AL Golden explains UM's Defensive Philosophy

[NVA CANE]

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.

Never understood why they ran the hurry up. I remember Fisch saying golden wanted him to run a hurry up offense. your explanation makes perfect sense. They had so little faith in the defense they figured out scoring teams was the only way to go even if it meant putting a 100+ ranked defense back on the field. These coaches are truly terrible.

 

[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.

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 then that's not on the supervisor. 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 anyone that says otherwise is full of it.

So is it scheme or execution? Players missing tackles is fundamentals that you would hope by this stage in their career they have it figured out.
But there is truth in what you say. Rampant missed tackles does fall on coaching and how they conduct practice. But in this past defenses case I put it more onthe players. Crawford is good but young and inconsistent. He had a chance to make a play but failed to do so. Cornelius on the other hand who was responsible for 2 WF TDs just wasn't good enough. He had poor leverage on the TD run up his hole and missed a simple tackle on a pass that put WF up late in the game.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

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.

The hurry up offense is something that I called Golden out on.
If our offense was lighting up the score board and scoring at will then that would be one thing but they weren't.
Take the WF game for example. WF only had 14 points with 6 minutes left in the game and we had 10. People want to point to the defense but that offense should have hung 30+ plus on WF. If it was a close game its because the offense didn't do its part.

 

[DJWilliams55]

We will find out real quick how much the defense has improved.

With Louisville, Nebraska and Duke all in September, there's no time for them to "grow". Somehow, we need to win 2 of those 3 games. I can't reasonably expect 3 wins there because that just isn't realistic, but if we won 2 of those 3 and finished the month with only one loss, I am definitely buying what Golden is selling. 2 losses in the month is rough but probably doesn't change the fan support dynamic too much. I wager Golden's support level among the fan base is somewhere around 40%. A 3-2 month means it would become a more embittered climate and probably more doubters but the wheels wouldn't totally come off, unless they lost in Atlanta later on.

A 3 loss month means it's all over and there will be a firing at the end of year.

 

[NVA CANE]

We will find out real quick how much the defense has improved.

With Louisville, Nebraska and Duke all in September, there's no time for them to "grow". Somehow, we need to win 2 of those 3 games. I can't reasonably expect 3 wins there because that just isn't realistic, but if we won 2 of those 3 and finished the month with only one loss, I am definitely buying what Golden is selling. 2 losses in the month is rough but probably doesn't change the fan support dynamic too much. I wager Golden's support level among the fan base is somewhere around 40%. A 3-2 month means it would become a more embittered climate and probably more doubters but the wheels wouldn't totally come off, unless they lost in Atlanta later on.

A 3 loss month means it's all over and there will be a firing at the end of year.

I think he may lose the team with 2 losses that early. Especially if any of them turn into a blowout. If UL or Nebraska turn into an embarrassment like the bowl game was then he will IMO lose the team and the wheels will quickly fall off. Not saying we are going to lose but if we do and it's embarrassing, then watch out.

 

[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.

The hurry up offense is something that I called Golden out on.
If our offense was lighting up the score board and scoring at will then that would be one thing but they weren't.
Take the WF game for example. WF only had 14 points with 6 minutes left in the game and we had 10. People want to point to the defense but that offense should have hung 30+ plus on WF. If it was a close game its because the offense didn't do its part.

So your explanation is that Golden doesn't know what he's doing? You make it sound as though only a fool can't see that the offense was killing the defense. Is Golden the fool for continuing with this?

 

[The Franchise]

So the argument from the TOP guys has now morphed into "more TOP won't make the defense good, but it'll make it slightly less ******"? No ****. But at what cost? Is the cost of trying to turn your offense into one that grinds the clock worth the slight improvement it might yield for the defense? Will that style of offense increase your defensive output enough to offset the points you might lose on offense?

To simple mindedly spew "if we hold the ball for more time our defense will be better" doesn't take into account all the other variables in play. Will our team be better and win more games if we change our offensive approach in a desperate attempt to mask our defense?

Do the best teams with the best records in college football have the highest TOP? Of course if you convert more third downs on offense your offense should be better. No ****. Everyone knows that. What is causation and what is correlation, and can you make a historically bad defense good enough to make your team a big winner by increasing your TOP, or does the change to your offensive philosophy negate the positive impact it might have on the defense?

 

[niner]

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.)

With this new line of thinking, the best offense for UM to run would be an option based attack because they hold the ball the longest. That seemed to work great for GT when Al Groh was their DC.

When you have explosive skill players, you attempt to get them the football and make explosive football plays. You play to the strength of your personnel and who you have the most access to in recruiting. Sign all those 2016 stud WRs and then run the wing T. Makes sense right?

You don't attempt to turn a S.FL recruiting base into Nebraska or Iowa's or Wisconsin's. You fix the defense. And if you can't fix the defense, then you need to find someone who can. You don't gut your offense in an attempt to fix a broken defense.

Auburn didn't have a good defense, yet they found a way to make it to the NC game.

You literally have to be trolling. Have to.

Nah, that's just buddy's way of admitting he was wrong.

Talmbout changing to an option, then a wing T, then "You don't gut your offense in an attempt to fix a broken defense"

:ibisroflmao:

 

[drifters1234]

So the argument from the TOP guys has now morphed into "more TOP won't make the defense good, but it'll make it slightly less ******"? No ****. But at what cost? Is the cost of trying to turn your offense into one that grinds the clock worth the slight improvement it might yield for the defense? Will that style of offense increase your defensive output enough to offset the points you might lose on offense?

To simple mindedly spew "if we hold the ball for more time our defense will be better" doesn't take into account all the other variables in play. Will our team be better and win more games if we change our offensive approach in a desperate attempt to mask our defense?

Do the best teams with the best records in college football have the highest TOP? Of course if you convert more third downs on offense your offense should be better. No ****. Everyone knows that. What is causation and what is correlation, and can you make a historically bad defense good enough to make your team a big winner by increasing your TOP, or does the change to your offensive philosophy negate the positive impact it might have on the defense?

thought you had turned the corner, but you're right back to moping.

 

[Bigtip]

Can someone explain to me why we continued to 2 gap against Wake Forest when they spread their lineman wide. Our Dline were practically being invited to sack the QB and yet there they were 2 gapping part of the empty space in front of them. Anyone know what golden and Dorito were thinking or their reasoning for that?

WF absolutely mocked the staff doing that and they were too dumb/scared to do anything about it

 

[Bigtip]

how many 3rd downs did WF convert on their opening possession? 5?

it is shocking how bad these coaches are

 

[weownfsu]

So the argument from the TOP guys has now morphed into "more TOP won't make the defense good, but it'll make it slightly less ******"? No ****. But at what cost? Is the cost of trying to turn your offense into one that grinds the clock worth the slight improvement it might yield for the defense? Will that style of offense increase your defensive output enough to offset the points you might lose on offense?

To simple mindedly spew "if we hold the ball for more time our defense will be better" doesn't take into account all the other variables in play. Will our team be better and win more games if we change our offensive approach in a desperate attempt to mask our defense?

Do the best teams with the best records in college football have the highest TOP? Of course if you convert more third downs on offense your offense should be better. No ****. Everyone knows that. What is causation and what is correlation, and can you make a historically bad defense good enough to make your team a big winner by increasing your TOP, or does the change to your offensive philosophy negate the positive impact it might have on the defense?

Yep, the argument is now that if the offense is better then the defense will put up marginally better stats because they'll be on the field less, not because they're actually better. Obviously, everything will be okay if our defense just puts up marginally better stats by virtue of being on the field less.

 

[Bigtip]

it is truly mind boggling that anyone would defend F-A-G at this point and/or hope/expect different results this season.

 

[niner]

Some dudes can't stand being wrong

 

[Ghandi]

So the argument from the TOP guys has now morphed into "more TOP won't make the defense good, but it'll make it slightly less ******"? No ****. But at what cost? Is the cost of trying to turn your offense into one that grinds the clock worth the slight improvement it might yield for the defense? Will that style of offense increase your defensive output enough to offset the points you might lose on offense?

To simple mindedly spew "if we hold the ball for more time our defense will be better" doesn't take into account all the other variables in play. Will our team be better and win more games if we change our offensive approach in a desperate attempt to mask our defense?

Do the best teams with the best records in college football have the highest TOP? Of course if you convert more third downs on offense your offense should be better. No ****. Everyone knows that. What is causation and what is correlation, and can you make a historically bad defense good enough to make your team a big winner by increasing your TOP, or does the change to your offensive philosophy negate the positive impact it might have on the defense?

thought you had turned the corner, but you're right back to moping.

When did telling the truth become moping?

Some seriously swollen vulvae on these board.

It's god**** impossible to get a dissenting voice in this ***** without being called a mope.

 

[drifters1234]

So the argument from the TOP guys has now morphed into "more TOP won't make the defense good, but it'll make it slightly less ******"? No ****. But at what cost? Is the cost of trying to turn your offense into one that grinds the clock worth the slight improvement it might yield for the defense? Will that style of offense increase your defensive output enough to offset the points you might lose on offense?

To simple mindedly spew "if we hold the ball for more time our defense will be better" doesn't take into account all the other variables in play. Will our team be better and win more games if we change our offensive approach in a desperate attempt to mask our defense?

Do the best teams with the best records in college football have the highest TOP? Of course if you convert more third downs on offense your offense should be better. No ****. Everyone knows that. What is causation and what is correlation, and can you make a historically bad defense good enough to make your team a big winner by increasing your TOP, or does the change to your offensive philosophy negate the positive impact it might have on the defense?

thought you had turned the corner, but you're right back to moping.

When did telling the truth become moping?

Some seriously swollen vulvae on these board.

It's god**** impossible to get a dissenting voice in this ***** without being called a mope.

i was joking. Since the D$ scolding e-mail a few days ago, Franchise (and a few others) have inundated the board with sunshine predictions that have made me lol.

 

[ProjectMKUltra5]

Its impossible for any argument on here to not go straight to the extremes. TOP can help the defense, not fix the defense. The defense is obviously responsible for improving.

 

[De Pinga]

 

[Republicane]

 

[CyberCane]

Just wanted to post this again because some people either missed it or denied its existence:


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


^^^^That is an improved defense in two of the most important metrics in football--all because of one player on offense. Please don't deny it. With that said…a ****** defense has a ceiling…it will always be a ****** defense when you need it most. Look at what happened in the Super Bowl this year.

I am going to very interested to see if we have improved QB play this year--completion %, turnovers, third down conversions, etc…my guess is that if we see that, we also will see an improved defense (by the numbers).