OMC no need to hang up. At this point I am just repeating myself and 82 and others in this thread. I agree with you though that some of the guys we had were not as talented as we would have liked - not going to throw them under the bus - but we could all see that.
The issue for me is that our defensive issue were not limited to a lack of talent - Duke wasn't three tds better than us personnel wise; they were better coached; Wake wasn't a few points from beating us at home because they have as much talent as we do, it's because they were better coached.
Look a little closer at the Wake Forest game as an example of our inability to make meaningful adjustments within the flow of the game. Again, we didn't need to make adjustments to neutralize our 2001 team or our 1988 team, seeing as you're an oldmancane, we just needed to stop a poor Wake Forest team, a team that was pedestrian even by Wake standards. What did Wake do that was so complicated? They employed wide splits along their offensive line and threw the ball underneath (crossing routes) and in the flat. They had success until the final buzzer, and as they had success they could start throwing it down field also - mainly toward the sidelines. Why did it work? Because we never put pressure on the QB right up the middle to force him to make quicker reads AND (and this is critical) we gave their receivers a free release and often played 8-10 yards off the line of scrimmage for much of the game. I am NOT a football guru, but you don't have to be to see why that is a formula that favors Wake. We never figured out the riddle of the wide splits. OMC, come on. I don't know what else to say about that because that's Optimist Ball 101. That pattern of not making adjustments has repeated itself again and again.
Ok. So you might respond, well we didn't have the talent to make adjustments, which wouldn't really be true in the case of the Wake game, but I would think would be more accurate for say FSU.
Well, I just re-watched our spring game last night, and what struck me wasn't all the good athletes on defense. No question we have better athletes than last year. We still need more up the middle of our D, especially at DT, but on the edges and at the skill positions watch out. What struck me was the number of shoulder tackles - players trying to make a big hit. I was trying to cipher why Walter Tucker was looking like Walter Payton, and it became obvious. Several of our guys weren't wrapping up. And, we all love a big hit, a tone setting wooo hit, but a well coached team will consistently wrap up and pick their opportunities to lower the Boom! Honestly, go back and watch Walter Tucker make a name for himself because guys don't wrap up. I'm not taking anything away from Tucker because I love his down hill running style, but my point remains: a well coached team wraps up and gets their man down. Wrap up and get off the field. Again, that's with the better athletes.
Finally, I admit that I'm not a fan of the DC's scheme. That should be obvious based on what I said about the Wake game. I tried really hard to like it, honestly, but at this point - considering the results - I believe it's too complicated and our guys are thinking too much rather than playing aggressive. If you played sports think about that statement - about thinking about doing an action as opposed to just doing the action because you know without any question what to do. I think the implications should be obvious: you play faster, more aggressively, and consequentially you are more inclined to impose your will rather than the other way around.
So, will we get better results with better players? Sure hope so, but to me, the question is what is the best system for the particular set of players we have on defense right now? Two gapping, thus far, has required all of our non-skill position guys to bulk up, perhaps too much in some cases, and so far it has left our linemen wrestling at the line of scrimmage while yet our DBs are playing off receivers. No argument from me that it doesn't help our defense if Jimmy Gaines is firing into the wrong gap or taking a bad angle, but his doing so was only part of the problem. In fact, it might well have been better to limit what he and TC and Green had to think about rather than expand it with more reads and assignments.
Anyway, I want what I think the Canes on this board want which is for us to win and again be elite, but for me their is no overlooking many of the deficiencies (including talent) that stand in the way of that.
This right here, and add in the inability to make adjustments to what your opponents are doing.
I agree we've had a dearth of talent, but we've had enough talent to put a better defense on the field than we've seen. To me it's about maximizing the potential of the players you do have through development and a scheme that fits their strengths.
NO. I think Michigan State just did a better job of scheming for their talent and coaching their kids up.
We do neither.
Our version of the 3-4 (2 gap, read and react) is not what suits Miami. Miami is a traditionally aggressive in your face defense.
We don't have the horses to play 2 gap. Good coaches scheme to the talent of their teams year to year.
Even Golden said every team is different every season. Our coaches are too stubborn to change or just not very good teachers/coaches.
It's like having a pocket passer who doesn't run fast and the coordinator or coach is insistent on running the triple option. Makes no **** sense.
What scheme would fit the strengths of Kacey Rogers, AJ Highsmith starting at safety, Jimmy Gaines and Tyrone Cornelius starting at linebacker, and Justin Renfrow and Shayon Green starting on the defensive line?
These were NOT Miami caliber athletes.
I'll hang up and listen....
