To make big plays when he drops back into coverage every single play. Why did we stop letting him do what he's best at? Just makes no sense to me to see him dropping back and doing nothing. Smh.
To make big plays when he drops back into coverage every single play. Why did we stop letting him do what he's best at? Just makes no sense to me to see him dropping back and doing nothing. Smh.
In all fairness we were whiney bitches long before OU rammed it up our cornholes, and long before Macks losing season.
+1Originally Posted by PhiDeltBeers
We played too conservatively on defense today. Our defense is at it's best when it's aggressive. We weren't very aggressive today, especially early.
Maybe they were trying to keep the game close and get a chance to win it with a late FG
We brought pressure to Alabama and the first 3 games this season and our defense looked like it belonged on a video game. If the secondary is having trouble, I sure don't want to give the QB all day. How many sacks did we have against Bama and the first 3 games this year, compared to the last 4 games played? That'd be an interesting number.
In all fairness we were whiney bitches long before OU rammed it up our cornholes, and long before Macks losing season.
....I kept thinking that the defense was reacting to everything and dictating very little...very frustrating
ss
"You can trouble me for a warm glass of shut-the-hell-up"
Early on, I thought maybe (Mike) Stoops was overly concerned with Water's running the ball, and wanted to keep him contained. Then, as the game went along, I thought maybe we were respecting Lockett. Then, I just gave up trying to figure out what we were doing. Even Brian Griese mentioned how we weren't being aggressive.
I'm starting to think we are weaker in the secondary than I originally thought, and Mike is keeping extra guys back to help.
When we finally started bringing pressure, Water's was nearly ineffective throwing, but it was too little, too late.
We are certainly weak at the safeties. They (especially A. Thomas) looked really bad. And suddenly J. Wilson looks like he should get back to nickle. He had a rough day, to say the least.
Agree on Thomas. Hatari Byrd must be legally blind to not get on the field in front of him.
i was talking about this at the game today. i think teams are scheming against Striker by keeping extra guys in the backfield figuring that the extra time is enough to get someone open
Giving the QB all day is a big reason why the secondary sucks
My point exactly. So why not try bringing pressure to help out instead of a constant 3 man front? Maybe yermon's right....and we won't bring Striker because offenses are putting an extra blocker there.
In all fairness we were whiney bitches long before OU rammed it up our cornholes, and long before Macks losing season.
Exactly. Even more reason to pressure the qb. Yes, you may give up a big play once in a while but the db's aren't going to be able to keep track of all the receivers while the qb just waits till someone gets open.
I hate that 3 man front. Maybe I just don't understand it but IMHO it just doesn't work.
There's Only ONE Oklahoma!
Part of the problem is they are still trying to figure out the scheme after the change, but I still don't understand the 3 man pressure at all either.
This is what they pay the Stoops Brothers the big bucks for...and, they are failing more often than not lately.
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987
I don't think that TD Lockett caught was Wilson's fault. The safety (Thomas?) stepped up to cover a receiver that was already bracketed by two defenders. When he did it opened the passing lane for an easy completion. He holds his ground that pass doesn't happen or he has an opportunity to pick it off. I think you saw Wilson chide Thomas after that play for being out of position.
It's ridiculous is what it is. The offense can run or pass against it at will. Can't stop anyone at the line with only three defenders. Can't expect the secondary to cover all day when there is no effective pass-rush.
You have to be aggressive in a 3-4 to be successful IMHO. You may give up some big plays but you are giving yourself a chance to make a lot more big plays on defense.
The 3-4 (or 3-3-5) is a great defense, especially for teams that spread you out. If it didn't work, the majority of the teams in the NFL wouldn't be using it. It's like any defense though, everyone has to do their job, no more - no less, for it to be effective.
Remember the old Switzer 5-2 defense? That was a 3-4, just by a different name. Well, it's a little more than that, namely the ends being much more athletic nowadays, but the theory is the same. Go back to 2012 at West Virginia...we were running a 4 man front back then. We were exposed because a)We didn't have enough at the LB spot to match up with what WVU was doing in the pass game, and b) we countered with extra DB's, which couldn't match up with what WVU was doing in the run game.
Since (Mike) Stoops realized we were going to continue to face spread teams, the best bet was to take out one lineman and add an additional (athletic) linebacker. It allows us to put more speed on the field, while being able to match up with teams that don't give us many opportunities to substitute.
I know we all heard about how we were "light years" ahead this year (as compared to last year), but the truth is we're still a year or two away from having the right personnel to run the 3-4 at it's most effective. We need more DB's and OLB's. We've done a good job recruiting those positions in the last year, but that doesn't really help with depth right now.
I agree, we aren't as far along in installing/understanding the scheme as I thought we were. For a 3-4 to be at it's best, you're almost always sending a 4th man on the rush. The idea is that that fourth man can come from anywhere, and not a set spot on the line (like in a 4-3). Using only 3 on the rush should only happen when you're in a prevent defense...other than that, sending only 3 is extremely conservative, and kinda goes against the idea of having a 3-4.
Posting Permissions
