[winflop]

Washington uses a 4-3 with both a different scheme and a different philosophy that goes with it.

Washington tries to plug the run with its defensive linemen--three bigs and then a fourth not much bigger than Kevin Palma. 

Stanford's scheme is for our defensive linemen to neutralize their block and funnel the run to the inside linebacker assigned to the gap.  So Washington's linebackers, for several years, have seemed more like big safeties (at least one of them was a converted safety).  Meanwhile, Everyone here sounds stunned how little Bobby Okereke is to play linebacker for us, especally inside.  But he's as big as the Huskie's biggest linebacker, alongside of whom Palma and Davis appear massive. 

Our approach explains why our linebackers--Murphy, Chase, Skov, Tarpley, and Martinez--tend to amass the spectacular statistics and one ILb ends up with over 100 tackles on the season, while our nose tackles manage to end each game with a stat line that makes you wonder if he left the game early with an injury. 

You might think of our whole approach as a funnel: Funnel the runs to the inside linebacker and the passes to the middle of the field, and recruit safeties like Reid and Edwards that make receivers wary of going into the funnel.  An added reason, of course, is that most college quarterbacks don't have the arm to throw the hard and long throw to the edge, so daring them to try makes added sense. 

And i don't think Anderson would ridicule me for adding to the funnel and describing the last element as "the canopy."  Whatever else you do in college football--well, pros perhaps more so--is to allow the big play.  You want to maintain the top of your defense and keep the plays inside it.  You will willingly trade a series of seven yard slant completions if it protects you against a 25 yarder over the top, not least of all because if you make an offense work its way down a field, it almost always will find a way to stop itself.  This isn't pure bend, don't break, but you do allow some bend to avoid the break. 

You saw this last year in our defenses when we were without Harris and, in one game, without both Harris and Holder.  We basically tried to minimize the damage, make the offense work its way to the red zone, then capitalize on the 12th defender you get from the back of the end zone, and the more restricted area and playbook your opponent can use in it, to surrender a field goal.  Agonizing to watch, but if you have a good red zone defense and an offense with Mac et all that can get you seven after you surrender three, it's a risk worth taking.

And at the risk of making a too long post seem interminable, I don't think the fourth down lineman for the Huskies is a Big.  The last I read, he was--again--about Palma's size (6'3, 255).  But even having three 300 pounders in a defensive front is unusual, maybe a wrinkle that is the Huskies alone.

Re- funnel & canopy approach.  I love the analysis Hulk.  Mrs. Winflop & I were watching the K-State game and she kept complaining about how K-State was moving the ball up the middle in 2Q/3Q.  I kept saying, "yeah but let's see what happens when they get inside our 25."  The only TD came on a perfect pass against some pretty damn good coverage.  Every other time we shut them down, yielding 3 FGs.

This seems to be how Shaw & Anderson want it to be, and I'm very, very on board with it.

[winflop]

Washington uses a 4-3 with both a different scheme and a different philosophy that goes with it.

Washington tries to plug the run with its defensive linemen--three bigs and then a fourth not much bigger than Kevin Palma. 

Stanford's scheme is for our defensive linemen to neutralize their block and funnel the run to the inside linebacker assigned to the gap.  So Washington's linebackers, for several years, have seemed more like big safeties (at least one of them was a converted safety).  Meanwhile, Everyone here sounds stunned how little Bobby Okereke is to play linebacker for us, especally inside.  But he's as big as the Huskie's biggest linebacker, alongside of whom Palma and Davis appear massive. 

Our approach explains why our linebackers--Murphy, Chase, Skov, Tarpley, and Martinez--tend to amass the spectacular statistics and one ILb ends up with over 100 tackles on the season, while our nose tackles manage to end each game with a stat line that makes you wonder if he left the game early with an injury. 

You might think of our whole approach as a funnel: Funnel the runs to the inside linebacker and the passes to the middle of the field, and recruit safeties like Reid and Edwards that make receivers wary of going into the funnel.  An added reason, of course, is that most college quarterbacks don't have the arm to throw the hard and long throw to the edge, so daring them to try makes added sense. 

And i don't think Anderson would ridicule me for adding to the funnel and describing the last element as "the canopy."  Whatever else you do in college football--well, pros perhaps more so--is to allow the big play.  You want to maintain the top of your defense and keep the plays inside it.  You will willingly trade a series of seven yard slant completions if it protects you against a 25 yarder over the top, not least of all because if you make an offense work its way down a field, it almost always will find a way to stop itself.  This isn't pure bend, don't break, but you do allow some bend to avoid the break. 

You saw this last year in our defenses when we were without Harris and, in one game, without both Harris and Holder.  We basically tried to minimize the damage, make the offense work its way to the red zone, then capitalize on the 12th defender you get from the back of the end zone, and the more restricted area and playbook your opponent can use in it, to surrender a field goal.  Agonizing to watch, but if you have a good red zone defense and an offense with Mac et all that can get you seven after you surrender three, it's a risk worth taking.

And at the risk of making a too long post seem interminable, I don't think the fourth down lineman for the Huskies is a Big.  The last I read, he was--again--about Palma's size (6'3, 255).  But even having three 300 pounders in a defensive front is unusual, maybe a wrinkle that is the Huskies alone.

Re- funnel & canopy approach.  I love the analysis Hulk.  Mrs. Winflop & I were watching the K-State game and she kept complaining about how K-State was moving the ball up the middle in 2Q/3Q.  I kept saying, "yeah but let's see what happens when they get inside our 25."  The only TD came on a perfect pass against some pretty damn good coverage.  Every other time we shut them down, yielding 3 FGs.

This seems to be how Shaw & Anderson want it to be, and I'm very, very on board with it.