Brown’s defense

Submitted by Matte Kudasai on
I love playing all man coverage, but if that’s the case should we be playing more corner types and less safeties since Metellus and Kinnel aren’t great cover guys? Would it be crazy to have 4 or 5 corners out there? Lavert, Long, Ambry, St. Juste and Sims?

Mr poonsniffle

January 8th, 2018 at 2:02 PM ^

I would like to see Zordich coach the safeties in addition to the cornerbacks. The cornerbacks have been great in man coverage since he was hired.

I’m willing to bet that Kinnel and Metellus are capable of being good in man coverage if coached properly.

mgobaran

January 8th, 2018 at 2:13 PM ^

10th ranked defense in the country. 
Gary, Hudson, Bush, Hill, Long, Metellus were all 2nd year guys. 

Our defense, Brown's defense, is spectacular. Get lost.

RockinLoud

January 8th, 2018 at 2:23 PM ^

Plus the whole "ZOMG HE ONLY EVER PLAYS MAN ALL THE TIME!!!!" is way over-blown. He plays man the majority of the time yes, but he mixes it up a lot too, playing things that look like man but are zone, hybrid type coverages, and straight up pure zone. Was it OSU? Can't recall which game, but one game he played a ton of his version of Tampa 2, but people just see one play where a safety gets beat on a corner route and go off the deep end with the "MAN ONLY WTF YOU SUCK" stuff.

Frank Chuck

January 8th, 2018 at 3:16 PM ^

(I understand because a family member asked me this same question.)

The backdrop for the question: Our safeties were the weakest part of our defense in 2017. They were often isolated and targeted in coverage.

OP is essentially asking, "Knowing that our safeties struggle in pass coverage, why not substitute a back-up corner like Brandon Watson at safety when possible?"

The general answer is because safeties also have run defense responsibilities and (I suspect) Watson probably wasn't better than Kinnel or Metellus in that aspect.

I dumped the Dope

January 8th, 2018 at 4:11 PM ^

to substitute on obvious passing downs then maybe.

But to put a lightweight CB(s) back there and expect him to step up in run game defense is asking to get someone hurt imo.

I don't pretend to know anything deeper than Master Brown does and so I will step back into my cornfields and let the man do his job.

Watching From Afar

January 8th, 2018 at 4:16 PM ^

It is expected that safeties be capable of covering WRs 1on1 in high level college football. Delano Hill was really good at it, but we've seen Kinnel and Metellus get burned pretty badly multiple times this season, including some balls that were dropped or over thrown.

So while leaving 3 safeties on the field (I'm including Hudson) is the norm, yes it was... annoying(?) when, in obvious passing downs, all 3 of them were left on the field instead of bringing in Thomas and Watson.

Problem is, if you bring in 4 CBs, then your run support will be lacking unless the 3rd and 4th CB are willing to get their noses up in the run game. Plus, you'd take out 1 of the guys whose job it is to get everyone lined up correctly.

So while bringing in another CB could eleviate the pass defense issues, it doesn't solve all of the problems. Getting the safeties to a point where they can cover is the end goal.

XiX

January 8th, 2018 at 5:44 PM ^

And I think the DB recruiting reflects this: tall, rangy guys who can cover to varying degrees but whose "fight" will be discovered and developed in practice. This is to provide the versatility that Coach Brown wants so that the defense isn't dictated to by tempo and personnel packages.

CriticalFan

January 8th, 2018 at 6:17 PM ^

In UFR-speak, Kinnel and Metellus picked up +1s in both run and pass way more often than they got -3s. The latter are just more memorable, but shouldn't cause overreaction. All defenses bust sometimes. /Shrug emoji

WholeMilk

January 8th, 2018 at 8:00 PM ^

And I think our CBs were so good this year that it made the safeties (and maybe McCray) look worse in coverage than they actually are.  Anytime we'd get burned in the passing game it seemed to be Kinnel, Metellus, or McCray, so it gave the impression that they were a weak link in that regard.  

butuka21

January 8th, 2018 at 7:51 PM ^

Defense is fine just like any other defense it can’t carry you forever against quality opponents. You actually need some type of offense and a quarterback that doesn’t like throwing the ball to the other team.

Michigan Philosophy

January 8th, 2018 at 9:41 PM ^

My theory is that we all neg each other so much because the constant pain football season brings has jaded everyone into being the internet equivilent of grumpy old men. This site is also full of people who think they are funny. I often neg people who have a ton of upvotes and upvote people getting negged to death.The mob rule of this site can be funny but it also wears on you. Contrarian viewpoints should be welcomed, not attacked. 

Neversatisfied

January 8th, 2018 at 10:32 PM ^

If our defense ever comes anything close to a defense with no safeties, I fear our run defense will suffer. Man coverage already strains run defense so much that bringing in 5 guys who are 6' 2" 170 lbs sounds pretty sketchy as corners, save for guys like Jourdan Lewis, just aren't the tacklers Kinnel, Woods, Peppers are. Guys like Channing Stribling just didn't strike fear into the hearts of running backs in the open field last year

SunDiegoBlue

January 8th, 2018 at 10:55 PM ^

I thought the more talented you are in football the less you have to rely on gimmicks? Is Coach Browns style more of a gimmick (you do not see it in the NFL and was used at BC known for playing with inferior talent)? Why do have to blitz so much when our front four is full of future Pros?