think of torbush this week. i did not watch your game but from what i read, apparently the defense was much more creative and effective. due to torbush? or in spite of torbush?
a question from a visitor if i may...what do you guys
- Thread starter jacksonreb1
- Start date
I am sure we did some things differently - certainly we brought pressure more than we did against Auburn - but the talent level between Vandy and Auburn was pretty vast. We'll get another good reality check on Saturday.
pretty good and who's not but i thought vandy was typical vandy,,,meaning a pretty good team till midseason injuries and tiredness took them down. we'll all know more in a couple of more weeks but msu's d apparently played a much different game this week both in effort but also scheming. personally i think torbush can coach. his d's at ole ms and unc were great. in fact his d's at unc are what got him that headcoaching gig. can't really speak to the tx a & m deal. and maybe the game has passed him by but it sounds like he made some pretty noteable changes this week. thks for the response
but the fact we basically shut them out is promising. They scored their 3 pts off of a fumble at our own 5 yd line.
Now I am not saying that it would have changed the game very much, but I would have liked to have seen these stunts and blitzes against Auburn. I really thought you can beat Auburn if you make them throw the ball. WVU's seconday must be pretty bad. It did look like WVU stopped the run with the 3-3 straight up and not a lot of blitzing. I did not get to see the whole game but that is what I took from it.
BTW, a defensive GA told me before the game that we cut the playbook for the defense down from 100+ to only 15 plays. That may be why we executed better, considering they always knew their assignment. But it may also be why so many Vandy receivers found themselves wide open at times.
the fact they couldn't throw was reason we could probably play the run a little more. Regardless, allowing 33 yds rushing is stout.
to play man coverage with our secondary against the Auburn receivers. However, with Vandy, possibly the only SEC with a weaker receiving corps than us, he was more than happy to bring pressure with the safety blitz being used frequently. Problem is, we probably won't see a slower set of receivers combined with a weak passing QB like we got with Vandy the rest of the season, so I'm not sure Torbush will do going forward. We were exposed many times against Vandy for big passing plays but luckily they couldn't execute.
msu4life07 said:
then Torbush should have had his *** blasted. My number 1 lesson I learned in coaching is always true- "It's not what the coach knows, its what his players know and can execute". Keep it simple on defense so that everybody knows what the 17 they are doing, and you will always have a better defense.
you fumble the ball on the five and give it to your opponent with 1st and goal on the five and stick them where it hurts, your defense played good and don't take that away by saying Vandy's offense was not that good. I am not getting all googlie eyed over our defense but they played their asses off Saturday. I will give them credit.
msu4life07 said:
That may be typical for a college defense, I don't know, but my whole thing about the Auburn game was the fact that it looked like we did the same thing almost every play. I think some variety- which 15 plays would be ample in my opinion- would have helped us out immensely.
I just don't understand why knowing that we have a weakness in the secondary you would not try to put pressure on the QB.
But, the defense certainly performed better, and I saw some blitzing, so I was very happy about that.
There was not one play where the LB's or FS was not walk up to the line. The OL had problems because they knew someone was blitzing but who. This really causes problems on running plays where you are pulling guards or tackles. Did we get tired towards the end of the game or did they figure out how to block us?
...but of this much I can probably assume correctly, after the Auburn game Mullen probably told Carl Torbush to either dial up a better game plan or let someone else do it. Against Auburn, we didn't attack, but sat back and let them determine the pace. Against Vanderbilt, we attacked all game long. Since Mullen likes to manage by collaboration, I don't think you can either give or not give Torbush credit.jacksonreb1 said:
I was surprised, too, when he told me that. However, I'm sure a good many of those 100+ were similar to other plays, with just minor differences. Those, apparently, were the first to be taken out in order to keep it simple. In my opinion, it worked pretty well. Still, though, we all know that wide open receivers against LSU will probably have a different outcome, and I'm sure the coaches know that better than anyone.