Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CU Defensive Front Seven Alignment

ScottyBuff

ScottyBuff

Well-Known Member
With the roster moves and recruiting that have happened over the past two seasons, and the hiring of Jim Leavitt; Coach MM certainly has tipped his hand that the base defense will be revised going forward.

I've spent some time researching the coaching style and formations and applying each player's individual skill sets to where they would best fit and here is my best attempt at what the D will look like (exact position names are not known exactly yet):

SLB
SDE
NT
UT
WDE
MLB
WLB
J. Gilbert
S. Kafovalu
J. Tupou
L. Jackson
D. McCartney
A. Gillam
K. Olugbode
G. Frazier
J. Carrell
J. Solis
C. Norgard
D. Wilson
R. Severson
D. Rippy
T. Hasselbach
J. Franke
E. Lopez
N. Robbins
M. Reid
R. Gamboa
T. Talianko
L. Cottrell
M. Matthewes
F. Umu
T. Henington
C. Bounds
C. Shaver
J. Awini
N.J. Falo
B. Tonz
L. Tuiloma
T. Coleman
S. Bennion
G. Watanabe
H. Shaw
S. Berry

Couple of thoughts: the SLB needs to be the most versatile player (pass rush/rush defense/coverage), It is the "hybrid DE/LB" position; think Von Miller role. Gilbert has the necessary athleticism and played that role in HS, same for Hasselbach, Cottrell, and Falo.

The SDE is a "big" DE, much like Derek Wolfe or even Haloti Ngata; they play in the 3 gap and command a double-team from OT-OG and primarily are run-stoppers, but need to be able to penetrate if the O-line shifts and present single coverage. Kafovalu is excellent at this role and Carrell seems to fit that mold as well. Franke and Matthews seem to have the build and ability to play this spot. I put Tonz here as he is a "tweener" DE/DT type at this point; Tuiloma could also fit here at this stage in his career.

The NT is a role everyone is familiar with; command double teams and stuff the run. I moved Solis around a lot as he could fit the SDE position very well, but our lack of nose tackle bodies meant that I ended up putting him here. Lopez and Umu seem tailor made to be NT.

The Under tackle spot is the "Warren Sapp" position. A big body (but doesn't have to be typically DT size), who takes on single guard coverage and penetrates the O-line. Leo Jackson mostly played against tackles in JuCo but he is definitely a penetrating d-lineman, Norgard, Henington, and Coleman fit this role and I believe that Robbins does as well, but he could also fit the SDE spot.

The WDE is the true "rush" player, think Terrell Suggs or DeMarcus Ware. McCartney is certainly that player for us and I believe that is Wilson, Shaver, and Reid's best position. Bennion played there in HS, but who knows what his size will be in 2016 when he joins the team.

The Mike and Will LB spots are the same as last year, but the lack of depth at LB doesn't hurt us as bad with only 2 positions. Certainly we need some LB in the next recruiting cycle as 5 of the players are juniors; but the 3 deep should be sufficient for us in 2015.
 
Last edited:
If Kafovalu is back at full strength this will work, because Carrell gives us veteran depth there. If he isn't, and we have to rely on underclassmen, this D alignment doesn't look as threatening. However, I do like how, on paper, this appears to give us a very good chance of being versatile and aggressive in our defensive play calling.
 
Thanks for this. It is going to take a bit for players to grow in to the roles. There are too many names on that list I basically don't even recognize (8-10 or so). Is it me, or are that many of them "under the radar" recruits?

Only other comment is that it seemed like Umu was destined for the OL - are folks projecting him as DL or OL?
 
It is refreshing to see depth on the DL. We went through so many years with depleted resources - I appreciate HCMM's commitment to the DL and knowing how important it is to success. Good analysis, Scotty. Rep.
 
Highlander said:
Thanks for this. It is going to take a bit for players to grow in to the roles. There are too many names on that list I basically don't even recognize (8-10 or so). Is it me, or are that many of them "under the radar" recruits?

Only other comment is that it seemed like Umu was destined for the OL - are folks projecting him as DL or OL?
Click to expand...

Umu is projected for the DL. 100%

A fair amount of new names because some redshirted, some aren't here yet, and some are walkons that are listed.
 
Would like to see what the weight of some of these guys is now.
Gamboa generally was not a well-conditioned athlete in High School
Talianko, Severson, Olugbode, Rippy are just the LBs that have been undersized. I don't see Severson as a MLB in any system.
 
So all our defense needs is Von Miller, Haloti Ngata, Warren Sapp and Terell Suggs to be successful?
 
Last edited:
The numbers at LB look ok, but the names don't. Past Gillam and KO (who I am not sold on yet) not much there. Really need Watanabe or Gamboa to be ready, and Rippy to step up.

Good stuff Scotty.
 
Buffnik said:
I also think Evan White is going to grow into a LB.
Click to expand...

I could definitely see White and Laguda transitioning into athletic LBs. They'll both need to put on a 20-30 lbs in the 5-2/3-4, though. That's why I'm a proponent of the 3-3-5. Allows the D to have 3 traditional LBs and 2 hybrid LB/S that can be extremely versatile. I also like the single high S, Cover 3 scheme that is typically used in the 3-3-5.
 
If Samson isn't ready to go, then I think Solis becomes the SDE starter. Carrell gives us depth and rotational duty. Those two underclassmen: Franke and Matthewes shouldn't be overlooked though. By all accounts Franke was really pushing the starters even last spring/fall.
 
buffaholic said:
Would like to see what the weight of some of these guys is now.
Gamboa generally was not a well-conditioned athlete in High School
Talianko, Severson, Olugbode, Rippy are just the LBs that have been undersized. I don't see Severson as a MLB in any system.
Click to expand...

Agree on Severson, he should be WLB if anywhere here; but that is where he was listed at end of last season. I would like to see Frazier see some Mike LB time rather than at DE; I liked him at MLB coming out of HS.
 
TSchekler said:
I could definitely see White and Laguda transitioning into athletic LBs. They'll both need to put on a 20-30 lbs in the 5-2/3-4, though. That's why I'm a proponent of the 3-3-5. Allows the D to have 3 traditional LBs and 2 hybrid LB/S that can be extremely versatile. I also like the single high S, Cover 3 scheme that is typically used in the 3-3-5.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is that it exposes our main weakness on defense: SPEED. Our secondary and linebackers can't cover WR/TE/RB in the PAC-12 and a lack of pass-rush from a 3 man line only gives the other team more time to throw.

The best defense we can implement is one that brings the most pressure on the opposing backfield to minimize the time they have to use their speed against us. I think this is exactly what MM and staff have been recruiting for and exactly the type of defense that Leavitt has operated in the past.
 
I also forgot to mention Chris Bounds, who could factor in here as well. He is big body who played DE and TE in HS. His game tape suggests more of a run-stuffer rather than a penetrating D-lineman; so I would put him in the SDE column unless he can cover (a good possibility if he is athletic enough to play TE) which might put him into the SLB position.
 
ScottyBuff said:
I also forgot to mention Chris Bounds, who could factor in here as well. He is big body who played DE and TE in HS. His game tape suggests more of a run-stuffer rather than a penetrating D-lineman; so I would put him in the SDE column unless he can cover (a good possibility if he is athletic enough to play TE) which might put him into the SLB position.
Click to expand...

Bounds has project written all over him. If he plays this year, we're in trouble.
 
Hope Falo comes in and surprises. Seems to be one of the true frosh that might play and make an impact.
 
89BUFF89 said:
Hope Falo comes in and surprises. Seems to be one of the true frosh that might play and make an impact.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, he could easily be the #2 at that position; not a knock on Hasselbach or Cottrell but he really does fit that role perfectly. I could see him getting into the rotation throughout the season and making his presence felt.
 
ScottyBuff said:
The only problem with that is that it exposes our main weakness on defense: SPEED. Our secondary and linebackers can't cover WR/TE/RB in the PAC-12 and a lack of pass-rush from a 3 man line only gives the other team more time to throw.

The best defense we can implement is one that brings the most pressure on the opposing backfield to minimize the time they have to use their speed against us. I think this is exactly what MM and staff have been recruiting for and exactly the type of defense that Leavitt has operated in the past.
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the goals of this defense is to get more speed on the field and was designed, early on, to stop the emerging spread offenses. You remove a DL (in your standard 4-3 alignment) and add a large, athletic DB to the field, so the speed on the field isn't the issue. The issue with this defense is you have to have the athlete at the single high safety to cover A LOT of ground (think Earl Thomas with Seattle) and the two hybrid players have to be your most versatile guys that are fast, physical and great tacklers.

As far as the pass rush goes, typically in the 3-3-5, you're always rushing 4 with the 3 DL and one of the LBs (usually predicated on the strength call, pre-snap), unless called otherwise. This makes it inherently tough for an offense to know who's coming and who's dropping. It then gives the DC a multitude of blitzing options with anyone (other than the CBs, usually) on the field, without having to move guys around.

The basic concepts of the 3-3-5 are very easy to learn, and can be implemented and played at a very high level with minimal thinking. My experience coaching it at the high school level was phenomenal and would love to see a variation (albeit a more intricate version) of it used in Boulder.
 
TSchekler said:
Actually, one of the goals of this defense is to get more speed on the field and was designed, early on, to stop the emerging spread offenses. You remove a DL (in your standard 4-3 alignment) and add a large, athletic DB to the field, so the speed on the field isn't the issue. The issue with this defense is you have to have the athlete at the single high safety to cover A LOT of ground (think Earl Thomas with Seattle) and the two hybrid players have to be your most versatile guys that are fast, physical and great tacklers.

As far as the pass rush goes, typically in the 3-3-5, you're always rushing 4 with the 3 DL and one of the LBs (usually predicated on the strength call, pre-snap), unless called otherwise. This makes it inherently tough for an offense to know who's coming and who's dropping. It then gives the DC a multitude of blitzing options with anyone (other than the CBs, usually) on the field, without having to move guys around.

The basic concepts of the 3-3-5 are very easy to learn, and can be implemented and played at a very high level with minimal thinking. My experience coaching it at the high school level was phenomenal and would love to see a variation (albeit a more intricate version) of it used in Boulder.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get the defense I just don't think there is anyway that we have the size on the DL, nor the speed/talent at LB to run anything effective in a 3-3-5. You would have to transition too many natural DE types to OLB and ask too much of an undersized DT/DE group to be effective. we couldn't stop the run effectively with a 4-2 nickel alignment that we were forced to use last year, much less with 3-3 in the box. We really don't have enough OLB talent to read/react for that defense; let alone the speed at LB to accomplish that D.

The 3-4 Under alignment that has been inferred we will run (and is outlined in the original table) is much more suitable to our players right now, IMO.
 
ScottyBuff said:
Oh, I get the defense I just don't think there is anyway that we have the size on the DL, nor the speed/talent at LB to run anything effective in a 3-3-5. You would have to transition too many natural DE types to OLB and ask too much of an undersized DT/DE group to be effective. we couldn't stop the run effectively with a 4-2 nickel alignment that we were forced to use last year, much less with 3-3 in the box. We really don't have enough OLB talent to read/react for that defense; let alone the speed at LB to accomplish that D.

The 3-4 Under alignment that has been inferred we will run (and is outlined in the original table) is much more suitable to our players right now, IMO.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the 3-4 Under alignment be predicated on the same 3 man DL that the 3-3-5 uses, as well as converting DEs to stand up, pass rush OLBs, who occasionally have to play in coverage? I think these two defenses are very similar in nature but the 3-3-5, IMO, would remove one player in a position of weakness (LB) from the field and add a player from a position of relative strength (DB).

As far as stopping the run goes, each of the "front 6" players are responsible for one of the 6 gaps. I think this sort of defense works so much better against the Read Option than the 4 man DL we used last year, as you add an extra guy in the front 6 that is tasked with stopping the run that is able to read and react from the LB spot, instead of a DL position. It also allows those two outside hybrids to force everything back in, instead of relying on your less athletic OLBs and DEs keeping contain.

That's just my two cents, and I'm not fully aware of the skill set of each one of the defensive players on the CU roster, like some people are. I just like the 3-3-5 better from a schematic POV. Thanks for the conversation, though!
 
Last edited:
So in the original post & table, it was commented SLB needs to be the most versatile player But are any of those guys listed appropriate for that position? Seems a big stretch.
 
SLBSDENTUTWDEMLBWLB
J. GilbertS. KafovaluJ. TupouL. JacksonD. McCartneyA. GillamK. Olugbode
G. FrazierJ. CarrellJ. SolisC. NorgardD. WilsonR. SeversonD. Rippy
T. HasselbachJ. FrankeE. LopezT. HeningtonC. ShaverR. GamboaT. Talianko
L. CottrellM. MatthewesF. UmuN. RobbinsM. ReidG. WatanabeH. Shaw
N.J. FaloB. TonzL. TuilomaT. ColemanS. Bennion
S. Berry

Is the table also meant to be in predicted depth chart order? If so, no way Norgard is #2 at UT. I see Robbins, Henington, Jackson batteling it out for that spot. Norgard a non factor

Holy s*** is that really the LB depth.? We may be in more trouble than I thought. Don't we have 2 scholarships left to use? Need 2 transfers or 2 unsigned JC LBs for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top