Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: The Six on January 03, 2012, 11:32:42 AM
-
I would be really surprised if either was a name any of us had read anywhere prior to the announcement. I base this on Chizik's complete distaste for media of all types. I don't think there are good leads being fed to the media so if you "hear" something from someone who covers Auburn, I would assume that's smokescreen for the most part. In the end, it probably won't be people most of us have ever heard of.
I'm still not sure what direction the offense is going. Think about it from the outside for a second. What are Auburn's strengths on offense going into next year? Answer: one good WR, one good TE who is a team player, and some interesting talent at RB. The biggest question marks are offensive line (we simply don't know how good or not good they will be) and quarterback (no one can honestly say they have any idea who is in the lead going into spring practice). OL appears to have promise based on recruiting and assuming Grimes would be a part of the next plan (though remember OCs often want to bring in people and line is a big issue - see Nall vs. Franklin 2008). Auburn's had solid line play and has put OLs in the NFL for years so being able to attract that isn't a big issue I'd think. QB is another story. You can look at 2011 a couple of ways. Either Trotter and Moseley really were close and that's why they proved to be virtually interchangeable in the end and Frazier's arm just hasn't come around or the previous regimes idea of QB development was running them through a lot of drills waiting for something good to emerge which never really did on a consistent basis. Either way, and OC who can develop and recruit at the QB position would be high on the wish list I would think.
As for DC, we all know where the major deficiencies lie. Auburn needs a difference maker at MLB in the 4-3 scheme (every 4-3 team does) and they need more consistent play from the DBs. Personally, I'd like to see Auburn "attack" more on defense instead of the "ready react" defense that's been favored the past three seasons.
My thoughts. What are yours?
-
I just hope we get a great recruiter in at OC. Not to attract new kids, his biggest recruiting coups this year would be convincing Blake, Lutzy, and O-Mac to hang around for another season.
-
I just hope we get a great recruiter in at OC. Not to attract new kids, his biggest recruiting coups this year would be convincing Blake, Lutzy, and O-Mac to hang around for another season.
And get Eric Smith to come back.
Wait...what?
-
I would be really surprised if either was a name any of us had read anywhere prior to the announcement. I base this on Chizik's complete distaste for media of all types. I don't think there are good leads being fed to the media so if you "hear" something from someone who covers Auburn, I would assume that's smokescreen for the most part. In the end, it probably won't be people most of us have ever heard of.
I'm still not sure what direction the offense is going. Think about it from the outside for a second. What are Auburn's strengths on offense going into next year? Answer: one good WR, one good TE who is a team player, and some interesting talent at RB. The biggest question marks are offensive line (we simply don't know how good or not good they will be) and quarterback (no one can honestly say they have any idea who is in the lead going into spring practice). OL appears to have promise based on recruiting and assuming Grimes would be a part of the next plan (though remember OCs often want to bring in people and line is a big issue - see Nall vs. Franklin 2008). Auburn's had solid line play and has put OLs in the NFL for years so being able to attract that isn't a big issue I'd think. QB is another story. You can look at 2011 a couple of ways. Either Trotter and Moseley really were close and that's why they proved to be virtually interchangeable in the end and Frazier's arm just hasn't come around or the previous regimes idea of QB development was running them through a lot of drills waiting for something good to emerge which never really did on a consistent basis. Either way, and OC who can develop and recruit at the QB position would be high on the wish list I would think.
As for DC, we all know where the major deficiencies lie. Auburn needs a difference maker at MLB in the 4-3 scheme (every 4-3 team does) and they need more consistent play from the DBs. Personally, I'd like to see Auburn "attack" more on defense instead of the "ready react" defense that's been favored the past three seasons.
My thoughts. What are yours?
Has there been an actual sourced story reporting any name, for either position, that has actually been interviewed?
-
I heard Chizik was still going to coach the defense and in an effort to make up the remaining money from taking the HC job at Arky State. Gus will be running the offense via a payphone just outside of Jonesboro.
-
I heard Chizik was still going to coach the defense and in an effort to make up the remaining money from taking the HC job at Arky State. Gus will be running the offense via a payphone just outside of Jonesboro.
So, he started early when he phoned in the Iron Bowl?
-
So, he started early when he phoned in the Iron Bowl?
You complete me
-
So, he started early when he phoned in the Iron Bowl?
hussle...ur doin' it rite
-
I would be really surprised if either was a name any of us had read anywhere prior to the announcement. I base this on Chizik's complete distaste for media of all types. I don't think there are good leads being fed to the media so if you "hear" something from someone who covers Auburn, I would assume that's smokescreen for the most part. In the end, it probably won't be people most of us have ever heard of.
I'm still not sure what direction the offense is going. Think about it from the outside for a second. What are Auburn's strengths on offense going into next year? Answer: one good WR, one good TE who is a team player, and some interesting talent at RB. The biggest question marks are offensive line (we simply don't know how good or not good they will be) and quarterback (no one can honestly say they have any idea who is in the lead going into spring practice). OL appears to have promise based on recruiting and assuming Grimes would be a part of the next plan (though remember OCs often want to bring in people and line is a big issue - see Nall vs. Franklin 2008). Auburn's had solid line play and has put OLs in the NFL for years so being able to attract that isn't a big issue I'd think. QB is another story. You can look at 2011 a couple of ways. Either Trotter and Moseley really were close and that's why they proved to be virtually interchangeable in the end and Frazier's arm just hasn't come around or the previous regimes idea of QB development was running them through a lot of drills waiting for something good to emerge which never really did on a consistent basis. Either way, and OC who can develop and recruit at the QB position would be high on the wish list I would think.
As for DC, we all know where the major deficiencies lie. Auburn needs a difference maker at MLB in the 4-3 scheme (every 4-3 team does) and they need more consistent play from the DBs. Personally, I'd like to see Auburn "attack" more on defense instead of the "ready react" defense that's been favored the past three seasons.
My thoughts. What are yours?
I have only heard a few names thrown out by fans and one report on the radio that Stoops got a raise to stay at FSU. I like McCall and Casteel. McCall because we have spread personnel on offense with even more speed than he is used to; he likes a QB run/pass threat and vertical game, plus his TE/HB catches a boatload (49) of passes.He utilizes everyone and we can still keep our bread and butter run plays w/o a hitch. He's not a bubble screen freak nor air raid and he puts out consistently good showings with less fanfare and is a steal.
Casteel runs a 3-3-5. Might not be Chizik's cup of tea but the guy gets results year in and out. They seldom get embarrassed and generally have a high sack rate and stingy with points. He is known for second half shutouts. Richrod is trying to lure him away. He's not known as a recruiter, so I've read.
I don't want to go the way of Florida on offense and only know the defense needs an overhaul, just an amateur wish list from a fan that wants to keep the positive energy of the Chicken Bowl going, tutoring and development required.
-
McCall because we have spread personnel on offense...
Maybe at WR but I think Auburn is at the perfect time to switch if they want to. The OL and RBs could play in many offenses. The QBs...well, that's another story. But I don't think Auburn is so far down the road in recruiting that they are locked into the spread offense philosophy. Not yet.
-
I have only heard a few names thrown out by fans and one report on the radio that Stoops got a raise to stay at FSU. I like McCall and Casteel. McCall because we have spread personnel on offense with even more speed than he is used to; he likes a QB run/pass threat and vertical game, plus his TE/HB catches a boatload (49) of passes.He utilizes everyone and we can still keep our bread and butter run plays w/o a hitch. He's not a bubble screen freak nor air raid and he puts out consistently good showings with less fanfare and is a steal.
Casteel runs a 3-3-5. Might not be Chizik's cup of tea but the guy gets results year in and out. They seldom get embarrassed and generally have a high sack rate and stingy with points. He is known for second half shutouts. Richrod is trying to lure him away. He's not known as a recruiter, so I've read.
I don't want to go the way of Florida on offense and only know the defense needs an overhaul, just an amateur wish list from a fan that wants to keep the positive energy of the Chicken Bowl going, tutoring and development required.
You can have that 3-3-5. In the SEC it would spell disaster. Think about it.
-
You can have that 3-3-5. In the SEC it would spell disaster. Think about it.
LSU had zero issue moving against it. I can think of a few other teams that would shred that as well.
Again I think the defensive issues are more along the "attack" vs. "read/react" philosophy.
-
LSU had zero issue moving against it. I can think of a few other teams that would shred that as well.
Again I think the defensive issues are more along the "attack" vs. "read/react" philosophy.
It plays right into the hands of a traditional offense or pro style. Rich Rod ran it at WVU "ok". How did it do at Michigan where they play more traditional style Foosball in the Big 10+1+1? Well, x 10 for the SEC.
From 2010:
The Wolverines have let everyone go this season. They rank 112th out of 120 schools in total defense, allowing a mind-boggling 445.2 yards of offense per game.
“I'm not a big fan of the scheme because there are a lot of bubble areas to run. They're not gap-sound. They make a lot of mental errors. I think some of it is youth.", Chris Speilman said.
The 3-3-5 defense brought to Michigan by Rich Rodriguez and now coached by defensive coordinator Greg Robinson has been a disaster this season. Robinson was seen rubbing stuffed animals on his defensive players Saturday as the Wolverines allows Wisconsin to rush for 357 yards and six touchdowns in a 48-28 win at the Big House in Ann Arbor.
"You have a team like Wisconsin that can line up and run the ball 34 out of 35 plays, 24 or 25 straight times down your throat and you know they're not changing and you can do absolutely nothing to stop it."
-
It plays right into the hands of a traditional offense or pro style. Rich Rod ran it at WVU "ok". How did it do at Michigan where they play more traditional style Foosball in the Big 10+1+1? Well, x 10 for the SEC.
From 2010:
And with a change in scheme to the 4-3, that same defense (8 returning starters) went from 112th to 17th. I totally agree with everything you've said.
-
Fantasy choice. Jeff Fisher decides to spend the next four years closer to his son Trent???????
-
Fantasy choice. Jeff Fisher decides to spend the next four years closer to his son Trent???????
He'll either be in Miami or St Louis next year.
-
He'll either be in Miami or St Louis next year.
I didn't say it would happen. But as my fantasy choice, that would be some pretty cool stuff right there.
We would dominate the media for a while.
-
And with a change in scheme to the 4-3, that same defense (8 returning starters) went from 112th to 17th. I totally agree with everything you've said.
Yeah, having a front '6' doesn't appeal to me or most SEC coaches. 4-3 = tried and true.
-
Yeah, having a front '6' doesn't appeal to me or most SEC coaches. 4-3 = tried and true.
The whole idea of the 3-3-5 is to have 8 men threatening the box. Against sets like we saw from LSU and bammer, it would be an 8 man box, not 6. The basic premise of the defense is to bring pressure from lots of different positions, confusing OL assignments. Even when you only bring 4, they never know who that 4th one is.
The Spurs (the guys that play the hybrid Safety/OLB position in the 3-3-5) would have to be absolute studs, able to tackle like a LB, and play coverage like a nickle back. If they can't, then you're screwed. So, for instance Lemonier would be relegated to playing head up an OT, and playing more like a DT than a pass rushing DE because you can't ask him to cover a WR. Bates would be the closest thing we had to a spur.
It's a risk vs reward defense, that will give up big plays, but hopes that they're more offset by the negative plays it causes due to confused blocking schemes. Also, a good OC can use formations to put your spurs in a bind and force them to be cover guys only then run to that side to take advantage of the weakness, or force the DC to have to bring the FS down to cover a man so the spurs can play closer to the box. They can also formation you out of the 3-3 stack, and that hurts the slanting and blitzing aspect that is the base of the defense. The DL and LBs are constantly slanting and blitzing. If you guess wrong on where to bring the pressure from, you essentially eliminate the LB you blitzed from the play.
I don't like it. It's so far and away different from what Chiz does, I can't see him going this route.
-
The whole idea of the 3-3-5 is to have 8 men threatening the box. Against sets like we saw from LSU and bammer, it would be an 8 man box, not 6. The basic premise of the defense is to bring pressure from lots of different positions, confusing OL assignments. Even when you only bring 4, they never know who that 4th one is.
The Spurs (the guys that play the hybrid Safety/OLB position in the 3-3-5) would have to be absolute studs, able to tackle like a LB, and play coverage like a nickle back. If they can't, then you're screwed. So, for instance Lemonier would be relegated to playing head up an OT, and playing more like a DT than a pass rushing DE because you can't ask him to cover a WR. Bates would be the closest thing we had to a spur.
It's a risk vs reward defense, that will give up big plays, but hopes that they're more offset by the negative plays it causes due to confused blocking schemes. Also, a good OC can use formations to put your spurs in a bind and force them to be cover guys only then run to that side to take advantage of the weakness, or force the DC to have to bring the FS down to cover a man so the spurs can play closer to the box. They can also formation you out of the 3-3 stack, and that hurts the slanting and blitzing aspect that is the base of the defense. The DL and LBs are constantly slanting and blitzing. If you guess wrong on where to bring the pressure from, you essentially eliminate the LB you blitzed from the play.
I don't like it. It's so far and away different from what Chiz does, I can't see him going this route.
Interesting breakdown. Never read much on that 3-3-5 so thanks for providing. Very intriguing.
You know what I want on defense? One that kicks the other team's butt. The end. They can line up in the 1-6-4 for all I care just kick some butt.
-
I liked the 1-10 defense we had in 2010.
-
The whole idea of the 3-3-5 is to have 8 men threatening the box. Against sets like we saw from LSU and bammer, it would be an 8 man box, not 6. The basic premise of the defense is to bring pressure from lots of different positions, confusing OL assignments. Even when you only bring 4, they never know who that 4th one is.
The Spurs (the guys that play the hybrid Safety/OLB position in the 3-3-5) would have to be absolute studs, able to tackle like a LB, and play coverage like a nickle back. If they can't, then you're screwed. So, for instance Lemonier would be relegated to playing head up an OT, and playing more like a DT than a pass rushing DE because you can't ask him to cover a WR. Bates would be the closest thing we had to a spur.
It's a risk vs reward defense, that will give up big plays, but hopes that they're more offset by the negative plays it causes due to confused blocking schemes. Also, a good OC can use formations to put your spurs in a bind and force them to be cover guys only then run to that side to take advantage of the weakness, or force the DC to have to bring the FS down to cover a man so the spurs can play closer to the box. They can also formation you out of the 3-3 stack, and that hurts the slanting and blitzing aspect that is the base of the defense. The DL and LBs are constantly slanting and blitzing. If you guess wrong on where to bring the pressure from, you essentially eliminate the LB you blitzed from the play.
I don't like it. It's so far and away different from what Chiz does, I can't see him going this route.
The key piece is "threatening" the box. Not "in" the box. The base set of it is 6 in the box thus it's name. You are right though, it is risk/reward but from what I have seen it do against decent teams, it seems to be more risk than reward. Good teams with good OL's will be able to adjust. Especially if they also have a decent WR that can burn someone in one on one coverage and the QB is bright enough to recognize it quickly.
-
Interesting breakdown. Never read much on that 3-3-5 so thanks for providing. Very intriguing.
You know what I want on defense? One that kicks the other team's butt. The end. They can line up in the 1-6-4 for all I care just kick some butt.
From what I remember it was a DC at Washington State that first started running the 3-3-5. The head coach asked him if the defense would be better next year and the DC said not unless they changed something drastic since it would be the same players running the same schemes as the year before. So the HC told him to try something drastic.
Really it is just a version of an old school 3-5 that has been used since guys wore leather helmets.
-
I think it's a given that the 3-3-5 requires slanting of the main 2-guard while the linebacker keys on the tight end read. But, that can only be effective if the corners, which in this defense are really hybrid end strikers, recognize the split in zone and off-pressure coverage. You don't necessarily need big linebackers to fill the mesh as long as a quick weakside safety is consistent with his kick outs.
It's a fairly simple concept but I wouldn't trust a walk on to call it.
-
Really it is just a version of an old school 3-5 that has been used since guys wore leather helmets.
My high school ran what our coaches called the Split Defense (4-4-3) because nearly every team we played was running the Wing-T, the Wishbone, or the power I. I can count on one hand the number of teams I saw in four years that every lined up with more than 3 WRs or in the shotgun and one of those teams was my high school who ran a version of what the Bobby Ross Chargers were running at the time.
-
My high school ran what our coaches called the Split Defense (4-4-3) because nearly every team we played was running the Wing-T, the Wishbone, or the power I. I can count on one hand the number of teams I saw in four years that every lined up with more than 3 WRs or in the shotgun and one of those teams was my high school who ran a version of what the Bobby Ross Chargers were running at the time.
We just called that the 4-4 stack and it was our base defense. The two meanest motherfuckers on our team were the MLBs.
-
We just called that the 4-4 stack and it was our base defense. The two meanest motherfuckers on our team were the MLBs.
Stack. That's the word I couldn't remember. Thanks. Yes, two baddest dudes were the MLBs. I recall one being used in the occassional 5 man front as the "quick nose" who's job it was to disrupt and destroy.
I'm amazed how many of the high school teams in this state (particularly in 5A and 6A) run the "spread" or some version of it on offense. When I was in high school in the 90s that would have gotten you fired just for suggesting it.
-
Stack. That's the word I couldn't remember. Thanks.
I'm amazed how many of the high school teams in this state (particularly in 5A and 6A) run the "spread" or some version of it. When I was in high school in the 90s that would have gotten you fired just for suggesting it.
As JR has said 1000 times, its just the Wing T in different clothing.
My HS still runs the same Wing T that they did when I was there in 1994.
-
Interesting breakdown. Never read much on that 3-3-5 so thanks for providing. Very intriguing.
You know what I want on defense? One that kicks the other team's butt. The end. They can line up in the 1-6-4 for all I care just kick some butt.
There are some different variants of the 3-3 defense, but for the most part, the one thing that holds true is that they want to confuse blocking schemes with slanting and blitzing from different spots. I don't like it for an SEC defense.
Bottom line, defense is about "want to" first and foremost, getting lined up right, and tackling. We've not tackled well the last 3 years, and we were not aggressive under Roof.
-
As JR has said 1000 times, its just the Wing T in different clothing.
My HS still runs the same Wing T that they did when I was there in 1994.
What I said was what Malzahn runs is largely based in the Delaware Wing T. What he does is quite different from most of the pass oriented spreads IE Air Raid, but you're seeing his influence in a lot of other teams too.
Which HS?
The Wing T is probably one of the most prevalent HS offenses today. Some are just getting in the gun to run it though, but some are true to the Delaware version too.
At the college level, the Wing T is like the Run and Shoot. Nobody runs either exactly as it was designed, but you see elements of both in almost every offense out there. June Jones is the closest to running the "real" R&S, but even he's added his own touches.
Personally, I'd like to see someone brought in to run the offense that is a Lonesome Polecat Offense guru. :poke:
-
I think it's a given that the 3-3-5 requires slanting of the main 2-guard while the linebacker keys on the tight end read. But, that can only be effective if the corners, which in this defense are really hybrid end strikers, recognize the split in zone and off-pressure coverage. You don't necessarily need big linebackers to fill the mesh as long as a quick weakside safety is consistent with his kick outs.
It's a fairly simple concept but I wouldn't trust a walk on to call it.
I guess everyone glossed over this one...
Nice hustle dog...
-
How about a 5-2? Seems to work well for me and my 7 time NC Auburn Tigers!
-
I guess everyone glossed over this one...
Nice hustle dog...
That's cuz everybody knows you don't run a 2-guard with off pressure coverage. Sheesh!
-
Well the 3-3-5 will be in play against Dabo tonight.
Also WVA doesn't recruit like Auburn
and Casteel was never at Michigan AND LSU made most look bad with superior talent.
I like McCall for OC moreso but I'm for most any defensive scheme that leads us to recruit larger talent in order to stay competitive.
-
Why hire out when we have like 13 Defensive coordinators in this thread?
-
I hear that they're going to give Neiko Thorpe the DC position.
-
Like I have said many times before, that 3-3-5 is awesome...
-
Why hire out when we have like 13 Defensive coordinators in this thread?
I've been saying that a while. Just need a guy on the sideline to relay the play calls off the innerwebz from all the football geniuses.
-
Why hire out when we have like 13 Defensive coordinators in this thread?
Word. I vote for snags...he seems to have a good grip on the 2 guard slant, off pressure coverage and hybrid end strikers...
-
Word. I vote for snags...he seems to have a good grip on the 2 guard slant, off pressure coverage and hybrid end strikers...
It's that gawd dang tamper 2 we a been running!
-
Word. I vote for snags...he seems to have a good grip on the 2 guard slant, off pressure coverage and hybrid end strikers...
I'm starting to believe you're just making shit up now. "Off pressure coverage"? Everybody knows you don't play off on pressure coverage. Especially not with high end strykers.
-
I'm starting to believe you're just making shit up now. "Off pressure coverage"? Everybody knows you don't play off on pressure coverage. Especially not with high end strykers.
Sandusky ran some fine defense, and love teh high end stike.