_FANalysis - Baylor

[kso_FAN]

http://goEMAW.com/blog/?p=394

I tried to capture as much from the Baylor game (combined with the rest of the season) for a look at our defensive struggles.  Much. much more could be addressed on the topic.  And this didn't even look at some of our offensive issues in Waco, and there were some of those as well.

[EllToPay]

http://goEMAW.com/blog/?p=394

I tried to capture as much from the Baylor game (combined with the rest of the season) for a look at our defensive struggles.  Much. much more could be addressed on the topic.  And this didn't even look at some of our offensive issues in Waco, and there were some of those as well.

HFBIQ attempt:

I'm somewhat confident that the D this week won't be as pushed over. Weeden is good, but he's no threat to run the ball. From what I've seen this year from OSU there is no read option, which should help the run defense. Also need to take into account that Blackmon probably won't play. I don't see us giving up more than 35 pts, which should make a W manageable.

[mcmwcat]

 

[steve dave]

_sdAnalysis:
We suck balls and ballsacks and taints on defense.  DT has been wore out since game 4 and is now an average RB.  Our good WRs are all now hurt.  We should forfeit every game from here to NT to make sure we are as healthy as possible and can get that win. 

[kso_FAN]

http://goEMAW.com/blog/?p=394

I tried to capture as much from the Baylor game (combined with the rest of the season) for a look at our defensive struggles.  Much. much more could be addressed on the topic.  And this didn't even look at some of our offensive issues in Waco, and there were some of those as well.

HFBIQ attempt:

I'm somewhat confident that the D this week won't be as pushed over. Weeden is good, but he's no threat to run the ball. From what I've seen this year from OSU there is no read option, which should help the run defense. Also need to take into account that Blackmon probably won't play. I don't see us giving up more than 35 pts, which should make a W manageable.

This is correct.  The fact that Weeden is not a run threat takes a ton of pressure off of our defense, similar to KU.  The problem is OSU has a ton more weapons and a much more effective offense than KU, so we'll still have plenty of work to do to limit big plays.  I agree, if we can be more effective at especially limiting big plays, we have a legitimate chance to beat OSU in Manhattan.  Of course, this is given our offense exploits an OSU defense that isn't very good and we win the special teams battle.

[EllToPay]

http://goEMAW.com/blog/?p=394

I tried to capture as much from the Baylor game (combined with the rest of the season) for a look at our defensive struggles.  Much. much more could be addressed on the topic.  And this didn't even look at some of our offensive issues in Waco, and there were some of those as well.

HFBIQ attempt:

I'm somewhat confident that the D this week won't be as pushed over. Weeden is good, but he's no threat to run the ball. From what I've seen this year from OSU there is no read option, which should help the run defense. Also need to take into account that Blackmon probably won't play. I don't see us giving up more than 35 pts, which should make a W manageable.

This is correct.  The fact that Weeden is not a run threat takes a ton of pressure off of our defense, similar to KU.  The problem is OSU has a ton more weapons and a much more effective offense than KU, so we'll still have plenty of work to do to limit big plays.  I agree, if we can be more effective at especially limiting big plays, we have a legitimate chance to beat OSU in Manhattan.  Of course, this is given our offense exploits an OSU defense that isn't very good and we win the special teams battle.

[kso_FAN]

http://goEMAW.com/blog/?p=394

I tried to capture as much from the Baylor game (combined with the rest of the season) for a look at our defensive struggles.  Much. much more could be addressed on the topic.  And this didn't even look at some of our offensive issues in Waco, and there were some of those as well.

HFBIQ attempt:

I'm somewhat confident that the D this week won't be as pushed over. Weeden is good, but he's no threat to run the ball. From what I've seen this year from OSU there is no read option, which should help the run defense. Also need to take into account that Blackmon probably won't play. I don't see us giving up more than 35 pts, which should make a W manageable.

This is correct.  The fact that Weeden is not a run threat takes a ton of pressure off of our defense, similar to KU.  The problem is OSU has a ton more weapons and a much more effective offense than KU, so we'll still have plenty of work to do to limit big plays.  I agree, if we can be more effective at especially limiting big plays, we have a legitimate chance to beat OSU in Manhattan.  Of course, this is given our offense exploits an OSU defense that isn't very good and we win the special teams battle.

The good thing is we really don't face a running QB in any of our remaining games, and this will help our defense quite a bit.  Granted, all of them have talented RBs and there are some really good WRs, so other problems will be created for our defense, but I do feel a bit better about stopping teams that don't have a duel threat QB. 

Clearly we've proven this scheme and this defense has a ton of trouble with running QBs.  IMHO, some of this is how we defend option/zone read.  With a 4-2-5, most of the time the ILBs and DTs have any inside runs or backside runs, usually the RB on zone read plays.  The DE who is unblocked b/c the offensive tackle veer-releases to the ILB has the QB.  Here is where a big problem with this defense starts IMHO, just like the high safety alignment puts a ton of pressure on those guys, the way we play the QB on zone read puts a lot of pressure on DEs.  Then the safeties are usually assigned to pitch, if there is one (Baylor's bubble route), and again this is tough b/c of their alignment.  Seeing that, you can see that removing the threat of QB/RB options of various types really does releave a ton of pressure from this scheme.

Now, none of this removes the lack of dominant DT/ILB that we need, and our remaining opponents will exploit that.  But hopefully we can limit them to 10-15 yard "big plays" and limit the 30+ yard plays that have destroyed this defense.

[mcmwcat]

do QBs that have running ability also have jedi mind trick ability to turn our safetys into blithering idiots.

[kso_FAN]

do QBs that have running ability also have jedi mind trick ability to turn our safetys into blithering idiots.

In a way, yeah.

[Joker]

Don't get me wrong, _FANalysis does a great job, but I would love to see picture diagrams like the dude on Shaggy Bevo does.  Would really help LFBIQ people like me, and raise the _FANalysis to another level.

That is very well done.  It looks like that poster took screen shots from youtube and brroke down a couple plays, I could do that as well. 

 

[kso_FAN]

Don't get me wrong, _FANalysis does a great job, but I would love to see picture diagrams like the dude on Shaggy Bevo does.  Would really help LFBIQ people like me, and raise the _FANalysis to another level.

That is very well done.  It looks like that poster took screen shots from youtube and brroke down a couple plays, I could do that as well. 

 

This may come later.  My plan is to do this off of youtube, but the only one out there is Baylor's highlight video and most of those shots are too tight to the offensive line to get much out of. 

[catzacker]

do QBs that have running ability also have jedi mind trick ability to turn our safetys into blithering idiots.

this.  griffin ran for 8yds.  

_fan,  can I ask why in the f*ck we didn't go to a zone look against Baylor (or any team where we have no chance to match up from a speed standpoint)?  I mean, their runs weren't to the perimeter, they were between tackles (at least those were the gaps they were supposed to go to, it might have appeared off tackle because our f'ing DE's were getting shoved to the otherside of the line).  We can call it execution, but it's kind of like saying you're going to coach up a man with no arms to throw a baseball.  IMO, it's 1 and 3.  We aren't aligned properly because we shouldn't be in the alignment we're in because we don't have the players to execute it.  

[kso_FAN]

do QBs that have running ability also have jedi mind trick ability to turn our safetys into blithering idiots.

this.  griffin ran for 8yds. 

_fan,  can I ask why in the f*ck we didn't go to a zone look against Baylor (or any team where we have no chance to match up from a speed standpoint)?  I mean, their runs weren't to the perimeter, they were between tackles (at least that's the gap they were supposed to go to, it might have appeared off tackle because our f'ing DE's were getting shoved to the otherside of the line).  We can call it execution, but it's kind of like saying you're going to coach up a man with no arms to throw a baseball.  IMO, it's 1 and 3.  We aren't aligned properly because we shouldn't be in the alignment we're in because we don't have the players to execute it. 

I have no idea why we didn't play more zone coverage.  This is probably the most puzzling thing about that game (and game plan), because while we've ran man coverages some, I can't think of one game where we've been in man for over half of our defense snaps.  I agree it gave Baylor a bunch of match-up advantages and directly led to many of their big plays and scores. 

And alignment vs execution vs personnel; I suppose its just perspective/opinion.  I don't believe there is ANY defense we would be great at, we just don't have enough playmakers on that side of the ball.  But there is no excuse for giving up the number of 30+ yard plays we have this year and the terrible running defense, especially compared to last year's defense.  I agree the scheme is a major problem and it needs to go, but I don't know how much benefit that gives us for this season. 

[catzacker]

I think they saw what NU did against us in a zone look (at least I think we were in zone looks alot with NU) and didn't want that to happen.  IMO, they need to figure out ways to leave LB's in between the hashes or closer to the LOS.  You can roll coverage or safeties w/out getting too far off and then you still have a LB who can, at a minimum, provide someone for a RB to make a cut off of, therefore giving the safeties/corners more time to recover.  And I can't figure out if we were crashing DE's or if they were just getting destroyed.

[kso_FAN]

I think they saw what NU did against us in a zone look (at least I think we were in zone looks alot with NU) and didn't want that to happen.  IMO, they need to figure out ways to leave LB's in between the hashes or closer to the LOS.  You can roll coverage or safeties w/out getting too far off and then you still have a LB who can, at a minimum, provide someone for a RB to make a cut off of, therefore giving the safeties/corners more time to recover.  And I can't figure out if we were crashing DE's or if they were just getting destroyed.

This scheme does not crash DEs very often.  Occasionally they will come down hard on zone runs away from them when there is no QB run threat at them, but mostly they slow play when an offensive lineman veer releases, especially when they have a QB run threat.  If you have absolute beasts at DE, it is a good scheme, but we don't (and I include Harold in this). 

I also agree I'd like to see us play 1 high safety more, and roll the other safety down in coverage, or in run support.  I think we did more of this last year, and both Hartman and Lamur played well in it.  But this year those guys are all messed up trying to play the way we play, especially when you have run support or man coverage on the #3 WR from 15 yards off the LOS.  Again, you need a stud safety who is one heck of an athlete to play that system, and none of those guys fit that IMO.

On Baylor, I think we thought the man coverages would help take away Baylor's bubble and force them to throw something else.  Well, it did take away Bubble for the most part, but then they just beat us on slants, double moves, and play action passes.  Once they started doing that and exploiting us with their running game we had no answer.

[doom]

_Fan,

Should we get rid of Cosh?

[kso_FAN]

_Fan,

Should we get rid of Cosh?

Right now I would lean that direction, but I don't know if doing so midseason would accomplish much.

[doom]

_Fan,

Should we get rid of Cosh?

Right now I would lean that direction, but I don't know if doing so midseason would accomplish much.

Could we get leavitt now if we did?  Wouldn't that be an improvement?  imo it would give our returners time under him for next year.

[kso_FAN]

_Fan,

Should we get rid of Cosh?

Right now I would lean that direction, but I don't know if doing so midseason would accomplish much.

Could we get leavitt now if we did?  Wouldn't that be an improvement?  imo it would give our returners time under him for next year.

I would be for it.  But its unlikely we could hire Leavitt now.  Our best option would probably be to bring him on as a GA or consultant and let the rest of the staff, likely Burns, run the defense with his help.  Plus, you are still dealing with egos, etc. among the staff, and you've got to be careful with that.

Plus you couldn't do a dramatic scheme change now, though you could tweak how we run the 4-2-5.  For example, TCU also is a 4-2-5 scheme, but much more agressive with much more pre/post snap movement, stunts, blitzes etc.  However, the basic reads and assignments are the same, as opposed to a 4-3 or 3-4 or something like that.  There seem to be some (several on GP for example) that seem to think you can just switch from a 4-2-5 to a 4-3 mid-season with no big deal, and that simply is not the case b/c there are different assignments in each defense.  This isn't 3A HS football; there are too many layers, too much termonology, and too many reps and drills done since last spring to teach what we are running.  Switching now would only make the defense worse the rest of this season b/c guys would be thinking about assignments even more, not less, than they are now.  We need guys to get more comfortable and react to what they see and play football, within the scheme.  Even with the number of mistakes we make with that now, a new scheme would not make it any better.

[doom]

_Fan,

Should we get rid of Cosh?

Right now I would lean that direction, but I don't know if doing so midseason would accomplish much.

Could we get leavitt now if we did?  Wouldn't that be an improvement?  imo it would give our returners time under him for next year.

I would be for it.  But its unlikely we could hire Leavitt now.  Our best option would probably be to bring him on as a GA or consultant and let the rest of the staff, likely Burns, run the defense with his help.  Plus, you are still dealing with egos, etc. among the staff, and you've got to be careful with that.

Plus you couldn't do a dramatic scheme change now, though you could tweak how we run the 4-2-5.  For example, TCU also is a 4-2-5 scheme, but much more agressive with much more pre/post snap movement, stunts, blitzes etc.  However, the basic reads and assignments are the same, as opposed to a 4-3 or 3-4 or something like that.  There seem to be some (several on GP for example) that seem to think you can just switch from a 4-2-5 to a 4-3 mid-season with no big deal, and that simply is not the case b/c there are different assignments in each defense.  This isn't 3A HS football; there are too many layers, too much termonology, and too many reps and drills done since last spring to teach what we are running.  Switching now would only make the defense worse the rest of this season b/c guys would be thinking about assignments even more, not less, than they are now.  We need guys to get more comfortable and react to what they see and play football, within the scheme.  Even with the number of mistakes we make with that now, a new scheme would not make it any better.

I wouldn't mind if we fired him if we lose both UT and @CU.  We'd still beat NT and have the same shot at our bowl.  I know we wouldn't change schemes, but just giving the players as much time to adjust to and get to know leavitt could be beneficial imo.

[WillieWatanabe]

welp, my head just exploded with X's and O's.

[MeatSauce]

_Fan: Can CATS score enough to beat OSU?  Are the defenses in the same ballpark of Bad?

[kso_FAN]

_Fan: Can CATS score enough to beat OSU?  Are the defenses in the same ballpark of Bad?

I think so.  I plan to watch a bit of OSU-NU tonight to get a better feel for the Cowboys.

[kougar24]

kougalysis:
Tysyn Hartman and Alex Hrebec take the worst angles of any defensive players in the history of mankind. This is compounded by the fact that the scheme they're in is dumb to begin with, so that when they take said poor angles, there's a gap in the middle of the field the size of Rhode Island. It appears Cosh is terrified of toss sweeps and 15-yard flag patterns, while not as concerned with HB dives or seam/post/slant routes. This is awesome considering the immense popularity of seam/post/slant routes in today's Big 12.

[Lamesauce]

OSU will put up way more than 35 points. They'll throw a bunch of receivers out there and spread the field. Cosh will have our outside linebackers lined up on those slot receivers like we did against baylor. That leaves Hrebek (the slowest linebacker in the Big XII nation to try to plug whatever gap the runningback is running through. He couldn't do it against baylor and Finley. What makes you think he can do it against OSU and Hunter? OSU will be able to name their score. I hope we can put up 28 points or so and make it respectable.