In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 228
Online now 1262 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I charted every defensive play for the Longhorns against the Red Raiders.
I looked for a couple of things.
1. Scheme (4-3, nickel, dime, etc.)
2. Play-call up front - straight up, slant, stunt, twist or blitz
Here's the breakdown of the 79 plays I charted (it includes a couple of plays that resulted in penalties so they weren't on the official box score as plays).
* Out of 79 plays, Texas was in the nickel 69 times. Texas went dime just 10 times all game long.
* Of the 79 plays, the Texas defensive front six (jn a 4-2 alignment) played straight nickel 46 times - that means no twists, no stunts, no blitzes.
0That means Texas played straight-up defense 58% of the time against the Red Raiders. Whether it was zone or man coverage behind it, the defensive front stayed true to their lanes that regularly.
* Texas blitzed 17 times.
13 of those came from the nickelback or the linebackers. Texas blitzed a corner just three times (Diggs 2x, Byndom 1x) and a safety (Phillips) just once.
* Texas played straight nickel 58% of the time. Although I haven't gone back and charted any other game, I highly doubt I'll find another game where Texas played straight up as much as 40% of the time with the possible exception of Kansas.
* Kenny Vaccaro played the nickle almost all game long, except when Texas went dime and Adrian Phillips moved down closer to the LOS as well.
* When Texas went dime, Tevin Jackson and Demarco Cobbs entered the game. Neither player played any other snaps in the regular D. They were dime specialists.
* Two players I felt like played reasonably well after review and I have not mentioned them to this point are Chris Whaley and Josh Turner.
Whaley made a couple of plays down the line of scrimmage and was excellent in pursuit when he was in there.
Turner did a very nice job against the run. He committed himself to it and turned the back inside a few times.
* Peter Jinkens flashed a couple of times while subbing for Kendall Thompson, but after review, he also missed his assignment a couple of different times in pass coverage. Jinkens only played 15 plays and to have two what I would call missed coverages is significant.
That number is not unsuspected because it's his first real game experience, but it's something worth noting if he starts this week against Iowa State.
* I won't be surprised if Texas tries Tevin Jackson or Dalton Santos in combination with Steve Edmond this weekend instead of Jinkens. Demarco Cobbs would be a natural fill-in but his play against the run has been lacking all season and ISU is a run-heavy team.
Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BobbyBurton247
Thanks Bobby. Good stuff!
Sorry for my ignorance, but will you explain what dime defense is? I always thought it was 4 linemen and 1 linebacker, so essentially a 4-1-6 of sorts. However, you mentioned that when we went to dime Tevin Jackson and Demarco Cobbs came in, who are both linebackers. So what's the difference between that and the nickel?
Perhaps you meant that either Tevin or Demarco would come in, but that just seems odd that they would be in over Edmond or Thompson.
This post was edited by BhamHorn 17 months ago
only the aggies are allowed to play a 4-1-7 defense
Great analysis. Would love to see more of this format.
Dime really means two additional defensive backs.
How Texas plays it, that means a 3-2-6 look.
When Texas went to the dime, they brought in Jackson and Cobbs, and put Edmond and Thompson on the bench. They also removed one of the two DTs from the field and added either Josh Turner or Mykkele Thompson, whichever one wasn't already on the field.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by BobbyBurton 17 months ago
ha yup, my bad
Gracias! Makes sense. Any reason why we wouldn't do the 4-1-6 with Edmond as the backer?
Guessing you meant 3-2-6... I screwed up my math as well, originally putting 12 men on the field... But I guess you win because unfortunately the Texas D looks a lot closer to 10 than 12 on the field at times.
You can essentially "drop 8" with a 3-2-6. That's the general line of thinking at least.
And I suppose Cobbs has the best coverage skills and Tevin has the best pass rush out of the backers to give them a little added versatility?
I think that is their line of thinking.
Bobby, I especially enjoy these film analysis posts.
Bobby, enjoyed the analysis. Thanks. Also appreciated the UT nickel discussion. The D has been playing well with the more basis approach. Hope they keep it up.
Bobby, did you happen to calculate yards per carry in the different configurations?
That's what I would like to know. What were yards per play when we stunted/ blitzed vs other situations.
Truly outstanding analysis. UT will game plan ISU differently than TT, as ISU is more run oriented.
With the passing of DKR and a bigger bowl game on the line, I think UT comes to play this week, with an intensity not seen this year thus far.
I personally don't like seeing Santos and Edmonds playing together. That combo possibly could work against ISU who doesn't pass that much or have much team speed; but we become very weak in pass defense and defending the edges with them. Just not enough speed. When I look at him; Santos needs to trim down and gain at least half a step to play Big XII defense.
If you have the time and inclination could you break down the yardage gained against our defense on the times that they blitzed/ stunted/twisted vs playing straight up?
I know we were badly burned on a few zone blitzes and 3rd and long.
I got brains. I got big ol' brains. I got dinosaur brains.
Seems we have been trying to find the perfect combination of linebackers to put on the field and it looks like we finally may have it now.
I tend to agree with you but I think for a team like ISU it might work.
We'll see what they come out with.
I finished it this morning. Will post when I get to the office.
A little off topic, but what are the chances that Diaz is back in 2013 as DC? Obviously that would only happen if Mack returns.
I don't know if he'll be asked to return. That's going to be a Mack call IMO and I think Mack will look at the entirety of the season.
Without last week, I would have said there was less than a 1% chance he would return. The defense had been that bad and more specifically that unreliable.
Given the performance last week where Diaz obviously toned it down and let the kids play, well they looked like they were supposed to look.
I just don't know. I think it's bad that it got to the point that it did, where it actually took outside involvement. That can't be something Mack is entirely comfortable with. At the same time, if it got fixed, then maybe that's what it took.
I just don't think Texas has to play such a high-risk, high-reward D. Texas needs a reliable D that focuses on getting its better athletes into the best position to succeed. To do that, they have to be physical at the point of attack and fast and opportunistic on the back end. That's the bottom line. Anything other than that and Texas is selling itself short.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports