Are we done with the speed D?

[fingerdisco]

With McDougle getting on the field next year, and a couple big bodies in this year's recruiting class, as well as the current roster getting another year to get bigger, I don't see us having a pipsqueak DL anymore. I'm optimistic Phelps can start getting away from all the shifting BS and coach guys up to line up and knock heads. Throw in some incoming CC safeties and DB's with good size/length (and hopefully ball skills) along with existing younger players and recruits, I'm also hoping one of them pushes Strong aside. Molton was continually picked on for a reason, so his graduation will help. I'm hoping someone can also push Thompson to get better, or replaced--he's a younger player, but thus far I'm not overly impressed. Regardless, our defensive backfield will hopefully be better next year. The one place I would like to see some "speed D" guys is at the LB position--would love to see some guys like Ron Childs, Gleason, etc., that can go sideline to sideline with the Gaskins of the league. Haven't really kept that close of tabs on our current roster situation at LB, so not really sure what to expect.

That said, does Claeys flush Grinch's system next year?

 

[Brent H.]

With McDougle getting on the field next year, and a couple big bodies in this year's recruiting class, as well as the current roster getting another year to get bigger, I don't see us having a pipsqueak DL anymore. I'm optimistic Phelps can start getting away from all the shifting BS and coach guys up to line up and knock heads. Throw in some incoming CC safeties and DB's with good size/length (and hopefully ball skills) along with existing younger players and recruits, I'm also hoping one of them pushes Strong aside. Molton was continually picked on for a reason, so his graduation will help. I'm hoping someone can also push Thompson to get better, or replaced--he's a younger player, but thus far I'm not overly impressed. Regardless, our defensive backfield will hopefully be better next year. The one place I would like to see some "speed D" guys is at the LB position--would love to see some guys like Ron Childs, Gleason, etc., that can go sideline to sideline with the Gaskins of the league. Haven't really kept that close of tabs on our current roster situation at LB, so not really sure what to expect.

That said, does Claeys flush Grinch's system next year?

We had to run this defense because Joe couldn’t get the bodies for the DL so we had make a make shift dline. But we need dudes on the DL that can take up space and a little more speed at the linebacker position. We are getting the bodies now. The defense is good enough to win 8-9 games but we aren’t strong enough up front to handle teams like UW.

 

[earldacoug]

With McDougle getting on the field next year, and a couple big bodies in this year's recruiting class, as well as the current roster getting another year to get bigger, I don't see us having a pipsqueak DL anymore. I'm optimistic Phelps can start getting away from all the shifting BS and coach guys up to line up and knock heads. Throw in some incoming CC safeties and DB's with good size/length (and hopefully ball skills) along with existing younger players and recruits, I'm also hoping one of them pushes Strong aside. Molton was continually picked on for a reason, so his graduation will help. I'm hoping someone can also push Thompson to get better, or replaced--he's a younger player, but thus far I'm not overly impressed. Regardless, our defensive backfield will hopefully be better next year. The one place I would like to see some "speed D" guys is at the LB position--would love to see some guys like Ron Childs, Gleason, etc., that can go sideline to sideline with the Gaskins of the league. Haven't really kept that close of tabs on our current roster situation at LB, so not really sure what to expect.

That said, does Claeys flush Grinch's system next year?

We rotate players on D at LB and at DL, also corner to a certain extent. I don’t get why #22 Singleton hasn’t rotated in more for Thomas ? When Singleton has played he has done very well.

 

[fingerdisco]

We had to run this defense because Joe couldn’t get the bodies for the DL so we had make a make shift dline. But we need dudes on the DL that can take up space and a little more speed at the linebacker position. We are getting the bodies now. The defense is good enough to win 8-9 games but we aren’t strong enough up front to handle teams like UW.

That's what I'm wondering, are all the parts and pieces in place so we can get away from Grinch's system and totally revamp using Claeys style? Assuming McDougle is as advertised and the younger guys step it up, it seems like we can hopefully start seeing a Minnesota-like D that beat us in the bowl game, rather than Grinch's feast-or-famine style.

 

[dgibbons]

We'll likely always sacrifice size for speed, and it generally works. The exception is at the interior DL. The defense this season has been outstanding considering the lack of size at the interior DL.

 

[dgibbons]

That's what I'm wondering, are all the parts and pieces in place so we can get away from Grinch's system and totally revamp using Claeys style? Assuming McDougle is as advertised and the younger guys step it up, it seems like we can hopefully start seeing a Minnesota-like D that beat us in the bowl game, rather than Grinch's feast-or-famine style.

One legit DT is not going to lead to a totally new defense. Rogers is undersized. Maybe Hobbs improves. Crowder still has to prove he can play. There are no JC DLs in this class. Misi has been OK.

 

[YakiCoug]

We'll likely always sacrifice size for speed, and it generally works. The exception is at the interior DL. The defense this season has been outstanding considering the lack of size at the interior DL.

When you look around the conference, many teams have that so-called "size" at the interior d-line positions, but many of them absolutely suck. It is true we need a more physical presence, but it also needs to be athletic. What would save a smaller, faster defense v. teams like the UW is an offense that can change it up, rather than trot out the same Asperger's-laden game plan every late November, especially when Mother Nature takes a big sh!t on your game plan.
Some here say the mutts had to run their routes in the snow too, but the routes that were successful required no cuts - only beating that rug called No. 3.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

A mere big body or two will not lead to any sort of changes, other than possibly in a goal line scenario. Arizona had a DT that was a giant ball of lard, and that sort of kid will probably not end up with a lot of PT in a Phelps/Claeys system.

We need two big bodies with at least 2 quick steps and a semi-low center of gravity. Add that and we are at the next level, defensively. We've been able to win 10 games by beating teams whose O line makes enough mistakes that we can take advantage of them, or because they can't stay with us past 2 steps. When we run into the occasional O line with good feet and few mistakes (as happened yesterday), we have trouble. Fortunately, our 10 wins make it pretty clear that there are not a whole bunch of those O lines in college football.

 

[YakiCoug]

A mere big body or two will not lead to any sort of changes, other than possibly in a goal line scenario. Arizona had a DT that was a giant ball of lard, and that sort of kid will probably not end up with a lot of PT in a Phelps/Claeys system.

We need two big bodies with at least 2 quick steps and a semi-low center of gravity. Add that and we are at the next level, defensively. We've been able to win 10 games by beating teams whose O line makes enough mistakes that we can take advantage of them, or because they can't stay with us past 2 steps. When we run into the occasional O line with good feet and few mistakes (as happened yesterday), we have trouble. Fortunately, our 10 wins make it pretty clear that there are not a whole bunch of those O lines in college football.

It's too bad we can't go back to the Eighties when we could get anyone with a pulse on campus, have them shoot up some 'roids, and win the AC...

 

[fingerdisco]

One legit DT is not going to lead to a totally new defense. Rogers is undersized. Maybe Hobbs improves. Crowder still has to prove he can play. There are no JC DLs in this class. Misi has been OK.

One won't, but we've got a 275# and a 300# commit coming in, plus the current guys on the roster that get another year in the weight room. If our smallest guy on the DL can be 275-280--rather than our biggest guy being in that weight range--it would certainly help against teams that like to pound the ball like UW, Stanford, Utah. I think it really sunk home how small the line is when they showed Comfort standing next to one of the husky lineman--he looked like a junior high kid playing against a big high schooler.

To be clear, I'm not fooling myself into thinking all of a sudden we'll be Alabama-like, but I think some incremental improvements on the D side of the ball would be a difference maker in helping out in those games where the O just isn't clicking. I would gladly take a lunch-pail type of defense like the one Claeys and Phelps put out on the field at Minnesota.

 

[YakiCoug]

One won't, but we've got a 275# and a 300# commit coming in, plus the current guys on the roster that get another year in the weight room. If our smallest guy on the DL can be 275-280--rather than our biggest guy being in that weight range--it would certainly help against teams that like to pound the ball like UW, Stanford, Utah. I think it really sunk home how small the line is when they showed Comfort standing next to one of the husky lineman--he looked like a junior high kid playing against a big high schooler.

To be clear, I'm not fooling myself into thinking all of a sudden we'll be Alabama-like, but I think some incremental improvements on the D side of the ball would be a difference maker in helping out in those games where the O just isn't clicking. I would gladly take a lunch-pail type of defense like the one Claeys and Phelps put out on the field at Minnesota.

We managed 10 wins (11 if we win the bowl game) with the current d-line and scheme. It's going to get better, the Walden-era Coug losers such as MenstrualBleedingCrimson be damned.

 

[ShockandAweWSU]

I wouldn't be surprised if we get 1 jc dl before signing day. Both Taylor and Rodgers will put on 10 lbs. Hopefully Moore will come back. Oguayo and Misi need to get stronger. Our DL will be better next year. We also need to get bigger and stronger in the back 4. With Thomas, thompson, strong and molton we are really small.

 

[fingerdisco]

I wouldn't be surprised if we get 1 jc dl before signing day. Both Taylor and Rodgers will put on 10 lbs. Hopefully Moore will come back. Oguayo and Misi need to get stronger. Our DL will be better next year. We also need to get bigger and stronger in the back 4. With Thomas, thompson, strong and molton we are really small.

This D was a player or two away from being 11-1 and a conference title (USC loss); not really going to go so far as to say a beefed up D-line would have resulted in a win against poo-dub, but it wouldn't hurt either...potential 12-0? Claeys and Phelps getting the right building blocks for their system is going to be fun to watch in the future.

 

[froropmkr72]

I wouldn't be surprised if we get 1 jc dl before signing day. Both Taylor and Rodgers will put on 10 lbs. Hopefully Moore will come back. Oguayo and Misi need to get stronger. Our DL will be better next year. We also need to get bigger and stronger in the back 4. With Thomas, thompson, strong and molton we are really small.

Claeys is known for getting JC linemen and linebackers. You're right....they have to have some larger options to the perfect weather speed D. Keep elements, but integrate larger fronts and don't be scared to offer 240 pound linebackers. If they have this defense down..then presenting some different shouldn't be hard. Will they make a complete change to the Claeys defense from Minnesota? I doubt it.

 

[Coug90]

We had to run this defense because Joe couldn’t get the bodies for the DL so we had make a make shift dline. But we need dudes on the DL that can take up space and a little more speed at the linebacker position. We are getting the bodies now. The defense is good enough to win 8-9 games but we aren’t strong enough up front to handle teams like UW.

I don’t get this. We’ve handled Stanford. UW is not Alabama, we don’t need a bunch of 350 lb D Linemen to beat them. Yes some more size up front would help against EVERY team. Block is playing end at 220 and Begg is playing tackle at 250. More big bodies are OTW. I expect one of the QBs to step in and take over where minshew left off with the offense.

 

[jarvis1981]

Don't want to give up on the speed D.
What we should want is Speed D 2.0 meaning that you add some size without given up on agility and movement. The Coug inside d-men were about 260 but if you get that up to 280 or 285 then I'd take that over a 330 pound guy who can only move straight forward. It's also more likely the Cougs recruit those type of players.

Someone mentioned Derek Moore - he is a 250 defensive end as a 2nd year player with great speed. USC tried to get him at the last minute and failed. He would be a big addition as well as the new recruits or transfers.

What I like about the speed D is that is often results in big losses for the other team. You may give up being stellar at 3rd and one yard but the whole idea is to get them into 3rd and long.

Looking forward to the defense next year. I think they will end up better than this year's defense by the end of next year despite the loss of Pelleur.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I don’t get this. We’ve handled Stanford. UW is not Alabama, we don’t need a bunch of 350 lb D Linemen to beat them. Yes some more size up front would help against EVERY team. Block is playing end at 220 and Begg is playing tackle at 250. More big bodies are OTW. I expect one of the QBs to step in and take over where minshew left off with the offense.

'90, we handled Stanford because they were not as good as UW and also because field conditions against Stanford were more suited to speed over size. I would also suggest that UW's D backs are a bit better than Stanford.

 

[dgibbons]

'90, we handled Stanford because they were not as good as UW and also because field conditions against Stanford were more suited to speed over size. I would also suggest that UW's D backs are a bit better than Stanford.

Stanford’s defense is mediocre.

 

[Coug1990]

So, WSU has been around the 20th ranked defense the last two years and to correct the excellent defense that WSU has had is to change the defense? Ok????

 

[fingerdisco]

So, WSU has been around the 20th ranked defense the last two years and to correct the excellent defense that WSU has had is to change the defense? Ok????

Doesn't have to be wholesale, fundamentally different, but the DB's have been weak all year, and the DL is woefully undersized...they got manhandled against the huskeez. I just don't see having a DL line that averages 255# as a recipe for success in the long term. As for our top 20 defenses, I believe a lot of that has to do with the Pac 12 being fairly weak over the last couple years. Oregon has been down, Stanford down, the rest of the California teams have really not been very good either. That said, we've been smoked by decent offenses when we've come up against them: Cal, EWU, Zona, etc. not to mention the complete domination by the ewe. Given our success over the last several years, I'm optimistic that means we can start getting some better athletes on defense and not have to be completely reliant on stunts & schemes.

 

[Coug1990]

Doesn't have to be wholesale, fundamentally different, but the DB's have been weak all year, and the DL is woefully undersized...they got manhandled against the huskeez. I just don't see having a DL line that averages 255# as a recipe for success in the long term. As for our top 20 defenses, I believe a lot of that has to do with the Pac 12 being fairly weak over the last couple years. Oregon has been down, Stanford down, the rest of the California teams have really not been very good either. That said, we've been smoked by decent offenses when we've come up against them: Cal, EWU, Zona, etc. not to mention the complete domination by the ewe. Given our success over the last several years, I'm optimistic that means we can start getting some better athletes on defense and not have to be completely reliant on stunts & schemes.

I don't believe that anyone believes that having a small defensive line is where it is at. They played players that were light because that is what they had. Do you believe that Taylor Comfort, a little used walkon, was the plan at NT? Or Nick Begg, a little used player, play end? Or, Misiona Aiolupotea-Pei be the back up NT when he was brought in to play end? There was no one else after Jonothan Lolohea left.

The idea was never to have undersized lineman. They have recruited several big players that haven't panned out.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Doesn't have to be wholesale, fundamentally different, but the DB's have been weak all year, and the DL is woefully undersized...they got manhandled against the huskeez. I just don't see having a DL line that averages 255# as a recipe for success in the long term. As for our top 20 defenses, I believe a lot of that has to do with the Pac 12 being fairly weak over the last couple years. Oregon has been down, Stanford down, the rest of the California teams have really not been very good either. That said, we've been smoked by decent offenses when we've come up against them: Cal, EWU, Zona, etc. not to mention the complete domination by the ewe. Given our success over the last several years, I'm optimistic that means we can start getting some better athletes on defense and not have to be completely reliant on stunts & schemes.

So you would remove the thing that makes WSU, WSU?

Here’s a newsflash, WSU gets 3 star kids. There is no long list of 4 star talent coming to Pullman. I think the kids on the DL need to get taller and heavier. But getting those guys and then changing the scheme doesnt make sense.

 

[CougPatrol]

We don’t really need a markedly better defense. A little more leverage on the interior Dline. Need to replace Tago on the edge. Pelleur in the middle. CB play needs to improve.

Overall, an athletic defense that plays fast and hard for 60 minutes is what you need in our conference. We’re pretty much there.

 

[Coug1990]

So you would remove the thing that makes WSU, WSU?

Here’s a newsflash, WSU gets 3 star kids. There is no long list of 4 star talent coming to Pullman. I think the kids on the DL need to get taller and heavier. But getting those guys and then changing the scheme doesnt make sense.

Yep, same defense with bigger and better players.

 

[fingerdisco]

So you would remove the thing that makes WSU, WSU?

Here’s a newsflash, WSU gets 3 star kids. There is no long list of 4 star talent coming to Pullman. I think the kids on the DL need to get taller and heavier. But getting those guys and then changing the scheme doesnt make sense.

Actually, to me WSU is Chad Eaton, Don Sasa, Dewayne Patterson, Rien Long, Boose, Bender, Gauta, etc. We can get some beef on the line and historically have had some success there, but as 1990 pointed out, it hasn't been in the cards.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Actually, to me WSU is Chad Eaton, Don Sasa, Dewayne Patterson, Rien Long, Boose, Bender, Gauta, etc. We can get some beef on the line and historically have had some success there, but as 1990 pointed out, it hasn't been in the cards.

I think you need more consistency. Run schemes you can always get guys for. Run schemes where an over achiever can work his way into the rotation. Run a scheme where kids walk on amd can get onto the field.

I think the speed D does that. When you move to schemes where kids are taking on and getting off blocks the DNA required gets a lil tougher to find.

 

[froropmkr72]

Yep, same defense with bigger and better players.

and more depth that's been missing the past 2 years at DL and LB. Really missed Harper as well.

 

[fingerdisco]

I think you need more consistency. Run schemes you can always get guys for. Run schemes where an over achiever can work his way into the rotation. Run a scheme where kids walk on amd can get onto the field.

I think the speed D does that. When you move to schemes where kids are taking on and getting off blocks the DNA required gets a lil tougher to find.

I get what you're saying--we aren't going to be the first look for the 6-4, 310# kid out of high school that can outrun me and will start as a freshman, but I do think we're starting to get more looks from kids that can eventually get there (or at least in the ballpark) after a few years. As someone else mentioned, lets recruit the crap out of kids that can fly for the back 7, and especially in the LB dept.--there was a time we were getting pretty good about putting linebackers in the NFL, so would like to see that come back.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

To slightly re-phrase what I think many of you are saying....We can get DT's out of HS who are 6'3" - 6'5" and 260. They are out there. With a couple of years eating right and in strength training, they can add 20+ pounds, still be quick, and put us 25 pounds ahead of where we are now for interior linemen. We will also get the occasional shot at a kid who looks more like Ahmu; only in the 6'0" height range but built like a Coke machine. We can use a kid like that, too. We can stay close to the D that we use now but have two interior guys who are bigger...or maybe sometimes have a 3 man front that is bigger across the board, with the Coke machine in the middle and a tweener playing Rush LB. You play with the kids that you have. If Joe and others had brought in DT kids to develop in the same way that we brought in OL kids to develop, we would not be having this conversation.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

When you look around the conference, many teams have that so-called "size" at the interior d-line positions, but many of them absolutely suck. It is true we need a more physical presence, but it also needs to be athletic. What would save a smaller, faster defense v. teams like the UW is an offense that can change it up, rather than trot out the same Asperger's-laden game plan every late November, especially when Mother Nature takes a big sh!t on your game plan.
Some here say the mutts had to run their routes in the snow too, but the routes that were successful required no cuts - only beating that rug called No. 3.

Asperger laden? Lol.

 

[fingerdisco]

To slightly re-phrase what I think many of you are saying....We can get DT's out of HS who are 6'3" - 6'5" and 260. They are out there. With a couple of years eating right and in strength training, they can add 20+ pounds, still be quick, and put us 25 pounds ahead of where we are now for interior linemen. We will also get the occasional shot at a kid who looks more like Ahmu; only in the 6'0" height range but built like a Coke machine. We can use a kid like that, too. We can stay close to the D that we use now but have two interior guys who are bigger...or maybe sometimes have a 3 man front that is bigger across the board, with the Coke machine in the middle and a tweener playing Rush LB. You play with the kids that you have. If Joe and others had brought in DT kids to develop in the same way that we brought in OL kids to develop, we would not be having this conversation.

I'm hip with that.

 

[Coug90]

We don’t really need a markedly better defense. A little more leverage on the interior Dline. Need to replace Tago on the edge. Pelleur in the middle. CB play needs to improve.

Overall, an athletic defense that plays fast and hard for 60 minutes is what you need in our conference. We’re pretty much there.

Yup and it’s not like bigger bodies can’t also have good get off and use good technique. Clayes got them at Minnesota. Need guys with the frame to add weight and play at a solid 300 but can also be athletic and get into gaps. Not like we haven’t recruited this type of player to wazzu before. I don’t think Rien Long was a 4* guy, but he was a big disruptive guy with great technique and was an Outland winner I believe. Rob Meier, Boose, Bender...also big dudes that could move an use their hands well.

 

[CougPatrol]

We don’t really know how far Clayes can take this defense, or frankly, how good he really is. He obviously inherited some pretty good players.

Will his recruits be better? I think so, as we’re easy to recruit to today than 3-5 years ago, but we don’t know how he is as an evaluator. That’s part of the intrigue of college football.

I trust Leach’s hiring judgment though. I think that’s one of his most important coaching traits. He knows how to put together a staff.

 

[Coug1990]

We don’t really know how far Clayes can take this defense, or frankly, how good he really is. He obviously inherited some pretty good players.

Will his recruits be better? I think so, as we’re easy to recruit to today than 3-5 years ago, but we don’t know how he is as an evaluator. That’s part of the intrigue of college football.

I trust Leach’s hiring judgment though. I think that’s one of his most important coaching traits. He knows how to put together a staff.

I think his track record at Minnesota (and before that at Southern Illinois and Northern Illinois) shows he is a good DC . As far as evaluation, while Claeys probably has the ultimate decision on who to offer, a lot of the evaluation is done by the entire staff, which includes non-field employees Emerick, Huffman, etc. I remember reading an article a few years back where former Coach Mastro said that Coach Wilson was the best evaluator that he had ever been around.