Our D line. Here's an idea....

[bonefish1]

Watching our D line in the second half try to play against the NU hurry up offense was almost comical. Some of the guys were so gassed, they couldn't even get into a 3 pt stance. And their effort to get to the QB was non-existent (not blaming it on effort, just out of steam).

Was watching with my brother and I brought up the idea that when you're in that situation and your D lineman need a blow, why are we not sub in either your backup LBs or reserve D line just for a play or two to get these guys a break? I'm talking in obvious passing situations where the opponent is done running the ball and is playing catch up. I just think the risk (giving up a big play) is not as great as the reward (putting a little pressure on the QB, giving the starters a break) since you're leaving your starting LBs and DBs in there anyway.

I was watching the Miami/UNC game and UM didn't even have the D line get in a stance half the time on passing downs.

 

[Bullwhip Griffith]

Part of the hurry up plan is to not allow the defense to sub.

I think there was one series, much like the BC game, the front four and a few others were backups

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Watching our D line in the second half try to play against the NU hurry up offense was almost comical. Some of the guys were so gassed, they couldn't even get into a 3 pt stance. And their effort to get to the QB was non-existent (not blaming it on effort, just out of steam).

Was watching with my brother and I brought up the idea that when you're in that situation and your D lineman need a blow, why are we not sub in either your backup LBs or reserve D line just for a play or two to get these guys a break? I'm talking in obvious passing situations where the opponent is done running the ball and is playing catch up. I just think the risk (giving up a big play) is not as great as the reward (putting a little pressure on the QB, giving the starters a break) since you're leaving your starting LBs and DBs in there anyway.

I was watching the Miami/UNC game and UM didn't even have the D line get in a stance half the time on passing downs.

The issue with that is you run the risk of then having a small defensive line stuck in there to try and defend the run. The best options are to try and get a play strung out toward your own sideline and prevent a player from getting up quickly. This allows the defense to sub out without taking a TO or getting your DL gassed as they were at times. Another option is to 'fake' a common injury like getting hit in the groin, losing your breath, or taking a stinger to the arm. I believe Purdue used those against Missouri and although it won't win Purdue any sportsmanship awards...if there isn't a penalty for it, you use it to your advantage.

 

[bonefish1]

The issue with that is you run the risk of then having a small defensive line stuck in there to try and defend the run. The best options are to try and get a play strung out toward your own sideline and prevent a player from getting up quickly. This allows the defense to sub out without taking a TO or getting your DL gassed as they were at times. Another option is to 'fake' a common injury like getting hit in the groin, losing your breath, or taking a stinger to the arm. I believe Purdue used those against Missouri and although it won't win Purdue any sportsmanship awards...if there isn't a penalty for it, you use it to your advantage.

But I addressed the concern with giving up a big running play. If a team is in the hurry up, they're unlikely to run, and even if they do, they're unlikely to break it for a long TD. But, having fresh legs on the D line, even if inexperienced or undersized, is probably better then no legs and letting the QB sit in the pocket all day until someone comes open.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

But I addressed the concern with giving up a big running play. If a team is in the hurry up, they're unlikely to run, and even if they do, they're unlikely to break it for a long TD. But, having fresh legs on the D line, even if inexperienced or undersized, is probably better then no legs and letting the QB sit in the pocket all day until someone comes open.

If I was a defensive coordinator and I saw a bunch of 230-240 pound LB's suddenly lining up as DT's and DE's, I'm running the ball. I get what you are saying but unless it is a scenario where there is literally no other option, it wouldn't work. College football stops the clock after a first down and I can guarantee any OL worth their salt would be able to pick up easy first downs with the LB's doing just that.

Besides, if you can't get your DL out as you said...how are you going to get your LB's in to do what you are proposing? You'd have to start the drive with them on the field and the OC will see exactly what you are trying. The issue on the team is a pass rush and that would likely give the QB even more time to scan the field and find an open receiver. The issue isn't the start of drives...the issue is when the drives are lengthy and then the offense doesn't sustain a long drive themselves. That's why the defense was gassed at the end. More depth is needed so you can start a drive off with your second team DL and sub in the starters halfway through if need be.

I guess what you are saying could work if you want to give the DL an extra 4-5 plays rest before coming back on but you run the risk of giving up massive yards playing the LB's as you suggested. And who is to say the LB's would be any better than the second DL starting the series?

I'm not saying it isn't a good thought...it just isn't likely to be successful.

 

[JMoneyx]

Set up a meeting with Holt/Brohm and pitch them your ideas.

 

[72Boiler]

If I was a defensive coordinator and I saw a bunch of 230-240 pound LB's suddenly lining up as DT's and DE's, I'm running the ball. I get what you are saying but unless it is a scenario where there is literally no other option, it wouldn't work. College football stops the clock after a first down and I can guarantee any OL worth their salt would be able to pick up easy first downs with the LB's doing just that.

Besides, if you can't get your DL out as you said...how are you going to get your LB's in to do what you are proposing? You'd have to start the drive with them on the field and the OC will see exactly what you are trying. The issue on the team is a pass rush and that would likely give the QB even more time to scan the field and find an open receiver. The issue isn't the start of drives...the issue is when the drives are lengthy and then the offense doesn't sustain a long drive themselves. That's why the defense was gassed at the end. More depth is needed so you can start a drive off with your second team DL and sub in the starters halfway through if need be.

I guess what you are saying could work if you want to give the DL an extra 4-5 plays rest before coming back on but you run the risk of giving up massive yards playing the LB's as you suggested. And who is to say the LB's would be any better than the second DL starting the series?

I'm not saying it isn't a good thought...it just isn't likely to be successful.

Johnny, isn't that what they seem to be doing with Barnes, i.e.moving him from LB to the Leo position? Am I understanding this correctly? I think they are also strategically blitzing Bailey, Cornell Jones, and even J. Thieneman.

 

[BoilerFYF]

Watching our D line in the second half try to play against the NU hurry up offense was almost comical. Some of the guys were so gassed, they couldn't even get into a 3 pt stance. And their effort to get to the QB was non-existent (not blaming it on effort, just out of steam).

Was watching with my brother and I brought up the idea that when you're in that situation and your D lineman need a blow, why are we not sub in either your backup LBs or reserve D line just for a play or two to get these guys a break? I'm talking in obvious passing situations where the opponent is done running the ball and is playing catch up. I just think the risk (giving up a big play) is not as great as the reward (putting a little pressure on the QB, giving the starters a break) since you're leaving your starting LBs and DBs in there anyway.

I was watching the Miami/UNC game and UM didn't even have the D line get in a stance half the time on passing downs.

Karlaftis/marks
Neal/faucheaux
Watts/reviere
Hunter/deen

Flip anyone around you want. You ain’t tired by the fourth quarter

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Johnny, isn't that what they seem to be doing with Barnes, i.e.moving him from LB to the Leo position? Am I understanding this correctly? I think they are also strategically blitzing Bailey, Cornell Jones, and even J. Thieneman.

Leo isn’t a true down lineman position, rather it is a hybrid position used to counter a lot of the spread with a guy who can blitz but also cover effectively. When Danny E. moved to that position, it really made Purdue’s defense effective against teams like IU who like to spread teams out and find short routes in the flat to a slot, TE, or RB. The biggest factor is that it gives Barnes the chance to get to the edge and use his strengths (speed and strength) to an advantage against a tackle.

He isnt a down lineman now but could grow in to that next season.