Jump to content
Machinator

To__ Orlan_o - _efensive Coor_inator

Recommended Posts

Hopefully we can keep Orlando on the Kirby Smart path.  Keep giving him raises and convince him to stay until something really good opens up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian Boyd: Malcolm Roach at Rover...Mac?

Yesterday @josephcook reported that the staff used Roach some at Rover in practice with Gary Johnson out. I noted that the move from B-backer where Roach had been playing at spring and Rover wasn't too extreme so it would make sense if Roach could play there. I also noted that Roach being able to play Mac in the "lightning" package would be amazing. @Eric Nahlin then pressed me with this question:

Quote

Can you explain this? McCulloch was crosstrained for a time between B and Mac but I hear he wouldn’t have a chance to play Rover because of stiffness. Roach obviously isn’t stiff but he’s big as hell. To me this tinkering speaks poorly of Freeman more than anything else.

To be sure, the cleanest takeaway is that the staff doesn't think much of Freeman. The assignments of Rover and B-backer in coverage can often be similar because they are both positioned on the boundary and much of Orlando's strategy is built around having the two best-pass-rushers both aligned over there so that the offense can't be sure which one will make the typical weakside LB coverage drop and which one will blitz:

r-or-b-blitz-jpg.24751

That coverage drop to the flat or hook zone has to be taught to both the Rover and the B-backer so there's a lot of consistency there in terms of that play. "Cover the boundary slot in a confined space, blitz the edge, or stunt inside" sums up most of the pass defense roles played by both the Rover and the B-backer. The big difference is in run defense. The B-backer is a force defender on the edge who's playing downhill, taking on a tackle or tight end, and just maintaining the edge. The Rover is scraping and playing behind the Mac and the B-backer who do more of the grunt work in terms of taking on lead blocks.

On a running play the B-backer becomes more of a proper DE/OLB hybrid while the Rover becomes more of a proper weak side LB rather than a ILB/spinner hybrid. The Mac's role in coverage is similar to the B-backer or the Rover, he'll drop and wall a slot up to a safety or pick up the RB. Against the run he's reading flow and trying to get downhill quickly to blow up a block and box or spill the ball to the Rover or to a DB. Playing run D as a Mac is more complicated than as a B-backer where it's always just "box this in for the Rover" and that guy has to be able to think on the move. So if the word on McCulloch is that he's too stiff for Rover I'm sure the concern is his ability to move "sideline to sideline" in run defense when playing as a proper weak side LB whereas at Mac or B-backer he'd just be getting downhill.

If the staff really thinks Roach has the change of direction to run as a rover that's pretty impressive and it sets up Texas nicely to still have a dynamic playmaker in what becomes the primary pass-rush position in the 3-2-6 lightning package if Gary Johnson is injured during the season. If Roach took well to reading flow and playing the run as an ILB while playing Rover, I wonder if he could play the Mac position. For the reasons I listed above it'd be a tough job because you have to read and get downhill very quickly. But if he could do it that would allow Texas to play a dime package that looked like this:

D6R84nh.png

I still prefer Locke in the dime role with Bonney as boundary safety but I guess currently the staff has Bonney as the dime. Anyways, assuming that Bonney is a better player than Wheeler (pretty plausible) then this arrangement would allow Texas to get the best 11 on the field. The hangup is that Malcolm Roach would have to learn to play one of the more cerebral positions on the field which is a rather tall order in a single offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully we can keep Orlando on the Kirby Smart path.  Keep giving him raises and convince him to stay until something really good opens up.
Exactly what I'm hoping for..

Convince him that anything less than a decent P5 offer wouldn't be worth it, just keep giving him raises to compensate.

But we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves, remember the "Buenos Diaz Bitchez" t-shirts? So yeah..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ousux said:

Exactly what I'm hoping for..

Convince him that anything less than a decent P5 offer wouldn't be worth it, just keep giving him raises to compensate.

But we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves, remember the "Buenos Diaz Bitchez" t-shirts? So yeah..
 

I'd really rather not think about that.  Although, I think the fact that a number of players took big steps forward this year means that a similar outcome is far less likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Diaz, another factor was that the novelty of his defense wore off after the first year. Opposing OCs now had extra film to pore over and figure out where, when, and how to attack the defense and their players became aware of our tendencies. Don't be surprised if something similar happens this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, satyanash said:

With Diaz, another factor was that the novelty of his defense wore off after the first year. Opposing OCs now had extra film to pore over and figure out where, when, and how to attack the defense and their players became aware of our tendencies. Don't be surprised if something similar happens this year.

Well yeah, if you assume that our opponents are the only one adjusting, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like his no bullshit approach. Really reminds me of coach boom, only less animated on the sidelines. The guy knows defense and can make damn good chicken salad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Great write up. I suspect the new players will get to infuse their talents into this scheme and really see what heights Orlando is capable of taking them to.

I can only imagine what he'll do with our newest crop of DBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KYHorn said:

I can only imagine what he'll do with our newest crop of DBs

I've liked Jason Hall and his body of work since his freshman year when he stuffed samaje pebrain right up the middle for a solo tackle with perfect form. He has been incredibly versatile and adaptable in how and where he played.

These new DBs bring an entirely new dimension of athleticism to what Orlando can do with these players though. It's just a shame we'll only get to see most of them play in 4 games this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 1:13 PM, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Great write up. I suspect the new players will get to infuse their talents into this scheme and really see what heights Orlando is capable of taking them to.

The defense will most likely have a calming effect for the team, as long as the offense can sustain drives & the special teams keeps the field from being short, I expect to see the team improve over last season... Even to the point that coach Orlando could get solid looks from some "name brand" schools in the post season, (although I doubt he will leave)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 6:18 PM, satyanash said:

With Diaz, another factor was that the novelty of his defense wore off after the first year. Opposing OCs now had extra film to pore over and figure out where, when, and how to attack the defense and their players became aware of our tendencies. Don't be surprised if something similar happens this year.

31 points, 247 yards given up... and still 8 minutes left in the 2nd quarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff Howe: Texas defense with plenty to fix moving on from loss to Maryland

LANDOVER, Md. — When a 34-29 season-opening loss to Maryland becomes nothing more than numbers on paper, it will show the Texas defense put forth a better performance against the Terrapins compared to the first tussle between the two foes. Saturday’s game saw the Longhorns give up 143 rushing yards after getting gashed to the tune of a season-high 263 in last year’s 51-41 loss while the defense was responsible for giving up 10 fewer points (one of Maryland’s touchdowns in 2017 was a non-offensive score) and 75 fewer total yards.

However, to anyone who watched the Longhorns lose a game when leading after three quarters for the fourth time in 14 games under Tom Herman, Todd Orlando has a lot of things to clean up ahead of the team’s home opener on Saturday against Tulsa (7 p.m., Longhorn Network). Headling the to-do list is the matter of figuring out whether Maryland found a legitimate weakness of Orlando’s aggressive, attacking defense or the Terrapins simply discovered something with the jet sweep action Matt Canada’s offense is based on that could fool the Longhorns right out of the gate.

Through 14 games, Orlando’s defenses have either had issues slowing down offenses with quarterbacks who pose a legitimate ability to extend plays with their legs (Maryland twice, Kansas State and TCU last season), or the opponent utilized misdirection (Oklahoma last season with the counter play) to take advantage of the speed and aggressiveness of the Longhorns. Those five games have seen Orlando’s defense give up an average of 179.4 rushing yards per game and 4.2 rushing yards per attempt while the other nine games of Orlando’s tenure have seen the defense yield only 70.6 yards per game on the ground and a lowly 2.2 yards per rush.

Defensive end Charles Omenihu said the best way for the Longhorns to reverse the trend is to simply do a better job of playing assignment football against teams that throw funk into their ground attack. “You have to be on your assignment and can’t do somebody else’s job,” Omenihu said.

Given that the Longhorns allowed nearly half of Maryland’s rushing yards (70 of 143) on four jet sweeps, P.J. Locke III felt the defense did a good job of adjusting to the concept from a technique standpoint. What Locke said needs to change going forward is to make sure defenders are getting off of blocks and putting themselves in a position to help make a play. “We’ve just got to get guys running to the ball,” Locke said.

There was also an issue of a lack of takeaways. Aside from a fourth-down stop in the second quarter, Longhorns weren’t able to get the ball back for the offense in sudden change situations, which continues a trend of Orlando’s defense not helping out the turnover margin in the seven losses in the Herman era (seven takeaways in seven losses but 19 takeaways in seven wins). “They got three of them, we got zero,” Locke said. “That was a difference-maker in the game.”

Then there’s the issue of penalties, some of which the defense committed in critical situations. Omenihu committed a roughing the passer penalty on a Maryland drive in the late first/early second quarter, one of three penalties on the march, which ended in a field goal, that gave the Terrapins a fresh set of downs. Maryland’s final two scoring drives of the game featured three penalties — an illegal hands to the face call against Gerald Wilbon, a roughing the passer call against B.J. Foster and a pass interference call against Kris Boyd — that moved the sticks on a day when the Terrapins recorded five first downs due to a Texas penalty.

For his part, Omenihu said playing with controlled violence and simply playing smart will go a long way toward eliminating the mistakes that were made, some of which added up to the Longhorns being on the wrong side of the score at the end of the game. “Getting to the quarterback is probably my duty and (if not) affecting the quarterback is,” Omenihu said. “I have to know when, in the space, when the opportunities are there and when to take them.”

Overall, it was a mixed bag for Orlando’s group. Even though players often talk about mistakes being correctable after a loss, finishing more plays with turnovers, alignment/assignment issues and not committing penalties do seem to be things the Longhorns can fix themselves moving forward. “The mistakes we made, they’re all correctable,” Locke said. “I don’t fault anybody, I don’t blame anybody. Stuff happens.”

A strong performance against the Golden Hurricane, who rushed for 274 yards in a season-opening win over Central Arkansas, won't grab anyone's attention. That said, defensive tackle Chris Nelson is among the Longhorns determined to not let defense be the reason why the team's record at the end of the season isn't up to par. “I see it in everybody’s eyes in the locker room that we don’t want this to happen again and we’re definitely not going back to last year,” Nelson said. “This is a new year, so we’re going to get it right.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 1:11 PM, satyanash said:

If our defense doesn't improve, and fast, Murray is going to torch us in Dallas. It'll be BYU all over again.

Just wanted to say thanks man.  No matter how bad things get, it's nice to know that you'll always be here to point out the areas of concern that we might have overlooked.  You can't have a silver lining without an incessantly miserable black cloud constantly hovering above and casting it's gloomy shadow over every single aspect of the program.  Again, thanks man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of high school DCs around the state who are copying Orlando's defense, and for good reason.  But when I see those teams face a school that goes under center and uses sweeps or lineman the way Maryland did, they adjust their front.

Orlando never adjusted his front and I think it was cocky.  If your defense is built to slow down Oklahoma, you still have to adjust to your non conference opponents. We kind of care about those games here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TriStone said:

Just wanted to say thanks man.  No matter how bad things get, it's nice to know that you'll always be here to point out the areas of concern that we might have overlooked.  You can't have a silver lining without an incessantly miserable black cloud constantly hovering above and casting it's gloomy shadow over every single aspect of the program.  Again, thanks man.

Pointing out that Hobbit's race is very, very, very racist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2018 at 11:29 AM, Lone Star Horn said:

Pay the man his money and keep him here

I think we may have overpaid. I really hope not though.

Edited by Tailleur17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 3:23 PM, satyanash said:

Ian Boyd: Malcolm Roach at Rover...Mac?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Yesterday @josephcook reported that the staff used Roach some at Rover in practice with Gary Johnson out. I noted that the move from B-backer where Roach had been playing at spring and Rover wasn't too extreme so it would make sense if Roach could play there. I also noted that Roach being able to play Mac in the "lightning" package would be amazing. @Eric Nahlin then pressed me with this question:

To be sure, the cleanest takeaway is that the staff doesn't think much of Freeman. The assignments of Rover and B-backer in coverage can often be similar because they are both positioned on the boundary and much of Orlando's strategy is built around having the two best-pass-rushers both aligned over there so that the offense can't be sure which one will make the typical weakside LB coverage drop and which one will blitz:

r-or-b-blitz-jpg.24751

That coverage drop to the flat or hook zone has to be taught to both the Rover and the B-backer so there's a lot of consistency there in terms of that play. "Cover the boundary slot in a confined space, blitz the edge, or stunt inside" sums up most of the pass defense roles played by both the Rover and the B-backer. The big difference is in run defense. The B-backer is a force defender on the edge who's playing downhill, taking on a tackle or tight end, and just maintaining the edge. The Rover is scraping and playing behind the Mac and the B-backer who do more of the grunt work in terms of taking on lead blocks.

On a running play the B-backer becomes more of a proper DE/OLB hybrid while the Rover becomes more of a proper weak side LB rather than a ILB/spinner hybrid. The Mac's role in coverage is similar to the B-backer or the Rover, he'll drop and wall a slot up to a safety or pick up the RB. Against the run he's reading flow and trying to get downhill quickly to blow up a block and box or spill the ball to the Rover or to a DB. Playing run D as a Mac is more complicated than as a B-backer where it's always just "box this in for the Rover" and that guy has to be able to think on the move. So if the word on McCulloch is that he's too stiff for Rover I'm sure the concern is his ability to move "sideline to sideline" in run defense when playing as a proper weak side LB whereas at Mac or B-backer he'd just be getting downhill.

If the staff really thinks Roach has the change of direction to run as a rover that's pretty impressive and it sets up Texas nicely to still have a dynamic playmaker in what becomes the primary pass-rush position in the 3-2-6 lightning package if Gary Johnson is injured during the season. If Roach took well to reading flow and playing the run as an ILB while playing Rover, I wonder if he could play the Mac position. For the reasons I listed above it'd be a tough job because you have to read and get downhill very quickly. But if he could do it that would allow Texas to play a dime package that looked like this:

imgur>

I still prefer Locke in the dime role with Bonney as boundary safety but I guess currently the staff has Bonney as the dime. Anyways, assuming that Bonney is a better player than Wheeler (pretty plausible) then this arrangement would allow Texas to get the best 11 on the field. The hangup is that Malcolm Roach would have to learn to play one of the more cerebral positions on the field which is a rather tall order in a single offseason.

 

Mmm yeah, I guess this question was answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maryland's offense against us: 34 points, 407 total yards, zero turnovers, 5.1 yards per play

Maryland's offense against an 0-2 Temple squad: 0 points, 195 total yards, 2 turnovers, 3.7 yards per play

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total LOS domination.  Don't know what happened the last two weeks, but TO flipped the switch on tonight.  Shut down the run completely and pressured the QB.  That's win some games.  Great game by the defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...