Not sure it would work but how about a gimmick defense?

[gamecockcat]

Obviously, we are not able to play a 4-3 or a 3-4 conventionally with this group of players/coaches. We're just getting killed week after week. So, if a conventional defense doesn't work, how about a gimmick defense that couldn't possibly work any worse than what we have going on now?

I'm thinking a 2-5 alignment. 2 DTs and 5 LBs that can and will stunt, blitz, whatever. Keeps our DL fresh. Gets a lot more speed on the field. Plus, no one else plays it and may confuse some teams as to how to block it. The whole focus of this alignment would be to create negative plays, especially on first and second down. No more 'catching' the OL and trying to read/react. No more death by a 1000 cuts. No more bend-don't-break BS. We're just plain not good enough (players? coaches? Both?) to play that way. We don't need a hair-on-fire blitz every down but we need to have players make aggressive plays and shoot gaps and disrupt the offense as much as possible.

Most likely wouldn't work, either. But, hell, at least try something different because every UK fan knows that the same defensive philosophy and tactics we've played for the first 3 games will result in multiple teams putting 60+ points on the board against us (UofL, Bama, probably UGa, probably UT as we always seem to make them look way better than they are). We're awful right now. How much worse could it get with a gimmick defense?

 

[MrLair]

I got a great idea, hire a real coach.

 

[EastLansingCat]

Couldn't hurt.

 

[Ctroberts1024]

I hate the 3-4. That said, if we're gonna run it, we need to run a 3-4 bear look. Line up the nose, DT and SDE over the center and two guards. Just attack those three right off the snap, try to change the LOS and that'll leave the two ILBs to be unblocked for the most part unless the tackles reach up to them.

 

[dallasg23]

Might work in the OVC. Might work on occasion on 3 and long. But on every down. Teams would have more rushing yards than they do now

 

[Chadrock]

Put all skill players on the field and shoot all gaps real fast like.

 

[KY1WING]

Wide tackle six!

Seven Diamond.

No one thing I noticed and maybe it's just coincidental but USM vs us and Appy State vs UT first week both had significantly smaller DL but man were they quick. Not sure our games can be used but I remember Appy State DL gave UT fits all game. Maybe sometimes you need to go counter to give yourself a chance.

Or you can work harder.

 

[Johnfarrel]

Looks pretty gimmicky right now.

 

[JW PRPcoach]

I don't know the answer, but I would love to have a scheme that is unique - something to give us a competitive advantage that other teams don't see weekly.
Joe Lee Dunn at Miss ST years ago had fantastic defenses that were smaller, quicker, and ultra aggressive.
Some teams would get quick scores, but they almost always led the conf in forcing turnovers and 3 and outs.

There is something to be said about getting off the field - even if the opponent scores.
Us giving up 12 play 5 min TD drives not only tires us out, but keeps our O off the field.

 

[gomminit33]

I say use the Mumme approach. If you don't get a 3 and out on the first series, just let them score.

 

[truebluewildcat_rivals34254]

Our DL just seems slow and unathletic. They have no initial explosion.

The game has evolved away from the trenches being the focal point, and gone to the open spaces and perimeter.

That's not to say that the OL and DL aren't vital, but they are important now in different ways.

It's no longer a north south game and rugby scrum.

With the emergence of timing oriented fast pace, pass heavy, spread, read option, etc offenses you need athletic and versatile D linemen who can move quickly, move laterally, as well as get to the QB fast on quick pass plays.

The dynamics of the OL in general all across football have been changing for a while, the DL seems to be lagging behind slightly. Which is why I think we see a lot of close games if not surprising wins that don't make a lot of traditional football sense.

The new age offenses and tempos have leveled the playing field. Offensive lines are evolving to be quicker, more athletic to move laterally and in open space. Instead of going right at the meat of the defense, go away from them especially if they are bigger and more talented overall.

Sort of like the three point line and smaller line ups in bball, it gave way for a lot of programs who couldn't pound the rock down low with traditional size an ability to compete and win. The game on the hard wood is also evolving to require more hybrid type athletes that can play multiple positions. There aren't a lot of traditional big bodied PF/Cs anymore.

So yes I think a non traditional Defense may work. Whether that is alignment and scheme or just recruiting differently for the 4-3,3-4. Recruit faster more athletic DEs and or big LBs to play down DT/NTs.

That's what top coaches have been doing on the OL. They'll recruit a handful of quick athletic LTs to play guard and RT. Same goes for pros, load up on good LTs, play them across the line.

So instead of Matt Elam type DTs, recruit more hybrids that have the size and strength to get down and dirty, but also have the athleticism and pop to move and make plays.

 

[Kai Slater]

Brothers, I say, "Let's Do It!!"

What we have going on right now hasn't really been that impactful, so hey, why not? "Why Not UK?"
It worked for HAL MUMME and his UNBELIEVABLE offensive prowess, so let's give a go and see what happens on the defensive side of the ball.

Mumme Ball was so much fun to watch....hahaha
I love it!!! and at least we could be counted on to score big and have some excitement in the game.

 

[CB3UK]

Pull the goalie and shift the outfield.

 

[WildCard]

I'm not sure your 2-5 scheme is the answer ([laughing]). In fact, I have seen UK align in a 4 man front with 2 stand up DEs (i.e., same as OLB); can't remember how many "true" LBs were in that set. However, I totally agree with this particular point...try to create negative (or allow very short) yardage on 1st down. Doing so will produce 2nd and 3rd and long situation from which you can hopefully get off the field.

Jumping your front in and out of different "alignments" may cause an occasional illegal procedure penalty. But there are offensive ways to counter that as well so you can't depend on it every way. From a scouting perspective "know" what your opponent likes to do on 1st down in various parts of the field and game plan against it. We are entering week 4 and "scouting books" for future opponents are pretty well filled up.

It has become apparent that Stoops has a "keep everything in front of you" defensive mindset and this group of players just can't defend the run (#87 YPR allowed; #110 YPG allowed) well enough to that. They are just going to "scout harder" and be willing to take more risks with the defense. JMO.

Peace

 

[LeonThe Camel]

You either have to out-quick, be stronger, anticipate better or have a substantial advantage on some level to be able to use a gimmick defense.

 

[I am stupid]

I say we set up a xbox on the sidelines, and just ask madden every play.

 

[gamecockcat]

My thought was with 5 LBs on the field we would perhaps (and I MEAN perhaps having seen most of UK's LBs thus far) be quicker and be able to disrupt more easily. It's obvious to me that the talent we have in the scheme we're playing is a losing hand. A horrible, losing hand. Put two beefy guys in the A gaps and then surround them with as many athletic quick LB-types as we can find and get after the ball, especially on first and second down. No way it could be worse than what we're seeing right now. Plus, it's got to be easier to recruit 230-250 lb guys vs. 280 lb guys. Missouri seems to always have a couple of 240 lb pass rushers who eat our lunch. I'm just suggesting that it might make sense to have several of those type of guys playing all the time. At least this year when our defense is playing as pitifully as it is currently. I don't see much hope of improvement without radical restructuring.

As far as 'hire a new coach'. Well, that won't work this year for sure. With the buyout, probably not until after next year, either. So, do we just live with it for another season and a half or try something completely out of the box?

 

[UKvisitor_rivals101449]

How about the D players listen to their coaches and play that way? That would be a change.