Defensive adjustments

[LuCane]

What is the Golden slurper's rebuttal for the refusal to cover shallow crossing routes for the last several weeks of the season?

What part of the scheme is designed to allow shallow crossing routes to go uncovered?

This is the crux of the matter. It's not the scheme--it's the execution of the scheme. But at some point, they kind of become the same. Golden/Dono haven't designed the only defense in the history of football that can't work. But, if you're three years in and guys aren't executing, what's going to change? These guys who were playing last year weren't that young. If you have a fundamental execution problem, is plugging in more talented freshmen likely to fix that or make it worse?

I don't see a ton of improvement until they make a fundamental change grounded in accepting that what they are currently doing is NOT going to work. Maybe they have accepted that and will change and we just don't know it yet--hopefully. We must also note for the optimists that a little bit of improvement based on experience will not cut it. We're talking massive improvement if we want to compete at a high level especially considering that our offense very well could be worse.

The guys playing last year weren't that young, but they also weren't that good. I too believe it's a matter of execution, and that's something that will get fixed with time and experience, couple that with more talented guys, and I think we'll be just fine. I don't foresee any wholesale changes in our defensive philosophy, but I do think the combination of experience and talent is what we need to be successful. Golden had, has, the benefit of knowing he's not going to get booted from here quickly. That gives him the luxury of doing what he needs to do, and implementing what he needs to implement without the "man if i don't do this by season 3 i'm getting fired" threat. We may not agree with that, and we may not like it, but he's building for long term, and I'm ok with that.

As I've said in the past, I think the "it's not the scheme; it's the execution of the scheme" is oversimplification. The execution of the scheme is very often dependent on how susceptible it is to having its pieces moved around. No scheme is built to allow some of the plays we did last year, but some schemes are easier for the offense to manipulate.

Add that to a fairly rigid approach and deficient talent, and you're playing way uphill.

 

[ghost2]

For me, the phrase "execution of the scheme" is not limited to the players. Execution of the scheme involves gameplanning for opponents' strengths and weaknesses, in-game playcalling, substitution packages, and putting players in the best possible position to make the scheme successful. So when I see "it's not the scheme, it's the execution" I absolutely agree, conceptually speaking.

 

[LuCane]

For me, the phrase "execution of the scheme" is not limited to the players. Execution of the scheme involves gameplanning for opponents' strengths and weaknesses, in-game playcalling, substitution packages, and putting players in the best possible position to make the scheme successful. So when I see "it's not the scheme, it's the execution" I absolutely agree, conceptually speaking.

Hence, the "add that to a rigid approach…"

A scheme is like any other scheme: part of a philosophy, mentality and a strategy. That's why I don't think we "fix" our issues, necessarily, by firing D'Ono. I hope for broader adjustments by Coach Golden (who I don't believe is going anywhere) to philosophy, strategy and even in-game approach. Maybe that's unrealistic.

 

[DaU83]

What is the Golden slurper's rebuttal for the refusal to cover shallow crossing routes for the last several weeks of the season?

What part of the scheme is designed to allow shallow crossing routes to go uncovered?

This is the crux of the matter. It's not the scheme--it's the execution of the scheme. But at some point, they kind of become the same. Golden/Dono haven't designed the only defense in the history of football that can't work. But, if you're three years in and guys aren't executing, what's going to change? These guys who were playing last year weren't that young. If you have a fundamental execution problem, is plugging in more talented freshmen likely to fix that or make it worse?

I don't see a ton of improvement until they make a fundamental change grounded in accepting that what they are currently doing is NOT going to work. Maybe they have accepted that and will change and we just don't know it yet--hopefully. We must also note for the optimists that a little bit of improvement based on experience will not cut it. We're talking massive improvement if we want to compete at a high level especially considering that our offense very well could be worse.

The guys playing last year weren't that young, but they also weren't that good. I too believe it's a matter of execution, and that's something that will get fixed with time and experience, couple that with more talented guys, and I think we'll be just fine. I don't foresee any wholesale changes in our defensive philosophy, but I do think the combination of experience and talent is what we need to be successful. Golden had, has, the benefit of knowing he's not going to get booted from here quickly. That gives him the luxury of doing what he needs to do, and implementing what he needs to implement without the "man if i don't do this by season 3 i'm getting fired" threat. We may not agree with that, and we may not like it, but he's building for long term, and I'm ok with that.

As I've said in the past, I think the "it's not the scheme; it's the execution of the scheme" is oversimplification. The execution of the scheme is very often dependent on how susceptible it is to having its pieces moved around. No scheme is built to allow some of the plays we did last year, but some schemes are easier for the offense to manipulate.

Add that to a fairly rigid approach and deficient talent, and you're playing way uphill.

I feel like what we're trying to run, isn't that easy to manipulate, as an example, I thought Randy's D's were very easy to manipulate. Now the learning curve for our scheme is much more steep than that of Shannon's D, but since Golden had plenty of job security he knew he could take his time with implementing.

 

[CanefaninBuckeyeland]

Judging by Golden and Coach D's comments about some of the players as well as the play on the field (players out of position, etc) it's possible, or even likely, that the defense is too complicated. The players are thinking way too much and not reacting (you can forget about dictating). When you combine that with young talent and veterans that are average at best, you look like we have over the last 3 years.

My hope is that the young talent will grow and mature both physically and schematically. This year will be very telling now that a vast majority of the defense will be "Golden's" people.

 

[ghost2]

For me, the phrase "execution of the scheme" is not limited to the players. Execution of the scheme involves gameplanning for opponents' strengths and weaknesses, in-game playcalling, substitution packages, and putting players in the best possible position to make the scheme successful. So when I see "it's not the scheme, it's the execution" I absolutely agree, conceptually speaking.

Hence, the "add that to a rigid approach…"

A scheme is like any other scheme: part of a philosophy, mentality and a strategy. That's why I don't think we "fix" our issues, necessarily, by firing D'Ono. I hope for broader adjustments by Coach Golden (who I don't believe is going anywhere) to philosophy, strategy and even in-game approach. Maybe that's unrealistic.

I don't think it's unrealistic to hope for adjustments to strategy and in-game approach. Philosophy is another matter. I think Golden, like most coaches, has a "structure" or philosophy in mind (in this case the flex or 4-3 under framework) and will, or should, adjust the specifics of gameplanning/playcalling to fit that broader philosophy.

To me, philosophy/identity is the difference between seeing a "multiple" defense and a "schizophrenic" defense. Or in our case, a "nonexistent" defense...

 

[252cane]

They want to use the 2 gap with the d-line but it isnt working we dont have d-lineman with the power to do it. When you 2 gap it usually calls for you to read and react. The problem is our d-lineman are weak so when they read they are getting blowed off the line of scrimmage. They are supposed to be able to read while maintaining control of the los.

That's why a team like bama has success with it because their d-line is much bigger and more powerful and they are not getting blowed off the los. It still falls on scheme and coaches because you know you dont have the guys up front to do it and you still are asking them to do it.

 

[RiDLer80]

Student gets C's and D's taking AP classes at his high school. The next year, his advisor suggests he takes more basic level classes. He improves to B's and a couple A's. What is the conclusion?

You can do better than that.

Yeah probably. Either way, I think it is analogous enough.

The problem with your analogy and why it cannot be taking serious is you are using "extreme" differences. Anyone who took AP Algebra vs "basic" algebra knows there is a huge difference. If you would have said AP Algebra vs Honors Algebra, then you might have something. Seeing as our SOS in 2012 was 42nd vs 2013 SOS which was 44th. Yes, there is a difference, it's right there is black and white. The difference is negligible.

SOS looked at in a vacuum can be misleading. Looking at a teams SOS based on opponents' records doesn't tell the entire story.

If college football had an RPI like basketball then that'd be a better true indicator of the team's SOS.

Looking at our 2012 vs 2013 schedule we replaced two OOC BCS teams in ND and KSU with UF and FAU. USF was equally as bad both years and Savannah St is worse than Bethune Cookman was.

 

[DaU83]

Student gets C's and D's taking AP classes at his high school. The next year, his advisor suggests he takes more basic level classes. He improves to B's and a couple A's. What is the conclusion?

You can do better than that.

Yeah probably. Either way, I think it is analogous enough.

The problem with your analogy and why it cannot be taking serious is you are using "extreme" differences. Anyone who took AP Algebra vs "basic" algebra knows there is a huge difference. If you would have said AP Algebra vs Honors Algebra, then you might have something. Seeing as our SOS in 2012 was 42nd vs 2013 SOS which was 44th. Yes, there is a difference, it's right there is black and white. The difference is negligible.

SOS looked at in a vacuum can be misleading. Looking at a teams SOS based on opponents' records doesn't tell the entire story.

If college football had an RPI like basketball then that'd be a better true indicator of the team's SOS.

Looking at our 2012 vs 2013 schedule we replaced two OOC BCS teams in ND and KSU with UF and FAU. USF was equally as bad both years and Savannah St is worse than Bethune Cookman was.

That completely disregards that the conference schedule may have gotten harder, which is why you have to look at it as whole. I understand that doing so isn't great for the "the schedule was much easier" argument, but it is what it is.

 

[niner]

You can do better than that.

Yeah probably. Either way, I think it is analogous enough.

The problem with your analogy and why it cannot be taking serious is you are using "extreme" differences. Anyone who took AP Algebra vs "basic" algebra knows there is a huge difference. If you would have said AP Algebra vs Honors Algebra, then you might have something. Seeing as our SOS in 2012 was 42nd vs 2013 SOS which was 44th. Yes, there is a difference, it's right there is black and white. The difference is negligible.

SOS looked at in a vacuum can be misleading. Looking at a teams SOS based on opponents' records doesn't tell the entire story.

If college football had an RPI like basketball then that'd be a better true indicator of the team's SOS.

Looking at our 2012 vs 2013 schedule we replaced two OOC BCS teams in ND and KSU with UF and FAU. USF was equally as bad both years and Savannah St is worse than Bethune Cookman was.

That completely disregards that the conference schedule may have gotten harder, which is why you have to look at it as whole. I understand that doing so isn't great for the "the schedule was much easier" argument, but it is what it is.

Exactly. It's why the SOS should be not be used as an "excuse" for more wins. Sure some OOC teams were "harder" in 2012 vs 2013, at the same time, IC teams were "harder" in 2013 vs 2012, so in the end, the difference is negligible.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

Yeah probably. Either way, I think it is analogous enough.

The problem with your analogy and why it cannot be taking serious is you are using "extreme" differences. Anyone who took AP Algebra vs "basic" algebra knows there is a huge difference. If you would have said AP Algebra vs Honors Algebra, then you might have something. Seeing as our SOS in 2012 was 42nd vs 2013 SOS which was 44th. Yes, there is a difference, it's right there is black and white. The difference is negligible.

SOS looked at in a vacuum can be misleading. Looking at a teams SOS based on opponents' records doesn't tell the entire story.

If college football had an RPI like basketball then that'd be a better true indicator of the team's SOS.

Looking at our 2012 vs 2013 schedule we replaced two OOC BCS teams in ND and KSU with UF and FAU. USF was equally as bad both years and Savannah St is worse than Bethune Cookman was.

That completely disregards that the conference schedule may have gotten harder, which is why you have to look at it as whole. I understand that doing so isn't great for the "the schedule was much easier" argument, but it is what it is.

Exactly. It's why the SOS should be not be used as an "excuse" for more wins. Sure some OOC teams were "harder" in 2012 vs 2013, at the same time, IC teams were "harder" in 2013 vs 2012, so in the end, the difference is negligible.

Except for the fact we have lost to every team we've played the last 3 years who has a pulse.

Maybe getting average results against the lesser opponents on the schedule is ok in your book....but I'd argue in this particular case that the truth lies in the SOS pudding in regards to Golden.

His resume does nothing to prove otherwise. He's lost to basically every quality opponent he's faced during his time here...and the mythical "9 win" season at Temple that all the Don Bailey Jr cheerleaders cling to as some sort of validation of coaching prowess is the definition of fraud.

Being the prettiest fat girl at Temple doesn't make you a competent coach. If you want to believe otherwise......do your thing. I firmly believe that loser attitude has permeated all the way up into our incompetent administration. As such, the last decade of "results" speak for themselves.

The scheme...sucks. Period. It's passive, it's predictable, and most of all it asks players to do things they should never be doing. Watching AQM backpeddle, plant his back foot, and then being asked to undercut a 5 yard out by a jitterbug slot receiver is the definition of stupidity.

Having 2 deep safeties in some goal line situations? Stupidity.

Keeping 3 linebackers on the field when the opposing offense has multiple receivers in the game (and mind you...it's not like they were no huddling to force that kind of situation)....Stupidity.

I could go on for hours. I don't have a problem with a 2 gap system...I don't have a problem with multiple defenses or even a straight up 3-4....but what I do have a problem with is the philosophy Golden/Onfrio have out of that system and the way they implement it.

The results speak for themselves. You can continue to cite whatever excuses you want...but there's a difference between being an average D, and being an outright HORRIBLE D. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize which of the aforementioned categories we fall under.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

I think one of the biggest indicators of the state of things is our inability to get lined up correctly before the snap, even at the end of year 3 in this system.

That baffles my baffles.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

So CaneAlmighty's position is that an opinion of a team BEFORE the season determines whether beating said team is a quality win once the season begins/ends.

Cool. So if Vegas believes a team will be 10-2 and they end up 3-9, according to CaneAlmighty any team who beats them still got a quality win because Vegas predicted they would win 10 games preseason. Can't argue with that logic folks, Almighty is clearly a brilliant man.

No No No No No..

My position is you did some text book revisionist history bro.
Before the season you were down playing the loss of the departing starters, now you're over dramatizing the losses.
Before the season you had them has a 8,9 win team now you're saying the UF team Miami beat was as bad as their 4-8 record indicates.

 

[Cash]

They want to use the 2 gap with the d-line but it isnt working we dont have d-lineman with the power to do it. When you 2 gap it usually calls for you to read and react. The problem is our d-lineman are weak so when they read they are getting blowed off the line of scrimmage. They are supposed to be able to read while maintaining control of the los.

That's why a team like bama has success with it because their d-line is much bigger and more powerful and they are not getting blowed off the los. It still falls on scheme and coaches because you know you dont have the guys up front to do it and you still are asking them to do it.

Deer Antler Spray!

 

[killa1storm]

So CaneAlmighty's position is that an opinion of a team BEFORE the season determines whether beating said team is a quality win once the season begins/ends.

Cool. So if Vegas believes a team will be 10-2 and they end up 3-9, according to CaneAlmighty any team who beats them still got a quality win because Vegas predicted they would win 10 games preseason. Can't argue with that logic folks, Almighty is clearly a brilliant man.

No No No No No..

My position is you did some text book revisionist history bro.
Before the season you were down playing the loss of the departing starters, now you're over dramatizing the losses.
Before the season you had them has a 8,9 win team now you're saying the UF team Miami beat was as bad as their 4-8 record indicates.

Are you dumb?

I predicted 9-3 like march of last year, before all their injuries. Combine the injuries with the poor coaching on the offensive side of the ball and yes I do believe they were every bit as bad as their 4-8 record. That has zilch to do with expecting them to be 9-3 in PRESEASON under different circumstances, most notably losing their top two tackles, top receiver, top two QB's, etc. You are basically arguing that an opinion on a team is not allowed to change even when circumstances do, which is flat retarded.

As to the rest, its a typical spin job by you. I'm not overemphasizing their losses now simpleton. I still stand by my statements that the guys mentioned in those quotes (Nixon, Wilson, and Gilislee) were nothing special in the talent department. What you fail to comprehend is the guys slated to replace them missed a combined 47 starts. So in addition to losing those guys all the depth behind them was lost as well, hence this past season. I'd say I was surprised you can't differentiate the two arguments, but I'm not.

 

[niner]

The problem with your analogy and why it cannot be taking serious is you are using "extreme" differences. Anyone who took AP Algebra vs "basic" algebra knows there is a huge difference. If you would have said AP Algebra vs Honors Algebra, then you might have something. Seeing as our SOS in 2012 was 42nd vs 2013 SOS which was 44th. Yes, there is a difference, it's right there is black and white. The difference is negligible.

SOS looked at in a vacuum can be misleading. Looking at a teams SOS based on opponents' records doesn't tell the entire story.

If college football had an RPI like basketball then that'd be a better true indicator of the team's SOS.

Looking at our 2012 vs 2013 schedule we replaced two OOC BCS teams in ND and KSU with UF and FAU. USF was equally as bad both years and Savannah St is worse than Bethune Cookman was.

That completely disregards that the conference schedule may have gotten harder, which is why you have to look at it as whole. I understand that doing so isn't great for the "the schedule was much easier" argument, but it is what it is.

Exactly. It's why the SOS should be not be used as an "excuse" for more wins. Sure some OOC teams were "harder" in 2012 vs 2013, at the same time, IC teams were "harder" in 2013 vs 2012, so in the end, the difference is negligible.

Except for the fact we have lost to every team we've played the last 3 years who has a pulse.

Maybe getting average results against the lesser opponents on the schedule is ok in your book....but I'd argue in this particular case that the truth lies in the SOS pudding in regards to Golden.

His resume does nothing to prove otherwise. He's lost to basically every quality opponent he's faced during his time here...and the mythical "9 win" season at Temple that all the Don Bailey Jr cheerleaders cling to as some sort of validation of coaching prowess is the definition of fraud.

Being the prettiest fat girl at Temple doesn't make you a competent coach. If you want to believe otherwise......do your thing. I firmly believe that loser attitude has permeated all the way up into our incompetent administration. As such, the last decade of "results" speak for themselves.

The scheme...sucks. Period. It's passive, it's predictable, and most of all it asks players to do things they should never be doing. Watching AQM backpeddle, plant his back foot, and then being asked to undercut a 5 yard out by a jitterbug slot receiver is the definition of stupidity.

Having 2 deep safeties in some goal line situations? Stupidity.

Keeping 3 linebackers on the field when the opposing offense has multiple receivers in the game (and mind you...it's not like they were no huddling to force that kind of situation)....Stupidity.

I could go on for hours. I don't have a problem with a 2 gap system...I don't have a problem with multiple defenses or even a straight up 3-4....but what I do have a problem with is the philosophy Golden/Onfrio have out of that system and the way they implement it.

The results speak for themselves. You can continue to cite whatever excuses you want...but there's a difference between being an average D, and being an outright HORRIBLE D. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize which of the aforementioned categories we fall under.

WTF are you rambling about? Seriously? The conversation and topic being discussed, atleast by me is pretty simple and straight forward. The team improved, it won more games. The "excuse" is that the SOS was easier, it was not.

Where the F did you read losing is ok? If you are going to jump in a conversation, at least understand what is being discussed.

SMH, just dumb...

 

[1CN]

IF Randy Johnson have finish the season
Miami would have won 10 plus games....

 

[CaneAlmighty]

So CaneAlmighty's position is that an opinion of a team BEFORE the season determines whether beating said team is a quality win once the season begins/ends.

Cool. So if Vegas believes a team will be 10-2 and they end up 3-9, according to CaneAlmighty any team who beats them still got a quality win because Vegas predicted they would win 10 games preseason. Can't argue with that logic folks, Almighty is clearly a brilliant man.

No No No No No..

My position is you did some text book revisionist history bro.
Before the season you were down playing the loss of the departing starters, now you're over dramatizing the losses.
Before the season you had them has a 8,9 win team now you're saying the UF team Miami beat was as bad as their 4-8 record indicates.

Are you dumb?

I predicted 9-3 like march of last year, before all their injuries. Combine the injuries with the poor coaching on the offensive side of the ball and yes I do believe they were every bit as bad as their 4-8 record. That has zilch to do with expecting them to be 9-3 in PRESEASON under different circumstances, most notably losing their top two tackles, top receiver, top two QB's, etc. You are basically arguing that an opinion on a team is not allowed to change even when circumstances do, which is flat retarded.

As to the rest, its a typical spin job by you. I'm not overemphasizing their losses now simpleton. I still stand by my statements that the guys mentioned in those quotes (Nixon, Wilson, and Gilislee) were nothing special in the talent department. What you fail to comprehend is the guys slated to replace them missed a combined 47 starts. So in addition to losing those guys all the depth behind them was lost as well, hence this past season. I'd say I was surprised you can't differentiate the two arguments, but I'm not.

You were predicting 8,9 wins in AUGUST you ***ing liar. GTFOH with you predicting "9-3" in march.
Your 8/9 win prediction was already taking into account the injuries suffered in the offseason, loss of starters, Gillislee, etc.
The UF team Miami beat on 9/7 had a relatively full squad minus a couple of injuries. Nothing like what they ended up being after with the losses of key players which ultimately did the team in.
But for you to come here and say that the team Miami beat was a 4 win team is bush league on your part.
Are you saying that had the key players that started and played vs Miami not got injured and lost for the year UF would have still been a 4 win team?

 

[CaneAlmighty]

So CaneAlmighty's position is that an opinion of a team BEFORE the season determines whether beating said team is a quality win once the season begins/ends.

Cool. So if Vegas believes a team will be 10-2 and they end up 3-9, according to CaneAlmighty any team who beats them still got a quality win because Vegas predicted they would win 10 games preseason. Can't argue with that logic folks, Almighty is clearly a brilliant man.

No No No No No..

My position is you did some text book revisionist history bro.
Before the season you were down playing the loss of the departing starters, now you're over dramatizing the losses.
Before the season you had them has a 8,9 win team now you're saying the UF team Miami beat was as bad as their 4-8 record indicates.

Are you dumb?

I predicted 9-3 like march of last year, before all their injuries. Combine the injuries with the poor coaching on the offensive side of the ball and yes I do believe they were every bit as bad as their 4-8 record. That has zilch to do with expecting them to be 9-3 in PRESEASON under different circumstances, most notably losing their top two tackles, top receiver, top two QB's, etc. You are basically arguing that an opinion on a team is not allowed to change even when circumstances do, which is flat retarded.

As to the rest, its a typical spin job by you. I'm not overemphasizing their losses now simpleton. I still stand by my statements that the guys mentioned in those quotes (Nixon, Wilson, and Gilislee) were nothing special in the talent department. What you fail to comprehend is the guys slated to replace them missed a combined 47 starts. So in addition to losing those guys all the depth behind them was lost as well, hence this past season. I'd say I was surprised you can't differentiate the two arguments, but I'm not.

You were predicting 8,9 wins in AUGUST you ***ing liar. GTFOH with you predicting "9-3" in march.
Your 8/9 win prediction was already taking into account the injuries suffered in the offseason, loss of starters, Gillislee, etc.
The UF team Miami beat on 9/7 had a relatively full squad minus a couple of injuries. Nothing like what they ended up being after with the losses of key players which ultimately did the team in.
But for you to come here and say that the team Miami beat was a 4 win team is bush league on your part.
Are you saying that had the key players that started and played vs Miami not got injured and lost for the year UF would have still been a 4 win team?

 

[Ibis]

When debating a chicken **** Gaytor fan it isn't necessary to call them ******* liars when they're caught lying. It is understood that they are ******* liars because they are Gaytors. Look no further than their lies as to why they no longer schedule Miami for getting their asses whooped.