The post-game presscon by Drew after the game (the one at the bottom of IEs front page) was oddly interesting.
Most of it was useless blah-speak as we would expect. But he was asked about the second half of course, and
in between the Blah said, they played a lot of zero coverage, where we had 9 men protecting but they rushed ten.
Weird. Just not a true statement. He can't believe what he said. If he had used most of those words and said 6 (for
us) instead of 9, and 8 for them instead of 10, OK. But why would he say something patently absurd like what he did ---
maybe they did that once, who knows? Certainly not their typical second half defense.
But he also said something useful. In the first half he said that Navy played our third and longs with just a three man
(eight drop) theory and we burned them (with him with rocking chair time --- he didn't say that part.) He was saying, and I agree, that Navy realized at halftime that they couldn't defend our receivers for any amount of time, and dramatically altered their defensive pass rush theory. The details that I'm writing here are my simple deductions, not anything he'd dare to say with any frankness. The deductions are, I believe though, based on solid seeable facts, and not fanciful.
Our problem is that WE didn't adjust to their change. (our line, again, DID ITS JOB in both "philosophies."It was insufficiency of supporting personnel involvement which screwed things up. This could be viewed as another instance of poor second half adjustments --- having very little to do with the players themselves --- even Drew.