Looking ahead a little bit

[CanesAreAble]

If you have patience and believe in the Butch Davis-type rebuild, then next year is basically our 2000. That was an incredibly important year for Butch that decided which way the program was going to go. 97 was bottom out, 98/99 were rebuild, and 2000 was the year to show something. Golden hopefully bottomed-out his first season and this is his 99. So next year is the year to prove something.

Realistically, winning the Coastal this year just buys us a ticket to a second pummeling by FSU. The extra game would be a good thing to have, but I personally was never under the illusion that this team could beat FSU and end up in a BCS game. Next year they have to shift from all the "process" talk to talking about winning something--change the urgency around the program.

I agree.

I was talking to some people off the board that there really shouldn't be an empirical benchmark for next year.

Next year we should LOOK LIKE a top 10 team. We all know what a top 10 team is supposed to look like. They can go toe-to-toe with anybody in the country, they destroy the bad teams, and maybe once or twice get in a death struggle against an inferior team.

 

[DiegoCane]

Jesus you really can't accept the fact that even if you have Deon Sanders, it won't matter if he's 10 yards off the ball and nobody is covering the flats, can you?

I don't give a **** about the scheme.

Saban designs his defense on taking away big plays and the middle of the field. If there's a weakness, it's in the flats. The difference is his LBs actually know how to line up and diagnose a play.

Ours don't because they're not good and/or they're not being coached up.


We could run press man all day. If we still can't cover crossing routes or tackle, we're still going to get killed.

It's the execution. And yes, the coaches are to blame for us regressing this late in the season.

Have you ever seen a defensive scheme as passive as ours? Pregame VTech knew how to attack our defense and they did it for 60 minutes straight with ease. VTech is an awful offensive football team. ECarolina, Marshall, GTech, UNC, Pitt, and Duke didn't have a problem with their offense.

As far as execution goes:
1. We have 10+ guys who started games for us last year that returned
2. Sometime players are executing but put in impossible situations to succeed.

So in closing: I give a **** about the scheme.

Like I said earlier, there isn't a scheme that's been put into practice that fundamentally allows terrible offenses to put up close to 6 bills. Plenty of coaches have gotten fired for playing press man/blitzkrieg schemes. It's all about the implementation of the scheme.

I'm far more concerned with the guys implementing and teaching the scheme.

While I agree with that statement in theory its hard not to watch our games and say we aren't schematically flawed.

Some examples:
McCord is lucky to see 15 snaps a game
Perryman covering WRs one on one in the middle of the field.
Jenkins asked to cover an outside WR when he's lined up in the middle of the field.

When your most explosive defenders aren't seeing minutes or are asked to play toward their weaknesses then its a scheme issue.

I do agree however, we don't execute our terrible scheme very well.

 

[The Franchise]

Realistically, winning the Coastal this year just buys us a ticket to a second pummeling by FSU. The extra game would be a good thing to have, but I personally was never under the illusion that this team could beat FSU and end up in a BCS game. Next year they have to shift from all the "process" talk to talking about winning something--change the urgency around the program.

FSU will be just as good next year.

Better.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Jesus you really can't accept the fact that even if you have Deon Sanders, it won't matter if he's 10 yards off the ball and nobody is covering the flats, can you?

I don't give a **** about the scheme.

Saban designs his defense on taking away big plays and the middle of the field. If there's a weakness, it's in the flats. The difference is his LBs actually know how to line up and diagnose a play.

Ours don't because they're not good and/or they're not being coached up.


We could run press man all day. If we still can't cover crossing routes or tackle, we're still going to get killed.

It's the execution. And yes, the coaches are to blame for us regressing this late in the season.

Have you ever seen a defensive scheme as passive as ours? Pregame VTech knew how to attack our defense and they did it for 60 minutes straight with ease. VTech is an awful offensive football team. ECarolina, Marshall, GTech, UNC, Pitt, and Duke didn't have a problem with their offense.

As far as execution goes:
1. We have 10+ guys who started games for us last year that returned
2. Sometime players are executing but put in impossible situations to succeed.

So in closing: I give a **** about the scheme.

Like I said earlier, there isn't a scheme that's been put into practice that fundamentally allows terrible offenses to put up close to 6 bills. Plenty of coaches have gotten fired for playing press man/blitzkrieg schemes. It's all about the implementation of the scheme.

I'm far more concerned with the guys implementing and teaching the scheme.

While I agree with that statement in theory its hard not to watch our games and say we aren't schematically flawed.

Some examples:
McCord is lucky to see 15 snaps a game
Perryman covering WRs one on one in the middle of the field.
Jenkins asked to cover an outside WR when he's lined up in the middle of the field.

When your most explosive defenders aren't seeing minutes or are asked to play toward their weaknesses then its a scheme issue.

I do agree however, we don't execute our terrible scheme very well.

Nothing you listed there is unique to us.

I don't think the scheme is flawed.

I think, thus far, we suck at implementing it. For example, there's no schematic rule that says McCord only plays 15 snaps. He could be out there on earlier downs. If you're worried about run integrity, then maybe send an extra blitzer from that side to help with contain. Or at least make the other team expose McCord in run defense a couple times.

 

[DiegoCane]

I don't give a **** about the scheme.

Saban designs his defense on taking away big plays and the middle of the field. If there's a weakness, it's in the flats. The difference is his LBs actually know how to line up and diagnose a play.

Ours don't because they're not good and/or they're not being coached up.


We could run press man all day. If we still can't cover crossing routes or tackle, we're still going to get killed.

It's the execution. And yes, the coaches are to blame for us regressing this late in the season.

Have you ever seen a defensive scheme as passive as ours? Pregame VTech knew how to attack our defense and they did it for 60 minutes straight with ease. VTech is an awful offensive football team. ECarolina, Marshall, GTech, UNC, Pitt, and Duke didn't have a problem with their offense.

As far as execution goes:
1. We have 10+ guys who started games for us last year that returned
2. Sometime players are executing but put in impossible situations to succeed.

So in closing: I give a **** about the scheme.

Like I said earlier, there isn't a scheme that's been put into practice that fundamentally allows terrible offenses to put up close to 6 bills. Plenty of coaches have gotten fired for playing press man/blitzkrieg schemes. It's all about the implementation of the scheme.

I'm far more concerned with the guys implementing and teaching the scheme.

While I agree with that statement in theory its hard not to watch our games and say we aren't schematically flawed.

Some examples:
McCord is lucky to see 15 snaps a game
Perryman covering WRs one on one in the middle of the field.
Jenkins asked to cover an outside WR when he's lined up in the middle of the field.

When your most explosive defenders aren't seeing minutes or are asked to play toward their weaknesses then its a scheme issue.

I do agree however, we don't execute our terrible scheme very well.

Nothing you listed there is unique to us.

I don't think the scheme is flawed.

I think, thus far, we suck at implementing it. For example, there's no schematic rule that says McCord only plays 15 snaps. He could be out there on earlier downs. If you're worried about run integrity, then maybe send an extra blitzer from that side to help with contain. Or at least make the other team expose McCord in run defense a couple times.

Guess we will agree to disagree. I think its a problem to continually allow LBs to be matched up 1 on 1 with WRs.

Our scheme is a massive issue as is its execution. With the players we can recruit, it about the last scheme I'd want to run. IMO there are a lot of DCs out there that would have this talent in the top 25 in college football.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Have you ever seen a defensive scheme as passive as ours? Pregame VTech knew how to attack our defense and they did it for 60 minutes straight with ease. VTech is an awful offensive football team. ECarolina, Marshall, GTech, UNC, Pitt, and Duke didn't have a problem with their offense.

As far as execution goes:
1. We have 10+ guys who started games for us last year that returned
2. Sometime players are executing but put in impossible situations to succeed.

So in closing: I give a **** about the scheme.

Like I said earlier, there isn't a scheme that's been put into practice that fundamentally allows terrible offenses to put up close to 6 bills. Plenty of coaches have gotten fired for playing press man/blitzkrieg schemes. It's all about the implementation of the scheme.

I'm far more concerned with the guys implementing and teaching the scheme.

While I agree with that statement in theory its hard not to watch our games and say we aren't schematically flawed.

Some examples:
McCord is lucky to see 15 snaps a game
Perryman covering WRs one on one in the middle of the field.
Jenkins asked to cover an outside WR when he's lined up in the middle of the field.

When your most explosive defenders aren't seeing minutes or are asked to play toward their weaknesses then its a scheme issue.

I do agree however, we don't execute our terrible scheme very well.

Nothing you listed there is unique to us.

I don't think the scheme is flawed.

I think, thus far, we suck at implementing it. For example, there's no schematic rule that says McCord only plays 15 snaps. He could be out there on earlier downs. If you're worried about run integrity, then maybe send an extra blitzer from that side to help with contain. Or at least make the other team expose McCord in run defense a couple times.

Guess we will agree to disagree. I think its a problem to continually allow LBs to be matched up 1 on 1 with WRs.

Our scheme is a massive issue as is its execution. With the players we can recruit, it about the last scheme I'd want to run. IMO there are a lot of DCs out there that would have this talent in the top 25 in college football.

Here's my thing.

If the scheme is as terrible as you say it is, then Al Golden is a moron. Period.

I don't think that's the case. I think he's done a poor job of implementing what he wants.

 

[DiegoCane]

I think Golden is like 95% of coaches out there, stubborn.

 

[Canesfan1899]

UVA will beat us.

This would be a problem, UVA is awful this year.