zone vs man

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

one of the things that i mentioned in watching bowls was that the zebras were calling things really loose - from late hits to PI. i think this really favors man to man defense as we've seen the last several bcs games.

the problem is, that i don't think we can make it through the big 12 by playing man - there are just too many dual threat QBs and diverse offenses. they will just overload one side of the field and run slants to the other side taking our entire secondary with them (much like texas did to USC in 2005).

interesting problem that we'll have to see what they do with...

[Widescreen]

It's too bad because it seems like when we play an SEC team in a BCS game, they typically play us tight man-to-man which apparently our receivers don't know how to deal with very well. It would be nice to be able to practice more against man-to-man.

[KingDavid]

I would think that with as strong of recruits as we have that we should be able to have the scout team man up enough to get us ready for that challenge.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I would think that with as strong of recruits as we have that we should be able to have the scout team man up enough to get us ready for that challenge.

this is not meant as a slam, but you do realize that our "recruits" are trying to learn our "system" which is zone. yes, they can try to man up, but it isn't the same as having game experience. its also hard to judge how much illegal contact you let them get away with in practice. based on the reactions of our receivers on broken up pass plays, they obviously thought it was PI which they would have communicated in practice. this is also why i wasn't really expecting our WRs to win this game for us. it really hurts you to have small receivers when the refs are letting defenders get physical when the ball is in the air. its also why chaney and gresham were doing so well.

[tulsaoilerfan]

this is not meant as a slam, but you do realize that our "recruits" are trying to learn our "system" which is zone. yes, they can try to man up, but it isn't the same as having game experience. its also hard to judge how much illegal contact you let them get away with in practice. based on the reactions of our receivers on broken up pass plays, they obviously thought it was PI which they would have communicated in practice. this is also why i wasn't really expecting our WRs to win this game for us. it really hurts you to have small receivers when the refs are letting defenders get physical when the ball is in the air. its also why chaney and gresham were doing so well.

I still don't understand why we didn't throw 20 passes to Gresham last night, and i only remember 1 pass thrown Chaney's way and it was for 20 plus yards i believe; really hard to understand why we couldn't isolate either one of them on one of Florida's small corners

[BoulderSooner79]

I think college football has gotten too sophisticated to play one system. You have to keep the offense guessing or they will chew you up. Man defense against the spread is especially difficult unless you have 4 lock down corners. If a mobile QB break containment and all the DB have their backs turned in coverage, it's an easy big play. Similarly in zone, they'll find the seams and eat the D alive if they play the same zone all the time.

I thought Bama lost partly because they played an arrogant defensive scheme. They stayed in man coverage and just assumed they would out-athlete the Utes with tight coverage and a big rush. Well those Ute receivers were good enough to get separation and the QB good enough to find them. I didn't see Bama adjusting to reality.