Thanks, da o. Look forward to supporting him and his efforts at Oregon. Ricky is an exciting kid, but do you really think he's a two gap? Sounds like bair's current playing weight (drops from summer workout) would be an honst 270, and mot analysts would like to see him around 300 for his height and style. 30#'s in a year is doable!
Heimuli already has played some two gap this year as fishduck reported that we run a 3-4 75% of the time and a 4-3 the other 25%. Heimuli played most of the snaps at NT when in the 3-4. I'm hoping with the summer he will be full health and give us an extremely productive season.
easy there snarky. Take a couple deep breaths and reread what I wrote. I said... when he committed he claimed to be in the 275-280 range so obviously my insider source is the kid himself in interviews when he committed. We spoke of those interviews in this same thread at that time... you participated in that conversation. STOMP
247 lists bair at 260. Bad info, or neglectful to update? I still haven't seen a quote directly from Bair. RH played big in the two. He didn't play physical. We are missing that Ngata, Olshansky, Robbie style def.
We don't even run the same style of defense when we had Ngata and Olshansky. And that Hopkins quote was Bair telling him directly that he was 275. I really don't why you keep going on about it. That's seems like a fairly legitimate source.
We don't even run the same style of defense, huh? Scheme? Do you ccredit this because our defensive coordinator has changed? Link? I see a lot of similarities. A lot. So does this new guy named Nick. Link?
I'm going to kill you because this was not hard to find. I read this article and couldn't find it on google and the layout of fishduck's site is awful IMO. I had to go through old board posts on DT to find it, bout 25 in and I finally found it. Here you go. http://fishduck.com/2011/06/fish-report-oregon’s-new-defense/ I definitely should get some rep for this!
Link for the new defense we're running? It's in that post towards the top, but if you can't find it, it's right here. http://fishduck.com/2011/06/fish-rep...s-new-defense/
Ummm no he doesn't, we used to run a 4-3 when we had Ngata and Olshansky, and we are no longer using the bend don't break mentality. It's not even close to the same style as when we had them. This is what fish actually states, "This is unlike ANY Oregon defense EVER in our history."
As a former LB, and someone who studies defenses, maybe our evaluation is different. "Mentality" is a separate issue from style which is a separate entity from scheme. I was being a bit obtuse and tongue-in-cheek (it's all in fun, right) but disagreeing is fine. BTW: yes, we ran 3-4. We also ran a 4-4, 5-3 - which can actually be called a 3-4 depending on the circ. NA has always been innovative and his emphasis is on play making by LB's with gap control by the DL. (I believe our LB's may have led the Pac in sacks). If you understood the article, Fish said we add elements (foundation same) and changed philosophy. This is completely separate from what I read into (poss wrongly) that our defense in 01,02,03 is unrelated to what we see today. Here's a fun little vid from 2003. Let me test your expertise. In the dozen or so plays, how many different formations are there? What scheme and formations are similar to what we run today? What formations are different? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJrLZqMnvQY&feature=related But, here's the capper...the debate centers not on formation and schemes, it goes back to the need at Oregon for that unique DL who can be a two-gapper - that we current don't have, nor have we recruited for. In the article below, Fish states, "a NT is responsible for the gaps on BOTH sides of the center. A big and difficult responsibility which requires a gargantuan DL who have to stand their ground, hold off blockers, read the play, and go to it. (Or read and react) Nose Tackles in the NFL AVERAGE 330 lbs, and the biggest is 360 lbs! These are not fat guys; they must be huge ATHLETES, as Haloti Ngata at Baltimore is 348 lbs, and we know what an athlete he was for the Ducks. The problem with this version of the 3-4 is the scarcity of Defensive Linemen who can play it." I could cut/paste about a dozen articles from ESPN to educated bloggers that state Oregon is missing that dominate two-gap. Great conversation. Thanks.
We are not running a "Bullough" two gap 3-4 anymore. We are running a Phillips one gap 3-4 much like what the Cowboys run. Fishducks says that in his article right here. Now for the video, I'm going to admit, I never played on the defensive side of the ball and am amateur when talking about defense schemes, formations, etc. etc. I'll try and look at this video and decipher the best I can. 1st Play: Looks to me like a 3-3-5 formation(can't tell if that guy on the outside is another linebacker or corner. Might be the rover which can technically be both safety/corner/linebacker. We are rushing 3 and dropping 8 back in coverage. Today it seems like we blitz on almost every play. The NT was definitely playing two gap and was not rushing but keeping his gaps under control. Like fish said, we run a 1-gap NT most of the time that's meant for disruption. This formation doesn't really fit the philosophy that we run today. 2nd Play: Definitely a 4-3 with the safety coming down in the box(expecting a run play) and the SAM LB is keeping outside contain just in case the play is a sweep that way or the QB keeps it. D-lineman are rushing up their gaps while the LB's move forward to seal theirs. This is different to most of the formations we run today as again we don't run a 4-3 anymore and we blitz almost every play. 3rd Play: A 4-3 again with the linebackers positioned more to the strong side. Corners playing press against the two wideouts and the safeties are moved down. Play didn't happen it skipped to another one. Formation is not what we use today. 4th play: 4-3 and linebackers are positioned towards the strong side. The corners are playing a lot farther back to not give up the big play but give them the underneath stuff. Safeties playing down to protect against the run. Play starts look like linebackers are playing zone or one of them is playing a spy. Inside tackles cross to confuse the lineman, and are not playing 2 gap, just 1 gap penetration. SDE is rushing outside while WDE is rushing in. This formation is similar to play 3 but slightly different than play 2. Again not what we use today in the slightest. 5th play: 4-3 with D-line positioned towards the weak side and the safety(who cannot be seen) is I assume playing man on the slot receiver. One corner playing close on the outside receiver while the other corner is playing off on the inside receiver. Play starts and WILL LB reacts to the run and rushes straight in, while the D-line are playing gap control. This again looks like nothing that we run today. 6th play: Does not happen but the formation looks like a 4-4 or maybe a 4-3 can't tell if that's the safety that's come down or another LB. One corner playing off the other playing press. D-line and LB's positioned straight forward. 7th play: Can't see the whole defense, but it looks like a 4-3 from what I can see. 4 down lineman and 3 LB's standing up with the SAM LB on the line of scrimmage. Linebackers are playing contain of some sort or gap control while the D-line rushes up the field for penetration. Almost hurt us because it was a draw play. 8th play: 4-3 with one safety playing really deep, and the LB's are positioned towards the strong side. Corners playing up with the SS or rover playing up. Play didn't happen. So If I did this right it looks like we used 3 or 4 different formations if you count play 7 as a 5-3, it looks like a 4-3 to me. We used a 3-3-5 on play 1 then most of the time ran a 4-3 most of the time with slight variations. We ran a 4-4 on play 6 but like I said I think that was a safety. We did not blitz at all which is a lot different than what we run today. Our formations are definitely not what we use today and if you pop in the Rose Bowl game we are always rushing 5 and are in a 3-4 formation. If anything play 1 is the most like what we run today but we only rushed 3, this could be because of the situation though. I'm sure I didn't do this to your liking and if you would clarify to me what you meant.
Mods, is there anyway to separate the discussion on which defense the Ducks are running from the actual recruiting news? The Xs and Os stuff on defensive schemes is very interesting and educational, and probably deserves its own thread. Plus, it's making following recruiting news in this thread more difficult, so it's win-win for all if those posts are moved into their own thread. My 2 cents...
