Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sulser as a CB

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sulser as a CB

    Would Hauck ever consider putting Sulser on the field as a corner? Is he durable at his size to be a 2 way player or would he even want to play both ways? Saw a tweet of his 110 state hurdles and that kid can fly. We need that speed on the field as much as possible in my honest opinion.


  • #2
    I'm hoping an actually intelligent scheme on D helps our secondary. Not sure about putting Sulser on D, but Bobby may want to ride the JLM train as much as he can so who knows.

    effective pressure from the front 4 would help alleviate a TON of issues with the secondary imo

    Comment


    • #3
      From my perspective, if a person were to go on what I have been hearing, then I would say this:

      1. The new system won’t at times look all that different from the old system. Lots of varied pressure, with little stand alone front pressure. Neither of the rumored schemes are big on front only pressures, and both are traditionally big on disruption of run and pass lanes through targeted pressure.

      2. The secondary is where the most visible change will be. Both of the rumored systems value different type of play at corner and it remains to be seen whether the current CB group is ideally suited for either. What I do have a good sense for, is that the coverage schemes of both are less likely to isolate corners and cover safety’s with blitz dictated coverages.

      From a transitional standpoint, to me the slot corner or the safety development (with either scheme) is probably more vital to success. I don’t have a real sense as to how the group of safeties fit into the alignment. I could see a ton of vascilation between the four or five safeties and the two to four safety like positions that either defense could run.

      Comment


      • #4
        The d-line must step up this year and at least interrupt the passing lanes if not pressure the pocket. They are suppose to be a deep group and must take something away from the offense.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Grizfan-24 View Post
          From my perspective, if a person were to go on what I have been hearing, then I would say this:

          1. The new system won’t at times look all that different from the old system. Lots of varied pressure, with little stand alone front pressure. Neither of the rumored schemes are big on front only pressures, and both are traditionally big on disruption of run and pass lanes through targeted pressure.

          2. The secondary is where the most visible change will be. Both of the rumored systems value different type of play at corner and it remains to be seen whether the current CB group is ideally suited for either. What I do have a good sense for, is that the coverage schemes of both are less likely to isolate corners and cover safety’s with blitz dictated coverages.

          From a transitional standpoint, to me the slot corner or the safety development (with either scheme) is probably more vital to success. I don’t have a real sense as to how the group of safeties fit into the alignment. I could see a ton of vascilation between the four or five safeties and the two to four safety like positions that either defense could run.
          Systems mean little. Football is really a simple game, involving blocking, tackling, and assignment execution. If we have the athletes in the secondary like we used to put on the field, it will not matter which defensive scheme we run. What has been painfully lacking the past 6-7 years is a solid pass rush. The jobs in the secondary are made much easier with pressure on the QB, and we have lacked the difference-makers on the D-line for several years now.

          Comment


          • #6
            . I don’t disagree on the idea that we haven’t had as much talent as we would have liked to have thought, but at the same time these new age offenses have asked coordinators and DL coaches to reconsider their philosophy on how to deploy DL.

            Spread offenses marginalize the DL. Whether it is zone scheme or quick passing attacks, it is hard for the DL to have a consistent and measured impact in the way that we might have expected. In some ways DL guys have to invert general philosophies between DT’s and DE’s. You want your DE’s to be more of a holding the line type of guy, whereas more and more schemes ask DT’s to get as much depth as possible. Which is why more and more you see recruited DE’s slid down to DT’s and LB’s slid to DE.

            I prefer the 4-2-5 because of its positional flexibility, and its schematic utility, but one of the the reasons many college guys prefer the 3-3-5 or the like is the disruptive philosophy of the DL.They want long athletic types at DE, capable of moving gaps and attacking windows. A nightmare for zone scheme teams to block effectively. Long’s defense at SDSU has been as good as any in the Mountain West over the past few years at handling the spread.

            I think you are right that we need difference makers on the DL, but I think to get maximized impact out of DL I think has put a premium on getting a scheme that brings out the best in that personnel. I am not necessarily convinced that we have had that in either Gregorak or Semore at a consistent level over the past 6 years. Remains to be seen if Baer and the new scheme can free up the DL to be far more consistent and impactful than they have been as a group.


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Grizfan-24 View Post
              . I don’t disagree on the idea that we haven’t had as much talent as we would have liked to have thought, but at the same time these new age offenses have asked coordinators and DL coaches to reconsider their philosophy on how to deploy DL.

              Spread offenses marginalize the DL. Whether it is zone scheme or quick passing attacks, it is hard for the DL to have a consistent and measured impact in the way that we might have expected. In some ways DL guys have to invert general philosophies between DT’s and DE’s. You want your DE’s to be more of a holding the line type of guy, whereas more and more schemes ask DT’s to get as much depth as possible. Which is why more and more you see recruited DE’s slid down to DT’s and LB’s slid to DE.

              I prefer the 4-2-5 because of its positional flexibility, and its schematic utility, but one of the the reasons many college guys prefer the 3-3-5 or the like is the disruptive philosophy of the DL.They want long athletic types at DE, capable of moving gaps and attacking windows. A nightmare for zone scheme teams to block effectively. Long’s defense at SDSU has been as good as any in the Mountain West over the past few years at handling the spread.

              I think you are right that we need difference makers on the DL, but I think to get maximized impact out of DL I think has put a premium on getting a scheme that brings out the best in that personnel. I am not necessarily convinced that we have had that in either Gregorak or Semore at a consistent level over the past 6 years. Remains to be seen if Baer and the new scheme can free up the DL to be far more consistent and impactful than they have been as a group.

              Agreed. I’ve never understood the reluctance of defensive coordinators to change to more flexible defenses. The 4-3 was Tom Landry’s design to handle offenses from the 1950’s...yes I said the 1950’s.
              The 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 are defenses designed to put players where they are needed against modern offenses. What I’m curious to see is whether or not we have the athletes to run it. I’m also curious to see how the defense will react when we play teams with offenses like Cal Poly or NDSU.
              Last edited by Robgriz; 06-07-2018, 09:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                3-4 still dominating with the right players. See Wisconsin, Bama, LSU to some degree

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Robgriz View Post

                  Agreed. I’ve never understood the reluctance of defensive coordinators to change to more flexible defenses. The 4-3 was Tom Landry’s design to handle offenses from the 1950’s...yes I said the 1950’s.
                  The 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 are defenses designed to put players where they are needed against modern offenses. What I’m curious to see is whether or not we have the athletes to run it. I’m also curious to see how the defense will react when we play teams with offenses like Cal Poly or NDSU.

                  Great game that brings up the effectiveness of the 4-2 vs a power run team= TCU vs Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. Back when TCU was MWC and they actually cared about defense.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    To be honest I don't think it was as much about whether they cared or not, so many teams struggled on how to intially handle TCU flex position players. Plus Patterson had supreme talent at DE, strong safety and weak safety, better than the MWC as a whole. I think that talent distribution has leveled out in there current position.

                    You can't game the 4-2-5 in the same way you can positionally and formationally game a 4-3, 3-4 or a traditional 4-4. Teams struggled to adapt on how to call run plays and block people appropriately and on top of that for two or three years teams struggled to attack the middle half because they couldn't read the safety's right.

                    As more teams go to the flex defense philosophy, I think you are seeing the natural adjustment by offenses on how to attack it. You have to lock certain positions in, to force them to align to the offense that creates reasonably predictable actions by the defense. Not as easy as it sounds, but one of the reasons you see more and more veer like RPO action is you are creating a locked box of 7 or 8 players. They get a bit more predictable when you can no longer unhinge the DE, SS and WS.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To me, running anything other for your base defense than a 4-3, or 3-4 is stupid. This is why all of the great college (and NFL) teams run these two. The others being discussed are nothing more than feeble attempts to neutralize the preponderance of pass-first spread offenses. But, astute D-coordinators understand that stopping the running game, thus making the offense one-dimensional is the formula for success. If a defense employs either a 4-3, or 3-4 as their base defense, they utilize the nickel and dime packages as situational adaptations during passing downs. again, stopping the run should be every defense's primary objective, and the defenses discussed above are weak at doing that.

                      If you want to emulate a great defense, look no further than NDSU. The Bison are not into gimmicks, and never worry about the type of offense they are facing. They focus on having superior athletes, great execution, and stopping the run. Teams passing the ball 50+ times per game will never beat the Bison. We should take note of this.
                      Last edited by growler; 07-31-2018, 10:00 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't disagree. There is a reason the 4-3 works. I just think from my perspective if you want to be a cover 2 team, you are going to have to make some incredible concessions in the college game to have some fidelity to its rules. The much of the college game is so different from the NFL, and even the SEC, that few coaches defensively have found a happy medium in the Cover 2 philosophy. I'd be a 4-3 guy honestly and would continue to run it but I honestly like the flexibility of the 4-2-5 and how well it works for adjustments. Found in recent years with the 3-4 and to a lesser degree the 4-3 that even at the high school level it was getting harder and harder to remain in base packages. If you can find a way to remain base and stay in the 4-3, your life is good.

                        I can see why more and more teams prefer a 30 front (ten years ago you couldn't have paid me a million bucks to run a 30 front) because of the positional flexibility. One of the reasons I prefer the 4-2-5, is that I like that it uses and leans heavily on some 4-3 concepts, versus the 3-3 or 3-5 which at least at the high school level is a bit too heavily depended on the right personnel. Excellent spread defense at the college level. Super flexible, but heavily dependent on personnel.

                        It'll be interesting to see how Baer oversees the transition. My sense it is going to be a version of the 3-3, and we might see a ton of player movement within the season to fill those flex positions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by growler View Post
                          To me, running anything other for your base defense than a 4-3, or 3-4 is stupid. This is why all of the great college (and NFL) teams run these two. The others being discussed are nothing more than feeble attempts to neutralize the preponderance of pass-first spread offenses. But, astute D-coordinators understand that stopping the running game, thus making the offense one-dimensional is the formula for success. If a defense employs either a 4-3, or 3-4 as their base defense, they utilize the nickel and dime packages as situational adaptations during passing downs. again, stopping the run should be every defense's primary objective, and the defenses discussed above are weak at doing that.

                          If you want to emulate a great defense, look no further than NDSU. The Bison are not into gimmicks, and never worry about the type of offense they are facing. They focus on having superior athletes, great execution, and stopping the run. Teams passing the ball 50+ times per game will never beat the Bison. We should take note of this.
                          3-4 isn't far off from a 4-2-5 anyways from my perspective. Get's more speed on the field, one by adding an additional linebacker, the other via a safety/lb hybrid.

                          I am just not sure we have the stud DT's to run a 3-4, otherwise that would be the defense I'd like to see the Griz run. See Bama, LSU and Wisconsin.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X