Wyche said coach No D is a mastermind lmao i heard it all

[dk72]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ******* SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

 

[Miami82]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ******* SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

 

[dk72]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ******* SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

No, I couldn't possibly take that title away from you.

Maybe you NOW are claiming the defensive scheme could work with the right players, but most of the mopes insist it's a worthless scheme that can't work. As for the SFL talent, there is no reason that the scheme can't work with that sort of talent, none at all. As for "non-aggressive", that is NOT an integral part of the scheme itself. That is the result of having players that aren't skilled enough and disciplined enough to play in an aggressive D, such as we'd had for the past few years. So you can keep whining and pretending you're such an expert, but your posts just show your ignorance.

 

[dk72]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ******* SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

Oh, and grow up. Your childish private messages about "sucking off" and other such fantasies of yours are really pathetic. I'd say stick to football, but you don't seem to know much about that topic.

 

[WhatTheHell]

Well, with a resume' like Dorito's this is really hard to argue.

 

[Miami82]

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

No, I couldn't possibly take that title away from you.

Maybe you NOW are claiming the defensive scheme could work with the right players, but most of the mopes insist it's a worthless scheme that can't work. As for the SFL talent, there is no reason that the scheme can't work with that sort of talent, none at all. As for "non-aggressive", that is NOT an integral part of the scheme itself. That is the result of having players that aren't skilled enough and disciplined enough to play in an aggressive D, such as we'd had for the past few years. So you can keep whining and pretending you're such an expert, but your posts just show your ignorance.

LOL, is that all you have dumb ****? The little kid mope calling... The mopes as you like to call us have been right the last 3 years, which shows they know a ton more than you. But in all seriousness that's not saying much you being the dumbest **** on this board. You wouldn't know good coaching if it ***** slapped you in the face. Even after we have all world talent, Dorito going up against equal talent and a true X and O's coach will get his *** handed to him. You are to stupid to even get that.

 

[Miami82]

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

Oh, and grow up. Your childish private messages about "sucking off" and other such fantasies of yours are really pathetic. I'd say stick to football, but you don't seem to know much about that topic.

LMAO, they are not private message tard, they are on your message board for all to see. http://www.canesinsight.com/members/2366-dk72 Truth hurts!

 

[Miami82]

Well, with a resume' like Dorito's this is really hard to argue.

 

[dk72]

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

Oh, and grow up. Your childish private messages about "sucking off" and other such fantasies of yours are really pathetic. I'd say stick to football, but you don't seem to know much about that topic.

LMAO, they are not private message tard, they are on your message board for all to see. http://www.canesinsight.com/members/2366-dk72 Truth hurts!

Whatever, the bottom line being it takes the mind of a child to behave that way. But sure, we'll take your football "knowledge" seriously. Go change your diaper, it's getting smelly in here.

 

[DaU83]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ****ING SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ****ing myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ****ing life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

That's not successful coaching that's putting a band aid on the problem. They chose to install their system until they could get the right pieces, that makes more sense then being a slightly better defense, with mediocre players, then having to install your system 3-4 years later when you have players.. then wait a couple of seasons more for that to be perfected. Based on the situation I think they chose the right strategy.

 

[Biscuits]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ******* SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

Where did I say anything about the scheme outside of your absurd context that the staff needs four years to implement it?

The idea that it should take four years to get your players in place is dubious, at best.

Finally, even if that were the case, it marks them as failures anyway. They may turn it around, perhaps, but this isn't the kind of business that gives you long life cycles. Especially at a place like Miami. Burning even one season without doing whatever is necessary to win is a serious problem. Their jobs are to win and win now. Not build some obscure ****heap like VT or KSU up to relevance. Failing to note or believe that makes them either too arrogant or simple. Failing to carry through makes them incompetent.

They've already failed as coaches. Whether or not you believe that doesn't affect the reality of it. They may succeed, moving forward, but anyone has the right to doubt that. Certainly anyone with eyes and a memory.

 

[dk72]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ******* SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

Where did I say anything about the scheme outside of your absurd context that the staff needs four years to implement it?

The idea that it should take four years to get your players in place is dubious, at best.

Finally, even if that were the case, it marks them as failures anyway. They may turn it around, perhaps, but this isn't the kind of business that gives you long life cycles. Especially at a place like Miami. Burning even one season without doing whatever is necessary to win is a serious problem. Their jobs are to win and win now. Not build some obscure ****heap like VT or KSU up to relevance. Failing to note or believe that makes them either too arrogant or simple. Failing to carry through makes them incompetent.

They've already failed as coaches. Whether or not you believe that doesn't affect the reality of it. They may succeed, moving forward, but anyone has the right to doubt that. Certainly anyone with eyes and a memory.

Given the situation the team was in, including the NCAA mess and the lack of anything resembling a sensible and well-planned roster left by Shannon, scrapping it all and looking to the future was very much a valid decision. Again, not one I'd make, but potentially one that will have more short-term pain, but possibly a quicker return to the top. That's the part that remains to be seen. I'm not giving Golden, D'Onofrio, or anyone, a free pass. The NCAA mess has passed, the talent has started to rebuild, the depth is finally at least gone from non-existent to decent. This is the first season that in any way resembles a normal situation for a coaching staff. If they can't show improvement and movement in the right direction, if they can't move above mediocrity, then yes, they should go. But saying that it's been determined already at this point is ridiculous. Some act as if this program were just having some minor bumps in the road. It was in a death spiral, plain and simple.

 

[BALLHAWKU]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ****ING SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ****ing myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ****ing life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

Where did I say anything about the scheme outside of your absurd context that the staff needs four years to implement it?

The idea that it should take four years to get your players in place is dubious, at best.

Finally, even if that were the case, it marks them as failures anyway. They may turn it around, perhaps, but this isn't the kind of business that gives you long life cycles. Especially at a place like Miami. Burning even one season without doing whatever is necessary to win is a serious problem. Their jobs are to win and win now. Not build some obscure ****heap like VT or KSU up to relevance. Failing to note or believe that makes them either too arrogant or simple. Failing to carry through makes them incompetent.

They've already failed as coaches. Whether or not you believe that doesn't affect the reality of it. They may succeed, moving forward, but anyone has the right to doubt that. Certainly anyone with eyes and a memory.

I seen the temple south coaching staff first hand vs duke. It was horrible watching Duke out coach our coaches the entire game. Herb called out our coaching staff several times on espn last year. The alumni call them out for the ****** job they're doing and how its embarrassing. I can’t understand how people don’t see this; it seems like a lot of the fans like just to be Mediocre and you can throw in the school president into this this statement.

 

[NVA CANE]

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

No, I couldn't possibly take that title away from you.

Maybe you NOW are claiming the defensive scheme could work with the right players, but most of the mopes insist it's a worthless scheme that can't work. As for the SFL talent, there is no reason that the scheme can't work with that sort of talent, none at all. As for "non-aggressive", that is NOT an integral part of the scheme itself. That is the result of having players that aren't skilled enough and disciplined enough to play in an aggressive D, such as we'd had for the past few years. So you can keep whining and pretending you're such an expert, but your posts just show your ignorance.

LMAO. It's the players fault. Its always the players fault.

No the defense not being aggressive enough is a result of golden and Dorito not trusting their players, even the players they themselves recruited. So Tracy Howard, Deon bush, McCord, Eddie Johnson, AQM, Burns, chickillo, etc weren't aggressive or skilled enough to play an aggressive style of defense.

So when our DT doesn't play his gap and gets a sack and golden sits him down, how is that on the player. Was he not being aggressive enough? It's the opposite. The players want to play aggressive and these clown *** coaches won't allow them to because they don't trust them.

 

[Miami82]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ******* SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

Where did I say anything about the scheme outside of your absurd context that the staff needs four years to implement it?

The idea that it should take four years to get your players in place is dubious, at best.

Finally, even if that were the case, it marks them as failures anyway. They may turn it around, perhaps, but this isn't the kind of business that gives you long life cycles. Especially at a place like Miami. Burning even one season without doing whatever is necessary to win is a serious problem. Their jobs are to win and win now. Not build some obscure ****heap like VT or KSU up to relevance. Failing to note or believe that makes them either too arrogant or simple. Failing to carry through makes them incompetent.

They've already failed as coaches. Whether or not you believe that doesn't affect the reality of it. They may succeed, moving forward, but anyone has the right to doubt that. Certainly anyone with eyes and a memory.

You nailed it and this moron will argue it.

 

[dk72]

What a ******* myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ******* life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

You really are the dumbest ************ on this board. It isn't even a competition. I stated how easy it is to run your choice of D with your hand picked players. Read much moron? Of course his D will work, that is what that statement means dumb ****. I've never stated this style of D wouldn't work. What I have stated is it isn't the correct choice for the Sfla talent that we have. None of these kids play in a non-aggressive D down here. If your head wasn't so far up your ***, you would know that.

No, I couldn't possibly take that title away from you.

Maybe you NOW are claiming the defensive scheme could work with the right players, but most of the mopes insist it's a worthless scheme that can't work. As for the SFL talent, there is no reason that the scheme can't work with that sort of talent, none at all. As for "non-aggressive", that is NOT an integral part of the scheme itself. That is the result of having players that aren't skilled enough and disciplined enough to play in an aggressive D, such as we'd had for the past few years. So you can keep whining and pretending you're such an expert, but your posts just show your ignorance.

LMAO. It's the players fault. Its always the players fault.

No the defense not being aggressive enough is a result of golden and Dorito not trusting their players, even the players they themselves recruited. So Tracy Howard, Deon bush, McCord, Eddie Johnson, AQM, Burns, chickillo, etc weren't aggressive or skilled enough to play an aggressive style of defense.

So when our DT doesn't play his gap and gets a sack and golden sits him down, how is that on the player. Was he not being aggressive enough? It's the opposite. The players want to play aggressive and these clown *** coaches won't allow them to because they don't trust them.

You name a few of the better players, while ignoring the fact that the team was still full of sub-standard players who didn't have the football IQ or skill to take up slack while other players are being aggressive and gambling. You can be aggressive when you know that the players next to you and behind you are incapable of cleaning up after you. What I find amusing is you seem to think players don't matter. They do. Individual players last year may have been good enough to play aggressive, but the coaches understandably didn't trust the unit as a whole given that half the defense was populated with scrubs.

 

[DaU83]

So his STRATEGY was to run system that didn't play to his players' strengths?

And we can't use the THREE ****ING SEASONS of abysmal play as judgment against this 'strategy' and those implementing it, because it was intentional? Somehow, none of this track record is relevant? Getting tuned up, routinely, by bad offenses is not something to be concerned about?

And I shouldn't be concerned, because these coarches needed four years to get their players in and ready?

OK.

Like I said, I don't agree with the strategy. But that is NOT the same as the validity of the scheme itself, or whether or not D'Onofrio is a "mastermind" at defense. They seemed to have just written off the three years while trying to look to the future with the total revamp. Now they have players, we'll see if it pays off long term. The idiots pretending anyone is giving them a free pass are making up motives for those who simply understand that we haven't seen a D'Onofrio defense with actual D'Onofrio players yet. Should he have just written off the past few years and force-fit the players at the time into his system? I don't think so, but that's of trying to win now vs. win later. Does it mean they system is worthless and he can't coach defense? That remains to be seen no matter how much you whine.

What a ****ing myopic view point. You get the first point yet can't connect the dots to save your ****ing life. Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D. That is not the definition of a successful coach. Taking what you have and making it work is. Waiting 4 years to field a decent D is the most moronic thinking I've seen on this board. And you are the point man. Kudo's.

Apparently some (you) are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not defending D'Onofrio's decision to play it that way. I'm pointing out that those claiming the verdict is out on whether this type of defense works and whether D'Onofrio knows how to coach a defense are wrong, period. Two different things. Feel free to criticize his decision to only look to the future vs. using the players he had in the best fit for them at the time. That is a completely different topic than whether the defensive scheme will work when his players are in it. Your post leaves out the part where you and your fellow mopes continually state that the defensive scheme is "bad" and "can't work" and now you are backpedaling and saying "Of course the D or anyone d would play better with handpicked players for their style of D."

Where did I say anything about the scheme outside of your absurd context that the staff needs four years to implement it?

The idea that it should take four years to get your players in place is dubious, at best.

Finally, even if that were the case, it marks them as failures anyway. They may turn it around, perhaps, but this isn't the kind of business that gives you long life cycles. Especially at a place like Miami. Burning even one season without doing whatever is necessary to win is a serious problem. Their jobs are to win and win now. Not build some obscure ****heap like VT or KSU up to relevance. Failing to note or believe that makes them either too arrogant or simple. Failing to carry through makes them incompetent.

They've already failed as coaches. Whether or not you believe that doesn't affect the reality of it. They may succeed, moving forward, but anyone has the right to doubt that. Certainly anyone with eyes and a memory.

while normally I would agree, the minute the shapiro stuff came out, the life cycle got extended.. not to mention the dumpster fire that our last two coaches have been..

 

[CaneAlmighty]

Cant judge his defense when playing with a full deck ... This is the first year i judge him and the whole staff...

Then that's your foolish mistake. His deck was more than full enough where the defense should not have been ranked in the 110's.

When was this?

http://espn.go.com/college-football...al/position/defense/sort/totalYards/year/2012

So you think think the deck was full enough to not suck?
There has been ONE player drafted from that defense. A 6th rounder at that. For comparison purposes UCLA who was ranked a couple of spots ahead had 2 first round LBs on that defense.
Georgia, which had an average defense that year (60th) had a bunch of players drafted from their defense including some first rounders

Just goes to show how out of wack this fan base is.

 

[ProjectMKUltra5]

Lol these always turn into the same discussion.

Mope: HAVE YOU SEEN OUR DEFENSIVE RANKING?!?!?

Then somebody steps in and provides some context to the situation.

MOPE: EXCUSES!!!!! I SAW OUR DEFENSIVE RANKING THAT MEANS I'M A GENIUS!!!!

 

[CaneDro]

FIRE BUTCH FIRE GOLDEN