At what point does a defense decide to play tight on a receiver?

[Judson1]

I listened to Saturday’s game but am just now watching. A perfect example was a 3rd and 5 in the second quarter. Our defender was lined up about 5 yards off the outside receiver. At the snap of the ball he backpedals and works inside. The receiver works straight up the field, out past the sticks, and turns to the sideline. Meanwhile, our defender just half speed runs to close the distance. By the time the ball hits the receivers hands he has about an 8 yard cushion.

It has to be taught. There is no way a player can continue to play that way on critical third downs and keep his job. I’m beginning to think this bend but don’t break thing is our strategy? Just don’t give up the big play and maybe they make a few mistakes, have a few penalties, and have to punt? I mean at times we have tight coverage. But so many times it looks as if we concede certain routes. If it is being coached, is it something you think will change when we hopefully get better talent? I’d much rather see someone have to work for the ball. Even if they sometimes break free.

 

[vacock#]

If you are fast you can play tight/close but if slow then not tight. Just guessing.

 

[Garnet chicken]

Playing loose allows that easy 8-10 yard pick up and the LB's have a problem covering the middle also. Teams will do this until they man up.

 

[jonesz21]

A bigger question is why the week before we kept the QB on his azz. Last week we let the QB sit in the pocket all day If we don’t pressure Florida, we better be able to score 40 against them

 

[midline]

Staff probably has the corners playing soft on purpose. More afraid of getting beat deep on an explosive than giving up the first down. A common plan for teams without exceptional talent. Make them drive the field. Hope that they don't manage it well and a penalty, or error, puts them behind the chains and forces a punt. If not, then the plan is to make them kick field goals as red zone is easier to defend.

 

[Cock-Vader]

When the DC thinks he has two safeties that can provide adequate two deep help on the back side. Otherwise, you are better off giving them the underneath.

 

[rogue cock]

When the DC thinks he has two safeties that can provide adequate two deep help on the back side. Otherwise, you are better off giving them the underneath.

This is the answer...simply out of necessity. When the field shortens, they can play tighter.

 

[alston]

our safety play has been really poor. So the corners play soft to avoid getting beat deep because they can't count on our safeties to come over and make a play. Not much more complicated than that. When we get in the red zone, the safeties don't have as much territory to cover and the corners don't have to worry about getting beat deep. That's why we have been more successful in the red zone and suck between the 20s.

 

[lowcountry_cock13]

Staff probably has the corners playing soft on purpose. More afraid of getting beat deep on an explosive than giving up the first down. A common plan for teams without exceptional talent. Make them drive the field. Hope that they don't manage it well and a penalty, or error, puts them behind the chains and forces a punt. If not, then the plan is to make them kick field goals as red zone is easier to defend.

This is essentially our defensive plan in a nutshell. It’s not hard to understand. Give them yards, make them do everything perfect because when you get into the red zone it’s much easier to defend. A 10 play drive that ends in a TD is better than 1 play that ends in a TD. As long as you’re not behind by a bunch.

 

[TheReelEss]

It depends on a lot of factors. Saturday the coaches decided they must play tighter on Ole Miss's receivers when it was do-or-die.When they got 2 scores ahead, if we didn't get some stops we were going to lose the game. So it was a gamble at that time.

We were playing so far off them for 3 quarters because we were weak and thin at the safety position. The game plan had been to keep everything in front of the DB's and hope for a turnover or some bad passes while we continued to score of offense. That didn't exactly happen.

What made it a little easier to make the decision is that Ta'amu was injured and obviously affected by the hit laid on him late 3rd quarter by Kinglsy Enagbare. He couldn't seem to scramble or pass effectively. So the safeties were "cheated up" closer to the line to help with the run and the corners went to man coverage in passing situations. I guess the thinking was we could get some QB pressures and he wouldn't be accurate under duress. That seemed to be the correct assumption since they only gained 18 yards in the 4th quarter.

I think that hit by Enagbare was what turned the game for us. He got a 15 yard penalty for it, but without it we lose by 2 scores.

 

[rogue cock]

It depends on a lot of factors. Saturday the coaches decided they must play tighter on Ole Miss's receivers when it was do-or-die.When they got 2 scores ahead, if we didn't get some stops we were going to lose the game. So it was a gamble at that time.

We were playing so far off them for 3 quarters because we were weak and thin at the safety position. The game plan had been to keep everything in front of the DB's and hope for a turnover or some bad passes while we continued to score of offense. That didn't exactly happen.

What made it a little easier to make the decision is that Ta'amu was injured and obviously affected by the hit laid on him late 3rd quarter by Kinglsy Enagbare. He couldn't seem to scramble or pass effectively. So the safeties were "cheated up" closer to the line to help with the run and the corners went to man coverage in passing situations. I guess the thinking was we could get some QB pressures and he wouldn't be accurate under duress. That seemed to be the correct assumption since they only gained 18 yards in the 4th quarter.

I think that hit by Enagbare was what turned the game for us. He got a 15 yard penalty for it, but without it we lose by 2 scores.

One other issue that may have caused us to play more man coverage in the fourth is that we had some young freshmen playing safety then who may have not understood the zone coverage schemes as well as the more experienced safeties. It is much simpler to play a man coverage scheme.

 

[Gradstudent]

This may be the best thread in sometime on here, good stuff, just football talk, and knowledgeable responses

 

[Judson1]

our safety play has been really poor. So the corners play soft to avoid getting beat deep because they can't count on our safeties to come over and make a play. Not much more complicated than that. When we get in the red zone, the safeties don't have as much territory to cover and the corners don't have to worry about getting beat deep. That's why we have been more successful in the red zone and suck between the 20s.

I know some of it is by injury. But does anyone know if safety help is on the way? I know enough about this staff to know if they don’t get it on signing day they will go after a transfer.

 

[sclawman77]

When we get fast enough guys to hang with the receivers unfortunately. I agree the receivers are wide open when running a short slant to the middle with a corner cushion unless a safety picks it up or linebacker falls into coverage. Seems like opposing recivers are always wide open though-more than they should be.

 

[alston]

One other issue that may have caused us to play more man coverage in the fourth is that we had some young freshmen playing safety then who may have not understood the zone coverage schemes as well as the more experienced safeties. It is much simpler to play a man coverage scheme.

This is clearly the case. Man is simpler to play. It's harder to play man against a QB who can run. i don't know if Franks has any wheels or not. If he isn't a threat running, we should play man the whole game.

 

[Snake006]

I listened to Saturday’s game but am just now watching. A perfect example was a 3rd and 5 in the second quarter. Our defender was lined up about 5 yards off the outside receiver. At the snap of the ball he backpedals and works inside. The receiver works straight up the field, out past the sticks, and turns to the sideline. Meanwhile, our defender just half speed runs to close the distance. By the time the ball hits the receivers hands he has about an 8 yard cushion.

It has to be taught. There is no way a player can continue to play that way on critical third downs and keep his job. I’m beginning to think this bend but don’t break thing is our strategy? Just don’t give up the big play and maybe they make a few mistakes, have a few penalties, and have to punt? I mean at times we have tight coverage. But so many times it looks as if we concede certain routes. If it is being coached, is it something you think will change when we hopefully get better talent? I’d much rather see someone have to work for the ball. Even if they sometimes break free.

Now we are quite the opposite. When we have a 3rd and 5 we run a 3 yd out.

 

[Gradstudent]

This is clearly the case. Man is simpler to play. It's harder to play man against a QB who can run. i don't know if Franks has any wheels or not. If he isn't a threat running, we should play man the whole game.

Franks has some wheels, its not his primary mode, but he is capable of making some big plays against us

 

[sclawman77]

Franks has some wheels, its not his primary mode, but he is capable of making some big plays against us

Can throw it about 80 yards too.

 

[TheReelEss]

One other issue that may have caused us to play more man coverage in the fourth is that we had some young freshmen playing safety then who may have not understood the zone coverage schemes as well as the more experienced safeties. It is much simpler to play a man coverage scheme.

No argument here. But it took them 3/4 of the game to do it after Ta'amu seemed to be pretty well hobbled. Hopefully, it was a turning point with our DB's, but I don't even know who will start at safety this week or how the game plan will be different. UF is very different team.

 

[TheReelEss]

Now we are quite the opposite. When we have a 3rd and 5 we run a 3 yd out.

LOL. You hate it when we need 5 and we throw for 3 and then the WR loses one of those yards back. But there were probably 3 options and the first two were smothered.

 

[Cock-Vader]

This may be the best thread in sometime on here, good stuff, just football talk, and knowledgeable responses

Since the beet thread, I agree.

 

[GamecockJL]

If you are fast you can play tight/close but if slow then not tight. Just guessing.

Speed isn’t the issue. Fenton, Horn, and Nixon have very good speed.

 

[QuakeandShake]

Well if you have some really good safety help you can press em at the line and try and throw their timing off but you risk getting burned on the back end. If you have really good safeties they can save the day.

 

[HI Cock]

There's at least one team left on our schedule that is licking their chops to attack our bend but don't break. Eventually we've gotta get some players who can stop the underneath stuff. Even lowly TN was able to move the ball and win the TOP game. It's been 3 years in a row of this.

 

[jonesz21]

Staff probably has the corners playing soft on purpose. More afraid of getting beat deep on an explosive than giving up the first down. A common plan for teams without exceptional talent. Make them drive the field. Hope that they don't manage it well and a penalty, or error, puts them behind the chains and forces a punt. If not, then the plan is to make them kick field goals as red zone is easier to defend.

Don’t know why it would take 600 yds before you realize that’s not going to work

 

[Horseshoe 04]

Frankfurters sux ..... just wait

 

[rogue cock]

There's at least one team left on our schedule that is licking their chops to attack our bend but don't break. Eventually we've gotta get some players who can stop the underneath stuff. Even lowly TN was able to move the ball and win the TOP game. It's been 3 years in a row of this.

Did you like how the freshmen play in the 4th quarter? If so, I'd say help is on the way.

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised at how well they played.