What You Missed In Cougar Sports Weekly
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 25, 2011 11:03 AM PDT
in 2011 WSU Football News
Email
PrintHere's an excerpt from Issue 18 of Cougar Sports Weekly, which hit inboxes early Monday morning:
Even though the run defense was bad, I think those passing numbers are the ones that tell the real story. If one thing has become clear from the last three games, it's that WSU is a positively horrific pass defense team. It started with giving up huge plays to UCLA, something that was explained away by saying, "Well, Rosario is huge and Prince made some lucky throws against a defense designed to stop the run." It continued with Stanford, something that was explained by saying, "Well, those tight ends are huge and fast, and our safeties were especially crappy." But it culminated with Saturday's debacle, in which the entire pass defense fell apart ... and there was absolutely no way to rationalize any of it.
It's funny how hindsight is 20/20 -- in reality, we probably should have seen this coming. The only thing that stopped San Diego State from throwing more than they did was an inaccurate quarterback, and Colorado put together its most accurate passing day and second highest yards per attempt of the season against the Cougs. In fact, Connelly's S&P+ rated the pass defense as just 86th nationally on all downs and 106th on passing downs before Saturday's mess.
The pass defense has been a problem all year, but we're only just now realizing how huge it really is. The issue is two pronged.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I thought it was the corners at the first of the year
At the Stanford game it was painfully apparent that what ever scheme our secondary thinks they are running is completely broken. And the linebackers aren’t reading passing downs quickly enough to put themselves into a place to make a play beyond tackling to limit the receiver to 8 yards after catch.
The only reason I can imagine a team running on us is to give their defense a break. They’ll score too quickly if they pass.
While I think these guys are athletic enough I’m completely blown away that Ball is the same coach of the defense that Price had in the secondary glory days. While I don’t want to throw student athletes under the bus, it would be helpful to hear someone on the coaching staff give a bit of insight why the wheels are blown so far off the wagon.
I simply don’t buy that Oregon State played a heck of a game. We let them play a heck of a game.
by TheOriginalCougMan on Oct 25, 2011 12:07 PM PDT reply actions
I don't think the scheme is great, but I think it's almost all a function of a weak d-line...
and the absolute lack of any measurable pass rush. The only way the D got any pressure on the Beavs was to bring the entire house. Additionally, those Price/early-Doba era defenses had NFL caliber DBs (two-deep); this team doesn’t appear to have any at the moment.
The D has only 11 sacks on the year and 6 of those came against ISU… and they still threw the for 400+ yards in that game. The pass rush is non-existent.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
by Matt Gardner on Oct 25, 2011 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
the lack of a pass rush magnifies the DB deficiencies
We were lucky not to have been blown out against SDSU and UCLA. They both had several missed opportunities where our DBs were just plain abused and the QB had time to throw.
by Blackie1829 on Oct 25, 2011 12:39 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, it's all aspects.
If just one of the two were good, it would probably help a lot. But zero pass rush + struggling DBs = bazillion passing yards.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
by Matt Gardner on Oct 25, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it's definitely a combination of both.
I had the luxury, if you can call it that, of watching the game live and then again on the DVR. There was no consistent pass rush, that is certain. but there were times we blitzed, or even just rushed four that we hit the QB right after releasing the ball. And most of those throws were to the first read. If that guys is covered and the QB has to find a different receiver, we get a sack. Now there were also plenty of times the DBs had guys covered up, the QB got five seconds to throw, and a guys on a crossing route comes out wide open. I think we just have a horrible combination of an inconsistent pass rush, with young DBs that aren’t always completely confident in the scheme.
it wasn't that those were his first options
Those were typically obviously a hot route in the event of a blitz. And on at least 3 occasions I recall from watching the dvr Sunday that route pretty much went to the space where a blitzing defender had come from. Like clockwork.
by Blackie1829 on Oct 25, 2011 2:09 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
There were a few times he hit the hot route.
And that’s going to happen when you blitz. But I’m just referring to how in general he didn’t have to progress through reads, because his first option seemed to always be open.
Yes and no, though
The DB should know when his defense is blitzing, and in some cases should be able to anticipate the hot route.
I mean really, they should be able to out-think a RS frosh QB who threw 8 ints in the previous three games in terms of where the throw is going.
I agree with you there.
There have been instances of our DBs doing this all year. A prime example I remember was the last pass play UCLA ran to get a first down and ice the game. They needed six or seven yards. The DB should play the sticks, instead he bailed like he was afraid to get beat deep and they get an easy completion for a first down.
It seems like our players don’t understand situational football, and that to me is the fault of the coaching staff.
YES!
I said the same thing to my TV. Which, of course, I cannot prove … but still! I swear I made a very loud comment about a touchdown being meaningless.
Issue 18?
You should rename it “Cougar Sports Bi-Weekly” or “Tri-Weekly”
I know, right?
The original idea was once a week, then twice a week … now three times a week. Just trying to give the people some value for their money …
this defense is very young at key slots
the LB’s bite on flow in an effort to ‘be aggressive’- Kaufusi and CJ mostly, and frequently find themselves well out of position. In SDSU and Pac play the O coors for the opposition have exploited this tendency like clockwork. The D-line is okay, they can hold the line, but they can’t penetrate consistently. The corners still have pretty bad footwork, too often surrendering the interior slant. Which is the easier throw. Deny that and force the fades and % often goes down. The safeties are good run defenders but neither is a solid pass defender because they really do lack recognition skills so far. As far as the corners go, I am mildly stunned that the fact that they are pretty bad is just now the topic. Demante Horton is turned and burned with regularity and folks sorta want to give him a pass because he has a few picks. Simmons is decent on run defense but lacks speed to stay with the burners at WR.
I feel like the Cougs need to recognize what they have personnel wise, and try to play within that realm. Go standard, a lot, not so much hoping that a gap blitz or a stunt will produce a big loss, just let the flow of the ball dictate the react. They have decent speed, just flock to the ball once the play develops. Too much guessing wrong is indicative of a lack of experience… stay home- surrender the 3 and 4 yard play and stop going for broke and trying to get the big play. To defend the flat- the major weakness so far- there simply has to be someone home.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 26, 2011 10:10 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
