Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by FLounder, Apr 7, 2015.
Really interesting read.
Other than some alignment flexibility, I don't see the difference between this "8-3" and the standard "3-4" or maybe 3-4 Nickel.
The article says "instead of matching power up front with two-gapping DL, the 8-3 is defined by the eight stand-up players will shift around to assume different roles." Ok, but that doesn't tell me what the difference is on the DL between the 8-3 and the 3-4. All the X's and O's talk along with the diagrams, basically described the various alignments and position responsibilities in the 3-4 or even 3-3-5.
More philosophy of how to use the 3-4 against the spread than a straight up different defense. Sort of like the Chicago Bears vaunted "46" defense when they won the Super Bowl that was an attacking 4-3.
What's funny to me is that the most innovative offenses and defenses, from a basic schematic standpoint, come mostly from the high school and small college level. Some of the things we've installed on defense over the past 3 years at my high school have been really innovative stuff (not innovated by us, necessarily, but pieces taken from other HS programs from around the country and installed with our terminology to fit our personnel), and we've had top 10 defenses in 5a football each of those years. I love the fact that defensive coaches are getting more creative and proactive with their approach to combat some of the crazy offenses out there now.
Stanford is hoping every other defense in the Pac-12 moves to a 8-3 lol. They would be licking their chops.
This would easily transition into a 4 man front against a power team like Stanford. No team is dropping 8 into coverage against the Trees.
Crazy offenses still rely on the QB or the sideline recognizing what the "D" intends to do. Disguise and deception should always be the watchwords on "D", especially with all these plays called from the sidelines, based on what offensive coachs see from upstairs. Create hesitation or confusion and play slows down for the offense, irrespective of talent. HS coachs need that, since you're restricted in the talent that your squad has available in any given year; outside of Valor, CCHS and a couple of others.
Still love Joe Morrison's "1-10-Guess how many we'll blitz" Defense when he was the DC for New Mexico. With one down lineman, he would send anywhere from none to ten guys on the blitz at any time, any situation, any place on the field. His "D" gave a Lavell Edwards' BYU teams absolute fits and a vastly inferior UNM beat Edwards' teams on a couple of rare occasions.
Compare and contrast with our own Vince Okruch, whose "D" twice gave UWisc first downs on 4th and forever situations in the Alamo Bowl. They sat back in "prevent"---no blitz---givng the UW QB 7-10 seconds to find an open receiver, which he did, TWICE, in coming back to beat the Buffs in that game! (But then, VO was BFF with GB, so didn't matter.)
I was more referring to "being flexible" and trying to make the offense play defense. Stanford doesn't do that, they just run you the f*** over. Some of the smartest o lineman in the nation too that know their protection schemes and don't get confused by what the defense does.
Gotcha. That's what I love about Stanford. They'll rarely get the best athletes, but they're always respectable. Great coaching, smart players and a blue collar mentality will always give you a shot.
Seems like Stanford gets good athletes. Maybe more smart and good rather than dumb and better, but good athletes consistently nonetheless
If you're getting a P5 scholarship offer, you're a great athlete. I'm just saying, they aren't getting the same number of elite athletes as USC, UCLA, Oregon, ASU, etc.
I'm all for anything that gets us to 8-3.
Let's go with the 0-11 defense, where guys just roam all over the field
After USC, Stanford is holding its own against the elite teams in the conference. If you look they are consistently pulling in players of the same caliber as UCLA and Oregon. ASU has been coming on in recruiting but I would put Stanford ahead of them. Plus Stanford is a program that recruits national for those recruits that are focused on academics and now that they have been winning they are even more appealing.
It's all relative. To give a basketball example, you can look at Eli Stalzer and what he did in high school both in basketball and volleyball: great athlete. When we saw him play at KU as a freshman, it shined a bright ****ing light on the difference between a great high school athlete and the type of athlete who is great at the Power Conference D1 level.
I thought we tried that when Embree was coach
Andrew Luck – Indianapolis Colts
Richard Sherman – Seattle Seahawks, and
Doug Baldwin – Seattle Seahawks
Alex Debniak – San Francisco 49ers
David DeCastro - Pittsburgh Steelers
Jim Dray – Arizona Cardinals
Zach Ertz – Philadelphia Eagles
Coby Fleener - Indianapolis Colts
Cameron Fleming - New England Patriots
Sione Fua - Denver Broncos
Toby Gerhart – Jacksonville Jaguars
Delano Howell - Indianapolis Colts
Thomas Keiser – San Diego Chargers
Matt Kopa – Miami Dolphins
Erik Lorig – New Orleans Saints
Matthew Masifilo – Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Trent Murphy - Washington Redskins
Chris Owusu – Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Konrad Reuland – New York Jets
Alex Smith – Cincinnati Bengals
Jeremy Stewart - Oakland Raiders
Will Svitek – Atlanta Falcons
Stepfan Taylor – Arizona Cardinals
Michael Thomas - Miami Dolphins
Levine Toilolo – Atlanta Falcons
Griff Whalen - Indianapolis Colts
Ryan Whalen – Cincinnati Bengals
There's a huge difference between who is able to recruit the best athletes/players projecting out of high school and who is able to develop the ones they get and how they end up doing in the NFL.
Doug Baldwin was a 2* recruit coming into Stanford and Richard Sherman was a 3*, FYI. I think Allbuffs would have thrown a fit had CU signed them.
I think most would be pumped to sign a player who was offered by Stanford instead of Samford which seems to be the case these days.
TScheckler really makes some bad assumptions about how people would react to various recruits.
I think it's an insult to you and others who follow recruiting closely and raise criticisms of CU recruiting when someone assumes that you're not informed and discerning enough to look beyond how many stars the Rivals evaluator decides to put in a prospect's profile.
Not only that, but arguing Stanford is having big success despite a lack of athleticism is the type of "common knowledge" that drives me nuts. They may not have the team speed of Bama or FSU, but that team has serious athletes on the OL and in the defensive front seven. That goes a long way.
I think Oregon would agree with you.
Sherman had offers from 3 P5 schools. I would've been pretty pumped to get him. Obviously disappointed he's not a 5* which is what I think every recruiting class should mostly consist of, but sometimes you can work in some under the radar types like Sherman or Tim Lynott.
To the OP's article, it's accurate but not that interesting. CU's been running something similar at times on passing downs. The NFL was calling it the "amoeba defense", where guys in the front 7 or 6 kind of wander around, then get set in running stances just before the snap.
I get the idea behind it, but it still comes down to your personnel. A good OL isn't changing their alignment, and if they know what they're doing, dudes wandering around in front of them before the snap isn't going to change what they do much. You still need good D-linemen, you still need good LB's that can rush the passer. It's not really a game changing defensive philosophy, just another wrinkle DC's have come up with recently.
It might force the OL into a zone blocking scheme. But if they make that adjustment, I don't see how it would effect them much.
Doug Baldwin had 1 P5 offer. Based on the reactions to the 2015 recruiting cycle at CU, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to "assume" the negative reaction had Baldwin came to CU with no other P5 offers.
I respect both of your guys' recruiting knowledge as you follow it much closer than I do, and I am in no way "insulting" anyone. It was a comment made in jest that was not even specifically directed at either you.
For gawd's sake don't mention this to Slider, New Mex, White Rabbit or Dio! They'll all suffer massive strokes!!!
Baldwin was the class of 2007. That class averaged 3.5 stars, middle of the Pac 12, coming off of a 1-11, dead last performance in the 2006 season. I think we would have been delighted with that outcome this past recruiting season.
That's also hitting the way back machine to try to come up with an example to back your point that Stanford doesn't have the horses that others do. Anything more recent related to Stanford's classes?
I give Allbuffs a little more credit than that. Generally, I see questions and skepticism when CU accepts a commitment from a 2*. But then people evaluate before forming a strong opinion. A good example from the current class is Laguda. I think most of us like that 2* signing.
Separate names with a comma.