sergeanthulka
Well-Known Member
My contention is that we have the best front 4 in the B10 -- perhaps the nation.
Based upon this premise...I am FRUSTRATED that our DL is not being used to impact the game. If allowed to (by changing up to more aggressive coverages, occasionally) our DL could actually impact the game for us. As it stands, they bust their tails trying to get to Chappell & 95% of the time it does -0- good. The ball is gone.
Opposing offensive coordinators (on these dink & dunk teams) KNOW they can't block us. So what do they do? They dink and dunk. They throw to predetermined first reads. That is smart. WE let them dictate to us that they are going to NEGATE our strongest unit.
I'm telling you, for every 1 long TD we might give up in this scenario, we'd have a pick six & Chappel getting blown up by Clayborn from the blindside or planted 3 feet under by Ballard because someone jumped the route on that first read.
I HATE the fact that we have this spectacular front 4 (and arguably the best secondary in the B10) and we let teams scheme away from our strength. I HATE the fact that we let the opponent dictate tempo & spin the clock.
I HATE the fact that when the chips were down Saturday, the defense didn't make the stop.
Hate is a strong word & it doesn't really reflect how I feel about the staff & current state of the program. I see the 'macro' level. I just think with a subtle shift in philosophy, we could really give the Indiana's & NW's of the world fits. Instead, we're having a conversation about what's wrong with our front 4? Nothing is wrong with our front 4...but when you whip your guy on the first 3 plays of a drive & don't even sniff the passer...it's demoralizing (and physically exhausting).
That's why I asked the question of Jared Clauss. I'd be interested to know if he thinks our front 4 is underperforming? Does he think subtle changes in coverage would allow them to be better utilized? I suspect so...
Based upon this premise...I am FRUSTRATED that our DL is not being used to impact the game. If allowed to (by changing up to more aggressive coverages, occasionally) our DL could actually impact the game for us. As it stands, they bust their tails trying to get to Chappell & 95% of the time it does -0- good. The ball is gone.
Opposing offensive coordinators (on these dink & dunk teams) KNOW they can't block us. So what do they do? They dink and dunk. They throw to predetermined first reads. That is smart. WE let them dictate to us that they are going to NEGATE our strongest unit.
I'm telling you, for every 1 long TD we might give up in this scenario, we'd have a pick six & Chappel getting blown up by Clayborn from the blindside or planted 3 feet under by Ballard because someone jumped the route on that first read.
I HATE the fact that we have this spectacular front 4 (and arguably the best secondary in the B10) and we let teams scheme away from our strength. I HATE the fact that we let the opponent dictate tempo & spin the clock.
I HATE the fact that when the chips were down Saturday, the defense didn't make the stop.
Hate is a strong word & it doesn't really reflect how I feel about the staff & current state of the program. I see the 'macro' level. I just think with a subtle shift in philosophy, we could really give the Indiana's & NW's of the world fits. Instead, we're having a conversation about what's wrong with our front 4? Nothing is wrong with our front 4...but when you whip your guy on the first 3 plays of a drive & don't even sniff the passer...it's demoralizing (and physically exhausting).
That's why I asked the question of Jared Clauss. I'd be interested to know if he thinks our front 4 is underperforming? Does he think subtle changes in coverage would allow them to be better utilized? I suspect so...
