Defensive line off the ball 1-2 yards most plays

#1
C

CHeightsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
583
Likes
27
#1
Did any of my other fellow VN users notice that we seemed to be lined up on defense 1-2 yards off of the ball? I noticed it on almost every play and it was driving me nuts! It seemed to give their lineman a head start to fire into us thus knocking our lineman back off of the ball. I just wonder if this was by design to give us better angles???? It was obviously NOT working!:banghead2::banghead2::banghead2:

I hope this is corrected as we go forward!
 
#2
#2
Yes and that's exactly why I think last night was sort of a fluke. I'm willing to bet they had "don't get injured" in their heads all night. There are a lot of negatives being thrown around when you play an offense like that and the players looked more worried about protecting their knees. Let's see how they look when our hands are on the ground nose to nose against an OL.
 
#3
#3
by design to save their knees. We also didn't attack on the line letting the block come to us by design. It kept their oline upright most of the time. However non rotation of the D left them tired.
 
#4
#4
CHeightsvol said:
Did any of my other fellow VN users notice that we seemed to be lined up on defense 1-2 yards off of the ball? I noticed it on almost every play and it was driving me nuts! It seemed to give their lineman a head start to fire into us thus knocking our lineman back off of the ball. I just wonder if this was by design to give us better angles???? It was obviously NOT working!:banghead2::banghead2::banghead2:

I hope this is corrected as we go forward!
Click to expand...

I talked with a staff member of a D1 school after the game and asked him about the linemen off the ball. He said, lining up off the ball is one school of thought in defending the triple option. He and other staff members watched our game and thought we did not take the best approach, but admitted that since you so rarely see this offense it is very difficult to choose which approach to take. And you can't just change in the middle of the game after spending weeks preparing one approach.
 
#5
#5
Yeah, when it comes to the option you are not going to get a lot of TFL's and sacks. The key is to minimize damage. Both to the lineman's knees (avoiding cut blocks), and by eliminating overpursuing leading to runners getting to the second level. Also could get drawn offsides by the frequent motion. It's not something that they'll always do. It was a smart move this week though. I wouldn't have been surprised if the D Linemen were instructed not to try to penetrate the play, but simply disrupt the blocking. The option develops so quickly that if a DL penetrates too quickly, then the play is behind them, not in front of them. They're going to get yards. The best you can hope for is plug the gaps, keep them back on 1st down (which we didn't do great at), and hope for long 2nd and 3rd downs.

We got the W. That's all I'm focusing on.
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
Didn't work to well on the FB dive or anything between the tackles. The idea was to keep the DTs specifically, upright. The pit fall was no one getting in the backfield. The LOS was actually being reestablished 2 yards past the snap. Sounded like a good idea.
 
#7
#7
I posted this in a thread earlier about our defense from last night.

We could have used some more rotation on the D line for sure. I think what really hurt us, and I'm not a coach so jmo, if you noticed our d line was not playing right up on the ball. I assume this was to negate all the cut blocks, but we were giving them a yard or yard and a half gap every time they lined up. Then our line was allowing the o-line to get moving and come at them. I think if we would have lined up right on them and bull rushed every time the ball was snapped, they wouldn't have got as many yards as they did. We had no push to throw off the timing behind the line.

I truly believe it was to prevent being cut, but I still think it was a bad choice to do that. Pushing a tackle back into the ball carrier or in front of the qb on the option would have helped a lot more then the lets just not get put on the ground approach.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking it was weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Generally, there isn't a reason to stay a yard off the ball. The defensive line should be regularly doing chop block drills, if your defense is not doing chop block drills.... good luck making it 4 years, you'll be rehabbing constantly. You'll see the defensive guys do all the same thing, that's they way they are taught... they actually force the lineman further to the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0mR2VLHpAM

The guy doing the video is a BYU guy. btw He breaks down the failure of the chop block scheme, its something you have to train for, unless you like to have knew surgeries. imo
 
#9
#9
The approach we took was designed to protect our players knees. It worked and we won. Barely
Thankfully, no one else we play runs the triple option.
 
#10
#10
I don't watch any option teams and didn't watch any of the GT game film. Is playing so far off the LOS typical for teams that play them more often?
 
#11
#11
shocka2430 said:
I posted this in a thread earlier about our defense from last night.

We could have used some more rotation on the D line for sure. I think what really hurt us, and I'm not a coach so jmo, if you noticed our d line was not playing right up on the ball. I assume this was to negate all the cut blocks, but we were giving them a yard or yard and a half gap every time they lined up. Then our line was allowing the o-line to get moving and come at them. I think if we would have lined up right on them and bull rushed every time the ball was snapped, they wouldn't have got as many yards as they did. We had no push to throw off the timing behind the line.

I truly believe it was to prevent being cut, but I still think it was a bad choice to do that. Pushing a tackle back into the ball carrier or in front of the qb on the option would have helped a lot more then the lets just not get put on the ground approach.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking it was weird.
Click to expand...

Thanks to all for helping to explain and clear this up. I was so frustrated watching them get going with a head of steam prior to our making contact.
 
#13
#13
Ace said:
The approach we took was designed to protect our players knees. It worked and we won. Barely
Thankfully, no one else we play runs the triple option.
Click to expand...

Hm. I would say it didn't work but you won the game. There really is no reason to be that far off the line of scrimmage, in most situations.
 
#14
#14
we played defense very defensively last night. i think the idea was simply to get thru it w/out injury.... no rotation, playing off the ball, no real attempt to blow plays up or penetrate, no run blitzing....

it's the only thing that makes sense
 
#16
#16
jakez4ut said:
we played defense very defensively last night. i think the idea was simply to get thru it w/out injury.... no rotation, playing off the ball, no real attempt to blow plays up or penetrate, no run blitzing....

it's the only thing that makes sense
Click to expand...

This. Win and move on to more traditional schemes and methods.
 
#17
#17
jakez4ut said:
we played defense very defensively last night. i think the idea was simply to get thru it w/out injury.... no rotation, playing off the ball, no real attempt to blow plays up or penetrate, no run blitzing....

it's the only thing that makes sense
Click to expand...

Yep. Waiting for blocks and ball carriers to get to you is typically not gonna workout well.
 
#18
#18
BeecherVol said:
Didn't work to well on the FB dive or anything between the tackles. The idea was to keep the DTs specifically, upright. The pit fall was no one getting in the backfield. The LOS was actually being reestablished 2 yards past the snap. Sounded like a good idea.
Click to expand...

Agree... we did adjust on the very last play (2 pt try)... and met the QB in the backfield with positive results. Butch called a TO and dialed that up... so kudos to him and his staff. Crucial play!
 
#19
#19
morristown vol said:
The part i hated was why not do some run-blitz,just to mix things up.What did we to lose?
Click to expand...

They could have squeezed down on outside guys, and probably not risked much... as the DL was doing a good job stuffing the middle. What I mean is they were wrapping the guy up. The problem is the MLB wasn't coming in to clean up and stopping #30 from falling forward for like 3-5 yards.

I would probably just burn this film for now.
 
#20
#20
LSU-SIU said:
They could have squeezed down on outside guys, and probably not risked much... as the DL was doing a good job stuffing the middle. What I mean is they were wrapping the guy up. The problem is the MLB wasn't coming in to clean up and stopping #30 from falling forward for like 3-5 yards.

I would probably just burn this film for now.
Click to expand...

yeah, there's virtually nothing to go on from this.
 
#21
#21
morristown vol said:
The part i hated was why not do some run-blitz,just to mix things up.What did we to lose?
Click to expand...

I was really wanting to see some run blitzes myself. Most frustrating UT game I can remember watching. There was absolutely NOTHING to cheer for through 2.5 quarters of this game!
 
#23
#23
They appeared to line up in a straight line like soldiers in the Revolutionary War. And the results were about the same; the front line all got killed. Except Darrell Taylor!
 
#24
#24
I mentioned this a few weeks ago that we should do it. People laughed. Part of the reason is that Marshall is so low behind the center that you can't see direction if you're up real close with a blocker in your face at snap. being off ball gives you a split second to see direction of play.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top