| FTBL Will Saban's 3-4 work against the spread (merged topics)

[musso]

I'm glad you put the Bob Stoops quote because he confirms my point. Going "lighter" across board puts your defense in a position of no flexibility. Sure, you have the ability to get more people around the ball against a team running the spread. But you have no other options when you run across a team that doesn't run the spread and lines up and runs directly at the small DL and LB's.

Stoops admits that something is lost when you go lighter, but the whole point here is fewer and fewer teams employ power running games anymore. this is why he and all the other coaches are downsizing. you have to remember he lost to Boise St.'s finesse, and last year he lost to Texas Tech and got blown out by West Va's spread. size didn't help him in those games. obviously he and other coaches feel that more is gained than is lost by downsizing due to the popularity of the spread and no-huddle.

Do you recommend going to smaller and lighter players across the board in the SEC, knowing that there are SEVERAL teams we play on a yearly basis that implement power running games?

you might have a point in that the SEC employs more power running than other conferences, but i only advocate what the typical SEC defense utilizes. by this i mean DTs in the 280-290 range, DEs around 260, and LBs in the 215-230 range. if you inspect the sizes of the defensive fronts of say Auburn, Georgia, UF, you'll see that my numbers are pretty much reflected in their fronts. i haven't looked at other SEC teams.

 

[Guest]

I guess we need to downsize our defense for a trend of offense that isn't occurring in teams we usually play. If half the teams in the SEC were pulling an Auburn and going spread, then yeah, I'd be wondering about Saban's choice of recruits too. Saban knows what he's doing. Trust him.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

you might have a point in that the SEC employs more power running than other conferences, but i only advocate what the typical SEC defense utilizes. by this i mean DTs in the 280-290 range, DEs around 260, and LBs in the 215-230 range. if you inspect the sizes of the defensive fronts of say Auburn, Georgia, UF, you'll see that my numbers are pretty much reflected in their fronts. i haven't looked at other SEC teams.

I'm not disagreeing with what these coaches are saying when looking at defending the spread in and of itself. Even though there are other ways to successfully defend the spread other than going lighter and faster. I'm just saying that it would be too risky to go (across the board) lighter and faster on the defensive side of the ball to simply stop ONE style of offense. This would be fine if every D-1 team in the country ran the spread but the odds of that happening are slim to none.

The SEC has dominated the BCS national championship series since it's inception. The consensus opinion seems to be it's because we play a more physical style of football and players are not only faster but they are bigger AND faster. So taking that model, which has seemed to work for the SEC why would anybody (especially an SEC team) want to go "lighter and faster" when many SEC teams are able to go bigger and faster? A 230lb LB is not going "smaller". A 215lb LB IS going "smaller". There is more difference in the 15lbs that separates a 215lb LB and 230lb LB than the "15lbs" that seperates a 230lb and 245lb LB.

With the talent coming out of HS's today in which you have a greater pool of "bigger players" that can run as well as be "BIG" I don't see the reason in selling out completely to lighter players when you can realistically (in today's time)dang near have the best of both worlds.

 

[musso]

I guess we need to downsize our defense for a trend of offense that isn't occurring in teams we usually play. If half the teams in the SEC were pulling an Auburn and going spread, then yeah, I'd be wondering about Saban's choice of recruits too.

you seem to be misunderstanding me. read again what i've been saying. i'm not advocating for us to be any smaller than other SEC defenses. in actuality it is Saban who is "supersizing" our team. the point of this whole thread is to highlight the fact that Bama seems to be going in the opposite direction from everyone else.

 

[musso]

I'm not disagreeing with what these coaches are saying when looking at defending the spread in and of itself. Even though there are other ways to successfully defend the spread other than going lighter and faster. I'm just saying that it would be too risky to go (across the board) lighter and faster on the defensive side of the ball to simply stop ONE style of offense.

your understanding of this issue is too simplistic. these coaches aren't advocating changing defensive personel to exclusively defend against the spread and no-huddle. instead, they are advocating changing defensive personel in order to better defend against the spread and no-huddle WHEN THEY HAPPEN TO FACE IT. and the fact is with more and more teams leaving the conventional approach to offense, the odds of any one team facing another team that incorporates the spread and/or no-huddle in ever increasing. think about what you're saying ... you claiming that these very bright and successful coaches are abandoning their ability to stop physical offenses altogether by downsizing. it just isn't so. the issue isn't which offense do we commit ourselves to stopping? instead it is how can we modify our personel in order to be more flexible to stop any offense we face.

The SEC has dominated the BCS national championship series since it's inception. The consensus opinion seems to be it's because we play a more physical style of football and players are not only faster but they are bigger AND faster. So taking that model, which has seemed to work for the SEC why would anybody (especially an SEC team) want to go "lighter and faster" when many SEC teams are able to go bigger and faster? A 230lb LB is not going "smaller". A 215lb LB IS going "smaller".

you are making the same mistake as BamaCore. you need to compare the numbers i advocate with the numbers of the aforementioned SEC teams. i advocate the sizes of most SEC defensive fronts. rather it is Saban who is going against the grain here.

 

[bama1289]

"here's a quarter, call someone who cares!" Just drop it musso. I think everybody has confidence in saban except you. The guy is a defensive guru so chill out.

 

[musso]

"here's a quarter, call someone who cares!" Just drop it musso. I think everybody has confidence in saban except you. The guy is a defensive guru so chill out.

;scr

on the contrary, i think a great number of people have demonstrated their care, both in this thread and in all the articles provided.

this isn't about having or not having confidence in Saban. this is about discussing issues as fans. until one of us has a chance to ask Saban specifically about this issue, the best we can do is try to figure it out ourselves. if you don't desire to participate in this activity because of your blind trust, then you're in the wrong thread. just be advised that some of us express our fanatical support for our team and coach by discussing certain matters since we cannot simply call up the coach to ask him ourselves.

judging from your tone, it is you who appears far warmer than i.

 

[bama1289]

Blind trust? How many offenses have ever dominated a saban defense? Terry and the others have given you all kinds of stats and facts but ur too stubborn to listen. Nobody in this thread is freakin out like you. You've asked a billion questions and they've given you a billion answers. So Since you know more than everyone else, just drop it.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I'm not disagreeing with what these coaches are saying when looking at defending the spread in and of itself. Even though there are other ways to successfully defend the spread other than going lighter and faster. I'm just saying that it would be too risky to go (across the board) lighter and faster on the defensive side of the ball to simply stop ONE style of offense.

your understanding of this issue is too simplistic. these coaches aren't advocating changing defensive personel to exclusively defend against the spread and no-huddle. instead, they are advocating changing defensive personel in order to better defend against the spread and no-huddle WHEN THEY HAPPEN TO FACE IT. and the fact is with more and more teams leaving the conventional approach to offense, the odds of any one team facing another team that incorporates the spread and/or no-huddle in ever increasing. think about what you're saying ... you claiming that these very bright and successful coaches are abandoning their ability to stop physical offenses altogether by downsizing. it just isn't so. the issue isn't which offense do we commit ourselves to stopping? instead it is how can we modify our personel in order to be more flexible to stop any offense we face.

The SEC has dominated the BCS national championship series since it's inception. The consensus opinion seems to be it's because we play a more physical style of football and players are not only faster but they are bigger AND faster. So taking that model, which has seemed to work for the SEC why would anybody (especially an SEC team) want to go "lighter and faster" when many SEC teams are able to go bigger and faster? A 230lb LB is not going "smaller". A 215lb LB IS going "smaller".

you are making the same mistake as BamaCore. you need to compare the numbers i advocate with the numbers of the aforementioned SEC teams. i advocate the sizes of most SEC defensive fronts. rather it is Saban who is going against the grain here.

The mistake you continue to make is you're making a it too complicated and are disagreeing simply for the sake of disagreeing. There have been several logical posts addressing your point and yet you continue to say "they are wrong". It's a friggin' opinion. How can somebody be "wrong"? Obviously Saban doesn't see it the exact same way with all these other "great coaches" or he'd be doing the same thing and Saban has won more MNC than two of the three coaches being cited.

Let it go. Geez.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

DELETED

 

[Guest]

LOL cannot believe this thread is still going...

Season is close we shall see once and for all about the mighty (lol) spread and which opinion is right. Wish I could strap on the football helmet and smack some people around...man I miss those days.

good bye silly thread.

 

[Argo]

LOL cannot believe this thread is still going...

Season is close we shall see once and for all about the mighty (lol) spread and which opinion is right. Wish I could strap on the football helmet and smack some people around...man I miss those days.

good bye silly thread.

Drive around your neighborhood and see if any peewee teams need help coaching. I'm coaching on my son's C-Team this year and we are slapping them around a pretty good bit.

 

[Guest]

LOL cannot believe this thread is still going...

Season is close we shall see once and for all about the mighty (lol) spread and which opinion is right. Wish I could strap on the football helmet and smack some people around...man I miss those days.

good bye silly thread.

Drive around your neighborhood and see if any peewee teams need help coaching. I'm coaching on my son's C-Team this year and we are slapping them around a pretty good bit.

Funny enough(are you reading my mind) my son wants to play this year and I have thought about coaching the 8-9 year old group.

Better put on tin foil hat

 

[mongo4bama]

One attribute that smaller LB's have is change of direction especially in pass coverage last year it hurt us in the matcup.

I prefer a 4-3 keep it simple with of course some variations and let the players play.
With smaller Lb's I am talking 220 plus here can run support and have pass coverage.

The Jack LB in a 3-4 gets caught up in mismathes.

 

[TerryP]

One attribute that smaller LB's have is change of direction especially in pass coverage last year it hurt us in the matcup.

I prefer a 4-3 keep it simple with of course some variations and let the players play.
With smaller Lb's I am talking 220 plus here can run support and have pass coverage.

The Jack LB in a 3-4 gets caught up in mismathes.

Our JACK LB's have the same shuttle speed as some of our DB's.

 

[Red_Tsunami]

Newbie here. This thread is intersting but at the same time pretty lame. If you really break down defenses, they are pretty much all the same. You are either going to have a 40 defense or a 50. Some coaches use both. Defense is about tackling, assignment, technique, and pursuit. 15 to 20 lbs. here, a couple of inches there, and 4.4 vs 4.5 forties don't amount to a hill of beans. How fast was George Teague?

 

[Guest]

How fast was George Teague?

Fast enough!

 

[Guest]

How fast was George Teague?

For about 20 yards on that one particular night he was the fastest DB in the world.

 

[Red_Tsunami]

For about 20 yards on that one particular night he was the fastest DB in the world.

My point exactly.

 

[musso]

One attribute that smaller LB's have is change of direction especially in pass coverage last year it hurt us in the matcup.

I prefer a 4-3 keep it simple with of course some variations and let the players play.
With smaller Lb's I am talking 220 plus here can run support and have pass coverage.

The Jack LB in a 3-4 gets caught up in mismathes.

be careful mongo. you run the risk of being attacked by the Sabanite police. they will tell you that you're making it too complicated for them, you shouldn't question the Almighty Saban, and therefore your contrarian views should be silenced.

it is so sad how some fans get so threatened by critical discussion that questions their coach/team.