Mean Green Gridiron South Alabama Preview Podcast

[BillySee58]

Youtube Link:

https://youtu.be/mQuqB67x6WA

Audio Only Link:

https://sites.libsyn.com/482808/mean-green-gridiron-2024-episode-2-south-alabama

@WanderingEagle and I preview the much anticipated week one matchup.

 

 

Edited August 28 by BillySee58

[cousin oliver]

7 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

Youtube Link:

https://youtu.be/mQuqB67x6WA

Audio Only Link:

https://sites.libsyn.com/482808/mean-green-gridiron-2024-episode-2-south-alabama

@WanderingEagle and I preview the much anticipated week one matchup.

 

 

Listening to this during work today!  Not easy to project on the game with all the new faces.  Appreciate your work for us on this.

[BillySee58]

3 hours ago, cousin oliver said:

Listening to this during work today!  Not easy to project on the game with all the new faces.  Appreciate your work for us on this.

Thanks! Yes, looking forward to seeing these guys for real on Saturday.

[aztecskin]

BIlly hit on the thing I've been thinking about re: the defense -- generating negative plays and getting turnovers. I will disagree a little in that this defensive scheme does have some plans for generating negative plays -- mostly with stunts and pressures.

There was a lot of good defensively in every game. Even the Cal one. Lot of near-negative plays, but a QB/RB would slip a tackle, or a guy would be in slow to close a gap, or this or that. I hope -- and believe -- those will be fewer and more far between. 

I also liked the coverage. Logan Wilson, Phil Hill, were good. We got big stops when needed them vs Tulane, Memphis (before we didn't) and others. You have to squint and look beyond the glaring, blinding statistics. I think we die-hards are the only ones wiling to do that, though haha. 

[meanrob]

2 hours ago, aztecskin said:

BIlly hit on the thing I've been thinking about re: the defense -- generating negative plays and getting turnovers. I will disagree a little in that this defensive scheme does have some plans for generating negative plays -- mostly with stunts and pressures.

There was a lot of good defensively in every game. Even the Cal one. Lot of near-negative plays, but a QB/RB would slip a tackle, or a guy would be in slow to close a gap, or this or that. I hope -- and believe -- those will be fewer and more far between. 

I also liked the coverage. Logan Wilson, Phil Hill, were good. We got big stops when needed them vs Tulane, Memphis (before we didn't) and others. You have to squint and look beyond the glaring, blinding statistics. I think we die-hards are the only ones wiling to do that, though haha. 

We were 121st in stopping third downs, that can't happen. 

We were 102nd in red zone defense (rushing TDs in the red zone killed us although we have some strange company down with us).

NT has to get off the field more often and force field goals. Can't just have plays here and there. Sorry to pick on one position but the LBs have to make plays at or near the LOS. 

[BillySee58]

1 hour ago, aztecskin said:

BIlly hit on the thing I've been thinking about re: the defense -- generating negative plays and getting turnovers. I will disagree a little in that this defensive scheme does have some plans for generating negative plays -- mostly with stunts and pressures.

There was a lot of good defensively in every game. Even the Cal one. Lot of near-negative plays, but a QB/RB would slip a tackle, or a guy would be in slow to close a gap, or this or that. I hope -- and believe -- those will be fewer and more far between. 

I also liked the coverage. Logan Wilson, Phil Hill, were good. We got big stops when needed them vs Tulane, Memphis (before we didn't) and others. You have to squint and look beyond the glaring, blinding statistics. I think we die-hards are the only ones wiling to do that, though haha. 

Thank you. I tried to amend my statement a little after where I meant more that our defense probably won’t specialize in creating third and longs through a bunch of short yardage, 1-2 yard runs.

Maybe it will, but I generally think getting a sack or TFL on 1st/2nd down with more frequency is what needs to happen to give us a better success rate on 3rd down this season.

[aztecskin]

12 minutes ago, BillySee58 said:

Thank you. I tried to amend my statement a little after where I meant more that our defense probably won’t specialize in creating third and longs through a bunch of short yardage, 1-2 yard runs.

Maybe it will, but I generally think getting a sack or TFL on 1st/2nd down with more frequency is what needs to happen to give us a better success rate on 3rd down this season.

yeah I understood. I think we understand the idea behind it the scheme is more of a bend-but-don't-break thing with some calculated pressures. They just absolutely need to tackle better in those spots where they didn't last year, and make plays when they have them in the backfield (so many near misses from Mazin Richards, et al) 

 

[BillySee58]

16 minutes ago, aztecskin said:

yeah I understood. I think we understand the idea behind it the scheme is more of a bend-but-don't-break thing with some calculated pressures. They just absolutely need to tackle better in those spots where they didn't last year, and make plays when they have them in the backfield (so many near misses from Mazin Richards, et al) 

 

Yup. Ethan Wesloski had a good quote in one of the media availability sessions where he said defense is all about knowing where your help is at and that they are better there this year. Hoping that leads to situations where even if there is a missed tackle, it’s missed in a less vulnerable direction for the help defenders. But yes, please less near misses.