Who has the best defense in the conference and what defense do they run?
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
2015: Recruiting News, Notes & Official Visitors
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Who has the best defense in the conference and what defense do they run?
Last edited:
Actually, I left Clay off on purpose as I don't see him as anything other than a 3rd and long pass rusher - specialty guy. It's not like he can fill in as an every down guy.
Clay has had trouble putting on weight because he's already put on about as much weight as humanly possible (during High School). He's strong as an ox for his size, but he's more like 6'0" 240 (I've stood next to him several times). He will never play 15 pounds heavier.
Clay has had trouble putting on weight because he's already put on about as much weight as humanly possible (during High School). He's strong as an ox for his size, but he's more like 6'0" 240 (I've stood next to him several times). He will never play 15 pounds heavier.
There is something wrong with this post, can't figure out what it is without taking my socks of.
Not if you are thinking the pro-style 3-4. The 3-3-5 can also be a 3-4-4 when you use a guy like Awuzie in that hybrid spot. Is he a DB or a LB? Depends on the offensive set.
For what purpose did you leave off Jimmie Gilbert? Do you see him as a LB in the future?
Hard to understand how we are giving up so many points with 12 guys on the field against their 11.
More speed on the field, more possible coverages and blitz looks, while still clogging the middle with 3 big DL. Effective against both spread and traditional teams. See: stanford.
Now, you gonna answer the above questions, or just keep running ?
I don't have the answer, but I really think we are looking to play a different defense down the road that will work against the Power teams (CSU, Stanford, USC) as well as the zone-read sprint teams. I don't think the 4-2-5 is the answer with undersized speedy LBs. Maybe we are now recruiting two sets of D-linemen, one for each of those offenses? Something is going on....
I've said before that Stanford has shutdown Oregon 2 straight years. That's a defense that practices against a pro-style offense, but they owned Oregon. That's not intuitive.
The only thing I learned from the film is that Stanford relied on the unblocked "read guy, i.e. defensive end" to play the QB straight up and dare him to take it outside, and then chase him down and run him out of bounds. 5 yard gains, but a lot of running for that yardage by the QB.... After awhile, Oregon quit taking that play.
I've said before that Stanford has shutdown Oregon 2 straight years. That's a defense that practices against a pro-style offense, but they owned Oregon. That's not intuitive.
The only thing I learned from the film is that Stanford relied on the unblocked "read guy, i.e. defensive end" to play the QB straight up and dare him to take it outside, and then chase him down and run him out of bounds. 5 yard gains, but a lot of running for that yardage by the QB.... After awhile, Oregon quit taking that play.
Not running from anything, just wondering why all of a sudden the 3-4 is this superior defense. I don't really have a favorite it of those two, just looks like we are building for a 4-2-5 defense.
Doesn't change what I said. How often do we line up in the 4-3 anyway? So why would we build for a defense we aren't in much? Same would go for the 3-4.
Would either of those base defenses work well against Zona, ASU, UCLA, or Utah? Sure they can work, but you're gonna need a whole lot of talent for it to work, like Stanford or USC. I only see those two being effective against USC and Stanford.
This makes absolutely no sense.
tini tini tini..
Why does it matter what "base" defense you run? Against today's modern multi-set offenses a base defense is no good. It is all about matching up personnel and scheme on every play. You have to be able to run a variety of schemes on defense which include 2, 3, 4, or 5 down and any combination of LB's and DB's. The only constant on defense is you have to be able to effectively defend against 6 players that can touch the ball and 5 that want to pancake you on the ground. If you don't match your personnel to the offense's personnel, you will lose.
How? All I'm saying is to build your defensive scheme to fit your conference opponents offenses. So what defense has the best results against the spread offenses? 4-2-5 ftw
Read what you wrote. Explain Stanford. You are killing yourself here.
I don't care if we run a Stanford defense, a Florida State defense, an Alabama defense, etc. Scheme is meaningless if you don't have the talent to run it.
I'm in favor of running the defense that takes best advantage of us recruiting the best defensive athletes we can get. It's kind of like a coach coming in and trying to run straight man to man in the defensive backfield with a bunch of CBs who were recruited to play zones.
I'm in favor of running the defense that takes best advantage of us recruiting the best defensive athletes we can get. It's kind of like a coach coming in and trying to run straight man to man in the defensive backfield with a bunch of CBs who were recruited to play zones.
:circlejerk:
Other than they have a **** ton of talent and a ground based offense so they control the clock?
That's your argument? Yeesh. Ok, carry on. Please provide us the advantages of the 4-2-5 over the 3-4.
4-man front is more likely to gain you quick penetration on the interior of the line. That's the main argument for it. Disrupt the QBs timing on those quick passes and also force QB to get rid of the ball fast on those zone read & spread option plays.
Thank you. I also imagine it's a bit simpler to teach since you have less shifting and movement in the front 6/7.
This would also be an advantage if you can teach it and have the players for it.
The point that seems to be eluding tini here is that either one works, just depends on what the team prefers to do.
Not to mention the 4-2-5 also depends on playmakers being able to win individual battles to get the necessary pressure on the QB. Without the players to win those individual battles, you lose a lot of the advantages of the 4-2-5.
