- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 16,298
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
If he keeps running that ridiculous scheme....it won't even matter what talent we bring in.
There isn't a defensive end on the planet that can be asked to backpeddle into coverage and cover a jitterbug typle slot receiver. It's simple ******* physics.
Here's a thought dumb ***...if you're going to insist on running that ill-conceived cover 3 on every ******* down...at least give different looks pre-snap, you know....crowd the box and THEN drop 8. As opposed to coming out with linebackers with heels at 7-10 yards off the line scrimmage and everyone lined up in a soft, passive base look.
The biggest problem with that abortion of a scheme is that the presnap look gives away EVERYTHING. It's so obvious when we're blitzing cause these kids are being asked to blitz out of the same passive look and they can't help but start to creep up right before the snap.
even though I know they have 2 more years here, it amazes me that NO'D has no idea the fanbase despises his scheme. Kudos to Barry for providing n awakening for him and Golden.
This tells me all I need to know about Dorito's play calling ability. This came after a ******* time out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM4ZwsVv4VU
If the d plays like **** this year golden has to make changes.
If the D is lousy this year he should be fired. He had the chance to make changes this offseason and chose to keep his pal around.
Like any scheme, it depends on the personnel. If you can find a monster NT and some good rush OLBs, it will be very successful. Stanford's D is a 3-4 two gap D. A lot of Ds have been successful with this system. It's all about finding the pieces. It may or may not be a great cultural fit for SF athletes, but the scheme itself isn't incapable of being successful.
It is not just cultural, there is a climate element. The 3-4 you speak of requires huge NTs and much bigger dline and LBs than normally exist down here. Our old teams were always smaller--even on Oline, so where the Dolphins when they were great. Hot, humid, makes it difficult to be an active, aggressive type of person if you carry those extra pounds. Those big players from other teams us to collapse in So FL humidity and heat. That is one reason we owned the fourth quarter. Now our guys collapse in the 4th and at end of season.
We have been witness to two of the greatest examples of football in history down here and both took place with smaller quicker players than their opposition. And it is not about black inner city kids; the undefeated Dolphins started 10 out 11 white dudes on defense and numerous white guy on offense. All were smaller than their counterparts in the NFL, except Zonk. We have an example of the greatest pro team and perhaps the great college dynasty, why not follow them. Caution, both these played in the OB, with probably the fastest turf in the country -- now both play in a cow pasture in north Dade. Small and really fast is good; small and slower, is not.
even though I know they have 2 more years here, it amazes me that NO'D has no idea the fanbase despises his scheme. Kudos to Barry for providing n awakening for him and Golden.
Tracy Howard
Deon Bush
Jamal Carter
Jermaine Grace
Al-Quadin Muhammad
Tyriq McCord
Anthony Chickillo
Raphael Kirby
Artie Burns
Corn Elder
Denzel Perryman
These kids were all 4+ stars with huge offer lists from big-time programs. They had every big school humping their leg. If you can't crack the top 25 with this group, go **** your own face.
I don't wanna hear any ****ing about being inexperienced or young. LSU lost 8 starters and had a top 25 defense last season. ****ing coach them. DT is atrocious, so nobody is expecting some legendary top 5 unit, but if you can't crack the top 25 with this much talent in the ACC you're worthless as a football coach.
Anyone excusing a ranking less than a top 25 defense is a grade-A moron. We hear the crying about needing a talent upgrade, this defense is littered with kids who could've named their school. Get it done or get out of my sight.
Like any scheme, it depends on the personnel. If you can find a monster NT and some good rush OLBs, it will be very successful. Stanford's D is a 3-4 two gap D. A lot of Ds have been successful with this system. It's all about finding the pieces. It may or may not be a great cultural fit for SF athletes, but the scheme itself isn't incapable of being successful.
I would not call Stanford's scheme a predominant 2-gap scheme.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
This is what UM's defense should look like ( not what Al and Donofrio have been force feeding us) Nick Aliotti was at Oregon for 20 years and changed his system to better match the available team talent. Mind you Oregon rarely has a recruiting class ranked in the Top 15 yet year in and year out they have a very good defense, that doesn't **** about the Oregon offenses short time of possession.
[video=youtube_share;ID84WwJO-60]http://youtu.be/ID84WwJO-60[/video]
[video=youtube_share;EBlB0ZsfCMU]http://youtu.be/EBlB0ZsfCMU[/video]
[video=youtube_share;eyoZwPSdXyw]http://youtu.be/eyoZwPSdXyw[/video]
[video=youtube_share;PvfL7Yrvq7U]http://youtu.be/PvfL7Yrvq7U[/video]