A thought occurs to me...the Heupel trap.

#76
#76
Not sure if it ia trap or not because any good coach is going to game plan to minimize his teams weakness and exploit the other team's weakness. This coaching staff is light years ahead of our last few in game planning to exploit a team's weakness. Unfortunately we do have to play soft coverage to compensate for our secondary's lack of experience and quality depth. They need to learn to tackle which should be easier to teach than covering an SEC wide out in tight man coverage.
 
#79
#79
billcox0625 said:
Not sure if it ia trap or not because any good coach is going to game plan to minimize his teams weakness and exploit the other team's weakness. This coaching staff is light years ahead of our last few in game planning to exploit a team's weakness. Unfortunately we do have to play soft coverage to compensate for our secondary's lack of experience and quality depth. They need to learn to tackle which should be easier to teach than covering an SEC wide out in tight man coverage.
Click to expand...
....and there's the actual answer summed up in one neat, painful sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf and billcox0625
#80
#80
I don't agree.

The defense isn't nearly as bad as people like to pretend it is. Granted, we aren't good, but we aren't terrible either.

We're 60th in yards per play allowed in the nation. That places us 8th in the SEC, better than Florida, Auburn, and even LSU. And we are 49th in points allowed per game, also putting us at 8th in the SEC.

We're only so bad in total yards because we average about 2 minutes every possession, so teams get an extra 3-4 possessions per game that they would not typically have against most opponents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#81
#81
Sun Tzu became popular as we realized the Chinese had trained and supported the North Vietnamese using his principles against the French and then us. It's how there is a general consensus, of which I personally disagree, that the US lost the War in Vietnam. The US never lost a major battle, never surrendered, never dipped our flag or signed a surrender document, yet routinely it is reported we lost that war. The Viet Cong ceased to exist as an effective fighting force after '68 Tet offensive. Now why do most people think the US lost? Sun Tzu is why. Perception becomes reality over time.
 
#82
#82
Carp said:
I don't agree.

The defense isn't nearly as bad as people like to pretend it is. Granted, we aren't good, but we aren't terrible either.

We're 60th in yards per play allowed in the nation. That places us 8th in the SEC, better than Florida, Auburn, and even LSU. And we are 49th in points allowed per game, also putting us at 8th in the SEC.

We're only so bad in total yards because we average about 2 minutes every possession, so teams get an extra 3-4 possessions per game that they would not typically have against most opponents.
Click to expand...
There's some validity to that. You almost have to retrain yourself as you watch because we're just not playing the way football has been played for the past 100+ years. It's almost more of a basketball mentality.

The defense isn't bad, it's just got a glaring deficiency at DB (and LB when it comes to coverage). We're good against the run. Our D-line has been a pleasant surprise. But we are going to struggle against the pass if we don't make the QB move his feet or throw it early. We just aren't dynamic enough to make many "eraser" plays in the secondary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#83
#83
Carp said:
I don't agree.

The defense isn't nearly as bad as people like to pretend it is. Granted, we aren't good, but we aren't terrible either.

We're 60th in yards per play allowed in the nation. That places us 8th in the SEC, better than Florida, Auburn, and even LSU. And we are 49th in points allowed per game, also putting us at 8th in the SEC.

We're only so bad in total yards because we average about 2 minutes every possession, so teams get an extra 3-4 possessions per game that they would not typically have against most opponents.
Click to expand...


I agree with your assessment and our D is not as bad as the numbers would suggest. Take the Alabama game out and our stats drastically rise. Our front seven are playing good ball right now and our run defense is good and we can generate pressure on QB.

However, our secondary is the weak link. Our opponents attack this weakness. We are playing soft to compensate for lack of coverage skills. They are playing a bend don't break and trying to utilize the shorter fields to make coverage easier and also forcing teams to drive the field mistake free. This will lead to more yardage and more snaps played on defense but with what we curreny have it gives us our best chance. Once we load up on experienced talent in the back end, it will be a different story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#84
#84
Gandalf said:
You are missing my point - and guys with the humorous gifs are not reading what I said. LOL

it is NOT that Heupel intended for us to have a gaping maw in our secondary - but we absofriggenlutely have one. SO, he is using what is there as part of his strategy to lose some of the battles but win the game.

As soon as we can get the talent here to put up an iron dome against opposing routes on air, then CJH will likely shift strategy.

Point is he is strategizing with what we HAVE to win the game, not what we hope to have in the future. That indicates good coaching / chess mastering to me.
Click to expand...

I got your point I think and here’s an example of what I think you mean. The great heavyweight champ Rocky Marciano said he once fought a guy who was slippery and hard to hit and covered up well and such. Rocky dropped his defense some to allow the guy to hit him, get him into a fight, then when he got used to that dropped him like a rock. I think that is the intent of your post. Heup is not intentionally making the secondary bad, he is giving up something that we don’t have and enhancing what we do have. I call him a very good if not great coach. Did I get your point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#85
#85
beamerman said:
I got your point I think and here’s an example of what I think you mean. The great heavyweight champ Rocky Marciano said he once fought a guy who was slippery and hard to hit and covered up well and such. Rocky dropped his defense some to allow the guy to hit him, get him into a fight, then when he got used to that dropped him like a rock. I think that is the intent of your post. Heup is not intentionally making the secondary bad, he is giving up something that we don’t have and enhancing what we do have. I call him a very good if not great coach. Did I get your point?
Click to expand...

Enjoyed the Marciano story. Its like we have a Mike Tyson peekaboo offense but have a weak body defense and are fighting a defensive fighter like Mayweather. You know if he stays in his crab shell and picks his shots to hammer your body, you may be defeated in the later rounds as you get ground down.

But instead of avoiding it, you try to lure your opponent to go after your body with abandon, which gives you more time and opportunity to deliver vicious headshots that they cannot counter. Yes, the body shots hurt you but the headshots are taking a far greater toll on your opponent.

Eventually, you land a quick combo and they get behind on the rounds and to win, they have to give up defense entirely to get into a straight up brawl with you. That's dangerous for you too since a lucky shot or flurry of punches could give them the win. But it doesn't matter, they are now fighting your game. Brawling with Tyson is a recipe for disaster, same as getting into a shootout with our offense.

Its a great strategy to use your weakness to lure and eventually FORCE your opponent into playing into your strengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beamerman
#87
#87
Many of you are balking at OP’s framing our poor secondary play as a gambit. Understandable.

I think OP is spot on, though, in the fact that we are essentially forcing teams to try and beat us at our own game. We have this dominant offense and a fantastic quarterback and with our stout run defense, we can essentially say, “We’re going to name our score. We’re going to take away your run game. Your qb has to beat our qb to win.” So far, noone has been able to do it, and if Bryce Young couldn’t, I’m not sure anyone can.

GBO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#88
#88
Vol in Buckeye Land said:
Many of you are balking at OP’s framing our poor secondary play as a gambit. Understandable.

I think OP is spot on, though, in the fact that we are essentially forcing teams to try and beat us at our own game. We have this dominant offense and a fantastic quarterback and with our stout run defense, we can essentially say, “We’re going to name our score. We’re going to take away your run game. Your qb has to beat our qb to win.” So far, noone has been able to do it, and if Bryce Young couldn’t, I’m not sure anyone can.

GBO!
Click to expand...
I think there is a very good chance that Heupel didn’t consciously PLAN it as a trap but a good coach will take a look at a weakness and do all he can to turn it to an advantage. I think that is what Gandalf is getting at here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Gandalf and Vol in Buckeye Land
#89
#89
It's not a "trap" its just the reality of playing a team that scores Fiddy. You have too as well and you can't do that running the ball if we stop you. the other option is pass it. Just so happens our secondary has been less gooder than our line. Hope they improve and then we really have them "trapped"
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAVol
#90
#90
UTodd01 said:
I think we are just more aggressive than we would be if we didn't have a high powered offense. Sometimes being aggressive leads to big plays for the offense.
Click to expand...

I think this all Gandalf is really getting at with this. CJH ain't trying to have a weak secondary, he's just playing in such a way that puts them in a tough spot in order to gain something else. Out D is about making a big sack, tfl, fumble, or int etc, even if it allows the other team to clip away 10-15 yards at a time in the pass game. Sure we would rather stop the O on every single play to force a TO or 3&Out. But we're not that good.
So, if we give up a 5 minute 85yd scoring drive, then we'll counter with a 2 minute TD drive and reboot to try it again. Every team is playing OUT of their comfort zone and CJH is banking on that and our offense being able to outscore the other team in order to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#91
#91
Gandalf said:
You are missing my point - and guys with the humorous gifs are not reading what I said. LOL

it is NOT that Heupel intended for us to have a gaping maw in our secondary - but we absofriggenlutely have one. SO, he is using what is there as part of his strategy to lose some of the battles but win the game.

As soon as we can get the talent here to put up an iron dome against opposing routes on air, then CJH will likely shift strategy.

Point is he is strategizing with what we HAVE to win the game, not what we hope to have in the future. That indicates good coaching / chess mastering to me.
Click to expand...
I do think he’s doing what you said above but not from a clock strategy perspective. I think it’s more from a play count strategy. The more plays an offense runs the more likely they are to make a mistake. We know we have huge holes in our secondary so we play off and bait teams to throw short and then come up and make the play. That leads to a ton of yards allowed but when teams get close to the end zone there’s much less room so it’s harder on the offense. If teams want to rack up yards and kick FGs on us all day I think our coaches are fine with that because we will be scoring TDs. And eventually the offense we’re forcing to make 10+ play drives will make a mistake and then we steal a possession or two. All we need is about 4 stops a game in most games.
 
#93
#93
Gandalf said:
Enjoyed the Marciano story. Its like we have a Mike Tyson peekaboo offense but have a weak body defense and are fighting a defensive fighter like Mayweather. You know if he stays in his crab shell and picks his shots to hammer your body, you may be defeated in the later rounds as you get ground down.

But instead of avoiding it, you try to lure your opponent to go after your body with abandon, which gives you more time and opportunity to deliver vicious headshots that they cannot counter. Yes, the body shots hurt you but the headshots are taking a far greater toll on your opponent.

Eventually, you land a quick combo and they get behind on the rounds and to win, they have to give up defense entirely to get into a straight up brawl with you. That's dangerous for you too since a lucky shot or flurry of punches could give them the win. But it doesn't matter, they are now fighting your game. Brawling with Tyson is a recipe for disaster, same as getting into a shootout with our offense.

Its a great strategy to use your weakness to lure and eventually FORCE your opponent into playing into your strengths.
Click to expand...
Rocky said he was more than willing to get hit knowing that would allow him to hit back, harder.
Seemed to work well for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#94
#94
They are playing to the defenses strengths. Attacking the run was doable and the goal is to get stops. Red zone is largely run oriented so in the end it has achieved it's goal. That is intentional, but having holes in the secondary are not.
 
#97
#97
Heupel is going to beat everyone with his mind.

Actually, that was funnier when Dooley was coach because he didn't. It's pretty much the truth with Heupel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#100
#100
Remy said:
Sun Tzu became popular as we realized the Chinese had trained and supported the North Vietnamese using his principles against the French and then us. It's how there is a general consensus, of which I personally disagree, that the US lost the War in Vietnam. The US never lost a major battle, never surrendered, never dipped our flag or signed a surrender document, yet routinely it is reported we lost that war. The Viet Cong ceased to exist as an effective fighting force after '68 Tet offensive. Now why do most people think the US lost? Sun Tzu is why. Perception becomes reality over time.
Click to expand...
I disagree, Remy.

Clausewitz--not Sun Tzu, but the German (Prussian) General Carl von Clausewitz--taught us that war is a continuation of politics by different means. In other words, the aim of war is to impose one's will on the other guy. The purpose of war is to achieve a desired policy and outcome. Not just to win a lot of battles.

We and our allies did not ultimately impose our will on the North Vietnamese; rather, the North Vietnamese imposed their will on the South. And therefore, by Clausewitz' apt description of why wars are waged, our side lost the Vietnam War.

You can win every battle and still lose the war. Perhaps that's what you're trying to say. I agree our forces succeeded tactically far more often than they failed in Vietnam. But even that was not enough to stop the North from winning the war and taking over the South.

As for Sun Tzu's popularity, I think he was already being studied by western forces prior to that. Someone else already noted that he was first translated into English in 1910 or so.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top