The Defense....

[Bullmastiff 1]

I think we've covered the issues with Armani enough for now.

Defense had it's own fair share of problems.

37 Pass attempts.
0 sacks.

Gave up 284 through the air.

Gave up another 200 yards on the ground.

It's still early but that looked a lot like last year...

 

[Pistol Pete 1]

I think we've covered the issues with Armani enough for now.

Defense had it's own fair share of problems.

37 Pass attempts.
0 sacks.

Gave up 284 through the air.

Gave up another 200 yards on the ground.

It's still early but that looked a lot like last year...

Very true. I have no idea why they decided to change up their defensive set and strategies that worked so well in game 1. It seems to me you should want to establish an identity and impose your will on the opposition. Although I thought they played pretty tough fot much of the 1’st half.

 

[BleedRebelRed90]

Observations...

• After two games, 34 Rebels have combined to make 145 tackles... but highly regarded LB recruit Vic Viramontes is not one of those 34 players to make a tackle.
• "0 sacks" is bad enough, but a lot of downs it seemed like there was "0 pressure" and the Ark St QB had all the time he wanted to wait for WRs to break free. That is asking a lot of our DBs
• The UNLV defense did not commit a single penalty against Ark St.

 

[rebel5280]

UNLV used a 3-man front most of the night and that ain't going to cut it if getting pressure is the goal!
We do not have the D-lineman for that type of front and combine that with the "off" coverage at the line of scrimmage by the CB's and you have a recipe for disaster for our D. I don't see any pros on our team, not even UDFA's let alone draft-able guys and when you don't have talent on D, you don't make that worse by utilizing a 3-man D-line!

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

UNLV used a 3-man front most of the night and that ain't going to cut it if getting pressure is the goal!
We do not have the D-lineman for that type of front and combine that with the "off" coverage at the line of scrimmage by the CB's and you have a recipe for disaster for our D. I don't see any pros on our team, not even UDFA's let alone draft-able guys and when you don't have talent on D, you don't make that worse by utilizing a 3-man D-line!

SDSU doesn't have a ton of NFL guys and they generate a ton of pressure running predominantly odd man fronts.

The idea with this front was/is to disguise coverage and where pressure is coming from.

UNLV played predominantly 4 man fronts under Baer and struggled to create pressure.

I don't think the three man front is the problem to be honest.

I'm not sure the results are better if we go with a 4 man front.

If you go 4 man front who do you take off the field? McCoy? White? Salu? Jackson? Hester?

Agree though. Not a fan of off coverage..

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Observations...

• After two games, 34 Rebels have combined to make 145 tackles... but highly regarded LB recruit Vic Viramontes is not one of those 34 players to make a tackle.
• "0 sacks" is bad enough, but a lot of downs it seemed like there was "0 pressure" and the Ark St QB had all the time he wanted to wait for WRs to break free. That is asking a lot of our DBs
• The UNLV defense did not commit a single penalty against Ark St.

When zero penalties is the highlight....

It's not a good sign...

 

[rebel5280]

SDSU doesn't have a ton of NFL guys and they generate a ton of pressure running predominantly odd man fronts.

The idea with this front was/is to disguise coverage and where pressure is coming from.

UNLV played predominantly 4 man fronts under Baer and struggled to create pressure.

I don't think the three man front is the problem to be honest.

I'm not sure the results are better if we go with a 4 man front.

If you go 4 man front who do you take off the field? McCoy? White? Salu? Jackson? Hester?

Agree though. Not a fan of off coverage..

A three man front combined with the fact that they aren't talented at DL is the problem with UNLV and choosing that scheme in passing situations makes it worse! No pressure and QB has all day to throw.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

A three man front combined with the fact that they aren't talented at DL is the problem with UNLV and choosing that scheme in passing situations makes it worse! No pressure and QB has all day to throw.

If the Rebs have no talent on the DL, why would you want to add another one on the field?

You can get plenty of pressure from 3 man fronts by being creative with blitz packages. In most 3-4:defenses the pressure comes from the LB spots.

Right now the strength of the defense is at LB.

 

[rebel5280]

Then they can move two LB near the line of scrimmage to create more pressure!

I don't care what the "perceived" strength of our D is, the LB can schemed differently call it 4-3 or whatever but what we are doing right now ain't doing damn thing to create QB hurries and sacks!

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Then they can move two LB near the line of scrimmage to create more pressure!

I don't care what the "perceived" strength of our D is, the LB can schemed differently call it 4-3 or whatever but what we are doing right now ain't doing damn thing to create QB hurries and sacks!

Moving to a four man front isn't going to change that. We don't have the type of ends that have shown the ability to get after the passer consistently.

The attempt being made was to put the most athletic group possible on the field to generate pressure.

I tried to caution folks during Spring practice that for all the talk of revamping and Skipper finally getting 'his guys' for 'his defense', the majority of the two deep are guys that played last year, on a defense that ranked in the 100s. That's not taking shots at the players. I think the rebs have a number of solid guys on that side of the ball. But one recruiting class probably isn't going to fix everything.

Getting Dedashtian back was the only real 'new face' on the DL.

Uesike, Malakius and Neal were all here last year.

At LB its McCoy, White and Hester with the addition of Jackson and Viramontes. Salu played ST last season. Viramontes has yet to record a tackle. Not knocking the guy. Maybe he isn't being used right. Maybe he is doing his job and funneling guys for other players to make tackles. But he was a prized recruit and through two games he hasn't hit the score sheet. It may not be his fault. Maybe plays just haven't come his way.

DBs are all the same guys from last year.

Moving to a four man front isn't going to pay any more dividends.

What we did last year didn't generate pressure.

What we did with Baer didn't generate pressure.

I don't know why they had White play off the line so much.

Maybe the issue is that we just don't have the guys to get after the QB on a consistent basis either way..

 

[rebel5280]

I seem to remember TCU getting pressure off the edge from former/converted high school RB's, TE's and even undersized LB's to get pass rush from the edge?

And UNLV should exhaust every possibility before they just keep the status quo on D. No pass rush and off coverage will be a killer all season long for this D.

No future pro's on this team, none on offense or defense!

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

I seem to remember TCU getting pressure off the edge from former/converted high school RB's, TE's and even undersized LB's to get pass rush from the edge?

And UNLV should exhaust every possibility before they just keep the status quo on D. No pass rush and off coverage will be a killer all season long for this D.

No future pro's on this team, none on offense or defense!

Yes and TCU played a lot of odd fronts. Brought pressure from everywhere.

How is this defense 'status quo'?

It was implemented this Spring.

It was a move away from Baer's 4-3 that they were still running a lot of last year.

We are two games into the season with a new defensive scheme.

The attempt now is to be more athletic by putting more LBs on the field vs a traditional 4 man front. Just like TCU did. They were an undersized defense that flies to the ball. Whether its ultimately successful, I don't know.

But to say they need to change from the 'status quo' doesn't make sense since it is a new scheme.

It's as much a Jim and Joe issue as it is an X and O issue.

They need to find creative ways to get to the QB. They did that week 1. Obviously vs an inferior opponent but three of the sacks came from DBs..

Agree on the off coverage.

 

[rebel5280]

What I meant by status quo is, what the did week one against said inferior opponent will not work the rest of the season!
A 3-4 scheme that had to blitz an weaker team to get a few sacks does not inspire confidence.

At the moment athletic is not something I would associate with this defense, yes the LB look faster but to me athletic means getting to the QB with 4 guys on a a consistent basis and 5 guys here and there. The D-line needs to get home most of the time and that ain't happening here!

I think the athletic LB's on the field you speak of are negated by poor D-line play and that will be evident the rest of the season because there are no more SUU's to pick on!

 

[dcut03]

Well Typically on a 3-4, D linemen's job is to eat up blockers while the LB's clean up. Whether that be against the run or the past. 3-4 D lineman rarely stuff the stat sheets or even create much pressure.

No t trying to defend the D line, because it is definitely a weakness of the team. But You don't expect 3-4 D lineman to create that much havoc, unless you are JJ Watt or Bruce Smith. Which is why those dudes are extra special. Even JJ Basically plays outside linebacker on most pass rushing situations.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

What I meant by status quo is, what the did week one against said inferior opponent will not work the rest of the season!
A 3-4 scheme that had to blitz an weaker team to get a few sacks does not inspire confidence.

At the moment athletic is not something I would associate with this defense, yes the LB look faster but to me athletic means getting to the QB with 4 guys on a a consistent basis and 5 guys here and there. The D-line needs to get home most of the time and that ain't happening here!

I think the athletic LB's on the field you speak of are negated by poor D-line play and that will be evident the rest of the season because there are no more SUU's to pick on!

Yes which goes back to and confirms my original point.

It's not a matter of scheme. It's a matter of not having enough dudes.

There are a number of solid guys on the defensive side of the ball. Just not enough of them.

We could run 4-2-5 or 4-3 or 3-4 whatever. It probably wouldn't make a huge amount of difference.

The team is coming off of a 4th straight season under Sanchez of surrendering 30+ ppg. It was ranked 115th or 117th in the country in total defense. Under Sanchez its ranked below 100 one time in 4 years and that was year 2 and it was in the 80s or 90s.

One more recruiting class wasn't going to entirely fix that.

 

[rebel5280]

Well Typically on a 3-4, D linemen's job is to eat up blockers while the LB's clean up. Whether that be against the run or the past. 3-4 D lineman rarely stuff the stat sheets or even create much pressure.

No t trying to defend the D line, because it is definitely a weakness of the team. But You don't expect 3-4 D lineman to create that much havoc, unless you are JJ Watt or Bruce Smith. Which is why those dudes are extra special. Even JJ Basically plays outside linebacker on most pass rushing situations.

True!

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Well Typically on a 3-4, D linemen's job is to eat up blockers while the LB's clean up. Whether that be against the run or the past. 3-4 D lineman rarely stuff the stat sheets or even create much pressure.

No t trying to defend the D line, because it is definitely a weakness of the team. But You don't expect 3-4 D lineman to create that much havoc, unless you are JJ Watt or Bruce Smith. Which is why those dudes are extra special. Even JJ Basically plays outside linebacker on most pass rushing situations.

Right.

And pressure typically comes from LBs.

Which is what this current defense is/was going to attempt. (I thought)

Whether its ultimately successful is up for debate.

But the idea that it won't work simply because it's a 3 man front is incorrect in my opinion.

 

[rebel5280]

Yes which goes back to and confirms my original point.

It's not a matter of scheme. It's a matter of not having enough dudes.

There are a number of solid guys on the defensive side of the ball. Just not enough of them.

We could run 4-2-5 or 4-3 or 3-4 whatever. It probably wouldn't make a huge amount of difference.

The team is coming off of a 4th straight season under Sanchez of surrendering 30+ ppg. It was ranked 115th or 117th in the country in total defense. Under Sanchez its ranked below 100 one time in 4 years and that was year 2 and it was in the 80s or 90s.

One more recruiting class wasn't going to entirely fix that.

I hear you! I don't think we will ever get the "Jimmy's and Joe's" you speak of at UNLV to be good in any alignment on D.
Honestly I really wanted Sanchez to get it done but it ain't working out!

I am beyond frustrated with how this team looks on both sides of the ball.. but my thing or side of things in football has always been the D and I hate when my alma mater looks like an FCS team going through the motions on D!

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

I hear you! I don't think we will ever get the "Jimmy's and Joe's" you speak of at UNLV to be good in any alignment on D.
Honestly I really wanted Sanchez to get it done but it ain't working out!

I am beyond frustrated with how this team looks on both sides of the ball.. my thing or side of things in football has always been the D and I hate when my alma mater looks like an FCS team going through the motions on D!

I'd like to say that I saw a lot of positives in Spring that lead me to believe the Ark State game was an outlier. I can't though.

I feel the same now as I did to start the season.

6 or 6+ wins was going to be extremely difficult.

I thought 5-7...