Spring practice PC

[bennyl08]

Signed Jacob Eason.

Eason went through spring ball so he was a lot more experienced that most other true freshmen. Further, Georgia didn't have a more experienced option to go with that was significantly better at all.

Of the 16 true freshmen to play more than 310 snaps in 2015, only 6 of them had a positive grade (on a -12:+12 scale), and only 4 of them finished +16 or higher over the course of the season as well (From PFF). A few things to point out from that. First, two of them were in the Pac 12 which isn't famous for it's defenses, a third was in the Big 12 which is famous for having no defense, and the fourth was at Boise. SEC has far and away tougher defenses to handle than in the aforementioned conferences. Further, one of those qb's went to the National Championship game this year as Washington's Jake Browning. Another was UCLA's Josh Rosen who is surrounded by 4*'s and again, playing in the PAC. Nobody cares about Boise st to be honest, and the fourth was at the time Baylor QB Stidham, who is now in line to be the Auburn qb. Stidham's hype comes from having a good half a season in a league with no defense in a system that has had literally every qb they've had put up very good numbers.

So, virtually impossible would definitely appear to be an overstatement. However, you also can't deny that true freshmen starters are rare in all of college football, rarer still in p5, and rarer still have great to good success.

That signature that Eason signed, this is what it looks like.

55% completion, 2430 yards, only 6.6 ypa, and 16td:8int. Not terrible, but that is a worse than what BA put up in 2014 and Arkansas fans were calling for his head and demanding a better qb with 56% completion, 2285 yards, 6.7 ypa, and a 20:5 td:int ratio.

[PorkRinds]

Go back and listen to what the players said after practice yesterday about Paul Rhoads. It tells us a great deal about how Paul Rhoads approaches coaching and without actually throwing anyone under the bus, it might also indicate a lot about the perception that the players had of Robb Smith and where some of the players attitudes were last fall. Add greater degrees of complexity in the defense to that and perhaps not having some of the right players in the right positions (asking them to do things they couldn't do) and we might begin to have an understanding of why things took such a downturn last season.

That's just my take after listening to the guys after practice yesterday.

I just listened to the defensive guys. Some of what was said could lead one to believe that the players didn't much like Smith. Jackson talked about how everyone wants to play for PR and he's not a coach that "puts guys down".  Hard to tell if that's a reflection of Smith but it doesn't paint a very rosy picture of you read between the lines.

[hawginbigd1]

What has Harris done to make you so high on him?  It's way to early to be projecting his draft status when he hasn't started a game.  Greenlaw is a tackling machine.  The defense was much worse without him.  He's the only LB I feel good about at this time.

Barring Injury when he leaves 2 years from now he will be the best LB Arkansas has had this century, hide and watch.

[hawgdavis]

Some of the most successful defensive teams keep it simple and have a simple base but also are able to use multiple looks using the same simple principles. They also add a few wrinkles throughout the season while still keeping the same simple basic principles. It allows the players from having to think as much and play faster. I like it personally.

[bennyl08]

Some of the most successful defensive teams keep it simple and have a simple base but also are able to use multiple looks using the same simple principles. They also add a few wrinkles throughout the season while still keeping the same simple basic principles. It allows the players from having to think as much and play faster. I like it personally.

It seems there are two ways to coach to success. First is to have a powerful coaching scheme that relies on complexity. The second is to maximize the players athleticism by having minimal scheme.

Offenses are inherently going to be more scheme heavy since you can do most of the thinking before the snap and thus you don't have to worry as much about the scheme slowing down your play by thinking too much.

On defense it is a different story. You can do a bit pre-snap, but most of your work comes post-snap. Which begs the question, do you go scheme or minimalist? This debate is very well represented by the difference b/w zone and man coverage schemes. In man, you have your guy that you cover and you rely on your athleticism to cover him. You don't have to be thinking about when you stop covering one person and start covering somebody else. In zone coverage, it is a bit less about your athletic ability to stay with another player and more about your ability to position yourself correctly. You stay with one player for a bit, but then they leave your zone and you have to be ready to pick up the running back that the LB was previously covering.

Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive; however it typically favors one or the other. Seaahawks have had one of, if not the best defense of this generation. They rely on athleticism over scheme, but it requires having elite athletes to do it. You can't confuse the defense because the defense doesn't really care what you do on offense. Their scheme isn't reliant on what the offense does. They are going to do on defense what they want to do and rely on their athletes to make a play. When they are out a key starter on defense, which most of their starters are key starters, the backup is rarely as athletic and the whole defense suffers.

Contrast that with the Patriots which are extremely scheme heavy. If you like to pass short, they will stop you from passing short. Don't care if they give up 200 rushing yards and 10 passes of 20 yards or more. Why? Because they know that you will miss the long pass much more often than you hit it since that isn't what you do. They know you will make mistakes in the run game if that isn't what you like to do. You will get some yards but will struggle to sustain drives and get td's.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I just listened to the defensive guys. Some of what was said could lead one to believe that the players didn't much like Smith. Jackson talked about how everyone wants to play for PR and he's not a coach that "puts guys down".  Hard to tell if that's a reflection of Smith but it doesn't paint a very rosy picture of you read between the lines.

My whole point. "He's a Teacher", "he doesn't put guys down, but lifts them up", "he explains what we need to do and why we need to do it". And more. That last part is characteristic of the players of today. They won't just do what you tell them you need to do to be successful, they need to understand why. Then, they buy in. It's not like it used to be.