The Unofficial Furman Football Page

Would like to ask a question that I saw elsewhere but that hasn't been answered. sat with an 'option guy' at the game for a few minutes. I didn't feel our option D was quite what it had been under Staggs. He agreed and pointed out some alignments. I wanted to see what some on here said.

I get that offense was our main issue.

That said, I have seen years I felt an option team could take 10 possessions and never score on us as we were just AWESOME defending the option. (like when we lost to Wofford 7-6 in 2003 or so; That's a great example of us having no offense to speak of and yet keeping an option team completely shut down. I have seen us do this)... Or last year when we beat Woff 34-14. I didn't quite feel like that yesterday - Why was our option D a little less effective this year than last year?[ ] What Were the changes in the way we defended it this year vs last year? Were the safeties lined up deeper perhaps? etc.?
thanks in advance!!!

I think a simple answer for yesterday's game was they had the ball too long because the offense couldn't do squat.

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:55 pm

Would like to ask a question that I saw elsewhere but that hasn't been answered. sat with an 'option guy' at the game for a few minutes. I didn't feel our option D was quite what it had been under Staggs. He agreed and pointed out some alignments. I wanted to see what some on here said.

I get that offense was our main issue.

That said, I have seen years I felt an option team could take 10 possessions and never score on us as we were just AWESOME defending the option. (like when we lost to Wofford 7-6 in 2003 or so; That's a great example of us having no offense to speak of and yet keeping an option team completely shut down. I have seen us do this)... Or last year when we beat Woff 34-14. I didn't quite feel like that yesterday - Why was our option D a little less effective this year than last year?[ ] What Were the changes in the way we defended it this year vs last year? Were the safeties lined up deeper perhaps? etc.?
thanks in advance!!!

I don't have any insights but wonder if you might share what insights your option guy offered.

Our D-line, particularly DT and NG, was getting blown off the line of scrimmage by their O-line. On almost every play our D-line was getting pushed off the line of scrimmage by a couple of yards. I think we are still a bit small up front on the D-line and teams will continue to exploit that weakness going forward.

Paladin91 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:09 pm

Our D-line, particularly DT and NG, was getting blown off the line of scrimmage by their O-line. On almost every play our D-line was getting pushed off the line of scrimmage by a couple of yards. I think we are still a bit small up front on the D-line and teams will continue to exploit that weakness going forward.

I agree, although we are not a bit small at NG and DT, we are tiny. Our NG and DT starters yesterday were both listed as 255. The backups are listed at 270, 278 and 295. I would say that every OL in the SoCon averages over 290 if not 300. I noticed the Citadel's NG yesterday was 300. Not saying weight is everything as it is certainly not but is a factor when as you say we are getting blown back by the opposing OL.

On maybe their first or second play their QB had a long run. To someone who knows nothing about football there were numerous times when the runner hit the crease and had good gains with our guys chasing them from behind. Good blocking, lack of assignment football etc. ??? I don’t know but to a non-expert we did not stop the option well. Plus over 300 yards rushing as I remember.

Bootie wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:40 pm

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:55 pm

Would like to ask a question that I saw elsewhere but that hasn't been answered. sat with an 'option guy' at the game for a few minutes. I didn't feel our option D was quite what it had been under Staggs. He agreed and pointed out some alignments. I wanted to see what some on here said.

I get that offense was our main issue.

That said, I have seen years I felt an option team could take 10 possessions and never score on us as we were just AWESOME defending the option. (like when we lost to Wofford 7-6 in 2003 or so; That's a great example of us having no offense to speak of and yet keeping an option team completely shut down. I have seen us do this)... Or last year when we beat Woff 34-14. I didn't quite feel like that yesterday - Why was our option D a little less effective this year than last year?[ ] What Were the changes in the way we defended it this year vs last year? Were the safeties lined up deeper perhaps? etc.?
thanks in advance!!!

I don't have any insights but wonder if you might share what insights your option guy offered.

Bootie - that's a great question and absolutely fair. I will come back with that soon. I will.

I will say the first point he made was all option schemes start w the FB Dive up the middle. Which is basic but football is pretty basic in general as you must win in the trenches! Those awesome guys like FuPlayer74 and FUBeAR!!! My addition here - If we can't stop the DIVE play consistently our chances v Wofford and then ... IF IF IF we get in playoffs a KSU diminish a good bit. Yesterday was 80% an issue of offense. Also, special teams hurt us with field position. You have to convert some 3rd downs to keep your D fresh and you gotta score points! Back to D, bc of INTERIOR DL play we were either often forced to live w Citadel getting 4 yards on 1st down (which isn't a long term play for success vs the option as that is the entire goal of the option) or bring a guy to help which leaves you susceptible elsewhere.

The reality is quality d-linemen with the size you're talking about over 300 pounds are rare at Furman.

Cameron Coleman at 6-3 296 is IMO the prototype for a Furman defense. I also thought he played a great game he lead at NG with four tackles AND he's a redshirt freshman.

CCH is not going to just sign some big guys for their size, not gonna happen. Look at the size of the freshmen and incoming offensive linemen. Jumper, Toomey, Johanning, Dodds range between 262 to 285. Incoming recruits Wilson (290) and Davis (260). These sizes match up with some of the sizes of the d-linemen offered around an average of 265.

I know basically nothing about the relationship of d-linemen size and success I leave that up to the coaches and ex-players. My take is CCH wants athletic linemen on both sides of the ball.

Despite all this, the inescapable truth is that this debacle was NOT on the defense. This was one of the worst offensive displays I seen at FU. Whatever corrections have to be made are much more on that side of the ball.

AstroDin wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:56 am

The reality is quality d-linemen with the size you're talking about over 300 pounds are rare at Furman.

Cameron Coleman at 6-3 296 is IMO the prototype for a Furman defense. I also thought he played a great game he lead at NG with four tackles AND he's a redshirt freshman.

CCH is not going to just sign some big guys for their size, not gonna happen. Look at the size of the freshmen and incoming offensive linemen. Jumper, Toomey, Johanning, Dodds range between 262 to 285. Incoming recruits Wilson (290) and Davis (260). These sizes match up with some of the sizes of the d-linemen offered around an average of 265.

I know basically nothing about the relationship of d-linemen size and success I leave that up to the coaches and ex-players. My take is CCH wants athletic linemen on both sides of the ball.

To add to Astro's comment our best DL in past few years as far as crushin' it in the middle of the big boys was Jaylan Reid. He was a FB dive stopper ! He was about 280 and was great! I would think you want some guys you can run in at 270-290 vs the option tough runnin' teams. It is interesting some teams like (and get) 300 lb guys that kill. Woff has been known for that w Miles Brown 320 lbs! on an NFL practice squad for instance. That was a big issue for us vs them in 2017. We seem to go a little smaller and athletic but I think if you can run some 290 lb guys you are ok.

Jasper wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:14 am

Despite all this, the inescapable truth is that this debacle was NOT on the defense. This was one of the worst offensive displays I seen at FU. Whatever corrections have to be made are much more on that side of the ball.

Jasper, I agree and you know your stuff. I was just curious where we could improve on D - O was easy to see what we needed as we couldn't complete a wide open pass. OL was beat to heck on 3rd and one. Also those wacky deep handoffs - I noticed CH said today that he probably called an errant play on one of the third and shorts ... I hope thats what he meant

gofurman wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:08 am

Bootie wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:40 pm

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:55 pm

Would like to ask a question that I saw elsewhere but that hasn't been answered. sat with an 'option guy' at the game for a few minutes. I didn't feel our option D was quite what it had been under Staggs. He agreed and pointed out some alignments. I wanted to see what some on here said.

I get that offense was our main issue.

That said, I have seen years I felt an option team could take 10 possessions and never score on us as we were just AWESOME defending the option. (like when we lost to Wofford 7-6 in 2003 or so; That's a great example of us having no offense to speak of and yet keeping an option team completely shut down. I have seen us do this)... Or last year when we beat Woff 34-14. I didn't quite feel like that yesterday - Why was our option D a little less effective this year than last year?[ ] What Were the changes in the way we defended it this year vs last year? Were the safeties lined up deeper perhaps? etc.?
thanks in advance!!!

I don't have any insights but wonder if you might share what insights your option guy offered.

Bootie - that's a great question and absolutely fair. I will come back with that soon. I will.

I will say the first point he made was all option schemes start w the FB Dive up the middle. Which is basic but football is pretty basic in general as you must win in the trenches! Those awesome guys like FuPlayer74 and FUBeAR!!! My addition here - If we can't stop the DIVE play consistently our chances v Wofford and then ... IF IF IF we get in playoffs a KSU diminish a good bit. Yesterday was 80% an issue of offense. Also, special teams hurt us with field position. You have to convert some 3rd downs to keep your D fresh and you gotta score points! Back to D, bc of INTERIOR DL play we were either often forced to live w Citadel getting 4 yards on 1st down (which isn't a long term play for success vs the option as that is the entire goal of the option) or bring a guy to help which leaves you susceptible elsewhere.

Bootie, great question and I should certainly answer as I asked. quid pro quo and all that - so here are a few different answers (peeps who played actually!):

First, as Jasper said and we know.. it was mostly all about just poor offense (OL, passing etc) but the D does have option/run issues.

As someone else I know said (and he is insightful) "For the first time in a long time we might be better vs FCS passing teams than FCS run teams. All you have to do is look at our scores vs Mercer and Sam (won both by 40 or whatever) .. then look at us v ETSU and Citadel (close win and loss). The whole team seems to struggle more vs physical running teams w tough D than air-raid right now. Woff thus becomes a worry. That's an interesting trend for us to watch going forward...

Specifically with the D vs Citadel (again, O was much more the issue) but from sources:
" There is a definite issue with getting all of our safeties into checks fast enough. If we do that against Wofford we might be in trouble. The Safeties are perhaps a yard too deep and then aren't reacting quick enough ( It is Vaughns first time vs option - maybe we just need to simplify the scheme? ). It appeared there was far too much thinking going on. It was certainly different than what Staggs would do with them in terms of safety depth. But I note it would be unfair to be overly critical of the D they have played well. O let us down and everyone has bad days.. The D does need to be a little tougher / physical '

" Safeties are run fitting 8 plus yards down field. Cant have safeties start the play that deep or the option team is ahead before you hike the ball

"Biggest 2 things are our guys up front were just losing the line of scrimmage. Behind the 8 ball there. But what concerned me is the secondary guys looked a little hesitant. We went w our experienced guys so I am wondering what was going on? There was confusion and this led to a real lack of aggressiveness down hill both the LB’s and safeties which you cannot have or the option will get its yards. We need to be attacking w more aggressive safeties and LB and doing less thinking. Hopefully we are better on that next time (Wofford). I believe we can be"

Knowing very little about the X’s and O’s of football, the one thing that was of concern was that it was like watching the same movie over and over and over.
The Citadel QB runs the ball to the right behind his blockers and gets way too much yardage. He ran 26 times and gained about 6 yards per carry. I must assume that we did not have an answer. And this was knowing that they were not going to pass. The Citadel did not throw a single pass in the 2nd half.

fu77fan wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:41 pm

Knowing very little about the X’s and O’s of football, the one thing that was of concern was that it was like watching the same movie over and over and over.
The Citadel QB runs the ball to the right behind his blockers and gets way too much yardage. He ran 26 times and gained about 6 yards per carry. I must assume that we did not have an answer. And this was knowing that they were not going to pass. The Citadel did not throw a single pass in the 2nd half.

It's just a really tough play to stop and is the staple play of the Citadel's offense. We played that well at times, poorly at other times.

At bottom, the Citadel overloads one side of the line by using their big WR Webb as a TE. They add another slot back to that side. The play is relatively simple - they just have 4 men to the right of the center - Furman has only 3.

Example - didn't defend it here. Gilby plays further off the line than normal and is tasked with attacking downhill to the ball and filling the gap. He's late to the party, the OL gets on him and the fullback can get to the next level.



We defended it pretty well here - Perryman beats the center to the hole, we fill the gap and someone knocks the ball out.



We tried to defend this play most of the game by blitzing linebackers through the hole. Against the option, you really just have to guess right once, get a tackle for loss, and get the offense "off schedule."

From a fan's perspective, it's easy to ask "why can't we stop that?" It's super hard to stop. They have more blockers than you have defenders. Some times you have to cede yardage on plays like that to keep them from popping the big runs or throwing it over your head.

The Jackal wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:16 am

fu77fan wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:41 pm

Knowing very little about the X’s and O’s of football, the one thing that was of concern was that it was like watching the same movie over and over and over.
The Citadel QB runs the ball to the right behind his blockers and gets way too much yardage. He ran 26 times and gained about 6 yards per carry. I must assume that we did not have an answer. And this was knowing that they were not going to pass. The Citadel did not throw a single pass in the 2nd half.

It's just a really tough play to stop and is the staple play of the Citadel's offense. We played that well at times, poorly at other times.

At bottom, the Citadel overloads one side of the line by using their big WR Webb as a TE. They add another slot back to that side. The play is relatively simple - they just have 4 men to the right of the center - Furman has only 3.

Example - didn't defend it here. Gilby plays further off the line than normal and is tasked with attacking downhill to the ball and filling the gap. He's late to the party, the OL gets on him and the fullback can get to the next level.

We defended it pretty well here - Perryman beats the center to the hole, we fill the gap and someone knocks the ball out.

We tried to defend this play most of the game by blitzing linebackers through the hole. Against the option, you really just have to guess right once, get a tackle for loss, and get the offense "off schedule."

From a fan's perspective, it's easy to ask "why can't we stop that?" It's super hard to stop. They have more blockers than you have defenders. Some times you have to cede yardage on plays like that to keep them from popping the big runs or throwing it over your head.

After watching CCH's presser, it seems as though Citadel was able to do what they wanted all game long and we knew exactly what that was coming in. So, we certainly had to be prepared for it. Did they add some tweaks to their blocking on their admitted bread and butter play or was it simply poor execution on our part? He seemed to imply the latter. I agree with you that the D played OK overall. TOP was the killer here. And that brings it all back to the offense once again. He said we had receivers wide open all day and simply could not get the ball to them. That simply threw our whole attack plan off kilter and we were not able to get back on point. What bothers me is the inability to make adjustments to the situation at hand. You are an x and o guy and I'm sure has watched the tapes. Was it mostly execution failure on both sides of the ball in your opinion?