Had a brief discussion with someone close to the football staff,and says the first 2 games this year, they had the defensive schemes too complex,thus the confusion and bad play. With the total meltdown,the staff basically simplified the schemes ,which allowed more aggression. Also as previously mentioned,Stoops took over the defense and a quality control assistant relayed what he saw from the booth to Stoops. Asked him what input Eliot had on this and his response was not much. This is not an indictment of Eliot,just the situation as it relates to the improved defense.
Complex defense
- Thread starter law1127
- Start date
Yeah, Stoops talked about how simplifying the defense helped them out a ton. I think it was on Finebaum the other day.
Yep.
If only they had this resolved during halftime of the USM game and we'd be 4-2 right now.
If only they had this resolved during halftime of the USM game and we'd be 4-2 right now.
Last edited:
Or maybe 6-6 last year and the year before. Eliot need to go
The coaches said this after the game but since things looked so bad we didn't want to hear it and dismissed it as coachspeak excuse making. I do find it odd that they (coaches) couldn't/didn't see it coming.They seemed to have misjudged this team the first 2 and a half games,how do you do that to the extent they did?
That makes you think if they was to get it resolved in that 2nd half maybe tbey show up to UF with more confidence and feeling way better about themselves. They went into UF just with no confidence and was lost after 1st qtr of that game. The 2nd half of USM game just deflated them right out of the gates.
In about any interview eliot says nothing has changed with the D. Its just the team started executing. Lol
Not true ,they made the scheme a lot simpler and Stoops and new guy relaying coverages and calls! The concern is that Stoops didn't realize this before the first game and took another game and a half ,to determine the problem. Questions ,what goes on in practice?
Last edited:
We've heard a lot but some guy, who used to be a coach, went to practice this week and watch the defense practice under Elliot's supervision said that he was a very good coach and teacher. Really have never heard another give kudos to Elliot but this guy was impressed so maybe the schemes were too much for the youngsters to digest. Plus hasn't Elliot been in the booth since Stoops took over?
Looks to me like simplifying the scheme allowed for more aggressiveness, too. Especially along the D-line. First game or two, the D-line was reading and reacting (too slowly, imo). Now it looks like they are quicker into the gaps and actually disrupting plays vs. just trying to hold up blockers. It's good to see.
How did they not see in practice before the first game that the players were slow to react and were not where they needed to be to make plays???????
We had to struggle for too long before they fixed it and it may have cost us a bowl game.
We had to struggle for too long before they fixed it and it may have cost us a bowl game.
defense looked pretty darn good the 1st half of USM, except the 70 yard wide open bomb given up in the last 50 seconds.
17 pts 1st half, flood gates came open for 27 in 2nd.
why was defense too 'complex', maybe they were counting on veteran transfers Love & Laster who were around all last year practicing being able to execute the system, along with lots of other returning guys who had seen game action. It isnt like we threw a defense out there of true frosh, it was sophmores & jrs.
but the reality is we lost 7 of our top 8 tacklers from 2015, the main players on D this year had not been the #1 guys at their positions for the most part. And plus quite frankly there were some guys in the front 7 who practiced their way to the top of the depth chart in August, but when the lights came on for USM & UF they shrank. tough learning curve when replacing so many veteran tacklers, glad we have seemingly figured it out. So look on the bright side, dont be an empty barrel clunking along about the past that is already written & the ink is dry!
USM - 44 pts
UF - 46 pts
NMST - 35 1st half points
since then:
NMST - 1 offensive TD
chickens - 1 offensive TD
Bama - 3 offensive TD
Vandy - 0 offensive TD
Miss St is certainly not an impressive offensive team in 2016.
20
27
20
47
14
How they do tonight in a tough road environment at BYU should be very interesting. whispers are the team is quite ready to pack it in & quit for the season.
JHB,you make some good points.I think there was a lot of 'growing up' to be done and maybe that process is still going on. I hope that it is for some of the players,which would mean we have a chance to get better over the next couple of games.
It will be difficult to tell what state of mind Miss St will be in when they get here,if they drop this one tonight and looking at heir November schedule they will either play with a great sense of urgency or be ready to mail it in for the year
We should be ready to try and stop their big dual threat QB,he seems to be the guy that makes them tick.
It will be difficult to tell what state of mind Miss St will be in when they get here,if they drop this one tonight and looking at heir November schedule they will either play with a great sense of urgency or be ready to mail it in for the year
We should be ready to try and stop their big dual threat QB,he seems to be the guy that makes them tick.
"In season improvement" is a pretty hard thing to quantify, simply too many opponent variables and a very small data set (i.e., 6 games). I don't know if I buy the "simplify" argument but I agree the defense has "looked better" the past few games. However they have also played against 2 abysmal offenses (#121 SC and #125 Vandy, 304 and 300 YPG respectively).
Still the Cats held those 2 offenses under their anemic per game averages. AL was "held" (i.e., 488 yards) barely under their seasonal average of 490 yards.
The real test of "improvement" now comes over these next 2 games. MSU is #69 in total offense at 405 YPG and defensive minded MO at an astonishing #32 at 461 YPG.
Even with the unexpected necessity to play QB Johnson I still maintain there is very little difference in the overall football prowess of SC, Vandy, MSU, MO and UK. The Cats play 3 of those 4 "peer opponents" in CWS and presently stand at 2-0. The Cats were slight favorites in those 2 wins but may be slight 'dawgs in the next 2 games.
Peace
Still the Cats held those 2 offenses under their anemic per game averages. AL was "held" (i.e., 488 yards) barely under their seasonal average of 490 yards.
The real test of "improvement" now comes over these next 2 games. MSU is #69 in total offense at 405 YPG and defensive minded MO at an astonishing #32 at 461 YPG.
Even with the unexpected necessity to play QB Johnson I still maintain there is very little difference in the overall football prowess of SC, Vandy, MSU, MO and UK. The Cats play 3 of those 4 "peer opponents" in CWS and presently stand at 2-0. The Cats were slight favorites in those 2 wins but may be slight 'dawgs in the next 2 games.
NOTE: All yardage numbers are based on games against FBS opponents only
Peace
Coach Brooks I heard said that they needed to simplify and go back to the fundamentals and get lined up correctly. Heard he spent a few minutes during his HOF induction weekend to talk to Mark and just offered it up. 1. Fundamental and simplify 2. Get lined up correctly 3. Play hard, heard Rich may have questioned that the defense did not play hard and needed to play harder. Not an indictment but something Mark took and ran with. Tried to tell team you have to play harder and you can't over run plays and you must get off blocks.
Just heard this was some conversation. They have a very good relationship and it was more encouragement to keep plugging away and he could salvage this team and season.
Just heard this was some conversation. They have a very good relationship and it was more encouragement to keep plugging away and he could salvage this team and season.
I think you completely fabricated all of this. Or have spoken to someone who has lied to you in regards to their relationship to the staff, and "closeness", to it.
Sounds to me like someone (possibly you) listened to coach Stoops press conference prior to the NMSU game and filled in their own blanks.
Sounds to me like someone (possibly you) listened to coach Stoops press conference prior to the NMSU game and filled in their own blanks.
Yep. Elliott's responsibility may be be downgraded. They are not putting him upstairs, but taking observations from some ga.
FWIW, I think there is some confusion on the topic, both on this thread and in general. Media is also partly to blame for this.
Scheme
What is a defense scheme? Scheme is basically our defense strategy, or what type of defensive formations we use (3-4, 4-3 etc) against different offensive formations and teams. Basically our base defensive formation against any given offensive formation and team.
Formation
Or defensive line up, 3-4, 4-3 etc
Play call
The play call is the formation and positioning (inside/ outside), cover (man, zone) special responsibility (blitz etc) etc within the called formation like the 4-3.
Reads
Reads are the individual player responsibly for the players within the called play, like who got the QB, RB etc on option plays, who got the WR's in trips etc. Reads can be very complex and it takes years of practice and playing for the players to not think about reads, but to react automatically.
So, have we simplified our scheme?
My answer to that is no, but we have changed our use of formations somewhat. We are playing less 3-4 and more 4-3 or variations of the 3-4. The reason is IMO that we still don't have the DL or OLB to play a true 3-4. Have we called fewer different plays? From what I have seen, the answer is no. What we seemed to have done is to tweaked our use of formations within our scheme and simplified the reads, playing more 4-3 base defense with added blitzes.
Why have we made this change?
Lack of depth and experience. A senior or rs senior would have no problem playing within the full range of our scheme, but when you have as many young players as we do, it only takes one of them to miss an assignment/ read and the whole defense looks bad. Lack of depth is off course also a reason.
Why haven't coaches done this change during camp?
It's always easy to have 20-20 hindsight. What I believe to be the reason is our lack of depth and inexperience. It's easy to look good going against your own scout team, but it's a different ballgame going against teams with experienced players and play callers. A read made in practice is missed in the game, because what our players sees isn't exactly what he saw in practice and the reason is inexperience IMO.
So, we have simplified the defense with more use of base defense which reduces the number of reads our players have to make, but our scheme or defensive strategy haven't changed. You can say our defense now is more vanilla.
FWIW.
Scheme
What is a defense scheme? Scheme is basically our defense strategy, or what type of defensive formations we use (3-4, 4-3 etc) against different offensive formations and teams. Basically our base defensive formation against any given offensive formation and team.
Formation
Or defensive line up, 3-4, 4-3 etc
Play call
The play call is the formation and positioning (inside/ outside), cover (man, zone) special responsibility (blitz etc) etc within the called formation like the 4-3.
Reads
Reads are the individual player responsibly for the players within the called play, like who got the QB, RB etc on option plays, who got the WR's in trips etc. Reads can be very complex and it takes years of practice and playing for the players to not think about reads, but to react automatically.
So, have we simplified our scheme?
My answer to that is no, but we have changed our use of formations somewhat. We are playing less 3-4 and more 4-3 or variations of the 3-4. The reason is IMO that we still don't have the DL or OLB to play a true 3-4. Have we called fewer different plays? From what I have seen, the answer is no. What we seemed to have done is to tweaked our use of formations within our scheme and simplified the reads, playing more 4-3 base defense with added blitzes.
Why have we made this change?
Lack of depth and experience. A senior or rs senior would have no problem playing within the full range of our scheme, but when you have as many young players as we do, it only takes one of them to miss an assignment/ read and the whole defense looks bad. Lack of depth is off course also a reason.
Why haven't coaches done this change during camp?
It's always easy to have 20-20 hindsight. What I believe to be the reason is our lack of depth and inexperience. It's easy to look good going against your own scout team, but it's a different ballgame going against teams with experienced players and play callers. A read made in practice is missed in the game, because what our players sees isn't exactly what he saw in practice and the reason is inexperience IMO.
So, we have simplified the defense with more use of base defense which reduces the number of reads our players have to make, but our scheme or defensive strategy haven't changed. You can say our defense now is more vanilla.
FWIW.
Bash away but with the way UKs D has played over the last 3.5 GMs and the way our running gm is producing we will be in every gm the rest of the season with good chances of winning 4 of the 6.
The other two are rivalry games and any thing can happen in those types of GMs.
The other two are rivalry games and any thing can happen in those types of GMs.
Why didn't this staff have the knowledge before they installed the defense that it was too complex?
Actually, it IS an indictment of Eliot. From the moment Stoops took over the defense, Eliot was a walking corpse. Or should be, anyway.