• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Pass rush (or lack there of)

evilpoke

evilpoke

Well-known member
Anyone else notice a general lack of pass rush by the defense? It seems like unless it's an obvious passing situation, our d-linemen don't really get too close to the quarterback. I don't know if this is because of the 3-4 and they're sending the 4 linebackers out into coverage a lot, or they're protecting against the run, or it goes into the defense's bend but don't break mentality, where the goal is to not give up the big play and the first priority is to stop the run. I think this leads to a lot of the passing yards for quarterbacks, but also a lot of the interceptions, because if the quarterback makes a mistake, there's someone to bat it down or pick it off. Now, when they know its a passing down, and they send four guys - someone is in the quarterback's face, so you KNOW they can get to the quarterback.

Let me know if you guys are seeing something different out there.
 
It is interesting...almost like English has taken a page out of Breske's book. Our DB's are continually laying off 10+ yards, to start EVERY game...and until the tone is set, we don't go to bump & run (and even then not often). I understand why, but as a fan, would love to see UW be more aggressive.

Also...with the pass rush, it is frustrating to see us rush sometimes 2, and usually 3 guys. You just can't get pressure that way...although sometimes they did against New Mexico! It reminds me of a prevent defense, in that, we are preventing any big plays. That is important, but as a fan, again, very frustrating to watch at times.

I think things will change, as the defense grows (so will the confidence). I think the D against NM was much improved...and with playing AFA...not sure we will see anything as it relates to pass rush anyway. I hope we do though...because if so...we will have a lead that forces them to throw!
 
I understand where you are coming from. However, I think this is all by design. Since our offense is so green, our defense is playing it safe. They aren't blitzing (they did once or twice against NM) and they aren't playing bump and run. What they are trying to do is not get beat deep by keeping the plays in front of them.

Maybe with the offense improvment, we might see a more aggresive D in the 2nd half of the season.

Go Pokes!!
 
I think a lot of English's strategy has to do with what happened in the fall scrimmages earlier this year. If you remember, the first scrimmage the defense really got smoked by the offense. There were a lot of blitz packages in that first scrimmage and Robert Benjamin made them pay for it. I think the kids on defense were a bit confused by the complex schemes they were trying to run. Thus, English went to a very, very bland base defense in the second scrimmage and the defense dominated. I think it was right then when English decided his defensive scheme for the year.

As much as I hate to watch us get dinked and dunked down the field on some drives, I think it is the most appropriate approach on defense. Our secondary just isn't good enough to put them out there on an island and expect them to come out on top. For every sack that we got because of blitzing, there would be at least one big play that we gave up. The risk/reward analysis just doesn't indicate it is worth doing. I will admit though, it is very frustrating to watch the opponent make 10 quick throws out to their receivers standing on the line of scrimmage because our corners are 10 yards off. Gets them 5-7 yards every damn time. I just keep reminding myself that it's better than us giving up a big play.
 
TheRealUW said:
I think a lot of English's strategy has to do with what happened in the fall scrimmages earlier this year. If you remember, the first scrimmage the defense really got smoked by the offense. There were a lot of blitz packages in that first scrimmage and Robert Benjamin made them pay for it. I think the kids on defense were a bit confused by the complex schemes they were trying to run. Thus, English went to a very, very bland base defense in the second scrimmage and the defense dominated. I think it was right then when English decided his defensive scheme for the year.

As much as I hate to watch us get dinked and dunked down the field on some drives, I think it is the most appropriate approach on defense. Our secondary just isn't good enough to put them out there on an island and expect them to come out on top. For every sack that we got because of blitzing, there would be at least one big play that we gave up. The risk/reward analysis just doesn't indicate it is worth doing. I will admit though, it is very frustrating to watch the opponent make 10 quick throws out to their receivers standing on the line of scrimmage because our corners are 10 yards off. Gets them 5-7 yards every damn time. I just keep reminding myself that it's better than us giving up a big play.
Click to expand...

I had a big response typed up and for some reason it didn't post. Except at the same time, you posted this, which is basically what I was going to say so thanks! :) I dont think our corners are good enough to put out on an island. That wont change either as the season goes on because the level of competition is going up.
 
Here's my thought on the whole thing. It's been very frustrating for me to watch the opposing quarterbacks be able to get the easy completions because of the space between our corners and the receivers, but it also seems that in every game, this is how it starts, only to have that space shrink more and more as the game goes on, to end up in very tight coverage towards the end.

This seems to have led to opposing quarterbacks not worrying too much about sharpening up their passes as they have the margins on their side, and then all of a sudden, Fletcher, Unrein, et. al. come rushing in, and the Gipsons aren't leaving any space at all. So basically, the quarterbacks go from having 5 seconds to complete passes in 10 yard spaces, to having 1.5 seconds to thread the needle - I don't think this is very easy to adjust to, and as was obvious in the New Mexico game, they just couldn't do it, and we came away with the easy interceptions and breakups.

Benefit #2 of this: we make them go to the passing game and stop bothering with the run. Once you've stopped running, you're not really going to start again, especially if you fall behind. We turn the other team one-dimensional because it seems to them to be all that they need to do, and then all of a sudden it doesn't work anymore.

I'm not sure if I even made sense - this is just what it's seemed like to me so far. It's like we make the other team think they can be successful by being one-dimensional, and then we completely change things up on them, and confusion and frustration ensues. It seems to be working so far, especially since our offense is clicking.
 
Yes, you are very observant. That is exactly what I see - the timing depends on the opposition though. This is using the strength and weakness of our players to do the best we can. I also think this will be adjusted as the season goes on and we get more experience.

Asmodeanreborn said:
Here's my thought on the whole thing. It's been very frustrating for me
to watch the opposing quarterbacks be able to get the easy completions
because of the space between our corners and the receivers, but it also
seems that in every game, this is how it starts, only to have that
space shrink more and more as the game goes on, to end up in very tight
coverage towards the end.

This seems to have led to opposing
quarterbacks not worrying too much about sharpening up their passes as
they have the margins on their side, and then all of a sudden,
Fletcher, Unrein, et. al. come rushing in, and the Gipsons aren't
leaving any space at all. So basically, the quarterbacks go from having
5 seconds to complete passes in 10 yard spaces, to having 1.5 seconds
to thread the needle - I don't think this is very easy to adjust to,
and as was obvious in the New Mexico game, they just couldn't do it,
and we came away with the easy interceptions and breakups.

Benefit
#2 of this: we make them go to the passing game and stop bothering with
the run. Once you've stopped running, you're not really going to start
again, especially if you fall behind. We turn the other team
one-dimensional because it seems to them to be all that they need to
do, and then all of a sudden it doesn't work anymore.

I'm not
sure if I even made sense - this is just what it's seemed like to me so
far. It's like we make the other team think they can be successful by
being one-dimensional, and then we completely change things up on them,
and confusion and frustration ensues. It seems to be working so far,
especially since our offense is clicking.
Click to expand...
 
Fletch was in Porterie's face ALL GAME LONG

I think we're relying heavily on Fletch and Unrein to do work, even if double-teamed. That was the first game all season where I saw Fletch in the backfield, hitting and knocking down the qb almost every play.

I also liked the mixing in of blitzes we had. Especially the corner blitz where Marcel hit Porterie so hard, he lifted him off the ground from the blindside! That was sweet.
 
evilpoke said:
Anyone else notice a general lack of pass rush by the defense? It seems like unless it's an obvious passing situation, our d-linemen don't really get too close to the quarterback. I don't know if this is because of the 3-4 and they're sending the 4 linebackers out into coverage a lot, or they're protecting against the run, or it goes into the defense's bend but don't break mentality, where the goal is to not give up the big play and the first priority is to stop the run. I think this leads to a lot of the passing yards for quarterbacks, but also a lot of the interceptions, because if the quarterback makes a mistake, there's someone to bat it down or pick it off. Now, when they know its a passing down, and they send four guys - someone is in the quarterback's face, so you KNOW they can get to the quarterback.

Let me know if you guys are seeing something different out there.
Click to expand...

EvilPoke are you a BYU Fan? Every thread you start seems to be negative. I hereby honor you as the "jay mariotti" of wyonation. If you type in EVIL in the search, only 1 out of 4 of your posts could be considered positive. It's so obvious you are a BYU fan. Let me ask you this, If Joe Glenn was still coaching would our pass rush be any better? I say no, Joe Glenn would find a way to screw it up....... :!:
 
East Popcorn State writes "EvilPoke are you a BYU Fan? Every thread you start seems to be negative. I hereby honor you as the "jay mariotti" of wyonation. If you type in EVIL in the search, only 1 out of 4 of your posts could be considered positive. It's so obvious you are a BYU fan. Let me ask you this, If Joe Glenn was still coaching would our pass rush be any better? I say no, Joe Glenn would find a way to screw it up....."

So lame.......and untrue. EvilPoke is realistic and has an occasional complaint like most of us, your posts on the otherhand are 90% negative...your still not fooling anyone EPS!
 
So lame.......and untrue. EvilPoke is realistic and has an occasional complaint like most of us, your posts on the otherhand are 90% negative...your still not fooling anyone EPS!
 
East_Popcorn_State said:
EvilPoke are you a BYU Fan? Every thread you start seems to be negative. I hereby honor you as the "jay mariotti" of wyonation. If you type in EVIL in the search, only 1 out of 4 of your posts could be considered positive. It's so obvious you are a BYU fan. Let me ask you this, If Joe Glenn was still coaching would our pass rush be any better? I say no, Joe Glenn would find a way to screw it up....... :!:
Click to expand...

The guy goes into hiding for 3 days after the whole board calls him out and this is the best he can muster for a comeback?
 
gopokes1399 said:
The guy goes into hiding for 3 days after the whole board calls him out and this is the best he can muster for a comeback?
Click to expand...

I agree 100 % is there a way to kick people off? haha
Click to expand...

Now hold on there. We don't want this board turning into gowyogo. No elitists allowed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top