D'Onofrio wants improved scoring defense

[UMFarArcher]

I'm not MiamiNights, but you've got a serious issue going on upstairs until you find proof that I love Randy Shannon.

I don't think they're suggesting so much that you love Randy Shannon, as it certainly is suggested that you ARE Randy Shannon.

Who, coincidentally, is Nites.

See?

 

[CanesAreAble]

Let me guess, Miami was 82nd in total D in 2012 due to the players, but they'll be __ in 2013 due to the coaching right? That is super convenient. He set the bar staggeringly low and then is going to get "credit" for vaulting the defense all the way to "average to somewhat mediocre." Freaking Dorito. He lights the nursing home on fire and then gets the key to the city because he saved some little old ladies.

The improvement will be because of the players.

They're bigger, stronger, faster, better conditioned, and more experienced.

It also seems like guys have finally bought in. I don't think we'll have to send guys home like we had to do with Eddie Johnson and Luther Robinson.

I think this is a more mature group.

 

[Republicane]

Let me guess, Miami was 82nd in total D in 2012 due to the players, but they'll be __ in 2013 due to the coaching right? That is super convenient. He set the bar staggeringly low and then is going to get "credit" for vaulting the defense all the way to "average to somewhat mediocre." Freaking Dorito. He lights the nursing home on fire and then gets the key to the city because he saved some little old ladies.

the bottom line was he coached that pittiful d last yr. If you couldnt look at depth chart at the beginning of the yr and see they would suck, then I cant help you. For me defense is more players than coach.

That's fine, in fact I'd agree. But if the defense is good this year, don't let catch you big upping Dorito for the masterful turnaround.

 

[Coach Macho]

Put me in the camp that is very concerned about coach D'Onofrio. He may be a guy who shows success because of the strength of recruiting but Im very concerned that he will continue his passive mindset. its simply who he is as a D-coordinator.

He had the 16th? ranked defense with temple talent.. i think we'll be ok.

They played against similar talent though. And they weren't exactly void of talent on that defense. Some of those guys are in the league.

I hear this a lot about their talent at temple. who do you think developed that talent. I mean you make the nfl from temple you are obviously an overachiever. who helped the playerss develope?

No doubt. Not debating that at all.

I'm just sayin'...

People always talk about how they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent blah blah blah. Well they played against similar talent. It's not like they had the 16th ranked defense in the country after playing Alabama, Clemson, LSU, etc etc etc.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Put me in the camp that is very concerned about coach D'Onofrio. He may be a guy who shows success because of the strength of recruiting but Im very concerned that he will continue his passive mindset. its simply who he is as a D-coordinator.

He had the 16th? ranked defense with temple talent.. i think we'll be ok.

They played against similar talent though. And they weren't exactly void of talent on that defense. Some of those guys are in the league.

I hear this a lot about their talent at temple. who do you think developed that talent. I mean you make the nfl from temple you are obviously an overachiever. who helped the playerss develope?

No doubt. Not debating that at all.

I'm just sayin'...

People always talk about how they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent blah blah blah. Well they played against similar talent. It's not like they had the 16th ranked defense in the country after playing Alabama, Clemson, LSU, etc etc etc.

The fact that they played against similar talent weakens your argument.

With similar talent, they got results. It's logical to believe they can do the same thing at Miami.

 

[rudebuddha]

Put me in the camp that is very concerned about coach D'Onofrio. He may be a guy who shows success because of the strength of recruiting but Im very concerned that he will continue his passive mindset. its simply who he is as a D-coordinator.

He had the 16th? ranked defense with temple talent.. i think we'll be ok.

They played against similar talent though. And they weren't exactly void of talent on that defense. Some of those guys are in the league.

I hear this a lot about their talent at temple. who do you think developed that talent. I mean you make the nfl from temple you are obviously an overachiever. who helped the playerss develope?

No doubt. Not debating that at all.

I'm just sayin'...

People always talk about how they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent blah blah blah. Well they played against similar talent. It's not like they had the 16th ranked defense in the country after playing Alabama, Clemson, LSU, etc etc etc.

Think of the recruiting he had to do at Temple just to field a team. The program had just been kicked out of The Big East because of lack of competitiveness. I'd never seen that before. How bad do you have to be to get kicked out of that conference?
To think that in a short time Golden had the worst team, the absolute worst team in the worst situation, relevant again and going to bowl games.
He did all that with D'Onofrio.
Last year D had children throughout the 2 deep. The defense wasn't what we wanted but it was exactly what the coaches knew it would be.
This is the year that we get an idea of what their true defenses will look like.
I think a lot of people will be eating tons of crow after this year.

 

[Coach Macho]

He had the 16th? ranked defense with temple talent.. i think we'll be ok.

They played against similar talent though. And they weren't exactly void of talent on that defense. Some of those guys are in the league.

I hear this a lot about their talent at temple. who do you think developed that talent. I mean you make the nfl from temple you are obviously an overachiever. who helped the playerss develope?

No doubt. Not debating that at all.

I'm just sayin'...

People always talk about how they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent blah blah blah. Well they played against similar talent. It's not like they had the 16th ranked defense in the country after playing Alabama, Clemson, LSU, etc etc etc.

The fact that they played against similar talent weakens your argument.

With similar talent, they got results. It's logical to believe they can do the same thing at Miami.

What argument? I'm not saying they can't do it.

Follow me...

People say "they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent."

Ok? Well they played against Temple level talent, so the fact that they had the 16th ranked defense isn't overly impressive.

At Miami they'll play against Miami level talent. (or in most cases maybe slightly inferior)

The logic is that they had the 16th ranked defense at Temple and with Miami talent they'll be even better on defense. What I'm saying is that it's a wash.

 

[CanesAreAble]

They played against similar talent though. And they weren't exactly void of talent on that defense. Some of those guys are in the league.

I hear this a lot about their talent at temple. who do you think developed that talent. I mean you make the nfl from temple you are obviously an overachiever. who helped the playerss develope?

No doubt. Not debating that at all.

I'm just sayin'...

People always talk about how they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent blah blah blah. Well they played against similar talent. It's not like they had the 16th ranked defense in the country after playing Alabama, Clemson, LSU, etc etc etc.

The fact that they played against similar talent weakens your argument.

With similar talent, they got results. It's logical to believe they can do the same thing at Miami.

What argument? I'm not saying they can't do it.

Follow me...

People say "they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent."

Ok? Well they played against Temple level talent, so the fact that they had the 16th ranked defense isn't overly impressive.

At Miami they'll play against Miami level talent. (or in most cases maybe slightly inferior)

The logic is that they had the 16th ranked defense at Temple and with Miami talent they'll be even better on defense. What I'm saying is that it's a wash.

How is the 16th rated defense not impressive? Only two non-BCS conference schools were rated higher than that (UCF and Kent St). The MAC, relative to other leagues, is an offensive league. That's a solid finish, especially when the defense was in the 100s across the board when they took over.

Now if they can produce results against similar talent, they should be able to do it at Miami. And once this thang is rolling, there won't be many teams on the schedule with similar talent.

 

[Coach Macho]

I hear this a lot about their talent at temple. who do you think developed that talent. I mean you make the nfl from temple you are obviously an overachiever. who helped the playerss develope?

No doubt. Not debating that at all.

I'm just sayin'...

People always talk about how they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent blah blah blah. Well they played against similar talent. It's not like they had the 16th ranked defense in the country after playing Alabama, Clemson, LSU, etc etc etc.

The fact that they played against similar talent weakens your argument.

With similar talent, they got results. It's logical to believe they can do the same thing at Miami.

What argument? I'm not saying they can't do it.

Follow me...

People say "they had the 16th ranked defense with Temple talent."

Ok? Well they played against Temple level talent, so the fact that they had the 16th ranked defense isn't overly impressive.

At Miami they'll play against Miami level talent. (or in most cases maybe slightly inferior)

The logic is that they had the 16th ranked defense at Temple and with Miami talent they'll be even better on defense. What I'm saying is that it's a wash.

How is the 16th rated defense not impressive? Only two non-BCS conference schools were rated higher than that (UCF and Kent St). The MAC, relative to other leagues, is an offensive league. That's a solid finish, especially when the defense was in the 100s across the board when they took over.

Now if they can produce results against similar talent, they should be able to do it at Miami. And once this thang is rolling, there won't be many teams on the schedule with similar talent.

Nevermind dude. You're not getting it.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Yes, the 2010 Temple Owls had the #17 overall defense in the country... But they were 85th in time of possession.

Yes, but:

1. The offense was 89th in the country
2. The offense was 94th in 3rd down conversion %
3. The offense was 88th in turnovers lost

The defense was top 20 in total defense (16th), pass defense (15th), pass efficiency defense (14th), scoring defense (16th), and yards per play (8th).


That's a pretty solid unit.

 

[jerzeycane]

Let me guess, Miami was 82nd in total D in 2012 due to the players, but they'll be __ in 2013 due to the coaching right? That is super convenient. He set the bar staggeringly low and then is going to get "credit" for vaulting the defense all the way to "average to somewhat mediocre." Freaking Dorito. He lights the nursing home on fire and then gets the key to the city because he saved some little old ladies.

the bottom line was he coached that pittiful d last yr. If you couldnt look at depth chart at the beginning of the yr and see they would suck, then I cant help you. For me defense is more players than coach.

That's fine, in fact I'd agree. But if the defense is good this year, don't let catch you big upping Dorito for the masterful turnaround.

His defensive philosophy is fine in my opinion.

His gameday play calling isn't anything to write home about.

Those things will be the same as this year, only he will have better players to work with.

Always felt the D'Onofrio bashing was overstated.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Nevermind dude. You're not getting it.

LOL okay. Yeah. That must be it.

 

[Duvalco.Cane]

Coach D is going to make the haters look like the small minded fools that they are.

"haters"??......Dude aint worthy to be hated on....GTFOH....put up or shut up with that guy for me....his mindset is still seen in the interview...

"There were a lot of different scoreboards that you can look at and we look at them all, we don’t ignore them."

B*tch your giving up chuinks of yards, which leads to points on the board...which = to 5 losses last year.

LMAO. This right here^^^^^

 

[Newkirk]

never understood why people act like the two aren't interrelated.

if you're not giving up a lot of yards, you're not giving up a lot of points. not unless the offense is getting a short field due to return yardage, turnovers by the offense, etc. on the flipside if you're giving up a lot of yards you're going to give up a lot of points unless the offense turns the ball over in the redzone/on the goaline or has a kicker that can't kick worth ****. the whole concept of valuing points over yards is stupid, they go hand in hand.

This

 

[MIATL513]

Chicken or the Egg ...

Yards or Points ...

Points are the by-product of yards. Giving up fewer points means you gave up fewer yards. And giving up fewer yards means you'll probay give up fewer points. They are absolutely related.

But I'd rather have a top 10 scoring D over a top 10 total yards D. Scoring D translates directly to wins/losses. Scoring D keeps you in the mix, no matter what the O does.

After UM is top 10 in scoring D, then we can nitpick about the specific D categories.

 

[bbcane]

never understood why people act like the two aren't interrelated.

if you're not giving up a lot of yards, you're not giving up a lot of points. not unless the offense is getting a short field due to return yardage, turnovers by the offense, etc. on the flipside if you're giving up a lot of yards you're going to give up a lot of points unless the offense turns the ball over in the redzone/on the goaline or has a kicker that can't kick worth ****. the whole concept of valuing points over yards is stupid, they go hand in hand.

This

I think coach d is more about not giving up the big play.

 

[Aliveguy]

Not a fan of all his scoring defense talk. Typically, if you force turnovers,stop the run, and sack the QB you're not worried about scoring defense because all the scoring will come from the backups.

THIS

 

[Consigliere]

never understood why people act like the two aren't interrelated.

if you're not giving up a lot of yards, you're not giving up a lot of points. not unless the offense is getting a short field due to return yardage, turnovers by the offense, etc. on the flipside if you're giving up a lot of yards you're going to give up a lot of points unless the offense turns the ball over in the redzone/on the goaline or has a kicker that can't kick worth ****. the whole concept of valuing points over yards is stupid, they go hand in hand.

First things first, Andrew Luck.

Second, you either are retarded or illiterate. No one is disputing that getting more yards COULD COULD COULD COULD lead to more points BUT THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED.

Third, as you spelled out in your post there are many ways that getting a lot of yards MAY NOT lead to points.

Here is an old post I made trying to explain the above.

Top 10 in Total Defense for 2012
(http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2012&div=B&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=org)

1. Bama (13-1)
2. FSU (12-2)
3. BYU (8-5)
4. Mich St (7-6)
5. UF (11-2)
6. Bowling Green (8-5)
7. Notre Dame (12-1)
8. LSU (10-3)
9. UConn (5-7)
10. Rutgers (9-4)

Overall Win-Loss 95-36 (72.5%)
Removing the outlier (UConn) 90-29 (75.6%)

Bottom 5 Total Defense

116. Miami (7-5)
117. Colorado (1-11)
118. Arizona (8-5)
119. Baylor (8-5)
120. La Tech (9-3)

Overall Win-Loss 33-29 (53.23%)
Removing the outlier (Colorado) 32-18 (64%)

Top 10 Scoring Defense 2012
(http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2012&div=B&rpt=IA_teamscordef&site=org)

1. Bama (13-1)
2. ND (12-1)
3. BYU (8-5)
4. Rutgers (9-4)
5. UF (11-2)
6. FSU (12-2)
7. Utah State (11-2)
8. Boise State (11-2)
9. Mich St (7-6)
10. Bowling Green (8-5)

Overall Win-Loss 102 – 30 (77.3%)
Remove the Outlier (Mich St) 95-24 (79.8%)

Bottom 5 Scoring Defense 2012

116. La Tech (9-3)
117. New Mexico St (1-11)
118. Idaho (1-11)
119. Marshall (5-7)
120. Colorado (1-11)

Overall Win-Loss 17-43 (28.3%)
Remove the Outlier (La Tech) 8-40 (16.7%)

What can we learn from the above (with outliers)

There is an increase in winning percentage (Scoring D to Total D) of 4.8%
- 77.3 – 72.5 = 4.8%

The top 10 Total Defense teams have a 19.27% increase in winning percentage over the bottom 5 Total D
- 72.5 - 53.23 = 19.27%

The top 10 Scoring Defense teams have a 49.0% increase in winning percentage over the bottom 5 Scoring D
- 77.3 -28.3 = 49.0%

Bottom 5 Total Defense have a 26.9% increase in winning percentage over the bottom 5 Scoring D
- 53.23 – 28.3 = 26.9%

The above shows why I am not so quick to go nuts about the Total Defense. The Scoring Defense shows the real statistics and the win-loss percentage shows that teams within the Top 10 in Scoring Defense had a better winning percentage than those in the Top 10 in Total Defense.

In addition, it shows that even those teams finishing in the bottom 5 of Total Defense still had a higher winning percentage than those in the bottom 5 of Scoring Defense. Teams within the bottom 5 of Total Defense HAD A WINNING RECORD.

In no way am I condoning the Total Defense, in no way am I saying yards are NOT IMPORTANT. I am just saying Scoring Defense is what matters most. Points are king, points determine the outcome.

 

[Coach Macho]

It's cool. We're just gonna let teams march up and down the field on us but settle for field goals.

We good.

 

[DeadPoets]

Worst thing about bend don't break is our offense sees the ball less.

It's just an all around crappy way of utilizing so fla kids on defense.