second half. It was totally safeties adjusting to the new scheme and being where they were supposed to be. As far as him running, look at 3rd quarter. Even in the first half, we had a tackle against him for a loss and several other 2 yard gains. He had 2 runs over 10 yards. I wouldn't call that running all over us.

Hmmm, what be this new scheme you talk of? When a team has a great RB, the safety(s) try to cheat up a lot to defend the run. This sometimes causes the safety(s) to bite of play action passes and allow WR to get behind them. When said stud RB is no longer in the came, safety(s) don't bite on play-action passes. They just drop back in coverage. A lot easier to play defense when the guy that run for 2000 yards has a broken leg.

[hammb]

Once the RB was out, we could rush differently, cover passes differently. We played better on D than we had against NIU and UT--that's true. But, he was running like crazy on us when he was in the game.

Him being in or out had no bearing on why the pass coverage improved in the second half. It was totally safeties adjusting to the new scheme and being where they were supposed to be. As far as him running, look at 3rd quarter. Even in the first half, we had a tackle against him for a loss and several other 2 yard gains. He had 2 runs over 10 yards. I wouldn't call that running all over us.

Hmmm, what be this new scheme you talk of? When a team has a great RB, the safety(s) try to cheat up a lot to defend the run. This sometimes causes the safety(s) to bite of play action passes and allow WR to get behind them. When said stud RB is no longer in the came, safety(s) don't bite on play-action passes. They just drop back in coverage. A lot easier to play defense when the guy that run for 2000 yards has a broken leg.

Thanks for saving me the time Warthog. Certain players are so good that they change EVERYTHING that a defense does. Omar is one of those guys. As was D'Angelo Williams. I think we would've won that game anyways, we were playing well that day. But I also think that the reason we suddenly got a defense had more to do with Williams' broken bone than it did anything we changed at halftime.

[Falconboy]

I don't like to admit either , but its true. The only reason we were able to pull away from Memphis the way we did is plainly we did not have to worry about their all-star rusher tearing us apart for the rest of the game. Had Williams been healthy the entire game, there's no way that he gets less than 200 yards rushing in that game. Thats just a plain miserable fact if you can admit it. I'm still not feeling good about our recruiting yet. As of yet , I have seen only one defensive lineman on our "supposed" verbal list. I wouldn't mind seeing some more safties on the list as well. But, then maybaye the coaches are thinking of moving a Chris Bullock at 6'2 and 215 to saftey.

[Warthog]

maybaye the coaches are thinking of moving a Chris Bullock at 6'2 and 215 to saftey.

I think he is going to be a tight end.

[BelieveNBG]

Well lets see...if he didn't have 100 yards in the first half, why do you think he would have had 200. It wasn't gonna happen. He wasn't hurt in the 3rd and we made alot of good tackles and contained him for several short gains.

We can coulda, woulda, shoulda, all we want, but in the end BG won.

[orangeandbrown]

Well lets see...if he didn't have 100 yards in the first half, why do you think he would have had 200. It wasn't gonna happen. He wasn't hurt in the 3rd and we made alot of good tackles and contained him for several short gains.

We can coulda, woulda, shoulda, all we want, but in the end BG won.

A) No one disagrees, we won.
B) I think the poster said he had 2,000 yards, not 200.
C) He was hurt in the 3rd. Secondly, we didn't contain him for "several" short gains.

He had six second half carries.

6 yards
8 yards
2 yards
2 yards
10 yards
5 yards.

That's 33 yards on six carries, or 6.5 yards per carry. Finally, him being out of the game effected every single thing we did, from pash rushing to coverage.

They simply aren't the same team without him--why would they be? He's a great player. Would we be the same team with Omar on the bench?

Was it our worst defensive game of the season? No. I think our guys played better than they had many other times during the season. But you can't remove Williams and say its the same team.

[BelieveNBG]

I don't think anyone said it was the same team. We won the first half with him in the game...right?? He did not have 100 yds. He had 87 at the half, so my math doesn't get me to 200 for the game. Earlier injury, limp, had nothing to do with the break. Last, the secondary scheme was different from the UT game and once the safeties quit biting, period, the long ball was not there. They stopped biting on play action because they got burnt so much, they finally finally actually may have just figured it out...Don't bite and drop back into coverage.

[Warthog]

Like I said, you learn not to bite on play-action when the 2,000 yard rusher has a broken leg.

[BelieveNBG]

You should learn not to bite on any play after one has been burnt several times.

[UK Peregrine]

I don't think anyone said it was the same team. We won the first half with him in the game...right?? He did not have 100 yds. He had 87 at the half, so my math doesn't get me to 200 for the game. Earlier injury, limp, had nothing to do with the break. Last, the secondary scheme was different from the UT game and once the safeties quit biting, period, the long ball was not there. They stopped biting on play action because they got burnt so much, they finally finally actually may have just figured it out...Don't bite and drop back into coverage.

Alright, this discussion is getting disturbing. Neither Falconboy or youself is using very sound logic. What math are you two using? Are you simply doubling halftime stats to ascertain what he may have ended the game with. Doesn't work this way fellas. By this same logic BG would have score 34 points in hoops against Toledo. You can't project DeAngelo's stats this way, no matter what some idiot sports announcer says.

[BelieveNBG]

My point exactly...you can't just project that he would have had 200 yards. He carried the ball 18 times for 120 yards. Maybe he would have carried the ball 18 more times in less than a quarter and a half. Maybe he wouldn't have. Maybe we would have stopped him. Maybe we would not have. Maybe we would have gotten so far out on them on offense, Memphis would have had to abandon the running game to keep up with the pace. Maybe they would not have. Bottom line...I don't see how anyone can just assume he would or would not have had 200 yards. We will all never know.

[BGDrew]

My point exactly...you can't just project that he would have had 200 yards. He carried the ball 18 times for 120 yards. Maybe he would have carried the ball 18 more times in less than a quarter and a half. Maybe he wouldn't have. Maybe we would have stopped him. Maybe we would not have. Maybe we would have gotten so far out on them on offense, Memphis would have had to abandon the running game to keep up with the pace. Maybe they would not have. Bottom line...I don't see how anyone can just assume he would or would not have had 200 yards. We will all never know.

Here, here. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, he didn't. I'm happy he's coming back for his Senior season. I'm sure he feels he's got something to prove and hope he does great.

[Schadenfreude]

I guess this is what I object to: The implication that the Falcons would have lost had Williams not broken his leg.

I'll grant it would have been closer. But we were already ahead most of the game with him in.

So, yes, while the ability of our defense to shut them down in the second half with Williams in is defintely in some doubt -- I don't think the outcome would have been in doubt.