Defensive adjustments

[Consigliere]

The point is IT TAKES TIME to know if the DC SUCKS or If eventually HE'll prove to be a good.
You guys are already sold that D'onforio sucks just like you probably would have been sold that with Narduzzi that best Michigan State defenses would be would be average at best.
Next season and after will tell us.. That's why these posts about changing schemes and firing D'onofrio are pointless now.

Calm down. Do you need more time with Patrick Nix? Does he need 4 years at Miami to fully judge? IMO, if Coach D was the "guy" then we would see something better than we have in year 3. It is tough to defend him when we had everything to play for and we let up 90 points combined to VT and Duke.

3 years is time. He has had a ton of time.

As for Narduzzi (assuming he started off bad), so what. One guy, one time. The reason that most coaches don't get that many years to show something is because people believe they have seen enough and have higher expectations after analyzing the data. 3 years is a lot, 3 years is at least 36 games. That is a tremendous data sample to judge. After 3 years if there is ONLY minimal improvement (minimal improvement from crap), that doesn't mean a 4th year is the answer. It usually means a 4th year is a waste and throwing good money at a bad investment (i.e. wasting time).

It isn't pointless to fire him because the data at Miami shows little evidence that he can coach a quality defense. People who believe this would rather implement the new defense NOW rather than wait a year to see _________ at the end of 2014. At the end of the year, we will either see: (a) further evidence of the last 3 years i.e. poor defense, or (b) minimal improvement but still not enough to have the defense we need to win, or (c) a dramatic improvement demonstrating he should be our DC.

It isn't pointless to fire him because of Trend Analysis. It isn't pointless to fire him if he can't coach a defense. There is no reason to wait another full year to see (a) or (b). In addition, AT MIAMI there is no proof that Coach D can make a dramatic improvement.

If your telling me that on March 18, 2014 that it is pointless to fire him now because we're in the middle of spring football and a transition NOW may be pointless and hurt the season, that is one thing.

But we saw UL, we saw Duke and we saw VT. Perhaps after the bowl game it wasn't pointless...this is what people are saying. People are also saying your Narduzzi example (if true) is just an exception and not the rule.

 

[Consigliere]

Pat Narduzzi still put out better defenses with less talent.

Why did it take him 5 years though? I've asked this but no one seems to be able to provide a solid answer.

Why were his defenses regressing his first 3 years?

Should he have changed schemes?
Should he have been fired?

Question 1: Who cares?

Question 2: Who cares?

Question 3: Who cares?

Question 4:

Do you understand that your ONE EXAMPLE (if true), is not proof of the need to wait 4 years to judge. I am quite sure people don't feel the need to give Pat Nix more time.

 

[NorthFlaCane]

D'Onofrio will be here for the 2014 season so it's pointless to me to talk about getting rid of him or how much he sucks. I'd rather talk about how the product on the field will be affected by players leaving, players maturing, and players arriving. If you don't think the players will make any difference, that is ridiculous. If you think the defense still won't be good enough, that is fair.

 

[DaU83]

The increases in talent may help us just out talent some teams, but I dont think its going to do anything vs the good teams

We need All-World talent for that and we dont have that type of a roster

I didn't realize they had all world talent at temple.

To his point, they weren't playing against the type of talent we will face. When they faced superior talent, they mostly failed. The biggest question right now is what we will do, consistently, when we face teams with equal or superior talent?

It's a fair question.

But we won't have that type of talent, so it's a pretty terrible question. Our talent will be relative to that of our competition, as it was for them at temple. Al was recruiting some of the better classes in the MAC, as we're doing here with regards to the ACC. Reasonable heads may use that knowledge, and history, in order to extrapolate. Which is both valid and reasonable.

 

[DaU83]

The point is IT TAKES TIME to know if the DC SUCKS or If eventually HE'll prove to be a good.
You guys are already sold that D'onforio sucks just like you probably would have been sold that with Narduzzi that best Michigan State defenses would be would be average at best.
Next season and after will tell us.. That's why these posts about changing schemes and firing D'onofrio are pointless now.

Calm down. Do you need more time with Patrick Nix? Does he need 4 years at Miami to fully judge? IMO, if Coach D was the "guy" then we would see something better than we have in year 3. It is tough to defend him when we had everything to play for and we let up 90 points combined to VT and Duke.

3 years is time. He has had a ton of time.

As for Narduzzi (assuming he started off bad), so what. One guy, one time. The reason that most coaches don't get that many years to show something is because people believe they have seen enough and have higher expectations after analyzing the data. 3 years is a lot, 3 years is at least 36 games. That is a tremendous data sample to judge. After 3 years if there is ONLY minimal improvement (minimal improvement from crap), that doesn't mean a 4th year is the answer. It usually means a 4th year is a waste and throwing good money at a bad investment (i.e. wasting time).

It isn't pointless to fire him because the data at Miami shows little evidence that he can coach a quality defense. People who believe this would rather implement the new defense NOW rather than wait a year to see _________ at the end of 2014. At the end of the year, we will either see: (a) further evidence of the last 3 years i.e. poor defense, or (b) minimal improvement but still not enough to have the defense we need to win, or (c) a dramatic improvement demonstrating he should be our DC.

It isn't pointless to fire him because of Trend Analysis. It isn't pointless to fire him if he can't coach a defense. There is no reason to wait another full year to see (a) or (b). In addition, AT MIAMI there is no proof that Coach D can make a dramatic improvement.

If your telling me that on March 18, 2014 that it is pointless to fire him now because we're in the middle of spring football and a transition NOW may be pointless and hurt the season, that is one thing.

But we saw UL, we saw Duke and we saw VT. Perhaps after the bowl game it wasn't pointless...this is what people are saying. People are also saying your Narduzzi example (if true) is just an exception and not the rule.

Let me know if you need me to explain why your comparison with pat nix is terrible, and completely invalid, or if you're able to figure it out on your own.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Good thing Michigan State stuck with Narduzzi after 4 years not showing any marked improvement from the prior 4 years before he was hired.
It took him until his 5th year for him to get Mich State into a top defense nationally and haven't looked back.
Why did it take him 5 years if talent based on recruiting rankings didn't really improve. Scheme was about the same the first 4 years compared to the 5th and beyond. ANyone have answers?

LMAO look at Mich St.'s total defensive rankings from 2007 till now.

GTFO. Narduzzi has never fielded a defense as $hitty as the one we have been force-fed for the last 3 seasons.

Once again for reiteration.

 

[Consigliere]

Let me know if you need me to explain why your comparison with pat nix is terrible, and complete invalid, or if you're able to figure it out on your own.

Are you telling me that one example of one coach doesn't prove something one way or another? Get out of town.

Are you telling me that is all you got in that post or do you need me to explain it to you?

 

[RiDLer80]

The increases in talent may help us just out talent some teams, but I dont think its going to do anything vs the good teams

We need All-World talent for that and we dont have that type of a roster

I didn't realize they had all world talent at temple.

To his point, they weren't playing against the type of talent we will face. When they faced superior talent, they mostly failed. The biggest question right now is what we will do, consistently, when we face teams with equal or superior talent?

It's a fair question.

But we won't have that type of talent, so it's a pretty terrible question. Our talent will be relative to that of our competition, as it was for them at temple. Al was recruiting some of the better classes in the MAC, as we're doing here with regards to the ACC. Reasonable heads may use that knowledge, and history, in order to extrapolate. Which is both valid and reasonable.

We won't have what type of talent?

 

[Bigtip]

You can't just look at the past 3 years and say unequivocally that things can't get better just like Michigan State fans thought after 4 years of Narduzzi.
What the Michigan State case shows is that IT TAKES TIME to implement a defense and that changing schemes or firing coaches is not always the best route to take. Michigan State would have been justified in firing Narduzzi after his 4th season. Thank goodness for them rational thinking prevailed.

What is your point? Seriously. Like I said, let's assume this is true (I am not going to analyze MSU between 2007-2010) does this mean everyone should be given 4 years. Does Patrick Nix need 4 years?

I am not trying to be a jerk. One coach was given the opportunity to be something for 4 years and it worked, mazel tov. That doesn't imply that we can throw out all trend analysis and give each DC a 4th year.

The point is IT TAKES TIME to know if the DC SUCKS or If eventually HE'll prove to be a good.
You guys are already sold that D'onforio sucks just like you probably would have been sold that with Narduzzi that best Michigan State defenses would be would be average at best.
Next season and after will tell us.. That's why these posts about changing schemes and firing D'onofrio are pointless now.

yeah well ***/Dorito defenses arent just average or bad. they are WOAT. literally worst defenses in school history. they are pathetic. there isnt a chance in **** that these guys could put together an elite defense. no ******* chance. they MIGHT be able to put together an average defense.

 

[Bigtip]

you fheggots make this so much harder than it is.

watch the ******* game. the defense is constantly out coached. they are lost. they are soft by design. the LBs stand still when the ball is snapped. the CBs run backwards. the DL plays patty cake.

get this **** out of my ******* face

 

[DaU83]

Let me know if you need me to explain why your comparison with pat nix is terrible, and complete invalid, or if you're able to figure it out on your own.

Are you telling me that one example of one coach doesn't prove something one way or another? Get out of town.

Are you telling me that is all you got in that post or do you need me to explain it to you?

I'm telling you that pat nix had not previously had any success as an OC, and there was no basis to think pat nix would be a good OC.. other than he would give Randy's D's "fits", pat nix hadn't accomplished anything..

Golden and D'Onof on the other hand, were able to put together a good defense... and they weren't doing it because they had world beaters at every position, they recruited guys to their system, and were able to develop them and get them to play well.

 

[Consigliere]

I'm telling you that pat nix had not previously had any success as an OC, and there was no basis to think pat nix would be a good OC.. other than he would give Randy's D's "fits", pat nix hadn't accomplished anything..

Golden and D'Onof on the other hand, were able to put together a good defense... and they weren't doing it because they had world beaters at every position, they recruited guys to their system, and were able to develop them and get them to play well.

Thanks for the Pat Nix stuff, the point is at some point you can judge a guy without waiting 4 full years. Okay?

[as for the bold] I hope that this is the case but there is little evidence (AT MIAMI) that this is going to happen. You would think that as guys progress (i.e. play more), they would improve as the season goes on.

Our worst football (in the ACC) last year occurred during the last 4 ACC games. We let up 147 points during that span as opposed to 115 during the first four games. That isn't improvement, that is regression. In addition, the bowl game was pretty much the same thing. A full month to prepare against one opponent...same result.

 

[DaU83]

The increases in talent may help us just out talent some teams, but I dont think its going to do anything vs the good teams

We need All-World talent for that and we dont have that type of a roster

I didn't realize they had all world talent at temple.

To his point, they weren't playing against the type of talent we will face. When they faced superior talent, they mostly failed. The biggest question right now is what we will do, consistently, when we face teams with equal or superior talent?

It's a fair question.

But we won't have that type of talent, so it's a pretty terrible question. Our talent will be relative to that of our competition, as it was for them at temple. Al was recruiting some of the better classes in the MAC, as we're doing here with regards to the ACC. Reasonable heads may use that knowledge, and history, in order to extrapolate. Which is both valid and reasonable.

We won't have what type of talent?

temple talent v. mac talent.. it's going to be Miami talent v. ACC talent.

 

[DaU83]

I'm telling you that pat nix had not previously had any success as an OC, and there was no basis to think pat nix would be a good OC.. other than he would give Randy's D's "fits", pat nix hadn't accomplished anything..

Golden and D'Onof on the other hand, were able to put together a good defense... and they weren't doing it because they had world beaters at every position, they recruited guys to their system, and were able to develop them and get them to play well.

Thanks for the Pat Nix stuff, the point is at some point you can judge a guy without waiting 4 full years. Okay?

[as for the bold] I hope that this is the case but there is little evidence (AT MIAMI) that this is going to happen. You would think that as guys progress (i.e. play more), they would improve as the season goes on.

Our worst football (in the ACC) last year occurred during the last 4 ACC games. We let up 147 points during that span as opposed to 115 during the first four games. That isn't improvement, that is regression. In addition, the bowl game was pretty much the same thing. A full month to prepare against one opponent...same result.

You can definitely judge a guy without waiting for years, but when the guy has had some success in the past, you can certainly give him time. That said, i agree with you about improving through the course of the season.. the thing is, it wasn't like we had young guys that would get better with time and experience.. we had guys that were experienced and if we're being honest, probably as good as they were going to get. That's not even taking into account that they probably weren't the caliber of athlete we are accustomed to having here. Certainly not "starters" wise at least.. Now, if we had been recruiting poorly and getting a bunch of "randy" classes.. then I'd be really concerned, but that's not the case, and other than DT, we've recruited well on that side of the ball.

 

[LA'Cane818]

this Golden turned Temple from garbage to mediocre argument is invalid.

for this simple reason:

this ain't temple. This is University of Miami. we are supposedly the U, the ones who invented swagger, the ones with five national titles.

we are looking for coaches and players that can take us to the top, not to the mediocre levels.

if you can't do it, you should be fired.

I've said this before, but I don't give a **** what Golden did at Temple for the sheer fact that any amount of effort to get that program to a minimal pulse would have looked like an amazing job. Golden loves taking jobs with low bars set in place then whining to the media about progress. Its a ******* shame that he is doing some serious work on the bar here. If he were to post a top 50 D and finish ranked in the 20s he just might squeeze another raise out of this dumb ******* AD, when sadly Shannon never had a D ranked lower than 35. Let that sit in you slurping ********. Shantard, who probably couldn't run the gift shop at Son life, never had a D ranked lower than 35, and this fat meatball and his goomba lover are still here? **** you Shalala.

 

[Consigliere]

You can definitely judge a guy without waiting for years, but when the guy has had some success in the past, you can certainly give him time. That said, i agree with you about improving through the course of the season.. the thing is, it wasn't like we had young guys that would get better with time and experience.. we had guys that were experienced and if we're being honest, probably as good as they were going to get. That's not even taking into account that they probably weren't the caliber of athlete we are accustomed to having here. Certainly not "starters" wise at least.. Now, if we had been recruiting poorly and getting a bunch of "randy" classes.. then I'd be really concerned, but that's not the case, and other than DT, we've recruited well on that side of the ball.

I am not really here to debate but I guess you're referring to "talent."

I am sure that is part of it, guys like Cornelius, Gaines, Rodgers, Highsmith and Green have no business playing football at Miami. They were playing/starting for whatever reason. I get it. These guys are going to be replaced by safeties like Carter, Bush (healthy), Hester and Gayot. Green is being replaced by AQM, Harris, C. Thomas and Jackson. I get it.

The point I am trying to make is that does this mean that replacing these guys will fix everything. Look at Chick, his whole tenure is Coach D. The only D he is knows is Coach D. Last year was his third year, how did he look?

I am just not convinced (based solely on his time at UM) that this defense can put out a quality product. I think that talent has something to do with it (not sure on the exact percentage) but allowing 90 points to Duke and VT doesn't come from talent issues alone.

 

[RiDLer80]

The argument that four players (Green, Cornelius, Gaines and Highsmith/Rodgers-rarely on the field at the same time) can have such a negative impact on the defense is ridiculous. For the record, Gaines was not the terrible player that you're making him out to be. Especially when you take into account we played in the weak ACC against a lot of teams with subpar to equal talent as us. And Cornelius had a limited role in passing situations. His impact wasn't that large either.

DaU, your whole thing is Golden and Doritos fielded good defenses at Temple with relatively similar talent to the rest of the teams they faced in the MAC. Well, Miami fielded relatively similarly talented defenses or better than every team we faced in the ACC other than FSU. Why was our defense the worst in the ACC when other schools recruited at a lower level than us? The only school we faced in ACC play that you can without a doubt say had more talent than us was FSU.

And I'll go even further. What about teams who fielded better defenses than us in other conferences with equal or lesser talent than the teams they faced? Teams like Minnesota, Ole Miss, Wake Forest, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, Nebraska, Syracuse and Duke all fielded better defenses than we did playing competition that has recently recruited better than they have. Why do we need superior talent to field good defenses when these schools don't?

 

[Cane Dynasty]

We played 4 of the 5 worst offenses in the ACC last year. Vag, Pitt, Vag Tech, and Wake.

Together they ageraged 344.6 yds per game in ACC games.

Vs Miami though they combined to average 467yds per game.

Does that mean Coach D is worth 123 yds per game to the other team?

You don't even want me to get into our scoring defense vs the worst ACC scoring offenses. It's a **** shame.

That is not acceptable 3rd year progress when the crappy offenses in your conference are having their best games against you.

 

[Consigliere]

The argument that four players (Green, Cornelius, Gaines and Highsmith/Rodgers-rarely on the field at the same time) can have such a negative impact on the defense is ridiculous. For the record, Gaines was not the terrible player that you're making him out to be. Especially when you take into account we played in the weak ACC against a lot of teams with subpar to equal talent as us. And Cornelius had a limited role in passing situations. His impact wasn't that large either.

DaU, your whole thing is Golden and Doritos fielded good defenses at Temple with relatively similar talent to the rest of the teams they faced in the MAC. Well, Miami fielded relatively similarly talented defenses or better than every team we faced in the ACC other than FSU. Why was our defense the worst in the ACC when other schools recruited at a lower level than us? The only school we faced in ACC play that you can without a doubt say had more talent than us was FSU.

And I'll go even further. What about teams who fielded better defenses than us in other conferences with equal or lesser talent than the teams they faced? Teams like Minnesota, Ole Miss, Wake Forest, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, Nebraska, Syracuse and Duke all fielded better defenses than we did playing competition that has recently recruited better than they have. Why do we need superior talent to field good defenses when these schools don't?

Just one point on these guys...

These guys (Gaines, Green, Highsmith, Rodgers and Cornelius) should not be playing for our team. Some have been badly injured (Green), some have terrible skills (Highsmith and Rodgers) and some lack athleticism at important positions (Gaines). These guys COMBINED did play a lot (starters/depth/role players) and hopefully going forward we never have players of this caliber playing this much.

Does that mean they couldn't produce more in a difference defense, no. They might have been better in a few ACC defenses.

 

[LuCane]

The increases in talent may help us just out talent some teams, but I dont think its going to do anything vs the good teams

We need All-World talent for that and we dont have that type of a roster

I didn't realize they had all world talent at temple.

To his point, they weren't playing against the type of talent we will face. When they faced superior talent, they mostly failed. The biggest question right now is what we will do, consistently, when we face teams with equal or superior talent?

It's a fair question.

But we won't have that type of talent, so it's a pretty terrible question. Our talent will be relative to that of our competition, as it was for them at temple. Al was recruiting some of the better classes in the MAC, as we're doing here with regards to the ACC. Reasonable heads may use that knowledge, and history, in order to extrapolate. Which is both valid and reasonable.

That's what scares me. There isn't [currently] a lot of evidence that Coach Golden and crew will beat teams with comparable or superior talent, as we'll presumably face in Championship-type games.