Haven't had one yet this season, but...

EMU is 120th against the run, giving up 262.7 yds a game;

Last week they gave up 513 rushing yds against Army;

Even though the bulk of the yardage (304) was by one player, Army had another player who got 92 yds on just eight carries.

There's hope.

Beau up the middle.



What you're really telling us is that running for a lot of yards against EMU would be candy and not necessarily at all an indicator for the future.

First Bear, now Vince.  We getting FB grad school. Excellent! Have you read Instant Replay by Kramer?
Thanks

Funny.  I commented during the game that if Lavallii had real speed he'd have 500 yards and 3 or 4 TD'.  Seriously.  He's been hiding all that talent under a basket, I guess.

More concerned with the weakness this presents on D. What we need to do is strike a balance on defense.  Dial up the contain which might mean we might not have the MAC's top two in sacks.  CMU's coaches must have seen that Williams has sealed the middle and dialed up the pass rush from the DEs.  They found a vulnerability to the outside and exploited it.  Credit Central.  I remember in past years the ends were to contain, contain, contain and the board was calling for QB pressure, well, now we are getting more pressure with more weakness outside.  Last season Wisconsin backed into the B1G championship game and film study uncovered a weakness which they exploited to the tune of 530+ yards rushing, most all outside the tackles.  I expext Burrow will get a handle on this before someone else schools him like that.

L.C., Frank said as much last night (not in my original post).  He said that we probably would not be blitzing as much in upcoming games.  I think his exact words were something along the lines that we would be more discerning in deciding when to blitz. He talked exactly about the problem you mentioned that you can get burned on the outside if you blitz at the wrong time or are too predictable on your blitzes.

Casper, that's actually a defense I like, referred to as a zone blitz. It's not a normal defense, but rather something you use as an alternative to a traditional blitz. In a traditional blitz the linebacker or safety goes all out for the QB, and leaves a hole. If the offense happens to have a play called for a quick throw to the TE (or another receiver) in that hole, you get burned badly.

With a zone blitz, the linebacker or safety blitz as in a normal blitz, but this time the defensive end (or sometimes a defensive tackle even) drops back into a zone coverage to occupy the hole left behind by the blitzing LB or safety. No, they aren't the ideal DB.... but, if the QB attempts that quick throw to the TE, this time there is someone there, and a rather big someone, and not just a big hole. If the DE doesn't make the play, the result can still be a big play by the offense, but that is no different than a normal blitz. On the other hand, sometimes the DE does make the play. Remember Tremayne Scott's pick in the Independence Bowl? Or, remember Basham nearly had a pick earlier this year? Also, I think Basham also caused a fumble after a reception this year, on one of these plays.

I much prefer a zone-blitz to a conventional all-out blitz. Yes, you can still get burned, but with a zone blitz you have one more way where the defense might work. Sometimes it works because the LB or Safety gets to the QB for a sack.  Sometimes it works because the extra pressure forces a bad throw. Sometimes it works because the QB reads blitz, and tries a quick throw to where he expects to find a hole, only to find that the space was not a hole at all, but a space occupied by a rather large someone.

Over-used, the offense can pick it apart, just like any defense, but used occasionally, it can work very well, particularly when you have a fast, mobile DE that isn't much different than a big LB. Basham at 6-4 250 or Laseak at 6-4 242 are not that much different in build than, say, Ben Russell, at 6-1 230.

We have ran zone blitzes for years and had good success. Sometimes things work as you draw them up, sometimes they do not.

Again, I tell you that Daz has to get carries at running back and/or we have to use two back sets.  The first gives us the speed to get to the edge.  The second gives us the deception, perhaps (who's gonn' get the ball), to get to the edge.

I'll now let Bcat2 explain why we don't need this or it's wrong.  Even though it's true.

No edge speed means we are easier to defense.  Add in refusal to have TT run (he's edge speed) and runs up the middle don't work.

It's true, Casper. They can play vanilla defense with no blitzes. When you do that, play after play, it makes it easier for the other team's offense. They know what you are doing, and they chip, chip, chip away. So, to keep the other offense off balance, the defensive coordinator has to mix things up a bit. The zone blitz is one of the safest ways to do that because you are rushing the same number of people, and have the same number in coverage as normal.

Who said play "vanilla" defense?  I said play SOLID defense.  Football is a game of match ups and that was a bad match up.   I think they just tried to get too cute on that one. Besides that, how many of you have seen that coverage out of this staff over the last 9 years...just asking I don't know the answer but I doubt we've done it very often...if ever.  I sure don't remember seeing it!