Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cbl

?? for someone who knows

15 posts in this topic

I need someone to tell me if the defense River Hill played against E. Tech was put in especially for that game. This is the defense I am talking about. It appeared to me that RH lined up in standard 5-2 (3 down interior lineman/2 standup ends/2 linebackers/). they also had their strong safety playing up tight as a another LB. As ET lined up and started calling signals the 2 LB would begin to creep up and by the time the ball was snapped they were actually in the line turning the defense into a 7 man line with strong safety so close you could even call it an 8 man line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not believe this was a defense put in for the title against Tech. River Hill showed those looks against teams such as Elkton and Atholton as well. The 3 interior guys down with 2 stand up DE's. They attacked Offenses all year long and consistently had 7 right on the ball. In the second half it appeared that RH got more aggressive and may have brought the SS up more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do not believe this was a defense put in for the title against Tech. River Hill showed those looks against teams such as Elkton and Atholton as well. The 3 interior guys down with 2 stand up DE's. They attacked Offenses all year long and consistently had 7 right on the ball. In the second half it appeared that RH got more aggressive and may have brought the SS up more often.

 

My next question then is why didn't ET run more sweeps. I know that some teams that use the wingT as their offense have a pass to the wing back out of the back field. This also seemed in order. I was just a little surprised that ET continued to run off tackle agiasnt that 8 man front so much in the 2nd half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember several quick pitch type plays working ok in the first half but nothing great. The way Tech drove on them in the first half was running right at them and off-tackle with the counter play. Tech really didn't have the ball all that much in the second half and River Hill made adjustments. Also the speed of the River Hill defense probably would have led to big losses in the backfield if the sweep was ran consistently.

 

If Tech had a little more of a passing game they may have been to jump out to bigger lead in the first half and really get RH in trouble. RH was extremely vulnerable to the quick pop pass and slant type plays because they stack and blitz often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember RH did return both corners from last year (Redd didnt start but saw a lot of time). They are a tough team to pass on and i cant imagine it getting any easier with all 3 starters returning. For the record, im pretty sure they run a 3-5-3 defense not a 52.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe by technical terms but they always have 3 down lineman with standing DE/LB's so it might as well be a 5 man front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed to be a good defense for River Hill's strengths. ET actually ran a true 5-2 with an aggressive SS playing an OLB position often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RH runs the 3-5-3 (some call it 3-3-5), like West Virginia runs. It's easliy adapted to play any style of offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-5-3 or 5-2, it doesn't matter. RH played most of the game with 5 (3 down lineman, 2 stand up ends) lineman on the line of scrimmage. When ET started to call signals 2 LB started to creep up to the line of scrimmage. At the snap these 2 LB were on the los. As Gterror said in the 2nd half their safety started to creep up and make it 8 men on the los. I had 2 questions. Did RH play this defense during the season or just put it in for ET and why didn't ET run more sweeps against this defense. From Gterror comments I 'm thinking ET did not believe they had enopugh speed to get outside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the second half Tech barely had the ball. One of the drives started on the 3 and one started at the 48 but needed to be all passing because there was only 2 minutes left.

 

I think besides those two drives they only ran maybe 8 plays. You can't blame ET for trying to attack the RH defense they ran on them with great success in the first half. If they didn't start their three first half drives at an average of about the 10 yd line they would have most likely scored twice.

 

Cbl, I guess what I am saying (1) they didnt have many chances and (2) they had so much success with down, belly and counters in the first half they would surely try it again.

 

I have seen enough of River Hill to know that this is the defense they run. But in the second half they surely made adjustments and blitzed more. The SS also played tighter. RH never had to make adjustments like this because they hadn't even been challenged. If RH would have not made adjustments ET probably would have scored once or twice more on long drives.

 

Despite the amount of RH players in the box I don't know if it would be beneficial to attack that defense on the edges. Redd and Campanero on the edges have more speed than all of the Tech backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the second half Tech barely had the ball. One of the drives started on the 3 and one started at the 48 but needed to be all passing because there was only 2 minutes left.

 

I think besides those two drives they only ran maybe 8 plays. You can't blame ET for trying to attack the RH defense they ran on them with great success in the first half. If they didn't start their three first half drives at an average of about the 10 yd line they would have most likely scored twice.

 

Cbl, I guess what I am saying (1) they didnt have many chances and (2) they had so much success with down, belly and counters in the first half they would surely try it again.

 

I have seen enough of River Hill to know that this is the defense they run. But in the second half they surely made adjustments and blitzed more. The SS also played tighter. RH never had to make adjustments like this because they hadn't even been challenged. If RH would have not made adjustments ET probably would have scored once or twice more on long drives.

 

Despite the amount of RH players in the box I don't know if it would be beneficial to attack that defense on the edges. Redd and Campanero on the edges have more speed than all of the Tech backs.

 

Gterror, I am not trying to downplay the effort or coaching of ET. I was at that game as an ET fan and dearly wanted them to win, but I must disagree with the statement that ET drove the ball succesfully in the first half. The first time they had the ball they drove the length of the field to score and then didn't get close to the endzone the rest of the first half.

I realize that Campanero and Redd are fast, but both are small and could be blocked. The sweep I am talking about is a toss sweep to the Tech wide out side of the field. The wide out blocks on the d back and the wingback hooks the D end and the pulling guard blocks the first guy who is in front of him. Now having said all that I am just a fan and am sure then ET coaches did what they thought would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gterror, I am not trying to downplay the effort or coaching of ET. I was at that game as an ET fan and dearly wanted them to win, but I must disagree with the statement that ET drove the ball succesfully in the first half. The first time they had the ball they drove the length of the field to score and then didn't get close to the endzone the rest of the first half.

I realize that Campanero and Redd are fast, but both are small and could be blocked. The sweep I am talking about is a toss sweep to the Tech wide out side of the field. The wide out blocks on the d back and the wingback hooks the D end and the pulling guard blocks the first guy who is in front of him. Now having said all that I am just a fan and am sure then ET coaches did what they thought would work.

 

Fair statement. I think it would have definitely been worth a few shots at the edge. ET also had a drive from their 10 to the River Hill 25; all I was saying when you are forced to drive the length of the field it is tough to score especially against the top D in the state. Pass was caught by #5 Edwards out of bounds. But no doubt RH's defense settled down a lot after the first drive.

 

Tech really hurt themselves on a toss sweep which was fumbled for a loss of about 5 in RH territory; which was that drive where they got stopped on 4th down at the RH 30 after starting around the 10. While Tech didn't have their way with RH they probably had around 150 yds rushing in the first half.

 

You make good points. Tech has some speed in Edwards and Connors and maybe it would have been worth a few more shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sweeps are about the last thing you want to run when running up the middle is so effective. river hills corners can tackle, and even though they are blockable, the linebackers for RH are very quick and flow really well, especially martin. He has great instincts and reads very quick. there is a reason he has averaged over 150 tackles since he was a sophomore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the belief that I had as well. While they may look vulnerable to the sweep by the structure of their defense I don't think that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites