Can someone who understands defensive alignments kindly give me a quick primer on what’s wrong with each of these pictures? Also, and before anyone starts using words like “1-tech” or “zone zippity floppy tapper”, just know that I won’t have the first clue as to what that means.
Lol. Apparently we were terrified of their QBs uncle Rico arm. My only guess is that we were trying to protect our young LBs. I’ve read there was more than one instance where we only had 10 guys on the field.
This is where it becomes a train wreck, if Pruitt doesn’t own this loss in the locker room. You can’t put the guys in those kind of positions and then start taking jobs when the coaches failed to put them in the position to be successful. Yesterday already had the look of the defense acting like they didn’t believe in their scheme or coach.
I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I think this mainly concerns numbers. We were doomed to fail before the ball was snapped. Take the 1st picture. If the QB keeps and runs right, they have 6 potential blockers (starting with the center going right and including the RB), and we have 5 potential defenders (including the CB creeping towards the box). A running QB puts a stress on the numbers, and we couldn't put our DEs on the correct side of the field all game. I think the rest of the pictures just show discrepancy with guys in the box. Because we're playing two-high safeties and putting an extra CB on the field, we couldn't counter their run game with a dual-threat QB and a tight-end.
QB power, basically running single wing. Would have killed us all night. That’s not on the players. You’re asking your defense to win a plus 2 in the box, which is crazy.
V, late in the game it looked like we went 4-4-3 and looked like it would have been a good defense vs their offense.
I personally would have ran more zone. I want 22 eyes on the QB when it’s the offenses best athlete. Fronts isn’t defense so I can’t say a 4-4 would be the best way to play it because there’s a lot of different ways to play a 4-4.
