Brent Vulnerables on Al's show tonight

[mightysooner]

You can't win with the KW bashers. Even when he lands a job as the head coach of a Big 10 school, it still isn't enough.

I heard all this before when my friends thought I was crazy for criticizing coach Long's real ability. He was booed off his home field during his first season by his own fans and his career as a head coach was a real howler to say the least. We'll see who's right.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Plus saying he will probably fail is the least bold prediction ever. Name 10 coaches who have been coaching the same school since 2000. Stoops, Paterno....if there is a ton more I don't recall them..

[SoonerOX]

I'm a bit confused by some of these posts claiming that Brent doesn't recruit Linebackers well. Just looking at the guys we have seen play, are we saying that those guys aren't any good? If that is the case, I have to disagree. We have a solid linebacker corps, with a few more on the way.

[SoonerNate]

My problem with him isn't so much his recruiting prowess.

[jersey sooner]

1. Kevin Wilson got a bad wrap for one thing, and one thing only. The lack of a goal line run play. Perhaps that's something you sacrifice in order to score the most points in the history of the game. If it was my choice, I would have wanted him back this year. Imagine how much better an offense would be if all 11 players had run the same hurry up system together the year before.

2. I think not just OU, but all of college football is experiencing a tackling epidemic. The overall quality of defensive players, in my mind, has seen a drop-off. The 00-03 defenses weren't that good just because of Mike.

3. I would think being the OU defensive coordinator could be considered a destination job by some. I hope he sticks around.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

JKM, your illustration is of an option to the outside, the one Nebraska ran was an interior zone read. I would hope that a guard would find a linebacker to block when they ran right behind him.

If, "Carter most likely has the back out of the backfield", why would he be all the way outside on that play. He should have turned into a spy which would have put him in perfect position to make that play for a small gain.

I agree that macon is potentially playing it wrong. What I am asking you to consider is if he was coached to do that? Is it possible that the scheme called for the interior free lineman to try and create a pile. I agree it obviously didn't work. But I am curious to whether that was what was called for.

These aren't similar plays. The offense is running a sprint option against a 4-2-5 and a zone read against a 3-4.

I am really enjoying the offseason conversation.

Its going to be difficult to find that exact play in the 2000-2003 seasons because its a fairly new wrinkle in the zone read scheme. However, option football is option football. We have to think of the big picture and make some assumptions.

1. Both teams were prepped for the offenses they faced. This is our baseline - that each team should have a fundamental understanding of how to stop the opposing offensive play.

2. From that baseline, we then move to execution. How did each defensive unit execute against the opposing offensive play. Each one had flaws (IE the 2003 DL getting blown back), but as a UNIT did enough guys "make a play" to stop the play. For offenses a high % of the players have to execute their assignments to insure the success of the play, but for the defense it only takes 1 player to disrupt it.

an example,



3. So given that, I can show you our 2003 D against the various zone reads in that game performing well or poorly. you choose.

[jersey sooner]

Art.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I'm a bit confused by some of these posts claiming that Brent doesn't recruit Linebackers well. Just looking at the guys we have seen play, are we saying that those guys aren't any good? If that is the case, I have to disagree. We have a solid linebacker corps, with a few more on the way.

From 1999 to 2008, BV recruited 29 players (~3 per year). The list is below and is noteworthy for its Hot/Cold nature. Out of those 3 per year, he hit big on 1, not so much on the other 2. What that meant was we had talent but we were thin and always racing to break in the next good player. And, this is my opinion, worked fine until Brent took over as DC. Meander down and take a look at the list after he became DC and tell me the how many names stand out at you.

All Linebackers

Austin Box
Brandon Crow
Brian Jimmerson
Brian Odom
Chris Patterson
Clint Ingram
Curtis Lofton
Daniel Franklin
Daniel Tabon
Demarrio Pleasant
Fred Fleeks
Gabe Toomey
Gayron Allen
J R Bryant
Lamont Robinson
Lance Mitchell
Lewis Baker
Mike Balogun
Mike Reed
Pasha Jackson
Rufus Alexander
Russell Dennison
Ryan Reynolds
Teddy Lehman
Torrance Marshall
Travis Lewis
Trey Whitlock
Wayne Chambers
Zach Latimer

Since 2004

2004
Chris Patterson
2005
Curtis Lofton
Lamont Robinson
Ryan Reynolds
2006
Brandon Crow
Chris Patterson
Daniel Tabon
2007
Austin Box
Mike Reed
Travis Lewis
2008
Daniel Franklin
J R Bryant
Mike Balogun

[SoonerofAlabama]

I know our defenses haven't been great for a while, and unfortunately it may get worse. We've got guys transitioning to a starting role and we've got guys switching positions. It may be tough, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to watch.

[LakeRat]

Its going to be difficult to find that exact play in the 2000-2003 seasons because its a fairly new wrinkle in the zone read scheme. However, option football is option football. We have to think of the big picture and make some assumptions.

1. Both teams were prepped for the offenses they faced. This is our baseline - that each team should have a fundamental understanding of how to stop the opposing offensive play.

2. From that baseline, we then move to execution. How did each defensive unit execute against the opposing offensive play. Each one had flaws (IE the 2003 DL getting blown back), but as a UNIT did enough guys "make a play" to stop the play. For offenses a high % of the players have to execute their assignments to insure the success of the play, but for the defense it only takes 1 player to disrupt it.

an example,



3. So given that, I can show you our 2003 D against the various zone reads in that game performing well or poorly. you choose.

(Your argument, Our LB's are soft as "charmin")

Option is option based on one guy takes pitch and one takes ball handler (QB). But, when an option is a motion read, you have contain and fill. Not pitch and QB. Two completely different schemes.

In the 2003 example, you had DL consume blocks and the LB's get as quick to the outside. If in 2010 example, you have DL consume blocks, with the DE "containing and LB's and secondary filling.

The problem in 2010 is the filling by the secondary.

This whole debate started b/c you are claiming we have charmin for LB's. Both of the illustrations clearly show you have safeties taking horendous angles or they are injured. This is coupled with enept DT play on the interior.

I agree both teams were prepped properly, but individuals make bad plays. As on Defense, one guy can blow a play up, he also can give up a huge play as an individual.

As you showed in the diagrams, the unit in 2003 held to assignment and "made the play". IN 2010 diagram, one player busted on back to back plays and we look horrible. Neither play in 2010 was bad play by a LB.

With that being said, I have concluded that . . .

1. I disagree with your argument based on the evidence you have shown. I am not saying your wrong, but the evidence and facts you have shown don't demonstrate that.

2. My evidence is based on All Big XII numbers at the LB position. According to that, we aren't that soft.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

(Your argument, Our LB's are soft as "charmin")

Option is option based on one guy takes pitch and one takes ball handler (QB). But, when an option is a motion read, you have contain and fill. Not pitch and QB. Two completely different schemes.

In the 2003 example, you had DL consume blocks and the LB's get as quick to the outside. If in 2010 example, you have DL consume blocks, with the DE "containing and LB's and secondary filling.

The problem in 2010 is the filling by the secondary.

This whole debate started b/c you are claiming we have charmin for LB's. Both of the illustrations clearly show you have safeties taking horendous angles or they are injured. This is coupled with enept DT play on the interior.

I agree both teams were prepped properly, but individuals make bad plays. As on Defense, one guy can blow a play up, he also can give up a huge play as an individual.

As you showed in the diagrams, the unit in 2003 held to assignment and "made the play". IN 2010 diagram, one player busted on back to back plays and we look horrible. Neither play in 2010 was bad play by a LB.

With that being said, I have concluded that . . .

1. I disagree with your argument based on the evidence you have shown. I am not saying your wrong, but the evidence and facts you have shown don't demonstrate that.

2. My evidence is based on All Big XII numbers at the LB position. According to that, we aren't that soft.

You are reading WAYYY too much into the blocking scheme and not looking at it in terms of assignment football. Safeties are responsible for outside gaps, not inside. Your inference is that since the linebacker who was responsible for filling the hole is neutralized by a block, he's blameless. And since the Linebacker is blameless, the blame for not making the tackle is therefore on the safety. My argument is that because the linebackers CAN'T beat blocks, that it puts way too much pressure on your safeties to cover way too much green leading to other types of mistakes.

The evidence for our Linbackers being "soft" is simple. If the offense decides they want them out of the play, they assign them a blocker. I have illustrated in this thread and several others that they will then be neutralized 80% of the time. I have then given you several illustrations of Linebackers/TGRW beating blocks in the early 2000's and making the play.

Now, did those guys in the early 2000's get blocked? Yep. The difference was that they were neutralized 25-30% of the time vs. 50-80%. Since this is a team game, the superior play of other positions can sometimes minimize the impact. This is the point you are making -> that if another position had played above average then the play wouldn't have been as big. On this I agree, however it doesn't take away from the fact that other positions are making up for the weakness in another position and at some point opponents will come up with a formation to isolate your weak area and exploit it.

[LakeRat]

You are reading WAYYY too much into the blocking scheme and not looking at it in terms of assignment football. Safeties are responsible for outside gaps, not inside. Your inference is that since the linebacker who was responsible for filling the hole is neutralized by a block, he's blameless. And since the Linebacker is blameless, the blame for not making the tackle is therefore on the safety. My argument is that because the linebackers CAN'T beat blocks, that it puts way too much pressure on your safeties to cover way too much green leading to other types of mistakes.

The evidence for our Linbackers being "soft" is simple. If the offense decides they want them out of the play, they assign them a blocker. I have illustrated in this thread and several others that they will then be neutralized 80% of the time. I have then given you several illustrations of Linebackers/TGRW beating blocks in the early 2000's and making the play.

Now, did those guys in the early 2000's get blocked? Yep. The difference was that they were neutralized 25-30% of the time vs. 50-80%. Since this is a team game, the superior play of other positions can sometimes minimize the impact. This is the point you are making -> that if another position had played above average then the play wouldn't have been as big. On this I agree, however it doesn't take away from the fact that other positions are making up for the weakness in another position and at some point opponents will come up with a formation to isolate your weak area and exploit it.

Obviously weak areas of any team are exploited. I am enjoying the conversation b/c it is rare I get the opportunity to have a good conversation like this.

In your opinion, why have our LB's become a weak area? What was the change? Obviously we have had a LB decorated almost every year since Stoops and Venables have been at OU. Lehman, Rufus, Tlew, Rocky Calmus come to mind. Is it a recruiting issue? Did the coaching philosophy change? Obviously our scheme has changed? Has this hurt our LB's?