Mote Kiffin and the GERG defensive Philosophy
I was doing some reading and ended up on Monte Kiffins wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Kiffin
As you can see under defensive philosophy it seems are defense is being molded into something similar. Which means like everyone says and reads when we get our players we should finally have a good defense again.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:05 PM ^
This is pretty trivial, but Brian and others continuously refer to our base look as a 4-3 under. I'm no expert by any means, but this defense looks more similar to 3-4 defenses that other teams run, and Roh and Herron are both listed as linebackers on MGoBlue, so why exactly is it a 4-3?
October 7th, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
Since this defense is usually compared with the one run at SC last year, I think I can explain the reasoning somewhat. They also listed Clay Matthews as a linebacker, but also always had 4 guys on the line of scrimmage. The outside linebacker on the LOS almost always acted like a rush end (like we've seen with Roh nearly every play) but could occasionally drop back into coverage on 3 man rush or zone blitz looks (like we saw with Roh breaking up a pass in the endzone against State).
Not sure the terminology is important, but the reason they call it a 4-3 under (despite using 3-4 personnel) is that they pretty much always line up with 4 guys on the LOS. I think there are a few other alignment issues that give it the label 4-3 under (strongside/weakside distinctions and what not) but that is my 2 cents layman explanation.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:28 PM ^
On paper it looks like they’re running a 3-4 because Roh’s listed as a linebacker. Roh plays on the line of scrimmage basically as a DE (which gives the make up of a 4-3), but sometimes his assignment is to drop back into pass coverage as if he were a linebacker. I would still call it a 4-3 though b/c is primary starting point is off the LOS like a DE.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
I think we need a new rule: Any post that uses the word "Kiffin" in the title must be required to include a photo of Lane Kiffin's wife.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:53 PM ^
I 2nd that motion.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:20 PM ^
more like e-motion.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
We should try to be more like SI and ESPN. Let's include eye candy on every post. Maybe Kiffin's wife can be the "official MGoBlog Crush"
(Please Dear God let people realize that this is sarcasm)
October 7th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^
blog avatar pics are out of control.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:07 PM ^
are defense is being molded, arrrggghhh!