What is best Defense against HUNH

#1
Orangedogsrule

Orangedogsrule

PULEEZE LET SMOKEY WIN!!!
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,808
Likes
4,488
#1
siap ... The proposed 10 second rule allowing defenses to run in subs, ostensibly to reduce injuries, may or may not pass. There are lots of folks opposed to it, and like 'GrowVol' point to coaching and S&C as the answer; (See the other thread) and some who support it. Lots of reasons for each side. The merits of whether the proposed rule is good and will reduce injuries can be discussed there.

So, let's assume the injury question is moot, and the proposal fails, and CFB rules continue as they are:

Is it true that defense is much more physically demanding than offense? Hey, lots of fans (myself included) seem to think so. And if so, after the D gets gassed, and it will:

How do coaches counter the HUNH? 3-4, 4-3, 4-2-5, hybrids, what?

What kinds of players must be recruited for each position.
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
3-2-6, and any kind of nickel package. 4-2-5

My idea on how to defend it would be a 4-3 monster. I'd get a hard hitting safety playing my will spot. He'd be a monster, meaning he can rush the passer, defend the run, or cover the pass. Dillion Bates would be my monster if we ran it at UT. If Hunh goes fast, my D must go faster, if it makes sense. We must last to win. I'd get coverage safeties and forget about AJ type linebackers.

I got other ideas how to make the up tempo into a 10 second 3+ out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
Burger said:
3-2-6, and any kind of nickel package. 4-2-5

My idea on how to defend it would be a 4-3 monster. I'd get a hard hitting safety playing my will spot. He'd be a monster, meaning he can rush the passer, defend the run, or cover the pass. Dillion Bates would be my monster if we ran it at UT. If Hunh goes fast, my D must go faster, if it makes sense. We must last to win. I'd get coverage safeties and forget about AJ type linebackers.

I got other ideas how to make the up tempo into a 10 second 3+ out.
Click to expand...


That is exactly how Seattle destroyed Denver. They had physical safety's that were punishing the WR on the crossing routes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
AndyMizunogolfer said:
That is exactly how Seattle destroyed Denver. They had physical safety's that were punishing the WR on the crossing routes.
Click to expand...

I would of had those physical safeties at SS and Will. One of my nickel formations would have 3 of them. I'm all about variety of formation and packages across multiple looks on defense. Football is exactly like chess. Each player can only do specific things. Knowing that, you can build a team to wall off weaknesses of the individuals in them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
Orangedogsrule said:
siap ... The proposed 10 second rule allowing defenses to run in subs, ostensibly to reduce injuries, may or may not pass. There are lots of folks opposed to it, and like 'GrowVol' point to coaching and S&C as the answer; (See the other thread) and some who support it. Lots of reasons for each side. The merits of whether the proposed rule is good and will reduce injuries can be discussed there.

So, let's assume the injury question is moot, and the proposal fails, and CFB rules continue as they are:

Is it true that defense is much more physically demanding than offense? Hey, lots of fans (myself included) seem to think so. And if so, after the D gets gassed, and it will:

How do coaches counter the HUNH? 3-4, 4-3, 5-2-4, hybrids, what?

What kinds of players must be recruited for each position.
Click to expand...

Bluntly stated, I don't have the football I.Q. to knowledgeably answer your questions. I do, however, believe that football like most things, animate or inanimate, evolve with time. And that adaption is the key to maintaining a reasonable balance. Like the controversial forward pass. The innovative formats of Tom Laundry. The wishbone offense and so on.

So I don't care for this latest rule. defenses just have to adapt as they should. If they fear being too gassed, then coaches should better condition their defense personnel in having better stamina. Perhaps even do a serious study of Spartan military training techniques to make said personnel both physically tough and iron-willed.

This pity poor us hogwash is an insult to what football should be about. Yes, Saban, that means you too, especially you. I have not liked your teams beating my Vols but I respected your football acumen. This whining about spread offense has dropped my respect for you 20 notches down. Adapt, dammit, adapt! Don't go to the NCAA with some sob story about player safety just to gain relief from strategy that adapted to your superior talent, coaching tactics, and being azz deep in an inexhaustible supply of new talent found in your state. A privilege that most other schools don't have. But found a way to wipe the smirk off your face. Adapt you bazzard and stop and stop whimpering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#8
#8
It is the same as stopping any offense except at a faster pace. It is about discipline and eliminating the big play. Winning on first down and getting the offense in predictable down and distances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
Good points so far, I Like This!

Try to provide a little more discussion as why you like, or dislike, different packages.

What about Chavis' 3-2-6 dime or 'Mustang' package at LSU. It's what he runs a lot.

It's easy to shift players around in this package to give the offense different looks.

The 3 down linemen have to be athletic and able to attack, swim through the O-line. These are typically the biggest guys on the field and their ability to play deep into the 4th during the season is going to depend on how serious they take their S&C now.

The 2 linebackers have to be able to blitz, stuff the run, and pass defense when nickel or dime backs on the slot blitz. It requires so much running that fitness is going to become an issue in the second half, so judicious subbing by the DC is imperative.

The secondary simply has to jump out of the stadium on pass defenses and be fast to contain and blitz.

But the most basic of all of this is just dang tackling.
It seems like the VOLS have had trouble on tackling fundamentals for far too long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
If I were coach, I'd just do what Dooley did and run 13-14 players out there on D, most offenses have a hard time with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#13
#13
these offenses tend to have a more finesse style of play (oregon), so i agree with the people saying get physical with them (like stanford did). people forget the risk that comes with the HUNH though and you are risking your defense being on the field for 45-50 minutes if the offense is going 3 & out. so it can work against the offense as well. im not a huge fan of the rule change, mainly because a lot of teams were not subbing, but they at least have the threat of subbing to keep the D on the field, which is no longer there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
If this passes the people against it should blackball Bama because the only reason it's even being talked about is because satin suggested it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
volboy81 said:
If this passes the people against it should blackball Bama because the only reason it's even being talked about is because satin suggested it.
Click to expand...

Satin? Well, the stuff is smooth and cool and impresses chicks. Who would have thought a dwarf was so attractive?

It is very wimpy of the "Scarab Beetle" to whine about being picked on by them spread "pebbles."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#17
#17
WoodsmanVol said:
... defenses just have to adapt as they should. If they fear being too gassed, then coaches should better condition their defense personnel in having better stamina. Perhaps even do a serious study of Spartan military training techniques to make said personnel both physically tough and iron-willed.

This pity poor us hogwash is an insult to what football should be about.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I'd like to make some.
It's not about the pity poor us thing. Defense IS more physically demanding than offense. Defenders ALWAYS have to chase the ball. After the initial line surge, they have to fight to turn find the play and put themselves in a position to make the tackle if the run is forced back in their direction. Offense knows where the play is going, can see what has happened and therefore are able to conserve their strength and stamina. This is a pretty much agreed on truth among coaches.

So, you say, improve S&C for the defense, and they will. But so will the offense, for the HUNH they pretty much already have, and so I think conditioning for stamina is a wash, no matter how much improved conditioning is accomplished. Both sides are doing it.

The end result is in the 2nd half, the defensive starters are going to be gassed, much more so than the offense. They just will.

If you like the HUNH for that very reason, wearing down the defense, I can see your point. Games will be more high scoring, and we'll see a lot of teams just shoving the ball downfield on running plays against a gassed defense. One that cannot play up to their own skill level. So, if that's what happens, if it's tough titty for the D, but get out there and give it the 'ol' college try' so be it.

But I personally see it as the offense has found a way to take what used to be a fair rule the way football used to be played. I mean wasn't the 'no defensive subbing' rule put in place because the offense WAS DOING THE PITY POOR US HOGWASH in the first place? Keeping the defense from subbing fresh players against the tiring offense, unless the offense itself subs? Well, It's a two way street. At least it should be. But now the HUNH turns the original fair play intent of the rule upside down to gain, what I and many others, see as an unfair competitive advantage for the offense, by gassing the D. We see the results in all these high scoring games.

The offense has to be in great shape to run HUNH, the defense has to be in great shape to defend it. I may be wrong, but I doubt S&C will be able to counter the exhausting effects of the HUNH on defense, because defense is harder. It'll take a few years to determine that.

The best bet will be creative defensive scheming and what package to use when, what players to use in it, and how well it can adapt to various offensive schemes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#19
#19
Burger said:
I would of had those physical safeties at SS and Will. One of my nickel formations would have 3 of them. I'm all about variety of formation and packages across multiple looks on defense. Football is exactly like chess. Each player can only do specific things. Knowing that, you can build a team to wall off weaknesses of the individuals in them.
Click to expand...

Got any diagrams? Who on our roster fits your schemes?
 
#20
#20
zreeves said:
these offenses tend to have a more finesse style of play (oregon), so i agree with the people saying get physical with them (like stanford did). people forget the risk that comes with the HUNH though and you are risking your defense being on the field for 45-50 minutes if the offense is going 3 & out. so it can work against the offense as well. im not a huge fan of the rule change, mainly because a lot of teams were not subbing, but they at least have the threat of subbing to keep the D on the field, which is no longer there.
Click to expand...

I totally agree the HUNH can backfire. And again it's about how gassed the D gets.

The Cardinal under DC Derek Mason (now HC at Vaindy!!!!) shoved it back down Oregon's throat didn't they. Anybody know what defensive package(s) did Mason use? What will his replacement at DC, Lance Anderson, most likely use against Oregon's HUNH?
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Orangedogsrule said:
I understand your point, but I'd like to make some.
It's not about the pity poor us thing. Defense IS more physically demanding than offense. Defenders ALWAYS have to chase the ball. After the initial line surge, they have to fight to turn find the play and put themselves in a position to make the tackle if the run is forced back in their direction. Offense knows where the play is going, can see what has happened and therefore are able to conserve their strength and stamina. This is a pretty much agreed on truth among coaches.

So, you say, improve S&C for the defense, and they will. But so will the offense, for the HUNH they pretty much already have, and so I think conditioning for stamina is a wash, no matter how much improved conditioning is accomplished. Both sides are doing it.

The end result is in the 2nd half, the defensive starters are going to be gassed, much more so than the offense. They just will.

If you like the HUNH for that very reason, wearing down the defense, I can see your point. Games will be more high scoring, and we'll see a lot of teams just shoving the ball downfield on running plays against a gassed defense. One that cannot play up to their own skill level. So, if that's what happens, if it's tough titty for the D, but get out there and give it the 'ol' college try' so be it.

But I personally see it as the offense has found a way to take what used to be a fair rule the way football used to be played. I mean wasn't the 'no defensive subbing' rule put in place because the offense WAS DOING THE PITY POOR US HOGWASH in the first place? Keeping the defense from subbing fresh players against the tiring offense, unless the offense itself subs? Well, It's a two way street. At least it should be. But now the HUNH turns the original fair play intent of the rule upside down to gain, what I and many others, see as an unfair competitive advantage for the offense, by gassing the D. We see the results in all these high scoring games.

The offense has to be in great shape to run HUNH, the defense has to be in great shape to defend it. I may be wrong, but I doubt S&C will be able to counter the exhausting effects of the HUNH on defense, because defense is harder. It'll take a few years to determine that.

The best bet will be creative defensive scheming and what package to use when, what players to use in it, and how well it can adapt to various offensive schemes.
Click to expand...

And what about talent rich teams from talent rich states vs. teams not so fortunate? I still say the whiny Saban coaches need to install in their defense an attitude of "This is Sparta!" instead of bogus player safety excuses to gain a breather during battle.
 
#22
#22
WoodsmanVol said:
And what about talent rich teams from talent rich states vs. teams not so fortunate? I still say the whiny Saban coaches need to install in their defense an attitude of "This is Sparta!" instead of bogus player safety excuses to gain a breather during battle.
Click to expand...

Given that, OK? Please argue the proposed rule change merits in the other thread.

Let's keep this thread about defensive schemes.

What do you think about the Mustang package Chavis runs at LSU. It worked against TAMU.
 
#23
#23
I'm sorry, this seems like a difficult issue to manage as a QB and as a Ref. ....Lets find a REF to see what they would think of the rule change and to manage it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top