2012 Defense Discussion

[DaddyBigBucks]

.02:

-I am actually more encouraged after last night than any other game regardless of the points allowed.
-That was by far the most dangerous/difficult offense left on the schedule.
-It's a team game and if the offense sets the bar to where an opponent has to realistically score 35+ to beat us then this might as well be the '85 Bears from here on out....no one left has that kind of firepower.
-Without rewatching it it seems Nebraska stuck with trying to run between the tackles longer than any opponent to date and only started to hurt the defense once they started attacking the edges (like everyone else).

I think it bears repeating and remembering as we look at upcoming opponents, no one has the combination of running/passing QB and legit threat RB that Nebraska does.

Agree with all of this.

Yes, this defense has major issues. They are facing the top passing team in the Big Ten this week (Indiana), and they are the 11th pass defense in the league. Indiana will get some yards through the air.

And as many yards as they gave up to Nebraska, they gave up fewer than anyone else Nebraska has played. As many rushing yards as they gave up, they gave up fewer (and fewer ypc) than anyone else Nebraska has played.

This defense is not up to the standard of the previous decade; but they are good enough for this year's purposes.

Let's just hope 'Bino isn't out too long.

 

[Mike80]

1.) Far better athletes.

Don't buy into the bullshit Espin lies - they may be better players, but they aren't better athletes.

2.) Hoke and his offense played that game to keep 'nard upright for the rest of the season, period. They didn't even bother trying to run the football vertically. Very few design runs, counters for Denard, which was their only shot at 'Bama,virtually non-existent. Forced 'nard to throw before the thought of running the ball ever crossed their minds = big time Bama victory.

scUM had zero shot at Bama. If they run Hairlice like they do against Air Force or Purdidn't, he dies in the 1st quarter.

3.). Far, far better athletes.

This is such a crock of shit it's not funny. It's not about the kids when the talent levels are roughly equal, it's about the coaching. the SEC has out-coached just about everyone else for the better part of a decade now.

Playing fast doesn't mean the kids are faster - in fact the combine numbers show this to be the case, they aren't - but it does mean the coaching is getting the players better prepared so when they are in the game it's just a game of read and react instead of being unsure of where they are supposed to be, what are they supposed to do, etc etc etc.

 

[MaxBuck]

Playing fast doesn't mean the kids are faster ... but it does mean the coaching is getting the players better prepared so when they are in the game it's just a game of read and react instead of being unsure of where they are supposed to be ...

All true. And it's also true that the SEC has no monopoly on fast players; plenty of fast athletes play at Ohio State, Michigan, even Indiana. You won't find many, or perhaps any, SEC corners who will beat Brad Roby in a foot race.

However, I think there's still likely more DL speed overall in the SEC than most anywhere else, and probably more depth of speed at Alabama (and maybe SC and Georgia) than you'll find at the top schools in other leagues. Don't have any data to back it up, though.

 

[Mike80]

All true. And it's also true that the SEC has no monopoly on fast players; plenty of fast athletes play at Ohio State, Michigan, even Indiana. You won't find many, or perhaps any, SEC corners who will beat Brad Roby in a foot race.

However, I think there's still likely more DL speed overall in the SEC than most anywhere else, and probably more depth of speed at Alabama (and maybe SC and Georgia) than you'll find at the top schools in other leagues. Don't have any data to back it up, though.

I can't find it right now (someone else posted the link a few weeks ago), but this is decidedly not the case. D-linemen are basically the same everywhere in terms of whatever "speed" is....

EDIT: found one link - other than Fletcher Cox - who at 6'4 and 295 lbs might find himself as a DE rather than a DT in the NFL - the DT numbers are basically the same from the SEC to everwhere else. http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/2012/nfl-combine-results.cfm?pos=DT

DE's show the same thing - the fastest one was from Boise State believe it or not: http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/2012/nfl-combine-results.cfm?pos=DE

It's about the quality of player and the coaching, not some overly-simplified screeching from orange-baked frosted tipped wannabes on Disney's sports network.

 

[redguard117]

It is pretty clear Alabama has much superior athletes than scUM. 4 straight years of consensus #1 recruiting classes will do that. As will 4 straight years of oversigning 5-8 players a year, and cutting the kids who don't perform up to snuff. That adds up to Alabama having had an additional, entire recruiting class in that period compared to any Big Ten team.

Either way you slice it, the scUM players were totally outmatched.

 

[Mike80]

It is pretty clear Alabama has much superior athletes than scUM. 4 straight years of consensus #1 recruiting classes will do that. As will 4 straight years of oversigning 5-8 players a year, and cutting the kids who don't perform up to snuff. That adds up to Alabama having had an additional, entire recruiting class in that period compared to any Big Ten team.

Either way you slice it, the scUM players were totally outmatched.

What I'm trying to say is being better on a football field doesn't necessarily mean they are better athletes overall - it's tougher to be a good athlete than it is to be a good football player.

But you are right about the over-signing (and you kinda made my point) - being able to keep better players over better athletes who are projects will always help with the depth

 

[kippy1040]

What I'm trying to say is being better on a football field doesn't necessarily mean they are better athletes overall - it's tougher to be a good athlete than it is to be a good football player.

But you are right about the over-signing (and you kinda made my point) - being able to keep better players over better athletes who are projects will always help with the depth

Is our linebacker position, the most area that we have to shore up on, or are we okay with what we have in guys like Shazier and sweat. I don't see much
rotation in that area. Maybe we have injury issues to deal with there.

 

[MaxBuck]

What I'm trying to say is being better on a football field doesn't necessarily mean they are better athletes overall - it's tougher to be a good athlete than it is to be a good football player.

Unquestionably the Buckeyes have recruited excellent athletes at linebacker over the past few years. However, they haven't necessarily proven to be excellent football players. So you're right - there isn't perfect correlation. But all else being equal, a fine football player who runs a 4.8 will lose an on-field battle against an equally skilled player who runs 4.4, most of the time.

In all this discussion one thing has been overlooked - that being that subjective preseason comments by the B1G Network commentators consistently pointed out how much more team speed Ohio State has than our league competition. And I see that on the field, subjectively. Not all of that can be explained by coaching, IMO, since the staff had had limited time with our players when the preseason tour took place for the BTN pundits. I really do believe that the Buckeyes have superior speed than our league rivals.

I remain unconvinced that the "SEC speed" chant is entirely inaccurate, and pointing out that the fastest D-lineman came from Boycee doesn't really persuade me otherwise. It's a fun argument, though.

 

[kippy1040]

Yeah, you got a point bud. Lets sit Boren, Stoneburner, Simon, Williams, Goeble, Johnson and just put in freshman. Then we could really do some complaining when we lose.

 

[MaxBuck]

One other thing: quoting NFL combine data as a way of "proving wrong" the "SEC speed" notion is flawed. It completely disregards the sizable cohort of players (both in and out of the SEC) who are not invited to participate.

 

[Bill Lucas]

One other thing: quoting NFL combine data as a way of "proving wrong" the "SEC speed" notion is flawed. It completely disregards the sizable cohort of players (both in and out of the SEC) who are not invited to participate.

Yep. It's not about 40 times. It about the speed in which the game is played. I'll take a guy that's a couple of ticks slower that throws a blocker to the ground. He can get after the ball carrier a lot faster than a faster player that gets stuck on blocks.

RE: Mike's Alabama comments. The above is what Alabama did to Michigan. They threw blockers and defenders around like rag dolls. It's a lot easier to make a play when your opponent is on the ground and you are standing. Call it speed, athleticism, whatever. I want it.

 

[Jaxbuck]

A big part of that humiliation Bama put on scUM came from the starting tailback being out. He wouldn't have won or anything but any degradation of the RB threat in these kind of offenses makes a big difference.

Bama got to take their superior athletes, coaches and depth up against the weakest form of scUM offense Hoke can put out there save for a 'nard dog injury.

 

[zincfinger]

Is our linebacker position, the most area that we have to shore up on, or are we okay with what we have in guys like Shazier and sweat. I don't see much
rotation in that area. Maybe we have injury issues to deal with there.

You probably meant "Shazier and Klein", as Sweat was a senior last year and is no longer on the team. But to your point, I don't think the LB rotation, or lack thereof, indicates that the staff is fully satisfied with the level of play from the starters. Instead, I think it's mostly that the backups are young and inexperienced, and just not quite ready yet. It's pretty rare for a true freshman linebacker to be ready to play at a starter's level. Spielman did it, Katzenmoyer did it, Hawk did it, but those guys were all-timers. Laurinaitis, also an eventual great one, didn't see the field much until forced in by Carpenter's injury against Michigan. And that was purely out of necessity, not because he was really ready. I think there's a good chance that at least a couple guys from last year's LB recruiting class will end up being very good. But it shouldn't be too surprising that they're not there yet.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Yep. It's not about 40 times. It about the speed in which the game is played. I'll take a guy that's a couple of ticks slower that throws a blocker to the ground. He can get after the ball carrier a lot faster than a faster player that gets stuck on blocks.

RE: Mike's Alabama comments. The above is what Alabama did to Michigan. They threw blockers and defenders around like rag dolls. It's a lot easier to make a play when your opponent is on the ground and you are standing. Call it speed, athleticism, whatever. I want it.

it's strength.

on 'shoelace's first pick, the corner jammed the receiver with one hand. the scUMmer literally flew out of bounds. both feet left the ground, and he landed in a pile. then the corner plowed over Denard like a freaking cement truck and injured shoelace's shoulder.

 

[Mike80]

Yep. It's not about 40 times. It about the speed in which the game is played. I'll take a guy that's a couple of ticks slower that throws a blocker to the ground. He can get after the ball carrier a lot faster than a faster player that gets stuck on blocks.

You should be agreeing with me, that's what I said and not what Max said.

RE: Mike's Alabama comments. The above is what Alabama did to Michigan. They threw blockers and defenders around like rag dolls. It's a lot easier to make a play when your opponent is on the ground and you are standing. Call it speed, athleticism, whatever. I want it.

Granted Bama's recruiting has been excellent, I won't say any differently. But on the whole, the speed argument has been largely debunked. Fast players reside everywhere. It's about the coaching and putting the kids in a place where they can succeed.

If I had to guess, it's because coaches like Saban and Miles make the game so incredibly easy for their players that they don't have to think about things and can just go at it at full speed.