|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 9, 2019 19:05:28 GMT -8
Going from 128th to 80th in defense, using last year's results, takes 16 points off the board for our opponents. I would assume thst means more opportunities for the offense. If the Beavs took 2 opponent TD's off the board snd scored 1 extra TD because of it, suddenly 5 more wins were in play.
Not saying where this year's defense or offense are going to be, but if both improve, there are going to be a bunch more games that could be wins in play than last year.
|
|
|
Post by fridaynightlights on Aug 9, 2019 19:44:07 GMT -8
It would be interesting to bring someone in like Leavitt. He took an Oregon defense ranked 126th and took them to 46th in one year. That was an obvious case of replacing incompetent coaching with good coaching. I am not sure if the issue with the Beavs last year was more about coaching or more about personnel. The tackling fundamentals were atrocious at times last year and that has to be at least partially on coaching I would think. There were also a few times where the Defense looked like it had no interest in being on the field. The start of the second half against Cal comes to mind. Sucking is one thing, throwing in the white flag is another...
|
|
|
Post by qbeaver on Aug 10, 2019 2:45:48 GMT -8
Won't improve...rediculous! Unless we can't stay healthy,the additions of Gumbs,Whittley and Roberts will be huge in the run game. Add in Hicks-Onu,Morris,Fisher,and the new juco kids,the depth and talent level will be elevated substantially. Bennett and an improved Hodgins will add nice depth. I fully expect a big jump in production being the second year in the Smith regime.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 10, 2019 8:27:32 GMT -8
I do wish we had Vakameilalo for an additional year. I think he’s been a fairly solid player for us the last two years. If Whittley is better than him, great, especially if the rest of the line is improving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 9:15:26 GMT -8
Won't improve...rediculous! Unless we can't stay healthy,the additions of Gumbs,Whittley and Roberts will be huge in the run game. Add in Hicks-Onu,Morris,Fisher,and the new juco kids,the depth and talent level will be elevated substantially. Bennett and an improved Hodgins will add nice depth. I fully expect a big jump in production being the second year in the Smith regime. Agreed. Of all the stupid predictions you could make about the 2019 Oregon State team, that one might be the stupidest. Because if you were paying attention last year, you might have noticed the defense was all time, record setting, WOAT bad. That kind of performance is not often repeated. The beaver defense can be merely bad this year and that will be... an IMPROVEMENT.
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Aug 10, 2019 10:07:43 GMT -8
Being totally honest I was going to add "much" to the thread title. I honestly think we will see GREAT improvement on the defense... relatively speaking. I mean, we were the 128th ranked defense. we were otherworldly bad. I suspect we slash some of our awful metrics down considerably. But, instead of a 128th ranked defense, we are, say, an 80th ranked defense. I am not sure that is good enough to win Pac-12 games without a lights out offense and some lucky bounces. And while I think we have a pretty good offense, I also do not think we will be a scoring powerhouse on that side either. We will still not be a good defense. we aren't going to suddenly be a top 25 unit this year.but objectively speaking, we will have a greatly improved defense. We have an awful schedule. a poor road/home mix and a rough OOC schedule to boot. Maybe in another year, we are a 4-5 win team, I just am not sure it is in the cards, despite us being a significantly improved team. Reading some tea leaves here but I thought this update was interesting. 247sports.com/college/oregon-state/LongFormArticle/Oregon-State-Beavers-fall-camp-2019-freshmen-week-1-134323899/#134323899_7Just from taking a look at it from 10,000 feet -a lot more of the defense freshman sound like they are expecting to contribute than the offense. Even though it sounds like more of the talent is with the offense freshman. Unless you are an absolute stud 5 star guy, I don't like a team counting on any freshman on defense. Tells me what we already guess, we are still thin AND young. At RB, TE, WR those freshman are pretty well thought of, but still might redshirt, not so much on the other side. You are right and 80th ranked defense isn't going to win you Pac12 games. To overcome that the offense will have to play lights out. I think we are looking at 3 wins. But it will be a competitive season.
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Aug 10, 2019 10:08:53 GMT -8
Won't improve...rediculous! Unless we can't stay healthy,the additions of Gumbs,Whittley and Roberts will be huge in the run game. Add in Hicks-Onu,Morris,Fisher,and the new juco kids,the depth and talent level will be elevated substantially. Bennett and an improved Hodgins will add nice depth. I fully expect a big jump in production being the second year in the Smith regime. Agreed. Of all the stupid predictions you could make about the 2019 Oregon State team, that one might be the stupidest. Because if you were paying attention last year, you might have noticed the defense was all time, record setting, WOAT bad. That kind of performance is not often repeated. The beaver defense can be merely bad this year and that will be... an IMPROVEMENT. Agreed
|
|
|
Post by qbeaver on Aug 10, 2019 10:25:14 GMT -8
In addition,if the offense becomes more productive,which I believe it will,it will allow the defense to not have to be on the field as much. That makes the perceived lack of proven depth at defensive line less of an issue if they are on the sideline. An improved defensive line helps the linebackers and d-backs not have to cover as long. Stop the run first,and that gives us a chance to get off the field sooner.
Last year we didn't have enough healthy pieces for coach Tibs to run a Pac-12 level defense. I'm optimistic that with more weapons,we will see a more varied defense. I'm excited for the future...
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 10, 2019 11:01:11 GMT -8
I honestly think we will see GREAT improvement on the defense... relatively speaking. I mean, we were the 128th ranked defense. we were otherworldly bad. I suspect we slash some of our awful metrics down considerably. But, instead of a 128th ranked defense, we are, say, an 80th ranked defense. I am not sure that is good enough to win Pac-12 games without a lights out offense and some lucky bounces. And while I think we have a pretty good offense, I also do not think we will be a scoring powerhouse on that side either. We will still not be a good defense. we aren't going to suddenly be a top 25 unit this year.but objectively speaking, we will have a greatly improved defense. We have an awful schedule. a poor road/home mix and a rough OOC schedule to boot. Maybe in another year, we are a 4-5 win team, I just am not sure it is in the cards, despite us being a significantly improved team. Reading some tea leaves here but I thought this update was interesting. 247sports.com/college/oregon-state/LongFormArticle/Oregon-State-Beavers-fall-camp-2019-freshmen-week-1-134323899/#134323899_7Just from taking a look at it from 10,000 feet -a lot more of the defense freshman sound like they are expecting to contribute than the offense. Even though it sounds like more of the talent is with the offense freshman. Unless you are an absolute stud 5 star guy, I don't like a team counting on any freshman on defense. Tells me what we already guess, we are still thin AND young. At RB, TE, WR those freshman are pretty well thought of, but still might redshirt, not so much on the other side. You are right and 80th ranked defense isn't going to win you Pac12 games. To overcome that the offense will have to play lights out. I think we are looking at 3 wins. But it will be a competitive season. I sure read that article differently if that what you are basing the distant view observation on. Speights was the only freshman defender mentioned as likely making the travel squad. That doesn't sound like relying on freshmen to me.
|
|
|
Post by alaskabeav on Aug 10, 2019 13:08:27 GMT -8
What a great AM uplifting positive story! Ouch ummm We are a well established 4/3 defense. It takes special recruits to run a 3/4 and a league that isn’t pass happy. Anderson could not see this and is not an Erickson. We did pretty good with undersized front lines for many years in a 4/3 But the gaps to fill in a 3/4 are just killing us in many ways. The make up of your players is important also. Some kids are ok in one on one tackling some are group type of tacklers 3/4 you must be a sure tackler cuz of the gaps. If you have d line guys in big gaps it’s easier for Kline guys to get to your legs thus injuries. I was shocked when we stuck with the 3/4 when Smith was hired. Whatever happened to changing Skeems like in the old days if something doesn’t work. It’s hard to watch runners do the same thing over and over to a defense. We saw this t with Anderson and last year again I hope this is the last year we see the 3/4 unless we get some studs who can get it done. By the way nfl the ant it a 4/3 base still. That base has stood the test of time?
|
|
|
Post by obf on Aug 12, 2019 11:28:03 GMT -8
What a great AM uplifting positive story! Ouch ummm We are a well established 4/3 defense. It takes special recruits to run a 3/4 and a league that isn’t pass happy. Anderson could not see this and is not an Erickson. We did pretty good with undersized front lines for many years in a 4/3 But the gaps to fill in a 3/4 are just killing us in many ways. The make up of your players is important also. Some kids are ok in one on one tackling some are group type of tacklers 3/4 you must be a sure tackler cuz of the gaps. If you have d line guys in big gaps it’s easier for Kline guys to get to your legs thus injuries. I was shocked when we stuck with the 3/4 when Smith was hired. Whatever happened to changing Skeems like in the old days if something doesn’t work. It’s hard to watch runners do the same thing over and over to a defense. We saw this t with Anderson and last year again I hope this is the last year we see the 3/4 unless we get some studs who can get it done. By the way nfl the ant it a 4/3 base still. That base has stood the test of time? I think people get too caught up in 3-4 vs. 4-3 terminology. Most NFL teams run a 2-5 if you want to get technical about, most downs the OLBs rush from the edges and become defacto D-Ends and it ends up looking like a 4-3, but, for example, Von Miller drops in coverage sometimes too, or doesn't rush and plays the more conventional run contain OLB role... Long story short, when you have a small, unproven stable of defensive linemen, and a large stable of compentent looking linebakers (many of whom are really DEs, but it makes them feel better to be called LB), it makes total sense, personel wise, to run a base defense that relies less on the defensive line. Sure, it takes a special nose tackle to make a true 3-4 run well.... but in a 4-3 it STILL TAKES FOUR D Lineman, special or not we dont have FOUR. We have three questionable starters (Whittley, Hodgins, Elu) and a bunch of unknowns (freshman and less hearlded transfers). Call the scheme whatever you want, maybe the best term for our defensive scheme should be: Hide and de-emphasize the d-lineman and all costs-4 The more I look at the linebaking core the more intrigued I get actually, if I squint I can see EIGHT Pac-12 starting LB! If I was Tibesar I would run a 2-5 and blitz on every down.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 12, 2019 13:35:18 GMT -8
We are a well established 4/3 defense. It takes special recruits to run a 3/4 and a league that isn’t pass happy. Anderson could not see this and is not an Erickson. We did pretty good with undersized front lines for many years in a 4/3 But the gaps to fill in a 3/4 are just killing us in many ways. The make up of your players is important also. Some kids are ok in one on one tackling some are group type of tacklers 3/4 you must be a sure tackler cuz of the gaps. If you have d line guys in big gaps it’s easier for Kline guys to get to your legs thus injuries. I was shocked when we stuck with the 3/4 when Smith was hired. Whatever happened to changing Skeems like in the old days if something doesn’t work. It’s hard to watch runners do the same thing over and over to a defense. We saw this t with Anderson and last year again I hope this is the last year we see the 3/4 unless we get some studs who can get it done. By the way nfl the ant it a 4/3 base still. That base has stood the test of time? I think people get too caught up in 3-4 vs. 4-3 terminology. Most NFL teams run a 2-5 if you want to get technical about, most downs the OLBs rush from the edges and become defacto D-Ends and it ends up looking like a 4-3, but, for example, Von Miller drops in coverage sometimes too, or doesn't rush and plays the more conventional run contain OLB role... Long story short, when you have a small, unproven stable of defensive linemen, and a large stable of compentent looking linebakers (many of whom are really DEs, but it makes them feel better to be called LB), it makes total sense, personel wise, to run a base defense that relies less on the defensive line. Sure, it takes a special nose tackle to make a true 3-4 run well.... but in a 4-3 it STILL TAKES FOUR D Lineman, special or not we dont have FOUR. We have three questionable starters (Whittley, Hodgins, Elu) and a bunch of unknowns (freshman and less hearlded transfers). Call the scheme whatever you want, maybe the best term for our defensive scheme should be: Hide and de-emphasize the d-lineman and all costs-4 The more I look at the linebaking core the more intrigued I get actually, if I squint I can see EIGHT Pac-12 starting LB! If I was Tibesar I would run a 2-5 and blitz on every down. If you run a successful 3-4, you also need more and better ILBs to pick up slack. And our ILBs looked (choose one) under-athletic/under-sized/under-coached from 2015-2018. I can only think of one year that Oregon State really could field two great ILBs and that was 2014. The problem is that the 3-4 forces a defense to play great up-the-middle, and I am still waiting to see that great up-the-middle talent and scheming to justify the defense. The other problem is that the 3-4 should make Oregon State stronger on the edges, as you are pointing out, but it seems like the Beavers are, in fact, weaker. (Same amount or more big plays off the edge and fewer sacks.) Finally, the other perceived advantage to the 3-4, the creation of turnovers, has also never materialized with the fewest turnovers generated among FBS teams. It takes a lot of scheming and coaching to make a 3-4 work better than a 4-3, and I am concerned that both the coaching and talent were and continue to be lacking. (Specifically, I believe that the talent is just never going to be there in Corvallis to justify the inherent drawbacks to the defense.)
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Aug 12, 2019 15:07:57 GMT -8
I think our DC should be on the hot seat now. Hell, he was on the hot seat the moment he got here and said we were keeping the base 3-4 defense that GAG installed. Everything associated with the prior regime should have been burned down and started over from scratch, and we should have immediately gone back to a 4-3 base, regardless of how past recruiting was emphasized. All of this hand wringing, and I'm not calling you or anyone out specifically, is missing the mark. Defenses are so multiple these days that it's really hard to even tell what a base is anymore. It's common to see the traditional 3-4 on 1st down, and then down and distance dictating, see that OLB come hang over the end on 2nd down and now you're in a 4-3, and on 3rd down(assuming passing down) a LB will come off for a DB, your NT will come out, you'll slide your SDE inside to tackle and bring in another SDE for a pass rush. It's a base 3-4 that actually ran 3-4 once in 3 plays. That's defense today. The base defense is becoming a (3-4 based) 4-2-5 for many many teams, with that 4th DL being the Stud/Buck/whatever OLB who just moves up to the line on passing downs. Going to a "base 4-3" doesn't solve any personnel issues, and that's what it boils down to. Jimmies & Joes. BSU runs a 3-4 but it's a one gap. Chip Kelly and co run a 3-4 at UCLA but it's a 2 gap. etc, etc, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 15:11:43 GMT -8
I think people get too caught up in 3-4 vs. 4-3 terminology. Most NFL teams run a 2-5 if you want to get technical about, most downs the OLBs rush from the edges and become defacto D-Ends and it ends up looking like a 4-3, but, for example, Von Miller drops in coverage sometimes too, or doesn't rush and plays the more conventional run contain OLB role... Long story short, when you have a small, unproven stable of defensive linemen, and a large stable of compentent looking linebakers (many of whom are really DEs, but it makes them feel better to be called LB), it makes total sense, personel wise, to run a base defense that relies less on the defensive line. Sure, it takes a special nose tackle to make a true 3-4 run well.... but in a 4-3 it STILL TAKES FOUR D Lineman, special or not we dont have FOUR. We have three questionable starters (Whittley, Hodgins, Elu) and a bunch of unknowns (freshman and less hearlded transfers). Call the scheme whatever you want, maybe the best term for our defensive scheme should be: Hide and de-emphasize the d-lineman and all costs-4 The more I look at the linebaking core the more intrigued I get actually, if I squint I can see EIGHT Pac-12 starting LB! If I was Tibesar I would run a 2-5 and blitz on every down. If you run a successful 3-4, you also need more and better ILBs to pick up slack. And our ILBs looked (choose one) under-athletic/under-sized/under-coached from 2015-2018. I can only think of one year that Oregon State really could field two great ILBs and that was 2014. The problem is that the 3-4 forces a defense to play great up-the-middle, and I am still waiting to see that great up-the-middle talent and scheming to justify the defense. The other problem is that the 3-4 should make Oregon State stronger on the edges, as you are pointing out, but it seems like the Beavers are, in fact, weaker. (Same amount or more big plays off the edge and fewer sacks.) Finally, the other perceived advantage to the 3-4, the creation of turnovers, has also never materialized with the fewest turnovers generated among FBS teams. It takes a lot of scheming and coaching to make a 3-4 work better than a 4-3, and I am concerned that both the coaching and talent were and continue to be lacking. (Specifically, I believe that the talent is just never going to be there in Corvallis to justify the inherent drawbacks to the defense.) Wrongodashiznit.
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Aug 12, 2019 15:24:51 GMT -8
We are a well established 4/3 defense. It takes special recruits to run a 3/4 and a league that isn’t pass happy. Anderson could not see this and is not an Erickson. We did pretty good with undersized front lines for many years in a 4/3 But the gaps to fill in a 3/4 are just killing us in many ways. The make up of your players is important also. Some kids are ok in one on one tackling some are group type of tacklers 3/4 you must be a sure tackler cuz of the gaps. If you have d line guys in big gaps it’s easier for Kline guys to get to your legs thus injuries. I was shocked when we stuck with the 3/4 when Smith was hired. Whatever happened to changing Skeems like in the old days if something doesn’t work. It’s hard to watch runners do the same thing over and over to a defense. We saw this t with Anderson and last year again I hope this is the last year we see the 3/4 unless we get some studs who can get it done. By the way nfl the ant it a 4/3 base still. That base has stood the test of time? I think people get too caught up in 3-4 vs. 4-3 terminology. Most NFL teams run a 2-5 if you want to get technical about, most downs the OLBs rush from the edges and become defacto D-Ends and it ends up looking like a 4-3, but, for example, Von Miller drops in coverage sometimes too, or doesn't rush and plays the more conventional run contain OLB role... Long story short, when you have a small, unproven stable of defensive linemen, and a large stable of compentent looking linebakers (many of whom are really DEs, but it makes them feel better to be called LB), it makes total sense, personel wise, to run a base defense that relies less on the defensive line. Sure, it takes a special nose tackle to make a true 3-4 run well.... but in a 4-3 it STILL TAKES FOUR D Lineman, special or not we dont have FOUR. We have three questionable starters (Whittley, Hodgins, Elu) and a bunch of unknowns (freshman and less hearlded transfers). Call the scheme whatever you want, maybe the best term for our defensive scheme should be: Hide and de-emphasize the d-lineman and all costs-4 The more I look at the linebaking core the more intrigued I get actually, if I squint I can see EIGHT Pac-12 starting LB! If I was Tibesar I would run a 2-5 and blitz on every down. I didn't see your reply, well stated. I also think the 3-4 is considered to be a little more flexible with where you can bring blitzes from. It might be a little easier to send that corner blitz from the 4-2-5 because you've got that extra DB on the field, or because your 4th DL is effectively your OLB who is athletic enough to drop into coverage and cover the flat, or whatever zone the blitzing DB vacated. And as you said, one of those linebackers is rushing the QB almost every snap anyway, and you can be a little trickier with which one that is(even if it's normally that one OLB guy) simply because there are more of those dudes on the field. Dick Lebeau made his living in the 4-2-5 out of the base 3-4 by sending 5(or 6) men on the rush, the offense never knowing which players it would be, while still being able to play zone behind it with that 5th defensive back.
|
|