Everyone and their dog knows what we run, the same ol' zone. All they need to do is find the gap and instant 1st down. The coaches might say we dont have the personnel to run man, but there are better options. Id rather get killed by man coverage than zone. I doubt we'd give up 80% completion with man coverage. I wanna call Gene monday night to see what his idea is with the predictable D were running.
Zone defense?!? WHY?!?
- Thread starter ripvdub
- Start date
It's unusual nowadays to see successful deep post routes; let alone A/M had three of them in the first half.
It starts with our complete inability to put any pressure on the passer. Anyone that knows even a little about football knows teams that struggle on the defensive line often run some sort of zone in the secondary.
If we want to get better on defense, we need quicker defensive linemen.
If we want to get better on defense, we need quicker defensive linemen.
I was very disappointed the coaches didn't give Alburtis, B. Johnson and Reumpolhamer more snaps against A&M. Might as well give them a shot to show what they have. We need to start building for the future. Otherwise Chizik/Bolt better have some stud JUCOs ready to come in here next year.
Our defense is painfully, painfully slow as a whole. Man to man would be a disaster, even more so than the disaster that is our passing defense. Our Dline is too slow to chase down any QB, our LB's can't keep up with TE's let alone WR's, our defense is sorely missing athletes.
Seemed like A&M had about 2 different plays they ran that got them about 230 passing yards. There was a WR drag across the middle and seam route. The middle of the ISU defense has looked absolutely awful in the passing game the last few weeks, how can they change up the zone to stop some of these plays?
A lot of truth here. Did the A&M qb even hit the ground behind the LOS once tonight?
Jesse Smith laid the lumber to him a couple of times. Each time he was a step too late, and each time, the A$M QB threw to a receiver in the zone that Jesse had to vacate to blitz.
Bolt isn't giving this defense much of a chance to succeed with this pathetic zone he is playing.
Call me crazy, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a Cover-2 is by definition a zone defense--we just don't have the safeties to run it well yet. So, in the meantime, the corners who will be around next season get practice for when will.
Why is the slot WR always open? They cover him with a LB and slow safety, he finds the seam and gets good yards, play after play, game after game. When they go nickel and have a DB man on man it messes up the QB and what they want to do. Why not try something like playing with 1 safety and 3 CBs, or play with 2 LBs and 5 DBs? Whats it going to hurt? Its not like this D can can stop anyone.
Honestly, all night long they split our safeties to the sidelines and attacked the middle behind the linebackers, i've never seen such a lack of adjustment! it was sickening to play so much better offensively just to watch that terrible of a defensive game...come on guys!
Cover 2 doesn't have to be a full zone. Cover 2 refers to the coverage scheme of the safeties, they each cover half the field, but you can play man underneath them however. But your right about us not having the safeties... or CB's, or LB's, or DL to run it well.
Well, one of the starting corners was a high school quarterback a year ago...and two of the three linebackers might not be bad for a cover-2. :wideeyed:
