There's been a lot of vitriol on this and many boards regarding the ineffectiveness of the defense which I won't rehash in this post - we all know the defense is broken. What I'd like to explore here is the difference between a busted scheme and a defunct philosophy.
The Scheme
In a post I made a while ago - still tacked above I think - I got into the "on-paper" aspects of the 4-3 Under/Flex and how it could be utilized here. This is the scheme we "run" (run being used loosely right now...) If you picked up the Miami defensive playbook and thumbed through it, I'd expect you'd see a lot of plays that look eerily similar to what's being run at Alabama or even better, Michigan State.
Just to review, the 4-3 under scheme itself requires a wide-body NT, versatile DEs who can get to the passer but also set an edge, and heady, athletic LBs who can play in space and downhill. There's also a hybrid DE/LB (the "Jack" or "Elephant" position - think McCord) who's primarily used as a pass-rusher. The DBs by-and-large play mainly cover-3 or cover-0 depending on the situation.
For me, the scheme in and of itself is not the problem. When run with purpose and aggression, pressure can come from anywhere on the field and wreak havoc on traditional and spread offenses alike. (Again, see Narduzzi at MSU.) I'd go so far as to argue that the recent shift to the Flex for a lot of teams is a direct result of the dramatic rise in spread offenses over the last 10 years. That said, no defensive scheme is a problem on paper. The issues arise when coaches have to teach, implement, and gameplan the scheme both mid-week and on Saturdays. This leads me to -
The Philosophy
To me, this is where there is a massive disconnect between what this defense is, and what it could/should be. We've seen this defense be aggressive at times (Duke, even this past week at Cincy occasionally) - that's what's so frustrating. The problem seems to be that D'Nofrio is trying to defend EVERYTHING simultaneously, and ends up defending nothing well. And when we are attacking and the opposing offense gains a chunk of yards, it seems we go into defensive panic mode far too soon. Were we really that afraid of Georgia Tech's deep ball that we gave up on stopping the dive? Did we really need to drop 8 into coverage on the 10-yard line? These are the differences to me between an "attacking" philosophy and a "reactive" philosophy. Note here that the issue is still the playcalling/gameplan, not the plays themselves.
Can we fix it?
This is where the rubber hits the proverbial road. In my post from last year, I wondered if the scheme was too complex for the college game. I don't wonder that anymore - it's not. I now believe that it's D'Nofrio's PHILOSOPHY that asks our players to do too much, not the scheme itself. Example: Tyriq McCord should be playing downhill 70-80% of the time. Period. That's his primary skillset. I'm not saying don't drop him into coverage occasionally - just enough to keep offenses guessing as to where the pressure is - but any more that a couple times per game and you're nullifying your player's natural ability. Perryman and Kirby should be blitzing the **** out of the A gap so that when one or both drop into zone, there's still pressure (say from Bush or Howard) and deception. Or if you don't trust the rush from the back 7, that's fine - use a LB as a spy on a running QB or shifty RB and just say "go where he goes." (Incidentally, that's exactly what Narduzzi did to help take away Abdullah in the MSU-Nebraska game...)
Basically, it all comes down to trust. Right now, I don't believe D'Nofrio trusts our personnel to execute his plays, and so when the plays inevitably go awry mid-game, he reverts back to the dreaded "bend-don't-break" philosophy that simply ends up breaking over the course of a game. Some would argue that even if we change DCs that this is GOLDEN'S scheme (which it is) so it won't matter. I'm not so sure yet. It is definitely Golden's intent to have our defense play 4-3 Under, but I'm not convinced that our DC is running it the way our Head Coach wants it run anymore. If there is a change in the defensive coaching staff after the season and Golden remains the head coach, 2015 becomes very intriguing and I'll be very interested in re-visiting the "scheme" v. "philosophy" discussion again.
Just my .02
The Scheme
In a post I made a while ago - still tacked above I think - I got into the "on-paper" aspects of the 4-3 Under/Flex and how it could be utilized here. This is the scheme we "run" (run being used loosely right now...) If you picked up the Miami defensive playbook and thumbed through it, I'd expect you'd see a lot of plays that look eerily similar to what's being run at Alabama or even better, Michigan State.
Just to review, the 4-3 under scheme itself requires a wide-body NT, versatile DEs who can get to the passer but also set an edge, and heady, athletic LBs who can play in space and downhill. There's also a hybrid DE/LB (the "Jack" or "Elephant" position - think McCord) who's primarily used as a pass-rusher. The DBs by-and-large play mainly cover-3 or cover-0 depending on the situation.
For me, the scheme in and of itself is not the problem. When run with purpose and aggression, pressure can come from anywhere on the field and wreak havoc on traditional and spread offenses alike. (Again, see Narduzzi at MSU.) I'd go so far as to argue that the recent shift to the Flex for a lot of teams is a direct result of the dramatic rise in spread offenses over the last 10 years. That said, no defensive scheme is a problem on paper. The issues arise when coaches have to teach, implement, and gameplan the scheme both mid-week and on Saturdays. This leads me to -
The Philosophy
To me, this is where there is a massive disconnect between what this defense is, and what it could/should be. We've seen this defense be aggressive at times (Duke, even this past week at Cincy occasionally) - that's what's so frustrating. The problem seems to be that D'Nofrio is trying to defend EVERYTHING simultaneously, and ends up defending nothing well. And when we are attacking and the opposing offense gains a chunk of yards, it seems we go into defensive panic mode far too soon. Were we really that afraid of Georgia Tech's deep ball that we gave up on stopping the dive? Did we really need to drop 8 into coverage on the 10-yard line? These are the differences to me between an "attacking" philosophy and a "reactive" philosophy. Note here that the issue is still the playcalling/gameplan, not the plays themselves.
Can we fix it?
This is where the rubber hits the proverbial road. In my post from last year, I wondered if the scheme was too complex for the college game. I don't wonder that anymore - it's not. I now believe that it's D'Nofrio's PHILOSOPHY that asks our players to do too much, not the scheme itself. Example: Tyriq McCord should be playing downhill 70-80% of the time. Period. That's his primary skillset. I'm not saying don't drop him into coverage occasionally - just enough to keep offenses guessing as to where the pressure is - but any more that a couple times per game and you're nullifying your player's natural ability. Perryman and Kirby should be blitzing the **** out of the A gap so that when one or both drop into zone, there's still pressure (say from Bush or Howard) and deception. Or if you don't trust the rush from the back 7, that's fine - use a LB as a spy on a running QB or shifty RB and just say "go where he goes." (Incidentally, that's exactly what Narduzzi did to help take away Abdullah in the MSU-Nebraska game...)
Basically, it all comes down to trust. Right now, I don't believe D'Nofrio trusts our personnel to execute his plays, and so when the plays inevitably go awry mid-game, he reverts back to the dreaded "bend-don't-break" philosophy that simply ends up breaking over the course of a game. Some would argue that even if we change DCs that this is GOLDEN'S scheme (which it is) so it won't matter. I'm not so sure yet. It is definitely Golden's intent to have our defense play 4-3 Under, but I'm not convinced that our DC is running it the way our Head Coach wants it run anymore. If there is a change in the defensive coaching staff after the season and Golden remains the head coach, 2015 becomes very intriguing and I'll be very interested in re-visiting the "scheme" v. "philosophy" discussion again.
Just my .02
