With 240ish pound DE and 210ish pound OLB can we stop the run against B10 teams? We have issues with the OL and questions at QB, but to me our weakness on the edge on D was the most glaring problem at Iowa. I thought Rallis played decent which actually surprised me, but I'd like to see Beal and Reeves a lot more going forward.
DE/OLB
- Thread starter Indi1006
- Start date
Bob_Loblaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 20,759
- Reaction score
- 16,229
- Points
- 113
I think it's possible to play in the Big 10 at those sizes, however, I think you need really good MLB play and the safeties can't miss many tackles. Wells is one of my favorite Gophers, but he missed a lot of tackles last Saturday (he missed a tackle on just about every long run). If all of those long runs were for 8 yards instead of 20, 15, 30, etc...it would have looked a little better.
wait!what?
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
We gotta get up by 14-20 super fast so the opposition has to go to the air otherwise...
That definitely would give any team an advantage, but as displayed in Bowl Game vs. Texas Tech, even that wasn't safe.
Gopherprof
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,479
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Kill has gone on record as saying that he thinks size is overrated when it comes to being physical (he would know, in all candor). I think it's going to be a real challenge, but it's the nature of the beast. We're not going to be terribly successful recruiting the guys with excellent speed and size, so if we're going to sacrifice one of the two, I think he's making the smart choice. You can coach someone to be more physical and to play with proper leverage. If someone isn't naturally quick, it's hard to change that.
Mitchieboi
New member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
If size really was the dominating feature in college football, the Big Ten would be doing a hell of a lot better than it is now. Prime example is Wisconsin the last two years in the rose bowl. Football has always been and will always be more of a speed game than a strength game.
50PoundHead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 8,532
- Reaction score
- 1,685
- Points
- 113
Agree to an extent. You still have to be strong at the point of attack and that's what is killing us right now. Outside of Hageman, we're getting throttled on both sides of the line. The other part of the speed equation is you have to run to the right place. Speed is disruptive, but it needs to be disruptive the right direction for it to be effective.
MGGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 5,723
- Reaction score
- 2,995
- Points
- 113
I posted this on August 14 after watching a fall practice.
>On that note, let me say that I'm VERY worried about stopping the run. I know there was a huge thread on this about a week ago, but I didn't take the time to read it (lazy me). We're likely to have at least two VERY undersized LB's on the field at all times (Rallis, Cooper, Manuel), and those guys were getting caught up in the "wash" quite a bit today. Also, our DE's are pretty undersized as well, and I think it's likely we'll have to "sell out" to get up the field to rush the passer. Guys like Perry, Amafuela, and Cockran will really have to rely on speed to get the QB and this creates running lanes off-guard. We also have some inexperienced DT's, and without Hageman playing like a MONSTER this year, I just don't see how these guys can hang with most BT lines. I'm worried...
I'm not trying to pump myself up or something, but I thought it was pretty obvious this team would have a tough time stopping the run. I fully believe the Iowa game was a great wake up call though, and that the coaching staff will start using some of the tricks of the trade to at least slow down the run later in the year (more slanting, stunting, run blitzing, safety involvement in the box, and less DE upfield rush). Unfortunately, a lot of this will result in giving up some bigger plays in the passing game though...but it might be a necessity with the great running teams (and lackluster passing teams) we'll face the rest of the way.
>On that note, let me say that I'm VERY worried about stopping the run. I know there was a huge thread on this about a week ago, but I didn't take the time to read it (lazy me). We're likely to have at least two VERY undersized LB's on the field at all times (Rallis, Cooper, Manuel), and those guys were getting caught up in the "wash" quite a bit today. Also, our DE's are pretty undersized as well, and I think it's likely we'll have to "sell out" to get up the field to rush the passer. Guys like Perry, Amafuela, and Cockran will really have to rely on speed to get the QB and this creates running lanes off-guard. We also have some inexperienced DT's, and without Hageman playing like a MONSTER this year, I just don't see how these guys can hang with most BT lines. I'm worried...
I'm not trying to pump myself up or something, but I thought it was pretty obvious this team would have a tough time stopping the run. I fully believe the Iowa game was a great wake up call though, and that the coaching staff will start using some of the tricks of the trade to at least slow down the run later in the year (more slanting, stunting, run blitzing, safety involvement in the box, and less DE upfield rush). Unfortunately, a lot of this will result in giving up some bigger plays in the passing game though...but it might be a necessity with the great running teams (and lackluster passing teams) we'll face the rest of the way.
Stan The Caddy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 86
- Points
- 48
It has not hurt TCU under Gary Patterson...
station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
If you are going to compete with dpodoll you need to have multiple quotes as why the person is wrong multiple times. It is a start though. Maybe you should practice on Dr.Don.
