Did Mullen or the return of Campbell cause Grantham to change his scheme?

Sec14Gator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Oct 8, 2017
2,169
5,581
So, we all saw, and many have commented that with the weeks off and Campbell back, we went larger up front, with Carter at DE and Slaton/Campbell at the DT's. The question for me was how much of that was personnel matching and Grantham finally facing a team running 12 personnel a lot (For reading the below charting, in the personnel numbering, the first number is the RB count and the second are the TE's).

Unfortunately, I don't think the game was as telling as we'd hoped. Maybe we stay with the same scheme against the dwags because they play a more power game as well, but I don't know if it means Grantham actually changed anything. The other item that jumped out is Carter almost never left the field in the first half. He was crucial to everything we did, even passing downs when we went smaller. His loss in the first half could really be felt. But, his addition in the second half could be a strong impact if the game is tight.

Here are the drive charts with the down, offense's personnel package, and our Defense. I'd be curious of this boards assessment, even though this is a deep dive. Side note: Goldkamp was discussing how well Stewart played the Star this game. In what I watched, I never saw him there (based on how we previously aligned the Star in the first 3 games and last year).

1st Drive. 10 or 11, with 4 wide lineup, but maybe a TE split wide, we were in a true 3/4 with Campbell, Slaton and Carter (CSC) across the line. This is one of the better hopes for real change, since we started in this and they had 4 wide. 2 down, 11, same 3-4. Shows on the play, as Lb is free to make a play. 3rd and long - went nickel and small w Dunlap for Campbell. Moon lined up as a lb, not rush end.

2nd drive. 11 personnel (2 TE). CSC. True 3-4. QB sealing the edge against Cox on reverse was pretty funny. Diabate at MLB. Switched to 11 but we stayed big in true 3-4 in 2/5 and 3/1. Dexter Dunlap and Lang sub as drive extends with only 12 and 11 personnel, staying in 3-4. Lang is very slow out of stance. Almost funny in freeze frame. Dex doubled. Lang unblocked but can't tackle. 2/5, back to 11 and we are still a real 3-4. This group run on easier by far than CSC. Torrence looks pretty good. 2/7, 11, and we are still in 3/4 at our own 16 (this one was also promising, as it could have been seen as a pass down and Grantham often would go small here in prior games IIRC). Dunlap takes on no blockers on most plays. Just goes around a lot. Dex takes on 2 and holds ground most plays. 3/5, 10 (or wide split te), we went nickel with Dean the extra dB.

3rd drive. 12, 3-4 CCS. TV coverage offered no chance to see if we were waiting to match Personnel or just running our 3-4 personnel out. As the game progressed though, you see Missery runs 12 or 11 on first down almost all game pre-blowout level. 2/9, 11 and we STAYED in 3-4 w CCS. Again, could have gone to more exotic herre and didn't. 3/9, 10, then to nickel. All smaller rushers. Cox, Carter Dunlap, and Bogle across. Burney appears to be coming in only more on passing downs now than every down in favor of a combo of Houston/Diabate over Burney in early downs. Burney and a Db make up the Nickel. Miller doesn't really leave the field much early.

Offense Side note on the pick six- Wright and Reese both pick up the same DL missing the blitzing lb until too late and Trask's arm is hit on the INT. Braun saw his first minutes of the season on the next play subbing for Reese. Reese returned the next series and remainder of the half.

4th drive, 12, 3-4. CCS. 2/10, 11, still in 3/4. Moorer already in the game at "outside" cb (shoutout to Zach and Donk) w Gators trailing 7-6. 1/10, 12 and 3-4. 2/10, 11, 3/4. Torrence manning from safety W/ Stewart single high a decent amount on these long 2d downs. 3/8, 10, nickel. Closest to Star seems to be Tre’vez Johnson at nickel. Burney in again at LB. This is such an obvious passing down though, calling this a Star so far in this game is more of a misnomer than it usually is in this defense.

5th drive. 12, 3-4, CCDexter. 2/8, same personnel for both teams. 3/3, 00 (5 wide, though 1 might have been a RB), nickel and small line package. 1/10, 11, 3-4, CCS. 2/25, 11, nickel/star w Johnson. Smaller package DL but at least Carter at DT and Chatfield at DE. 3/28, 10, same. Burney at LB again only when we went to Nickel. First down was Houston.

6th drive and gets interesting. They Come out in 10 personnel and we play a legit 4-3, with no discernable "Star". Arguably Moon is the Star but Houston not Burney is at MLB w Miller. The oddity is there’s only 1:41 left in the half. So playing more db’s and a nickel/true star on first would make more sense than earlier into the half. Plus, the 4 DL across were CCS and Cox with Campbell as the DE. 2/1, 10, but w the Rb split to WR so lined up 00, we stayed with the same personnel but they went no huddle so we had to. They went hurry up on the next play too, but we swapped personnel and went with a true nickel (Johnson) and Carter as our big DL at DT. They fumbled the mesh point as Carter blew up the play.

7th drive. 10 with 1:08 in the half. Nickel w Burney at MLB and Dunlap and Carter at DT. 2/10, Carter off for Bogle. 3/10. Same except Princely shows up on the field for Cox. Carter back in for Bogle.

SECOND HALF - Carter unavailable

We score. Game now 27-6 and no Carter. Hard to tell how much this will impact next week. From here. Only bothered a few more possessions.

1st drive - for one of the first times, you can see from the video our sideline is set up to watch and match their personnel before taking the field, but the game is also starting to get our of hand for Missouri, so we could also be adjusting. The open 11, we are in 4-3 w Moon as OLB or star again. Campbell is DE (again on Moons side like the one other time we had this group). DTs are Slaton and Dex. Houston. Not Burney. 2/3, same for both teams. 3/1, same for both teams. Huge play by Campbell who shot the inside gap with Diabate outside him this time. Lots of faith in Diabate to hold the edge to have Campbell dive inside like far. That group looked pretty good together. Notably no Cox.

2nd drive, 12, back to a 3-4 with the 3 down linemen being Campbell, Slaton and Lang. Houston, not Burney. 2/18, they go to 10, we scramble to swap personnel and have about 20 on the field until refs stop the game to permit us to match their subs. Burney back in. Only 1 lineman with a hand on the ground (Dunlap). 3 rush guys. Nickel w Johnson. Swing to RB to Burney’s side. He is super slow to see it and move, yet with the line up there is no one else he can be playing unless he is spying the QB who didn't run all game. 3/10, 10, same defense. Chatfield has been lined up where the other DT would be but standing.

3rd drive. Now 34-7 score and 3rd quarter is basically over. They are in 11, and we go back to our more usual (until this game at least) star type package with two rush ends and Slaton and Dunlap w Burney at MLB and Johnson at Star. 2nd down, 12 and we got back to 3-4 w CSDex as DL. Hopper and Houston at MLB. Moorer back in. Same groups on 1st. We start subbing more from here.

Next 1/10, 11, and we see the old nickel/star with Slaton, Dunlap and two smaller rush ends w Burney on the field. Few comments: Campbell left the field due to a hurt finger, Carter is put, and they have to start passing. Don’t think we get more insight into coaching ideas from here on.


OVERALL - It seems maybe we did actually adjust based on playing a true, bigger sized 3-4 against 11 personnel on first half 2nd and long situations against 11 personnel, but they were so predictable 12 on first, 11 on second, 11 or 10 on third, that it is hard to know for sure if it was a one game blip. While the second half showed more obvious personnel matching and not a schematic shift, that has to be weighed against the score.

Regardless, it was better and good to see the improvement overall as a result of the simpler schemes. We zoned or play man-1 predominantly out of the 3-4 and the true 4-3 (non-nickel/star). Your thoughts?
 

Zambo

Founding Member
Poo Flinger
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
12,924
32,564
Founding Member
I think he had to dumb it down because of so many new bodies, and the result was that we had a decent scheme executed well vs a great scheme executed poorly.
 

Sec14Gator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Oct 8, 2017
2,169
5,581
I think he had to dumb it down because of so many new bodies, and the result was that we had a decent scheme executed well vs a great scheme executed poorly.

This makes sense for the back-end coverage, but not necessarily the front 7 differences we saw from prior games.
 

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,480
110,926
Founding Member
vs a great scheme executed poorly.
He doesnt have a great scheme.

Blitzing both corners, dropping safeties into the box and have an SDE cover a deep half in a cover six might look "exotic" or whatever but a the majority of his fvkktarded schemes arent fundamentally sound at all, regardless of how well the players execute it.
 

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,480
110,926
Founding Member
This makes sense for the back-end coverage, but not necessarily the front 7 differences we saw from prior games.
He dumbed that down too and added weight and strength at DT and SDE.

That fixes A LOT of problems.

Plus he did a lot of stupid exotic zone blitz things having the DT or DE drop in coverage or loop etc.. that stupid shyt was gone. Just had them play football.
 

FireFoley

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Nov 19, 2014
9,286
15,015
Possibly Mizzou sux dix and made the D look a little better. If we hold UGly to under 200 yards rushing without giving up 300 yards passing, then maybe I will say okay things are a little better. I doubt UGly will feel the need to pass the ball at all even if we put 11 guys in the box, other than they will get bored running on every play.
 

Zambo

Founding Member
Poo Flinger
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
12,924
32,564
Founding Member
He doesnt have a great scheme.

Blitzing both corners, dropping safeties into the box and have an SDE cover a deep half in a cover six might look "exotic" or whatever but a the majority of his fvkktarded schemes arent fundamentally sound at all, regardless of how well the players execute it.
Its just a general statement which could be applied to football, business, war, or anything else. If it makes you feel better, since I know how chock full of feelings you are, change it to an exotic scheme executed poorly.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,334
14,789
Founding Member
Its just a general statement which could be applied to football, business, war, or anything else. If it makes you feel better, since I know how chock full of feelings you are, change it to an exotic scheme executed poorly.

In Tijuana's line of work Exotic means something different than you are using it for.
 

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,480
110,926
Founding Member
Its just a general statement which could be applied to football, business, war, or anything else. If it makes you feel better, since I know how chock full of feelings you are, change it to an exotic scheme executed poorly.
You are an exotic scheme.
 

gatorev12

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 17, 2018
10,389
9,813
Possibly Mizzou sux dix and made the D look a little better. If we hold UGly to under 200 yards rushing without giving up 300 yards passing, then maybe I will say okay things are a little better. I doubt UGly will feel the need to pass the ball at all even if we put 11 guys in the box, other than they will get bored running on every play.

Mizzou's not a great football team; but it is interesting to note that we put more points on the board, had more passing and rushing yards, and allowed them fewer passing and rushing yards than when they played Bama.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,334
14,789
Founding Member
Mizzou's not a great football team; but it is interesting to note that we put more points on the board, had more passing and rushing yards, and allowed them fewer passing and rushing yards than when they played Bama.

Also that was the first game of the new season without a real fall camp or cupcakes, and the game was at Missouri where Missouri has played better. Missouri looks a lot like Auburn last year, where they are two different teams home and away.
 

FireFoley

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Nov 19, 2014
9,286
15,015
Mizzou's not a great football team; but it is interesting to note that we put more points on the board, had more passing and rushing yards, and allowed them fewer passing and rushing yards than when they played Bama.

Your point is well taken and not untrue. But to me week to week is ever changing and I try not to compare common opponent's b/c things change weekly. Perhaps we are better, but I will take Bama's entire defense over ours. But be that as it may, do you think our defense would shut out Cowbell? I don;t. Do you think our defense would be as effective against Cowbell as Ark or UK was? I don't. I don;t think our staff along with the D players would be capable of playing soft zone an entire game and make almost zero mistakes.
 

Double Gator Dad

Founding Member
Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
5,023
8,460
Founding Member
Your point is well taken and not untrue. But to me week to week is ever changing and I try not to compare common opponent's b/c things change weekly. Perhaps we are better, but I will take Bama's entire defense over ours. But be that as it may, do you think our defense would shut out Cowbell? I don;t. Do you think our defense would be as effective against Cowbell as Ark or UK was? I don't. I don;t think our staff along with the D players would be capable of playing soft zone an entire game and make almost zero mistakes.

Agree completely

No defensive performance to date provides any real insight. The Georgia game will be a true measure of any changes or improvements in scheme and/or personnel
 

gatorev12

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 17, 2018
10,389
9,813
Your point is well taken and not untrue. But to me week to week is ever changing and I try not to compare common opponent's b/c things change weekly. Perhaps we are better, but I will take Bama's entire defense over ours. But be that as it may, do you think our defense would shut out Cowbell? I don;t. Do you think our defense would be as effective against Cowbell as Ark or UK was? I don't. I don;t think our staff along with the D players would be capable of playing soft zone an entire game and make almost zero mistakes.

No argument here that there are key differences and things changing weekly, so comparing common opponents doesn't tell the full story, I just found it interesting to look that all up. I'd much rather have Bama's defense, no question; but we also gave up less points/yards to Ole Miss (and in fairness, Bama beat the tar out of A&M while we couldn't get but one stop).

My main observation in looking all that up is to observe that our play hasn't been *that* far off the conference leader. We need to have a bit of swagger and confidence going into this week's game and beyond.
 

Renard904

Voice of Reason
Lifetime Member
Oct 1, 2016
851
1,205
2 things ...

1. fat guys on the LOS
2. Mizzou sucks
South Carolina sucked too, but that didn’t stop them from having a career day. The improvement had little to do with the competition. It was just a simpler gameplan that the team executed better. They actually looked like they took pride in their crafts on Saturday.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,334
14,789
Founding Member
South Carolina sucked too, but that didn’t stop them from having a career day. The improvement had little to do with the competition. It was just a simpler gameplan that the team executed better. They actually looked like they took pride in their crafts on Saturday.

So a bad offense can't make a defense look good? The scheme was better due to the simplicity, but lets not pretend we were playing an offense as good as what we have already faced either. Next week will be the real test.
 

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,480
110,926
Founding Member
Mizzu is a better team and better coached (IMO far better coached) than the Chumpcawks.

Neither are GOOD teams but playing a sound, simple defense worked. Having the players actually care and try more helped a bunch in tue second half.

Campbell isnt particularly good but he is a penetrator (vs staying gap sound) and he was one more competent body inside.
 

SGG

Call me Ernie, or Big Ern
Lifetime Member
Sep 24, 2015
4,687
10,416
So a bad offense can't make a defense look good? The scheme was better due to the simplicity, but lets not pretend we were playing an offense as good as what we have already faced either. Next week will be the real test.
Yes and no. UGay’s offense isn’t exactly setting the world on fire, but they’re much better up front than our defense is. We’ve also had a tendency to make them look like the greatest show on turf the last two years we’ve played them, in spite of their limitations.

We will find out Saturday whether or not those changes against Mizzou are permanent and if they’ll hold up against a better team.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,334
14,789
Founding Member
Yes and no. UGay’s offense isn’t exactly setting the world on fire, but they’re much better up front than our defense is. We’ve also had a tendency to make them look like the greatest show on turf the last two years we’ve played them, in spite of their limitations.

We will find out Saturday whether or not those changes against Mizzou are permanent and if they’ll hold up against a better team.

the doggfuchers aren't as good offensively as the last two years, no doubt. And they haven't been world beaters the last few years either. But Missouri is two different teams home and away. They are garbage away from home so far this season.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.