A Picture that I Think Means So Much More

[DiegoCane]

My wife, who has adopted Miami football but doesn't really know the game kept asking me why we didn't have more players by the line of scrimmage. My on,h answer was, our HC and DC are morons.

I'm just curious what they see in film study that suggests our alignments are a good ideas.

 

[DiegoCane]

I just can't get over the stupidity in that alignment.

There is not 5 coaches in football, at any level (from pee wee up) that think that is a good idea

 

[CanesAreAble]

I don't understand who's supposed to be setting the edge on off-tackle plays. We constantly get out-leveraged to both sides of the field. Makes zero sense to me.

 

[ABear]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

 

[ABear]

I don't understand who's supposed to be setting the edge on off-tackle plays. We constantly get out-leveraged to both sides of the field. Makes zero sense to me.

I agree, I said during the game that when things go badly on defense, I don't even know who to blame cause I don't understand wtf is going on.

 

[LuCane]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

 

[DiegoCane]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

If it want so sad, it would be funny

 

[Dynasty]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

That's the thing though, LBs couldn't find any inside gaps to exploit and run through. Nothing.

Our D is a punching bag. We constantly take hits and counter with nothing. sad

 

[hcanes100]

View attachment 25745

That may look like a picture of our 3rd and short defense. It may look like I previously tried to show that we were essentially playing a lot of the game - regardless of position on field - with 6 in the box vs 8 (QB was a run threat). 2 of our 6 players are being kept approximately 5 yards off the ball to avoid the wash. The Wash? Yes, basically the wash of our defensive linemen who are asked to 2-gap, play contain and generally control the line so that players could, theoretically, fill. Our 2 Safeties, considering the down and distance, are relatively deep. 1 of the 3 LBs on the field is hedging over the slot WR who the offense has placed there essentially to manipulate our defensive formation.

It might look like a critique or at least a very concerned question about our defensive call. To me, it's more.

I am and have been concerned with the direction of the entire program because that picture is representative of what we saw during low points in previous games and seasons. It shows a seemingly unwavering loyalty to a particular approach. It shows that, if we think something will or should work, we'll stick by it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it won't. On narrower levels, it shows:

- a conservative approach that is predicated on awaiting for the opponent to make mistakes
- a theoretical approach that hinges on players potentially doing things that don't maximize their talents
- that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.

Most of all, it all adds up to something bigger: a program many have associated with aggression now seemingly operates on fear.

Yeap...

 

[DiegoCane]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

That's the think though, LBs couldn't find any inside gaps to exploited and run through. Nothing.

Our D is a punching bag. We constantly take hits and counter with nothing. sad

I've said it before. There isn't a set of coaches in football that are more passive then Golden and D'O

 

[LuCane]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

That's the thing though, LBs couldn't find any inside gaps to exploit and run through. Nothing.

Our D is a punching bag. We constantly take hits and counter with nothing. sad

You have no idea how I felt for our players during this game. I felt so deeply disturbed for them. I think I was ranting at one point and hoping Perryman would change the defensive call and tell the DL to slant on his own.

By the way, everyone realizes we declined a penalty to allow for a 38 yard FG because we were afraid of 3rd and long (14), right? How is that not asked by a journalist? I don't think I've ever seen a more fearful act with 9 minutes left in a game.

 

[Dynasty]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

That's the thing though, LBs couldn't find any inside gaps to exploit and run through. Nothing.

Our D is a punching bag. We constantly take hits and counter with nothing. sad

You have no idea how I felt for our players during this game. I felt so deeply disturbed for them. I think I was ranting at one point and hoping Perryman would change the defensive call and tell the DL to slant on his own.

By the way, everyone realizes we declined a penalty to allow for a 38 yard FG because we were afraid of 3rd and long (14), right? How is that not asked by a journalist? I don't think I've ever seen a more fearful act with 9 minutes left in a game.

I do too. It's really sad. Perryman...Bush, too. He's a safety. Dammit, call the coverage, rotate!!!! Nothing, though. nothing...

 

[CanesAreAble]

Okay, I'm drunk at this point, so I'm going to try and figure out why the defense plays so far back.

Are the linebackers so far back to give them more space to diagnose the play?

Theoretically, because it'd allow them to fill gaps more effectively. Real life: have you ever tried to tackle a piano coming downhill?

That's the thing though, LBs couldn't find any inside gaps to exploit and run through. Nothing.

Our D is a punching bag. We constantly take hits and counter with nothing. sad

You have no idea how I felt for our players during this game. I felt so deeply disturbed for them. I think I was ranting at one point and hoping Perryman would change the defensive call and tell the DL to slant on his own.

By the way, everyone realizes we declined a penalty to allow for a 38 yard FG because we were afraid of 3rd and long (14), right? How is that not asked by a journalist? I don't think I've ever seen a more fearful act with 9 minutes left in a game.

I lost my **** over that declined penalty.

Any score makes it a two-possession game, so you might as well try to keep them off the board.

Just get this mutha****a outta my face. I can't take it anymore. I just can't.

 

[Muecane]

View attachment 25745

That may look like a picture of our 3rd and short defense. It may look like I previously tried to show that we were essentially playing a lot of the game - regardless of position on field - with 6 in the box vs 8 (QB was a run threat). 2 of our 6 players are being kept approximately 5 yards off the ball to avoid the wash. The Wash? Yes, basically the wash of our defensive linemen who are asked to 2-gap, play contain and generally control the line so that players could, theoretically, fill. Our 2 Safeties, considering the down and distance, are relatively deep. 1 of the 3 LBs on the field is hedging over the slot WR who the offense has placed there essentially to manipulate our defensive formation.

It might look like a critique or at least a very concerned question about our defensive call. To me, it's more.

I am and have been concerned with the direction of the entire program because that picture is representative of what we saw during low points in previous games and seasons. It shows a seemingly unwavering loyalty to a particular approach. It shows that, if we think something will or should work, we'll stick by it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it won't. On narrower levels, it shows:

- a conservative approach that is predicated on awaiting for the opponent to make mistakes
- a theoretical approach that hinges on players potentially doing things that don't maximize their talents
- that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.

Most of all, it all adds up to something bigger: a program many have associated with aggression now seemingly operates on fear.

Yeap...

I don't know what the **** D'NO is thinking or doing here? Extremely frustrating!

 

[SFbayCane]

View attachment 25745

That may look like a picture of our 3rd and short defense. It may look like I previously tried to show that we were essentially playing a lot of the game - regardless of position on field - with 6 in the box vs 8 (QB was a run threat). 2 of our 6 players are being kept approximately 5 yards off the ball to avoid the wash. The Wash? Yes, basically the wash of our defensive linemen who are asked to 2-gap, play contain and generally control the line so that players could, theoretically, fill. Our 2 Safeties, considering the down and distance, are relatively deep. 1 of the 3 LBs on the field is hedging over the slot WR who the offense has placed there essentially to manipulate our defensive formation.

It might look like a critique or at least a very concerned question about our defensive call. To me, it's more.

I am and have been concerned with the direction of the entire program because that picture is representative of what we saw during low points in previous games and seasons. It shows a seemingly unwavering loyalty to a particular approach. It shows that, if we think something will or should work, we'll stick by it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it won't. On narrower levels, it shows:

- a conservative approach that is predicated on awaiting for the opponent to make mistakes
- a theoretical approach that hinges on players potentially doing things that don't maximize their talents
- that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.

Most of all, it all adds up to something bigger: a program many have associated with aggression now seemingly operates on fear.

Yeap...

I don't know what the **** D'NO is thinking or doing here? Extremely frustrating!

Maybe dorito is just bad at basic math. What's his degree in?

 

[CaneandAbel]

Didn't we stop them that play?

 

[Muecane]

Didn't we stop them that play?

Probably not. They were 7/10 on 3rd downs. D'NO and Golden really need to start getting a little more aggressive on defense. This team could be 4-0 with a little balls in the play calling. Against Louisville it was the O tonight it was the D.

 

[Joecane]

Didn't we stop them that play?

Probably not. They were 7/10 on 3rd downs. D'NO and Golden really need to start getting a little more aggressive on defense. This team could be 4-0 with a little balls in the play calling. Against Louisville it was the O tonight it was the D.

Ya think?

 

[Vanquish9]

View attachment 25745

That may look like a picture of our 3rd and short defense. It may look like I previously tried to show that we were essentially playing a lot of the game - regardless of position on field - with 6 in the box vs 8 (QB was a run threat). 2 of our 6 players are being kept approximately 5 yards off the ball to avoid the wash. The Wash? Yes, basically the wash of our defensive linemen who are asked to 2-gap, play contain and generally control the line so that players could, theoretically, fill. Our 2 Safeties, considering the down and distance, are relatively deep. 1 of the 3 LBs on the field is hedging over the slot WR who the offense has placed there essentially to manipulate our defensive formation.

It might look like a critique or at least a very concerned question about our defensive call. To me, it's more.

I am and have been concerned with the direction of the entire program because that picture is representative of what we saw during low points in previous games and seasons. It shows a seemingly unwavering loyalty to a particular approach. It shows that, if we think something will or should work, we'll stick by it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it won't. On narrower levels, it shows:

- a conservative approach that is predicated on awaiting for the opponent to make mistakes
- a theoretical approach that hinges on players potentially doing things that don't maximize their talents
- that we *actually got a stop* on that particular play, and therefore some throw support behind instances of success instead of whether or not something we make decisions - a scheme, an approach, a general direction - that are sustainable in a meaningful way. For meaningful games.

Most of all, it all adds up to something bigger: a program many have associated with aggression now seemingly operates on fear.

Yeap...

I don't know what the **** D'NO is thinking or doing here? Extremely frustrating!

Maybe dorito is just bad at basic math. What's his degree in?

general studies

 

[Awsi Dooger]

I remember that exact play. Before it unfolded I was thinking if Nebraska were in the same situation on defense it would look like 13 men out there. And that was indeed the case, on our final possession.

With the Canes out there it might as well be 9. Every recent season I don't overreact to defense early in the year because I know our 9 man defense will show up again.

This won't be popular but I have to say there's nothing more gorgeous in sports than watching a physical downhill running team pound away and brutalize a finesse team en route to humiliating them. As Canes fans we never really had that satisfaction. Our glory eras were based on extreme talent and speed. It's one of the reasons I don't think we have a guaranteed birthright to return. You've got to be a supreme moron not to understand how pivotal the Orange Bowl was to our success. We shut down those option teams largely because we got them at home. Oklahoma in 1985 at Norman was walking up and down the field with Aikman, of all people, running a crude hybrid version of the option. We may have won that game if Aikman had remained healthy but it would have been very high scoring. Nebraska's offense was wearing us out at the end of the 1983 game and it did finish us off in the 1994 game. We managed to avoid their best teams of 1995 and 1997. Hence the myth persisted that the Canes own run oriented teams.

South Florida high school football is not physical. Anything but physical. Big change in the past 10-15 years with all the lazy spread offenses. It's a parade of open spaces finesse on both sides of the ball. Last season I had no trouble identifying South Dade because it was the first team I'd seen in many years that made a legit attempt to stop the opponent without relying solely on manpower advantage. All of those local high school teams that earn national accolades are essentially lower division versions of the Canes in their heyday. Who cares? Miami is never going to be able to monopolize the ultra elite from those schools and forge a brute team. We gave away the Orange Bowl, which I'll continue to insist played a considerably greater role in our success than we dared accept. if you look back at results from 1966 forth that building massaged the defense of both the Dolphins and Canes. Points allowed at home were lower than logical if you look at relevant criteria like yards and turnover differential and road results within the same period.

One thing is beyond obvious: Guys like McCord, AQM and Chad Thomas mean very little in the big picture. I won't be excited when we sign that type again. They are nice frills players who help earn an extra turnover and touchdown or two against outmanned teams you are going to squash anyway. But those edge guys are all but irrelevant if your base linemen are not huge, disruptive and special. Tonight was another example of everything drifts back to the beginning. We knew our recruiting has been pathetic at defensive tackle. Then a couple of newcomers show up who look better than anything recent, so we prefer to pretend the issue is mostly solved. Then a legit team shows up and their biggest problem is not to laugh while shoving us around. I have no idea why Nebraska threw as often as it did.

Every time we line up in a passive 3-4 I want to cry. It feels like Sun Life Stadium, a self-inflicted problem.

I remember in the '80s and '90s when I was full time in Las Vegas and Saturdays and Sundays could not be more different in terms of my favorite teams. The Canes would attack from gap splitting disruptive 4-3 while the Dolphins lined up a yard off the ball and basically begged for a fumbled exchange. Now it's somehow reversed. Watch the Dolphins tomorrow. They might lose but at least that front four will crater one play after another. Earl Mitchell tries to split the gap on every play. He's not even a special player. But the Dolphins learned to prioritize that type.