Not Gap Sound

[behappp]

All it takes is one idiot fool to derail a decent thread. Turns out it's Bok_Choi.

And your contribution was so killer. Thanks rolling up to the keyboard to share oh font of football wisdom.

The 3-3-5 stack defense is about deception, confusing the offense. It was developed not all that long ago as a possible answer in defending spread offenses, that have become the norm. It's almost wholly reliant on speed, which is why Gubner and Alford are the only guys with girth - and by the way, they both can run. They don't substitute guys in packages to address any kind of down or distance or offensive tendencies they might see from who they are playing. Theyre the same, every snap. Bringing pressure, hoping to confuse the blockers, run to the ball and hope for the best. Live by the sword and die by it - spectacularly. They didn't get off blocks, that's not a feature of gap soundness. They got blocked. Getting off blocks is a day one drill and is practiced all year long. And because they were being blocked, all the tackling was lunging and trying to arm-tackle guys running by them. Anybody catch last years game. Bozeman had an all conference offensive line, same guy at quarterback for more than half the game. They didn't run all over this defense last year - did they? Why was that? Fluke, better execution, want it more. You decide.

Overall, not my idea of good defense. But bobby isn''t going to change anything until something forces him to. I do know that the offense failed to provide any kind of value for the parts of the game that mattered - when things hadn't gotten completely away from them. TD Tommy isn't out giving interviews about gap soundness if a Griz offense had showed up Saturday. Bobby bet heavily on a defense that everyone has five years of experience with now. It's not particularly deceptive anymore.

That's better :clap:

Often I'm hear to listen and learn.
Not thrilled to read posts about playing 12 or 13 players in a thread with good FB posts

Is there a link to Hauck's postgame press conference?

 

[Missoula223]

I would say the notion that the grizzlies aren’t gap sound is a little unfair as the defense is based in leverage as opposed to gaps. I’m not in the meetings with these guys obviously, but have studied and ran some similar schemes over the years.

The plus 1 issue is usually taken care of by spacing as opposed to how many people are on the LOS. For example, when O’Connel hits the B gap from an Odd front they will stunt the nose, which really gets to Over/Under Aka 4 down front. By spacing I mean 1 high vs. 2 high safeties. 1 high is typically referred to as 8 man spacing. 2 high is 9 man spacing. In post high you are a half a gap short in Qb run. The grizzlies play 1 high because they are often athletic enough to play both Qb and RB in the option/zone read game.

The wide zone that State runs negates a lot of the twisting that UM likes to do. I thought they were more stagnant in the 2nd half to offset this but I could be wrong. Also big bodies aren’t great for this. It’s almost too lateral. The one opposing argument for this is that a big nose can 2 gap the center, which actually makes an argument for an 3 man front or even a bear front using Gub or Alford.

I don’t really mean to pose any solutions other than maybe some quarters or trap into the boundary to help base fits. That and more zone coverage to keep eyes on the Qb as opposed to receivers. Just my two cents. Football is hard and the product is what matters. I think the lack of tackling was more noticeable than the lack of scheme as well.

 

[SaskGriz]

I would say the notion that the grizzlies aren’t gap sound is a little unfair as the defense is based in leverage as opposed to gaps. I’m not in the meetings with these guys obviously, but have studied and ran some similar schemes over the years.

The plus 1 issue is usually taken care of by spacing as opposed to how many people are on the LOS. For example, when O’Connel hits the B gap from an Odd front they will stunt the nose, which really gets to Over/Under Aka 4 down front. By spacing I mean 1 high vs. 2 high safeties. 1 high is typically referred to as 8 man spacing. 2 high is 9 man spacing. In post high you are a half a gap short in Qb run. The grizzlies play 1 high because they are often athletic enough to play both Qb and RB in the option/zone read game.

The wide zone that State runs negates a lot of the twisting that UM likes to do. I thought they were more stagnant in the 2nd half to offset this but I could be wrong. Also big bodies aren’t great for this. It’s almost too lateral. The one opposing argument for this is that a big nose can 2 gap the center, which actually makes an argument for an 3 man front or even a bear front using Gub or Alford.

I don’t really mean to pose any solutions other than maybe some quarters or trap into the boundary to help base fits. That and more zone coverage to keep eyes on the Qb as opposed to receivers. Just my two cents. Football is hard and the product is what matters. I think the lack of tackling was more noticeable than the lack of scheme as well.

Thank you that is some excellent insight. :thumb:

 

[Jordan_20]

We have (allegedly) some of the best cover corners in the FCS, so not a single clue why we kept our safeties deep on every play and didn't put Gubner and Alford on the field at the same time, load the box, and dare them to throw it.

The only blitz I can even remember was the corner blitz, which was one of the only negative plays they had in the entire game.

I don't want to say it was all our staff's hubris, thinking "we're gonna out physical them and blow them up, we don't need fancy adjustments. Our base defense is elite", but that's sure as shit what it looked like on the field.

I believe that Justin Ford is the best coverage corner in the nation (FCS). Jayden Dawson is also top 10 in the nation. It would make sense to play to our strengths and the opponent's weakness, but our coaches seem to have missed that.

 

[RoseyMustGo]

They do not match up well with any “plus one” system, meaning the QB is the main runner. We saw it with Sac St as well when their running QB would come in. It’s a bad match up for the 3-3-5 for sure. We were exploited badly by the Cats but they have one of the best “plus one” run games. The run defense has been very stout against traditional run teams. In fact one of tops in all of FCS. If we play other solid “plus one” systems we are in trouble. Or if teams see the cats tape and duplicate with a running QB then yes we are in trouble.

Good post. As much as Bobby hates losing to the Cats, one would think that he would install a defense which can stop their running attack. Our base 3-3-5 is a joke against the Cat's offense, and Hauck should have known that and made adjustments on defense. To me, the 3-3-5 is a gimmick defense. Most teams who use it as their base defense do so to mask their lack of quality linemen and linebackers. We should never be in that category if we are recruiting well, like we used to. We always seem to have great linebackers, and are deep at that position. I would rather see use run the 3-4 defense, where we put 4 LBs on the field.

 

[RoseyMustGo]

I would say the notion that the grizzlies aren’t gap sound is a little unfair as the defense is based in leverage as opposed to gaps. I’m not in the meetings with these guys obviously, but have studied and ran some similar schemes over the years.

The plus 1 issue is usually taken care of by spacing as opposed to how many people are on the LOS. For example, when O’Connel hits the B gap from an Odd front they will stunt the nose, which really gets to Over/Under Aka 4 down front. By spacing I mean 1 high vs. 2 high safeties. 1 high is typically referred to as 8 man spacing. 2 high is 9 man spacing. In post high you are a half a gap short in Qb run. The grizzlies play 1 high because they are often athletic enough to play both Qb and RB in the option/zone read game.

The wide zone that State runs negates a lot of the twisting that UM likes to do. I thought they were more stagnant in the 2nd half to offset this but I could be wrong. Also big bodies aren’t great for this. It’s almost too lateral. The one opposing argument for this is that a big nose can 2 gap the center, which actually makes an argument for an 3 man front or even a bear front using Gub or Alford.

I don’t really mean to pose any solutions other than maybe some quarters or trap into the boundary to help base fits. That and more zone coverage to keep eyes on the Qb as opposed to receivers. Just my two cents. Football is hard and the product is what matters. I think the lack of tackling was more noticeable than the lack of scheme as well.

Agreed that tackling was very poor. But how many running plays by the Cats had the RB or QB un-touched until he was 5-8 yards past the LOS?

 

[Missoula223]

I would say the notion that the grizzlies aren’t gap sound is a little unfair as the defense is based in leverage as opposed to gaps. I’m not in the meetings with these guys obviously, but have studied and ran some similar schemes over the years.

The plus 1 issue is usually taken care of by spacing as opposed to how many people are on the LOS. For example, when O’Connel hits the B gap from an Odd front they will stunt the nose, which really gets to Over/Under Aka 4 down front. By spacing I mean 1 high vs. 2 high safeties. 1 high is typically referred to as 8 man spacing. 2 high is 9 man spacing. In post high you are a half a gap short in Qb run. The grizzlies play 1 high because they are often athletic enough to play both Qb and RB in the option/zone read game.

The wide zone that State runs negates a lot of the twisting that UM likes to do. I thought they were more stagnant in the 2nd half to offset this but I could be wrong. Also big bodies aren’t great for this. It’s almost too lateral. The one opposing argument for this is that a big nose can 2 gap the center, which actually makes an argument for an 3 man front or even a bear front using Gub or Alford.

I don’t really mean to pose any solutions other than maybe some quarters or trap into the boundary to help base fits. That and more zone coverage to keep eyes on the Qb as opposed to receivers. Just my two cents. Football is hard and the product is what matters. I think the lack of tackling was more noticeable than the lack of scheme as well.

Agreed that tackling was very poor. But how many running plays by the Cats had the RB or QB un-touched until he was 5-8 yards past the LOS?

I would attribute that to lack of 9 man spacing (some scheme) DL/LBs mis fitting (execution), and 5 techs getting out ran (personnel).

These things can be made up for by playing hard and tackling better.

 

[zirge]

The other tendency of the Grizzly D that was exploited was the speed of the griz swarming towards the ball carrier. The Kittens used counter flowing plays, the play flows heavily to the right and then the ball ends up being ran to the left. The griz players over peruse, which was the cause of so many uncharacteristic missed tackles.

what this dude said. when they would run a replay from the end zone, you could see this working with spectacular success for them. .

yes, there was 1 distinct play and shot from the endzone watching the cats oline move left including our safety #4 moving left with them being on the right side of the field and merlott pops out of the backfield running to the right side getting a free lane for advancement. it may be the discipline that some of you are talking about where the coaches were having trouble getting the D to play gap coverage and slow down the aggression.

 

[DrainBramage]

They do not match up well with any “plus one” system, meaning the QB is the main runner. We saw it with Sac St as well when their running QB would come in. It’s a bad match up for the 3-3-5 for sure. We were exploited badly by the Cats but they have one of the best “plus one” run games. The run defense has been very stout against traditional run teams. In fact one of tops in all of FCS. If we play other solid “plus one” systems we are in trouble. Or if teams see the cats tape and duplicate with a running QB then yes we are in trouble.

Good post. As much as Bobby hates losing to the Cats, one would think that he would install a defense which can stop their running attack. Our base 3-3-5 is a joke against the Cat's offense, and Hauck should have known that and made adjustments on defense. To me, the 3-3-5 is a gimmick defense. Most teams who use it as their base defense do so to mask their lack of quality linemen and linebackers. We should never be in that category if we are recruiting well, like we used to. We always seem to have great linebackers, and are deep at that position. I would rather see use run the 3-4 defense, where we put 4 LBs on the field.

The 3-3-5 fits well into tour recruiting base. I appears that Montana boys develop nicely into all league LBs, or at least we have grown quite a few of them over the years. It the shutdown CBs that we have look to the portal to find.

 

[RoseyMustGo]

And your contribution was so killer. Thanks rolling up to the keyboard to share oh font of football wisdom.

The 3-3-5 stack defense is about deception, confusing the offense. It was developed not all that long ago as a possible answer in defending spread offenses, that have become the norm. It's almost wholly reliant on speed, which is why Gubner and Alford are the only guys with girth - and by the way, they both can run. They don't substitute guys in packages to address any kind of down or distance or offensive tendencies they might see from who they are playing. Theyre the same, every snap. Bringing pressure, hoping to confuse the blockers, run to the ball and hope for the best. Live by the sword and die by it - spectacularly. They didn't get off blocks, that's not a feature of gap soundness. They got blocked. Getting off blocks is a day one drill and is practiced all year long. And because they were being blocked, all the tackling was lunging and trying to arm-tackle guys running by them. Anybody catch last years game. Bozeman had an all conference offensive line, same guy at quarterback for more than half the game. They didn't run all over this defense last year - did they? Why was that? Fluke, better execution, want it more. You decide.

Overall, not my idea of good defense. But bobby isn''t going to change anything until something forces him to. I do know that the offense failed to provide any kind of value for the parts of the game that mattered - when things hadn't gotten completely away from them. TD Tommy isn't out giving interviews about gap soundness if a Griz offense had showed up Saturday. Bobby bet heavily on a defense that everyone has five years of experience with now. It's not particularly deceptive anymore.

That's better :clap:

Often I'm hear to listen and learn.
Not thrilled to read posts about playing 12 or 13 players in a thread with good FB posts

Is there a link to Hauck's postgame press conference?

Sooooo, reading between the lines, Bok, looks like you are suggesting that our defense was not ready to play last Saturday. I agree. I watched the game with several knowledgeable football guys, and we all agreed early in the game that the Griz had no fire, or passion in that game. At times, it looked as if they didn't want to be out there.

 

[kemajic]

That's better :clap:

Often I'm hear to listen and learn.
Not thrilled to read posts about playing 12 or 13 players in a thread with good FB posts

Is there a link to Hauck's postgame press conference?

Sooooo, reading between the lines, Bok, looks like you are suggesting that our defense was not ready to play last Saturday. I agree. I watched the game with several knowledgeable football guys, and we all agreed early in the game that the Griz had no fire, or passion in that game. At times, it looked as if they didn't want to be out there.

Especially once they put themselves in such a hole.

 

[The.Real.2506]

That's better :clap:

Often I'm hear to listen and learn.
Not thrilled to read posts about playing 12 or 13 players in a thread with good FB posts

Is there a link to Hauck's postgame press conference?

Sooooo, reading between the lines, Bok, looks like you are suggesting that our defense was not ready to play last Saturday. I agree. I watched the game with several knowledgeable football guys, and we all agreed early in the game that the Griz had no fire, or passion in that game. At times, it looked as if they didn't want to be out there.

They looked cold, and it was loud :thumb:

 

[mikegriz]

We have (allegedly) some of the best cover corners in the FCS, so not a single clue why we kept our safeties deep on every play and didn't put Gubner and Alford on the field at the same time, load the box, and dare them to throw it.

The only blitz I can even remember was the corner blitz, which was one of the only negative plays they had in the entire game.

I don't want to say it was all our staff's hubris, thinking "we're gonna out physical them and blow them up, we don't need fancy adjustments. Our base defense is elite", but that's sure as shit what it looked like on the field.

Yes, this

 

[mthoopsfan]

All it takes is one idiot fool to derail a decent thread. Turns out it's Bok_Choi.

And your contribution was so killer. Thanks rolling up to the keyboard to share oh font of football wisdom.

The 3-3-5 stack defense is about deception, confusing the offense. It was developed not all that long ago as a possible answer in defending spread offenses, that have become the norm. It's almost wholly reliant on speed, which is why Gubner and Alford are the only guys with girth - and by the way, they both can run. They don't substitute guys in packages to address any kind of down or distance or offensive tendencies they might see from who they are playing. Theyre the same, every snap. Bringing pressure, hoping to confuse the blockers, run to the ball and hope for the best. Live by the sword and die by it - spectacularly. They didn't get off blocks, that's not a feature of gap soundness. They got blocked. Getting off blocks is a day one drill and is practiced all year long. And because they were being blocked, all the tackling was lunging and trying to arm-tackle guys running by them. Anybody catch last years game. Bozeman had an all conference offensive line, same guy at quarterback for more than half the game. They didn't run all over this defense last year - did they? Why was that? Fluke, better execution, want it more. You decide.

Overall, not my idea of good defense. But bobby isn''t going to change anything until something forces him to. I do know that the offense failed to provide any kind of value for the parts of the game that mattered - when things hadn't gotten completely away from them. TD Tommy isn't out giving interviews about gap soundness if a Griz offense had showed up Saturday. Bobby bet heavily on a defense that everyone has five years of experience with now. It's not particularly deceptive anymore.

This post is good. Having watched the game and tape again, it's clear that, in addition to not getting off blocks, the Griz D got sucked into mistakes, over-reacting and over-pursuing. Time and time again, they reacted the wrong way, or reacted poorly. Got faked out over and over. Even when they knew Tommy would likely fake, pull and run, they went for the fake. And then it was too late. Tommy is a very good runner, fast, and a good handoff faker.

I was surprised at what I saw. All or almost all the backers got beat multiple times. Tackles missed. Arms reaching. Yes, Robbie missed more than usual too. I'm not intending to dump on the defense, but, after looking fairly closely, I'm surprised at what they did and didn't do. I can't imagine that the coaches weren't coaching all week about watching for Tommy to fake, pull and run. The guys got sucked in way too much.

 

[mtgriz]

There is a saying that defense always travels. But it seems like our “chaos” defense isn’t as effective without the WG crowd noise that makes it difficult for the offense to call out blocking schemes at the LOS.

 

[Missoula223]

They do not match up well with any “plus one” system, meaning the QB is the main runner. We saw it with Sac St as well when their running QB would come in. It’s a bad match up for the 3-3-5 for sure. We were exploited badly by the Cats but they have one of the best “plus one” run games. The run defense has been very stout against traditional run teams. In fact one of tops in all of FCS. If we play other solid “plus one” systems we are in trouble. Or if teams see the cats tape and duplicate with a running QB then yes we are in trouble.

Good post. As much as Bobby hates losing to the Cats, one would think that he would install a defense which can stop their running attack. Our base 3-3-5 is a joke against the Cat's offense, and Hauck should have known that and made adjustments on defense. To me, the 3-3-5 is a gimmick defense. Most teams who use it as their base defense do so to mask their lack of quality linemen and linebackers. We should never be in that category if we are recruiting well, like we used to. We always seem to have great linebackers, and are deep at that position. I would rather see use run the 3-4 defense, where we put 4 LBs on the field.

3-4 is a bad idea vs. 10/11 personnel teams (which most are). If you want to make a case to sub vs. 21/12 then you have a point.

 

[Allezchat]

So did hauck run the same defense in his previous stint?

 

[Bok_Choi]

So did hauck run the same defense in his previous stint?

No. He brought this from his time at SDSU. No one would expect him to run the 2009 defense, would they? Football is significantly different than it was in those days.

 

[Dillon]

So did hauck run the same defense in his previous stint?

No. He brought this from his time at SDSU. No one would expect him to run the 2009 defense, would they? Football is significantly different than it was in those days.

Maybe it is time to revert back to days of old or at least in some situations! :roll:

 

[mthoopsfan]

Good post. As much as Bobby hates losing to the Cats, one would think that he would install a defense which can stop their running attack. Our base 3-3-5 is a joke against the Cat's offense, and Hauck should have known that and made adjustments on defense. To me, the 3-3-5 is a gimmick defense. Most teams who use it as their base defense do so to mask their lack of quality linemen and linebackers. We should never be in that category if we are recruiting well, like we used to. We always seem to have great linebackers, and are deep at that position. I would rather see use run the 3-4 defense, where we put 4 LBs on the field.

3-4 is a bad idea vs. 10/11 personnel teams (which most are). If you want to make a case to sub vs. 21/12 then you have a point.

Says who? I don’t know. Just curious. Pls
educate us or at least me.