|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 9, 2018 12:14:51 GMT -8
So basically Washington's offense. That sucks? Ya right. That's what I have taken away from his explanations of what he plans to do. So was this Chris Peterson football or Johnathan Smith style. All I know is, if I hear we need to find our identity one time I will go bat s%#t crazy. "Find our identity" is synonymous with executing and scoring points. If we are not doing that, you will most certainly read and hear find our "identity."
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Feb 9, 2018 12:18:26 GMT -8
The 3-4 makes me nervous because, or so it seems to me, one needs to recruit fairly exceptional athletes to fill the positions at NG, DT and OLB. In a 3-4, the NG must be able to eat up 2-3 OLs by himself, a rare player, indeed. In 1 4-3, you can throw in two guys for the same assignment. In a 3-4, the DTs must be able to take on 2 guys a lot of the time, whether it be am OG and an OT or an OT and a TE. In the 4-3, DTs take off pressure by engaging the OGs most of the time. In a 3-4, the OLBs have to be able to rush the edge, contain the edge, cover backs, TE's and occasionally even slots in passing plays, and take on stunting OLs in sweeps and other off-tackle runs. In a 4-3, the DEs don't have to (except on generally rare plays) cover receivers/backs. Essentially, the OLBs have to be fast enough to cover on passing plays and big and strong enough to take on OLs on run plays. That's a tall order. I wonder if OSU can consistently recruit NGs, and DTs and OLBs suited to a 3-4. I look at the best example of a good 3-4 in the Pac 12 over the last few years (Stanford) and have to really wonder if we can get the monster DTs that those guys get on a year-in-year-out basis. Don't forget ILBs. I think that Oregon State can recruit OLBs, but finding two true ILBs to come to Oregon State is going to be a once a decade sort of deal. I think that finding an NG, two DTs, and two ILBs to play in Corvallis at the same time is a once in a half century sort of deal. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just see Oregon State continuing to get dominated by the Stanfords, USCs, and Washingtons of the world. I think it's a misconception that finding the bodies to populate a 3-4 defensive line is difficult. The rare body is the 0 tech nose. The 3-tech DE is basically the same pool of candidates as the 43 front interior linemen, but you only need one good one instead of two linemates there. There's not an overwhelming supply of 6-2 290 guys but they aren't super rare. Your pass rushing (weak side) DE is often a 6-3 250 Victor Butler guy, kind of interchangeable skillset with your weak side linebacker. Long hybrid guys (remember DeForest Buckner for the Ducks from a few years back?) who can drop into coverage occasionally are a huge bonus but more importantly you can do this with a few different body types that aren't impossible to come by. I think we actually have some guys who can play the Mike in the 3-4 too. Andrzej Hughes-Murray looks that part to me, hes a guy who can flow through traffic and is big and physical enough to take on the guard heads-up when needed. What I see as missing from our defense is that I don't see a single TED linebacker on the roster. That guy needs to be an Alan Darlin, stand up DL type. That's what is missing, an inside linebacker that can take on and defeat an offensive lineman head up in the hole. 6-1, 6-2, 265-275 pounds. Dylan Wynn would have been an AWESOME TEDbacker.
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 9, 2018 12:55:24 GMT -8
I am excited to see what Smith and Lindgren do with the offense, I could care less what they call it, or if it originated with Petersen or Riley or even Pettibone.... Just score points! And man would it be nice to not have a QB with less than 100 passing yards a game, smh... As for the defense... It feels like we have been wringing our hands about what defense the Beavs run since.... well since I was old enough to pay attention In the early Riley years it was the lack of beef up front and the fact that we refused to run zone concepts in the defensive back field and that we seemed to REFUSE to teach the CBs to turn back and look for the ball. (Ex: "Why do we always run man to man, we don't have and CAN'T recruit the CBs for man to man, run a zone!") Later on every HATED Banker because he ran a 4-3, 4-4, and seemed to refuse to account for the running QB. People were screaming for the 3-4 and a QB spy. (Ex: "Arrrrgggg, who cares if we get them into 3rd and long, Banker will just keep running his dumb 4-3 base defense, the wr will all run deep, and the opposing Qb will RUN for the danged first down, why can't we just run a 3-4???") Now we finally switch to the 3-4 and every cries about not being able to find a "true" nose tackle... The real bottom line is that talent scarcity will always be an issue for all teams (except for maybe the USCs and Alabamas) and all schemes, teaching fundamentals, being flexible and being able to make adjustments is what will help us have a good defense. The QA 3-4 didn't work because we taught poor fundamentals (how many TFL turned into good gains because a defender didn't wrap up?) and could never adjust (Hmm they are gashing us inside, should we stack the box for a couple plays??? Nahhhhhhh). Will we be able to recruit a stud NT? Be able to develop one? Does it matter if we change to a 4-3 and ask the same question about recruiting or developing a stud MLB or pass rushing DE? IMHO, no, it doesn't matter. Every scheme we put out there will have positions that require special players and great development, the key is if our coaching staff can actually achieve any player development see our deficiencies and help cover them with schemes and plays not necessarily base defense changes. It's my opinion that this staff can do that. QA and co certainly couldn't...
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Feb 9, 2018 13:17:02 GMT -8
I am excited to see what Smith and Lindgren do with the offense, I could care less what they call it, or if it originated with Petersen or Riley or even Pettibone.... Just score points! And man would it be nice to not have a QB with less than 100 passing yards a game, smh... As for the defense... It feels like we have been wringing our hands about what defense the Beavs run since.... well since I was old enough to pay attention In the early Riley years it was the lack of beef up front and the fact that we refused to run zone concepts in the defensive back field and that we seemed to REFUSE to teach the CBs to turn back and look for the ball. (Ex: "Why do we always run man to man, we don't have and CAN'T recruit the CBs for man to man, run a zone!") Later on every HATED Banker because he ran a 4-3, 4-4, and seemed to refuse to account for the running QB. People were screaming for the 3-4 and a QB spy. (Ex: "Arrrrgggg, who cares if we get them into 3rd and long, Banker will just keep running his dumb 4-3 base defense, the wr will all run deep, and the opposing Qb will RUN for the danged first down, why can't we just run a 3-4???") Now we finally switch to the 3-4 and every cries about not being able to find a "true" nose tackle... The real bottom line is that talent scarcity will always be an issue for all teams (except for maybe the USCs and Alabamas) and all schemes, teaching fundamentals, being flexible and being able to make adjustments is what will help us have a good defense. The QA 3-4 didn't work because we taught poor fundamentals (how many TFL turned into good gains because a defender didn't wrap up?) and could never adjust (Hmm they are gashing us inside, should we stack the box for a couple plays??? Nahhhhhhh). Will we be able to recruit a stud NT? Be able to develop one? Does it matter if we change to a 4-3 and ask the same question about recruiting or developing a stud MLB or pass rushing DE? IMHO, no, it doesn't matter. Every scheme we put out there will have positions that require special players and great development, the key is if our coaching staff can actually achieve any player development see our deficiencies and help cover them with schemes and plays not necessarily base defense changes. It's my opinion that this staff can do that. QA and co certainly couldn't... To be fair, even when we were running the Banker 4-3 base defense, the discussion about 2-gap tackles being rarer than hen's teeth was the same then. Watching Paea deposit the Duck's center into the middle of the mesh point intensified the discussion about a need for a 2 gap tackle then. We talked about it when Cal was running a 3-4 front. That's ALWAYS been the concern with the 3-4. It's tough to find that 2 gap space eater.
|
|
|
Post by beaverdude on Feb 9, 2018 13:41:22 GMT -8
Boom obviously is the first guy that comes to mind there...... Some guys like Gwachum obviously had their impact potential squandered....... The coaches wanted Boom to change sides of the ball but Boom wanted to be a receiver. Who knows how good he could have been had he changed when the coaches suggested t.
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 9, 2018 13:57:11 GMT -8
To be fair, even when we were running the Banker 4-3 base defense, the discussion about 2-gap tackles being rarer than hen's teeth was the same then. Watching Paea deposit the Duck's center into the middle of the mesh point intensified the discussion about a need for a 2 gap tackle then. We talked about it when Cal was running a 3-4 front. That's ALWAYS been the concern with the 3-4. It's tough to find that 2 gap space eater. That was kind of my point, wringing our hands over the base defense because of a potential position being difficult to fill is a waste. ALL base schemes have positions that are difficult to fill! Tibbs defense will be better than Clune's not because he runs a different base defense, or because he can even recruit or develop that rare 2 gap space eater. His defense will be better because he is a better coach and has better coaches around him. Teaching, coaching, developing, adjusting those are what will change and make our defense great again, not the base scheme, or even recruiting...
|
|
|
Post by blodgettbeaver on Feb 9, 2018 14:01:21 GMT -8
It is awesome to think about how many former OC's we have on the Oregon State staff now. It has to be close to a record. Just need to get the right clay pieces to mold and this will be a thing of beauty. Go Beavs!!!
|
|
|
Post by justdamwin on Feb 9, 2018 16:50:04 GMT -8
Don't forget ILBs. I think that Oregon State can recruit OLBs, but finding two true ILBs to come to Oregon State is going to be a once a decade sort of deal. I think that finding an NG, two DTs, and two ILBs to play in Corvallis at the same time is a once in a half century sort of deal. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just see Oregon State continuing to get dominated by the Stanfords, USCs, and Washingtons of the world. I think it's a misconception that finding the bodies to populate a 3-4 defensive line is difficult. The rare body is the 0 tech nose. The 3-tech DE is basically the same pool of candidates as the 43 front interior linemen, but you only need one good one instead of two linemates there. There's not an overwhelming supply of 6-2 290 guys but they aren't super rare. Your pass rushing (weak side) DE is often a 6-3 250 Victor Butler guy, kind of interchangeable skillset with your weak side linebacker. Long hybrid guys (remember DeForest Buckner for the Ducks from a few years back?) who can drop into coverage occasionally are a huge bonus but more importantly you can do this with a few different body types that aren't impossible to come by. I think we actually have some guys who can play the Mike in the 3-4 too. Andrzej Hughes-Murray looks that part to me, hes a guy who can flow through traffic and is big and physical enough to take on the guard heads-up when needed. What I see as missing from our defense is that I don't see a single TED linebacker on the roster. That guy needs to be an Alan Darlin, stand up DL type. That's what is missing, an inside linebacker that can take on and defeat an offensive lineman head up in the hole. 6-1, 6-2, 265-275 pounds. Dylan Wynn would have been an AWESOME TEDbacker. Way easier to populate a 3-4. Specialized players in a3-4: NT and really one ILB In the 4-3, two multi skill DEs and a sideline to sideline Mike The perception that the Beavs can’t recruit aNT is really a symptom of not recruiting linemen well recentlt Against current offenses run the 3-4
|
|
EOBeav
Freshman
Posts: 499
Grad Year: 1989, 2002
|
Post by EOBeav on Feb 10, 2018 10:03:24 GMT -8
Echoing Smith, Lindgren insisted the Beavers will adapt their scheme to existing personnel and not impose a system on players who do not fit it. What an amazing concept after the square peg/round hole mentality of the previous idiot.You mean like having Tyner exclusively run 2 fly sweeps a game? Or like starting Luton over McMaryion when we're supposed to be going to a more mobile game.
|
|
|
Post by beavered on Feb 11, 2018 9:19:15 GMT -8
A couple thoughts here on this whole 4-3 vs 3-4 deal.
First, I definitely expressed frustration with Banker and his tendency to sit in the base 4-3. My beef was never with the 4-3, but more with my feeling that Banker was too slow or unwilling to try different scheme, personnel, etc. when something wasn't working. The whole insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. The 4-3 wasn't the problem, it was the predictability that frustrated me.
As for the 4-3 vs 3-4 in general I think the best comment I've heard about it recently is that 4-3 and 3-4 mean very little anymore beyond personnel groupings. Many defenses now mix concepts to the point that even knowledgeable football fans would struggle to identify a teams "base" alignment if blindly watching film of anonymous players. Defenses have evolved to be much more complex and granular such that trying to label them with simplistic terms derived from alignment no longer tells you as much as it used to.
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 11, 2018 12:21:25 GMT -8
A couple thoughts here on this whole 4-3 vs 3-4 deal. First, I definitely expressed frustration with Banker and his tendency to sit in the base 4-3. My beef was never with the 4-3, but more with my feeling that Banker was too slow or unwilling to try different scheme, personnel, etc. when something wasn't working. The whole insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. The 4-3 wasn't the problem, it was the predictability that frustrated me. As for the 4-3 vs 3-4 in general I think the best comment I've heard about it recently is that 4-3 and 3-4 mean very little anymore beyond personnel groupings. Many defenses now mix concepts to the point that even knowledgeable football fans would struggle to identify a teams "base" alignment if blindly watching film of anonymous players. Defenses have evolved to be much more complex and granular such that trying to label them with simplistic terms derived from alignment no longer tells you as much as it used to. This for sure. And this is where Clune, and even Banker to a certain extent got their fannies handed to them. They would just sit in the base defense and never adjust, never be flexible. In the little bit or Wisc I watched this last year I saw several occasions where they would bring a safety into the box and either rush the QB with him or bring a LB to the line creating more of a 4-4 stacked box look. I also saw a 5-2ish look at times... Of course the BIGGEST difference I saw was players who were taught and drill on how to ACTUALLY TACKLE. How many stinking times did a Beaver player (BRIGHT I AM LOOKING AT YOU) make a great play to be in position for a Tackle for loss or a stuff of some sort and then TOTALLY whiff the tackle, smh....
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 12, 2018 8:43:41 GMT -8
Don't forget ILBs. I think that Oregon State can recruit OLBs, but finding two true ILBs to come to Oregon State is going to be a once a decade sort of deal. I think that finding an NG, two DTs, and two ILBs to play in Corvallis at the same time is a once in a half century sort of deal. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just see Oregon State continuing to get dominated by the Stanfords, USCs, and Washingtons of the world. I think it's a misconception that finding the bodies to populate a 3-4 defensive line is difficult. The rare body is the 0 tech nose. The 3-tech DE is basically the same pool of candidates as the 43 front interior linemen, but you only need one good one instead of two linemates there. There's not an overwhelming supply of 6-2 290 guys but they aren't super rare. Your pass rushing (weak side) DE is often a 6-3 250 Victor Butler guy, kind of interchangeable skillset with your weak side linebacker. Long hybrid guys (remember DeForest Buckner for the Ducks from a few years back?) who can drop into coverage occasionally are a huge bonus but more importantly you can do this with a few different body types that aren't impossible to come by. I think we actually have some guys who can play the Mike in the 3-4 too. Andrzej Hughes-Murray looks that part to me, hes a guy who can flow through traffic and is big and physical enough to take on the guard heads-up when needed. What I see as missing from our defense is that I don't see a single TED linebacker on the roster. That guy needs to be an Alan Darlin, stand up DL type. That's what is missing, an inside linebacker that can take on and defeat an offensive lineman head up in the hole. 6-1, 6-2, 265-275 pounds. Dylan Wynn would have been an AWESOME TEDbacker. Nose tackle... a REAL one, is a hard spot to fill. The other two spots are, as you said, somewhat average in their difficulty to fill. You really did nail it though, we do not have our wrecking ball MLB. When you take a hand off the dirt, like you do in the 3-4 the LBs have to fill a DL role. It seems to me Andersen was so busy getting guys that would run around with their hair on fire he forgot to get guys that can put an OL on his butt. the middle of our defense is as soft as my middle has gotten in my advancing years. which is to say, real damn soft. (heavy sigh, brb, gotta go jog).
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Feb 12, 2018 12:22:30 GMT -8
I think it's a misconception that finding the bodies to populate a 3-4 defensive line is difficult. The rare body is the 0 tech nose. The 3-tech DE is basically the same pool of candidates as the 43 front interior linemen, but you only need one good one instead of two linemates there. There's not an overwhelming supply of 6-2 290 guys but they aren't super rare. Your pass rushing (weak side) DE is often a 6-3 250 Victor Butler guy, kind of interchangeable skillset with your weak side linebacker. Long hybrid guys (remember DeForest Buckner for the Ducks from a few years back?) who can drop into coverage occasionally are a huge bonus but more importantly you can do this with a few different body types that aren't impossible to come by. I think we actually have some guys who can play the Mike in the 3-4 too. Andrzej Hughes-Murray looks that part to me, hes a guy who can flow through traffic and is big and physical enough to take on the guard heads-up when needed. What I see as missing from our defense is that I don't see a single TED linebacker on the roster. That guy needs to be an Alan Darlin, stand up DL type. That's what is missing, an inside linebacker that can take on and defeat an offensive lineman head up in the hole. 6-1, 6-2, 265-275 pounds. Dylan Wynn would have been an AWESOME TEDbacker. Nose tackle... a REAL one, is a hard spot to fill. The other two spots are, as you said, somewhat average in their difficulty to fill. You really did nail it though, we do not have our wrecking ball MLB. When you take a hand off the dirt, like you do in the 3-4 the LBs have to fill a DL role. It seems to me Andersen was so busy getting guys that would run around with their hair on fire he forgot to get guys that can put an OL on his butt. the middle of our defense is as soft as my middle has gotten in my advancing years. which is to say, real damn soft. (heavy sigh, brb, gotta go jog). The easiest way to remember what type of bodies you need is to remember where the 3-4 came from. It's the okie 52 front, but you supersize the nose guard and give him both A-gaps then take the defensive guards and back them up off the line of scrimmage. The ends stay where they are but get a bit bigger at the expense of speed. Sure you flex the personnel to specialize, one of your ends is more of a pass rusher and the other is more of a space eater, your OLB's need to be longer and bigger (again at the expense of speed) compared to our 43 OLB's but they have less space to cover so this is doable. We had a pair of 43 mike backers and a pair of 43 OLB's out there. All those years of taking high school safeties and making them OLB's and OLB's and making them Mikes did not serve a 3-4 set well at all. I understand that the concepts are flexible but I still think you must have guys who can execute your base scheme.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 12, 2018 13:10:19 GMT -8
Don't forget ILBs. I think that Oregon State can recruit OLBs, but finding two true ILBs to come to Oregon State is going to be a once a decade sort of deal. I think that finding an NG, two DTs, and two ILBs to play in Corvallis at the same time is a once in a half century sort of deal. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just see Oregon State continuing to get dominated by the Stanfords, USCs, and Washingtons of the world. I think it's a misconception that finding the bodies to populate a 3-4 defensive line is difficult. The rare body is the 0 tech nose. The 3-tech DE is basically the same pool of candidates as the 43 front interior linemen, but you only need one good one instead of two linemates there. There's not an overwhelming supply of 6-2 290 guys but they aren't super rare. Your pass rushing (weak side) DE is often a 6-3 250 Victor Butler guy, kind of interchangeable skillset with your weak side linebacker. Long hybrid guys (remember DeForest Buckner for the Ducks from a few years back?) who can drop into coverage occasionally are a huge bonus but more importantly you can do this with a few different body types that aren't impossible to come by. I think we actually have some guys who can play the Mike in the 3-4 too. Andrzej Hughes-Murray looks that part to me, hes a guy who can flow through traffic and is big and physical enough to take on the guard heads-up when needed. What I see as missing from our defense is that I don't see a single TED linebacker on the roster. That guy needs to be an Alan Darlin, stand up DL type. That's what is missing, an inside linebacker that can take on and defeat an offensive lineman head up in the hole. 6-1, 6-2, 265-275 pounds. Dylan Wynn would have been an AWESOME TEDbacker. This was the 123rd-best rushing defense in FBS last year, eighth from the bottom. Just for fun, Oregon State rush defense by year: 2014: 87
2015: 1122016: 114
2017: 123What I am hearing from you is that, basically, next year is a lost cause defense-wise. Is that right? No TEDbacker means that, unless Oregon State goes eight in the box, the Beavers will not be able to consistently stop downhill runners. A complete inability to stop never really spells great season to me. In mulling over Oregon State's situation, I think the one year that Oregon State could have pulled off a serviceable 3-4 was 2014. Too many linebackers and tweeners, like Wynn, with not enough spots to play 'em. In all other years in the past decade, I never saw the Beavers with enough big bodies to pull off a 3-4. (Of course, Oregon State was not trying to recruit players to fit a 3-4..........)
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Feb 12, 2018 13:18:19 GMT -8
I think it's a misconception that finding the bodies to populate a 3-4 defensive line is difficult. The rare body is the 0 tech nose. The 3-tech DE is basically the same pool of candidates as the 43 front interior linemen, but you only need one good one instead of two linemates there. There's not an overwhelming supply of 6-2 290 guys but they aren't super rare. Your pass rushing (weak side) DE is often a 6-3 250 Victor Butler guy, kind of interchangeable skillset with your weak side linebacker. Long hybrid guys (remember DeForest Buckner for the Ducks from a few years back?) who can drop into coverage occasionally are a huge bonus but more importantly you can do this with a few different body types that aren't impossible to come by. I think we actually have some guys who can play the Mike in the 3-4 too. Andrzej Hughes-Murray looks that part to me, hes a guy who can flow through traffic and is big and physical enough to take on the guard heads-up when needed. What I see as missing from our defense is that I don't see a single TED linebacker on the roster. That guy needs to be an Alan Darlin, stand up DL type. That's what is missing, an inside linebacker that can take on and defeat an offensive lineman head up in the hole. 6-1, 6-2, 265-275 pounds. Dylan Wynn would have been an AWESOME TEDbacker. This was the 123rd-best rushing defense in FBS last year, eighth from the bottom. Just for fun, Oregon State rush defense by year: 2014: 87
2015: 1122016: 114
2017: 123What I am hearing from you is that, basically, next year is a lost cause defense-wise. Is that right? No TEDbacker means that, unless Oregon State goes eight in the box, the Beavers will not be able to consistently stop downhill runners. A complete inability to stop never really spells great season to me. In mulling over Oregon State's situation, I think the one year that Oregon State could have pulled off a serviceable 3-4 was 2014. Too many linebackers and tweeners, like Wynn, with not enough spots to play 'em. In all other years in the past decade, I never saw the Beavers with enough big bodies to pull off a 3-4. (Of course, Oregon State was not trying to recruit players to fit a 3-4..........) I do think we need to find a TED backer to make this a good defense, yes. Good to me, for the sake of establishing terms, is top 25. I think just having defensive coaches that know what they are doing is going to make an enormous improvement. Usually when you have a new staff come in, there is a drop-off or regression that happens for a year or maybe even 2. The bar was set so low that there's almost literally nowhere to go but up.
|
|