T1B

I agree with that assessment 100%

I see a lot more poor technique in college football than I used to. More missed tackles and defenders taking poor angles on the ball carrier.

I don't attribute that to the explosion of the spread offense. I think it has more to do with defensive players just not being as good as they were 10-12 years ago. Look around the country- where are all the dominating defensive players? We had Suh last year, but there's just not a lot of great corners like charles woodson or badass pass rushers like Julius Peppers. There seemed to be a lot more defensive talent nationally than there is now.

As the speed of the game increases, the tackling decreases.

Today's linebacker has to be a freak of nature, able to overcome the momentum of a runner who is already at full speed because he started ten yards from the line of scrimmage.

...having a QB who is bigger than ANY linebacker he faces helps a lot too.

Carson wrote: Today's linebacker has to be a freak of nature, able to overcome the momentum of a runner who is already at full speed because he started ten yards from the line of scrimmage.

today's LB also has to be able to drop in coverage a lot more than 20 years ago when teams are mostly running on 1st and 2nd down and maybe play action on 3rd. with the way (not advocating, just describing) the spread type offenses try to get the ball into open space...you see a lot more one-one tackling where the rb/receiver has a decided advantage...so you see more people miss. the bubble screen that people run is basically a dare to see if your corner can tackle my WR one-one.

in 1993 (nice self-gloss Coach Oliver), you got LB's making plays mostly within 5 yards of the LOS, I'd wager.

not saying tackling isn't bad and fundamentals aren't as good....just that the game also asks different things of LB's and has changed in some qualitative ways as well.

today's LB also has to be able to drop in coverage a lot more

If that's the case, then a nickel back is more of what the defensive coordinators should be using.

Tackling is still tackling whether the offense is running the spread or a pro-style. Linebackers take poor angles on ball carriers anymore. A missed tackle is still a missed tackle, the same as it was back in the day. The problem is, we see more missed tackles now than we used to. With so many spread offenses out there, you should actually see better tackling. The most important part of defending the spread is good tackling. Against a pro-style offense tackling is important, but you're not going to have worry about someone busting a long run if you miss the tackle because you've probably got more defenders behind you in the area. In a spread, if you miss a tackle, there could be a big open space for the ball carrier to bust a big run.

So the focus in practice right now should be more on tackling than it ever has. A spread offense can't score a ton of points if all the defense is allowing them to get 5-6 yard plays. You beat a spread by keeping everything in front of you and forcing the offense to not make ANY mistakes. One mistake and it can change the entire game. They can drive 60 yards on 10 plays against you, but if you just find a way to either pick up 1 sack on the drive OR cause a turnover, and the spread offense won't score a lot of points unless your defenders can't tackle.

What I see now is defensive schemes and defenders being just stupid. Defenders seem to be taught to over pursue, which leads to big plays against this type of offense. Like I said, make them nickel and dime their way down the field. Keep everything in front of you. Do that and tackle and you will have success against the spread. But you'll see defenders trying to make a big play in the backfield on, say, a WR swing pass when they had very little shot of making the tackle, and they'll bust a long run because the defender just had to stop them for a 1 yard loss instead of tackling them after a 2 yard gain. Too many risks are being taken defensively.

TheJON wrote:

today's LB also has to be able to drop in coverage a lot more

If that's the case, then a nickel back is more of what the defensive coordinators should be using.

That's how Oregon has gone about things in recent years, when they've had a player with the skillset to do so.

They call it the "rover" position. Patrick Chung did it for 3 years (playing DB on Sundays now), and now Eddie Pleasant. In a nutshell, it's an undersized, very fast linebacker. Essentially, it's kinda like a full-time spy -- the other 10 guys have their defensive assignment, and the rover is keeping an eye on where the play is going through all the misdirection that the spread usually brings.

Pretty effective at keeping the spread from torching you for huge plays, but the slower reaction time at the line can lead to giving up more short gains.

Works fairly well against "track-meet" style offenses, which are pretty common in the PAC -- not without its shortcomings, though. Can definitely get pounded up the gut if they play too far off the ball.

Dinsdale wrote:

TheJON wrote:

today's LB also has to be able to drop in coverage a lot more

If that's the case, then a nickel back is more of what the defensive coordinators should be using.

That's how Oregon has gone about things in recent years, when they've had a player with the skillset to do so.

They call it the "rover" position. Patrick Chung did it for 3 years (playing DB on Sundays now), and now Eddie Pleasant. In a nutshell, it's an undersized, very fast linebacker. Essentially, it's kinda like a full-time spy -- the other 10 guys have their defensive assignment, and the rover is keeping an eye on where the play is going through all the misdirection that the spread usually brings.

Pretty effective at keeping the spread from torching you for huge plays, but the slower reaction time at the line can lead to giving up more short gains.

Works fairly well against "track-meet" style offenses, which are pretty common in the PAC -- not without its shortcomings, though. Can definitely get pounded up the gut if they play too far off the ball.

lots of teams went to a 4-2-5 or somesuch that's similar in the early 00's and still do. that's the "solution". OU had the "Roy Williams" position for a while to fill that gap...physical at the LOS, drop in coverage. so, to me, Jon's point is pretty marginal in its novelty. if anything, it betrays a calcified notion of positions like LB or nickel. sort of like people who groan about their hoops team not having a traditional, back to the basket low post "5".

King Crimson wrote:so, to me, Jon's point is pretty marginal in its novelty.

I don't think he intended it as a "novelty," rather than just throwing out an idea for a "solution" for the spread (Jon can speak for himself though).


And it's a sound solution -- just takes a freakish athlete to execute it properly (Roy Williams being a great example).

Dinsdale wrote:

King Crimson wrote:so, to me, Jon's point is pretty marginal in its novelty.

I don't think he intended it as a "novelty," rather than just throwing out an idea for a "solution" for the spread (Jon can speak for himself though).
And it's a sound solution -- just takes a freakish athlete to execute it properly (Roy Williams being a great example).

my point is that DC's already did that 7-8 years ago with the 4-2-5....so, this, as a supplement to Jon's lecturing of DC's for "being stupid" rings pretty hollow. One of the worst DC's I've ever seen, Colorado's Vince Okruch, even did it in 00 or 01.

and, that because of qualitative changes in the way the game has to be played to react to "the spread".....position titles are a lot more fluid today such that saying DC "X" should be playing a "nickel" is sort of like saying every pro golfer should carry a driver, 3 wood, and 5 wood. 2-PW irons. sand wedge. putter. it's dated, calcified terminology that doesn't equal the way the game is actually played today.