What defensive lineman would you put in to make the 4 man front and who would you remove from the field?
Our history
- Thread starter awd4cy
- Start date
What defensive lineman would you put in to make the 4 man front and who would you remove from the field?
I’d leave the 3 down linemen & stunt one of the 3 LB’s. You can also have a DE cover the flat when an LB stunts. The object is to pressure the QB without tipping where the stunt is coming from.
They tried that today and when they did they got toasted.
Primarily it’s been 3 D linemen bouncing off 5 O linemen & getting no penetration. The reason the receivers that had no one in the vicinity when they caught the ball was because Daniels had the time to process and find the open man. When Daniels is playing like he did today, he has to be pressured off the plan. Pretty much whatever we tried, they toasted us. I saw a lot of 3 DL’s not getting thru and if we did stunt it wasn’t very often. They still have winnable games left and if they are going to change the direction they are trending, they’ll have to focus on the D is all I’m suggesting. The offense is moving the ball and scoring. In my view, the most glaring problem is that opposing QB’s are too comfortable in the pocket. And I’m undefeated with my expertise from the recliner.
Link?
Seriously though, it is impossible for us to know where we stand with NIL because it isn't officially reported anywhere. The only people that know that for sure are also the ones who benefit the most from growing our numbers, so they are always incentivesed to generate urgency among the donor base.
I would assume stunts make you more susceptible to the run but I never played or coached at this level so I can’t be positive.
Obviously they were gashing us no matter what, but wouldn’t stunts, along with inexperienced linebackers potentially be an issue for even worse run gap integrity and allow for more opportunities for QB runs? If so, maybe that’s why they didn’t implement it in the game plan for this week.
To be clear, linemen stunt & LB’s blitz. The object is to confuse the O line and mess up the timing of the play. Let’s say the NT & the DE loop with the NT going first. At the same time the LB blitz’s where the NT started. All the gaps are covered whether it’s a pass or run. The object is to get 2 of the OL to get lost and both block 1 of the DL leaving an open gap for the LB to blitz thru or the looping DL to penetrate. Playing straight up generally only works if you have superior talent like the Alabamas or NFL.
I understand the difference between stunts and blitzes, but don’t linemen stunt without there being a blitz? And if so, isn’t it possible for the linebackers to get confused with their gap assignment if they are inexperienced just due to the moving parts?
We do not stunt out of the 3 down lineman defense, its just too far for a big guy to get where we would need to go. By the team he looped around, the ball would be gone. Its easy to do out of a even front line, EIU has been doing it effectively for years. Then you blitz a LB or a corner and the QB is totally confused and makes a mistake.
Today and in the past we have allowed the QB to just stand in the pocket and wait for a receiver to come open, give any QB 5 or more seconds to stand in the pocket and bad things are going to happen to the defense.
I agree with this. We are seeing a fan low now, after just 2-3 weeks ago all the talk was a possible undefeated regular season and CCG win. Up and down fandom, again. I'm getting used to it.
We are in the middle now, not as good as we thought, not as bad as some are saying. Way better than much of our past though.
But I don't think we are that far away, even this year. A few breaks here and there, we have a better feeling on things. We were outclassed and outcoached today by Kansas. We should have won against Tech. That would make us 8-1 right now, just these last two games. That's pretty good.
This coaching staff and this team will keep plugging away. It doesn't look like we will win out, but I'm hoping we can win a couple more. And I think we can. We now know we don't have a dominant team. Did some of us really think that we did? Probably. I will wait until we win it all (conference) before I really think we will. One day we might. It's still the goal.
Get ready for a fun BB season too. We are going to lose some games. If we lose more than we think, are we going to give up on the BB team? Don't think so. Neither should we on the FB team. And not saying anyone is.
Things go differently vs Iowa and UCF, and we're 5-4 right now. The what if game can be played in perpetuity.
We're NEVER going to experience 10 wins. Ever.
Yes and no. Hard to duplicate? Yes.
But I thought it then and think it now. Cignetti? One of the 5 best coaches in college football.
As long as that man is in Bloomington and they support him? They will win. And win at a higher level than Indiana has ever done. Be 10-0 every year?
Nope. But he is not a flash in the pan. They hit a grandslam to Pluto with that hire.
IUP - was 4-10 the year before. He went 53-17 there.
Elon - 6 straight losing seasons, 4-20 in conference. Back to back playoff appearances.
James Madison - improved by 7 wins in year one, etc.
Cignetti was asked about how he plans to appeal to incoming players to the program. Cignetti answered, "It's pretty simple. I win," paused, and followed with, "Google me."
So, yes, Indiana is not suddenly going to win 10 games a year. That much is true.
But as long as he is there? Oh, I'd say 8 wins is the floor. Maybe 7 on a bad year. The main question regarding him is his age as he's 63. So how long he wants to do this is a question potentially.
Dominant team? No, I never thought that. Though blowing out the first few conference teams made me think that we might.
We are far away in one aspect that even the UCF, Tech, to some degree West Virginia, and now Kansas have shown.
We're not nearly athletic enough. Yes, injuries obviously are a big part of that.
But even with our starting LB's... IDK if I'd say any of them are uber athletic.
When was the last time someone broke through the second level and it wasn't a TD or super long gain? We have got to find a way to get a couple more guys who can run like a DP can run. We're never going to have 11 of them, because we aren't Georgia and we aren't Alabama or Ohio State.
We should all know that. But we also need to be faster and more athletic than what we are and it is not just 100% injuries.
I really think if we didn't have all of these injuries we would still be undefeated. That's football though, injuries happen. We just had extra bad luck in that department this year.
Last edited:
Cignetti is indeed a great coach. But Indiana has had an easy schedule as well.
I think its deeper than that.
I think to some degree, winning those games, we had a false sense of security.
That we could start slow and we'd be okay. Not that we wanted or were trying to start slow, mind you. But I think to some degree we fell into that trap of well, we're going to shut you down in the second half and our offense will get going so we just need to keep it close. And week by week, its been tougher to pull that off.
Injuries, yes.
But I also think in a weird way, maybe losing a game earlier would have been a wakeup call. Coaches can preach about it, team leaders can warn about not falling into that trap but when you are still seeing good results, I've been part of it enough even on lower levels where it still seeps in , the idea that you're going to be OK and therefore you don't always have the sense of urgency needed. We're not the first team and won't the be the last that it catches up to
No doubt. And getting Rourke has been massive because Rourke, when healthy, is, not an elite QB but a very high level 2nd tier quarterback.
The question is for Indiana's long term success - can they keep him? Cause bigger programs with deeper pockets will call very soon.
I actually am betting on Indiana beating Ohio State. At Ohio State. Which, yes, sounds insane, I know.
But that's how much faith I have in Cignetti. I am a huge Cignetti-stan. Maybe the talent gap prevails. But I would not at all be surprised.
