UK hits record low for defense

[BOURBON TOWN CAT FAN]

Ah, for the days of the wide-tackle-six.
Where have you gone, Terry Strock?
Jerry Claiborne was old school. Back in the day, the Kentucky coach didn't believe in giving his assistant coaches titles as coordinators. Strock was and he wasn't. As linebackers coach of Claiborne's controversial wide-tackle-six scheme, Strock made the defensive calls, but he wasn't considered a coordinator. None of the fame, but none of the blame, either. If there were fingers to be pointed, Claiborne wanted them pointed at the head coach.
But since Claiborne's retirement in 1989, when neither the wide-tackle-six nor Strock were retained by successor Bill Curry, UK fans have seen a steady stream of bad defenses followed by new defensive coordinators -- coordinators in name only.
Saturday brought a new low. After that 49-0 thumping at LSU, the Kentucky defense awoke yesterday morning officially 119th out of 119 Division I-A teams in total defense, allowing an average of 462.4 yards per game.
That's dead last.
So maybe Strock owes Curry a thank-you. In 1990, as an assistant at Georgia Tech, Strock helped Bobby Ross win a national championship. In 1992, he got to return to his alma mater, Virginia Tech, where he stayed on Frank Beamer's staff until retiring in 1998. In fact, Strock still lives in Blacksburg.
Meanwhile, UK has lived in a constant state of defensive flux. Curry started with Larry New, who was followed by Mike Archer Round 1, who was followed by Rick Smith, who was followed by Mike Major, who was followed by John Goodner, who was followed by Mike Archer Round 2............
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15769656.htm

[WideTackle6]

Not surprisingly - I am all for the Wide Tackle Six. It's still being ran today. It's just called a 4-2-5 now. It still works. The head man at LSU, Miles, ran it at Oklahoma State before he came to LSU. I read an interview with him where he said he was doing the stuff Jerry Claiborne did.

It's a great defense when their isn't great talent. The problem people have with it is simply the name. People get it in their head that it's a six man front, like an old 62 defense ran in middle schools, etc... It's not that at all. It's four down linemen (just like a 4-3) with two strong safeties as "ends" - who usually play off the line of scrimmage in a DB role. It is designed to get the best 11 defensive players a team has on the field and keep them there regardless of a passing or run situation.

Another problem some people have with it is that it's a "bend - don't break" defense. Just don't let them in the end zone - which Claiborne/Strock teams didn't do.Check out these points per game allowed averages under Claiborne:

1982 - 26.0; 1983 - 19.7; 1984 - 18.4; 1985 - 19.1; 1986 - 18.8; 1987 - 17.0; 1988 - 18.9; 1989 - 20.0

I could go on and on about it, but will spare all of you. Obviously, as with anything in life, strong arguments can be made for or against anything. I love the defense, having played in it, and am convinced it can still work, but nothing will work until you have players that care about what they are doing and take responsibility for it. That was one thing Coach Claiborne and his staff could get players to do.

Pass the offering plate....

[Mr. T]

WideTackle6 wrote: 1982 - 26.0; 1983 - 19.7; 1984 - 18.4; 1985 - 19.1; 1986 - 18.8; 1987 - 17.0; 1988 - 18.9; 1989 - 20.0


Man I would kill (better watch yourself, I just might do it :lol:) to have numbers like that.

[poodoo]

If there were fingers to be pointed, Claiborne wanted them pointed at the head coach. QUOTE

__________

KUDOS to Coach Claiborne for that.

Also, WideTackle6, those numbers surely look good, especially today. :)

[Rollo]

WideTackle6 wrote: Not surprisingly - I am all for the Wide Tackle Six. It's still being ran today. It's just called a 4-2-5 now. It still works. The head man at LSU, Miles, ran it at Oklahoma State before he came to LSU. I read an interview with him where he said he was doing the stuff Jerry Claiborne did.

It's a great defense when their isn't great talent. The problem people have with it is simply the name. People get it in their head that it's a six man front, like an old 62 defense ran in middle schools, etc... It's not that at all. It's four down linemen (just like a 4-3) with two strong safeties as "ends" - who usually play off the line of scrimmage in a DB role. It is designed to get the best 11 defensive players a team has on the field and keep them there regardless of a passing or run situation.

Another problem some people have with it is that it's a "bend - don't break" defense. Just don't let them in the end zone - which Claiborne/Strock teams didn't do.Check out these points per game allowed averages under Claiborne:

1982 - 26.0; 1983 - 19.7; 1984 - 18.4; 1985 - 19.1; 1986 - 18.8; 1987 - 17.0; 1988 - 18.9; 1989 - 20.0

I could go on and on about it, but will spare all of you. Obviously, as with anything in life, strong arguments can be made for or against anything. I love the defense, having played in it, and am convinced it can still work, but nothing will work until you have players that care about what they are doing and take responsibility for it. That was one thing Coach Claiborne and his staff could get players to do.

Pass the offering plate....

And let's not forget, in 1982, UK went 0-10-1, and gave up only 26 points per game

[bluescat]

WideTackle6 wrote: Not surprisingly - I am all for the Wide Tackle Six. It's still being ran today. It's just called a 4-2-5 now. It still works. The head man at LSU, Miles, ran it at Oklahoma State before he came to LSU. I read an interview with him where he said he was doing the stuff Jerry Claiborne did.

It's a great defense when their isn't great talent. The problem people have with it is simply the name. People get it in their head that it's a six man front, like an old 62 defense ran in middle schools, etc... It's not that at all. It's four down linemen (just like a 4-3) with two strong safeties as "ends" - who usually play off the line of scrimmage in a DB role. It is designed to get the best 11 defensive players a team has on the field and keep them there regardless of a passing or run situation.

Another problem some people have with it is that it's a "bend - don't break" defense. Just don't let them in the end zone - which Claiborne/Strock teams didn't do.Check out these points per game allowed averages under Claiborne:

1982 - 26.0; 1983 - 19.7; 1984 - 18.4; 1985 - 19.1; 1986 - 18.8; 1987 - 17.0; 1988 - 18.9; 1989 - 20.0

I could go on and on about it, but will spare all of you. Obviously, as with anything in life, strong arguments can be made for or against anything. I love the defense, having played in it, and am convinced it can still work, but nothing will work until you have players that care about what they are doing and take responsibility for it. That was one thing Coach Claiborne and his staff could get players to do.

Pass the offering plate....

WideTackle6,

you're right on the money. This defense was designed specifically for teams with smaller kids and lower talent levels. I've personally seen it become the great equalizer in lots of situations. You almost never give up thehomerun with this defense. With the talent we have and speed we have now, we could run the wide tackle six and frustrate the pee out of offensive co-ordinators. I love it because there are so many things you can disguise with it and it makes your blitz package extremely hard to figure out and block for the opposing offensive line. Good call!

[johnkyblue]

Um, isn't a 4-2-5 also called a nickel?

[WideTackle6]

Not exactly. A Nickle has 3 cornerbacks, 2 safeties, 2 LBs. A true 4-2-5 (or Wide Tackle Six) has 2 Corners, 2 strong safeties/ends. 2 LB, and 1 free safety over the middle.

[sardiscat]

I don't think Claiborne's defenses had to deal with the sophisticated passing attacks the SEC has now. That was pre-Spurrier, whenthe SECconsidered it unmanly to try to win games any way other than running the ball down the other team's throat. I remember when Claiborne took the UK job, his QB at Maryland questionedhis defense, said something along the lines of, "I always wanted the chanceto pass against the wide tackle six."

[Spanish Moss]

sardiscat wrote: I don't think Claiborne's defenses had to deal with the sophisticated passing attacks the SEC has now. That was pre-Spurrier, whenthe SECconsidered it unmanly to try to win games any way other than running the ball down the other team's throat. I remember when Claiborne took the UK job, his QB at Maryland questionedhis defense, said something along the lines of, "I always wanted the chanceto pass against the wide tackle six."
Knock it all you want to but at least we did not have the humiliation this crowd has brought us.

I am not for bringing back the wide tackle six but I am 100% in favor of changing this staff. We have young men who deserve good coaches. They signed with UK in good faith and we are letting them down by having them play under a DC like Archer.

[Mark Blueblood]

You know, it's funny - but I remember a LOT of people complaining about the Wide Tackle 6 when Claiborne was here. "Out of date", "bend but not break" - all the usual cliches'.

Me?? All I know is - it worked. I liked it.