The CardBoard
Defensive Line concern - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Defensive Line concern (/thread-14138.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: Defensive Line concern FRONT 7 CONCERN, - CowboyIndian - 08-28-2017

(08-27-2017, 09:56 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:WELL COWBOY,  SURELY YOU DONT THINK RICE'S OLINE COMPARES TO SC, UW, ETC...AND NO LINE'S GOOD ENOUGH TO PREVENT "COVERAGE SACKS" CAUSED BY OUR DEFENSIVE BACKFIELD WHICH APPEARS SOLID, AND OUR SUPPOSEDLY SOLID LB CORP, SO SPLAIN TO ME AGAIN WHY ONLY TWO AGAINST THIS ESSENTIALLY D2 TEAM?  I'M JUST FROM MISSOURI ON OUR FRONT 7.

Well, I was certainly hoping for a more dominant showing as well but I just wanted to point out that their OL was considered one of the stronger points of what is obviously a bad team. Regarding our own strengths and weaknesses......all will soon be revealed.

Re: Defensive Line concern COWBOY- AGREE ALL WILL BECOME - johnnyo53 - 08-28-2017

CLEARER IN GAME 2.  THERE WON'T BE ANY REASON NOT TO UNLEASH THE DOGS OF WAR IN THAT GAME.  JUST HOPE WE CAN BE AS PHYSICAL AS WE NEED TO BE IN OUR FRONT 7.  IT MAY BE A LONG SEASON, BUT IT WILL GET LONGER IF WE TAKE A BEATING IN THAT ONE.
MY CONCERN IS I WOULD THINK OUR DL WOULD WIN MORE OF THEIR MATCHUPS AND GET TO THE RICE BACKFIELD MORE OFTEN THAN 2X.  I EXPECTED MORE DOMINANCE UP FRONT IN THE ONE ON ONES.

Re: Defensive Line concern - CTcard - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 08:17 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:2 sacks on 26 pass attempts ain't so bad. It's about the same sack percentage as 2016, and higher than 2015. While I'm still concerned about the DL I'm not necessarily concerned by this particular stat.

That's a reasonable way to look at things.

Rice returned four of five on the OL, the only new guy from when we played them last fall was the LG - a fifth year senior who apparently has been a long time reserve.

As far as sack rate matching last year, on the one hand hitting your average against one of the worst teams on your schedule is not a plus. On the other hand, Stanford basically didn't blitz all game. For this game, we clearly weren't making any particular effort to get to the QB.

Yet, we all know DL is a concern. Nothing in this game was going to change that.
I was encouraged that at least the first stringers held up vs the run. They won't always do so.
Obviously we are going to have to blitz to put pressure on QBs. Hopefully we have the secondary to allow us to do so without disaster.


Quote:Tyler is a significant concern for me. Thinking Wedington might give the team what we want there.

Do you mean as a receiver or punt returns?

As a receiver, I think we aren't going to see a lot more of Tyler, especially once JJAW returns.

As a punt returner he seemed okay, if a little unsure of himself. But mostly it just doesn't matter much. Last year, with one of the best punt returners I've seen, we averaged 6.8 yds/game - which just isn't enough to have a substantial effect on most games. And besides, we had 37 punt return yards in this game. The only game last year where we had that many was ... Rice. 


Quote:EDIT, and NOTE: If I had to pick out the most surprising stat of the game, it'd be pass attempts. If you'd said before the game that one team had 26 and the other, 39, I'd've said, "Sounds like the typical blowout game." Shaw passing 39 times in a dominant win is... highly unusual.

Very true and kind of interesting.
[Though at the moment, the official box score says we had 37 passes and 36 runs.]

My own (completely unsubstantiated) theory is that Shaw really wants to pass a fair amount more than we have been doing lately but our personnel strengths have dictated otherwise.

Much more likely is that Shaw was using this game as a practice, and the passing game needs more practice.

Re: Defensive Line concern - washingtonismoney - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 10:09 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[Though at the moment, the official box score says we had 37 passes and 36 runs.]

Right but the team gave up 2 sacks, right?

Re: Defensive Line concern COWBOY- AGREE ALL WILL BECOME - OutsiderFan - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 08:52 AM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:CLEARER IN GAME 2.  THERE WON'T BE ANY REASON NOT TO UNLEASH THE DOGS OF WAR IN THAT GAME.  JUST HOPE WE CAN BE AS PHYSICAL AS WE NEED TO BE IN OUR FRONT 7.  IT MAY BE A LONG SEASON, BUT IT WILL GET LONGER IF WE TAKE A BEATING IN THAT ONE.
MY CONCERN IS I WOULD THINK OUR DL WOULD WIN MORE OF THEIR MATCHUPS AND GET TO THE RICE BACKFIELD MORE OFTEN THAN 2X.  I EXPECTED MORE DOMINANCE UP FRONT IN THE ONE ON ONES.

The Rice scheme that made liberal use of the jet sweep action, made it difficult to rush the passer in a conventional way as many times as would be possible against typical offenses. 

Re: Defensive Line concern - stupac2 - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 11:11 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17240.msg198299#msg198299 date=1503940149]
[Though at the moment, the official box score says we had 37 passes and 36 runs.]

Right but the team gave up 2 sacks, right?
[/quote]

There was at least one scramble by Chryst, which I have to believe wasn't called.

Re: Defensive Line concern COWBOY- AGREE ALL WILL BECOME - fullmetal - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 11:22 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The Rice scheme that made liberal use of the jet sweep action, made it difficult to rush the passer in a conventional way as many times as would be possible against typical offenses.

Good point, the Rice coaches knew they were probably outmanned over four quarters and had to work around that.

Re: Defensive Line concern COWBOY- AGREE ALL WILL BECOME - johnnyo53 - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 11:22 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=johnnyo53 link=topic=17240.msg198293#msg198293 date=1503935532]
CLEARER IN GAME 2.  THERE WON'T BE ANY REASON NOT TO UNLEASH THE DOGS OF WAR IN THAT GAME.  JUST HOPE WE CAN BE AS PHYSICAL AS WE NEED TO BE IN OUR FRONT 7.  IT MAY BE A LONG SEASON, BUT IT WILL GET LONGER IF WE TAKE A BEATING IN THAT ONE.
MY CONCERN IS I WOULD THINK OUR DL WOULD WIN MORE OF THEIR MATCHUPS AND GET TO THE RICE BACKFIELD MORE OFTEN THAN 2X.  I EXPECTED MORE DOMINANCE UP FRONT IN THE ONE ON ONES.

The Rice scheme that made liberal use of the jet sweep action, made it difficult to rush the passer in a conventional way as many times as would be possible against typical offenses.


WHICH BRINGS UP ANOTHER PROBLEM- WE'VE GOT TO SET THE EDGES, AND OUR DL SHOULD STILL BE ABLE TO GET THERE... I KNOW IT'S JUST OUR FIRST GAME, BUT RICE WAS A HORRIBLE TEAM.  USC WON'T BE.  WE MUST GET TO DARNOLD EARLY AND OFTEN TO HAVE A CHANCE.
[/quote]

Re: Defensive Line concern - fullmetal - 08-28-2017

The trouble with that is Darnold is really good at escaping pressure/buying time for a play downfield.  I expect our defense to be disciplined and cover well, but there's only so much you can do the longer a play goes on.  Stanford may be better served going for coverage sacks rather than trying to flush him out of the pocket where he can run.  (Does he run a lot?  I didn't watch the Rose Bowl.)

Re: Defensive Line concern - CTcard - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 11:11 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17240.msg198299#msg198299 date=1503940149]
[Though at the moment, the official box score says we had 37 passes and 36 runs.]

Right but the team gave up 2 sacks, right?
[/quote]

Quite correct, and I had forgotten about that.

As also noted by stupac, there were some scrambles as well - though some of those are hard to tell what was called. Plus, if you want to go tease this info out of box scores, then it's relatively easy to adjust for sacks, much harder for scrambles.

Either way, Stanford called more pass plays than run plays, and by a substantial amount. In a win, and an easy win, that is remarkable.

Re: Defensive Line concern - Goose - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 12:29 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:The trouble with that is Darnold is really good at escaping pressure/buying time for a play downfield.  I expect our defense to be disciplined and cover well, but there's only so much you can do the longer a play goes on.  Stanford may be better served going for coverage sacks rather than trying to flush him out of the pocket where he can run.  (Does he run a lot?  I didn't watch the Rose Bowl.)
Darnold is big and can run, but to his credit, he usually runs around in order to pass. Last year, he had an OL that was real good at continuing to play even after somebody got through. Darnold was great at finding the "sweet spot" where he still had protection. This year, that may not happen, as he has a lot of new linemen. Our DL may not need to get the initial pressure (which comes from the blitz), but they WILL need to keep playing and give Darnold no place to hide. Darnold can be pressured into bad decisions. That didn't happen often last year, but it did happen. Our blitz needs to make him throw early or get hit, and we need to tackle well.
He was calm in the pocket last year, but partly because he had great receivers that would eventually get open. The trouble with relying on "coverage sacks" is that if Darnold can extend the play, somebody will get open eventually. If we blitz, it has to be in order to force an early throw, which may be to the wrong team. Darnold hasn't had to deal with a "bad game", AFIK. If we get him to doubt, we win for sure.

Re: Defensive Line concern - fullmetal - 08-28-2017

Basically a young Ben Roethlisberger...hope the defense is ready with some exotic schemes.

Re: Defensive Line concern - Goose - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 01:28 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Basically a young Ben Roethlisberger...hope the defense is ready with some exotic schemes.
I think that is an apt comparison, although we don't know yet how calm Darnold will be when things are off the rails. Even in last years Rose Bowl, USC was not in disaster mode on offense. Big Ben has shown poise in those cases, Darnold hasn't yet had to.

Re: Defensive Line concern - Papa John - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 01:24 PM)Goose link Wrote:Darnold hasn't had to deal with a "bad game", AFIK. If we get him to doubt, we win for sure.

Darnold, albeit in a backup role, struggled early last season vs Alabama (4/8 for 29 yds) and vs Stanford (5/7 for 45 yds and 1 Int). He must have dealt with at least a little doubt during that time?

Re: Defensive Line concern - fullmetal - 08-28-2017

He was a true frosh last year, was he not?  I think the tape says that he can hurt Stanford whether playing from behind or ahead until otherwise proven.  (Yep, true frosh beat PSU in a shootout in the Rose Bowl.  I think the poise box got checked there.)

Re: Defensive Line concern - Papa John - 08-28-2017

Pretty sure Darnold was a redshirt freshman last year, which means that, in all likelihood, this will be the final season that Stanford will go up against him.

Re: Defensive Line concern - Goose - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 03:55 PM)Papa John link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=17240.msg198345#msg198345 date=1503951877]
Darnold hasn't had to deal with a "bad game", AFIK. If we get him to doubt, we win for sure.

Darnold, albeit in a backup role, struggled early last season vs Alabama (4/8 for 29 yds) and vs Stanford (5/7 for 45 yds and 1 Int). He must have dealt with at least a little doubt during that time?
[/quote]

Well, yes, things were not good when he came in in both cases. However, in both those cases he didn't do much either. They are both small sample sizes, and both cases of little expectations, because he wasn't going to win the game anyway. So I am not sure we can tell much from these examples.

(08-28-2017, 04:05 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:He was a true frosh last year, was he not?  I think the tape says that he can hurt Stanford whether playing from behind or ahead until otherwise proven.  (Yep, true frosh beat PSU in a shootout in the Rose Bowl.  I think the poise box got checked there.)
I agree he is a really good QB, and can do a lot no matter the score. However, in the Rose bowl, USC scored 13 points in the first quarter and 14 points in the second quarter. Their offense never had a doubt that they could move the ball. They knew they could. Also, if it had not been for an almost inexplicable set of decisions by the Penn State coaching staff, USC would not have won that game.
What I would like to see is what happens to USC when Darnold has been sacked a few times and they are shut out in the first quarter. Maybe I am revealing my prejudice here, but USC has a tendency over the years to come apart when things don't go well initially. It would be nice to see some happy feet and forcing the ball into coverage.  ;D

Re: Defensive Line concern - johnnyo53 - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 12:29 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:The trouble with that is Darnold is really good at escaping pressure/buying time for a play downfield.  I expect our defense to be disciplined and cover well, but there's only so much you can do the longer a play goes on.  Stanford may be better served going for coverage sacks rather than trying to flush him out of the pocket where he can run.  (Does he run a lot?  I didn't watch the Rose Bowl.)

AGREED, BUT UNLESS YOU CAN SET AND CONTROL THE EDGES, COVERAGE SACKS WON'T HAPPEN...

Re: Defensive Line concern - DC 86 - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 04:05 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:He was a true frosh last year, was he not?  I think the tape says that he can hurt Stanford whether playing from behind or ahead until otherwise proven.  (Yep, true frosh beat PSU in a shootout in the Rose Bowl.  I think the poise box got checked there.)

Darnold redshirted his freshman year.

He is tremendously poised.

Re: Defensive Line concern - lex24 - 08-28-2017

Stanfords d-line is a question no doubt. But I think they played about as Vanilla as possible against Rice. I don't recall many stunts or blitzes. They will play more games up front as the season moves on. They didn't need to against Rice.Â