forums

Unrealized Gains or Unrealized Losses

J

jw410

Senior
Banned
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
9,533
Reading this article.. Not sure if posted..

Brief summary

In fact, it was a big problem on both sides of the ball, as Miami's explosiveness and overall speed weren't enough to overcome its lack of efficiency. The Hurricanes ranked 11th in the ACC in third-down conversion percentage and 12th in red-zone scoring percentage, and they ranked last in the ACC in third-down defense, while giving up the most plays of 10-plus yards. Throw in Morris' uneven quarterback play, and it's not surprising that a 7-0 start (complete with three close wins) fell apart down the stretch and eventually ended in a Russell Athletic Bowl meltdown against Louisville.


http://www.sportsonearth.com/articl...tempt-breakthrough-behind-duke-johnson#!6abY9


Wondered was the author correct our we living truly in the past? Are we really so far removed from the National Powers that we have to recreate a new identity or it is that AL is in over his head? This season will be upon us soon.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Our fans expect us to be a dominant team, as though it were inevitable. It isn't. The article is right about that. Miami's two periods of domination are exceptions, not the rule. That doesn't mean we can't get there again. I'm like most fans in that I think we can get to the top again. It's about talent and coaching. When we have the right mix, we'll be close to the top.

The author's assertion that UM football has been neutered is wrong and insulting. When you are winning big, it's easy to think it will go on forever. Same with struggling. But things run in cycles mostly. We'll be back - maybe sooner than some expect.
 
I believe we have been neutered by the administration, somewhat. Their actions really don't seem to be conducive to having a dominant Hurricanes Football program, instead...they're more focused on how much money they can get for the med school (which is needed, but still, doesn't serve my purpose as a Canes fan).

This author is 100000% right about our lack of efficiency. There are games that we lost last season (VT being the most glaring example) where we didn't look like we could put more than 3 plays together on offense at a time. We had 11 possessions: 4 of which were longer than 4 plays (6, 9, 10, 9, respectively). Louisville was just as bad/worse, as we had 5 of 11 possessions go for 4+ plays, and 2 of those were 5-play drives.

I've posted about this a bunch, so I won't rehash too much...but when your offense can't string together a drive and give your D a break--it's not gonna matter how explosive you can be, because eventually, it catches up to you when you play better defenses. It's great being able to score with a homerun ball when you get the opportunity, but you need to be able to possess the football to help your defense out...and as has been pointed out ad nauseum, our D sucks. The less of it we see on the field, the better.
 
Advertisement
Coaching has always been what THE U lacked. Howard said so and it is true. I question if Al is up to the task. This year will be his marker--either grave or the beginning. What THE U did from the 80's to the early years of this century was unmatched in college football. USC is the closest measure being a small private school, but as good as they have been at times, they never terrified college football like us. We do seem to have lost our speed advantage and losing the OB was a disaster of epic measure. Also, there has been an organized effort on the part of major college football programs to take back control of college football that THE U ripped from their old winkled hands. The BCS was the first move to restore conference dominance.

We could rise to pillage again if we found another Howard, or young JJ, but the big boys will never allow us to own them again. It is not an accident that we have not had a great DT in years. St Bobby told EVERYONE that if you want to keep Miami down, deny them DTs. I believe we can win more NCs but we will never be allowed to be what we were. Remember, we destroyed the BEST teams in football the way we get beat good teams now. We killed programs for years and decades--OU, UT, LSU, and AK, and held others at bay when they might have dominated -- NE, ND, Bama. It took ALL of college football to do to us what we alone did to ALL of them. We will make more splashes and they will pee at the very thought. But nobody will be what we were in the 80's and early 90's. But given the right coach .......
 
I agree Gator Hater we seem to have lost some of our mystique.. We play down to competition and teams are no longer afraid of us when we walk in the building. I think it's more coaching than it is talent. A good coach can pull the talent out of you or make you play up to another level.
 
Advertisement
If UM hired Leach the NCAA sanctions would've been much worse. No way does Leach self impose an ACC championship game. The NCAA loves Golden and that's one of the main reasons we only got 9 scholarship reductions and no more bowl bans
 
PalmBeachCane said:
If UM hired Leach the NCAA sanctions would've been much worse. No way does Leach self impose an ACC championship game. The NCAA loves Golden and that's one of the main reasons we only got 9 scholarship reductions and no more bowl bans
Click to expand...

Your assertion that the NCAA reduced the punishment against UM bc of an alleged love of Golden is ridiculous. and the worst part is that you state as fact, rather than what it is - your opinion.

It would be far more logical to argue that the NCAA gave us a relatively light punishment, bc their botched investigation and overhanded tactics were exposed, and Shalala - to her credit - leveraged that NCAA debacle to our advantage. Do you really believe the NCAA committee that imposed the punishment included their alleged feelings for Golden? Really?
 
Advertisement
jw410 said:
I agree Gator Hater we seem to have lost some of our mystique.. We play down to competition and teams are no longer afraid of us when we walk in the building. I think it's more coaching than it is talent. A good coach can pull the talent out of you or make you play up to another level.
Click to expand...
Glad im not the only one who thinks we play to down to a lower competition's level. For example, no way Wake Forest should have been in the game the way they were last year.
 
plantcity3 said:
jw410 said:
I agree Gator Hater we seem to have lost some of our mystique.. We play down to competition and teams are no longer afraid of us when we walk in the building. I think it's more coaching than it is talent. A good coach can pull the talent out of you or make you play up to another level.
Click to expand...
Glad im not the only one who thinks we play to down to a lower competition's level. For example, no way Wake Forest should have been in the game the way they were last year.
Click to expand...

Even our great teams played down to the competition from time to time.The 87 team struggled with a 2-9 VT team, then the next week against a 3-7-1 Toledo team. Fans weren't happy. We blasted ND 24-0 and the bad games were forgotten. We barely beat a 6-5 SDSU team in 90. Nipped a 4-7 BC team in 91. We barely beat a 3-8 Pitt team in 94. Letdowns against opponents that are perceived to be inferior are not uncommon. And those were when we were really good.

It has always puzzled me why players overlook opponents. You don't play that many games. If you lose one, especially to someone 4-8, your NC aspirations are most likely down the toilet. As much as guys fight for playing time, you would think they would be focused no matter the opponent.
 
Advertisement
OC's make their money on 3rd downs and in the RZ. If it wasn't for recruiting, Coley would be on the hot seat.
 
Sabetta said:
OC's make their money on 3rd downs and in the RZ. If it wasn't for recruiting, Coley would be on the hot seat.
Click to expand...



Coley hasn't shown us diddly squat. Nothing.

Just like Dorito.

That Golden sure can pick 'em. Not as good as Randy . . .
 
God. So much about that article is dead on.

The regression on 3rd down can only be laid at the feets of Golden and Foley.

Duke's injury is a mitigating factor, but that's a stark decline, against progressively less-talented squads.
 
Biscuits said:
God. So much about that article is dead on.

The regression on 3rd down can only be laid at the feets of Golden and Foley.

Duke's injury is a mitigating factor, but that's a stark decline, against progressively less-talented squads.
Click to expand...

Morris was the problem in the redzone. He was a deep ball thrower and struggled just about everywhere else. He didn't have much interest in taking the easy completion short of 10 yards, he wanted chunk plays, which doesn't bode well with a short field. I'd be willing to bet that even with a freshman qb the redzone numbers will improve.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top