Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Latrell Bankston Commits

Tre4ISU

Tre4ISU

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 30, 2008
27,882
8,637
113
Estherville
isutrevman said:
I don't think you can blame a lack of pass rush when a corner gives up 10 yards of cushion on quick a 5 yard out route, then misses the tackle. You are right though that some times the secondary gets burned from having to cover for too long. That happened several times in the Texas game.
Click to expand...

And that's the scheme. Teams have finally decided that taking what we give you is fine. Heacock's system assumed offenses would get impatient and make a mistake. It wasn't some high pressure defense that forced you to make mistakes.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: skibumspe, heitclone and isufbcurt
ISUEmbassy

ISUEmbassy

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2014
250
566
93
Tre4ISU said:
And that's the scheme. Teams have finally decided that taking what we give you is fine. Heacock's system assumed offenses would get impatient and make a mistake. It wasn't some high pressure defense that forced you to make mistakes.
Click to expand...

So now say we actually made even 3 or 4 of the 10+ interception opportunities and beat OU (dropped 2 easy ones) and Iowa (dropped 2 easy ones). At 9-3 would we feel like our defense was "figured out" and ineffective? I agree tackling wasnt as sharp this year, but the missed chances at int's really changed our record.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: vortec22, Cloneon, tim_redd and 7 others
Tre4ISU

Tre4ISU

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 30, 2008
27,882
8,637
113
Estherville
ISUEmbassy said:
So now say we actually made even 3 or 4 of the 10+ interception opportunities and beat OU (dropped 2 easy ones) and Iowa (dropped 2 easy ones). At 9-3 would we feel like our defense was "figured out" and ineffective? I agree tackling wasnt as sharp this year, but the missed chances at int's really changed our record.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe, but our takeaways/game is exactly the same as last year from the first data I looked at. Certainly, we missed opportunities but what if every other team catches some of the INTs Purdy could have thrown?

At some point, the greatest defensive systems get downloaded and nuked. It's happened with Tampa 2, it happened with quarters, etc. They all get got. What makes a DC great, IMO is longevity. I would say the best defensive systems that are at one time unique, have a 3-5 year life of being tough to get to. We're in year 3. A great DC moves onto the next thing just like Heacock has done in the past. I fully expect we will see some different things next year.

The hard part about developing defensive systems, again IMO, is that you already are at a huge disadvantage because the other team knows where half the chess pieces are going and you, at best, have an estimate. You also need everyone to do their job. So then, the more complex you get the more you get running through 18-23 year old heads. I think that's also what made Heacocks system work. They weren't overloaded so you don't see huge busts due to mental errors. I don't expect that part to change at all but I would guess we will be a touch more dynamic and with our personnel, I expect some more 4 man lines.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: skibumspe
ISUEmbassy

ISUEmbassy

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2014
250
566
93
Tre4ISU said:
Yeah, maybe, but our takeaways/game is exactly the same as last year from the first data I looked at. Certainly, we missed opportunities but what if every other team catches some of the INTs Purdy could have thrown?

At some point, the greatest defensive systems get downloaded and nuked. It's happened with Tampa 2, it happened with quarters, etc. They all get got. What makes a DC great, IMO is longevity. I would say the best defensive systems that are at one time unique, have a 3-5 year life of being tough to get to. We're in year 3. A great DC moves onto the next thing just like Heacock has done in the past. I fully expect we will see some different things next year.

The hard part about developing defensive systems, again IMO, is that you already are at a huge disadvantage because the other team knows where half the chess pieces are going and you, at best, have an estimate. You also need everyone to do their job. So then, the more complex you get the more you get running through 18-23 year old heads. I think that's also what made Heacocks system work. They weren't overloaded so you don't see huge busts due to mental errors. I don't expect that part to change at all but I would guess we will be a touch more dynamic and with our personnel, I expect some more 4 man lines.
Click to expand...

Agree completely
 
CyCloned

CyCloned

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,534
6,883
113
Robins, Iowa
Tre4ISU said:
Yeah, maybe, but our takeaways/game is exactly the same as last year from the first data I looked at. Certainly, we missed opportunities but what if every other team catches some of the INTs Purdy could have thrown?

At some point, the greatest defensive systems get downloaded and nuked. It's happened with Tampa 2, it happened with quarters, etc. They all get got. What makes a DC great, IMO is longevity. I would say the best defensive systems that are at one time unique, have a 3-5 year life of being tough to get to. We're in year 3. A great DC moves onto the next thing just like Heacock has done in the past. I fully expect we will see some different things next year.

The hard part about developing defensive systems, again IMO, is that you already are at a huge disadvantage because the other team knows where half the chess pieces are going and you, at best, have an estimate. You also need everyone to do their job. So then, the more complex you get the more you get running through 18-23 year old heads. I think that's also what made Heacocks system work. They weren't overloaded so you don't see huge busts due to mental errors. I don't expect that part to change at all but I would guess we will be a touch more dynamic and with our personnel, I expect some more 4 man lines.
Click to expand...

Every year stands on it's own, as always. Face it, ISU pissed away at least 3 games by dropping passes that were throw right to them. Absolutely no excuse for what happened this year in terms of flat drops.
 
Aclone

Aclone

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2007
24,548
16,629
113
Des Moines, Ia.
CyCloned said:
Every year stands on it's own, as always. Face it, ISU pissed away at least 3 games by dropping passes that were throw right to them. Absolutely no excuse for what happened this year in terms of flat drops.
Click to expand...
How many drops did Bankston have? Aren’t those generally called “sacks”?
 
BWRhasnoAC

BWRhasnoAC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 10, 2013
25,123
22,182
113
Dez Moy Nez
Tre4ISU said:
Yeah, maybe, but our takeaways/game is exactly the same as last year from the first data I looked at. Certainly, we missed opportunities but what if every other team catches some of the INTs Purdy could have thrown?

At some point, the greatest defensive systems get downloaded and nuked. It's happened with Tampa 2, it happened with quarters, etc. They all get got. What makes a DC great, IMO is longevity. I would say the best defensive systems that are at one time unique, have a 3-5 year life of being tough to get to. We're in year 3. A great DC moves onto the next thing just like Heacock has done in the past. I fully expect we will see some different things next year.

The hard part about developing defensive systems, again IMO, is that you already are at a huge disadvantage because the other team knows where half the chess pieces are going and you, at best, have an estimate. You also need everyone to do their job. So then, the more complex you get the more you get running through 18-23 year old heads. I think that's also what made Heacocks system work. They weren't overloaded so you don't see huge busts due to mental errors. I don't expect that part to change at all but I would guess we will be a touch more dynamic and with our personnel, I expect some more 4 man lines.
Click to expand...
Campbell and Heacock wanted to use McDonald to help with deficiencies just wasn't there yet. I cannot understate how big a healthy Eisworth is for this team.
 
I

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2007
7,372
9,948
113
36
Ames, IA
Tre4ISU said:
And that's the scheme. Teams have finally decided that taking what we give you is fine. Heacock's system assumed offenses would get impatient and make a mistake. It wasn't some high pressure defense that forced you to make mistakes.
Click to expand...
The scheme works when you don't get burned in big play, which we did this year because out secondary wasn't very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom