Dawg Sports: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Backing the Pack for NC State Fans!


A Discussion on the UGA Pass Defense

This is a continuation of a subject that was started in another fanpost, but its something that probably needs to be discussed, dissected, and vented about. Without further ado, I give you one man's thoughts on the UGA pass defense.

The way I see it, most of our defense seems to be geared around the prevention of getting beat with a long pass. To do this, our coaches have decided to just play soft on the corners from the get go, decreasing the risk of getting beat deep. Unfortunately, this style of play opens up the ability to get dinked and dunked absolutely to death with short passes (examples such as Vandy 06 and, oh, I dont know, two weeks ago readily come to mind, though there are many, many others). Now, if there is enough of a pass rush, allowing for the QB to be hurried into making an inaccurate throw or hurrying the pass, getting the ball out than the receiver expects, this can work. It is very difficult to make a throw with a hand in your face or a defensive lineman on your back (just ask  Colt Brennan), and the mere disruption of timing on some plays can result in incompletions (this is especially true against a spread passing attack like UF). However, the Dawgs, for a variety of reasons, simply aren't capable of applying that kind of pressure. If there is no rush, however, something needs to be adjusted. The corners need to be tightened up into press coverage to compensate for the fact that the quarterback will have more time than we would like to give him. In such a situation, a team cannot leave intermediate passing routes open by continuing to play soft. Otherwise, you end up with results that do nothing more than rev the engine of the Fire Willie Martinez Bandwagon. Other than the whole losing games aspect, I have several problems with this approach.

1) It plays into the hands of pretty much any opponent.

If you have a semi-capable quarterback under center, he should be able to make the throw on a 8 yard out or a ten yard curl. If you are playing tight on the line, a corner has the ability to get a hand on the ball, disrupt the pattern (possibly buying more time for the defensive line to get in the QB's face), or even jump the route if the QB doesnt have the arm to zip a pass right in. In the SEC, you will more often than not see quarterbacks who are willing and able to devour such a defense. Playing such a defense gives any team a blueprint for moving the ball successfully on us. It doesn't matter if we are playing a run first offense, such an adjustment can, and should, be made (Alabama, again). Additionally, by playing off the line 8-10 yards and then backing off even further on the snap, you are essentially taking your cornerbacks out of the play. This relates to my second problem...

2) It takes one of our best defenders out of the game.

Asher Allen can cover like a mad fiend. He doesn't need to have a large cushion to avoid getting beat. He is talented enough to break up a short route or to stay with his man going deep. To a corner back of his talents so far off the line of scrimmage is not making the best use of our personnel. If we ran a defense that had Ellerbe and Curran start 15 yards off the line, there would be outrage. They would be entirely out of position from the outset against the run. Essentially, our defense is hindering Allen in such a way.

3) I would rather get beat by the deep ball than by short passes.

If a defense gets beat on a deep ball, it can be chalked up to many different things. A coverage was blown, a mismatch was created by motion, a perfect pass was thrown, something of that sort. Generally, it is a problem that is specific to that one play only. However, if a defense repeatedly allows short passes, thus enabling the defense to drive down the field, it is a symptom of a problem with the scheme as a whole. Repeatedly allowing similar plays to beat you means that you have a weakness and it is being exposed. It is not a problem specific to a single play, it is a problem specific to the defense that is being run. Trying to stop a low percentage, highly difficult deep ball while continually giving up a high percentage, low difficulty short pass is simply not logical. Additionally, relatively shorter, yet still effective passes keep our defense out on the field. It swings time of possession in our opponent's favor, something a team with as many injuries as the Dawgs have can't afford.

This is something that should have been fixed a long time ago. There were times in the past, with a vicious pass rush, that the Dawgs could afford to play it safe in the secondary. However, teams change. Between injuries and the loss of a key pass rusher to graduation, the Dawgs have been forced to adapt. This is a weakness that was blown open for all the world to see last week. Down 31-0 is not the time to keep playing it soft. Something has been shown to be wrong on the defensive side of the ball. It is something that needs to change.

Thoughts? Comments? Any other ideas on why the Dawgs continue to play such a defense? Anybody think no changes need to be made?

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

My thoughts...

Ok I’ll play here……

As I understand it, we play a soft zone Tampa 2 defense that is dependent on the front 4 generating a pass rush. In years past this hasn’t been an issue with the likes of Marcus Howard, Charles Johnson/Quentin Moses, David Pollack, Charles Grant, etc. It seems now that with no clear pass rush on the ends we are giving average QB’s time to pick us apart. What we are going to have to do is man up on the corners and bring pressure from the LB’s and Safeties or go to a 3-4 look and expose ourselves to being gashed up front on run plays between the tackles. I think that getting Rod Battle back will be big if he can get some pressure from the opposite end of Lomax. What happened to Dobbs and Wynn? I haven’t seen or heard anything from them since the CMU game.

by RocketDawg on Oct 7, 2008 8:08 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This just occurred to me as I was reading this post...

and I may be way off base, because quite honestly, everything I know about defense I learned from seven years of watching lots of college football and five years of playing lots of NCAA video games.

I was at the 2005 Auburn game, which (if I remember correctly) we lost because our secondary got beat on a deep ball. If was a game we should have won because our offense was playing out of their minds.

It makes me wonder if Martinez was scarred by that loss. Is it possible that he is scared of the idea of his defense losing a game on a low-percentage play?

by wqueenjr on Oct 7, 2008 9:54 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was at the 2005 game...

and (by his own admission) a severely concussed Tra Battle had no idea what play was called and were he was supposed to be in coverage. What was called (if I remember correctly) was a 3 deep zone and he was supposed to be in the middle of the field. He slipped on the play and the receiver broke open on a deep post.

I don’t think Willie was scarred by that as much as I don’t think he trusts his CB’s to play man coverage (which I think he is right on that with the exception of Asher Allen)

by RocketDawg on Oct 7, 2008 10:39 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thank you

Thanks for articulating what’s been bothering me all year. I was concerned about this starting with the GSU game, and the Alabama game confirmed our worst fears.
Rocketdawg is right on the money: it’s all fine and dandy when your pass-rush barely even allows short routes to develop. That’s precisely why we dominated Hawaii. We ate them alive at the line. They were forced to hit 0-2 yard routes (with commensurate punishment to their receivers) or try in vain for longer routes that never had a chance to develop.
Alabama beat us on the line, which meant that they could run the ball or hit those intermediate routes at their leisure. I’m not sure that our Frankenstein line could have stopped their ground game to force the issue, but at least we could have taken JPW out of his comfort zone. Any QB who’s made it to this level can make the throws he did — see, for example, Chris Smelley looking like a Heisman candidate against us.
We simply do not have the personnel to make Willie’s scheme work right now. To paraphrase a much more erudite blogger who reluctantly paraphrased Donald Rumsfeld: you have to go to war with the D you have, not the D you want.

by Spears on Oct 8, 2008 1:03 AM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

D, other thoughts

It’s my understanding our Cover 2 is different from the Tampa Cover 2, but I can’t offer any other insight. This might be a mistake. That out of the way:

I do understand that we rely on pressure from the front 4, and the DEs haven’t been as good as we hoped. I would point out, however, that we seem particularly focused on the CB play but perhaps not focused enough on the safety play. This isn’t my thought originally, but I would agree the safety play hasn’t been very noteworthy thus far. Has it been bad? I can’t say. It seems like Bama’s play actions were working against us; isn’t part of the reason to do that to draw the safety help from down field?

May the wings of liberty never lose a feather

by peacedog on Oct 8, 2008 12:55 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I could be wrong...

about it being a true Tampa 2 (although I have heard that term used). Basically the shell is a 4-3 with the safties bailing on the hashes and the MLB being responsible for the deep middle. The CB’s are either man with saftey help over the top or zone with safety help deep.

by RocketDawg on Oct 8, 2008 4:21 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreed

Thanks for posting this lengthy discussion that we hinted at in another FanPost. I’m vehemently against jumping on the “Fire Coach XXXX” bandwagon when things go badly for one game, but I feel that with Coach Martinez this “death by a 1000 passes” is becoming a part of his repertoire. Certainly, the statistics in overall defense and scoring defense haven’t dropped that precipitously from when Brian VanGorder roamed the sidelines for the men in red and black. That obviously indicates that the defense has been fairly consistent over the last 5 or 6 years in those important categories. The one thing that I do miss about Coach VanGorder was the aggressiveness with which the defense played. That seems to be the thing missing from Coach Martinez’s version of the Georgia D. I do believe that Coach Richt wouldn’t keep him in place if he didn’t feel that Willie Martinez wasn’t the right man for the job. But it certainly is frustrating to be dinked and dunked to death. I think you said it best when you made the point that any QB in this league would look good against that type of defense. Maybe we don’t have the personnel to run tight man to man coverage, but it certainly couldn’t get any worse than being ripped to shreds by Chris Smelley and John Parker Wilson.

by AuditDawg on Oct 8, 2008 3:16 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thats the fundamental difference

If I was going to sum up a VanGorder defense in one word, it would be “aggressive”. If I were given a few more words, I would go with “b@lls to the wall aggressive”. If I were describing the general feel of what we have seen lately, it would be “passive”, no further adjectives necessary. This kind of goes back to the “I’d rather get beat by the long ball” sentiment I expressed earlier, but if my team is going to lose, I would rather see them go down in a blaze of glory, firing everything they have at an opponent, rather than seemingly just sitting back and letting it happen.

To put it another way, our defense used to get beat in a manner that resembled a guy who went for a picnic on Mount Vesuivus right before it went “boom”. It was quick, sudden, and kind of left you frozen in place afterwards. Now, its more like watching a beloved pet die. Its slow, painful, and demoralizing in that you know there is nothing you can do except have it put down. I’m not trying to advocate a blitz eight men every down plan. Its just as easy to beat a defense when you know a blitz is coming on every down. There just has to be a happy medium in there, and our coaching staff really should try to locate it.

by SG Standard on Oct 8, 2008 3:39 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Van Gorder

I agree that BVG defenses seemed more aggresive, however if you look back on it we didn’t blitz anymore than we do now, and when we did blitz it was with a zone behind it most of the time. CWM and BVG are of the same philosophy (and Coach Richt even said it was a toss up when he first got there on who was going to be DC) it is that we had better D lineman under BVG and we didn’t have to blitz, and when we did it was so overwhelming that it was normally a sack. Bottom line is that we just don’t have the talent at DE that we are used to and that make this defensive scheme run.

The fix action for this IMO is to move one of the quicker LB’s (assuming we have any that are healthy) to DE on passing downs or go to more of a 3-4 and blitz one LB every down. I would honestly rather see us generating more pressure with the D lineman we have now, but it doesn’t look like it is going to happen this year.

by RocketDawg on Oct 8, 2008 4:15 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'll go ahead and defend the defense

First off, I’ll admit that I’m not terribly pleased with the results we’ve been getting. However, in no way does that make me think it’s a scheme problem.

With so many teams spreading the field, the idea of “press” coverage is unrealistic. Everyone’s beloved Asher Allen (more on him later) can’t even cover one man (or his zone) when there are three or sometimes even two receivers on his side of the field. Without the ability to draw up a chalkboard here, just picture in your head Allen lined up directly in front of the widest receiver. Surely no one is advocating playing every DB at the LOS, so the receiver in the slot has 5-10 yards to work with in front of him. Ok, you say, let’s put a ‘backer there to cover that intermediate zone. Problem? Immediately following the snap, slot receiver catches a quick screen, and runs upfield toward the sideline where Asher is getting blocked before he knows what’s coming. Do we want our LBs chasing guys like Percy Harvin or Kenny McKinley (I know, he didn’t play, just for effect here) with even that minimal 2 yards of space? I sure don’t.

So, ok, let’s play press on the slot, give the cushion on the outside. This is the better strategy, but not without its flaws. If you are going to still play zone, that wide out is on an island with the corner, because the safety can’t float over and help for fear that the slot guy beats the jam and then he’s got acres of space behind the linebackers. In man coverage, well, same problem, and combination routes will let those two receivers rub defenders off and catch and run. These problems are exacerbated when teams use trips, as more receivers make it more likely that there’ll be an uncovered guy at the line who can be used to block or catch in a Zook-esque bubble screen extravaganza.

If you DO want to press everyone, our run D suffers, as corners have much more trouble getting off blocks that come instantly rather than stepping up when they have a chance to read the play. Playing 3 DBs against a trips set leave us far too vulnerable on the back side as well.

Now sure, teams do all of those things with some success, but it relies on a strong pass rush just as much as our scheme. I like the way we do things, because it is a safe enough game plan to allow the safeties to work down in run support, and protect the middle of the field. We don’t get beat down the middle, and I like that. The reason we run into trouble, especially lately, is that we are doing a terrible job of putting teams in a position where they have to take a 5- or 7-step drop and pick up a 3rd and 6+. Tackling has been subpar on the perimeter, and we need to address that. Our corners aren’t closing fast enough, yes, even Asher. If those 3 yard throws are just that, then ok, but we are letting 3 yard completions turn into 6, 7, even 12-yard gains. THAT’S the problem.

As for Allen, he’s not the cover man he’s made out to be. People like to point to the PI penalty as a sign of how he’s a “smart” player because he was beat. That’s the issue…when we’ve given him the chance to lock a guy down, he gets beat. Is there a better corner on the roster? Maybe. Bryan Evans has better raw skills but also isn’t good enough yet to be a shut down guy. We don’t have a player like that, as talented as our guys are and as good as they are all around.

The solution? I think it’s stay the course, for the most part, and hope to get better safety play. I can’t help but think that part of the reason are guys are a little slower on the outside is that they have more concerns about what Byrd and Jones are going to do. Those guys are too talented not to start making some plays for the pass D. We need our corners to play like Ronde Barbers, flying to the ball as soon as it’s out. As it is, they are playing like Dre Blys, wanting to grab a guy’s legs before he runs past.

by Bodey on Oct 8, 2008 4:20 PM EDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

...Very valid points

Bodey certainly makes some valid points about some of the fundamental flaws that team with press coverage can run into. That’s one of the big reasons I don’t hop on the Fire Willie Martinez bandwagon. I think the best point is about how during Coach Vangorder’s tenure we had guys that were 1st day draft picks playing on the line, so it wasn’t entirely necessary to blitz. Overall good discussion. Hopefully we can upgrade at the DE position or maybe someone will step up this year like Marcus Howard did last year and we can get some pressure on the QB to force some of those bad throws. I really like the point that Bodey makes about allowing 3 yard completions to turn into bigger gains. That was so evident early on in the Alabama game. They converted a couple of third and longs that were originally short, but we allowed them to turn it into a first down. Either way, good points by all.

by AuditDawg on Oct 8, 2008 4:50 PM EDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation community devoted to the Georgia Bulldogs.
Start posting about the Bulldogs »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Flowerchucker_small
Quick Question re: Branden Smith
Small
College Football Preview Luncheon
Photo_69_small
Individual/Composite calendars for iCal/Outlook?
Small
College Football Preview Luncheon
Small
muschamp recruits in georgia
Associated_20press_clayliston_1965_l_small
How to Taunt a Georgia Fan
Mtsu_sm_small
Going to UGA
Small
oklahoma state blog
Small
2009 Competition Improves
Small
100 Cocktails

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small T Kyle King

Official Partner of CBS Sports