Defensive line off the ball 1-2 yards most plays

[Volunteer_Kirby]

given the way the backs and linemen were throwing cut blocks...yeah it's not surprising. no doubt our guys were already tired by the end of the first half. it looked like they were dancing to get away from the cut blocks.

It was more surprising seeing the DBs give THEIR RECEIVERS a cushion...like c'mon Shoop. I know they exposed Martin twice early in the game. But this is GTech, giving their receivers a 6-8 yard cushion late in the game when they are driving within field goal range...that is unacceptable. That shouldve been the end of the game, but luckily for us GTech had no kicker.

 

[volnation2217]

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.

This logic by our coaches is the equivalent of a batter standing out of the batter's box to keep from getting hit by a pitch. It may have had the result we were wanting (not getting cut), but left us vulnerable all night to huge plays.


As someone else mentioned, we did not try to penetrate the backfield. We let them engage us. I am not sure how a scheme could include playing off the line 5 feet and not attacking. If you go back and watch the tape, we literally gave them a 5' running start at us on almost every play. Google some Army vs Navy game videos. You would assume those two would know how to defend this type of offense. I can promise you that nowhere will you find playing 5 feet off the ball with your tackles and not attacking the line of scrimmage.

 

[volfan102455]

The part i hated was why not do some run-blitz,just to mix things up.What did we to lose?

Blitzing against GT offense = bad idea.

 

[jakez4ut]

Defensively yes.

yeah, that's what i was talking about...offensively, i think obviously there were a few guys that stepped up and have something to build on.

defense...still very much a question mark.

 

[FLVOL_79]

For the cut blocks I assume...

 

[Brasszilla]

It worked = no injured knees

Could you have imagined if we didn't line up like that and had a larger dl rotation? People mad now, it would have been meltdown of epic proportions if we had multiple front 7 knee injuries. Imagine if Tuttle got brought in later in the game and got his knee ripped up. People would have pitch forks and bs's address in Google navigate so freaking fast.

 

[Ohio Vol]

Copied and pasted from my response on the other similar thread:

I can tell you from firsthand experience running the same offense as GT's, the answer (to whether teams play this far off the LOS) is "sometimes".

We preferred to have the DL right up on the line in order to make a series of extremely fast reads and target a particular defensive player. But if they wanted to line up a yard off the ball, we'd just sting them with different plays until they started creeping back up. At that point, we'd hit them with other plays that would take advantage of their aggression by alignment.

From a defensive perspective, the thinking with having the DL so far off is to both eliminate the backside cut blocks and to force the QB to make a series of reads that are slow and indecisive. It also allows the DL a chance to force a particular read, and then be able to scrape off from that and back into the play.

For example, on their regular inside veer, it's normally the second DL out from the center who's the read man. If he crashes down, the QB pulls from the FB and continues down the line. If he comes upfield, the QB gives to the FB. But if he's a yard off the line, he may be able to look like he's crashing down to force the pull, then scrape off of that and onto the QB.

 

[wombat7477]

There are multiple plays I noticed Kongbo beat the tackle and stop, just watching to see what the QB would do. Had to be something they were coached for this game.

 

[Ohio Vol]

There are multiple plays I noticed Kongbo beat the tackle and stop, just watching to see what the QB would do. Had to be something they were coached for this game.

Most likely. Normally the only way that most DLs will beat the OL and then pull up is if it's a team that loves to run screens, and the DLs been coached to spot the "this doesn't feel right" type of situations.

 

[gunner]

I would prefer a gap 8 defensive scheme where the defense lines up right on top of the ball and the linemen each "bear crawl" through a gap. It's a goal line type of defense, but it's one way to crowd the line of scrimmage and maintain gap integrity. The DT's are crawling through the gaps to take up blocks and the linebackers are making the tackles.

 

[jakez4ut]

Yep. Waiting for blocks and ball carriers to get to you is typically not gonna workout well.

yeah, you could argue that it was an awful game plan....fo sho.

but i do think that was the game plan....especially after we didn't do anything offensively in the 1st quarter.

i think if we could have possessed the ball more in the 1st quarter....that may have changed things....(cause we were aggressive early on...to the point that i was impressed)....score first, then go aggressive on defense the next possession, get the ball again, score....rinse and repeat.

that didn't happen, so they rebooted in "safe" mode once we got behind and had a couple three and outs. they could see the writing on the wall, and just didn't want to risk injury in the front 7. and just tried to get thru it, and as long as the game was in reach, that would be the plan.

 

[Ohio Vol]

I would prefer a gap 8 defensive scheme where the defense lines up right on top of the ball and the linemen each "bear crawl" through a gap. It's a goal line type of defense, but it's one way to crowd the line of scrimmage and maintain gap integrity. The DT's are crawling through the gaps to take up blocks and the linebackers are making the tackles.

We played a team that tried this one time and shredded them with greater ease than if they did something normal. Instead of actually having to block them normally, our OL would just put a hand into the back of the DL's shoulders, press him down, and advance quickly to the second level. In addition, it forced our OL to stay lower through their first two steps, meaning that they'd actually be getting under the LBs by the time they got there instead of fighting to get and stay low at the point of attack.

If they'd stayed upright and just shot gaps, we'd have checked off to a series of outside veer or quick toss to back them out of it, then gone right back to stinging them with our full playbook. And once the defense got nice and squirrelly, out came the play action.

There's no consistent schematic way to stop this offense, to a greater extent than possibly any other one out there. There are too many quick adjustments to defensive changes, too many check-off options, too many different points of attack to isolate. The only way that I've seen work is like what Ole Miss did back around 2003, where they'd have the DL go full slanting based on a series of educated guesses. If they guessed right, there were a swarm of defenders. If they guessed wrong, the ball went into the end zone.

 

[CAVPUT]

I'm hoping it was our playing off the line combined with techs drive/cut blocking that had us being pushed around. Have hope that a return to facing a conventional offense will allow us to play more physical and aggressive. Then again the comments about our upper class players being soft certainly has to be a consideration.

One thing is certain....we need the backups to play more. This staff has no choice but to use some of these younger kids. If they refuse to risk it, you can bet the farm injuries will mount and our end of season fade is sure to come...again. We are never going to get to a point where all our backups are 4th year juniors. Play the kids.

 

[rocky200663]

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.

LSU is correct with this statement!

 

[rocky200663]

I'm hoping it was our playing off the line combined with techs drive/cut blocking that had us being pushed around. Have hope that a return to facing a conventional offense will allow us to play more physical and aggressive. Then again the comments about our upper class players being soft certainly has to be a consideration.

One thing is certain....we need the backups to play more. This staff has no choice but to use some of these younger kids. If they refuse to risk it, you can bet the farm injuries will mount and our end of season fade is sure to come...again. We are never going to get to a point where all our backups are 4th year juniors. Play the kids.

If you are going to give up over 500 yds rushing every game like we have been doing, then there is no reason to not be playing a 10-11 man rotation on that defensive front every game. At least you keep guys fresh and reduce risk of injury. Its a no brainer in the Vols situation.

 

[Evet Vols]

So they ran 80 something plays with us a yard off the ball so they really only rushed about 450 yards on us.

 

[Sea Ray]

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.

I think this sort of thinking was a mistake on our coach's part. The only way to put a stop to that offense is to disrupt them behind the line of scrimmage. To let them get a 1-2 yard head of steam is insane. They'll gain 1st down after first down and then you'll be pooped by the end of the 2nd qtr.

I see that sort of D-line setup most often in Canadian football, but that's a differentgame. They're passing nearly every down and they only have 2 chances to get 15 yds before deciding whether to punt.