Sean Spence weighs in on the Defense...interesting read

[McGahee2TheHouse]

Lu, seriously give up. These guys are seriously missing a few screws. I was going to post some long rant but it's not even worth it because nothing can pierce this type of ignorance.

 

[DeadPoets]

Every game is different. There are far too many variables that affect a game to just start comparing performances of teams against each other relative to talent, scheme, recruiting, or anything else. Frankly, it's a really dumb argument. Our defense sucks, we need better players, and we need the coaches to do a better job with what they have. Anything else is just noise, and it's disappointing, IMO, to see a Mod for this site engaging in (and antagonizing, really) this kind of noise.

What ridiculous commentary. What would be disappointing is if I personally attacked posters instead of posts. You know, like trying to be the sensible, above-the-fray guy, yet calling people clowns. Frankly, seems hilariously ironic.

It's not noise to discuss serious flaws and underperformance relative to schools to whom we are at least on par with talent-wise. It's noise to you because apparently you don't want to hear it. There are plenty of other discussions that go on throughout this board. Substantive ones. Add to those, if you wish.

sebastian91 is a commie

 

[sebastian91]

Every game is different. There are far too many variables that affect a game to just start comparing performances of teams against each other relative to talent, scheme, recruiting, or anything else. Frankly, it's a really dumb argument. Our defense sucks, we need better players, and we need the coaches to do a better job with what they have. Anything else is just noise, and it's disappointing, IMO, to see a Mod for this site engaging in (and antagonizing, really) this kind of noise.

What ridiculous commentary. What would be disappointing is if I personally attacked posters instead of posts. You know, like trying to be the sensible, above-the-fray guy, yet calling people clowns. Frankly, seems hilariously ironic.

It's not noise to discuss serious flaws and underperformance relative to schools to whom we are at least on par with talent-wise. It's noise to you because apparently you don't want to hear it. There are plenty of other discussions that go on throughout this board. Substantive ones. Add to those, if you wish.

sebastian91 is a commie

No, but I do have a low tolerance for stupidity.

 

[WhatTheHell]

You must really hate yourself then.

 

[sebastian91]

You must really hate yourself then.

Ha...ha...

 

[QuadCityCane]

I read your posts pretty clearly. I read the post where you push the agenda that NONE of our front 7 players, except Perryman, would play at a bunch of ****ty schools. I'm not asking for the talent to perform up to Championship level. I'd like for them to perform better than Navy and NC Central. I guess that's my crazy 30 for 30 mentality.

Push what agenda, that my opinion is I dont care where they go and play they wouldnt be better than average? Because I think good players will make plays no matter what system? If no one in our front 7 can rush the passer, why would that be any different on another team. If Jimmy Gaines is too slow to have more than 1 tackle for loss at one of the most important positions in a 3-4 vs the run, why would he be any faster on another team? If TC stands around and watches plays or misses tackles, why would I think that wouldnt happen anywhere else.

My problem with the coaches is these players shouldnt be playing. But they have some sort of infatuation with owing it to the seniors for buying into the program and sticking it out.

The bolded simply indicates you don't understand what we are asking some of our players to do. The fact you can't seem to accept some of the guys you mentioned would get destroyed here (e.g. Nikita) playing 2-gap, is basically the point.

I think many of our players are talented enough to produce to the level of guys at Wake, Duke, Navy, NC Central, etc. You apparently do not. We're not going to find common ground here.

So why do we bring in guys like mccord and AQM on third downs to rush the passer? Because the players currently starting cannot do it. So why would they be able to do it anywhere else.

Do you understand the difference between what our 3rd down package does versus what we ask our DL to do on earlier downs? I'm genuinely asking, as your post indicates, once again, that you do not.

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

 

[LuCane]

Push what agenda, that my opinion is I dont care where they go and play they wouldnt be better than average? Because I think good players will make plays no matter what system? If no one in our front 7 can rush the passer, why would that be any different on another team. If Jimmy Gaines is too slow to have more than 1 tackle for loss at one of the most important positions in a 3-4 vs the run, why would he be any faster on another team? If TC stands around and watches plays or misses tackles, why would I think that wouldnt happen anywhere else.

My problem with the coaches is these players shouldnt be playing. But they have some sort of infatuation with owing it to the seniors for buying into the program and sticking it out.

The bolded simply indicates you don't understand what we are asking some of our players to do. The fact you can't seem to accept some of the guys you mentioned would get destroyed here (e.g. Nikita) playing 2-gap, is basically the point.

I think many of our players are talented enough to produce to the level of guys at Wake, Duke, Navy, NC Central, etc. You apparently do not. We're not going to find common ground here.

So why do we bring in guys like mccord and AQM on third downs to rush the passer? Because the players currently starting cannot do it. So why would they be able to do it anywhere else.

Do you understand the difference between what our 3rd down package does versus what we ask our DL to do on earlier downs? I'm genuinely asking, as your post indicates, once again, that you do not.

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

Circular logic.

 

[datdude81]

i don't care if Ed Reed, Jimmy Johnson, Jesus Christ, and God endorses the defense.

if it ain't working. it ain't working.

and right now, it ain't working.

Well let the church say Amen!!!

 

[sebastian91]

The bolded simply indicates you don't understand what we are asking some of our players to do. The fact you can't seem to accept some of the guys you mentioned would get destroyed here (e.g. Nikita) playing 2-gap, is basically the point.

I think many of our players are talented enough to produce to the level of guys at Wake, Duke, Navy, NC Central, etc. You apparently do not. We're not going to find common ground here.

So why do we bring in guys like mccord and AQM on third downs to rush the passer? Because the players currently starting cannot do it. So why would they be able to do it anywhere else.

Do you understand the difference between what our 3rd down package does versus what we ask our DL to do on earlier downs? I'm genuinely asking, as your post indicates, once again, that you do not.

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

Circular logic.

You may not agree with it, but it's certainly not circular.

 

[QuadCityCane]

The bolded simply indicates you don't understand what we are asking some of our players to do. The fact you can't seem to accept some of the guys you mentioned would get destroyed here (e.g. Nikita) playing 2-gap, is basically the point.

I think many of our players are talented enough to produce to the level of guys at Wake, Duke, Navy, NC Central, etc. You apparently do not. We're not going to find common ground here.

So why do we bring in guys like mccord and AQM on third downs to rush the passer? Because the players currently starting cannot do it. So why would they be able to do it anywhere else.

Do you understand the difference between what our 3rd down package does versus what we ask our DL to do on earlier downs? I'm genuinely asking, as your post indicates, once again, that you do not.

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

Circular logic.

You didnt answer my question. Why would a coach rely on a True Freshman DE for a pass rush if we had anyone else on the team that could? You dont want to rely on a true freshman for anything along the defensive line. There is a reason everyone was happy we pulled AQM, because we have no one who can rush the passer.

 

[LuCane]

So why do we bring in guys like mccord and AQM on third downs to rush the passer? Because the players currently starting cannot do it. So why would they be able to do it anywhere else.

Do you understand the difference between what our 3rd down package does versus what we ask our DL to do on earlier downs? I'm genuinely asking, as your post indicates, once again, that you do not.

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

Circular logic.

You may not agree with it, but it's certainly not circular.

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

 

[LuCane]

So why do we bring in guys like mccord and AQM on third downs to rush the passer? Because the players currently starting cannot do it. So why would they be able to do it anywhere else.

Do you understand the difference between what our 3rd down package does versus what we ask our DL to do on earlier downs? I'm genuinely asking, as your post indicates, once again, that you do not.

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

Circular logic.

You didnt answer my question. Why would a coach rely on a True Freshman DE for a pass rush if we had anyone else on the team that could? You dont want to rely on a true freshman for anything along the defensive line. There is a reason everyone was happy we pulled AQM, because we have no one who can rush the passer.

What does this have to do with my repeated point that we have enough talent to play defense up to par with not ONE (an outlier), but teams like Maryland, Duke, etc.?

Do you understand that there are other contributing factors as to why we don't rush the passer well on early downs or, actually, on any downs?

 

[sebastian91]

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

A circular argument has no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The inclusion of AQM and McCord into the argument removes any circularity.

I offered my perspective above.

 

[QuadCityCane]

Do you understand the difference between what our 3rd down package does versus what we ask our DL to do on earlier downs? I'm genuinely asking, as your post indicates, once again, that you do not.

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

Circular logic.

You may not agree with it, but it's certainly not circular.

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

How bout we just agree to disagree? We had a discussion, neither of us resulted to insults or mudslinging. I dont neg or those type of things cause people disagree with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You have yours, I have mine. Neither one of us wants to be wrong. Its human nature.

I have respected you as a poster before you help make this board and I still will. On this subject I just dont think we will ever agree. So lets just squash it.

 

[LuCane]

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

A circular argument has no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The inclusion of AQM and McCord into the argument removes any circularity.

I offered my perspective above.

His arguments can be summed up to the two statements I wrote above (e.g. "Chickillo is not good enough b/c he doesn't have 4 sacks, he doesn't have 4 sacks because he is not good enough"). That's circularity.

Moving to this --->

Here's your perspective, or so far as I can tell:

"Our defense sucks, we need better players, and we need the coaches to do a better job with what they have."

Is somehow distinct from my issue with posters saying we don't have enough talent to be better than what we've shown…in what way exactly?

 

[LuCane]

Of course I do but you wouldnt believe me anyways. If Green or Chick could rush the passer, they wouldnt have to come out for a third down package in favor of mccord and a true freshman. Why would they not keep a player who is good against the run like green in on third down if he could rush the passer?
Why because neither one has more than 4 sacks, if they were good at it they would be in that third down package instead of a undersized sophomore and a true freshman.

Circular logic.

You may not agree with it, but it's certainly not circular.

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

How bout we just agree to disagree? We had a discussion, neither of us resulted to insults or mudslinging. I dont neg or those type of things cause people disagree with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You have yours, I have mine. Neither one of us wants to be wrong. Its human nature.

I have respected you as a poster before you help make this board and I still will. On this subject I just dont think we will ever agree. So lets just squash it.

I proposed that we drop it b/c we weren't going to find common ground like 30 posts ago. The reality is I take offense to what I perceive as an undue attack on players who I believe are made to look worse than what their talent should produce. I prefer that onus stay on coaches as opposed to kids. I accept it can (and is likely in this case) be both, but then you get to games like VTech and Duke and watch what other teams do against those offenses. It makes it far more difficult.

As for the "negging" and mudslinging, I don't do either. I haven't ever given or returned a neg. As far as I can remember, I try not to say anything about anyone other than what's in a post. I appreciate that you do the same.

 

[QuadCityCane]

Circular logic.

You may not agree with it, but it's certainly not circular.

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

How bout we just agree to disagree? We had a discussion, neither of us resulted to insults or mudslinging. I dont neg or those type of things cause people disagree with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You have yours, I have mine. Neither one of us wants to be wrong. Its human nature.

I have respected you as a poster before you help make this board and I still will. On this subject I just dont think we will ever agree. So lets just squash it.

I proposed that we drop it b/c we weren't going to find common ground like 30 posts ago. The reality is I take offense to what I perceive as an undue attack on players who I believe are made to look worse than what their talent should produce. I prefer that onus stay on coaches as opposed to kids. I accept it can (and is likely in this case) be both, but then you get to games like VTech and Duke and watch what other teams do against those offenses. It makes it far more difficult.

As for the "negging" and mudslinging, I don't do either. I haven't ever given or returned a neg. As far as I can remember, I try not to say anything about anyone other than what's in a post. I appreciate that you do the same.

I appreciate everything these kids do for the University. Im sure they work their butts off to be the best they can be. They were handed a bad deal all around and I wish them the best in whatever they do in the future. After 10 years of mediocrity, as fans we just want to be great again. And games like Duke/VT sure dont help anyone have a good outlook no matter what side you are on.
Here's something I'm sure we can both agree on, can we just fast forward to the time when we dont have to worry about losing to teams like this.

 

[sebastian91]

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

A circular argument has no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The inclusion of AQM and McCord into the argument removes any circularity.

I offered my perspective above.

His arguments can be summed up to the two statements I wrote above (e.g. "Chickillo is not good enough b/c he doesn't have 4 sacks, he doesn't have 4 sacks because he is not good enough"). That's circularity.

Moving to this --->

Here's your perspective, or so far as I can tell:

"Our defense sucks, we need better players, and we need the coaches to do a better job with what they have."

Is somehow distinct from my issue with posters saying we don't have enough talent to be better than what we've shown…in what way exactly?

You're ignoring the inclusion of AQM and McCord into the argument. That is evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. That is not circularity.

The difference is that you (and I mean 'you' collectively, not necessarily specifically) keep bringing up comparisons to how other teams did against teams we played, and what those teams' rosters have or don't have, and what those team' recruiting classes were like. There are too many variables involved in these games to do that with any legitimacy. That logic can be twisted around all different ways to where an argument could be made that pretty much any team is better than any other team. It's nonsensical ("any given saturday").

 

[lauderdaleballer]

Bicho wonders....out of the guys currently playing in the front 7. Who actually is talented?

Who actually would play at maryland or wake forrest and be more than JAG there?

#52 and thats about it.

maybe Porter? Chickillo? They aren't playing any better than Renfrow and he couldnt crack the rotation for UVA. that says a lot.

exactly

You guys think that our of Chick, Porter, Pierre, AQM, Mccord, Perryman, Kirby, Luther Robinson and Figs...

…only Perryman would play at schools like Wake, Maryland, Duke, Troy, North Carolina Central, Navy, et al?

Would appreciate an answer.

Like many of the lists made to support the talent argument, half of the guys on your list are true frosh or soph... Duke had a veteran OL with 140 plus starts and many upperclassmen. We cannot rely on a 50 percent impact from true frosh and soph. That basically tells you theres a JAG behind them or noone

and thats the scariest part of Barry Jacksons article today, theres a huge depth gap, and we continue to rely on inoming frosh

we are suffering from the misses and attrition of 2010-2011, those 2 years killed us and we had the 25th and 40th ranked classes

In our starting front 7 no one is younger than a junior... I think our 2 deep dlinemen are no younger than juniors (exception of Mccord and how often does AQM play?)

 

[LuCane]

A is true b/c B is true and B is true b/c A is true.
Chick is not a good pass rusher b/c he isn't played as an edge guy on 3rd downs and he isn't played as an edge rusher on 3rd downs because he isn't a good pass rusher.
Neither are good b/c they don't have 4 sacks, and they don't have 4 sacks because...

How do you know that Chickillo wouldn't have more than 4 sacks (the metric used) if he's asked to plump up in weight, play 2-gap/contain on early downs and then slide inside to perform obvious stunts/games on later downs? He may never light the world on fire as an edge rusher, but the logic used is flawed.

Here's a challenge:

Where is it that you and I disagree? I'll offer my side and you offer your perspective.

A circular argument has no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The inclusion of AQM and McCord into the argument removes any circularity.

I offered my perspective above.

His arguments can be summed up to the two statements I wrote above (e.g. "Chickillo is not good enough b/c he doesn't have 4 sacks, he doesn't have 4 sacks because he is not good enough"). That's circularity.

Moving to this --->

Here's your perspective, or so far as I can tell:

"Our defense sucks, we need better players, and we need the coaches to do a better job with what they have."

Is somehow distinct from my issue with posters saying we don't have enough talent to be better than what we've shown…in what way exactly?

You're ignoring the inclusion of AQM and McCord into the argument. That is evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. That is not circularity.

The difference is that you (and I mean 'you' collectively, not necessarily specifically) keep bringing up comparisons to how other teams did against teams we played, and what those teams' rosters have or don't have, and what those team' recruiting classes were like. There are too many variables involved in these games to do that with any legitimacy. That logic can be twisted around all different ways to where an argument could be made that pretty much any team is better than any other team. It's nonsensical ("any given saturday").

You openly state that "our coaches need to do a better job with what they have." From where do you draw that conclusion?