|
|
Post by ag87 on Sept 3, 2017 17:46:29 GMT -8
I've played in about 12 football games - the last when I was in 6th grade. I'm not sure how to articulate my question but when is a D-lineman really a lineman? I noticed in Saturday's game that most often, until the 4th quarter, we would have two linemen with their hand down. Would you call that a 2-5-4? Midway in the 2nd half, we mostly had three d-linemen with their hand on the ground. I thought we played better against the run and occasionally made first contact with a runner at the line of scrimmage when we did that. It was also around the time that PSU's starter left the game so I don't know if that is a factor.
About 20 years ago Oregon hired a new DC, Rich Stubler. If I recall correctly, he had his D-linemen be a yard or two off the LOS in a linebacker stance. It was horrible and he was fired. Are we trying to emulate that?
What would happen if we kept the same 11 guys on the field but had four guys at the LOS with their hand down? Is that a scheme that could become workable with three practices?
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you that have more football knowledge than "watched a lot of games in person and on TV." I'm sure there are some former high school D-linemen here and maybe even a few that played beyond that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 56chevy on Sept 3, 2017 17:57:05 GMT -8
You are asking the right questions. The golden rule in football is that the team that wins the battle on the line of scrimmage, wins the game. Hard to win at the point of attack when you give up leverage before the play ever starts. If a team has the talent on the d line to require double teams while playing three down linemen, you've got something special. If not, you better have an offense that can put up 50 a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by gobeavs92 on Sept 3, 2017 18:22:20 GMT -8
I've played in about 12 football games - the last when I was in 6th grade. I'm not sure how to articulate my question but when is a D-lineman really a lineman? I noticed in Saturday's game that most often, until the 4th quarter, we would have two linemen with their hand down. Would you call that a 2-5-4? Midway in the 2nd half, we mostly had three d-linemen with their hand on the ground. I thought we played better against the run and occasionally made first contact with a runner at the line of scrimmage when we did that. It was also around the time that PSU's starter left the game so I don't know if that is a factor. About 20 years ago Oregon hired a new DC, Rich Stubler. If I recall correctly, he had his D-linemen be a yard or two off the LOS in a linebacker stance. It was horrible and he was fired. Are we trying to emulate that? What would happen if we kept the same 11 guys on the field but had four guys at the LOS with their hand down? Is that a scheme that could become workable with three practices? I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you that have more football knowledge than "watched a lot of games in person and on TV." I'm sure there are some former high school D-linemen here and maybe even a few that played beyond that. Typically any D Lineman or defenders (OLB or Safeties) that are within the framework of the "tackle box" from Offensive tackle to the other OT on the LOS are counted whether they are in a 2 point or 3 point stance (there are exceptions of course) and typically a front like a 4-3 usually has what's called a 9 technique (the DE lines up outside shoulder of the TE or a "loose 9" where they are a whole man outside the TE). Usually stances change for a pass rushing down vs what may be a run down (1st and 10 for instance). Many schools that run a 3 man front, change up between 2 and 3 point stances, this is not new really. One of the things I couldn't understand about the game on Saturday was that we rushed 3 a lot, which was very ineffective! Typically, 3 man fronts still bring one more (4 man pressure- bring an extra LB or S) even in their base defense. Bringing 3 is trying to drop 8 into coverage but it also says "we have good enough rushers to create pressure with just 3" and we sure as hell don't have that! Go Beavs! |
|
