1) It plays into the hands of pretty much any opponent.
If you have a semi-capable quarterback under center, he should be able to make the throw on a 8 yard out or a ten yard curl. If you are playing tight on the line, a corner has the ability to get a hand on the ball, disrupt the pattern (possibly buying more time for the defensive line to get in the QB's face), or even jump the route if the QB doesnt have the arm to zip a pass right in. In the SEC, you will more often than not see quarterbacks who are willing and able to devour such a defense. Playing such a defense gives any team a blueprint for moving the ball successfully on us. It doesn't matter if we are playing a run first offense, such an adjustment can, and should, be made (Alabama, again). Additionally, by playing off the line 8-10 yards and then backing off even further on the snap, you are essentially taking your cornerbacks out of the play. This relates to my second problem...
2) It takes one of our best defenders out of the game.
Asher Allen can cover like a mad fiend. He doesn't need to have a large cushion to avoid getting beat. He is talented enough to break up a short route or to stay with his man going deep. To a corner back of his talents so far off the line of scrimmage is not making the best use of our personnel. If we ran a defense that had Ellerbe and Curran start 15 yards off the line, there would be outrage. They would be entirely out of position from the outset against the run. Essentially, our defense is hindering Allen in such a way.
3) I would rather get beat by the deep ball than by short passes.
If a defense gets beat on a deep ball, it can be chalked up to many different things. A coverage was blown, a mismatch was created by motion, a perfect pass was thrown, something of that sort. Generally, it is a problem that is specific to that one play only. However, if a defense repeatedly allows short passes, thus enabling the defense to drive down the field, it is a symptom of a problem with the scheme as a whole. Repeatedly allowing similar plays to beat you means that you have a weakness and it is being exposed. It is not a problem specific to a single play, it is a problem specific to the defense that is being run. Trying to stop a low percentage, highly difficult deep ball while continually giving up a high percentage, low difficulty short pass is simply not logical. Additionally, relatively shorter, yet still effective passes keep our defense out on the field. It swings time of possession in our opponent's favor, something a team with as many injuries as the Dawgs have can't afford.
This is something that should have been fixed a long time ago. There were times in the past, with a vicious pass rush, that the Dawgs could afford to play it safe in the secondary. However, teams change. Between injuries and the loss of a key pass rusher to graduation, the Dawgs have been forced to adapt. This is a weakness that was blown open for all the world to see last week. Down 31-0 is not the time to keep playing it soft. Something has been shown to be wrong on the defensive side of the ball. It is something that needs to change.
3 comments:
"I would rather get beat by the deep ball than by short passes." not quite sure I buy that. The philosophy behind the bend don't break, whether they'll admit it or not, is, we might not have the firepower to get to the qb and we might not have the horses to play man defense but we are willing to bet, given 10-15 plays, you'll make a mistake on offense. As boring as this is and sounds, it works fairly often.
That being said, our biggest deficiency is the lack of a pass rush at the DE position. (I'm also starting to wonder if we haven't 'built' this defense to stop the spread and we've forgotten how to be JYD physical) We've had it since 2002, a DE that can change the game. And we simply don't have it right now. Nor do we have the confidence to bring 6 and put someone like Bryan Evans on single coverage.
If history serves, someone will step up at DE and a pass rush will develop. I only hope it is sooner rather than later. On the bright side, how good is this young team going to be in 2009?
Good points all. I think you are pretty much spot on. Other than Asher I don't think we have a cover corner on the team...and that is, what it is....I would at least like to see us disguise some things and give different front looks even if we just drop back in the base coverage.
Yes, I don't know if you saw this or not, but UTs OC was asked about the complexity of the SEC defenses compared to wherever it was he came from. He said the players, overall skill level on the defensive side of the ball was the major difference. The schemes - they're actually simpler among SEC teams. (one team he was talking about was UGA after watching film)
That surprised and disappointed me. True, if you're just better and can play vanilla and win, by all means. But damn, if you're getting your ass kicked up and down the field, have a plan B to implement and don't wait until halftime to do it.
Post a Comment