Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So in one of the other threads, CW mentioned his irritation at misused military terms in articles. Basically, the idea is that the stories had to stand up to someone with a higher level of expertise, which it probably should.

This got me thinking about football.

I'm kind of a dork. In my free time, I try to consume technical football stuff. At one point in the past month, I watched 90 minutes of receiver clinic. They ran like 2-3 actual different routes. Everything was about where to place one's hands to get space (also if it's an out-breaking route, look in right at the break to throw DBs). I'm in the middle of something about Oregon's outside zone scheme and the finer points of the flow of it. 

(Football is also weird because it's a sport we literally can't see the whole picture of unless we're in the building and have a good eye for it. Quality replays we can analyze are few and far between)

And I found it interesting because huge portions of football writing don't touch on this. Like I'm sure football coaches often scoff at some of the things that are written, both by reporters and fans. But what's interesting is that fans, by and large, not only don't care, but much of the time the tone of fans carries farther away from the technical stuff and farther into the more juicy faux-controversial stuff. This in turn lends credence to writers who ... don't exactly stoke that controversy, but slide in with the fan flow.  

A few examples. Badger fans swore and still swear that Chryst ran outside too much and threw too much in the TCU Rose Bowl. But if you go back and watch knowing the runs UW uses, it's kind of a normal gameplan. They mix in a few but not too many passes on run downs, they ran a normal blend of the three run schemes they had. They just lost at enough small junctures, had enough miscues and messed up field position enough to blow the game. 

Another would be the early Michigan offense in 2018. There was all this lamenting it was just run-run-pass and not enough complexity. And then if you watch, it was a really diverse scheme, just not a well-run one. To hear the commentary, they were going 22 personnel and running iso to one side. 

But the lamentations were more interesting. They settled into narratives. They made the sport more fascinating in its way. In essence, the not knowing the expertise prevents things from being mundane. 

I don't know what it tells us about us. This place is obviously better than a lot of homer boards. But I thought it was interesting that often the expertise becomes not only something that's not paid attention to, but something that takes away from the juicy stuff we might dig into. 

the O-coordinator has no chance with the fans

if the play is not executed and fails, it was a bad call

most fans don't have the same idea of defensive play calling and therefore the D-coordinator is just criticized for having a bad scheme and not playcalling

As an amateur film nerd, defensive structuring is still a mess to figure out. And you see even less of it than the offense. 

Defenses all look the same to me.  Yes, we all see at times a safety shading the line and expecting a blitz, etc.  But the defensive lineup 8 seconds before the snap all look to me like a 4-3-4, even the 3-4 usually has four guys down.  The "prevent" looks different, sure.  I guess the nickel and dime packages substitute lighter players, but they line up the same, it seems to me.

I spend some time in games I don't care who wins looking at the D almost entirely.  I'm not nerdy enough.

Is the 3-4 really a 3-4?  UGA runs it and they often have 5 in the middle LOS, I know the two outer guys are LBs, and often one will drop and one will rush, so maybe the 3-4 is often a 5-2 personnel aside.  Maybe the way to track this is the average weight of the defenders on the field rather than where they line up.

That would be a neat running stat.  I wonder how much it would vary for one team.

Yeah, the 3-4 often becomes a 5-2, on certain downs.  And there's those times teams only rush 2 guys, which I probably would never do.

How confusing a defense is rests largely with how well certain players know the scheme.  You don't want a guy out of position if he's not entirely sure where he needs to head (and quickly) as the ball is being snapped.  But for guys with a good grasp on things, they're the LBs and Safeties who are moving around pre-snap, messing with the QB.  

I'd like to learn more about the 3-3-5, as I never really experienced it.  I'd be terrified of getting gashed by the run game, but I'm sure there are aspects to it that combat that.

And TCU's goal of funneling running plays to the outside instead of the inside is a different idea.  

Anyway, whether on offense or defense, step 1 should be using a few plays/formations perfectly before worrying about variety and deception.  

Defense is hard because once you want to implement even rudimentary zone schemes, players suck at understanding territory and that they're covering a guy once he's in their territory and they're releasing him once he leaves. 

They tend to either get lost looking at the QB, react too late to a guy entering his space, or staying with him far too long.

That, and if you have d-linemen who want to make plays instead of doing their job.  That's a biggie, too.

I'm not astute enough to understand defense.  I like when Todd Blackledge is doing color, he says stuff that educates me.  I'm surprised there isn't a show on ESPN 23 that delves into the intricacies of CFB and replays certain plays to show what is happening.

SEC N has mostly burfle, Finebaum is mostly unwatchable.  I would watch Blackledge dissect various schemes and plays for hours on end.

Oddly, Tony Romo is a really good commentator for NFL broadcasts. I never would have thought that would be the case. 

Give Todd Blackledge an hour show and I would save time to watch it.