I finally get it: - A paradigm shifting moment watching EIU

[mc3022]

Ok guys, I think I finally get what Babers is trying to do. Maybe i'm late to the party but let me tell you my thoughts. I, like many others, was extremely confused as to what the heck I was seeing these past two games. I went back to watch EIU film to try and figure it out particularly on the defensive side of the ball.

For those interested here is the best link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zrAfoBuiw - the first half of the EIU vs SDSU game from last year, a game that EIU ended up winning 40-19.

Some of you may remember that I recently posted about how I felt that this defense makes no "Football sense" - Reason, I now see, was because I truly didn't understand the "Baylor" philosophy behind this coaching staff/team.

Based on the EIU film/past two games (AKA what Babers wants BGSU to be) I see a couple of common things

1. Our program is focused on our offense - we will outscore you
2. We give you 7 points...but ONLY IF you earn it..
3. No big plays overtop
4. Don't get beat by the run

Thats it folks - very simple...but a big change in traditional thinking. Lets look at the facts. EIU/Baylor philosophy (at least this is how see it) has a heavy focus on the offensive - Up tempo still that builds off each play where we should be disappointed to only score 35 points - we should expect to score 40 ish min. a game and its the fault of the offense if they don't - Yes, this is reasonable based on how we now play

On defense, I finally get what they are trying to do. We are basically saying we will give you a TD only if you earn it...Let me explain - Every coverage is over the top and if teams can drive down the field in 8/9/10 plays then so be it. I saw manly cover 3/cover 4 in the film. They will mix in zone blitzes regardless of down and distance and only press when its 3rd and short or in the redzone.

This philosophy says we don't think you can execute long enough to keep up with us.

if you think about it...it makes sense. Have one team that will be able to put up 40/45 pts a game scoring in 4-5-6 plays vs another team they are trying to force drive the field in 8-10 plays - you can expect the defense to give up 30-35 points a game...anything under is awesome

We can debate philosophy, but offensive centric teams work in the MAC - Yes, their may be some growing pains - but if you can change the way you think about how the game is played I think you will be much more comfortable with the coaching staff like I am now.

Be interested to get your thoughts

[MarkL]

I get what you are saying, and thank you for the analysis. I didn't post my typical post-game thoughts so I'll simply say this: Knapke looked good, and I think he'll be amazing at the end of the season and may even be an all-MAC performer, and I wish I could have seen more of Calloway because I was incredibly impressed.

Upon watching the replay of the VMI game, I had a few thoughts about the defense.
1. Our front seven is outstanding at stopping the run but could have been more consistent in disrupting the passing game. They had their moments and getting a replacement for Lynch ready fast has got to be a high priority because his disruptive presence was missed.
2. Our secondary practically plays prevent all game long. They gave up a few midrange throws and would have been more had it not been for dropped passes, but only once or twice did a receiver get behind our defense.
3. When our FalconFast offense doesn't click, there's a FalconFast three and out followed by a tired defense. We can't have that because as you pointed out, our program's new philosophy starts with scoring points all the time.

We've got two very different Big Ten opponents coming up. I personally want to win both and believe we have an offense that can win both even without the face of the program at quarterback. Defense is the big problem (duh.)

Indiana will be able to dink and dunk all day if they want. As I remember last year, they also like to run a lot of quick plays to the outside as their receivers are physical blockers, and they also love to go deep. If the results from WKU are of any indication, they'll be able to destroy us with outside runs and screen passes. Against the deep pass, we may be OK if the front seven can be disruptive in the backfield. The secondary didn't let VMI's receivers get deep on them Saturday but Indiana's big, physical receivers just tore up our corners last year and there's just no telling if they'll do the same this year against our soft zone coverage. If somebody read the future and said we won this game and our defense was a positive influence in our win, I'd say it's because our front seven stuffed the inside run and disrupted the quarterback enough to lead to errant throws and at least two interceptions.

Wisconsin will of course do their thing and pound it out on the ground with some play action in there to keep you from putting all eleven defensive players in the box. I believe if Wisconsin had a typical MAC offensive line and a typical MAC set of running backs, we'd stuff them. However, I think no matter how good our front seven is at stuffing the run, that big offensive line will wear us out with time and eventually score at will. If somebody read the future and said we won this game and our defense was a positive influence in our win, I'd say it's because our run defense got us a few stops at the beginning of each half and allowed our offense to put together some scoring drives to take early leads in each half and hold on to the upcoming barrage of points.

And if somebody were to read the future and tell me we would win either or both games, I'd be buying up lots of celebratory beer right about now.

[Siborg]

Bend but don't break defense. Babers also wants to add more forced turnovers and that fits into this scheme as well as long as that does not force a DB to get burnt deep my biting on a fake. Clawson's style of D was not a whole lot different other than our O used up clock and we had good MAC level lock down corners so we could press the receivers sometimes. Its frustrating to watch so much yardage given up but its not uncommon.....of course we still have to make tackles. Its almost like arena football, any defensive stop is a huge bonus.

The spread offense (up tempo or not) is the only way BG can compete with bigger, faster, better teams IMO. And sadly, even Indiana qualifies as that. It does not mean we are better but it gives us a shot if the D can get a few TO and some stops. I don't think this is Brandon 2.0....I hope.... but that remains to be seen. Brandon's issues were beyond the field of play for the most part.

Let's just hope the injury wave has run its course. Gallon, Johnson, Colvin, Lynch and Barimah so far for starters.

[Globetrotter]

Why arent we just playing a 4-2-5 then?

[MarkL]

Why arent we just playing a 4-2-5 then?

I think because our front seven really is good. Babers wants to create havoc in the run game and in the backfield. We have stuffed the run game for two straight games (except against WKU when our D was just exhausted on the field) and created some havoc in the backfield Saturday but certainly could have done more. Our linebackers are better at the run game and getting into the backfield than our safeties, so a 4-2-5 doesn't make a ton of sense.

[Class of 61]

Ok guys, I think I finally get what Babers is trying to do. Maybe i'm late to the party but let me tell you my thoughts. I, like many others, was extremely confused as to what the heck I was seeing these past two games. I went back to watch EIU film to try and figure it out particularly on the defensive side of the ball.

For those interested here is the best link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zrAfoBuiw - the first half of the EIU vs SDSU game from last year, a game that EIU ended up winning 40-19.

Some of you may remember that I recently posted about how I felt that this defense makes no "Football sense" - Reason, I now see, was because I truly didn't understand the "Baylor" philosophy behind this coaching staff/team.

Based on the EIU film/past two games (AKA what Babers wants BGSU to be) I see a couple of common things

1. Our program is focused on our offense - we will outscore you
2. We give you 7 points...but ONLY IF you earn it..
3. No big plays overtop
4. Don't get beat by the run

Thats it folks - very simple...but a big change in traditional thinking. Lets look at the facts. EIU/Baylor philosophy (at least this is how see it) has a heavy focus on the offensive - Up tempo still that builds off each play where we should be disappointed to only score 35 points - we should expect to score 40 ish min. a game and its the fault of the offense if they don't - Yes, this is reasonable based on how we now play

On defense, I finally get what they are trying to do. We are basically saying we will give you a TD only if you earn it...Let me explain - Every coverage is over the top and if teams can drive down the field in 8/9/10 plays then so be it. I saw manly cover 3/cover 4 in the film. They will mix in zone blitzes regardless of down and distance and only press when its 3rd and short or in the redzone.

This philosophy says we don't think you can execute long enough to keep up with us.

if you think about it...it makes sense. Have one team that will be able to put up 40/45 pts a game scoring in 4-5-6 plays vs another team they are trying to force drive the field in 8-10 plays - you can expect the defense to give up 30-35 points a game...anything under is awesome

We can debate philosophy, but offensive centric teams work in the MAC - Yes, their may be some growing pains - but if you can change the way you think about how the game is played I think you will be much more comfortable with the coaching staff like I am now.

Be interested to get your thoughts

Only one thing wrong with this analysis. WKU was running plays faster than we were...and rarely had to use 10 plays to get yheir TD's.

[kdog27]

Here are my problems with this:

1. Through 8 quarters I have yet to see a defensive package that is going to create sacks and interceptions. The defense has been anything but aggressive. What you see is what you get pretty much. In the summer they acted like they were going play without fear and give you no idea what to expect.

2. WKU, a team with similar talent to most teams we play had no problem with execution. We made a decent QB look like an All American. He was 56 for 66! We would have had to played flawlessly on offense to win that game.

3. This sure puts a lot of pressure on the offense.

4. I know Baylor has some high scoring affairs but do they play defense like this?

5. It seems like this offense tires our defense more than it does the opponents defense.

I really hope I'm missing something and it's all going to come together.

[Flipper]

Talked about this in another thread...the defense worked on Saturday. VMI got yards and next to no points...they ran 90 some plays and got 7 points. The concern I have is the number of plays our defense is on the field for. More plays=more chances to get hurt. I don't want to see the defense burned out by mid October.

Now if we mix it up a bit and throw more press coverages and blitzes into the game plan, we might see more turnovers and third and longs...

[kdog27]

The VMI game does nothing for me. The defense might bend but not break against a bad FCS team but it's going to break plenty against better teams.

[jpfalcon09]

If your defensive scheme is hoping a team can't execute well enough to beat you then its not a scheme. Its no better than having three buttons in front of you, one which can destroy the world, and trying not to press it while blindfolded. Teams will realize that they can throw the ball on us 60 times and dominate the game. If you're pinning your hopes on a Division 1 quarterback and offense not to execute its offense in hopes of winning a game, you're going to lose.

[gspointer]

If your defensive scheme is hoping a team can't execute well enough to beat you then its not a scheme. Its no better than having three buttons in front of you, one which can destroy the world, and trying not to press it while blindfolded. Teams will realize that they can throw the ball on us 60 times and dominate the game. If you're pinning your hopes on a Division 1 quarterback and offense not to execute its offense in hopes of winning a game, you're going to lose.

I pretty much agree. I just do not see the need to run this type of offense and this type of defense. You are basically relying on the other team to be inept or f up. That will beat up inferior teams but teams with equal or better talent will feast on it. Complicating matters is many teams are running up tempo now thus negating any advantage there. I do not like it!

[hammb]

If the offense is doing their job then we cannot be dominated because they are expected to score a TD every time they have the ball. I bet Babers has a thought in mind for the percentage of his offensive possessions end up in TDs and I bet you'd be stunned at how high that percentage is. This team is built to score points. If the offense isn't doing what it is supposed to then the defense is absolutely screwed.

Uptempo fast paced offense is simply a better way to play offense. The advantage isn't based upon teams not being familiar with it. It's based on tiring defenses and more importantly not allowing them to adjust or substitute to what you're doing. Hell the freaking BROWNS managed to put up 24 points on the Steelers yesterday by going to a fast paced no huddle offense.

I understand the defensive scheme is trying to force teams into long drives, and I disagree that doing so is simply asking to be scored upon. It's very difficult to sustain long 10 play drives without making a mistake. Still, I'd like to see us do something in our front to FORCE mistakes rather than hoping the other team makes them on their own. It also doesn't work when you're giving up big plays because of missed tackles underneath. If the scheme is to keep everything in front and make them take their time down the field then you damned well better be making tackles and not giving up 15 yard chunks on those underneath passes.

[MarkL]

Still, I'd like to see us do something in our front to FORCE mistakes rather than hoping the other team makes them on their own.

That is precisely why I'm holding out hope that McCloud and Babers are cooking up something special defensively for Nate Sudfeld and company next week that we haven't seen yet. Not that I expect this but I can hope ...

[kdog27]

If the offense is doing their job then we cannot be dominated because they are expected to score a TD every time they have the ball.

Yet we expect the other team to not score every time they get the ball because odds are they are going screw up somewhere because it's so difficult to execute plays? I'll put my money on the offense that's being given wide open looks every time over the up tempo offense.

Forget all this bullshit. Why does having an offense like this mean we have to play defense like this. What the hell good is it doing?

[Globetrotter]

If the offense is doing their job then we cannot be dominated because they are expected to score a TD every time they have the ball.

Yet we expect the other team to not score every time they get the ball because odds are they are going screw up somewhere because it's so difficult to execute plays? I'll put my money on the offense that's being given wide open looks every time over the up tempo offense.

Forget all this bullshit. Why does having an offense like this mean we have to play defense like this. What the hell good is it doing?

Im completely on board with what you are saying in this thread.