forums

How Many Cane D Starters start at VT?

Advertisement
5Ringz said:
Chick
Howard
Gunter
Jenkins
Perryman
Bush
Click to expand...

Nobody in Miami's secondary is better than Kyle Fuller in my opinion. The kid can run and he can play. Kendall Fuller was an absolute stud coming out of Good Counsel. He was arguably as good as Hargreaves coming out of high school. Too bad Exum is hurt. He's a terrific player. Virginia Tech has studs in the secondary.
 
I'm pretty sure bud foster was laughing in disgust at the defense we were trotting out there. No defensive coordinator worth their weight in gold would trot out a defense as passive and inept as ours is for three straight years
 
Pentagon Cane said:
The Franchise said:
Foster could take his guys and beat ours then take ours and beat his. It's really that simple.

Anyone who thinks Vag Tech is recruiting from the same talent pool that UM is recruiting is a simpleton. They have taken lesser talent and made them better players than our guys. Isn't that the epitome of what good coaching is?
Click to expand...

No, but they recruit kids who can play within their system. They also do what Miami used to do which was to take a kid who played safety in high school and make them an outside linebackers for example. That's what Beamer did with both Van Dyke kids coming out of South County. Both are out for the season.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that is the actual epitome of good coaching. Taking under-rated and often unwanted players (the same Luther Maddy who they took from our back yard who kicked our *** on Saturday night and who we weren't interested in) and playing to their strengths and developing them to beat the **** out of more talented more highly sought after guys.
 
It's a false comparison. As someone mentioned above, our defense is not matched up against theirs.

The accurate talent comparison is our defensive starters against the other defenses that handled VT far better than we did.

ECU only gave up 15 points to VT
Duke gave up 10 points
Pitt 19 points
Ga Tech 17 points

How do you explain that those mediocre teams fared far better than we did agains VT's offense? is our defensive talent really that much worse than ECU's?

Nor can all of our woes be attributed to turnovers, given that Va Tech drove up and down the field on us all game. Short field or not, we did not slow them down, which is inexplicable, when you consider the other teams that have this year.
 
Advertisement
drifters1234 said:
It's a false comparison. As someone mentioned above, our defense is not matched up against theirs.

The accurate talent comparison is our defensive starters against the other defenses that handled VT far better than we did.

ECU only gave up 15 points to VT
Duke gave up 10 points
Pitt 19 points
Ga Tech 17 points

How do you explain that those mediocre teams fared far better than we did agains VT's offense? is our defensive talent really that much worse than ECU's?

Nor can all of our woes be attributed to turnovers, given that Va Tech drove up and down the field on us all game. Short field or not, we did not slow them down, which is inexplicable, when you consider the other teams that have this year.
Click to expand...

Well, not to be the master of the obvious here, but it obviously "slows an offense down" when the QB throws 4 picks in a game. He still had over 315 total yards against Duke, even with 4 picks. And while its certainly true the defense was horrible, can we please stop pretending that the turnovers werent CATASTROPHIC? THREE critical turnovers. One on our own 20 yard line. Two of them BACK TO BACK, which not only KILLED our momentum, and took us out of our gameplan, but it kept our defense on the field for almost the ENTIRE first quarter straight. Those turnovers lead to 14-17 points against an average defense. It cost us 21, and that deficit, I think lead guys to start trying to "make something happen" which created MORE problems with missed tackling and missed assignments. CLEARLY there was a major breakdown on defense, but there were a lot of other factors that exacerbated the situation.
 
Last edited:
drifters1234 said:
It's a false comparison. As someone mentioned above, our defense is not matched up against theirs.

The accurate talent comparison is our defensive starters against the other defenses that handled VT far better than we did.

ECU only gave up 15 points to VT
Duke gave up 10 points
Pitt 19 points
Ga Tech 17 points

How do you explain that those mediocre teams fared far better than we did agains VT's offense? is our defensive talent really that much worse than ECU's?

Nor can all of our woes be attributed to turnovers, given that Va Tech drove up and down the field on us all game. Short field or not, we did not slow them down, which is inexplicable, when you consider the other teams that have this year.
Click to expand...

Yours is also a false comparison. Games are not transitive. Are you saying our O is on par with Clemson. I mean we both scored 14 against FSU. Actually we scored 14 while the game was in question. Clemson had to score with a few seconds left just to get to 14. Does this make our O better. I dont see why people try so hard. The D sucks.
 
Advertisement
CANE4LIFE said:
drifters1234 said:
It's a false comparison. As someone mentioned above, our defense is not matched up against theirs.

The accurate talent comparison is our defensive starters against the other defenses that handled VT far better than we did.

ECU only gave up 15 points to VT
Duke gave up 10 points
Pitt 19 points
Ga Tech 17 points

How do you explain that those mediocre teams fared far better than we did agains VT's offense? is our defensive talent really that much worse than ECU's?

Nor can all of our woes be attributed to turnovers, given that Va Tech drove up and down the field on us all game. Short field or not, we did not slow them down, which is inexplicable, when you consider the other teams that have this year.
Click to expand...

Well, not to be the master of the obvious here, but it obviously "slows an offense down" when the QB throws 4 picks in a game. He still had over 315 total yards against Duke, even with 4 picks. And while its certainly true the defense was horrible, can we please stop pretending that the turnovers werent CATASTROPHIC? THREE critical turnovers. One on our own 20 yard line. Two of them BACK TO BACK, which not only KILLED our momentum, and took us out of our gameplan, but it kept our defense on the field for almost the ENTIRE first quarter straight. Those turnovers lead to 14-17 points against an average defense. It cost us 21, and that deficit, I think lead guys to start trying to "make something happen" which created MORE problems with missed tackling and missed assignments. CLEARLY there was a major breakdown on defense, but there were a lot of other factors that exacerbated the situation.
Click to expand...

lol those teams forced him into 4 picks. he didnt suddenly become a good qb against us after turning the ball over 8 times in 2 games.
 
I don't know what you're seeing but he's not the mess. This guy makes plays, has good vision (gets INTs) and tackles well unlike most of our secondary players. That mess usually comes from highsmith or bush since kacy's been hurt.

TheU1984 said:
canefordays said:
I think jenkins is the most underrated player on our D, one of the few playmakers out there

5Ringz said:
Chick
Howard
Gunter
Jenkins
Perryman
Bush
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Lol at the love for Jenkins. Guy is a mess out there most of the time.
Click to expand...
 
jbryant62 said:
drifters1234 said:
It's a false comparison. As someone mentioned above, our defense is not matched up against theirs.

The accurate talent comparison is our defensive starters against the other defenses that handled VT far better than we did.

ECU only gave up 15 points to VT
Duke gave up 10 points
Pitt 19 points
Ga Tech 17 points

How do you explain that those mediocre teams fared far better than we did agains VT's offense? is our defensive talent really that much worse than ECU's?

Nor can all of our woes be attributed to turnovers, given that Va Tech drove up and down the field on us all game. Short field or not, we did not slow them down, which is inexplicable, when you consider the other teams that have this year.
Click to expand...

Yours is also a false comparison. Games are not transitive. Are you saying our O is on par with Clemson. I mean we both scored 14 against FSU. Actually we scored 14 while the game was in question. Clemson had to score with a few seconds left just to get to 14. Does this make our O better. I dont see why people try so hard. The D sucks.
Click to expand...

No, i'm not saying anything close to our offense being on par with clemson's. nice straw man.

I did not start the post. The OP suggested a talent comparison with VT's defense, which is completely illogical. If you're going to make such a comparison, it makes a **** of a lot more sense to compare the talent from other defenses that have played VT's offense to ours, given that playing VT's offense is the consistent variable.

And under that comparison, our defense comes out poorly.

Are you suggesting that we do not have defensive talent that is comparable to ECU, Ga Tech, Duke, and Pitt?

And, as I mentioned, the most glaring problem, is that Va Tech drove on us all game long, chewing up the clock, and killing us on 3d down conversions.

At some point, you have to question the scheme or our coaches' ability to convey the scheme to our players.
 
Advertisement
hoops156 said:
CANE4LIFE said:
drifters1234 said:
It's a false comparison. As someone mentioned above, our defense is not matched up against theirs.

The accurate talent comparison is our defensive starters against the other defenses that handled VT far better than we did.

ECU only gave up 15 points to VT
Duke gave up 10 points
Pitt 19 points
Ga Tech 17 points

How do you explain that those mediocre teams fared far better than we did agains VT's offense? is our defensive talent really that much worse than ECU's?

Nor can all of our woes be attributed to turnovers, given that Va Tech drove up and down the field on us all game. Short field or not, we did not slow them down, which is inexplicable, when you consider the other teams that have this year.
Click to expand...

Well, not to be the master of the obvious here, but it obviously "slows an offense down" when the QB throws 4 picks in a game. He still had over 315 total yards against Duke, even with 4 picks. And while its certainly true the defense was horrible, can we please stop pretending that the turnovers werent CATASTROPHIC? THREE critical turnovers. One on our own 20 yard line. Two of them BACK TO BACK, which not only KILLED our momentum, and took us out of our gameplan, but it kept our defense on the field for almost the ENTIRE first quarter straight. Those turnovers lead to 14-17 points against an average defense. It cost us 21, and that deficit, I think lead guys to start trying to "make something happen" which created MORE problems with missed tackling and missed assignments. CLEARLY there was a major breakdown on defense, but there were a lot of other factors that exacerbated the situation.
Click to expand...

lol those teams forced him into 4 picks. he didnt suddenly become a good qb against us after turning the ball over 8 times in 2 games.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Logan Thomas has a long history of making poor decisions under pressure. Yet, inexplicably, our defensive game plan was to contain him in the pocket (according to a Golden interview). It's hard to comprehend this "fix" to a long and successful scheme to force Thomas into turnovers.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top