FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[burly]

Yes, they run the alleys better than any safetys in the league.  But, that is different - the scenario above is against a Wing-T offense.  Against Augie, you will most likely only have one safety and he is the only person on the field playing pass first.  He is also your last man standing.

Not necessarily. it depends on the scheme. I don't know what coverage elmhurst is playing these days but MUC plays a lot of safety support coverage. corners are basically man and safetys are run support. elmhurst has played some of that in past and that usually leads to a lot of tackles from the safety spot.

Fair enough.  But with Augie, these schemes have traditionally included an extra LB not a Safety.  Also, when you have guys like Chris Kern man-to-man at corner, you can afford to let your safetys run wild.

Regardless, beating the Wing-T falls solely upon the discipline and toughness of front 7 (or 8 depending the scheme).   If your safety more than doubles your MLB (or any LB) in tackles, then you've probably given up 470 yards on the ground.

[usee]

Yes, they run the alleys better than any safetys in the league.  But, that is different - the scenario above is against a Wing-T offense.  Against Augie, you will most likely only have one safety and he is the only person on the field playing pass first.  He is also your last man standing.

Not necessarily. it depends on the scheme. I don't know what coverage elmhurst is playing these days but MUC plays a lot of safety support coverage. corners are basically man and safetys are run support. elmhurst has played some of that in past and that usually leads to a lot of tackles from the safety spot.

Fair enough.  But with Augie, these schemes have traditionally included an extra LB not a Safety.  Also, when you have guys like Chris Kern man-to-man at corner, you can afford to let your safetys run wild.

Regardless, beating the Wing-T falls solely upon the discipline and toughness of front 7 (or 8 depending the scheme).   If your safety more than doubles your MLB (or any LB) in tackles, then you've probably given up 470 yards on the ground.

more than double, yes, but equal to, not always. ask mugsy who the leading tacklers were vs augie in the 80s. their scheme asked the safetys to make a lot of tackles near the LOS. they were often the leading tacklers whenever the wingback or tailback carried the ball. In most schemes I would agree that having your free safety as the leading tackler wouldn't be good. Against augie it depends. clearly it wasn't a good thing for elmhurst, which seemed to be your original point.

[burly]

Yes, they run the alleys better than any safetys in the league.  But, that is different - the scenario above is against a Wing-T offense.  Against Augie, you will most likely only have one safety and he is the only person on the field playing pass first.  He is also your last man standing.

Not necessarily. it depends on the scheme. I don't know what coverage elmhurst is playing these days but MUC plays a lot of safety support coverage. corners are basically man and safetys are run support. elmhurst has played some of that in past and that usually leads to a lot of tackles from the safety spot.

Fair enough.  But with Augie, these schemes have traditionally included an extra LB not a Safety.  Also, when you have guys like Chris Kern man-to-man at corner, you can afford to let your safetys run wild.

Regardless, beating the Wing-T falls solely upon the discipline and toughness of front 7 (or 8 depending the scheme).   If your safety more than doubles your MLB (or any LB) in tackles, then you've probably given up 470 yards on the ground.

I would disagree pretty strongly with that. ask mugsy who the leading tacklers were vs augie in the 80s. their scheme asked the safetys to make a lot of tackles near the LOS. they were often the leading tacklers whenever the wingback or tailback carried the ball. In most schemes I would agree that having your free safety as the leading tackler wouldn't be good. Against augie it depends. clearly it wasn't a good thing for elmhurst, which seemed to be your original point.

Just to clarify, you disagree with this, "beating the Wing-T falls solely upon the discipline and toughness of front 7 (or 8 depending the scheme)"?

Mugsy, who were the leading tacklers' vs. Augie in the 80s?

That is my original point, that if your safeties are the leading tacklers, this is not a good thing, but compared to the output of your LBs.  I would also be interested in where on the field these safeties made their tackles.  When coming up to the LOS, in this scheme, it is sometimes to set an edge for an LB who is playing inside out to clean-up, but that's a different point.

If your safeties were the leading tacklers against Augie in the 80s, Wheaton has changed their defensive scheme since the late 90s.  And, it has paid off.  2000-2004 proved to be strong LB performances by Thunder Defensives against the Vikings.

[Mugsy]

Whether he is out or not, corners don't factor in as much against the wing-t offense.  Or at least they shouldn't.  If you corner is leading in tackles against Augie, you are having a long, long day.  Safeties often can have a large number of tackles, but not corners.

Even so, this is an LBs dream game.  If your free safety is making a majority of the tackles, the RB is already 3+ yards pass the LOS and your LBs aren't getting it done.

For example, EC Free Safety last Saturday:

Elmhurst           
## Player          Solo  Ast  Tot  TFL/Yds  FF FR-Yd Intc BrUp Blkd Sack/Yds QH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8  Maple, Kyle       17    9 21.5  0.5/2    .   .     .      .    .      .     .

I completely disagree with this.  In the 4 years I played against Augie and the 5 years I coached at Wheaton, the strong safety lead in tackles in almost every game.  By in large Wheaton had some success in stoping Augie during most of those years - though we couldn't score enough to win.

The defensive scheme called for the safety to align around 7 yards of the line and to play aggressive against the run - QB on option and wing on the double dive.  Some of our safeties during those years were hard-hitting sure tacklers.  Rarely in that scheme did the tackle by the safety occur down field as you suggest.  It is a matter of scheme, which you are make assumptions on how Wheaton aligns or will align.

[Mugsy]

Regardless, beating the Wing-T falls solely upon the discipline and toughness of front 7 (or 8 depending the scheme).   If your safety more than doubles your MLB (or any LB) in tackles, then you've probably given up 470 yards on the ground.

Again I disagree with this because it depends on your scheme.  For some defensive alignments and schemes, yes if you safety is leading in tackles it is quite possible Augie rushed for 470 yards.

I know at least 2 years while I played at Wheaton our SS had over 15 tackles, most at the LOS and Augie rushed for between 260-275 yards - which I might add is quite good against the wing-t.

[burly]

Whether he is out or not, corners don't factor in as much against the wing-t offense.  Or at least they shouldn't.  If you corner is leading in tackles against Augie, you are having a long, long day.  Safeties often can have a large number of tackles, but not corners.

Even so, this is an LBs dream game.  If your free safety is making a majority of the tackles, the RB is already 3+ yards pass the LOS and your LBs aren't getting it done.

For example, EC Free Safety last Saturday:

Elmhurst           
## Player          Solo  Ast  Tot  TFL/Yds  FF FR-Yd Intc BrUp Blkd Sack/Yds QH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8  Maple, Kyle       17    9 21.5  0.5/2    .   .     .      .    .      .     .

I completely disagree with this.  In the 4 years I played against Augie and the 5 years I coached at Wheaton, the strong safety lead in tackles in almost every game.  By in large Wheaton had some success in stoping Augie during most of those years - though we couldn't score enough to win.

The defensive scheme called for the safety to align within 7 yards of the line and to play aggressive against the run - QB on option and wing on the double dive.  Some of our safeties during those years were hard-hitting sure tacklers.  Rarely in that scheme did the tackle by the safety occur down field as you suggest.  It is a matter of scheme, which you are make assumptions on how Wheaton aligns or will align.

Ok, I consider the strong safety to be an LB, especially against Augie where teams usually trade up for an LB.  Also, Kyle Maple from EC is a Free Safety.

[Mugsy]

Mugsy, who were the leading tacklers' vs. Augie in the 80s?

If your safeties were the leading tacklers against Augie in the 80s, Wheaton has changed their defensive scheme since the late 90s.  And, it has paid off.  2000-2004 proved to be strong LB performances by Thunder Defensives against the Vikings.

In 1986 Dale Scales had 22 tackles against Augie, most against the double dive.  This was the 18-17 Augie win on a last second FG after the "infamous" bounce pass on 4th and 17.

In 1988 Paul Thomas had nearly as many tackles when were successful in limiting the Augie attack.

My point is you can't make a blanket statement that if a SS leads the team in tackles, Augie runs wild.  There are a number of schemes that can be applied against the wing-t (often related to stacking the box, which only works if you have stud corners).

Yes, Wheaton has changed their defensive schemes since the late 80's, but you are making another huge assumption.  It isn't necessarily the schemes that have led to the Wheaton victories.  The obvious one is that Augie isn't nearly as good as they were in the 80's.  In addition, Wheaton is much better talent wise then when I played or coached there.  Careful on the sweeping generalizations and assumptions.

[Mugsy]

Ok, I consider the strong safety to be an LB, especially against Augie where teams usually trade up for an LB.  Also, Kyle Maple from EC is a Free Safety.

Call him what you want, but they were our strong safety.  We didn't have an extra LB in the game and he wasn't aligned as tight as a LB.  The safety was still 7-8 yards of the ball.  Our LB's were the standard 4 yards of the LOS.

[burly]

Mugsy, who were the leading tacklers' vs. Augie in the 80s?

If your safeties were the leading tacklers against Augie in the 80s, Wheaton has changed their defensive scheme since the late 90s.  And, it has paid off.  2000-2004 proved to be strong LB performances by Thunder Defensives against the Vikings.

In 1986 Dale Scales had 22 tackles against Augie, most against the double dive.  This was the 18-17 Augie win on a last second FG after the "infamous" bounce pass on 4th and 17.

In 1988 Paul Thomas had nearly as many tackles when were successful in limiting the Augie attack.

My point is you can't make a blanket statement that if a SS leads the team in tackles, Augie runs wild.  There are a number of schemes that can be applied against the wing-t (often related to stacking the box, which only works if you have stud corners).

Yes, Wheaton has changed their defensive schemes since the late 80's, but you are making another huge assumption.  It isn't necessarily the schemes that have led to the Wheaton victories.  The obvious one is that Augie isn't nearly as good as they were in the 80's.  In addition, Wheaton is much better talent wise then when I played or coached there.  Careful on the sweeping generalizations and assumptions.

What about a blanket statement such as, if your Free Safety leads the team in tackles - Augie runs wild?

[burly]

Mugsy, who were the leading tacklers' vs. Augie in the 80s?

If your safeties were the leading tacklers against Augie in the 80s, Wheaton has changed their defensive scheme since the late 90s.  And, it has paid off.  2000-2004 proved to be strong LB performances by Thunder Defensives against the Vikings.

In 1986 Dale Scales had 22 tackles against Augie, most against the double dive.  This was the 18-17 Augie win on a last second FG after the "infamous" bounce pass on 4th and 17.

In 1988 Paul Thomas had nearly as many tackles when were successful in limiting the Augie attack.

My point is you can't make a blanket statement that if a SS leads the team in tackles, Augie runs wild.  There are a number of schemes that can be applied against the wing-t (often related to stacking the box, which only works if you have stud corners).

Yes, Wheaton has changed their defensive schemes since the late 80's, but you are making another huge assumption.  It isn't necessarily the schemes that have led to the Wheaton victories.  The obvious one is that Augie isn't nearly as good as they were in the 80's.  In addition, Wheaton is much better talent wise then when I played or coached there.  Careful on the sweeping generalizations and assumptions.

I wouldn't argue against this. 

Augie loves to run to the strong side of their formation and if they can get unbalanced and run that direction (without you knowing) then that is even better.  Your SS Safety should be in the heart of these plays and thererfore, make a number of tackles.

[devildog29]

Whether he is out or not, corners don't factor in as much against the wing-t offense.  Or at least they shouldn't.  If you corner is leading in tackles against Augie, you are having a long, long day.  Safeties often can have a large number of tackles, but not corners.

Even so, this is an LBs dream game.  If your free safety is making a majority of the tackles, the RB is already 3+ yards pass the LOS and your LBs aren't getting it done.

For example, EC Free Safety last Saturday:

Elmhurst           
## Player          Solo  Ast  Tot  TFL/Yds  FF FR-Yd Intc BrUp Blkd Sack/Yds QH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8  Maple, Kyle       17    9 21.5  0.5/2    .   .     .      .    .      .     .

I completely disagree with this.  In the 4 years I played against Augie and the 5 years I coached at Wheaton, the strong safety lead in tackles in almost every game.  By in large Wheaton had some success in stoping Augie during most of those years - though we couldn't score enough to win.

The defensive scheme called for the safety to align around 7 yards of the line and to play aggressive against the run - QB on option and wing on the double dive.  Some of our safeties during those years were hard-hitting sure tacklers.  Rarely in that scheme did the tackle by the safety occur down field as you suggest.  It is a matter of scheme, which you are make assumptions on how Wheaton aligns or will align.

Mugsy, you are exactly right.  It totally depends on the team's particular defensive scheme.  At IWU, similar to how you describe above, our scheme was to attack the LOS with the front 7 and the safeties, both SS and FS.  Our corners were more responsible for pass first, then support the run, while the safeties almost supported the run first, then the pass.  Like you say, if wing backs or tailbacks were carrying the ball outside the tackles, we often had safeties flying up to make tackles behind the LOS.  It was an easy read for the safeties, and if those safeties are quick enough, those outside run plays take long enough to develop that they can have a field day making tackles.

[Mugsy]

What about a blanket statement such as, if your Free Safety leads the team in tackles - Augie runs wild?

Huh?  Where did I say that?

I mean, yes it is in my post, but it was in reference to what you've been implying all night.  You took that far to literally.  I was trying (obviously not successfully) to make my point about your generalization.  Something to the affect that if the safety has the most tackles against Augie, the LB's aren't getting it done and Augie probably had 470 yards rushing.

If your free safety is making a majority of the tackles, the RB is already 3+ yards pass the LOS and your LBs aren't getting it done.

It was basically the overall premise you were arguing. 

Note I'm not disagreeing that based on how Elmhurst lined up against Augie, it was a really bad indicator that the Elmhurst FS had a ton of tackles.  I was merely trying to show that is not always the case.

[burly]

If your free safety is making a majority of the tackles, the RB is already 3+ yards pass the LOS and your LBs aren't getting it done.

It was basically the overall premise you were arguing. 

Note I'm not disagreeing that based on how Elmhurst lined up against Augie, it was a really bad indicator that the Elmhurst FS had a ton of tackles.  I was merely trying to show that is not always the case.

That was my only point in all this - based on how Elmhurst was lined up against Augie, it was a really bad indicator that the Elmhurst FS had a ton of tackles.

I'm agree with you on the SS points.

Maybe, future post patterns will have dial-in numbers so we can discuss this over teleconferencing.  In the meantime, I'll work on clarifying my points.

[Mugsy]

That was my only point in all this - based on how Elmhurst was lined up against Augie, it was a really bad indicator that the Elmhurst FS had a ton of tackles.

I'm agree with you on the SS points.

Maybe, future post patterns will have dial-in numbers so we can discuss this over teleconferencing.  In the meantime, I'll work on clarifying my points.

Yes, if you had kept your argument focused on this past weekends game between Augie and Elmhurst and that based on the defensive scheme they were using, it was a bad indicator that the safety has the most tackles, then the last 2 pages of posts probably would have been avoided.

That said communication is two way.  I apparently didn't argue my point very well either.

[burly]

That was my only point in all this - based on how Elmhurst was lined up against Augie, it was a really bad indicator that the Elmhurst FS had a ton of tackles.

I'm agree with you on the SS points.

Maybe, future post patterns will have dial-in numbers so we can discuss this over teleconferencing.  In the meantime, I'll work on clarifying my points.

Yes, if you had kept your argument focused on this past weekends game between Augie and Elmhurst and that based on the defensive scheme they were using, it was a bad indicator that the safety has the most tackles, then the last 2 pages of posts probably would have been avoided.

That said communication is two way.  I apparently didn't argue my point very well either.

You're a good man Charlie Brown. 

So, moving forward.  Lets hear it - thoughts on this weekend.  Augie vs. Wheaton...