Defensive adjustments

[LexCane55]

Can't take you seriously if you think the Gator team we beat on Sept 7 was the same one that lost to Ga. Southern. That team was a shell of its former self.

No it wasnt but they still went 4-8 and lost to them and thats your example that Al Golden can beat good teams

Sounds like you got the excuse machine running on full tilt. if you have any sense, you know **** well the team we played in week 2 was not the same team they finished with. If you dont, thats cool, keep with the excuses.

It may not have been the same disastrous team it was at the end of the season, but that was not "as talented as a team as we will face." Their offense was virtually garbage. Their QB had a 43 rating for that game. I suppose you can give the defense credit for that, but I watched the game. His consistent inaccuracy, even when he had time, was shocking. That was a very talented defensive team, though. I'll agree it's "some" evidence and I was excited when it happened, but evidence to the contrary right now overwhelms that occurrence, I think.

Depending on how you or anyone judges "talent", I would say they were up there. I dont have the numbers in front of me but I would bet that they had more 4 and 5 star players on their team than we did. Not saying that is all that matters, its obviously subjective to a certain extent. But to say the win doesnt prove anything because they lost AFTER, is pretty dumb from those who suggest that.

North Carolina is another team that had pretty similar "talent" as we did and we still won.

We agree, we have not had enough, we need more wins against the best.

Not saying its the same team that lost to GSU. Just saying it wasnt that good of a team to begin with

? would you say we made Logan Thomas look a lot better than he really is??

 

[DaU83]

It may not have been the same disastrous team it was at the end of the season, but that was not "as talented as a team as we will face." Their offense was virtually garbage. Their QB had a 43 rating for that game. I suppose you can give the defense credit for that, but I watched the game. His consistent inaccuracy, even when he had time, was shocking. That was a very talented defensive team, though. I'll agree it's "some" evidence and I was excited when it happened, but evidence to the contrary right now overwhelms that occurrence, I think.

Depending on how you or anyone judges "talent", I would say they were up there. I dont have the numbers in front of me but I would bet that they had more 4 and 5 star players on their team than we did. Not saying that is all that matters, its obviously subjective to a certain extent. But to say the win doesnt prove anything because they lost AFTER, is pretty dumb from those who suggest that.

North Carolina is another team that had pretty similar "talent" as we did and we still won.

We agree, we have not had enough, we need more wins against the best.

I concede UF's talent because that defense (especially) was monstrous and their OL has some players, but I'm not accepting UNC. That was a team a Miami team should beat 8 out of 10 times.

The biggest thing for me was the Louisville Bowl game. That was truly rough to watch. We looked unprepared and unwilling to counter. I was already concerned, but that made me openly worried about what's to come. We should not have looked like an unprepared team playing uphill.

I feel like defensively, we looked very prepared early... we couldn't hold up when the offense did nothing and it turned into a crap show, but i thought the defense showed some promise.

We had one good play in the first series. Here are Louisville's subsequent drives:

- Moved the ball inside the redzone and were unable to convert a 3rd and 3. Converted FG.
- Moved the ball to our 26. Got a penalty. We stopped them on 3rd and 15. Converted FG.
- Moved the ball to our 21. Unable to convert a 3rd and 3. Got a penalty on 4th and 1. Converted FG.
- TD
- 3 and out. Punt.
- TD

That was the first half.

those unable to convert 3 and 3's are stops.. and after the offense not doing anything.. there's less chance of them holding up.

 

[Ibis]

UNC had more top shelf talent which will be reflected in the upcoming draft.
We also lost Duke Jonhnson, Dorsett early in that game.

Miami fans understand that UF had a bunch of injuries which hurt their season. Our injuries are just an excuse!

Dorsett was the long ball threat that helped spring Duke. Duke was the running game. And our fans wonder why the season ended the way it did?

 

[LA'Cane818]

It really is astonishing to me that there are the amount of people there are who will go to insane extents to make excuses for this team. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.

 

[Gatorhater]

I gave up trashing coaching staff for Lent, so we have improved the quality of players with this year's class. Oh, maybe somebody could get a hold of Father Leo to organized a Rosary service, or a nondenominational prayer service, for the defense. I would suggest a exorcism, but don't think any players are possessed -- demons tend to play nasty and we haven't seen any of that. Of course there is a good chance that Donna only allows passive demons to be recruited.

Meh. Perrymen and Bush would tear your heart out and feed it to you.
Otherwise pretty good post.

DP and Bush might require some Holy Water and perhaps a few prays in Latin, but not quite full blown exorcism. That said, I would not like to meet either in a dark ally--unless it was to buy them a couple drinks--after they graduate of course, we all know that dark alleys are where the ncaa hangs.

 

[niner]

It really is astonishing to me that there are the amount of people there are who will go to insane extents to make excuses for this team. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.

Which excuses are you talking about exactly? The one where when one says we won more games that the prior year, only for someone to bring up "The Schedule".

Or one where one says we beat a couple of teams with equal or better talent, only for someone to say "no I dont think they had more talent, look at the 4-8 record".

Or when someone says how much our team struggled once Dorsett and Duke went down, only for others to say it wasn't a big deal and should have no impact on the defense.

Those are some pretty dumb excuses, we agree.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

It really is astonishing to me that there are the amount of people there are who will go to insane extents to make excuses for this team. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.

Which excuses are you talking about exactly? The one where when one says we won more games that the prior year, only for someone to bring up "The Schedule".

Or one where one says we beat a couple of teams with equal or better talent, only for someone to say "no I dont think they had more talent, look at the 4-8 record".

Or when someone says how much our team struggled once Dorsett and Duke went down, only for others to say it wasn't a big deal and should have no impact on the defense.

Those are some pretty dumb excuses, we agree.

They are not excuses. They are facts to consider when analyzing our football team. Cool we won more games than the prior year. Was that done in a vacuum? Cool we beat UF. Was that done in a vacuum? They are excuses to you because they tear down your shallow arguments. Besides the current facts we have to refute your "winning more games" argument, we have our last head coach to look at as an example. Did he not increase the wins for 3 years? I'm not sure why so many of you cling to this argument as if it is some end-all, be-all proof that Golden is in fact improving this team to the level we all want it to be.

 

[Ibis]

It really is astonishing to me that there are the amount of people there are who will go to insane extents to make excuses for this team. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.

And I think it's astonishing how mopes call facts excuses. And how could you make the claim that numbers don't lie and then dismiss the wins going up every year Golden has been coach? SMDH!

 

[niner]

It really is astonishing to me that there are the amount of people there are who will go to insane extents to make excuses for this team. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.

Which excuses are you talking about exactly? The one where when one says we won more games that the prior year, only for someone to bring up "The Schedule".

Or one where one says we beat a couple of teams with equal or better talent, only for someone to say "no I dont think they had more talent, look at the 4-8 record".

Or when someone says how much our team struggled once Dorsett and Duke went down, only for others to say it wasn't a big deal and should have no impact on the defense.

Those are some pretty dumb excuses, we agree.

They are not excuses. They are facts to consider when analyzing our football team. Cool we won more games than the prior year. Was that done in a vacuum? Cool we beat UF. Was that done in a vacuum? They are excuses to you because they tear down your shallow arguments. Besides the current facts we have to refute your "winning more games" argument, we have our last head coach to look at as an example. Did he not increase the wins for 3 years? I'm not sure why so many of you cling to this argument as if it is some end-all, be-all proof that Golden is in fact improving this team to the level we all want it to be.

So let me this straight, when "facts' like defensive improvement, be it yards or points per game from year 2012 to 2013 is presented, excuse of SOS is given. When 'facts" like improving in wins every year are given, excuse of SOS is given.

"Tearing" down shallow arguments is done by all, an excuse is an excuse.

EVERYONE agrees we are not where we should be and want to be, EVERYONE.

The last coach DID improve in wins first 3 years, his last, not so much so he was fired. If Golden does the same, he might be axed as well, who knows.

AND FYI, improving in wins is the end all argument, WINS is ALL that matters.

 

[Consigliere]

Anyone arguing improvement in total wins based on the overall schedule is supporting a flawed position. The OOC Schedule changes every year so for improvement go by the ACC performance.

Year 1: 3-5
Year 2: 5-3
Year 3: 5-3

One can support the overall wins as ACTUAL improvement if the schedule is difficult and consistent (i.e. your beating teams like KSU and Notre Dame instead of FAU and Savanaha State).

To further this improvement theme here is an old post I had (http://www.canesinsight.com/threads...nut-shell-(update)?highlight=Scoring+Defense)

2013:Our ACC Schedule: GT, UNC, WF, FSU, VT, Duke, Pitt and UVA

Our Record: 5-3

SOS (i.e. our opponent’s W/L): 56-42 (33-31)
- 6 Opponents going to Bowl Games

262 Points Allowed or 32.75 PPG
215 Points Scored or 26.875 PPG

2012:Our ACC Schedule: BC, GT, NC St, UNC, FSU, VT, UVA and Duke

Our Record: 5-3

SOS: 50-48 (31-33) *This does not include a post-season record of 3-2*
- 6 Bowl Teams (I included UNC because they had enough wins)

252 Points Allowed or 31.75 PPG
263 Points Scored or 32.875 PPG

2011: Our ACC Schedule: Maryland, VT, UNC, GT, UVA, Duke, FSU and BC

Our Record: 3-5
SOS: 51-46 (30-34) *This does not include a post-season record of 1-4*
- 5 Bowl Teams

163 Points Allowed or 20.375 PPG
219 Points Scored or 27.375 PPG

 

[LuCane]

It really is astonishing to me that there are the amount of people there are who will go to insane extents to make excuses for this team. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.

Which excuses are you talking about exactly? The one where when one says we won more games that the prior year, only for someone to bring up "The Schedule".

Or one where one says we beat a couple of teams with equal or better talent, only for someone to say "no I dont think they had more talent, look at the 4-8 record".

Or when someone says how much our team struggled once Dorsett and Duke went down, only for others to say it wasn't a big deal and should have no impact on the defense.

Those are some pretty dumb excuses, we agree.

They are not excuses. They are facts to consider when analyzing our football team. Cool we won more games than the prior year. Was that done in a vacuum? Cool we beat UF. Was that done in a vacuum? They are excuses to you because they tear down your shallow arguments. Besides the current facts we have to refute your "winning more games" argument, we have our last head coach to look at as an example. Did he not increase the wins for 3 years? I'm not sure why so many of you cling to this argument as if it is some end-all, be-all proof that Golden is in fact improving this team to the level we all want it to be.

So let me this straight, when "facts' like defensive improvement, be it yards or points per game from year 2012 to 2013 is presented, excuse of SOS is given. When 'facts" like improving in wins every year are given, excuse of SOS is given.

"Tearing" down shallow arguments is done by all, an excuse is an excuse.

EVERYONE agrees we are not where we should be and want to be, EVERYONE.

The last coach DID improve in wins first 3 years, his last, not so much so he was fired. If Golden does the same, he might be axed as well, who knows.

AND FYI, improving in wins is the end all argument, WINS is ALL that matters.

I beg to differ. If WINS are all that should matter, why not extend that logic and schedule absolute cupcakes? What matters, at least in the eyes of many who also really care about this program's future as you do, is our progress in the context of competing for Championships - ****, even ACC championships. Meaningful victories.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

It really is astonishing to me that there are the amount of people there are who will go to insane extents to make excuses for this team. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.

Which excuses are you talking about exactly? The one where when one says we won more games that the prior year, only for someone to bring up "The Schedule".

Or one where one says we beat a couple of teams with equal or better talent, only for someone to say "no I dont think they had more talent, look at the 4-8 record".

Or when someone says how much our team struggled once Dorsett and Duke went down, only for others to say it wasn't a big deal and should have no impact on the defense.

Those are some pretty dumb excuses, we agree.

They are not excuses. They are facts to consider when analyzing our football team. Cool we won more games than the prior year. Was that done in a vacuum? Cool we beat UF. Was that done in a vacuum? They are excuses to you because they tear down your shallow arguments. Besides the current facts we have to refute your "winning more games" argument, we have our last head coach to look at as an example. Did he not increase the wins for 3 years? I'm not sure why so many of you cling to this argument as if it is some end-all, be-all proof that Golden is in fact improving this team to the level we all want it to be.

So let me this straight, when "facts' like defensive improvement, be it yards or points per game from year 2012 to 2013 is presented, excuse of SOS is given. When 'facts" like improving in wins every year are given, excuse of SOS is given.

"Tearing" down shallow arguments is done by all, an excuse is an excuse.

EVERYONE agrees we are not where we should be and want to be, EVERYONE.

The last coach DID improve in wins first 3 years, his last, not so much so he was fired. If Golden does the same, he might be axed as well, who knows.

AND FYI, improving in wins is the end all argument, WINS is ALL that matters.

How can something be really judged as "improvement" when the alleged improvement came as a result of playing poorer competition? That is why things like SOS are very relevant to this discussion. Let's use a non-football example: Say I am a high school student. I am taking AP classes and getting C's. The next year, I take regular, non-advanced classes and get B's and some A's. Did I get significantly smarter or benefit mostly off of taking easier classes?

 

[CaneAlmighty]

In what world is playing UF and UL playing poor competition when compared to a year when we played ND and KSU?
2013 Schedule was not easier than 2012. I don't care what a flawed SOS metric says.

 

[Consigliere]

In what world is playing UF and UL playing poor competition when compared to a year when we played ND and KSU?
2013 Schedule was not easier than 2012. I don't care what a flawed SOS metric says.

wow

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

In what world is playing UF and UL playing poor competition when compared to a year when we played ND and KSU?
2013 Schedule was not easier than 2012. I don't care what a flawed SOS metric says.

wow

Yeah exactly. Fiesta Bowl participant and MNC participant is just as easy as a 4-8,
offensively-inept UF and UL.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

In what world is playing UF and UL playing poor competition when compared to a year when we played ND and KSU?
2013 Schedule was not easier than 2012. I don't care what a flawed SOS metric says.

[video=youtube;d0VNHe5fq30]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0VNHe5fq30[/video]

 

[Consigliere]

So to review improvement (Strictly ACC Schedule)...

2013: GT, UNC, WF, FSU, VT, Duke, Pitt and UVA

Our Record: 5-3
SOS (i.e. our opponent’s W/L): 56-42 (33-31): 6 Opponents going to Bowl Games

262 Points Allowed or 32.75 PPG
215 Points Scored or 26.875 PPG
Turnovers Forced: 14
Turnovers Allowed: 15

2012: BC, GT, NC St, UNC, FSU, VT, UVA and Duke

Our Record: 5-3
SOS: 50-48 (31-33) *This does not include a post-season record of 3-2* and 6 Bowl Teams (I included UNC because they had enough wins)

252 Points Allowed or 31.75 PPG
263 Points Scored or 32.875 PPG
Turnovers Forced: 16
Turnovers Allowed: 9

2011: Maryland, VT, UNC, GT, UVA, Duke, FSU and BC

Our Record: 3-5
SOS: 51-46 (30-34) *This does not include a post-season record of 1-4* and 5 Bowl Teams

163 Points Allowed or 20.375 PPG
219 Points Scored or 27.375 PPG
Turnovers Forced: 11
Turnovers Allowed: 11
------------------------------------

In terms of wins, we improved in 2012 and remained there in 2013. The most difficult schedule was in 2013, our opponents had the best overall record and conference record.

Our points allowed has increased every season (BAD). As for points scored, we regressed after scoring more in 2012. In addition, we lost the turnover battle for the first time in conference.

 

[Consigliere]

In what world is playing UF and UL playing poor competition when compared to a year when we played ND and KSU?
2013 Schedule was not easier than 2012. I don't care what a flawed SOS metric says.

wow

Yeah exactly. Fiesta Bowl participant and MNC participant is just as easy as a 4-8,
offensively-inept UF and UL.

Forget it, just compare the ACC Schedule.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

In what world is playing UF and UL playing poor competition when compared to a year when we played ND and KSU?
2013 Schedule was not easier than 2012. I don't care what a flawed SOS metric says.

wow

Yeah exactly. Fiesta Bowl participant and MNC participant is just as easy as a 4-8,
offensively-inept UF and UL.

Soley looking at UFs record highlights the level of analysis used by some. Typical of how a chick not into sports would do when gauging a team.
Oh look they ended 4-8 which means they must have sucked. Wow impressive.

Dunno how that offensively inept team managed to win 11 games in the SEC the previous season. Luck I guess

 

[CaneAlmighty]

In what world is playing UF and UL playing poor competition when compared to a year when we played ND and KSU?
2013 Schedule was not easier than 2012. I don't care what a flawed SOS metric says.

wow

Yeah exactly. Fiesta Bowl participant and MNC participant is just as easy as a 4-8,
offensively-inept UF and UL.

Forget it, just compare the ACC Schedule.

2013 ACC opp w/l 59-45
2012 ACC opp w/l 53-50

This should end the argument that no improvment was made but I suspect it won't. Some folks are just dead set in wanting to believe there wasn't. To each his own.