Great Article on Gary Patterson and the 4-2-5 Defense
Comments
-
This.HFNY said:Ignoring TCU and the Tequilla baggage that comes with them for a moment, it's a great analysis and I hope our DC Pete K. has been chatting with Patterson in the off-season....almost every team U-Dub faces runs HUNH / spreads.
I'm glad this year we have a good secondary that has the talent and smarts to execute this sort of read-option D. Whether the pass-rush makes them not having to cover too long is the big question.
And the part that is very interesting to me for those that aren't very familiar with how Patterson's defense is run is how they break their 11 man defense into 3 different and distinct groups.
When you think about defense in a manner that is designed to cause disruption and confusion for the offense and to capitalize on the opportunities that they are presented, nobody right now does it better than that defense schematically. It's played everything from spread to ground/pound teams and have held up against all styles. Sure, there's going to be examples where the other team out executes, etc. as Baylor has a few times in the last 5 years. And as is pointed out in the articles, when Baylor has beaten TCU in the last 5 years (3 of the 5 games), the margin of the Baylor victories have been one score games. In contrast, when TCU wins they tend to be blowouts. So it's hard to say that Baylor has some kind of scheme that makes them the kryptonite for the TCU defense. It's more that Baylor has one of the best offenses in the country and one of the things that they specialize in (stretching the field) is one of the few areas where you can really attack the TCU defense.
The TCU vs Oklahoma game last year was another great example. Oklahoma hit 2 long passes to set up scores but by taking away the short passes, it turned Oklahoma's offense into only being able to succeed by taking shots down the field. Ultimately, that failed them in the long run. -
Fucking Christ.Tequilla said:
This.HFNY said:Ignoring TCU and the Tequilla baggage that comes with them for a moment, it's a great analysis and I hope our DC Pete K. has been chatting with Patterson in the off-season....almost every team U-Dub faces runs HUNH / spreads.
I'm glad this year we have a good secondary that has the talent and smarts to execute this sort of read-option D. Whether the pass-rush makes them not having to cover too long is the big question.
And the part that is very interesting to me for those that aren't very familiar with how Patterson's defense is run is how they break their 11 man defense into 3 different and distinct groups.
When you think about defense in a manner that is designed to cause disruption and confusion for the offense and to capitalize on the opportunities that they are presented, nobody right now does it better than that defense schematically. It's played everything from spread to ground/pound teams and have held up against all styles. Sure, there's going to be examples where the other team out executes, etc. as Baylor has a few times in the last 5 years. And as is pointed out in the articles, when Baylor has beaten TCU in the last 5 years (3 of the 5 games), the margin of the Baylor victories have been one score games. In contrast, when TCU wins they tend to be blowouts. So it's hard to say that Baylor has some kind of scheme that makes them the kryptonite for the TCU defense. It's more that Baylor has one of the best offenses in the country and one of the things that they specialize in (stretching the field) is one of the few areas where you can really attack the TCU defense.
The TCU vs Oklahoma game last year was another great example. Oklahoma hit 2 long passes to set up scores but by taking away the short passes, it turned Oklahoma's offense into only being able to succeed by taking shots down the field. Ultimately, that failed them in the long run.
You could have stopped with This.
But noooo ...
You just keep going. -
Pretty hard not to geek out over Patterson after reading that article. To me, the most interesting part of the article was explaining how Patterson calls his defense. I've never heard of a defense sending in three different calls. Most coaches call one play or two, one for the front and one for the secondary.
Patterson's philosophy on attacking the no huddle was great too. I've watched Nick Holt, Wilcox, and Pete K call their base defense against the no huddle and while it works against not giving up the big play, it does give up easy chunks of yardage. Most teams just try and survive on defense. They line up and react by what the offense is showing. TCU attacks.
Conventional wisdom puts a huge emphasis on third down defense. Patterson seems to put the largest emphasis on first down defense. A lot of interesting stuff in that article. -
Some of us wanted Patterson instead of Sark. Dodged a bullet we were told when he had a couple bad years joining the Big XII
-
That makes sense though doesn't it? If you want to hurt a no huddle offense, don't let them get into a rhythm, second and long, third and long situations tend to naturally slow them down.RoadDawg55 said:Pretty hard not to geek out over Patterson after reading that article. To me, the most interesting part of the article was explaining how Patterson calls his defense. I've never heard of a defense sending in three different calls. Most coaches call one play or two, one for the front and one for the secondary.
Patterson's philosophy on attacking the no huddle was great too. I've watched Nick Holt, Wilcox, and Pete K call their base defense against the no huddle and while it works against not giving up the big play, it does give up easy chunks of yardage. Most teams just try and survive on defense. They line up and react by what the offense is showing. TCU attacks.
Conventional wisdom puts a huge emphasis on third down defense. Patterson seems to put the largest emphasis on first down defense. A lot of interesting stuff in that article.
Good article frooog. -
Other than the odds of Patterson leaving Ft Worth being somewhere between slim and none ... no question he'd have been a great hire.
I like Petersen a lot ... and there's a lot of similarities between the programs that Patterson and Petersen run. But the amount that I frooog over Patterson would be similar to how most here would doooog over him if he was the UW coach.
For my money, he's a Top 3 coach in college football right now. -
So you're saying he is the best coach not named Saban/Meyer?Tequilla said:Other than the odds of Patterson leaving Ft Worth being somewhere between slim and none ... no question he'd have been a great hire.
I like Petersen a lot ... and there's a lot of similarities between the programs that Patterson and Petersen run. But the amount that I frooog over Patterson would be similar to how most here would doooog over him if he was the UW coach.
For my money, he's a Top 3 coach in college football right now. -
That's correct - definitely on the short list to be considered in the next tier.
Next tier = Patterson, Harbaugh, Miles (although I think he's sliding), Stoops (also think he is sliding), Dantonio. Guys I think you could argue being at that level without much criticism include Malzahn, Bielma, Petersen, Mullen, Fisher, Snyder, and Pinkel. -
I think all that frog spooge has rotted your fucking brain.Tequilla said:That's correct - definitely on the short list to be considered in the next tier.
Next tier = Patterson, Harbaugh, Miles (although I think he's sliding), Stoops (also think he is sliding), Dantonio. Guys I think you could argue being at that level without much criticism include Malzahn, Bielma, Petersen, Mullen, Fisher, Snyder, and Pinkel.
Fisher has a ring ... Snyder and Pinkel have fucking ring-sting.
Patterson is pretty fucking good ... but beat Baylor when it counts, then pop off.
Bielma gets props for being a fucktard with a hot as fuck wife.
Jesus. -
Downvoted for saying that because Fisher has a ring he's a good coach ...
By your logic, Larry Coker and Gene "WAR EAGLE" Chizik are good coaches.
