Strategery Talk - The roadmap for beating Tenuta and how does Tenuta beat it?

beej67

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,571
Okay, I've already harped on this once or twice, but Clemson this year, and VT in previous years, have spelled out a very clear roadmap for beating Tenuta's D. It revolves around 2 basic sets:

1) One back, 3 TEs, zone runs and counters
1b) other "jumbo" variations, including I form, 2 TEs

2) Shotgun, split backs, max protect passes, with delayed dumpoffs to any RBs who aren't utilized in the first 3 seconds worth of protection.
2b) variations have either 1 TE or 3 WRs

In both of those formations, blitzing hurts us instead of helps us, because whoever we send at the QB is taken out of the play by a ready blocker. It turns our primary defensive strength into a glaring and easily exploitable weakness.

Look back, and you'll see Clemson did it this year, VT did it last year, and UGA did it for the past few.

So what adjustments can Tenuta make when he sees this look from the opponent?
 
ugag hasn't had that much success against us the last few years so I'm not sure what that's all about. Clemson beat us because they beat us, man to man. Formations don't really beat you, execution does. If you asked Tenuta I'm sure he could show you exactly what players were supposed to do to stop Clemson Sat night. They simply didn't do it in the second half.
 
Alternate Theory

I think the way to defeat recent CJT defenses is to have a huge senior-laden offensive line, talented runners, and a 5th year quarterback, and develop an offensive game plan that plays to those strengths. Of course, that is a combination that can defeat a lot of defensive formations.

In years past, CJT has done it with smoke & mirrors. We have better personnel now, but we're still a young defense and not the stoutest yet. (Funny how those things track together.)

One senior in the 2-deep defensive line. One senior in the 2-deep linebacking corps. One senior in the 2-deep defensive backfield. Not just of the starters, but of the 2-deep.

This is 1989, not 1990.
 
One senior in the 2-deep defensive line. One senior in the 2-deep linebacking corps. One senior in the 2-deep defensive backfield. Not just of the starters, but of the 2-deep.
Click to expand...

Wow, is that right? Holy smokes. The defense is going to be nuts next year.
 
My thoughts:

First and foremost, we MUST recruit some larger interior d-lineman. Teams that can play smashmouth football such as Clemson, UVa (pre-2006), and Notre Dame will run the ball straight down our throats every time. Anoai, Richard, and Walker were pretty much nonexistent. Thank God we don't play Big 10 teams. We need 300 lb'ers to play a team like this.

Secondly, quit blitzing off the corners when all they are doing is running straight up the gut. Tenuta put the onus on Wheeler to make every play out there and he didn't produce.

This was like the Utah game in that it was another example of how stubborn Tenuta gets. He simply won't adjust.
 
knoxjacket said:
First and foremost, we MUST recruit some larger interior d-lineman. Teams that can play smashmouth football such as Clemson, UVa (pre-2006), and Notre Dame will run the ball straight down our throats every time. Anoai, Richard, and Walker were pretty much nonexistent. Thank God we don't play Big 10 teams.
Click to expand...

Daryl Richard was a 5-star recruit that chose us over Ohio State, Miami, and LSU. He lost some weight to rehad his knee properly and will be a monster to deal with the next 2 years. He lists at 6-4, 285 which is not too shabby and I believe he said he is at 290 now. Joe Anoai has always said he weighs more than the 6-3, 280 he is listed at. Claims 290...either way he is a big boy.

We do get smaller in the 2-deep.

I looked at #1 ranked Ohio State's interior DL and they are no different. Other than the fact you apparently have a huge advantage at Ohio State if your name begins with the letter 'P'.

1st string:
Patterson (6-3, 285)
Pitcock (6-3, 295)

2nd string:
Penton (6-5, 290)
Denlinger (6-3, 280)
 
Re: Alternate Theory

Techbert said:
One senior in the 2-deep defensive line. One senior in the 2-deep linebacking corps. One senior in the 2-deep defensive backfield. Not just of the starters, but of the 2-deep.

This is 1989, not 1990.
Click to expand...

Very good point Techbert. These guys are still growing into the defense we want them to be. Hopefully they can use games like Sat. to make them work harder. Miami gets shutout on Sat, you heard it here first!!!!

GO JACKETS!!!
 
I just checked scout and rivals and Richard was a 3 star on rivals and a 4 star on scout.

Regardless, if they are as big as they claim then they are weak. They were getting driven off the ball every play. Ohio State's interior DL do not get whipped at the LOS like that.

Richard is clearly not the same player he was his freshman year. Hopefully he can regain that.

Our front 7, which is supposedly the strength of our team, got flat dominated.
 
I could care less what the services are listing...he was one of the top 5 DL's in the country out of high school and had offers from every school in the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and ACC. He narrowed it down to us, Miami, Notre Dame, and Ohio St. Miami thought they had him.

Maybe we are worrying too much about one game.
 
A 320 lb OL will drive pretty much any 285 DL off the ball if they get their hands on them. Seems to me the DL wins on speed and strength.
 
I know how the big lineman has become the way to go these days.

However, in HS, we had a OL'man up around 275 and he was always late getting on the practice field as well as coming back on the field for the 2nd half of ball games.

He would always want to urinate just before going on the field and it took him much longer to find his tool to urinate with.

Since then, I've just not been that big of a fan of the 300 lb & up linemen.

Now that's just my opinion. :)
 
We clearly should have been in a 5 man front after they started mauling us up front. We needed more push on the line. Our LB's are quick and athletic, but they were getting lost like surfers in 30' waves.
 
knoxjacket said:
My thoughts:

First and foremost, we MUST recruit some larger interior d-lineman. Teams that can play smashmouth football such as Clemson, UVa (pre-2006), and Notre Dame will run the ball straight down our throats every time. Anoai, Richard, and Walker were pretty much nonexistent. Thank God we don't play Big 10 teams. We need 300 lb'ers to play a team like this.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I like the idea that we go for speed over size on defense. I think the O-line could probably use some more size, but I'm content with the D-line as far as size goes.

The problem with the defense is that, numerous times, we lined up with six guys on the line in a 6-1 formation. This basically took our speed out of the equation. Furthermore, when we did go back to the 4-3, we tended to blitz from the outside. This allowed Davis and friends to run right through the holes created in the middle. Had we used our linebackers to blitz up the middle, I think we would have had an easier time stopping the run.

Given all these things, however, I think it's hard to blame the defense for what happened in the fourth quarter. They had pretty much been on the field the entire night.
 
The simple plan would be to implement a 4-4 or 5-3 defense with the corner's and safeties playing man for man coverage. Two LB's spy the backfield and the rest are playing the strong side of the offense. You don't blitz, you stay in your position. Why we didn't do this baffles me. Its like Tenuta has to prove that his system can work in all cases, when quite simply it got exposed.

And for the guy who says 285lb DLineman cannot play against 320 lb Olineman, you are nuts. DRichard and Anaoi are stronger than anyone Clemson's got on their OLine. Our weakness against the run comes from our DE's who are tall and skinny. Furthermore... Big John is right. We won the time of possession, this has nothing to do with the offense not maintaining drives.
 
We did hold Clemson to 7 points at half time. We convert that first drive and we're tied at half time.

In the second half, I think how little depth we have on defense just shined through. Last year, we had a senior-laden DB corps and we could have subbed in Joe Gaston and Jahi Word-Daniels as well as Gary Guyton at LB in order to give our guys a breather.

I think Tenuta's game plan kept us in the game against perhaps the best offense in the South. Not that they completely dominated Clemson's offense like our defense did against Miami last year, but the game didn't get out of hand until later on.

Our offense, however, was simply manhandled at the lines. At the beginning of the second half, we had 1 first down in 7 drives. Whether it was Reggie running scared, OL issues or a combination of the two, anyway you look at it the offense was horribly ineffective and the defense couldn't hold the fort much longer.
 
Techbert--I think your post comes close to a primary reason we had trouble Saturday (among many others).

Clemson had a senior offensive line--but where that came into play was their ability to understand what the defense was doing and pick up blockers. One of the difficulties that J Tenuta's defense presents to opponents is that the look changes right before the snap. The offensive line/QB often don't know exactly where everyone is before the ball is snapped and rarely have time to communicate about whom is picking up whom. throw in complex blitzes and other schemes that come in during the play and it becomes more complex. This works b/c we have fast players who can cause problems--it fits our personnel. However when speed is taken away OR the offensive line has played enough together and is talented enough to pick up the defenders w/o communication, there will be significant problems.

In my mind, the problems were created by the experience and talent of the Clemson O-line, combined with talented backs. The o-line picked up the defensive schemes, had the talent to execute their blocks, and had the backs to exploit the fruits of their labor. I don't think we'll see this combination again this year. I also don't think we have to worry about the remainder of our opponents being able to copy what Clemson did to a great degree.
 
TechSBP said:
Clemson had a senior offensive line--but where that came into play was their ability to understand what the defense was doing and pick up blockers.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree. Clemson zone blocks as their base package, and we got good penetration against that scheme early and stuffed their run.

Then they said, "Aw, shucks!" and power blocked man-on-man. Their line probably averaged 310 to 320, and are strong for their size. They blew us out on physical ability rather than scheming. Hidey ho, up the middle they go!
 
I think it's a combination. Their size and strength wore on our DL who use their quickness to their advantage. As they slowed down, Clemson's strength began to tell even more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top