AL Golden explains UM's Defensive Philosophy

[poncho0091]

How about when the defense gives up long scoring drives on the first few possessions of the game? Is that the offense's fault too?

No.

But if you have a choice between your sucky defense going back on the field after the offense went three and out in under a minute, or going back on the field after your offense ran ten minutes off the clock, is it really that hard to understand which one is preferable?

(And yes, I know, really preferable would be a less sucky defense. But that isn't one of the choices in this hypothetical.)

This, but only if that 10 minute drive led to an equal or greater score than 1 minute drive (yes ignoring the statement of 3 and out, because not all of our short drives were due to no score.)

 

[poncho0091]

CyberCane, cool stats and all, but I see you still haven't considered the fact that we also have an abysmal TOP because our defense can't get a stop so the opposing offenses can keep the ball as long as they want. We had an awful rushing defense. We had one of the worst 3d down D's in the country. It's a chicken or the egg argument, by the way.

You guys keep looking for all these other explanations that don't have to do with the defense sucking. The defense just sucks. They could be put in a better position by the offense, but they'd still suck and give up a ton of points and a ton of yards.

The reality is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. At this point, UM should field a good TEAM. This reminds me of the dumb argument we used to have when Coker was the coach. "All we have to do is fix the offense, then we're great!" But that really wasn't the case. Here, the offense is capable but inconsistent, which isn't good enough. The defense is historically bad. I'd like both to improve. The offense performing better may be the difference between 89th and 75th on D, but neither are close to being good enough, so this discussion about how the defense might put up marginally better stats because they're off the field more (which has nothing to do with how good the D actually is) just doesn't make any sense.

That part in bold is all that I'm trying to say. There are people on here that didn't believe that to be a reality. When your QB is completing around 58% of his passes and your offense isn't converting third downs, your defense is going to be adversely effected. It further exposes our weakness. If you put Peyton Manning at QB and Adrian Peterson at RB…all of a suddenly our defensive stats would improve dramatically.

Here's a real world example…take a look at the Denver Broncos defensive stats pre-Manning and then with Manning:
2011 Defensive stats (Tebow): 390 points given up 5725 yards 1063 plays
2012 Defensive stats (Manning):289 points given up 4652 yards 1015 plays

It's not nearly as much a chicken/egg argument when you see those numbers, though I agree it is to some extent.

Your assessment is fair considering what you are trying to point out. Most people understand a better offense helps the defense. Most people understand more TOP means less time for the defense on the field. The problem is for every guy on this board who doesn't understand that, there are just as many if not more on the opposing side that don't seem to understand that a good defense also increases TOP, because the offense will have more opportunities and the defense will be on the field less (because they got the 3 and outs instead).

What we ultimately have here is a bad defense regardless of our offense. If you pulled up some metric that showed we were a dominant defense in the first 3 quarters of games, but then fell apart in the 4th quarter defensively (likely due to fatigue), that might be a case where the offense is the reason the defense is suffering. Otherwise, in our case, we just have a bad defense that is further exposed, because of our inconsistent/quick drive offense.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

Not sure why folks are nit picking at the WF's OL wide stance since WF only got 59 rushing yards that game.
It's funny what these mopers decide to latch on to.

Because it shows a lack of adjustment which is what we are discussing. We also allowed their QB over 300 yards passing that game and they were up 14-10 going into the half.

How much does wide splits have to do w rushing than pass protection to begin with?
The pirate uses that stuff in air raid. Not much run. Lotsa pass.
Like over 300 yards passing by wake going over the middle w no effective rush by miami.
Isn't the wide split for more passing lanes to develop? Not run lanes?
Why weren't we blitzing once in a while?

Did you see the game? We were blitzing.
And WF was running more off the wide splits than passing.
What killed Miami that game in the first half were 3rd downs where there were missed tackles and bad leverage. Also the refs were being very generous in spotting the ball.

 

[ProjectMKUltra5]

Not sure why folks are nit picking at the WF's OL wide stance since WF only got 59 rushing yards that game.
It's funny what these mopers decide to latch on to.

Because it shows a lack of adjustment which is what we are discussing. We also allowed their QB over 300 yards passing that game and they were up 14-10 going into the half.

How much does wide splits have to do w rushing than pass protection to begin with?
The pirate uses that stuff in air raid. Not much run. Lotsa pass.
Like over 300 yards passing by wake going over the middle w no effective rush by miami.
Isn't the wide split for more passing lanes to develop? Not run lanes?
Why weren't we blitzing once in a while?

Did you see the game? We were blitzing.
And WF was running more off the wide splits than passing.
What killed Miami that game in the first half were 3rd downs where there were missed tackles and bad leverage. Also the refs were being very generous in spotting the ball.

I cant remember the specifics of that game, but wide splits like that are generally used by heavy passing teams to increase the distance the rushers have to get to the QB. You spread the Gaps out, the Dline has follow and thats a little extra time for the QB

 

[CaneAlmighty]

Not sure why folks are nit picking at the WF's OL wide stance since WF only got 59 rushing yards that game.
It's funny what these mopers decide to latch on to.

Because it shows a lack of adjustment which is what we are discussing. We also allowed their QB over 300 yards passing that game and they were up 14-10 going into the half.

How much does wide splits have to do w rushing than pass protection to begin with?
The pirate uses that stuff in air raid. Not much run. Lotsa pass.
Like over 300 yards passing by wake going over the middle w no effective rush by miami.
Isn't the wide split for more passing lanes to develop? Not run lanes?
Why weren't we blitzing once in a while?

Did you see the game? We were blitzing.
And WF was running more off the wide splits than passing.
What killed Miami that game in the first half were 3rd downs where there were missed tackles and bad leverage. Also the refs were being very generous in spotting the ball.

I cant remember the specifics of that game, but wide splits like that are generally used by heavy passing teams to increase the distance the rushers have to get to the QB. You spread the Gaps out, the Dline has follow and thats a little extra time for the QB

Wide splits are generally used is by running teams.. Nebraska under Osbourne used it a lot.
Leach is the main guy doing it in the passing game.

You can refresh your memory here. The majority of the time WF ran off the wide spits. Not sure what adjustments people wanted D'onofrio to make as it wasn't the cause of the extended drives. It was missed tackles and bad leverage that did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9AU2J_jr_M

 

[weownfsu]

CyberCane, cool stats and all, but I see you still haven't considered the fact that we also have an abysmal TOP because our defense can't get a stop so the opposing offenses can keep the ball as long as they want. We had an awful rushing defense. We had one of the worst 3d down D's in the country. It's a chicken or the egg argument, by the way.

You guys keep looking for all these other explanations that don't have to do with the defense sucking. The defense just sucks. They could be put in a better position by the offense, but they'd still suck and give up a ton of points and a ton of yards.

The reality is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. At this point, UM should field a good TEAM. This reminds me of the dumb argument we used to have when Coker was the coach. "All we have to do is fix the offense, then we're great!" But that really wasn't the case. Here, the offense is capable but inconsistent, which isn't good enough. The defense is historically bad. I'd like both to improve. The offense performing better may be the difference between 89th and 75th on D, but neither are close to being good enough, so this discussion about how the defense might put up marginally better stats because they're off the field more (which has nothing to do with how good the D actually is) just doesn't make any sense.

That part in bold is all that I'm trying to say. There are people on here that didn't believe that to be a reality. When your QB is completing around 58% of his passes and your offense isn't converting third downs, your defense is going to be adversely effected. It further exposes our weakness. If you put Peyton Manning at QB and Adrian Peterson at RB…all of a suddenly our defensive stats would improve dramatically.

Here's a real world example…take a look at the Denver Broncos defensive stats pre-Manning and then with Manning:
2011 Defensive stats (Tebow): 390 points given up 5725 yards 1063 plays
2012 Defensive stats (Manning):289 points given up 4652 yards 1015 plays

It's not nearly as much a chicken/egg argument when you see those numbers, though I agree it is to some extent.

That might be all that you're trying to say, but there are others on here that actually said that our defense would be "good" but for our offense. That's just not true. I also don't even get the value of pointing something like that out. Who cares if our defense would be marginally better statistically by virtue of not being on the field rather than actually playing better? What use is it in pointing out that if you put a hall of famer at QB and RB that our defensive stats would improve dramatically? They likely wouldn't improve dramatically because our defense sucks in the first place, but something like that isn't going to happen here, so it's a useless discussion. UM isn't getting a hall of famer at QB and RB, and if we need a hall of famer at QB and RB to field a serviceable defense, we may as well not even play the season because that's just an absurd proposition.

And by the way, the Broncos had a pretty mediocre-to-bad D last year. They were 19th in YPG and 22 in PPG, even with their QB having the best season ever and with having the NFL's best offense overall. So that example you gave is just pretty poor.

If your defense sucks, it just sucks. A good offense doesn't hide it. It may improve the YPG statistics however marginally, but that's not worth anything.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

That might be all that you're trying to say, but there are others on here that actually said that our defense would be "good" but for our offense. That's just not true.

I searched back a few pages on this thread to see where anyone said that and I can't.
Are you making stuff up to suit your argument? I think you are unless you can point where "Others" are saying that.

 

[weownfsu]

KlanAlmighty, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the guy who said yadda yadda minus 50 yards becaue of extra possession and then we have a good defense. I wish I could say I was surprised that you're here running your mouth about "making stuff up" after you claimed that PC's Seahawks had one of the worst D's in the NFL for his first 2 years (ranked 9th in the NFL his second year), but your stunning lack of self-awareness is not really so stunning anymore, I suppose.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

KlanAlmighty, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the guy who said yadda yadda minus 50 yards becaue of extra possession and then we have a good defense. I wish I could say I was surprised that you're here running your mouth about "making stuff up" after you claimed that PC's Seahawks had one of the worst D's in the NFL for his first 2 years (ranked 9th in the NFL his second year), but your stunning lack of self-awareness is not really so stunning anymore, I suppose.

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

 

[weownfsu]

KlanAlmighty, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the guy who said yadda yadda minus 50 yards becaue of extra possession and then we have a good defense. I wish I could say I was surprised that you're here running your mouth about "making stuff up" after you claimed that PC's Seahawks had one of the worst D's in the NFL for his first 2 years (ranked 9th in the NFL his second year), but your stunning lack of self-awareness is not really so stunning anymore, I suppose.

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

Stick to making up lies about Pete Carroll, KlanAlmighty. The big boys are having a discussion now and the annoying gnats like you have no place. Run along and concoct some more fake statistics.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

KlanAlmighty, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the guy who said yadda yadda minus 50 yards becaue of extra possession and then we have a good defense. I wish I could say I was surprised that you're here running your mouth about "making stuff up" after you claimed that PC's Seahawks had one of the worst D's in the NFL for his first 2 years (ranked 9th in the NFL his second year), but your stunning lack of self-awareness is not really so stunning anymore, I suppose.

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

Stick to making up lies about Pete Carroll, KlanAlmighty. The big boys are having a discussion now and the annoying gnats like you have no place. Run along and concoct some more fake statistics.

Great, so now that you agree that you made that up about others saying the defense would be "good" but for the offense, what are you arguing? CyberCane, Myself, Niner have just been saying the had the offense controlled the ball more the defense would be on the field less which will in turn shown on the stats. Glad you agree with us. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT MAKING THE DEFENSE GOOD. NO ONE

 

[weownfsu]

KlanAlmighty, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the guy who said yadda yadda minus 50 yards becaue of extra possession and then we have a good defense. I wish I could say I was surprised that you're here running your mouth about "making stuff up" after you claimed that PC's Seahawks had one of the worst D's in the NFL for his first 2 years (ranked 9th in the NFL his second year), but your stunning lack of self-awareness is not really so stunning anymore, I suppose.

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

Stick to making up lies about Pete Carroll, KlanAlmighty. The big boys are having a discussion now and the annoying gnats like you have no place. Run along and concoct some more fake statistics.

Great, so now that you agree that you made that up about others saying the defense would be "good" but for the offense, what are you arguing? CyberCane, Myself, Niner have just been saying the had the offense controlled the ball more the defense would be on the field less which will in turn shown on the stats. Glad you agree with us. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT MAKING THE DEFENSE GOOD. NO ONE

Since you aren't smart enough to do this yourself:
"That extra six minutes of time the D is not on the field is probably worth 50 yards of defense and maybe 5 points. Then you add some better talent in the front then we are used to and a good secondary, which should shave another 30-40 yards off the totals. So it's not still all hard to shed an extra 80 yards of yards yielded a game from out totals. If we are giving up 360 instead of 430 a game, that's a good defense. FIU and geo posted about this already."

So yes, KlanAlmighty, somebody posted about increased TOP, among other things, making the defense good. Bye bye.

You really are just a terrible poster. You lie, lie, lie and then you think you are actually part of this conversation I am having with Cyber, who is actually a good poster. Like I told you, liar, run along and make up some more statistics about Pete Carroll.

 

[NVA CANE]

KlanAlmighty, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the guy who said yadda yadda minus 50 yards becaue of extra possession and then we have a good defense. I wish I could say I was surprised that you're here running your mouth about "making stuff up" after you claimed that PC's Seahawks had one of the worst D's in the NFL for his first 2 years (ranked 9th in the NFL his second year), but your stunning lack of self-awareness is not really so stunning anymore, I suppose.

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

Stick to making up lies about Pete Carroll, KlanAlmighty. The big boys are having a discussion now and the annoying gnats like you have no place. Run along and concoct some more fake statistics.

Great, so now that you agree that you made that up about others saying the defense would be "good" but for the offense, what are you arguing? CyberCane, Myself, Niner have just been saying the had the offense controlled the ball more the defense would be on the field less which will in turn shown on the stats. Glad you agree with us. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT MAKING THE DEFENSE GOOD. NO ONE

Since you aren't smart enough to do this yourself:
"That extra six minutes of time the D is not on the field is probably worth 50 yards of defense and maybe 5 points. Then you add some better talent in the front then we are used to and a good secondary, which should shave another 30-40 yards off the totals. So it's not still all hard to shed an extra 80 yards of yards yielded a game from out totals. If we are giving up 360 instead of 430 a game, that's a good defense. FIU and geo posted about this already."

So yes, KlanAlmighty, somebody posted about increased TOP, among other things, making the defense good. Bye bye.

You really are just a terrible poster. You lie, lie, lie and then you think you are actually part of this conversation I am having with Cyber, who is actually a good poster. Like I told you, liar, run along and make up some more statistics about Pete Carroll.

Someone just got ethered.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

KlanAlmighty, I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything about the guy who said yadda yadda minus 50 yards becaue of extra possession and then we have a good defense. I wish I could say I was surprised that you're here running your mouth about "making stuff up" after you claimed that PC's Seahawks had one of the worst D's in the NFL for his first 2 years (ranked 9th in the NFL his second year), but your stunning lack of self-awareness is not really so stunning anymore, I suppose.

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

Stick to making up lies about Pete Carroll, KlanAlmighty. The big boys are having a discussion now and the annoying gnats like you have no place. Run along and concoct some more fake statistics.

Great, so now that you agree that you made that up about others saying the defense would be "good" but for the offense, what are you arguing? CyberCane, Myself, Niner have just been saying the had the offense controlled the ball more the defense would be on the field less which will in turn shown on the stats. Glad you agree with us. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT MAKING THE DEFENSE GOOD. NO ONE

SiI seece you aren't smart enough to do this yourself:
"That extra six minutes of time the D is not on the field is probably worth 50 yards of defense and maybe 5 points. Then you add some better talent in the front then we are used to and a good secondary, which should shave another 30-40 yards off the totals. So it's not still all hard to shed an extra 80 yards of yards yielded a game from out totals. If we are giving up 360 instead of 430 a game, that's a good defense. FIU and geo posted about this already."

So yes, KlanAlmighty, somebody posted about increased TOP, among other things, making the defense good. Bye bye.

You really are just a terrible poster. You lie, lie, lie and then you think you are actually part of this conversation I am having with Cyber, who is actually a good poster. Like I told you, liar, run along and make up some more statistics about Pete Carroll.

Oh I see what the problem is. You failed to take what DJWilliams wrote in its proper context. I bolded the part you missed to help you out.
Lol at you thinking he said the defense will be good by virtue of just the offense having a better TOP. Silly u

 

[NVA CANE]

Because it shows a lack of adjustment which is what we are discussing. We also allowed their QB over 300 yards passing that game and they were up 14-10 going into the half.

How much does wide splits have to do w rushing than pass protection to begin with?
The pirate uses that stuff in air raid. Not much run. Lotsa pass.
Like over 300 yards passing by wake going over the middle w no effective rush by miami.
Isn't the wide split for more passing lanes to develop? Not run lanes?
Why weren't we blitzing once in a while?

Did you see the game? We were blitzing.
And WF was running more off the wide splits than passing.
What killed Miami that game in the first half were 3rd downs where there were missed tackles and bad leverage. Also the refs were being very generous in spotting the ball.

I cant remember the specifics of that game, but wide splits like that are generally used by heavy passing teams to increase the distance the rushers have to get to the QB. You spread the Gaps out, the Dline has follow and thats a little extra time for the QB

Wide splits are generally used is by running teams.. Nebraska under Osbourne used it a lot.
Leach is the main guy doing it in the passing game.

You can refresh your memory here. The majority of the time WF ran off the wide spits. Not sure what adjustments people wanted D'onofrio to make as it wasn't the cause of the extended drives. It was missed tackles and bad leverage that did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9AU2J_jr_M

Lmao. That opening drive by WF was a classic Al golden ****** defense. We allowed them to convert numerous first downs and bent until we finally broke by giving up a TD. They dinked and dunked their way to the end zone like every team has since golden took over. That's not on the players that's on the coaches.

 

[weownfsu]

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

Stick to making up lies about Pete Carroll, KlanAlmighty. The big boys are having a discussion now and the annoying gnats like you have no place. Run along and concoct some more fake statistics.

Great, so now that you agree that you made that up about others saying the defense would be "good" but for the offense, what are you arguing? CyberCane, Myself, Niner have just been saying the had the offense controlled the ball more the defense would be on the field less which will in turn shown on the stats. Glad you agree with us. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT MAKING THE DEFENSE GOOD. NO ONE

SiI seece you aren't smart enough to do this yourself:
"That extra six minutes of time the D is not on the field is probably worth 50 yards of defense and maybe 5 points. Then you add some better talent in the front then we are used to and a good secondary, which should shave another 30-40 yards off the totals. So it's not still all hard to shed an extra 80 yards of yards yielded a game from out totals. If we are giving up 360 instead of 430 a game, that's a good defense. FIU and geo posted about this already."

So yes, KlanAlmighty, somebody posted about increased TOP, among other things, making the defense good. Bye bye.

You really are just a terrible poster. You lie, lie, lie and then you think you are actually part of this conversation I am having with Cyber, who is actually a good poster. Like I told you, liar, run along and make up some more statistics about Pete Carroll.

Oh I see what the problem is. You failed to take what DJWilliams wrote in its proper context. I bolded the part you missed to help you out.
Lol at you thinking he said the defense will be good by virtue of just the offense having a better TOP. Silly u

KlanAlmighty still trying to play "gotcha!"

Run along to the play pen, KlanAlmighty. We need more fake Pete Carroll stats, STAT!

 

[CaneAlmighty]

NVA you like how Crawford missed that tackle on 3rd down. Yeah that's all Godlenz (as you people like to call him) fault.
Its da schemes yo. Da schemez caused him to miss an otherwise routine tackle.

 

[Miami82]

LOL,, you quoted someone saying "Good" but failed to produce evidence of it so now you get mad and begin insulting me.
Great work.

Stick to making up lies about Pete Carroll, KlanAlmighty. The big boys are having a discussion now and the annoying gnats like you have no place. Run along and concoct some more fake statistics.

Great, so now that you agree that you made that up about others saying the defense would be "good" but for the offense, what are you arguing? CyberCane, Myself, Niner have just been saying the had the offense controlled the ball more the defense would be on the field less which will in turn shown on the stats. Glad you agree with us. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT MAKING THE DEFENSE GOOD. NO ONE

SiI seece you aren't smart enough to do this yourself:
"That extra six minutes of time the D is not on the field is probably worth 50 yards of defense and maybe 5 points. Then you add some better talent in the front then we are used to and a good secondary, which should shave another 30-40 yards off the totals. So it's not still all hard to shed an extra 80 yards of yards yielded a game from out totals. If we are giving up 360 instead of 430 a game, that's a good defense. FIU and geo posted about this already."

So yes, KlanAlmighty, somebody posted about increased TOP, among other things, making the defense good. Bye bye.

You really are just a terrible poster. You lie, lie, lie and then you think you are actually part of this conversation I am having with Cyber, who is actually a good poster. Like I told you, liar, run along and make up some more statistics about Pete Carroll.

Oh I see what the problem is. You failed to take what DJWilliams wrote in its proper context. I bolded the part you missed to help you out.
Lol at you thinking he said the defense will be good by virtue of just the offense having a better TOP. Silly u

 

[NVA CANE]

NVA you like how Crawford missed that tackle on 3rd down. Yeah that's all Godlenz (as you people like to call him) fault.
Its da schemes yo. Da schemez caused him to miss an otherwise routine tackle.

If players don't execute then it's on the coaches. How many players have to fail to execute before you blame the coaches?

If you're a supervisor of a division at a company and one person fails to do his job that's on them. When the whole division fails to do its job then that's on the supervisor. Same with the team. Every player looks lost, and slow, and misses tackles, etc on that team. That's the coaches responsibility to ensure that those things don't happen so rampantly. And when they do you better believe it falls on the coaches and not the players.

Heard the same arguments from people about the players not executing dating back to Coker through Shannon and now golden. Same excuses same problem. It's the coaches not the players, and anyone that says otherwise is full of it.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

So is anybody using this "offense was hurting the defense" premise going to come up with an explanation for why we continued to employ an aggressive, hurry-up offense that was killing our defense besides our coach's idiocy? My own explanation is that the coaches were aware of the impact of the 3 and out on the defense but they didn't care because they knew that their best chance to win was to score points and get ahead for predictability. They could've played to the defense if they thought they could win that way--control the ball and score less but it's ok because you'll give up less. They didn't. No matter how much we want to criticize the O, the coaches knew that it was the strength of the team and their best chance to win and they strategized accordingly. This again brings us back to the fact that the defense was just bad and they knew it'd be bad no matter how they approached the O.