2008 Preseason Poll: Rankings and Discussion (official thread)

[Buckeneye]

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

That was yesterday before the news.

I know, but its Mandell; I still like to laugh at him.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

That was yesterday before the news.

Actually, LSU might be better with that cancer cut out of the leadership body of the team. Sometimes the over achiever replacement is better for the team's success than the head case prima donna star who stays and infects them with his attitude. We'll know by early October.

[Dryden]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Yeah, maybe. But Jax is right, if you use that soft zone against the spread and you have any athletes at slot back/receiver, you get mismatched linebackers trying to chase down guys seven yard after the catch. You guys not going man against Harvin and co two years ago was a bad decision. You have the talent to go man, even if you give up the odd big play. But it is frustrating to see a team dink and dunk down the field for first down after first down when it keeps your own offense off the field and wears out your D. I would be surprised if you don't use a lot more man covearge this year. When will you be better as a group than this bunch? If not now, when? Screw the zone.

The problem the past two years has been alternately having DEs that aren't complemented by the DTs, or vice-versa, and the early exits of a parade of great Jrs in the secondary that ultimately burned us in 2006 when a number of things (injuries, lack of development, etc) robbed us of depth. All you need to know to see how we got burned against UF in '06 is consider that the starting back four consisted of a RS Sr former walk-on, a RS Sr who had previously been a career back-up, a RS So career back-up who was only playing due to injury to the #1, and true So Malcolm Jenkins.

3 of the 4 would not have started any other year but that year. They won the jobs by default. The soft zone was to protect them -- that didn't work out so well.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Dryden

The problem the past two years has been alternately having DEs that aren't complemented by the DTs, or vice-versa, and the early exits of a parade of great Jrs in the secondary that ultimately burned us in 2006 when a number of things (injuries, lack of development, etc) robbed us of depth. All you need to know to see how we got burned against UF in '06 is consider that the starting back four consisted of a RS Sr former walk-on, a RS Sr who had previously been a career back-up, a RS So career back-up who was only playing due to injury to the #1, and true So Malcolm Jenkins.

3 of the 4 would not have started any other year but that year. They won the jobs by default. The soft zone was to protect them -- that didn't work out so well.

Do you think the spread was responsible revealing the weaknesses, as you had great stats going into the game. I mean, I defer to what you say of course, but that same crew seemed to achieve great success along the season. So I'm wondering, do you think it was the spread system that put the pressure on them that they had not seen, or what?

[TheIronColonel]

I'd say it was some combination of the spread and (in '06) too much hype and (in '07) too much pressure to perform. We really don't get to see the spread much in the Big Ten; a lack of experience against it and, as was mentioned before, a defensive scheme designed to protect against the big play at the cost of allowing the short game. I personally think that the spread is magnificent against soft zone, because there are fewer defenders up near the line of scrimmage. By the time the quarterback has to make a read (in pass or run) the play has developed somewhat and everything is upfield, to some degree. Zone read offenses should gobble it up because they can get defenders in space with little support where (theoretically) shifty athletes can make plays for the offense. In the passing game, lining up 4 or 5 wide and allowing flankers to carry the zone back a bit to open up underneath routes worked very well for Florida in '06, IIRC.

It's well trod ground, but in '06 there was too much hype and an (apparent) lack of respect for Florida. They spent too much time having too much smoke blown up their asses about how great they were (admittedly, they were) and how Florida had no chance (they did). In '07, there was a huge amount of pressure due to last year's debacle. I think that those two things, coupled with personnel churn and the choice of defensive scheme vs the spread, were the root causes.

[Dryden]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Do you think the spread was responsible revealing the weaknesses, as you had great stats going into the game. I mean, I defer to what you say of course, but that same crew seemed to achieve great success along the season. So I'm wondering, do you think it was the spread system that put the pressure on them that they had not seen, or what?

I don't know. Obviously, there were a huge number of issues in the NC game on the O-Line, with the special teams coverage, with losing Ginn on the first play allowing UF to concentrate on erasing Gonzo, all of which contributed to the problem by repeatedly putting the defense in a bad spot from UF's first play of every series, over and over again. The crew that finished the year was not the crew that stoned Texas or Iowa, though. Anderson Russell in particular, the starting safety, was lost in the Iowa game, and his absence had a ripple effect through the back seven in terms of what schemes could be run, and how the players responded to their assignments in those schemes through the rest of the year. Juice damn near beat us, as did Michigan. As everybody saw, that team wasn't equipped at that point to defend UF, or Michigan for that matter, in November and January as they would have been in September and October.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Dryden

The crew that finished the year was not the crew that stoned Texas or Iowa, though. Anderson Russell in particular, the starting safety, was lost in the Iowa game, and his absence had a ripple effect through the back seven in terms of what schemes could be run, and how the players responded to their assignments in those schemes through the rest of the year. .

I did not know that. I could see that happening. Reggie Nelson was the glue that made our defense work. "The Erasor", who made up for other mistakes in coverage. We used to say, two thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third by Reggie F-in Nelson.

One guy (or his loss) can make a huge difference in a scheme.