09-09-2014, 11:25 AM
In response to your #7, I am admittedly quite biased, but I posted this elsewhere -- count me as not worried at all about the D line (or the D in general):
I don't think the relative success by SC in their run game is either surprising or a sign of any defensive weakness. In much of the game, certainly second half, we played nickel a lot of the time, certainly respecting and trying to prevent big plays by Aghalor and their other receivers. Taking Parry out and leaving two DL with two OLB. Kessler, no dummy, noticed that and almost every time checked in to a run play. So seems like Lance Anderson picked the run poison over the pass poison.
And it worked. After the first drive our D held them to two field goals.
Unfortunately, I guess the D will have to hold future opponents to 7 points or less from here on out.
Eric
I don't think the relative success by SC in their run game is either surprising or a sign of any defensive weakness. In much of the game, certainly second half, we played nickel a lot of the time, certainly respecting and trying to prevent big plays by Aghalor and their other receivers. Taking Parry out and leaving two DL with two OLB. Kessler, no dummy, noticed that and almost every time checked in to a run play. So seems like Lance Anderson picked the run poison over the pass poison.
And it worked. After the first drive our D held them to two field goals.
Unfortunately, I guess the D will have to hold future opponents to 7 points or less from here on out.
Eric