FB: Empire 8

[theoriginalupstate]

Not to belabor this further, but

...if I didn't belabor things I'd have nothing to say on this message board.

Frank belabor things?

Unheard of!

You made me an adjective for a reason...

Can't argue with that...

+K

[Jonny Utah]

But, IC's offense is designed to average at least 17-21 points a game.  

So that's why Fisher has been kicking the crap out of them lately...

Might want to send Coach Welch a memo to design an offense that scores more than Fisher...

We used to have those. But at least we never lost to Norwich

Curry...

26-21...

I'll just leave it at that...

Oh, a 'Dem Spicy Boys burn!  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-09-08-collegedestinationsONLINE_ST_N.htm

Anyone see Pittsford on this list? Me either

Rochester was listed as a "mid-size metro" and Ithaca was at the top of the list for "small college towns." If Ithaca is a "small college town," what the heck is Alfred?

[Jonny Utah]

I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that Union's RB Chris (Cooley dlip?) Coney is a huge reason why the Bombers when back to the 3-4 defense. 

So is this the second time a Union running back forced Ithaca to change its entire defense?

[theoriginalupstate]

I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that Union's RB Chris (Cooley dlip?) Coney is a huge reason why the Bombers when back to the 3-4 defense. 

So is this the second time a Union running back forced Ithaca to change its entire defense?

Yeah i sincerely doubt IC changed it's entire defense for Union of all teams...

[Jonny Utah]

I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that Union's RB Chris (Cooley dlip?) Coney is a huge reason why the Bombers when back to the 3-4 defense. 

So is this the second time a Union running back forced Ithaca to change its entire defense?

Yeah i sincerely doubt IC changed it's entire defense for Union of all teams...

Maybe not this year, but in 2005 Union kind of exposed Ithacas contain linebackers as very poor tacklers.  Well I should say a good running back exposed them.  Sometimes teams are better off playing a 3-4 though.  If you have one stud Noseguard while the other dlinemen might be on the small side, the 3-4 is a great defense.  It also gives you an extra line backer to the left or right.  For teams that don't have 3 top notch LBs that can cover the whole field, the 3-4 defense is also great.

[theoriginalupstate]

I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that Union's RB Chris (Cooley dlip?) Coney is a huge reason why the Bombers when back to the 3-4 defense. 

So is this the second time a Union running back forced Ithaca to change its entire defense?

Yeah i sincerely doubt IC changed it's entire defense for Union of all teams...

Maybe not this year, but in 2005 Union kind of exposed Ithacas contain linebackers as very poor tacklers.  Well I should say a good running back exposed them.  Sometimes teams are better off playing a 3-4 though.  If you have one stud Noseguard while the other dlinemen might be on the small side, the 3-4 is a great defense.  It also gives you an extra line backer to the left or right.  For teams that don't have 3 top notch LBs that can cover the whole field, the 3-4 defense is also great.

I get what you're saying but Rock made it sound like Union's RB was the switch...

[Frank Rossi]

I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that Union's RB Chris (Cooley dlip?) Coney is a huge reason why the Bombers when back to the 3-4 defense. 

So is this the second time a Union running back forced Ithaca to change its entire defense?

Yeah i sincerely doubt IC changed it's entire defense for Union of all teams...

I was always of a mindset that a 3-4 defense isn't a great run defense for stopping first downs.  You're generally conceding 3- or 4-yard gains because of the lack of manpower up front.  That's enough for first down if a team is hellbent on establishing a run.  At least the 4-3 stacks the front of the box in a way to prevent (in some cases at least) the real establishment of the run.  I think the 3-4 is better suited for a passing offense since a linebacker can drop into coverage once the QB drops back to pass.  So, putting yourself into a 3-4 defense to stop Coney doesn't make much sense to me.

[theoriginalupstate]

The 3-4 only works if you have 3 stud Defensive lineman that can each control 2 gaps...

If not, you're in for a long day because the gaps that will be created from any one of those 3 will be huge...

[Jonny Utah]

I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that Union's RB Chris (Cooley dlip?) Coney is a huge reason why the Bombers when back to the 3-4 defense.

So is this the second time a Union running back forced Ithaca to change its entire defense?

Yeah i sincerely doubt IC changed it's entire defense for Union of all teams...

I was always of a mindset that a 3-4 defense isn't a great run defense for stopping first downs.  You're generally conceding 3- or 4-yard gains because of the lack of manpower up front.  That's enough for first down if a team is hellbent on establishing a run.  At least the 4-3 stacks the front of the box in a way to prevent (in some cases at least) the real establishment of the run.  I think the 3-4 is better suited for a passing offense since a linebacker can drop into coverage once the QB drops back to pass.  So, putting yourself into a 3-4 defense to stop Coney doesn't make much sense to me.

If run right, the 3-4 gives you 5 players that can focus on the inside run.  3 defensive linemen and 2 linebackers that can focus on solely inside runs and don't have to worry about contain.  The 4-3 you need two outside backers that can play contain and help out on the inside runs.  That is one of the toughest positions to play in football in my opinion (I played an OLB at Ithaca in the 3-4 when I started)  On the other hand, you still have to worry about those off tackle runs in the 3-4.  I guess the 3-4 all depends on how you want your OLBs/DE's to play.  You can have them be big strong pass rushers with easy contain responsibilities without quick coverages in the flat, or have some quick linebacker types that can get to the ball quick and tackle well, but might get pushed around.

I think the 4-3 defense is better if you can do it, but the 3-4 is a little more flexible and you can hide your weak spots a little better.

Edit again:  The 4-3 can actually give you 7 guys that can focus on the inside run, but the OLBs always have to worry about contain and/or pass coverage at the same time.

[sjfcards]

But, IC's offense is designed to average at least 17-21 points a game. 

So that's why Fisher has been kicking the crap out of them lately...

Might want to send Coach Welch a memo to design an offense that scores more than Fisher...

We used to have those. But at least we never lost to Norwich

Curry...

26-21...

I'll just leave it at that...

Oh, a 'Dem Spicy Boys burn! 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-09-08-collegedestinationsONLINE_ST_N.htm

Anyone see Pittsford on this list? Me either

Having lived near Ithaca all my life, except for my time at Fisher, and a brief stint out west, I would say IC does a great job recruiting in spite of the city of Ithaca, not because of the city of Ithaca.

[fisheralum91]

You boy s disappointed me...missing a perfectly done dirty Johnny joke...
Shame shame

[XREDDRAGON77]

In a nutshell.....the 3-4 is a solid defense for playing medium to long yardage downs v a spread offense.  Even with a 7 man box, you can bump your outside guys to defend your slots/hook to curl with two safeties stiiting high.  You can roll a $ up to get an 8 man box (3-5) with 3 deep.  You can keep an 8 man box if you walk your outside lb up to close down a TE and roll the $ up to his vacated spot (4-4). Its strength lies in its flexibility as long as you have the right combination of guys on the field.  

In short yardage....as noted above, you sacrifice a stud on the line for a semi skilled Lb.  Of cource you can put him on the LOS but would you rather have a true D-lineman in the game or an average LB plyaing up?  In contrast, in a medium to long yard scenario.....would you rather have an extra d lineman on the field, or semi skill player who can play in space against a receiver?

[Touch The Rock]

What I'm saying is that Coney ripped up IC last year. It definitely showed a weakness. Just like in 2007 (I think that's right) hartwick exploited the cushion IC gave for the 10 yd out route. So, its not so much that they changed to stop Coney, rather he exploited a possible weakness and this change should help fix said weakness. But I guess we'll see this weekend

[AUPepBand]

One time one of Alex Yunevich's rookie players was awestruck by the number of players that the University of Buffalo suited up for a game against the Saxons.

"Wow, Coach, did you see how many players they have over there?" the rookie queried.

"Don't you worry about them," said the wise old coach, "They can only put 11 of them on the field at one time--same as us!"

Whether it's a 3-4 or a 4-3, any way you look at it, it's always up to the 11 players on the field to do their jobs.

On Saxon Warriors!

[Frank Rossi]

What I'm saying is that Coney ripped up IC last year. It definitely showed a weakness. Just like in 2007 (I think that's right) hartwick exploited the cushion IC gave for the 10 yd out route. So, its not so much that they changed to stop Coney, rather he exploited a possible weakness and this change should help fix said weakness. But I guess we'll see this weekend

That ignores the addition of a quality second receiver and potentially a decent catching Tight End this year -- that's why I'd find a wholesale change of defense questionable.  If you have four real threats on the field at any given time, then the defense is always going to be taking gambles -- you can't easily cover all four no matter how many you have stacked in the box and in what order they are there.  As a Union fan, I'd almost invite the 3-4 to be played because it will establish the run game for sufficient yardage such that Union will retain possessions, shorten the game and make it tough on Ithaca to gain momentum in the game.  That's at least my take on this.