Is that a 4-3 or 3-4 base defense Venables runs at Clemson?

[Tear Down This Wall]

Yeah. It's a 4-3. Go figure.

[BoulderSooner79]

The bubble screens were telling. Theirs made yards consistently or looked poised to break a long one. Ours looked looked hopeless before the receiver caught the ball. The difference was the defense being disciplined and knowing their assignments.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The bubble screens were telling. Theirs made yards consistently or looked poised to break a long one. Ours looked looked hopeless before the receiver caught the ball. The difference was the defense being disciplined and knowing their assignments.

Honestly, that wasn't the same Venables D that we saw his last few years. Once the signals were in, they never looked at the sidelines again. You couple that with the fact that his 2nd string MLB (Boulware) would have been the best OU linebacker we've had since 2007 and gah.

[SoonerMarkVA]

Honestly, that wasn't the same Venables D that we saw his last few years. Once the signals were in, they never looked at the sidelines again. You couple that with the fact that his 2nd string MLB (Boulware) would have been the best OU linebacker we've had since 2007 and gah.

Do you think that means Venables was really just running what B. Stoops wanted him to do, and now that he's (presumably) in full control of the defense he's showing what he's really capable of? Or is it just Clemson has superior/smarter athletes than OU? Or something else? I'm actually asking, as opposed to trying to make a soapbox out of this.

[Aries]

Part of me wonders how much of that was Venables' familiarity with OU? He was here when Heupel became co-OC, and he worked with Mike S. as co-DC, so he should be familiar with our offensive and defensive philosophies, enough to provide plenty of information on both sides of the ball....

On the other hand, that doesn't explain
1) The missed tackles
2) The turnovers
3) Why Heupel didn't have more success against BV (he is just as familiar with BV's philosophies as BV is with his).

So I dunno. But I would think having someone who was on OU's staff just a couple of years ago had to have helped some....

[EatLeadCommie]

Guys, Clemson has the nice statistical defense because there are no offenses in the ACC outside of FSU, who they played without Winston. Clemson does have great players up front, and they'll be gone next year.

What happened yesterday is more telling of our skill position players and offensive playcalling than of Venables' D. We only have so many plays in our repertoire, and TK or Josh tip about 95% of them. The other 5% are TK throwing into double, triple, or-- in the case of his first pass yesterday-- quadruple coverage. When you have the guys up front to neutralize our OL (and the injury to Shead didn't help), it's a field day. We actually didn't run the ball poorly, but were put in a hole early and had to abandon whatever crappy gameplan Josh had drawn up in order to play catch up.

[BoulderSooner79]

The Clemson D was good. It's fair to say their stats were inflated due to ACC competition, but to say that means they were no good is bogus. Holding teams to less than 100 yards rushing/game is impressive in any league and it showed in how hard Perine had to work for most his yards. They were plenty good to force us to have to make plays in the passing game and we were not even close to capable of doing that. We were doomed before the opening kickoff.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Do you think that means Venables was really just running what B. Stoops wanted him to do, and now that he's (presumably) in full control of the defense he's showing what he's really capable of? Or is it just Clemson has superior/smarter athletes than OU? Or something else? I'm actually asking, as opposed to trying to make a soapbox out of this.

I have no idea. I watched a couple of his games in his first year and they were still doing it. So some time between then and now, he realized how stupid it was.

[Landthief 1972]

The lack of good LBs at OU right now was woefully apparent last night. Mike probably did about all he could with what he had to work with, and did what he should have done - try and pressure who was supposed to be an unsteady QB. The D-line and ends were getting pretty good pressure on the QB most of the night - they ended up with what, 6 sacks and God knows how many hurries? But when your LBs can't cover the flats (or close a run gap) worth a damn, you leave a big stinkin' hole across the middle of the field 5-8 yards deep every play. The LBs have been some of the worst tacklers on the team this year. How many times did we see them have a RB or QB boxed in at the line of scrimmage, then watch them whiff the tackle, allowing the ball carrier to gain another 5-10 yards?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The lack of good LBs at OU right now was woefully apparent last night. Mike probably did about all he could with what he had to work with, and did what he should have done - try and pressure who was supposed to be an unsteady QB. The D-line and ends were getting pretty good pressure on the QB most of the night - they ended up with what, 6 sacks and God knows how many hurries? But when your LBs can't cover the flats (or close a run gap) worth a damn, you leave a big stinkin' hole across the middle of the field 5-8 yards deep every play. The LBs have been some of the worst tacklers on the team this year. How many times did we see them have a RB or QB boxed in at the line of scrimmage, then watch them whiff the tackle, allowing the ball carrier to gain another 5-10 yards?

I think the thing that most struck me last night was the lack of effort by our defense. When half your defense is out there jogging, it doesn't matter how good the rest of it is, you aren't going to do well. Within the first 6 clemson plays I saw 2 things that were our season in a microcosm

Play 1 - Flanker screen and we have 2 guys to tackle one - this is a sign of a perfectly called defense. Neither defender presses the ball carrier they just run full speed to where he would be if he ran straight ahead. He then makes a move to the inside and both Striker and Hayes put on the brakes and he just runs around them. Striker had outside contain, so this was sort of to be expected but Hayes was running deeper than Striker to the same spot. Then when the guy gets past them, they show an end zone shot of the clemson guy running to the end zone. The only guy hustling like mad to tackle him is Zach Sanchez, there are 2 people jogging in the background ->Hayes and Striker. If there is one thing that you learn quickly as a coach, people who bust their butt after they've made a mistake tend to not make that mistake again. Those that just laugh it off make the same mistake time and time again.

My problem with this - We put 11 people on the field on defense, but 4 or 5 of them have the "not my job" mentality. Hayes was running in Striker's back pocket like he expected him to make the play WTF, When the guy with the ball is in front of you, you TACKLE HIM. If someone misses a tackle where they showed proper technique and proper form and the offensive player just beat them that is one thing, when you give max effort and miss because of technique that is another, but when you don't even try? That crap is inexcusable at the college level. Yet we have seen this time and time again over the last 7 years.

Play 2 - Zone handoff to the running back - Evans never looks for the running back, he is going blindly off his keys and runs right for the hole 3 gaps to the right. The running back runs straight up the field to where Evans was standing. Alexander has no idea whether he is playing football or badminton and just does jumping jacks. Striker cheats out to the WR screen because no one fools Striker twice. He is so far out that he can't collapse on the running back running straight ahead. The end result is that the running back gets 14 yards, Evans is totally confused as to why the running back wasn't in the hole yet still manages to get pancaked. Alexander trips doing jumping jacks and pancakes himself.

I just can't take this "most talented player plays" crap anymore. I'd 1000x rather have Gastelum out there at linebacker than what we have. At least I know he is going to give his all and I'm not going to see him jogging behind the play.

[cvsooner]

Gastelum just wrapped up his senior year, no less.

[cvsooner]

I think the thing that most struck me last night was the lack of effort by our defense. When half your defense is out there jogging, it doesn't matter how good the rest of it is, you aren't going to do well. Within the first 6 clemson plays I saw 2 things that were our season in a microcosm...

I just can't take this "most talented player plays" crap anymore. I'd 1000x rather have Gastelum out there at linebacker than what we have. At least I know he is going to give his all and I'm not going to see him jogging behind the play.

Need to redefine 'most talented player' as in, knows and fulfills his responsibility to the utmost of his ability 100 percent of the time as opposed to 40-times, bench reps, sheer athleticism and so on. I agree with you completely--single biggest problem is recruiting too many players who all need development instead of football players who are well along in their development.

Heck, that's what Snyder does with the JUCO guys. He knows he'll only get two worthwhile years of playing time out of the majority of recruits. So let somebody else develop them and take a bit less risk on offering them a scholarship.

[soonercastor]

Part of me wonders how much of that was Venables' familiarity with OU? He was here when Heupel became co-OC, and he worked with Mike S. as co-DC, so he should be familiar with our offensive and defensive philosophies, enough to provide plenty of information on both sides of the ball....


He had the #1 D coming into the game, that wasn't by playing OU 12 times in the regular season

[graphster]

You know that Alabama and Nick Saban run a base 3-4 defense, right? As does about half the NFL.

The defensive front is not the reason we can't cover anybody in the secondary or make tackles in open space. Pass defense is where our defense is weak, and that is almost entirely related to poor secondary play along with some busts by linebackers in zone coverage. Doesn't really matter what you do in the front 7 if your coverage is as bad as we've seen from our defense this year.

We've actually been decent against the run, and have also managed to get some pressure on the passer at times (on the few occasions when we actually let Striker rush the QB and our corners aren't lined up 10 yards off the ball).

[SoCalBigRed]

You know that Alabama and Nick Saban run a base 3-4 defense, right? As does about half the NFL.

The defensive front is not the reason we can't cover anybody in the secondary or make tackles in open space. Pass defense is where our defense is weak, and that is almost entirely related to poor secondary play along with some busts by linebackers in zone coverage. Doesn't really matter what you do in the front 7 if your coverage is as bad as we've seen from our defense this year.

We've actually been decent against the run, and have also managed to get some pressure on the passer at times (on the few occasions when we actually let Striker rush the QB and our corners aren't lined up 10 yards off the ball).

This.

And I don't care how many INTs Sanchez had... he can't tackle for crap.

Funny, when I switched over to the game at one point, to see how ugly it had gotten, the analyst was saying how he hadn't done an OU game in a couple years, but he had noticed some glaring problems watching plays from previous games this year. We can't make open field tackles..

Shocking. Why is that? Game after game, season after season... we can't seem to wrap guys up?

[8timechamps]

Venables runs a 4-3 at Clemson, just as he did at OU. In the bowl game things were a little different though.

Like GDC said, the defense was never looking to the sideline for the call (which was a hallmark of BV's defense). The commentator said, at the beginning of the game, that BV was going to "let the players go and play free". I don't know if BV told him that, or if it were just normal analyst speak. They (Clemson) did look like they were playing with their hair on fire.

I never had a problem with BV's defense while he was at OU, other than I thought he made it a little too complicated at times. His defensive style is high risk/high reward. Last year, I watch a few games and their defense looked a lot like the OU defenses when he was in Norman. There was some confusion, and the 'big play' breakdowns that follow. I don't know if that's gone now, because other than the bowl game, I hadn't seen them play this year.

While switching back to the 4-3 or even a 4-2-5 is a possibility for Mike, I doubt he'll move in that direction. He's spent the past two years recruiting to the 3-4...although, I think we still have the personnel for the 4-3.

[graphster]

Venables runs a 4-3, but Vic Beasley, their star defensive end, is 6-3 235 pounds. He will almost certainly play outside linebacker in a 3-4 defense at the next level.

By comparison, Devante Bond, our starting OLB, is 6-1 236. Geneo Grissom, who was the starter before getting hurt, is 6-4 252.

The issue isn't our base defense.