Simple physics

[BigOrangeTrain]

How much faster is Stanford than Oregon? Fundamentals and playing in position are more important than speed. Our lack of speed is simply more evident because we are not playing good fundamental defensive football. That is on the coaches more than on the players.

Awesome points, I really didn't think of it that way, especially the Stanford Oregon comparison.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If you are trying to tackle me one on one in space and I am faster, I am going to beat you almost everytime. To get me, you better have a perfect angle, but I'm probably cutting back off your hip when I see your hip.
In turn, if you have the ball but I am faster, I am running straight at you as you can't beat me to the edge or cutback. I don't have to start running sideways to catch you. If I take a poor angle, I can still make the tackle. Angles are much more important for slower players than faster. That's common sense. Saying they mean nothing is exaggeration.

Yeah... I guess I'll have to draw you that picture after all. So if you're the FS in the example below, and you bite and take the same angle (end point) as the strong safety... that you're still going to be able to make the tackle down field? I'm too tired to do the math, but I'm estimating you would need to be at least twice as fast as the runner for that to happen.

 

[Spartacavolus]

If I'm the LOB and can beat you to the sideline, I don't have to have that exact angle to tackle you. I can come in more steep because I am faster. I can even miss my angle but still make the tackle because I have more speed and nfl talent. See bama db's beating our rb's to the edge. If I'm slower at LOB, I have to take the angle the mlb is supposed to take in your chart.
Why don't you go do your own test with somebody faster than you or slower? See how many tackles the slower guy makes, then see how many the faster guy makes. Stretch your hammies out a little, get 10 yards apart and let me know the results, which I already know.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If I'm the LOB and can beat you to the sideline, I don't have to have that exact angle to tackle you. I can come in more steep because I am faster. I can even miss my angle but still make the tackle because I have more speed and nfl talent. See bama db's beating our rb's to the edge. If I'm slower at LOB, I have to take the angle the mlb is supposed to take in your chart.
Why don't you go do your own test with somebody faster than you or slower? See how many tackles the slower guy makes, then see how many the faster guy makes. Stretch your hammies out a little, get 10 yards apart and let me know the results, which I already know.

You've said this multiple times now Sparty, and you just need to admit that you're wrong. We're not comparing who can make the most tackles between a fast guy and a slow guy, as you are now trying to debate.

You said that "bad angles for a fast player don't make a difference". If a fast player takes a bad angle, then he likely gets caught up behind many of the other players (offensive and defensive) on the field, and he likely does not make the tackle. If you can't relate to this, then you haven't played football. Who gets to the endzone quicker... a slower guy running unobstructed or a faster guy with players in his way? :hi:

 

[Spartacavolus]

You've said this multiple times now Sparty, and you just need to admit that you're wrong. We're not comparing who can make the most tackles between a fast guy and a slow guy, as you are now trying to debate.

You said that "bad angles for a fast player don't make a difference". If a fast player takes a bad angle, then he likely gets caught up behind many of the other players (offensive and defensive) on the field, and he likely does not make the tackle. If you can't relate to this, then you haven't played football. Who gets to the endzone quicker... a slower guy running unobstructed or a faster guy with players in his way? :hi:

If you haven't been debating speed factor in open field, one on one tackling, I don't know where you got sidetracked. If it's open field, no defenders are in your way.
Last thing I'll say is spent my career running around slower teams like Harding or ECS where I could toy with defenders talking about angles and technique. then would go get my tail handed to me playing at Whitehaven or Westside with future college and pro players running around us and on me quickly because they were damn faster than me and I couldn't do anything about it, much like Auburn vs UT.
Simple common sense.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If you haven't been debating speed factor in open field, one on one tackling, I don't know where you got sidetracked. If it's open field, no defenders are in your way.

I thought we were discussing speed and pursuit angles while playing football. The last time I checked there are 22 players on the field at all times (insert Dooley joke here), and if one takes a bad angle then they're not even going to get a chance to make an open field tackle.

 

[mccrackb]

Are team matches up better to a Stanford than it does to a oregon

We keep it within 38. Nice insight

 

[SaintLouisVol]

I think people have a really exaggerated perception of how speed truly works on a football field.

Relying on your natural speed to cover your mistakes is really easy in HS. Guys who have even modest D1 speed are almost always the fastest guy in the field in HS. At that level, you can use it to bail you out when you screw up, but it just doesn't work in D1.

ALL of the D1 players are fast - just not comparatively fast. The "fast" guys are running 4.3 - 4.4. The "slow" guys are running 4.8 - 4.9. 4.8 is still the fastest player in the field in most HS games.

If an "elite" 4.3 speed player makes a mental mistake - bites on a fake, takes a bad angle, etc - and that mistake allows a "slow" ball carrier or receiver (lets say a 4.8 guy) to get two strides on him, it will take the "fast" guy 25-30 yards to catch him straight line running with both at a full sprint.

And for the nay-sayers, the "math:"

• 4.3 second 40YD = 120 ft / 4.3 secs = 27.9 ft/sec. I'll give him the benefit of 28.
  
• 4.8 second 40YD = 120 ft / 4.8 secs = 25 ft/sec.
  
• So the 4.3 guys is covering an extra 3 ft. per second.
  
• If two strides is 10 ft, that means it takes him more than 3 seconds to catch the "slow" guy. 3.33 seconds x 25 fps = 83.25 ft / 3 = about 28 yards.

Angles and technique, mental discipline and ball awareness are ALWAYS far more important than speed.

No matter what some at Volnation may think, speed is not the primary reason the defense leaks like sieve. It's poor play. IMO, the real debate is the degree to which this coaching staff should be able to change the habits of the players and how quickly it can be done.

Yes, coaching matters a great deal. But, all players hit a ceiling at some point. That ceiling may be the player's physical abilities, mental capacity, ability to control emotions, etc. You never know. This is why you inevitably see players wash out unexpectedly and others accelerate well beyond what was believed to be their potential.

I just don't know where the breakdown is. I am willing to concede it could be on either side at this point. Only time will tell.

 

[oregonvol]

I think people have a really exaggerated perception of how speed truly works on a football field.

Relying on your natural speed to cover your mistakes is really easy in HS. Guys who have even modest D1 speed are almost always the fastest guy in the field in HS. At that level, you can use it to bail you out when you screw up, but it just doesn't work in D1.

ALL of the D1 players are fast - just not comparatively fast. The "fast" guys are running 4.3 - 4.4. The "slow" guys are running 4.8 - 4.9. 4.8 is still the fastest player in the field in most HS games.

If an "elite" 4.3 speed player makes a mental mistake - bites on a fake, takes a bad angle, etc - and that mistake allows a "slow" ball carrier or receiver (lets say a 4.8 guy) to get two strides on him, it will take the "fast" guy 25-30 yards to catch him straight line running with both at a full sprint.

And for the nay-sayers, the "math:"

• 4.3 second 40YD = 120 ft / 4.3 secs = 27.9 ft/sec. I'll give him the benefit of 28.
  
• 4.8 second 40YD = 120 ft / 4.8 secs = 25 ft/sec.
  
• So the 4.3 guys is covering an extra 3 ft. per second.
  
• If two strides is 10 ft, that means it takes him more than 3 seconds to catch the "slow" guy. 3.33 seconds x 25 fps = 83.25 ft / 3 = about 28 yards.

Angles and technique, mental discipline and ball awareness are ALWAYS far more important than speed.

No matter what some at Volnation may think, speed is not the primary reason the defense leaks like sieve. It's poor play. IMO, the real debate is the degree to which this coaching staff should be able to change the habits of the players and how quickly it can be done.

Yes, coaching matters a great deal. But, all players hit a ceiling at some point. That ceiling may be the player's physical abilities, mental capacity, ability to control emotions, etc. You never know. This is why you inevitably see players wash out unexpectedly and others accelerate well beyond what was believed to be their potential.

I just don't know where the breakdown is. I am willing to concede it could be on either side at this point. Only time will tell.

good post. thanks for trying to use facts.

Anyone who knows football will tell you that it's rarely just pure speed that is the be all and end all. The NFL is filled with starters who have average speed but react quickly, take good angles, maintain their gap responsibilities, and don't blow their assignments. And all of those things can be coached.

Spartacavolus certainly posts alot for a guy with nothing more to say than "we suck, therefore we're slow."

 

[tm3]

I think people have a really exaggerated perception of how speed truly works on a football field.

Relying on your natural speed to cover your mistakes is really easy in HS. Guys who have even modest D1 speed are almost always the fastest guy in the field in HS. At that level, you can use it to bail you out when you screw up, but it just doesn't work in D1.

ALL of the D1 players are fast - just not comparatively fast. The "fast" guys are running 4.3 - 4.4. The "slow" guys are running 4.8 - 4.9. 4.8 is still the fastest player in the field in most HS games.

If an "elite" 4.3 speed player makes a mental mistake - bites on a fake, takes a bad angle, etc - and that mistake allows a "slow" ball carrier or receiver (lets say a 4.8 guy) to get two strides on him, it will take the "fast" guy 25-30 yards to catch him straight line running with both at a full sprint.

And for the nay-sayers, the "math:"

• 4.3 second 40YD = 120 ft / 4.3 secs = 27.9 ft/sec. I'll give him the benefit of 28.
  
• 4.8 second 40YD = 120 ft / 4.8 secs = 25 ft/sec.
  
• So the 4.3 guys is covering an extra 3 ft. per second.
  
• If two strides is 10 ft, that means it takes him more than 3 seconds to catch the "slow" guy. 3.33 seconds x 25 fps = 83.25 ft / 3 = about 28 yards.

Angles and technique, mental discipline and ball awareness are ALWAYS far more important than speed.

No matter what some at Volnation may think, speed is not the primary reason the defense leaks like sieve. It's poor play. IMO, the real debate is the degree to which this coaching staff should be able to change the habits of the players and how quickly it can be done.

Yes, coaching matters a great deal. But, all players hit a ceiling at some point. That ceiling may be the player's physical abilities, mental capacity, ability to control emotions, etc. You never know. This is why you inevitably see players wash out unexpectedly and others accelerate well beyond what was believed to be their potential.

I just don't know where the breakdown is. I am willing to concede it could be on either side at this point. Only time will tell.

yes and CBJ "get's it" which is why he is going to load the UT D with 4.0 sprinters! speed is king!

jk, great explanation.

 

[LittleDTO]

Speed can be overcome somewhat with good discipline and not over pursuing. Where speed can't be overcome is in one on one match ups in the secondary. Do we lack team speed on D? Absolutely, but we also lack good technique and discipline and the ability to shed blocks.

We are playing with a converted TE as a NT. Lack of playmakers is evident.

 

[Spartacavolus]

good post. thanks for trying to use facts.

Anyone who knows football will tell you that it's rarely just pure speed that is the be all and end all. The NFL is filled with starters who have average speed but react quickly, take good angles, maintain their gap responsibilities, and don't blow their assignments. And all of those things can be coached.

Spartacavolus certainly posts alot for a guy with nothing more to say than "we suck, therefore we're slow."

I've said we have multiple problems from coaching, schemes, to technique, to angles, to speed, to instinct, to lack of nfl talent and its a combination of them all. Have said it multiple times. Emotional gents such as yourself have trouble understanding something so basic and have to take it to one extreme or the other.
You are the fool who thinks we have a fast defense. You are the fool who thinks speed isn't an issue. You are the fool who thinks if Brewer simply takes a better angle in the open field, he can tackle Auburns qb without problem.

I'm the one that has said listing 40 times to determine defensive speed is ridiculous, yet you keep bringing it up that speed isn't the only factor. Well no ****.

To sum it up, we are a slow D. Slow as hell. If you think we are fast and just taking bad angles, you don't know wtf you are talking about.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

What a clown.
I've said we have multiple problems from coaching, schemes, to technique, to angles, to speed, to instinct, to lack of nfl talent and its a combination of them all. Have said it multiple times. Emotional aholes such as yourself have trouble understanding something so basic and have to take it to one extreme or the other.
You are the fool who thinks we have a fast defense. You are the fool who thinks speed isn't an issue. You are the fool who thinks if Brewer simply takes a better angle in the open field, he can tackle Auburns qb without problem.

I'm the one that has said listing 40 times to determine defensive speed is ridiculous, yet you keep bringing it up that speed isn't the only factor. Well no ****.

To sum it up, we are a slow D. Slow as hell. If you think we are fast and just taking bad angles, you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Spart... I've read many of your posts (even though I may not post that much myself) and I don't think I've ever seen you this agitated. Just a friendly suggestion, but when you start taking things this personally it may be time for a coffee break or something. There's no need to get this worked up, and no need for personal attacks. :hi:

 

[SaintLouisVol]

. . .To sum it up, we are a slow D. Slow as hell. If you think we are fast and just taking bad angles, you don't know wtf you are talking about.

First all, I believe you are correct in stating that the team is comparatively slow. It is - at least - slower than many other D1 defenses.

But with all due respect, you chose to start this post with the title "Simple physics" and make the statement in the OP "If they are faster they can beat you to the corner."

It was you who chose to attribute the defense getting their a**es handed them to speed. I think others - myself included - are simply arguing that it is not the case. There is a myriad of things that the defense could do better that would significantly mitigate the speed issues - none of which they seem to be doing.

It may be coaching or it may be the limitations of the players in place, but it is absolutely true that if the defense was somehow able to overcome most of these mistakes, they could play SIGNIFICANTLY more competitively and certainly win without getting one step faster.

 

[beneVOLence]

[QUOTE=utvolkyle06;9474699]Silly is this football or track? Sure speed helps but technique, positioning, experience, scheme, game planning, coaching, player preparation, play calling are all more important. Who do you think has the faster team speed Oregon or Stanford?[/QUOTE]

Great question. I have said this a few times. When they throw the ball 7 times the whole game and you do nothing to try to stop the run something is wrong. I do believe we are lacking team speed, but when the RB or QB runs over 10 yards and we don't have anyone within striking distance is very concerning about the DC.

 

[BanditVol]

Do people blaming poor angles not understand that slower defenders will have poor angles against faster ballcarriers? Doesn't matter what angle you take when the other guy is faster. I suppose you could just run backward and to the sideline. Maybe try to make a tackle at midfield by just running to the spot right at the start. Rb takes a handoff at the 20 and beats the edge, lets just have the lb run backwards 30 yards and maybe his slow ass will have a good angle then.

True, but on the postgame show Fuad said that the initial speed might get you 10 yards but that if the secondary takes good angles they should at least be able to stop it there by taking the right angle. In other words, we gave up many long runs Saturday that could have been stopped after a moderate 5-10 yard gain.

That isn't to say giving up 5-10 yards is good either, but maybe angles do explain part of it.

 

[BanditVol]

I think we can all agree that speed is the most important factor, but that other things also matter?

All parties seem to be saying this.

 

[ETNVol]

Bama has a fast team compared to ours', but not as fast as Oregon or even Auburn.

The difference is Saban gets huge athletes, who can run, and recruits the ones who will fit his system.

The "We're not fast enough!!!! #$%^% Dooley!!!!" excuse is just an excuse.

Were we fast enough to be competitive against Georgia? Fast enough to beat a good South Carolina team that went into Missouri and beat them on the road?

A horrible Arkansas team gave Auburn a decent game for 3 quarters.

Enough excuses for this coaching staff and these players. Yes, they're handicapped, but no, there's no excuse for the level of performance we saw on Saturday.

 

[SaintLouisVol]

I think we can all agree that speed is the most important factor, but that other things also matter?

All parties seem to be saying this.

Actually I am not saying this. I am saying that speed is secondary to playing good defense which means sound technique, ball awareness, proper reads, proper pursuit angles, etc. Speed is gravy.

As I have said more than once, speed makes good defenses great. It does not make bad defenses good.

 

[Spartacavolus]

First all, I believe you are correct in stating that the team is comparatively slow. It is - at least - slower than many other D1 defenses.

But with all due respect, you chose to start this post with the title "Simple physics" and make the statement in the OP "If they are faster they can beat you to the corner."

It was you who chose to attribute the defense getting their a**es handed them to speed. I think others - myself included - are simply arguing that it is not the case. There is a myriad of things that the defense could do better that would significantly mitigate the speed issues - none of which they seem to be doing.

It may be coaching or it may be the limitations of the players in place, but it is absolutely true that if the defense was somehow able to overcome most of these mistakes, they could play SIGNIFICANTLY more competitively and certainly win without getting one step faster.

-our defense is slow for a multitude of reasons-techniques, angles, lack of speed, lack of talent, lack of instincts, lack of confidence, slow to read...I have said that many times. Don't know how else to put it. Our. D. Is. Slow. and there wouldn't be another SEC DC that would trade his personnel for ours. Maybe arky or ky, but you get the drift
-I didn't make the thread and your quote comes from the first post by the OP, which isn't me.
-our defense the last 2 weeks did get our asses handed to us and it was evident the qb and rbs for mizzou and auburn would kill us due to the speed difference. I called both blowouts for that reason and didn't see anything during the games to show me that we were of equal speed and merely just taking bad angles.
-nothing to argue with your last point.

Let me post this question. If we had Leonard Little, Mims, big Al, raynoch, Dale Carter and Eric Berry on D Saturday, would Auburn have run over and around us? Absolutely not, because there would be speed and NFL talent. See qb or rb, go get qb or rb. Simple as that. It wouldn't be because they were coached up on angles.

 

[beneVOLence]

Actually I am not saying this. I am saying that speed is secondary to playing good defense which means sound technique, ball awareness, proper reads, proper pursuit angles, etc. Speed is gravy.

As I have said more than once, speed makes good defenses great. It does not make bad defenses good.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!!!!

 

[SaintLouisVol]

. . . -I didn't make the thread and your quote comes from the first post by the OP, which isn't me. . .

My sincerest apologies. I should have paid closer attention.

. . . Let me post this question. If we had Leonard Little, Mims, big Al, raynoch, Dale Carter and Eric Berry on D Saturday, would Auburn have run over and around us? Absolutely not, because there would be speed and NFL talent. See qb or rb, go get qb or rb. Simple as that. It wouldn't be because they were coached up on angles.

If the current players on the roster were given the speed of the players you mentioned and ONLY the speed, but they continued to make all of the other errors, Auburn still wins walking away.

 

[BanditVol]

If the current players on the roster were given the speed of the players you mentioned and ONLY the speed, but they continued to make all of the other errors, Auburn still wins walking away.

There is no doubt our performance stunk against Auburn and that it was more than speed. However, even if the defense had played to best of it's limited ability we probably get blown away.

Auburn was averaging 306 yards on the ground coming into the game. We have surrendered more rushing yards to almost everyone we have played this year. Thus I expected them to run for about 350. Running for about 350, we still get whipped.

So they ran for 444...and we got whipped. It's bad, but I didn't really expect to stop them anyway.

I don't know what game you saw...I was there, and I saw four factors.

1. We were too slow to get to the ball.
2. Sometimes the DL seemed unaware Marshall had the ball until he passed them.
3. Bad angles in the secondary? Fuad says so, I don't really know...frankly this one is hard to judge.
4. DBs locked up by WRs in the backfield and unable to respond.

What I didn't see, except maybe a few times, was a lot of broken tackles.

What I did see was classic misdirection that the read option is known for. Frankly I followed the wrong ball carrier with my binocs about 5-6 times minimum. Marshall is very good at disguising the hand off.

All of these things matter, but a player caught off guard by the handoff has a much better chance of catching up if he has speed.

I am going to stick with my opinion that speed is still the single most important factor, but obviously not the only one.

It's just an opinion...really not much point in further debate.

 

[BanditVol]

My sincerest apologies. I should have paid closer attention.



If the current players on the roster were given the speed of the players you mentioned and ONLY the speed, but they continued to make all of the other errors, Auburn still wins walking away.

My last post was very wordy...I'll cut to the chase. Yes, if a player only has one arm but runs a 4.3 forty he wont' be any good...I agree.

But I can quote Fulmer, Chavis and Urban Meyer all saying speed is the key to a good defense in the SEC.

I am going to take their word over you or any other poster on here.

 

[Spartacavolus]

My sincerest apologies. I should have paid closer attention.



If the current players on the roster were given the speed of the players you mentioned and ONLY the speed, but they continued to make all of the other errors, Auburn still wins walking away.

-no big deal
-the players I mentioned have instincts, closing speed, and nfl talent. Auburn doesn't run for 444 yards against that group.