To abandon their run game against Pitt. We held NDs RB to his lowest amount, and Etienne today, several others throughout the year as well, but teams will throw dink and dunk all day long, then hit the play action fakes. Really the QBs that sell this well were able to beat us throughout the year. If we dont have lock down corners, which seldom happen, we will get torched by the elite QBs.
I imagine this will be a trend for opposing offenses
- Thread starter President Stache
- Start date
Unless you have Clemson athletes at CB what else you gonna do? I think Pitt corners, for being a bunch of 2 and 3 star players are not that bad. Expecting them to compete against good teams is just asking too much. Face it man... that is pretty much the state of Pitt football right now.
I agree, you make the QB beat you. I am just saying when the QB is great, they WILL beat you.
We miss Dane Jackson this year, he was a blanket for us.
I love our defense, we have been tough all year, and even playing 3 down on depth charts alot the new guys look good too.
He is easily the best corner we had since Revis. If we had players like him we are that much better on D.
I'm pretty sure McShay said that during the game yesterday ... we had 4 losses coming in, and the 4 losses were to the teams we played that had good QBs. We had 5 wins against teams without good QBs. A good QB -- especially one protected by a decent O-line that can buy him some time -- is going to find a way to pick apart our D.
We also can't stop RPOs when the QB pulls it from the RB and throws it, although that might be true for a lot of defenses in college football.
I agree about our corners for the most part. The problem is that in the ACC every program we played has at least one receiver who is really good and we get exposed. Flowers for BC, Atwell at Louisville, and Clemson just has incredible receivers who can run and catch balls one handed. So yes, you are correct, our corners are overwhelmed being asked to single cover these elite athletes by Narduzzi.
Duzz has 5 years of proof his concepts are not working. That said, he hasn't tried anything different. AS a result, opposing teams have mostly learned, why try to run against Pitt when the advantage each team has is to just rare back and throw it.
We know not the one Narduzzi coaches with safeties 10 yards from the line of scrimmage and DBs getting exposed deep because they chase all over the field.
A few questions..
In terms of limiting single coverage on corners, how do you provide safety help vs 4 verticals -
1. what coverage do you run?
Cover 1 - nah, because someone out of the box (LB/or nickel) can be just as exposed by a lesser player in coverage. Very easy to manipulate that cover guy with motion and get the ideal receiver on the lesser player.
Cover 2 - nah, because cover 2 vs 4 verticals is essentially cover 4 (what we already run).
Cover 2 man - maybe, but how in the hell do you stop the run?
Cover 3 or 6 - nah, because cover 3 versus a vertical route is essentially man but you won't get any safety help because of the seams.
Cover 3 Rip/Liz - the concepts are pattern match and basically turn into the same pros/cons that cover 4 (quarters) has.
Cover 4 soft zone - still won't get safety help vs 4 verticals and are exposed to the run game.
Cover 4 man or cover zero - that is what we run, except we pattern match and allow our LB's not to have to play the cut back on the run. It is the soundest coverage utilized by damn near every school vs the modern spread offense. It doesn't matter if you're playing AAA HS football or play for the Steelers. You guys need to understand, the days of holding passing teams in check with coverage are far and few between. The offense has all of the advantage.
The Defense is relatively fine. Anybody demanding more is asking too much.
Defense is just dead in college football. You have to be able to score. If you can’t turn the game into basketball on grass, you’re limited as to what your success will be.
We just can’t go offensive blow for offensive blow. Haven’t been able to since 2016 (which is the year we beat Clemson precisely because we could trade offensive shots with them).
Defense is just dead in college football. You have to be able to score. If you can’t turn the game into basketball on grass, you’re limited as to what your success will be.
We just can’t go offensive blow for offensive blow. Haven’t been able to since 2016 (which is the year we beat Clemson precisely because we could trade offensive shots with them).
yeah we have an overly aggressive defense. I like it in general but we should put more faith in the d line who makes stops al on their own
We know you go to a couple of coaches clinics - but as much as you may want to make coaching football into some highly sophisticated specialty, the fact remains it’s not. I really can’t recall to many of the PE majors writing forty thousand line machine learning/AI algorithms.
A lot of typing but again no suggestion as to what defense is ideal in the ACC..
Typical clown response..
Other teams watch the tape. They identify formations and situations where they can exploit a weakness. Like when they sucked Hill up on the play action and ran a receiver tight past him. How they set up Dennis between the flare route and ran the receiver past him on the sideline. How teams have had wide open receivers down the seam when George is in there staring into the backfield.
These teams knew exactly how these plays would play out. You see it develop on tv and know something bad is about to happen.
These teams knew exactly how these plays would play out. You see it develop on tv and know something bad is about to happen.
I understand there are no easy answers. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, our best and deepest position on this team is the defensive line. Perhaps we could let this group be more responsible for stopping the run, not that they aren't already.
We need to recruit some guys like Khaleke Hudson, who can play run, but also have some solid coverage skills against backs and tight ends.
Why not play some cover 2. At least with safeties playing at depth, opponents may actually settle for some underneath stuff. We bust coverages way to often anyway and playing two deep may help with that as well.
Narduzzi, is just so hell bent on stopping the run and in major college football that doesn't have to be your entire focus anymore. Especially in the ACC.
Thank you. Especially that last paragraph. The way the rules/how they are enforced favor the offense so much that there really is not more keeping them in check. There is no more Steel Curtains/ Doomsday/Purple People Eaters/ 85 Bears anymore. Tampa Cover 2 is close to 25 years old and that was the last major defensive scheme, plus it was just an adaptation of the 70s Steelers D. No one is going to defensively out scheme the offense anymore.
Good response. Thank you.
#1. I don't think you can construct a defense where you ask the DL to take pressure off the back 7 when it comes to run responsibility. Basically, you have run fits based upon coverage. Every coverage has a contain/force player. The guys who responsible for pushing the ball back inside. Whatever front/coverage you run, the modern game is based upon the box players (DL/ILB's) making the ball bounce to the contain players (Hamlin/Hill). And, for Hamlin/Hill to force the ball back to the box players (DL/ILB) on outside runs. That's the basic idea of virtually every scheme.
#2. I'd love to land more Hudson types. I think Dennis is that type. I also think Hill is that type too. While Hudson has always been a favorite of mine, he often got exploited for the same things that Hill/Hamlin/Ford do when he was in coverage.
#3. In terms of running some cover 2. We actually do. When you play quarters, you often end up in cover2. But, vs a 2x2 4 wide offense, running traditional cover 2 (cb - flats) (safeties - deep 1/2), you've got 4 vertical threats vs 2 deep. It's a recipe for disaster. Secondly, the run fits with cover 2 are a nightmare vs the inside run. If you play an air raid with those ridiculous WR splits, your outside contain player is 3 yards from the sideline quite often. If the front does their job and gets the ball spilled outside, you've got a gigantic alley for the cb to cover to stop the run. Before you suggest the safeties get involved, remember they're not part of the run fit in traditional cover 2. They're the last line of defense, playing deep 1/2 from sideline to sideline. They're taught to backpedal from the jump. Norm Parker the old Iowa coach ran a great version of cover 2 for years in the B10. Over the past 5-6 years, I see him in cover 4 quarters more than ever because of these spread schemes.
#4. I think that is an overgeneralization with Narduzzi w/ regards to stopping the run. Every single DC will tell you the absolute same thing. Their #1 priority is to stop the run. A perfect example is this -
In 2017, Alabama gave up (pts)
Clemson - 44
Ole Miss - 31
Oklahoma - 34
Auburn - 48
This is with (defensive players only)
Minkah Fitzpatrick #1st rd pick (Pro Bowler)
Quinnen Williams 1st rd pick
Da'Ron Payne - 1st rd pick
Rashaan Evans - 1st rd pick
Ronnie Harrison - 3rd rd pick
Da'Shawn Hand - 4th rd pick
Christian Miller - 4th rd pick
Anthony Averett - 4th rd pick
Mack Wilson - 5th rd pick
Deonte Williams - 5th rd pick
Shaun Hamilton - 6th rd pick
Isaiah Buggs - 6th rd pick
Josh Frazier - 6th rd pick
This doesn't include a vastly superior offense that takes a lot of pressure off the defense.
Things are so different now. 20 years ago an elite college defense held teams under 21 points. Saban's 2009 only allowed 1 team to score over 21 points all season (VT - 24 in the 1st game of the season). Nowadays, Saban has not become immune to this gross inflation in offensive output.
Last edited:
Generally speaking, I totally agree with this. I wouldn't say defense is dead though. Defense is the reason Bama & Clemson have had success in the CFP and Oklahoma hasn't. In the SEC, defense is the reason Ole Miss can't stay on the field with the upper echelon teams.
I think our staff gets it. They just haven't signed enough talent on the offensive side of the ball.
