Article: "Scheme" vs. "Philosophy" - what's really broken?

[weownfsu]

The problem with this team isn't one side of the ball, it's the whole package. Everything about this team looks atrocious. Watch other programs in the top ten play and tell me we look the way we should with the amount of talent we have.

there isn't a single facet of the team that is managed well. Offense, defense, special teams, S&C, etc. everything is complete garbage under golden. Changing coordinators does nothing. The problem is golden himself

This is not a new theory, but most people not attacking the defense were met with a you must be hanging on Golden's nuts defending his boy and your tongue must be orange because you have Dorito **** so far up your *** you can taste it.

bull****. Wrong on so many fronts. Especially coming from you, a guy who slurped Golden all off-season and now you wanna try and act like you have some point to make.

 

[Angry Ibis]

The problem with this team isn't one side of the ball, it's the whole package. Everything about this team looks atrocious. Watch other programs in the top ten play and tell me we look the way we should with the amount of talent we have.

there isn't a single facet of the team that is managed well. Offense, defense, special teams, S&C, etc. everything is complete garbage under golden. Changing coordinators does nothing. The problem is golden himself

This is not a new theory, but most people not attacking the defense were met with a you must be hanging on Golden's nuts defending his boy and your tongue must be orange because you have Dorito **** so far up your *** you can taste it.

bull****. Wrong on so many fronts. Especially coming from you, a guy who slurped Golden all off-season and now you wanna try and act like you have some point to make.

In appreciation of the actual discussion being brought forth, I am not going to engage you in your slurper/mope bull****.

ghost, NVA, 82 and others are bringing good discussion points to the table. I am simply pointing out that some of these have been discussed before, but at different times the board was so focused on mope v slurper that everything was thrown that way and taken to extremes.

 

[MetiSkeemz]

This is probably one of the most insightful level headed and in-idiotic post I've seen in my history on this site post meltdown. With that bing said I've already seen a couple of the "FU** THAT FIRE GOLDEN" morons on here I ask you please don't mess this up for the people who actually know and want to discuss the intricacies of the sport.

To add in my 2 cents. The whole defensive side of the ball needs to be terminated. Those position coaches are so bad it gives me diarrhea. Barrow was the only person I saw with coaching talent. Hurlie is *** cheeks, PAUL WILLIAMS SHOULD NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COACH ANOTHER DEFENSIVE BACK AT ANY LEVEL EVER AGAIN! and Jethro? Lmfao I don't even have to go there

 

[jcloutier]

We might not make the playoffs

 

[weownfsu]

The problem with this team isn't one side of the ball, it's the whole package. Everything about this team looks atrocious. Watch other programs in the top ten play and tell me we look the way we should with the amount of talent we have.

there isn't a single facet of the team that is managed well. Offense, defense, special teams, S&C, etc. everything is complete garbage under golden. Changing coordinators does nothing. The problem is golden himself

This is not a new theory, but most people not attacking the defense were met with a you must be hanging on Golden's nuts defending his boy and your tongue must be orange because you have Dorito **** so far up your *** you can taste it.

bull****. Wrong on so many fronts. Especially coming from you, a guy who slurped Golden all off-season and now you wanna try and act like you have some point to make.

In appreciation of the actual discussion being brought forth, I am not going to engage you in your slurper/mope bull****.

ghost, NVA, 82 and others are bringing good discussion points to the table. I am simply pointing out that some of these have been discussed before, but at different times the board was so focused on mope v slurper that everything was thrown that way and taken to extremes.

LOL, you're full of ****. You brought up the mope/slurper bull****, and I'm the one who started this discussion about why a ******* DC isn't going to solve all of our problems. There was a whole crew of people like yourself who thought that the defense would be a-okay if the offense just held the ball more.

 

[Dynasty]

Excellent, excellent post and I've been saying basically the same thing. The scheme works if executed properly. The problem is that Coach D plays scared. If he mans up and sends the house on 3rd and long and we get burnt, it could be weeks before he does it again. You have to have a short memory sometimes. Pressure that QB and more often than not he will hurry and not make that perfect throw.

I think the scheme is better suited for the next level where you are able to get the number of reps needed for it to be productive. When you're trying to combine two different techniques it is awfully hard to get any continuity. Take the one gap 43 that JJ popularized. Everything from stance, hand placement, reads on the run, and techniques are completely different than the 34 (okie) counterpart. Now, when you're mixing in 34 techniques, stance, hand placement, and reads, you get what we've been seeing recently. A defensive line that is constantly getting no push against the run and nothing in terms of a pass rush. As a result OLmen are getting to the second level defenders, and the secondary is getting exploited. No pass rush and soft zone coverage equals a **** poor defense.

As far as coverages are concerned, I really think D would be better off running a version of tampa-2. Heck, the mike is already aligned 7-8 yards deep. Grace is the type of weapon needed at will for the tampa-2 to be productive because he will be responsible for the added space vacated by mike's deeper drop. It's still in D no's realm because it is a three deep coverage. That being said, it won't make a difference what coverages we are running if we don't turn the DL loose and get some asses into gaps to provide pressure.

I've always felt a Tampa-2 would be ideal here. Not a lot of college teams run it, and don't understand why. The NDSU staff (now at Wyoming), does. They won back to back to back FCS titles with it.

4WR sets are beginning to slice and dice the best parts of the Tampa-2. Not that 4WR sets are nonexistent in FCS, but I can see some of the better athletes and better precision of the higher level spread out the Tampa-2 the way they're doing in the NFL. 3 by 1 sets. Mismatches in the middle of the field. Etc. Just the weekend, Baltimore shredded a lot of 2 Safety looks by TB. It's a scary time to play defense. Hence, why you have to focus on disruption in your front.

It's funny you mentioned 4WR (2x2) sets. Before the season started my brothers and I were discussing different coverages, etc. The only one who played offense (famu RB) actually brought up your concern. The two that played LB stated it could be done, but that there would be a huge bubble area for the SLB to cover to due the hash marks being different at the collegiate level. My reply as a corner was that if you are worried about 4 verticals just make an X out call to one side of the field. X out meaning we're going to cover X in man coverage while rotating the 3 deep toward the cloud corner (x out could also be done against 3x1, leaving a 2x1 which you could easily apply read-2 rules). I still believe that you would need to cheat MLB towards sam, though. Thus the tampa-2 variation.

 

[Angry Ibis]

The problem with this team isn't one side of the ball, it's the whole package. Everything about this team looks atrocious. Watch other programs in the top ten play and tell me we look the way we should with the amount of talent we have.

there isn't a single facet of the team that is managed well. Offense, defense, special teams, S&C, etc. everything is complete garbage under golden. Changing coordinators does nothing. The problem is golden himself

This is not a new theory, but most people not attacking the defense were met with a you must be hanging on Golden's nuts defending his boy and your tongue must be orange because you have Dorito **** so far up your *** you can taste it.

bull****. Wrong on so many fronts. Especially coming from you, a guy who slurped Golden all off-season and now you wanna try and act like you have some point to make.

In appreciation of the actual discussion being brought forth, I am not going to engage you in your slurper/mope bull****.

ghost, NVA, 82 and others are bringing good discussion points to the table. I am simply pointing out that some of these have been discussed before, but at different times the board was so focused on mope v slurper that everything was thrown that way and taken to extremes.

LOL, you're full of ****. You brought up the mope/slurper bull****, and I'm the one who started this discussion about why a ******* DC isn't going to solve all of our problems. There was a whole crew of people like yourself who thought that the defense would be a-okay if the offense just held the ball more.

Wrong. There are a whole crew of people who think that all aspects of the game interact and that our weak defense wasn't going to be able to be on the field all game and us still win games. Those people were and continue to be right. There are also those that understand you need to score more points than your opponent to win games and if you don't score you won't win. Those people are also right. Always.

 

[Cribby]

This is all very true, OP. I haven't seen us bluff the blitz a lot, show pressure pre-snap, haven't done a ton of A-gap blitzing. One thing that was nice was the automatic check when the single, off-receiver went in motion away giving a jet read look the back-side corner (Artie Burns) blitzed. This type of automatic check against no receiving threat is great because it scared the OC out of doing much more of that in the game. You've effectively "taken away" a certain look or package.

That's what our D needs more of. We need to force the issue more and make teams do what we allow them to do versus reacting to what they want to do.

The only time I remember seeing a bluff was against Fsu, we lined both lb's up in A gaps. I was in shock when I saw happening.

Winston threw an int that play, thought pressure was coming and was fooled , threw into double coverage .

 

[Samson Doyo]

There's been a lot of vitriol on this and many boards regarding the ineffectiveness of the defense which I won't rehash in this post - we all know the defense is broken. What I'd like to explore here is the difference between a busted scheme and a defunct philosophy.


The Scheme

In a post I made a while ago - still tacked above I think - I got into the "on-paper" aspects of the 4-3 Under/Flex and how it could be utilized here. This is the scheme we "run" (run being used loosely right now...) If you picked up the Miami defensive playbook and thumbed through it, I'd expect you'd see a lot of plays that look eerily similar to what's being run at Alabama or even better, Michigan State.

Just to review, the 4-3 under scheme itself requires a wide-body NT, versatile DEs who can get to the passer but also set an edge, and heady, athletic LBs who can play in space and downhill. There's also a hybrid DE/LB (the "Jack" or "Elephant" position - think McCord) who's primarily used as a pass-rusher. The DBs by-and-large play mainly cover-3 or cover-0 depending on the situation.

For me, the scheme in and of itself is not the problem. When run with purpose and aggression, pressure can come from anywhere on the field and wreak havoc on traditional and spread offenses alike. (Again, see Narduzzi at MSU.) I'd go so far as to argue that the recent shift to the Flex for a lot of teams is a direct result of the dramatic rise in spread offenses over the last 10 years. That said, no defensive scheme is a problem on paper. The issues arise when coaches have to teach, implement, and gameplan the scheme both mid-week and on Saturdays. This leads me to -

The Philosophy

To me, this is where there is a massive disconnect between what this defense is, and what it could/should be. We've seen this defense be aggressive at times (Duke, even this past week at Cincy occasionally) - that's what's so frustrating. The problem seems to be that D'Nofrio is trying to defend EVERYTHING simultaneously, and ends up defending nothing well. And when we are attacking and the opposing offense gains a chunk of yards, it seems we go into defensive panic mode far too soon. Were we really that afraid of Georgia Tech's deep ball that we gave up on stopping the dive? Did we really need to drop 8 into coverage on the 10-yard line? These are the differences to me between an "attacking" philosophy and a "reactive" philosophy. Note here that the issue is still the playcalling/gameplan, not the plays themselves.


Can we fix it?

This is where the rubber hits the proverbial road. In my post from last year, I wondered if the scheme was too complex for the college game. I don't wonder that anymore - it's not. I now believe that it's D'Nofrio's PHILOSOPHY that asks our players to do too much, not the scheme itself. Example: Tyriq McCord should be playing downhill 70-80% of the time. Period. That's his primary skillset. I'm not saying don't drop him into coverage occasionally - just enough to keep offenses guessing as to where the pressure is - but any more that a couple times per game and you're nullifying your player's natural ability. Perryman and Kirby should be blitzing the **** out of the A gap so that when one or both drop into zone, there's still pressure (say from Bush or Howard) and deception. Or if you don't trust the rush from the back 7, that's fine - use a LB as a spy on a running QB or shifty RB and just say "go where he goes." (Incidentally, that's exactly what Narduzzi did to help take away Abdullah in the MSU-Nebraska game...)

Basically, it all comes down to trust. Right now, I don't believe D'Nofrio trusts our personnel to execute his plays, and so when the plays inevitably go awry mid-game, he reverts back to the dreaded "bend-don't-break" philosophy that simply ends up breaking over the course of a game. Some would argue that even if we change DCs that this is GOLDEN'S scheme (which it is) so it won't matter. I'm not so sure yet. It is definitely Golden's intent to have our defense play 4-3 Under, but I'm not convinced that our DC is running it the way our Head Coach wants it run anymore. If there is a change in the defensive coaching staff after the season and Golden remains the head coach, 2015 becomes very intriguing and I'll be very interested in re-visiting the "scheme" v. "philosophy" discussion again.

Just my .02

Best technical football post since the sights inception IMO. Thank you Ghost and Lu. These types of discussions/subjects are very informative. I agree on philosophy. DOH'Nofrio panics almost immediately. Guys is just in over his head. It's a shame for the kids and fans that Al didn't recognize this a couple of years ago. That's on him. The right DC can turn this thing around and fast. The talent is there.

 

[weownfsu]

This is not a new theory, but most people not attacking the defense were met with a you must be hanging on Golden's nuts defending his boy and your tongue must be orange because you have Dorito **** so far up your *** you can taste it.

bull****. Wrong on so many fronts. Especially coming from you, a guy who slurped Golden all off-season and now you wanna try and act like you have some point to make.

In appreciation of the actual discussion being brought forth, I am not going to engage you in your slurper/mope bull****.

ghost, NVA, 82 and others are bringing good discussion points to the table. I am simply pointing out that some of these have been discussed before, but at different times the board was so focused on mope v slurper that everything was thrown that way and taken to extremes.

LOL, you're full of ****. You brought up the mope/slurper bull****, and I'm the one who started this discussion about why a ****ing DC isn't going to solve all of our problems. There was a whole crew of people like yourself who thought that the defense would be a-okay if the offense just held the ball more.

Wrong. There are a whole crew of people who think that all aspects of the game interact and that our weak defense wasn't going to be able to be on the field all game and us still win games. Those people were and continue to be right. There are also those that understand you need to score more points than your opponent to win games and if you don't score you won't win. Those people are also right. Always.

No idea what you're even talking about. You were a well-documented Golden fluffer and now you're trying to claim that you weren't part of that group. Just stop. The defense sucks **** because they are terrible at football, not because the offense sucks at converting third downs.

 

[Angry Ibis]

bull****. Wrong on so many fronts. Especially coming from you, a guy who slurped Golden all off-season and now you wanna try and act like you have some point to make.

In appreciation of the actual discussion being brought forth, I am not going to engage you in your slurper/mope bull****.

ghost, NVA, 82 and others are bringing good discussion points to the table. I am simply pointing out that some of these have been discussed before, but at different times the board was so focused on mope v slurper that everything was thrown that way and taken to extremes.

LOL, you're full of ****. You brought up the mope/slurper bull****, and I'm the one who started this discussion about why a ****ing DC isn't going to solve all of our problems. There was a whole crew of people like yourself who thought that the defense would be a-okay if the offense just held the ball more.

Wrong. There are a whole crew of people who think that all aspects of the game interact and that our weak defense wasn't going to be able to be on the field all game and us still win games. Those people were and continue to be right. There are also those that understand you need to score more points than your opponent to win games and if you don't score you won't win. Those people are also right. Always.

No idea what you're even talking about. You were a well-documented Golden fluffer and now you're trying to claim that you weren't part of that group. Just stop. The defense sucks **** because they are terrible at football, not because the offense sucks at converting third downs.

Blah blah blah more Golden slurper/fluffer bull****. You are the only poster on here babbling about joining groups. So now your saying the defense sucks because they are terrible at football -- not because of scheme, philosophy and game day coaching? You seem a little spun around and angry.

The more a bad defense is on the field, the more chances they have to be exposed for what they are. The offense not sustaining drives leaves a bad defense on the field more often to get further exposed. Not rocket science.

 

[Angry Ibis]

Scheme is one thing and there's your heart and the way you attack the game." - Antrel Rolle

 

[CaneInTheHouse]

Also, why is the discussion when it comes to Golden always about defense?

The offense, under Golden, has put together maybe ONE solid game against a very good. That's it. Otherwise, they end up sucking against real teams just like the defense. That's why all this assistant coach talk is nonsense.

The big problem is defense and it trickles over to the offense. Against Louisville the offense was handcuffed majorly by the playcalling and had no chance of having success. Against Nebraska the offense was fine, scored 31 and was the only reason the game looked close as the defense was just an absolute disaster. And against GT the offense didn't have a chance to do much as the defense never got off the field. Sure they turned it over a couple of times, but the defense was on the field 40+ minutes not because of the offense, but because they couldn't get a stop. The offense still averaged around 7 yards per play I believe. The fact of the matter is the offense has not been a cause for any of the losses outside of Louisville. The defense is always the main reason we lose.

Oh bull****. The offense has **** the bed against almost every good team we've played here. The entire team sucks, but Golden is so intertwined with the defense that people ignore how mediocre the offense is. No specific unit is "responsible" for a loss--they both suck. One, we scored 24 when it counted against Nebraska--a garbage TD with under a minute left doesn't mean anything. So we scored the same amount of points when it counted against Nebraska as McNeese St. Big whoop. This is a team that hasn't scored more than 20 against FSU in Golden's tenure. That scored 3 points against Notre Dame. 13 points against Kansas St. Put up 28 rushing yards against Virginia Tech last year and was 3-12 on 3rd down conversions. 9 points in a bowl game.

So you can pretend that the defense is "always the main reason we lose" but the main reason we lose is because we're an awful team. Our offense happens to do fine against terrible teams, but then usually comes up short against good teams. That's because our offense isn't very good, so a new defensive coordinator or philosophy on defense isn't the be all end all. We've been consistently mediocre at best against competent teams in all facets of the game.

^^^^This. I've mentioned this a number of times this year while most complain about the defense.