-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Most important position to defense and why
- Thread starter coachkenelty
- Start date
High School-
Interior DL (will stop the run and effect the HS QB)
College-
Cornerback If you can play 9 on 9 and keep the ball in the center of the field, you have a huge advantage
Interior DL (will stop the run and effect the HS QB)
College-
Cornerback If you can play 9 on 9 and keep the ball in the center of the field, you have a huge advantage
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
The most important player on the defense is the strength and conditioning coach.
horribilisfan8184 said:
:thumb:
MikeyGriz said:
FCS games only:
2019 scoring: 31, 61, 47, 45, 59, 22 (L), 34, 38, 42, 35, 14 (L), 73, 10 (L)
2018 scoring: 26, 48, 27 (L), 41, 48, 20 (L), 14 (L), 21 (L), 57, 46, 25 (L)
2017 scoring: 45, 56, 41 (L), 45, 39, 41, 27 (L), 17, 44, 23 (L)
2016 scoring: 41, 20, 41 (L), 43, 67, 68, 34 (L), 16 (L), 62, 25 (L), 17 (L)
Scoring in losses: 10, 14, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 25, 27, 27, 34, 41, 41
And in one of those 41 point losses we had a 24-6 lead at halftime.. My takeaway? I don’t see a shitload of games where the D had to do much to keep the offense in the games…The Griz are 3-13 when scoring below 30 points. That doesn’t speak real highly of defensive prowess recently….
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
AZGrizFan said:
Waaay too complicated. Just answer me this, is it easier to win if the defense gives up 10 or 30 points?
Safety is the key position for me. Must win 50/50 balls, intercept, knock down passes and tackle crisply in addition to supplying run-support. He is the last roll of the dice and must make the most of game-changing plays. The last line in the sand. Think: Trumaine stuffing Quick at the goal line. Game over.
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
AZGrizFan said:
I see losses at 34, 41 and 41 points scored. We win those if only giving up 10 points, right?
i think the most important position is the one with the guy who is the 'leader' of the defense, by his play, by the ability to get other guys into position, and by encouraging his teammates to reach their potential. it could be the middle linebacker, a safety, whatever - as long as the guy has the intangibles necessary to improve how the defense plays.
No one player is a team. To say one defensive position is better or should be better then the other doesn't make real sense. Every game is different and therefore each position is tested differently in each game. I love a lockdown corner to take away one or two receivers from the get go, but to say it is the most important, depends on what the other players are doing. IDK?
Griz#64 said:
Here is what I have told people in the past, the 4-2 is really by basic scheme a 4-4, and the 3-3 plays a ton as a 3-4 type format. The flex player design is to allow vertical and horizontal adjustment without limiting your playbook.
The best way to explain it, is that when teams started going 2x2 open (No TE) and running RPO (Run/Pass/Option) 3-4 and 4-3 defense were especially rigid and it limited the scheme as to what you could do to bring pressure and it made teams super predictable. The flex player is a rover in the classic sense by with a more defined role as a run first defender and clearly defined alignment that helps the interior 6 players remain primarily box run players. Each of those defenses you typically had a LB or had to remove a DL to align correctly and not lose your whole playbook.
I hated as a DC having to by alignment honor the 2x2 in a 4-3 because it meant that I couldn't run half of my blitzes or coverages because kids couldn't get there. You have to honor the formation or you get absolutely gashed by quick screens and hot routes.
The 4-2 literally isn't rocket science, or all that complex, but it is a really rare occasion where teams can formation you out of things. This is true with the 3-3ish system Baer runs as well. That is why a preponderance of college programs run some sort of flex multiple defense now because while you can't have all the answers for formations and schemes defensively, you have a to have a defense that your players can execute a wide array of things based upon what the offense offers you.
Well there it is in the nutshell. ??? simple stuff huh. and you didn.t even talk about a modified zone on strong side and a man free on weak side. with DE and lb.ers playing Plug and stretch.etc etc. This is the kinda stuff i like to read along with Our recruiting successes. Thanks Go Griz Play lights out against Washington.
Griz#64 said:
Trying to explain the split field coverage system is nuts and it is even harder to conceptualize for fans because the rules are never consistent. What is interesting, is this whole conversation is why A LOT of high school programs absolutely refused to implement the 4-2/3-3 because they thought it was dependent on unicorn players and coverage concepts that were too complex. Yet if you were to travel around San Diego County where I am at, I'd say at least half, if not more run some version of them now.
You just can't win against spread teams (which most school are now) without either having D1 mandigos everywhere in a 4-3 or a 3-4 or conceding that you are just going to have to line up out of your base system 90% of your snaps. Very few college teams have pulled off the 4-3 against spread successfully (NDSU, Bama are two) and it is because literally they have guys who are such freak athletes you could run a 9 front and win games. In the 4-3 you absolutely need that one disruptive DL element to win, but in this defense you aren't as dependent on high end DL play to win games.
hunt-ducks
Well-known member
Grizfan-24 said:
I totally disagree with your reasoning. You seem to think that the only way for a 4-3 defense to stop the spread offense is to have a bunch of elite players on defense. You listed NDSU & Bama as examples of teams who fit that profile. What about Ohio State, LSU, Clemson, Michigan, Florida, Texas A & M, Georgia in FBS, and Sam Houston, James Madison, and South Dakota State, Delaware, et. al. in FCS??? None of them run the defense you seem to love, to my knowledge. They don't attempt to stop the spread with gimmick defenses, rather they DICTATE the game by saying to the opponent "we play the 4-3 defense. If you think you can defeat us with your spread, go for it!".
Finally, Montana was a Top 3-4 program in FCS for many many years, and the division was much better in those days, because so many of the other top programs have moved-up to FBS. In those days we ran a traditional defense, and didn't worry about our opponent's offensive philosophy. If NDSU, JMU, SDSU, and Sam Houston can recruit defenders good enough to play the 4-3, and EXCEL at doing so against Big Sky type offenses, why can't UM recruit these kids???
Montana should be able to structure our defense to dictate, like we used to do. If we are unable to do that currently, we are NOT YET BACK TO DOMINANCE!
Hunt,
We have gone around and around with this for years now. You and I obviously are different pages. Most college programs outside of a handful don't run a true 4-3 or a 3-4 very often anymore. Not that it can't be done, but it sure asks a lot of players by alignment to do vastly more than if they are lining up in their natural positions.
Most of the programs you describe all have absolute studs playing at DE and at OLB. There just aren't many of those types of guys and when you get matched up with superior scheme and offensive skill, you aren't going to win many of those battles defensively. You are right you can design a scheme that is centered around what you do and recruit well, but few programs have done it well (Weber, NDSU at the FCS level) and most have had to make some significant schematic concessions or positional changes (playing mostly nickel or dime) to stay in the scheme. Again that is from personal experience and listening to college guys, my impression isn't necessary sacrosanct, but it is my belief that my perception is hardly a minority view among College and HS Defensive types.
I'd run the 4-3 90% of the time if I could, but even in Idaho before I left we'd be in some sort of 30 or 4-2 formation for 80% of our snaps. We made the change because it was easier to move 1 or 2 guys consistently than what we had to do with the 4-3 and 3-4 stuff we ran before. We could run more of our packages, give different looks without sacrificing some basic function of our scheme.
We have gone around and around with this for years now. You and I obviously are different pages. Most college programs outside of a handful don't run a true 4-3 or a 3-4 very often anymore. Not that it can't be done, but it sure asks a lot of players by alignment to do vastly more than if they are lining up in their natural positions.
Most of the programs you describe all have absolute studs playing at DE and at OLB. There just aren't many of those types of guys and when you get matched up with superior scheme and offensive skill, you aren't going to win many of those battles defensively. You are right you can design a scheme that is centered around what you do and recruit well, but few programs have done it well (Weber, NDSU at the FCS level) and most have had to make some significant schematic concessions or positional changes (playing mostly nickel or dime) to stay in the scheme. Again that is from personal experience and listening to college guys, my impression isn't necessary sacrosanct, but it is my belief that my perception is hardly a minority view among College and HS Defensive types.
I'd run the 4-3 90% of the time if I could, but even in Idaho before I left we'd be in some sort of 30 or 4-2 formation for 80% of our snaps. We made the change because it was easier to move 1 or 2 guys consistently than what we had to do with the 4-3 and 3-4 stuff we ran before. We could run more of our packages, give different looks without sacrificing some basic function of our scheme.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
2027 Montana Recruiting (17) Verbals & (27) Offers (2) 2028 Offers
- Latest: Downwiththefoe1984