needs moar usage
CoachZ
History
- Member for
- 2 years 17 weeks
Karma
- Current value
- 2
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 25 weeks 4 days ago | You are correct that the |
You are correct that the o-line is the biggest problem. I think people don't understand how it translates to play calling though. Ohio runs a 4-3 and our interior line cannot single block both of their DT's, this means we need to doulbe atlease one of them. That is huge win for them, they have now "changed the math". Ideally on offense you want to block each defender with one guy, because you are already at a numerical disadvantage due to the fact that your ball carrier cannot block and unless you run the single wing or an option scheme your quarterback does not block (it is considered a block by the quarterback if someone accounts for him on an option play in which he gives or pitches it) So assuming single blocks in a pro style offense you have nine guys accounting for eleven. Now you add in a double and it is eight vs eleven (This is why teams often run bootlegs to keep a couple of guys honest so you don't need to block them) Now if we have to doulbe both of the DT's it becomes a bigger problem. Add in a missed block and oh boy it gets ugly. Their lack of respect for our interior run game, combined with their talent on the line means they can play the inside run game with the two DT's and the MLB. They can now widen out their ends and OLB's to control the outside run game. Add in the safeties because of the lack of a deep passing created by the pressure or who is playing QB and you have a recipe for a really bad offense. They now have three guys committed to the outside on each side, plus a MLB who is going to look for the cutbacks. Now you cannot run the ball at all, but if you just give up on it they will simply pin their ears back. This also makes the middle look pretty open, which it is, if you have the guys to do it. We do not have those guys. I would guess this was part of the adjustment that they made at halftime and the only thing Al could do was attack the middle, which is like hunting a bear with a BB gun. |
| 25 weeks 4 days ago | Their defense as a unit may |
Their defense as a unit may be mediocre, but there defensive line is legit. Our offensive line is simple not very good as a unit. In order to exploit the rest of the defense you need to take care of their front four. We did not and honestly cannot do that on a regular basis and the examples that you give are the results of the few times we did. Are they better than us as a whole? Maybe a little, but the one area that they are really good we are really bad. There is a reason so much emphasis is being put on the OL in recruting. To me this game goes back to old saying that games are won in the trenches. They won the trenches. |
| 25 weeks 4 days ago | Secret Sauce?? |
What are you talking about? Turnovers weren't the issue? In football turnovers are always an issue and if you turn it over you will not win very many games. In our four loses we turned to ball over 16 times. That is umm, not good. It also make it difficult to call plays during a turnoverfest because your players often become rattled and are thinking about not turning the ball over, which leads to mistakes. How is Al only a "passable" OC? He was the OC on Aurburn's undefeated team awhile back, when he had players that fit his system. Who are the OC that could have made Denard a pocket passer? He did the best he could to modify his system to fit Denard while still building for the future. Maybe you should give him sometime with a pocket passer before you say he isn't great. This isn't a video game where you can just add the plays you want and it doesn't really matter how they work together or what type of talent you have. "Being a good OC isn't about hard work or luck, it's intelligence," That couldn't be futher from the truth. In fact, that is one of the dumbest things I have read on here in a long time. The fact of the matter is that the offense is really not that talented. We have a QB that doesn't fit the system, average running backs, one stud OL, one good OL, three interior OL that are simply not good enough to get the job done no matter how hard they try, our WR's leave a lot to be desired and our best TE is a skinny true freshman. Look how many Ohio defenders will get drafted in the next few drafts (I count five in just the next one) and then look at how many of our offensive players will. (I count two and Denard will switch positions) I like this quote to describe how Brady and Al have handle the offense, "Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of somebody else." If you want to see a high tempo, spread option attack that is going to put up video game numbers then you are in for a lot of disappointment in the future. |
| 49 weeks 6 days ago | Agreed! |
Would love to have those questions answered. I also don't know how GERG did it to be honest with you. To have no control over the defense you are running or the guy's coaching it would be enough to drive me insane. |
| 49 weeks 6 days ago | The 4-3 didn't produce |
The 4-3 didn't produce terrible results. The shitty position coaching produced terrible results. Shafer's 4-3 defense is a pretty good one and is really fun to coach because of how aggressive it is. |
| 49 weeks 6 days ago | It doesn't mitigate speed. |
It doesn't mitigate speed. It mitigates size through the use of speed. Teams that run the 3-3 are usually small and fast. Does it help against the speed? Sure. If taught and run properly with the right players it will shut down a power running game. Then again, that can be said about any defense. Like you said though Michigan's 3-3 was coached by someone who had no idea what he was doing and was surrounded by guys who can't coach fundamentals. That is a recipe for disaster. |
| 50 weeks 6 min ago | I watched the show first and |
I watched the show first and then read the first two books before the start of the second season. Like you said, you notice all of the things they leave out or change, although I will admit some are for the better. However, what they did to the battle for King's Landing on the show almost made me swear off the show forever. |
| 50 weeks 34 min ago | Good points |
Don't forget about field goals though. I think it is more important to the field goal part of the kicking game, due to all of the moving parts and timing. |
| 50 weeks 41 min ago | Where are these holes that |
Where are these holes that need addressing? Every position has been addressed. Everyone from here on out is just icing on the cake. The differece between being a great and a good one is huge. Try losing a game because you got a kick blocked. |
| 50 weeks 51 min ago | Speed of the game |
It's all well and good that high school kids can do it, but they also don't have the same athletes coming after the kicks like they do in college. If he can get the ball back in .69 sec that is impressive and a huge advantage in the kicking game. |
| 1 year 2 weeks ago | It is a fun defense |
I installed this defense three years ago and have run it ever since. It took a little while to get everyone comfortable switching over from the 4-3 scream and splatter, but once they did it was a lot of fun. Here are a bunch of things that I have learned over the years: There are a lot of different ways to run a 3-3-5. Some guys will run the true stack with the DTs at the 4 tech and the Sam and Will stacked behind them, this is what I run. I know a guy that runs his with the DTs in 5's and the Sam and Will in 30's three yards off the ball. I know two guys who run with the DTs in 3's and the Sam and Will at 50's. This will all depend on the type of athletes you have. Also, you need to decide how you want to use your box safeties (Spur and Bandit) to get the most out of your players. I line mine up 3x3 off the last man on the line in base defense and will often have them rolling up or back. This will also be determined by how you line up your DTs and LB's. This year for example my spur almost always lined up 1x1 off the line, a lot like a standup end in a 5-3. On the other side though my Bandit would often walk off and be 8 yards off the line becasue he could fly down hill. The three safeties are in my opinion the most important guys on the field. These are your best athletes and they need to have the best coaches. If your Spur and Bandit cannot hold the edge you mine as well just go home. They also need to be able to go out in the flats and depending on your coverage scheme they may need to cover man to man. The FS needs to be a ball hawk, make quick reads, and tackle in the open field, he can be the difference between a good and great defense. Some coaches though will have their FS sit back and just not give up the big play. (Which I hate.) Are you going to be a blitzing team or one that reads and reacts? I personally love to blitz (one game I blitzed on every single play) and you can be very creative. I use a numbering system to call my blitzes which allows me to be very flexible and come up with things on the sideline. Combined with different fronts we will show I have over 200 blitzes drawn up. I will usually take about 30 into a game, 20 that we consider our bread and butter and then 10 or so that take advantage of the offense or cover up our weaknesses. If you have a small defensive line slant and loop them all of the time and have them get up field. Do not put them in a position to get latched on too. I love to slant them to the strong side and then bring multiple guys on the back side. If you have big guys slant and loop them all of the time and have them smash the line to the inside gap. This year I had a huge defensive line, 290 at nose and 270 and 250 at DT. I would slant them one way or the other and they would destrory the OL. Our DL had more pancakes this year than the OL. Another thing you need to decide is what you are going to run for coverages. I like to run cover 0 or 1. However, we also run cover 3 and cover 3 clould (the spur and bandit take deep outside 1/3's and CBs take the flats, looks like cover 2). Like everything else they each have pro's and con's and you need to make it fit with your kids abilities. The first two years we were primarily cover 3, but last year it was almost all cover 1. Coaching technique is the most important thing. There are some techniques in this defense that are a lot different than some of the things you may have been doing. You need coaches that can coach them. For the spur and bandit if they lack in just one area they will get exploited. This past season I lost my Spur and Bandit coach and my FS coach. I had to replace them with a guy that had never coached before (this is for varsity) and an offensive coach that moved over to defense. They struggles, the kids sruggled, and as a result our team struggled. In the end though that was my fault for not making sure that my coaches were ready to do the job. I would agree with what someone said earlier, find another school that runs the system that you want and send your whole staff over. I have a number of playbooks and if you are a member of glaziers they have a ton of stuff on their website. I spent around six months working on my playbook and working with other coaches. There are a lot of things for you guys to go over in a short amount of time.
|
| 2 years 3 weeks ago | Correct |
Having spent enough time in Wisconsin I can say that you are correct. However, you forgot one very important thing that they look for, they want guys who are just straight up nasty at the point of attack. I've seen them practice before and they get after it like no one I have ever seen before. You could be at the other side of the practice facility and hear those boys pads popping. This is the sort of thing that Hoke wants to get back too. Your last point is also very true, they recruit almost all of those lower rated guys at their summer camp, if they want an offer they know they have to go to that camp. It's interesting that you mention their star ratings because the one five star that they have, Josh Oglesby has had a hard time getting playing time and keeping it. He is a physical freak, but having seen him play in high school and practice in college the one thing that he does not really have when paired next to his peers is that real deep down nasty streak. Hopefully, he can turn it around, because he is a great kid, but I don't see it happening. |
| 2 years 3 weeks ago | His first year as DC he ran |
His first year as DC he ran what he called the "Raven Package" where he pretty much combined the 3-4 and 4-3 under into one. The down linemen were in a strong 5, strong 1, and a weak three. He had Suggs in a weak 5 tech and he would play from either a two or three point stance depending on the situation. They also brought their Sam backer up to the line. That is what he showed us prior to his first season and the next season he came back to the clinic and said that he ran a lot of it, with a lot of success. I think that after his first season he felt a lot more comfortable and put in more of his own 4-3 stuff. Either way the 3-4 and 4-3 under are very similar. With the number of LB's that we have been going after it's not out of the question that we could see some 3-4 type looks in the future. |
| 2 years 3 weeks ago | He was the best quarterback |
He was the best quarterback because they let him play with the first string offense against the at best second string defense. He was put in a situation where his rate of failure would have been low, which is what you should do with a young qb to build some confidence. To say that he was the best and is going to be awesome is not entirely fair given the context of the situation. If that is what you need to hitch your wagon to to get through these hard times by all means do so, but I would cool the jets on any talk about how good he was in what was really just a controlled scrimmage. |
| 2 years 4 weeks ago | 1) A) Yes the QB will still |
1) A) Yes the QB will still be lining up in the shotgun. B) Clapping and stomping? Just how exactly do you expect to signal for the snap when the entire stadium is screaming at the top of their lungs? Out yell them, shit he won't have a voice left by halftime. C) Starring over like a deer in the headlights at the coach? You don't have to worry about that anymore, they will now be starring like a deer in the headlights at the defense, left to make their own choices. I'm not sure I like that trade off. D) We will still be running out of the gun so mistimed handoffs are still a possibility. 2) They're not listening to the stomp or clap, there are a hundred thousand people in the stadium. They are opperating pretty much the same as they would for a silent count. Which has nothing to do with inexperince and everything to do with coaching. Hell we teach our freshmen in high school to do it, and they're very good at it. 3) What exactly does experience get you? Personally I think that is one thing that people look into way to much. Is it important yes. If it was the deciding factor why are the RB's with the most experince looking up at a couple of guys with very little on the depth chart? Our WR have a lot of playing time under their belts I will give you that but, they have very little experience running these types of routes and combinations. Therefore most of their experience is moot because if they can't run the right routes in the right situations then they won't be playing. 4) I will give you this one for the most part, but realize that he will have a harder time running from undercenter than he did from 7 yards in the backfield. There is a reason that most of those world class athletes are playing back in the spread and not the pro offense. 5) Again, I agree for the most apart. It won't be doom and gloom but there will be growing pains and probably when we can least afford them. Overall, it really comes down to defense. I don't think we will lose because of the offense this year, but I really don't see them winning to many for us either, but that depends on how much Hoke kept in the bag during the spring game too. |
| 2 years 5 weeks ago | Agree |
Magnus, while I often disagree with what you say, you are 100% right. I cringe every time I have to type that word. |
| 2 years 5 weeks ago | Nope |
They can't be, they are a one back set. Which means no FB and three WR. According to what I have been reading that would make it a gimmick. However, the QB lines up under center most of the time, but they still run some gun. I really don't know if they run enough from under center to over come the three WR's on the field though. Someone should make an equation of how much FB you need on the field. Perhaps if you run it with two TE's that will make up for the lack of a FB. Also, I could be mistaken but I believe they run some zone blocking, which would be a strike against manball. Other than all of those issues I would say it's probably as close to manball as you can get.
|
| 2 years 5 weeks ago | or |
or it could have to do with the fact that we might score on the first drive, punt the next three and the other team would be winning 28-7. At that point your game plan is pretty much shot to shit and when you're a running football team a 21 point deficit is hard to overcome with that first year QB. |
| 2 years 5 weeks ago | You are correct other teams |
You are correct other teams figured it out to a degree. I was thinking more about the fans who say it is a gimmick, they are the ones that don't understand what is going on. While our offense did slow down you can't really blame it all on them. It is hard to make adjustments when you are only on the sideline for three plays and the other team scores a TD. (Plus sometimes I think we were just to bullheaded to change) There was also a lot of pressure on them to score 50 every game and I think that sometimes that pushed the young guys to try and do to much. Figure in crappy field position all the time because of giving up TD and then only getting to the 20 on an even worse KR. Those things are hard to overcome when you are playing against a team that is talented and well coached. But, yes all college coaches have figured out how to stop (or at least slow them down) the spread, except maybe Ron English. Not all of them have the talent to do it though. |
| 2 years 5 weeks ago | Gimmick offense |
"It's not about a gimmick offense that tries to put players in wide open spaces." I'm sorry but that makes zero sense to me. I hope our offense puts lots of people in open space. What would the alternative be? Hoping our wide recievers are always covered and our running backs have no holes to run through. Yeah, that sounds much better. Also, it is not a gimmick, just becasue most people don't understand it does not make it a gimmick. It might not be" smash mouth" in your face football, but it involves out smarting the defense not just running them over everyone still has to block. You say you want to beat a guy one on one, well hell if you do that on offense that means that there is one guy left unblocked to take on the ball carrier. That is why good offenses almost always have at least one guy that requires the defense to commit an extra defender to them. Guys like Denard and Braylon who required an extra guy to help, that opens up someone else. That leaves someone else in wide open space which is why we had guys wide open last year because to steal a saying I learned from Mattison when I was younger we "changed the math" to take away one of their guys. Can you do that with a prostyle offense? Yes, but it requires elite players at the skill positions and outside of Denard we don't have those guys. What happens to teams like Wisconsin when they can't run the ball and impose their will? When teams can line up against them and go one on one or change the math in favor of the defense? They tend to lose those games (I am from WI and have seen it many, many times)That is why manball is not always a good idea and why we really won't run it as much as people think. Or just go out there and play linebacker and let Odoms crack block you, then come back and tell me that isn't whatever the hell manball is. |
| 2 years 5 weeks ago | Bad technique can be fixed, |
Bad technique can be fixed, but it takes a lot longer than 15 days of practice. He played with bad technique for four years in high school and then two years of poor coaching his first two years of college. That's six years of doing something poorly. It would be like asking you to do everything with the opposite side of your body (writing, throwing, catching, kicking). Oh, and you only get to two hours a day for 15 days to work on it. Think about how hard it would be to basically change the entire way that you do everything. (That is where he is at with his technique, the only thing he does well is be big. He plays to high, no real hand play or placement, and doesn't move his feet) Could you do it? Absolutely. With the good coaching now and all of the attention being thrown his way he could improve enough to be a average starter this year. If people think he will live up to his five-star ranking this year they are going to be disappointed. Can he still live up to it? Yes, but it is going to take a lot of work. |
| 2 years 5 weeks ago | Agree |
It's not so much that the running back gets trucked behind the line, as it is that they dance behind the line. You can't always hold it against them if there is no where to go. I am really looking forward to reading all of your analysis, but is there a way of looking to see if a guy gets tackled for a loss because the line failed him vs. a guy who is indecisive behind the line who gets tackled for a loss? I think that would tell a lot about how good they are at making the correct choices, which is very important when your running behind a zone scheme that requires a cut and go. Looking at the small amount of ino you just gave that could be a glimpse into why Cox has not seen the field. I know that would be a lot of work, but I think it would go even deeper into your analysis. |
| 2 years 8 weeks ago | A) I would say running for |
A) I would say running for 56 yards against a team that gave up over 450 on the ground is pretty damn close to being a JV team. Plus you take out the 35 yard run and his average is down to 4.2 which is less than Smith's was last year. It's not like he was pumping out 9 yards everytime, he had one good run. B) How in the hell is Smith supposed to turn out 100 yard games when he is spliting carries with other RB's and Denard? If he had the same number of carries as Denard he would have ran for around 1200 yards, which is not to bad. Plus, lets remember that the kid was less than one year removed from major knee surgery. If you take last years average and give him Denards number of carries he would have had around 1500 yards, which again is pretty damn good. Sense you like to pull mathematical equations out of thin air I will too. Lets say that Smith stays healthy and shows just some growth and improvement lets say half a yard per carry. Again with Denards number of carries that would have put him up over 1600 yards which would have put him around 7th in the nation. No I totally see what you are saying this guy needs to go we got a guy who broke a tackle against a MAC team riding pine who with the exception of one carry is averaging 4.2 YPC. Also, who cares if he breaks off long runs, Mike Hart wasn't some sort of speed demon either and he did alright. If anything that just shows how he is consistent, there are no long 35 yard runs in his average to make them look better than they really are. C) Are you really going to use the defense that he looked good against our first team defense? Really? Did you watch the bowl game? The same defense that made a subpar Penn State team with a walk-on QB, an average at best RB, and if I remember correctly a beat to shit O-line look like the best in the country. We let Royster run for 150 yards against us, the same guy who ran for 32 against Alabama and failed to crack 50 in four other games and who averaged less than 4 yards per attempt in six games. That defense? Well by that logic Royster was an All-American, because he looked good against the Michigan starting defense, to hell with what happened agaisnt teams with a pulse. Cam played really well in the spring last year and made some stupid spring All-American teams as a FS, so if we go by spring he should have been a stud. How did that turn out? O yeah spring practice does not matter, maybe Ohio State will spot us TD's next year for all the spring game TD's we score on our first team defense. D) The Denard didn't know the whole playbook and played does not hold any water with me at all. He completed 42% of his passes and averaged just over 5 yards a carry. Can you imagine how bad we would have been if Denard would have had to start as a freshman. The plays that he did know how to run he was shaky at best at running and he made the offense one dimensional. There is also a big difference in bringing in QB to run a package vs a RB. Bringing in Denard added a whole new element to what the defense had to prepare for. Bringing in Cox provides what type of wrinkle? Only knowing how to run three plays that are already part of the offense vs bringing in a QB who runs a different set of plays and brings a whole new skill set. Also, it was Denards first year and it was Cox's third year, not exactly an even playing field. This is big time college football if you cannot learn the playbook you should not play, period. What kind of message does it send to the rest of the team if he is not held accountable to learn the playbook, but the rest of them are? What if Roh decides that he does not want to play run defense anymore and just wants to rush the passer? You can try getting by with letting some guys only do part of the work and it may win you a game or two but that is about it because when you are building a team and want them to compete it is not fair that one guy does not have to pull his weight. That will destroy a team, because before you know it everyone is only going to want to learn what they want. If thats how you want to build a program I wish you nothing but the best of luck, because you are going to need it. |
| 2 years 8 weeks ago | Sounds Familiar |
I think I've had this conversation with a parent after a JV game. "Little Jonny just ran for 200 yards. How many yards did the starting RB run for last Friday? " My response "I don't know" Their response "Only 100 and zero TD!" My response "We won by 20." Their response "If you want to make it to state we are going to need more production than that and I know that Jonny can do better." My response "I'll look into it." What I was thinking in my head "How the fuck did this person get my phone number." To me this is what you sound like and as someone who is a coach you should know better than to play the card of he does well against the backups and shit teams. If a parent came to you with these arguements what would you say? Also, as far as only running the plays that he knows, are you serious? The other team gets paid to watch film too. As a defensive coordinator I LOVE it what when teams do that, makes my job and my guys jobs so much easier. "Oh Cox is in the game and he can't pass block for shit and they only run him inside. What should I do?" That shit might fly for some crappy high school league, but in the Big Ten I don't think so. I'm not saying he is not talented and he may very well be a stud this season, but your arguement is just shocking to me. |
| 2 years 10 weeks ago | Baltimore's "Raven Package" |
Baltimore's "Raven Package" that they use against teams like the Steelers is really just a 4-3 under. The only difference is that Suggs stands up at the weakside defensive end. I remember hearing Greg talk about it a few years ago at a clinic and he said they ran it a lot. |
| 2 years 11 weeks ago | You are right they are not |
You are right they are not focusing on the right things. Most young players just watch the game and the ball. To watch it correctly they need to look at their keys and look for indicators within the offense. Such as the offensive line to see if they point the direction they are going (they can do this a number of different ways) and give away the type of play. Also, if our LB's were reading footwork of the offensive line I cannot tell you how dumb that is. They should have been reading backfield flow. |
| 2 years 13 weeks ago | Greg Mattison has stacks of |
Greg Mattison has stacks of playbooks. If there is on thing coaches don't like to do is throw things away. He has all of his old stuff from his days at Michigan all the way up through his last year in the NFL. Add in Hoke's old playbooks and you have some pretty hefty resources. These guys will watch film of our guys and see what they can do and disign a scheme around them and where they want the program to head. It doesn't take as long to do this as one might think with the technology that is out there, a group of college coaches should be able to toss a base defense together in a couple of days once they have decided on a scheme. After that though they may want to work with the players during the spring to decide what other fronts they can run. Offense is pretty much the same process once you know what direction you are going. I also find it interesting that they are watching film on the Ravens and makes me wonder what they will be running for a scheme. There base is a 3-4, but their Raven package is very similar to what Brian has on the front page as the 4-3 under, except the weakside end is Suggs and he plays in both a two and three point stance. I also know that they ran it a lot against power running team. |
| 2 years 13 weeks ago | I agree that when a team |
I agree that when a team brings in three wide you would sub out the slower safeties, but there are other factors that need to be considered, such as when a team can put a speedy running back into the slot, when you play against those tweener TE's that can split out wide and then put the wideout into the slot, or how do you defend a twins set with a TE on the back side? There are a number of correct answers to each of those questiongs, as long as you have the players to run the one you select and the coaches that know how to teach it. Let me give you an example using some of the guys that we have on offense. We have the five linemen and Denard, lets say the other five guys are Hopkins, Hayes, Koger, Roundtree, and Hemingway. There are a number of different lineup possiblities with those guys, we could go with a regular pro set with Hopkins playing FB, Hayes could split out into the slot on either side, each of which presents different problems, or Koger and Hayes could move out into the slots leaving Hopkins and Denard in the backfield, Hemingway being a big man could also line up as a H-back/Wing leaving just Roy to be split out. With that group there are a number of possibilities and the defensive is then kept on their heels. Add motions and shifting to that and you just added another element to confuse the defense. I'm not saying I know which coverage would be the best for us or that one is better than the other, but there is a little more to it than when they have X player in the game we have to put in Y. Remember the other team pays their coaches to look at this stuff too. I hope you don't feel as though I am calling you out or saying you are wrong. I simply aim to add as much knowledge as a I can to this blog and help give people an a little understanding of the thought process a coach has to go through. |
| 2 years 13 weeks ago | Yes, it will be one of many |
Yes, it will be one of many coverages. A lot of this depends on where Woolfolk play and Mattison likes to mix up his coverages. Running cover 2 on the boundary side and cover 4 on the field side which is kind of what you described and is called cover 6. I would expect to see more of that type of coverage than anything because I know he really liked running them with the Ravens. As far as the tackling of our corners, really? All but one of them was a freshmen and we never practiced tackling, which is kind of a big deal when you are talking about coming straight from high school and playing big ten football. If you want to reduce their chances of making a tackle then you might as well take the LB's and safeties out too because no one on last years team could tackle. How about we give them at least a spring with good coaching before we say what these guys are capable of. Also, if our safeties aren't fast enough to play a deep 1/2 how are they going to cover a slot in man? |
| 2 years 13 weeks ago | So the MLB should be so |
So the MLB should be so massive that he cannot have coverage responsibilities, but you want him to be able to run down the likes of McNabb? Good luck. First, lets assume that we are going to be running cover 2, which is a very likely. By taking your MLB out of coverage that leaves the middle of the field wide open. Which I think most would agree is not a good idea, considering that bad idea turned into the tampa two, which drops the MLB even deeper into the hole. In this case you have to get guys who can run and stuff the middle. Think of guys Brian Urlacher, Derek Brooks, and some guy named Ray Lewis who one of our coaches may or may not have coached. If we play mostly man he would maybe do alright until we start blitzing and they start throwing to the guys out of the backfield. I hate to break it to you but there is only two places in today's game for a MLB who is massive and cannot perform pass coverage and they are bench and DE (Brandon Graham).
|
