Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !

jmar

  • ****
  • 10644
WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« on: June 01, 2010, 07:35:42 PM »
 
An Explanation of Auburn Football's Fundamental Defensive Strategy
 by Kevin McGrady Written on May 31, 2010 
Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images Many do not realize that Auburn changed both offensive and defensive strategies.

If anything, the change in defensive strategy was the most difficult. It required a basic relearning of fundamentals like tackling technique and approach angles.

Many have questioned Ted Roof’s ability to run the Auburn defense. These people do not understand the necessary shift in basic fundamental defensive philosophy required to support the new offensive strategy.

They also do not comprehend the adjustment required of the players to implement this new philosophy.

When these several factors are added together, they resulted in what seemed to be a lack of respect for the Auburn program by the national media. It really was more of a lack of knowledge about the Auburn program. When some devout Auburn fans are confused, can we expect any less from the national media? 

I have attempted to review every preseason analysis of the Auburn football program. There is little doubt that some were missed; the sheer volume is overwhelming. Most are simple cookie-cutter renditions of the same overall opinion. Very few delve any deeper than simple talent level.

I have yet to read an analysis that details the fundamental change in defensive strategy that is being implemented at Auburn. Many pile accolades on the offensive system, but few actually understand what the system is comprised of.

There is one factor that the media has focused on. Offensive time of possession is a sure and certain downside to the Auburn offense. It is simply so effective and prone to big plays that Auburn will find themselves lacking in this important statistic in many games.

To counter this problem, the defense must change its fundamental strategy. With the tempo of the game intensified by the effectiveness of the offense, as well as the play count, the defense must adapt to survive. A swarming defense simply will not have the strength to make it through an entire game and be effective.

Some would say this is why a team must have depth and rotate players. This is true in one respect, but when you replace a starter with a sub, most of the time there is a decrease in ability on the field. Players must be rotated under normal circumstances; under the extreme circumstances faced in these high-tempo games, the rotation would go one or two players deeper in the depth chart.

This would usually increase the vulnerability of the defense when the ability on the field is of a lesser nature. There is another way to overcome this obstacle. It requires a simple fundamental change in philosophy.

To be an effective defense in a high-tempo game without changing the player rotation, a team must play more wisely. It is a philosophy that was implemented to overcome wishbone and option offenses in the past. A team must play fundamentally sound, disciplined, position defense.

A team simply cannot have players running 40 yards to make plays on a regular basis. No player has the physical stamina to keep this level of play doing such things. A player must know his job and execute flawlessly.

Each player must know where to back up and when to stay at home. This results in an economy of exertion that allows the player to perform at his peak for a longer period in the game. This is fundamentally different from swarming defenses, where every player attacks the ball no matter where it is on the field.

To run a swarming defense, a team must have a good ball control offense. This is not part of the current Auburn offense. Therefore the fundamental strategy had to change on defense as well.

This means each player must learn to take safe effective approach angles that end with a sure tackle that puts the offensive player on the ground. It is better to give up an extra yard than to give up several yards after a missed tackle.

There is not as much help at the point of contact, so a player must be more proficient at avoiding blocks and getting to the ball carrier. Once the defensive player has reached the ball, the effectiveness of getting the ball on the ground (with or without the player) is essential. This takes precedence over headhunting.

This is a big fundamental change for Auburn players that were in the system for a while. It will be much easier for new players coming into the system fresh. If one knows what to look for, it was evident that huge strides forward had been made this spring.

The change in these basic fundamentals will improve the Auburn defense when facing different motion and spread offenses in the future as well. The better the team gets at executing this philosophy, the less Auburn fans will see a team depleted and worn out in the fourth quarter.

The better Auburn players learn their supporting roles, the less mismatches will end in missed tackles and big plays. This has improved dramatically since the spring of 2009.

On top of the fundamental changes in defensive philosophy has come a change in defensive strategy. The two are completely different changes that players have been attempting to absorb.

Auburn fans will see for the first time in 2010 exactly how these new approaches will work. There was simply no way for Auburn players to become proficient in all of the new philosophy in one year. The change should be immediately evident at the start of the 2010 season.
Auburn had an abundance of talent on the 2009 team. The problem was simple numbers. Every team has some very talented players that make the difference and some role players that hold the line. Auburn was lacking in the role players that hold the line.

While these role players do not have to be five-star talents, they must have enough talent to get the job done. Auburn had the playmakers; they simply did not have the supporting cast. That has changed for 2010.

Auburn did not necessarily need more players like Antonio Coleman, Zack Etheridge, Josh Bynes, or Craig Stevens; they needed players talented enough to support these players. This simply wasn’t there for 2009, and it resulted in several unwarranted losses.

The sheer shortage of healthy players combined with the change in fundamental strategy was a huge obstacle for the 2009 Auburn defense to overcome. These dynamics have changed for 2010.

The 2010 Auburn defense is in its second year under the new fundamental strategy. It has been augmented by another very talented freshman class. There are several key players returning from injury.

The Auburn defense will not be perfect in 2010; it doesn’t have to be. It will be much more proficient at getting the ball on the ground. There will be fewer missed tackles and better approach angles in year two.

There will be ample role players as the 2009 class becomes more proficient and the 2010 class begins to contribute. The learning curve for these two classes will be reduced, as they do not need to be retrained.

The difference between the top-ranked defense in 2009 and Auburn was the difference between 3.89 yards per play allowed and 5.15 yards. That is a mere 1.26 yards per play.

Football truly is a game of inches. It does not take a huge improvement in proficiency to reduce that 1.26-yard difference. I think Auburn fans can look forward to a better defensive season no matter what the defensive set is. The players will simply be better at the basic fundamentals.

With the players becoming more proficient with these basic fundamentals, it opens up a wide range of defensive options. Some of these options are speculated on here. While Auburn will still have a smash mouth, punishing defense, a much smarter defense looms on the horizon.

friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

jmar

  • ****
  • 10644
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2010, 08:12:10 PM »
I was under the impression that the Auburn defense had numerous injuries and desperately lacked depth. Come to find out, the second half lethargy and abundance of missed tackles were just symptoms of a changed strategy.
We didn't lack headhunters, we simply lacked a system that would mesh with the no-huddle. We didn't suck! It was a strategy.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2010, 09:27:40 PM »
Where did THAT come from?
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Buzz Killington

  • *
  • 22899
  • Bofa
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2010, 10:49:18 PM »
While not to this extreme, I have been saying this all along.  When Chizik first came in as DC, it took the kids a year and a half before they had the gap control responsibilities down.  If things go according to plan, this year's D should be pretty darn good by mid-season, barring major injuries.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.

The Prowler

  • *
  • 16095
  • Catch Him!
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2010, 04:38:00 AM »
Quote
It is better to give up an extra yard than to give up several yards after a missed tackle.

HOWRSE SHIIIIT!!!!!!
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"Patriotism and popularity are the beaten paths for power and tyranny." Good, no worries about tyranny w/ Trump

"Alabama's Special Teams unit is made up of Special Ed students." - Daniel Tosh

"The HUNH does cause significant Health and Safety issues, Health issues for the opposing fans and Safety issues for the opposing coaches." - AU AD Jay Jacobs

djsimp

  • *
  • 13946
  • Why don't you blow me ump!
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2010, 08:42:42 AM »
It does make sense to me. I mean when your O could be off the field at any moment, much faster then what you're used to, the D has to be fresh as much as possible. When players get tired they get sloppy, as goes for anyone. Watch some UFC or boxing, or any other sport for that matter. Mike Anderson preys on such sloppiness and so does our own OC Malzahn. Along with some major technique training, this D needs a large group of capable bodies. However, I will say that Chizik and his defensive mind will not stray too far from a swarming D, you can bank on that.
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

War Eagle!!!

  • ****
  • 8292
  • The Original Backwards Hat
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 09:42:16 AM »
Personally, I think the whole article is bullshit. Maybe the defense wasn't good because they had to learn new schemes and what not, but the whole "defense has to change because the offense changes" is bullshit to me.
Quote
To run a swarming defense, a team must have a good ball control offense. This is not part of the current Auburn offense. Therefore the fundamental strategy had to change on defense as well.
B U L L S H I T
You can have an aggressive style of defense on the field no matter what kind of offense you have. This whole article just sounds like a bunch of excuses.
Buzz, I agree with you. The defense will be better because of the players are learning the schemes that Roof and Chizik are coaching. Anytime you are having to think on defense, you are in trouble. You need to be comfortable enough where things come by instinct and you are reacting. That is hard to do when learning a new scheme. But this article is crap IMO.

friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

War Eagle!!!

  • ****
  • 8292
  • The Original Backwards Hat
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 09:42:46 AM »
By the way, jmar...did you write this?
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

JR4AU

  • ****
  • 9989
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2010, 10:43:32 AM »
Personally, I think the whole article is bullshit. Maybe the defense wasn't good because they had to learn new schemes and what not, but the whole "defense has to change because the offense changes" is bullshit to me. B U L L S H I T
You can have an aggressive style of defense on the field no matter what kind of offense you have. This whole article just sounds like a bunch of excuses.
Buzz, I agree with you. The defense will be better because of the players are learning the schemes that Roof and Chizik are coaching. Anytime you are having to think on defense, you are in trouble. You need to be comfortable enough where things come by instinct and you are reacting. That is hard to do when learning a new scheme. But this article is crap IMO.



No, your defense must compliment your offense.  And it also must be geared to stop what you see most.  Back in the day of option football, they didn't play swarming defenses...they were forced to gear the scheme towards disciplined assignment football.  This is why the option attack is coming back in to vogue...stopping it goes contrarty to all the "fly the the ball philosophy" you see in so many defenses today.  It's why they keep revamping the option attack, like what we see now out of the Flex Bone a la Ga Tech, and the shotgun/spread option attacks like Oregon's.  These schemes take advantage of overly aggressive defenses. 

However, like you said, some of it was due to learning curve, but no matter the scheme, fundamentals always rule the day...missing tackles won't work no matter what the scheme.  Missing tackles is even worse when you don't have 7-8 guys behind you flying to the ball carrier.  While some of the premise of the article is sound, some of Auburn's defensive woes were due simply to poor tackling.  I'm told (and don't know if it's reliable or not) that Roof teaches tackling the ball...stripping the ball being a first priority.  A strategy not unlike Auburn's offense big play philosophy where it's ok to give up some yardage, and even some points, IF you can net a plus turn over ratio and get short fields and more possession for your offense, or cheap points on defense.  Make no mistake, Auburn folks are not used to seeing this type of football philosopy.  If everythere were to work exactly as planned, Auburn would be winning games scoring 40+ points while still giving up 24-30 points. 

Chizik has run defenses in both the SEC defensive minded league, and the Big 12 where they play defense more like what's being described here...because they do run these types of offenses.  Will it fly here?  We shall see.  Personally I don't care if we run the Wing T and suffocating defense winning every game 10-0, or the spread and bend but don't break defense winning every game 42-38...as long as we win every game, I'll be happy.

Long and short of it is...while there's some merit to the article, we were short on depth of talent on defense, and at time played poor fundamentals.  Add some talent, and tackle well, and we'll be just fine, scheme be damned.   
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Snaggletiger

  • *
  • 44563
  • My Fighting Pearls
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2010, 11:12:44 AM »
I found most of the article to be possum excrement as well.  Like JR said at the last, our defense suxed because we had little talent or depth and we tackled like 4th grade school girls.  Auburn had no push up the middle and were grossly undersized compared to most other SEC D-Lines.  Offenses rarely picked on McFadden and paid most times when they did.  Soooo...they consistently torched Neiko.  Anyone who watched the Spring game on TV saw the telecast start with a replay of one play from the Northwestern game.  9 players from defense, 3 from the offense, one assistant swimming coach and 2 of the faster female cheerleaders had a shot at one slow white boy running 80 yards in a straight line.  Nada, whiff, nope, jock strap, woops, hey now...  The problems had shit to do with schemes.  However, I did harp all year on why they refused to blitz or show anything other than their basic set in every game, every situation...until the Bama game.  The defense needs talent, size and numbers...and then a refresher course in Pursuit and Tackling 101.   
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
My doctor told me I needed to stop masturbating.  I asked him why, and he said, "because I'm trying to examine you."

JR4AU

  • ****
  • 9989
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2010, 11:33:08 AM »
I found most of the article to be possum excrement as well.  Like JR said at the last, our defense suxed because we had little talent or depth and we tackled like 4th grade school girls.  Auburn had no push up the middle and were grossly undersized compared to most other SEC D-Lines.  Offenses rarely picked on McFadden and paid most times when they did.  Soooo...they consistently torched Neiko.  Anyone who watched the Spring game on TV saw the telecast start with a replay of one play from the Northwestern game.  9 players from defense, 3 from the offense, one assistant swimming coach and 2 of the faster female cheerleaders had a shot at one slow white boy running 80 yards in a straight line.  Nada, whiff, nope, jock strap, woops, hey now...  The problems had shit to do with schemes.  However, I did harp all year on why they refused to blitz or show anything other than their basic set in every game, every situation...until the Bama game.  The defense needs talent, size and numbers...and then a refresher course in Pursuit and Tackling 101.   

We didn't have a single NG/DT last year that was really an SEC level NG/DT.  Our middle was very soft. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

wesfau2

  • ***
  • 13865
  • I love it when you call me Big Poppa
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2010, 11:37:28 AM »
  Our middle was very soft. 

Why am I soft in the middle
The rest of my life is so hard
I need a photo-opportunity
I want a shot at redemption
Don't want to end up a cartoon
In a cartoon graveyard
Bonedigger Bonedigger
Dogs in the moonlight
Far away my well-lit door
Mr. Beerbelly Beerbelly
Get these mutts away from me
You know I don't find this stuff amusing anymore
If you'll be my bodyguard
I can be your long lost pal
I can call you Betty
And Betty when you call me
You can call me Al
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
You can keep a wooden stake in your trunk
On the off-chance that the fairy tales ain't bunk
And Imma keep a bottle of that funk
To get motel parking lot, balcony crunk.

JR4AU

  • ****
  • 9989
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2010, 11:48:36 AM »

Why am I soft in the middle
The rest of my life is so hard
I need a photo-opportunity
I want a shot at redemption
Don't want to end up a cartoon
In a cartoon graveyard
Bonedigger Bonedigger
Dogs in the moonlight
Far away my well-lit door
Mr. Beerbelly Beerbelly
Get these mutts away from me
You know I don't find this stuff amusing anymore
If you'll be my bodyguard
I can be your long lost pal
I can call you Betty
And Betty when you call me
You can call me Al


Words to live by!
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

War Eagle!!!

  • ****
  • 8292
  • The Original Backwards Hat
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2010, 11:55:58 AM »
Verbose writing from JR4AU   

I think you missed the point of the article. The article is saying we sucked on defense because we changed offenses. You first agreed with it, but then gave 100 examples of the defense changing because of what it will see most from other teams.

I still think that this article is crap and the defense sucking had nothing to do with Malzahn changing the offense...which is the premise of this whole article...
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

JR4AU

  • ****
  • 9989
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2010, 12:18:22 PM »
I think you missed the point of the article. The article is saying we sucked on defense because we changed offenses. You first agreed with it, but then gave 100 examples of the defense changing because of what it will see most from other teams.

I still think that this article is crap and the defense sucking had nothing to do with Malzahn changing the offense...which is the premise of this whole article...

No, it said we changed defensive philosophy to compliment our offensive philosophy, and that we sucked because of A: the learning curve, AND B: lack of depth of talent.  You're free to think what you want, but there's some merit to the basis of the article about complimentary schemes.  However, the bottom line is always talent, then coaching of same.  Scheme matters, but not as much as many think.  Fans like to talk a lot about schemes, and what they see on the field...few really know much about what they're seeing or the coaching of it. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

War Eagle!!!

  • ****
  • 8292
  • The Original Backwards Hat
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2010, 12:23:08 PM »
Fans like to talk a lot about schemes, and what they see on the field...few really know much about what they're seeing or the coaching of it. 

I am sure you will tell us how much you know about it though...

I, however, don't know shit...never really played...or have never been around much coaching...
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

JR4AU

  • ****
  • 9989
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2010, 12:28:48 PM »
I am sure you will tell us how much you know about it though...

I, however, don't know shit...never really played...or have never been around much coaching...

Well, I don't know a lot about coaching defense, or anything about coaching at that level.  I know something about offensive schemes.   It sounds to me from the tone of your post, that you'd prefer to remain ignorant, or at the very least would like to cling to your own notions about it without any actual evaluation by someone who does know something about it getting in the way of your notions. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

War Eagle!!!

  • ****
  • 8292
  • The Original Backwards Hat
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2010, 12:33:52 PM »
Well, I don't know a lot about coaching defense, or anything about coaching at that level.  I know something about offensive schemes.   It sounds to me from the tone of your post, that you'd prefer to remain ignorant, or at the very least would like to cling to your own notions about it without any actual evaluation by someone who does know something about it getting in the way of your notions. 

How did you get that opinion of me from my post? Or are you talking to let us know how smart you are again?
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

JR4AU

  • ****
  • 9989
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2010, 12:36:33 PM »
How did you get that opinion of me from my post? Or are you talking to let us know how smart you are again?

Your first line in he post I quoted, but it's often hard to get tone from an internet post.  I'll remain silent on it...I'm sure I'm not smart enough to talk about it. 
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

War Eagle!!!

  • ****
  • 8292
  • The Original Backwards Hat
Re: WE CHANGED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY !
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2010, 12:56:22 PM »
Your first line in he post I quoted, but it's often hard to get tone from an internet post.  I'll remain silent on it...I'm sure I'm not smart enough to talk about it. 

You pretty much said that most fans are dumb asses, but you know what you are talking about....so I said I would shut up and let you talk, because you like to let people know how smart you are. You probably got the tone right, but it was your assumptions and comprehension that fucked you all up...
friendly
0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions