• You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
  • Some things are still wonky, such as colors, some old attachments, features that need to be re-added, and the new 1st-party billing system. Bear with us while we clean up the database a tad.

OSU defensive philosophy should be...

#1
IMHO the OSU defensive philosophy should be aggressive. Basically, the exact opposite of what it has been and I'm ready to tell you why...

#1: The OSU offense is good...very good. I think we can all agree on this.
#2: The OSU offense is based on rhythm. Get the first 1st down and they're off. Also, the more the offense gets the ball and the quicker they get the ball...the better. When they're on the sidelines for extended periods of time, they lose their rhythm.

With the above 2 points addressed, we should play very aggressive on defense. If you can get a 3 & out, the offense goes right back on the field. If you get a turnover, the offense gets back on the field. You're not going to force many 3 & outs or turnovers by playing conservatively (last year's turnover margin was an exception...this year's is closer to what you can expect). Worse case scenario, you give up some big plays...not the worst thing when you have OSU's offense. They get back on the field quicker and will have a great opportunity to answer the score.

The worst scenario played out in Norman and cost OSU the game. The defense played conservative and allowed OU to drive the field and use all of the clock before finally scoring. Then you go to overtime and the offense had been on the sideline for a LONG time. They were out of rhythm and were held to a FG attempt by a fresh OU defense who had been on the sideline for a LONG time. Then OSU's defense had to go back out there to make a stop when they were completely gassed by the long drive. OU's offense was in rhythm (having just come off the field) and were able to run it right up the middle 25 yards on 2 plays (when they haven't been able to run the ball all day).

You can't tell me that OSU doesn't have the athletes to play aggressively...we saw Baylor do it last week in Waco.
 
#2
Forgot to add one other thing before closing the original post...

Young stated that it's tough to play defense in the Big 12 because of the number of plays. It's no secret that defense's get tired the more plays they're on the field. If you play aggressively on defense you're play less snaps...either by getting stops/turnovers or by the opposing offense scoring quicker. When you have OSUs offense, you can afford to play this way because your team is going to get their points.
 

State

Russian Bot
A/V Subscriber
#3
I think defining a philosophy with only 'aggressive' is overly simplistic, but I understand and agree with your reasoning.
 
#7
I think defining a philosophy with only 'aggressive' is overly simplistic, but I understand and agree with your reasoning.
Well, a good start would be eliminating the 15 yard cushions given to WRs when you have experienced/talented CBs & Safeties...
 

bs_21_goat

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
#9
I agree with the OP. We've had a good to very good offense for a long time - but the last couple of years with our offense being even better but also scoring so quickly I've felt we should be super-aggressive on D.
 
#12
But, then won't our offense get tired?

Actually, I kinda get what you're saying, but isn't that similar to the old Rob Ryan defense we used to have that got torched on long plays consistently? I guess you're saying the difference would be our athletes today. I'm not sure we have the DEs to be that aggressive. I think I'd like to see us be more aggressive than we have been, but not swing the pendulum that far over
 

colb

Wham Block Expert
A/V Subscriber
#13
The scheme is not the problem. If you want a more in depth explanation, feel free to read my breakdown of our defensive performance against OU (complete with pics and diagrams). Page 2 in the thread "Last word on defense"

The OU loss had nothing to do with scheme and everything to do with lack of execution. There is a problem with our defense, but it's not because we run the cover 3. Even when we played press coverage at the LOS our corners got beat.
 

jobob85

Alcoholistic Sage
A/V Subscriber
#14
I'm not a fan of the bend but don't break defensive philosophy. Mary Sue Perkins ran that in high school and she got scored on often. I could give a break down with pictures but, I'm sure a mod would delete it.
 

colb

Wham Block Expert
A/V Subscriber
#15
I'm not a fan of the bend but don't break defensive philosophy. Mary Sue Perkins ran that in high school and she got scored on often. I could give a break down with pictures but, I'm sure a mod would delete it.
Cover 3 isn't a bend but don't break scheme. Not executing between the 20's is.
 

jobob85

Alcoholistic Sage
A/V Subscriber
#16
Cover 3 isn't a bend but don't break scheme. Not executing between the 20's is.
Yea I think when Mary Sue turned 30 everyone quit executing on her. Maybe she should have went with the cover 3.

On a side note your break down of the OU game was execellent. The stuff above is just me being a dick me.
 
#17
But, then won't our offense get tired?

Actually, I kinda get what you're saying, but isn't that similar to the old Rob Ryan defense we used to have that got torched on long plays consistently? I guess you're saying the difference would be our athletes today. I'm not sure we have the DEs to be that aggressive. I think I'd like to see us be more aggressive than we have been, but not swing the pendulum that far over
Offenses don't get tired...defenses do.

I have no idea how the offense ranked in scoring when Rob Ryan was patrolling the sidelines of Lewis Field...but I'd think our offense today is far more productive.
 

bs_21_goat

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
#19
The scheme is not the problem. If you want a more in depth explanation, feel free to read my breakdown of our defensive performance against OU (complete with pics and diagrams). Page 2 in the thread "Last word on defense"

The OU loss had nothing to do with scheme and everything to do with lack of execution. There is a problem with our defense, but it's not because we run the cover 3. Even when we played press coverage at the LOS our corners got beat.
Hey Colb I hear what you're saying and I greatly respect your knowledge and generally agree that scheme is not necessarily the issue. But until we get better execution of said schemes, it doesn't seem like it would hurt to be more aggressive. I don't like giving up big plays, but dying the slow death on multiple long drives feels like it only tires the defense more, both physically and mentally. It's been many a year since I strapped on the leather myself. But I can remember specific instances where giving up long drives playing bend-but-don't-break defense just gets ya down as a player. Versus giving up a big play gets you pissed and fired up to rip their heads off the next series... just an opinion though :)
 
#20
I agree that our defense should be able to play more aggressive in that we should not play so far off the WR. Many teams are playing the spread with many routes being timing routes. Bumping a receiver early could through some of these routes off. Often the passes are short and hoping for YAC. If we are playing 10 yds off the reciever we are making it easy for the spread to function.

The other part of the equation is we must generate more of a pass rush. Any college QB given time to throw should be effective. Playing against so many spread offenses makes this tough as they get the ball out of the QB's hands quickly.

Looking around the country many defenses look silly against the spread. Look at the success of A&M this year in the SEC and against Alabama. (Shows what we might have been able to do last year if we played Bama in the title game.) I am sure that defensive coaches wish they had the answer as I am sure some of them are losing their jobs because of the success of the spread offense.

Just my two cents on the topic.