Flannigan and Jabari Johnsons late year emergence helped vs UL in the run...Forrest also stronger against the run.
Run Defense
- Thread starter screwduke
- Start date
Most of those plays there were 8 in the box when UL had a running back in. When they spread the field with no running back UK generally put everyone on the line in press coverage with 2 safeties. Why Stoops never doubled Parker I could never figure out.
I think it will be better this year, simply for the depth and coaching that Stoops brings in. Also, as these kids get older in their JR. and SR. seasons they are going to be very well developed. I expect an improvement..yes... Will we get it.. Will be seen.
[QUOTE
="hmt5000, post: 1645530, member: 9186"]I agree about the 4-3 but I think with the prevalence of spread offenses that coaches are wanting to get another in space defender. Minter soured a lot of UK fans on the 3-4 but we didn't have the talent to run it. Stoops is bringing in the body types to run this D.[/QUOTE]
While Missouri has had very good success, they have also benifited by entering the SEC when UF was very down, UT was down and upset USC and benifted from UGA not showing up for a couple of games every year to reach the SEC championship game.
Like you I see the 3-4 as an answer to so many teams running spread offenses, teams are likely to see some version of a spread HUNH offense 7-9 times a year, maybe even more. This allows another guy on the field who can play in space and has some cover skills. But the trade off is, you are smaller and the theory is a little weaker against the run. While I think Nick Chubb is one of the top, maybe the top back in the SEC, his yardage total was helped by having an extra small guy on defense, sometimes that small guy didn't want to make a real attempt to tackle him. The 3-4 gives teams who rely on a power running game, like UGA does, a little edge, but what are you going to do? Build a defense for 1 team, or build it for 8 or 9 teams? I know UGA is recruiting MLB who are small, 210-220 range, but are extremely fast and can cover most backs and TEs MtoM, while our OLB are much bigger in the 6'4"+ range and 240+, but they all can run too and can cover a TE MtoM. Another thing we are getting away from, at least it seems like we are, is the huge nose man, and going with 3 guys who would normally be DT in a 4-3.
But that seems to be the theory behind slowing down the spread HUNH offenses, defenses getting smaller, faster and more guys on the field who can play in space. We lined up quite a bit last season with 2 guys with their hand in the dirt, just to get better coverage guys on the field and depend on speed getting to ball carriers if it was a running play. Not going to lie, 2 down guys make me nervous, but it allows for good secondary coverage and unusual blitz packages that can confuse pass blocking.
="hmt5000, post: 1645530, member: 9186"]I agree about the 4-3 but I think with the prevalence of spread offenses that coaches are wanting to get another in space defender. Minter soured a lot of UK fans on the 3-4 but we didn't have the talent to run it. Stoops is bringing in the body types to run this D.[/QUOTE]While Missouri has had very good success, they have also benifited by entering
the SEC when UF was very down, UT was down and upset USC and benifted from UGA not showing up for a couple of games every year to reach the SEC championship game.Like you I see the 3-4 as an answer to so many teams running spread offenses, teams are likely to see some version of a spread HUNH offense 7-9 times a year, maybe even more. This allows another guy on the field who can play in space and has some cover skills. But the trade off is, you are smaller and the theory is a little weaker against the run. While I think Nick Chubb is one of the top, maybe the top back in the SEC, his yardage total was helped by having an extra small guy on defense, sometimes that small guy didn't want to make a real attempt to tackle him. The 3-4 gives teams who rely on a power running game, like UGA does, a little edge, but what are you going to do? Build a defense for 1 team, or build it for 8 or 9 teams? I know UGA is recruiting MLB who are small, 210-220 range, but are extremely fast and can cover most backs
and TEs MtoM, while our OLB are much bigger in the 6'4"+ range and 240+, but they all can run too and can cover a TE MtoM. Another thing we are getting away from, at least it seems like we are, is the huge nose man, and going with 3 guys who would normally be DT in a 4-3. But that seems to be the theory behind slowing
down the spread HUNH offenses, defenses getting smaller, faster and more guys on the field who can play in space. We lined up quite a bit last season with 2 guys with their hand in the dirt, just to get better coverage guys on the field and depend on speed getting to ball carriers if it was a running play. Not going to lie, 2 down guys make me nervous, but it allows for good secondary coverage and unusual blitz packages that can confuse pass blocking.
[QUOTE
I know you think Grantham is totally incompetent but that is exactly the way he structured the 3-4 at UofL.
Peace
[QUOTE="hmt5000, post: 1645530, member: 9186"]I agree about the 4-3 but I think with the prevalence of spread offenses that coaches are wanting to get another in space defender. Minter soured a lot of UK fans on the 3-4 but we didn't have the talent to run it. Stoops is bringing in the body types to run this D.[/QUOTE]
While Missouri has had very good success, they have also benifited by entering the SEC when UF was very down, UT was down and upset USC and benifted from UGA not showing up for a couple of games every year to reach the SEC championship game.
Like you I see the 3-4 as an answer to so many teams running spread offenses, teams are likely to see some version of a spread HUNH offense 7-9 times a year, maybe even more. This allows another guy on the field who can play in space and has some cover skills. But the trade off is, you are smaller and the theory is a little weaker against the run. While I think Nick Chubb is one of the top, maybe the top back in the SEC, his yardage total was helped by having an extra small guy on defense, sometimes that small guy didn't want to make a real attempt to tackle him. The 3-4 gives teams who rely on a power running game, like UGA does, a little edge, but what are you going to do? Build a defense for 1 team, or build it for 8 or 9 teams? I know UGA is recruiting MLB who are small, 210-220 range, but are extremely fast and can cover most backs and TEs MtoM, while our OLB are much bigger in the 6'4"+ range and 240+, but they all can run too and can cover a TE MtoM. Another thing we are getting away from, at least it seems like we are, is the huge nose man, and going with 3 guys who would normally be DT in a 4-3.
But that seems to be the theory behind slowing down the spread HUNH offenses, defenses getting smaller, faster and more guys on the field who can play in space. We lined up quite a bit last season with 2 guys with their hand in the dirt, just to get better coverage guys on the field and depend on speed getting to ball carriers if it was a running play. Not going to lie, 2 down guys make me nervous, but it allows for good secondary coverage and unusual blitz packages that can confuse pass blocking.
="hmt5000, post: 1645530, member: 9186"]I agree about the 4-3 but I think with the prevalence of spread offenses that coaches are wanting to get another in space defender. Minter soured a lot of UK fans on the 3-4 but we didn't have the talent to run it. Stoops is bringing in the body types to run this D.[/QUOTE]While Missouri has had very good success, they have also benifited by entering
the SEC when UF was very down, UT was down and upset USC and benifted from UGA not showing up for a couple of games every year to reach the SEC championship game.Like you I see the 3-4 as an answer to so many teams running spread offenses, teams are likely to see some version of a spread HUNH offense 7-9 times a year, maybe even more. This allows another guy on the field who can play in space and has some cover skills. But the trade off is, you are smaller and the theory is a little weaker against the run. While I think Nick Chubb is one of the top, maybe the top back in the SEC, his yardage total was helped by having an extra small guy on defense, sometimes that small guy didn't want to make a real attempt to tackle him. The 3-4 gives teams who rely on a power running game, like UGA does, a little edge, but what are you going to do? Build a defense for 1 team, or build it for 8 or 9 teams? I know UGA is recruiting MLB who are small, 210-220 range, but are extremely fast and can cover most backs
and TEs MtoM, while our OLB are much bigger in the 6'4"+ range and 240+, but they all can run too and can cover a TE MtoM. Another thing we are getting away from, at least it seems like we are, is the huge nose man, and going with 3 guys who would normally be DT in a 4-3. But that seems to be the theory behind slowing
down the spread HUNH offenses, defenses getting smaller, faster and more guys on the field who can play in space. We lined up quite a bit last season with 2 guys with their hand in the dirt, just to get better coverage guys on the field and depend on speed getting to ball carriers if it was a running play. Not going to lie, 2 down guys make me nervous, but it allows for good secondary coverage and unusual blitz packages that can confuse pass blocking.
quote="WildCard, post: 1650258, member: 100"]I know you think Grantham is totally incompetent but that is exactly the way he structured the 3-4 at UofL.
Peace[ quote]
Seems he is smart enough to learn, at UGA he had our 2 MLB who played at 230 this year at 250 and insisted on playing 2 375 pounders on the DL without any rotation at all. LBs couldn't get to anything wide or cover anyone and those 2 DL were done for the day after about 6 plays in a row.
You also saw first hand his defense couldn't tackle against a team serious about running the ball with a back who doesn't fall down on contact. Wait till you get a look at Wiggins and see how he loves contact, but is all world talker.
="WildCard, post: 1650258, member: 100"]I know you think Grantham is totally incompetent but that is exactly the way he structured the 3-4 at UofL.Peace[ quote
]Seems he is smart enough to learn, at UGA he had our 2 MLB who played at 230 this year at 250 and insisted on playing 2 375 pounders on the DL without any rotation at all. LBs couldn't get to anything wide or cover anyone and those 2 DL were done for the day after about 6 plays in a row.
You also saw first hand his defense couldn't tackle against a team serious about running the ball with a back who doesn't fall down on contact. Wait till you get a look at Wiggins and see how he loves contact, but is all world talker.
quote="WildCard, post: 1650258, member: 100"]I know you think Grantham is totally incompetent but that is exactly the way he structured the 3-4 at UofL.
Peace[ quote]
Seems he is smart enough to learn, at UGA he had our 2 MLB who played at 230 this year at 250 and insisted on playing 2 375 pounders on the DL without any rotation at all. LBs couldn't get to anything wide or cover anyone and those 2 DL were done for the day after about 6 plays in a row.
You also saw first hand his defense couldn't tackle against a team serious about running the ball with a back who doesn't fall down on contact. Wait till you get a look at Wiggins and see how he loves contact, but is all world talker.
="WildCard, post: 1650258, member: 100"]I know you think Grantham is totally incompetent but that is exactly the way he structured the 3-4 at UofL.Peace[ quote
]Seems he is smart enough to learn, at UGA he had our 2 MLB who played at 230 this year at 250 and insisted on playing 2 375 pounders on the DL without any rotation at all. LBs couldn't get to anything wide or cover anyone and those 2 DL were done for the day after about 6 plays in a row.
You also saw first hand his defense couldn't tackle against a team serious about running the ball with a back who doesn't fall down on contact. Wait till you get a look at Wiggins and see how he loves contact, but is all world talker.
You are wasting your time, I swear he must have that reply saved on his computer anytime someone is talking about the defense, or the outlooks for next season or just the coaching staff in general. He is of the mindset that everything last year and the year before were the defenses fault. To him Neal Brown is touchdown jesus and he worships at the altar 24/7. It's always the same song and dance with him. Everything is Stoops and Eliots fault, to him they are horrible coaches.
Hey, I saw him say something positive once, just can't remember what it was.
One thing I don't understand is all the gnashing of teeth about our DBs. The two deep above says five of the ten listed in the two deep were Joker's recruits, none above a 5.6 I believe except for Faulkner, 2nd team. Shouldn't we (we are) be replacing those players with more talented players from Stoops recruiting, and even if we weren't shouldn't they be better with added experience and only losing two 5.6s from the whole bunch?.
Name the four star DBs UK has had this century before Faulkner, there aren't any that I can recall, in fact our best DB this century (present players might have to be excluded) was probably Lindley-----and he was not just a two star, he was barely a two star at a 5.2. Now, while probably our best DB was barely a three star we could start a four star at all five DB positions they list next year with some left over, and all would have two or more years at UK, with two redshirted due to injury.
To me it looks like a nice mixture of talent and experience..
One thing I don't understand is all the gnashing of teeth about our DBs. The two deep above says five of the ten listed in the two deep were Joker's recruits, none above a 5.6 I believe except for Faulkner, 2nd team. Shouldn't we (we are) be replacing those players with more talented players from Stoops recruiting, and even if we weren't shouldn't they be better with added experience and only losing two 5.6s from the whole bunch?.
Name the four star DBs UK has had this century before Faulkner, there aren't any that I can recall, in fact our best DB this century (present players might have to be excluded) was probably Lindley-----and he was not just a two star, he was barely a two star at a 5.2. Now, while probably our best DB was barely a three star we could start a four star at all five DB positions they list next year with some left over, and all would have two or more years at UK, with two redshirted due to injury.
To me it looks like a nice mixture of talent and experience..
