AL Golden explains UM's Defensive Philosophy

[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.)

I don't think he and those who think like he understand the difference between being the reason vs helping.

Offense on field / defense off field.
Defense is bad / want offense on field longer
Offense cant stay on field / bad defense on field longer

 

[Coach Macho]

Four coverages is nothing. Every team in the country runs some Cov 1, some Cov 2, some Cov 3, some Cov 4, some 2-man, some quarter quarter half. These are basic coverages. Teams that run like 1 or 2 coverages only happens just in HS. In college you can't be that predictable or else you will get destroyed.

It's not like split field stuff at TCU or bracket stuff or hybrid stuff.

There are times where you have to mix things up. There is nothing wrong with that.

If I know you only run cover 4, I will be calling nothing but post and digs. If I know you are a Cov 1 team, there will be crossing routes and picks all game, cover 2, three verticals and smash all game and some y cross. Cover 3, lots of quick game, floods, curl and flat and maybe 4 verts unless they match.

The criticism for the 3-4 is totally different than running multiple coverages, you HAVE to run multiple coverages and multiple blitzes

It's the concepts within the coverages that are hard for kids to pick up. The reads. Recognizing the different route combinations. Formation variations. Etc etc etc.

It takes a while to get kids to become sound in every coverage you wanna run. For every coverage you install, it's gotta be rep'd a million times.

Not saying that I disagree with you. I'm just elaborating more.

 

[niner]

Four coverages is nothing. Every team in the country runs some Cov 1, some Cov 2, some Cov 3, some Cov 4, some 2-man, some quarter quarter half. These are basic coverages. Teams that run like 1 or 2 coverages only happens just in HS. In college you can't be that predictable or else you will get destroyed.

It's not like split field stuff at TCU or bracket stuff or hybrid stuff.

There are times where you have to mix things up. There is nothing wrong with that.

If I know you only run cover 4, I will be calling nothing but post and digs. If I know you are a Cov 1 team, there will be crossing routes and picks all game, cover 2, three verticals and smash all game and some y cross. Cover 3, lots of quick game, floods, curl and flat and maybe 4 verts unless they match.

The criticism for the 3-4 is totally different than running multiple coverages, you HAVE to run multiple coverages and multiple blitzes

It's the concepts within the coverages that are hard for kids to pick up. The reads. Recognizing the different route combinations. Formation variations. Etc etc etc.

It takes a while to get kids to become sound in every coverage you wanna run. For every coverage you install, it's gotta be rep'd a million times.

Not saying that I disagree with you. I'm just elaborating more.

I've seen you post you have been to coaches clinics down here but not sure if you have been to others. If you have and in your opinion, how would you quantify the difference in the amount of information this team is given to process compared to other top D1 programs?

 

[DJWilliams55]

Coach Macho, I hear ya bro. I know in their zones they have a lot of pattern matching which can be tough to pick upbut when it works there is nowhere tothrow.

There is also a misconception that backin the 80s and early 90s there was a lot of press man. No....they paired Quarters and Cover 2 with their 4-3 over a whole lot.

 

[The Franchise]

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.

 

[NVA CANE]

The problem with the defense is they can't get off the field. They don't force three and outs. So someone alluded to the UL game
as a good defensive performance until they broke due to the offense failing to stay on the field. But when you compare our defensive performance to ULs in that first half it becomes pretty clear that while our defense was forcing field goals, ULs defense didn't even allow us anywhere near the redzone (if I remember correctly). Hence we had 2 points for 3 1/2 quarters.

That was not a good defensive performance in the first half by us. It was a classic bend don't break, allow the offense to drive down the field force them into a field goal or hope they make a mistake. That's not sound or solid defense. So when UL stopped our offense the defense finally broke. But the defense was going to break regardless they just broke earlier because of the offenses lack of first down conversions.

So yes the offense hurt the defense, but not to the degree that we are led to believe at least not in that UL game. The biggest hindrance to our defense is themselves and the bend don't break philosophy and giving up chunks of yards to the offense in hopes they make a mistake when in the redzone or forcing them into a field goal. That's the passive football that has many livid with the defense for the past 3 years and rightfully so.

 

[Coach Macho]

Four coverages is nothing. Every team in the country runs some Cov 1, some Cov 2, some Cov 3, some Cov 4, some 2-man, some quarter quarter half. These are basic coverages. Teams that run like 1 or 2 coverages only happens just in HS. In college you can't be that predictable or else you will get destroyed.

It's not like split field stuff at TCU or bracket stuff or hybrid stuff.

There are times where you have to mix things up. There is nothing wrong with that.

If I know you only run cover 4, I will be calling nothing but post and digs. If I know you are a Cov 1 team, there will be crossing routes and picks all game, cover 2, three verticals and smash all game and some y cross. Cover 3, lots of quick game, floods, curl and flat and maybe 4 verts unless they match.

The criticism for the 3-4 is totally different than running multiple coverages, you HAVE to run multiple coverages and multiple blitzes

It's the concepts within the coverages that are hard for kids to pick up. The reads. Recognizing the different route combinations. Formation variations. Etc etc etc.

It takes a while to get kids to become sound in every coverage you wanna run. For every coverage you install, it's gotta be rep'd a million times.

Not saying that I disagree with you. I'm just elaborating more.

I've seen you post you have been to coaches clinics down here but not sure if you have been to others. If you have and in your opinion, how would you quantify the difference in the amount of information this team is given to process compared to other top D1 programs?

I wish I could tell you, bro. The coaches clinics don't necessarily give you an idea of how much info the kids are loaded with all together. They usually just teach you one of their coverages or concepts so you don't really get an idea of how vast their playbook is.

 

[Coach Macho]

Coach Macho, I hear ya bro. I know in their zones they have a lot of pattern matching which can be tough to pick upbut when it works there is nowhere tothrow.

There is also a misconception that backin the 80s and early 90s there was a lot of press man. No....they paired Quarters and Cover 2 with their 4-3 over a whole lot.

Yeah, D'Onofrio told me that Miami ran a lot of 1/4's before him and Golden got there.

 

[CyberCane]

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.

 

[FG305]

Miami was 96th in the country on 3rd down conversions on offense. Says a ton.

.....and VT's offense was 113th but still finished with a top-5 D.

Our defense was 90th at stopping opponents on 3rd down but theirs was 3rd....that's the difference- We couldn't get off the field because our D sucked.

 

[CyberCane]

Miami was 96th in the country on 3rd down conversions on offense. Says a ton.

.....and VT's offense was 113th but still finished with a top-5 D.

Our defense was 90th at stopping opponents on 3rd down but theirs was 3rd....that's the difference- We couldn't get off the field because our D sucked.

I'm certainly not saying or suggesting that a team's ability to convert third downs on offense is the only reason a defense is bad. However, it's a contributing factor. Want to know another one? Time of possession. Want to know where VT finished? 8th nationally. You hold the ball, the other team runs less plays, they have less of a chance of putting up yards/points. That simple. Miami? Yeah…120 of 125.

Take a peak at the time of possession leaders from last year…my bet is that many of them will match the defensive list I posted. Especially teams with top defenses that weren't on the third down conversion % top 30.



1 Bowling Green 14 476:43 34:03.07
2 Louisville 13 439:41 33:49.31
3 Florida 12 405:48 33:49.00
4 Wisconsin 13 436:24 33:34.15
5 Virginia 12 400:34 33:22.83
6 Georgia Tech 13 433:11 33:19.31
7 Michigan State 14 466:26 33:19.00
8 Virginia Tech 13 433:01 33:18.54
9 Mississippi State 13 432:30 33:16.15
10 USC 14 463:00 33:04.29
11 Minnesota 13 427:33 32:53.31
12 Rice 14 458:58 32:47.00
13 UTEP 12 389:18 32:26.50
14 Nevada 12 389:05 32:25.42
15 UTSA 12 388:49 32:24.08
16 Oregon State 13 421:10 32:23.85
17 Western Kentucky 12 388:25 32:22.08
18 New Mexico 12 388:09 32:20.75
19 Oklahoma 13 419:54 32:18.00
20 North Texas 13 418:56 32:13.54
21 UCF 13 418:33 32:11.77
22 Army 12 385:48 32:09.00
23 San Diego State 13 416:33 32:02.54
24 South Carolina 13 416:12 32:00.92
25 Alabama 13 416:04 32:00.31
26 Texas State 12 382:53 31:54.42
27 North Carolina State 12 382:38 31:53.17
28 Florida Atlantic 12 382:03 31:50.25
29 Stanford 14 444:39 31:45.64
30 Vanderbilt 13 411:58 31:41.38


Nevermind…I did it for you. The teams in bold are on the top 30 in defense, but are not top 30 in 3rd down conversation %. Trust me, huge correlation between a team that can keep its offense on the field for sustained drives and one that consistently goes three-and-out.

 

[Odin]

Miami was 96th in the country on 3rd down conversions on offense. Says a ton.

.....and VT's offense was 113th but still finished with a top-5 D.

Our defense was 90th at stopping opponents on 3rd down but theirs was 3rd....that's the difference- We couldn't get off the field because our D sucked.

This is the biggest reason we struggle so bad on defense,our opponents convert 3d down after 3rd.We get killed on time of possession and eventually an already bad defense is tired from not been able to get off the field.

 

[CyberCane]

To sum all of this **** up for some of the mental midgets on the board…here are the teams (in bold) that finished with a top 30 defense and also had a top 30 3rd down conversion percentage and/or were top 30 in TOP (some had both)…double check me, I may miss a few:

Total Defense in 2013:
1 Louisville 13 1049 2220 779 3269 4.20 251.5
2 Michigan State 14 1212 2319 873 3531 4.04 252.2
3 Florida State 14 1747 2193 963 3940 4.09 281.4
4 Virginia Tech 13 1442 2240 812 3682 4.53 283.2
5 Alabama 13 1381 2344 771 3725 4.83 286.5
6 Iowa 13 1669 2271 861 3940 4.58 303.1
7 Wisconsin 13 1333 2633 839 3966 4.73 305.1
8 Florida 12 1709 2062 712 3771 5.30 314.3
9 Cincinnati 13 1358 2745 861 4103 4.77 315.6
10 Bowling Green 14 2108 2392 890 4500 5.06 321.4
11 Florida Atlantic 12 2012 1933 800 3945 4.93 328.8
12 Utah State 14 1495 3138 1019 4633 4.55 330.9
13 USC 14 1684 3005 942 4689 4.98 334.9
14 Western Kentucky 12 1935 2135 763 4070 5.33 339.2
15 LSU 13 1862 2567 872 4429 5.08 340.7
16 Stanford 14 1256 3553 989 4809 4.86 343.5
17 North Texas 13 1567 2961 881 4528 5.14 348.3
18 Mississippi State 13 1874 2667 833 4541 5.45 349.3
19 South Carolina 13 2000 2550 833 4550 5.46 350.0
20 Oklahoma 13 1789 2763 846 4552 5.38 350.2
21 South Florida 12 1677 2532 777 4209 5.42 350.8
22 Tulane 13 1604 2958 932 4562 4.89 350.9
23 Vanderbilt 13 1922 2690 909 4612 5.07 354.8
24 Clemson 13 2024 2608 920 4632 5.03 356.3
25 TCU 12 1570 2707 886 4277 4.83 356.4
26 Kansas State 13 1808 2857 919 4665 5.08 358.8
27 Baylor 13 1886 2794 985 4680 4.75 360.0
28 Georgia Tech 13 1505 3178 849 4683 5.52 360.2
29 UCF 13 1592 3114 879 4706 5.35 362.0
30 Rice 14 2259 2838 957 5097 5.33 364.1

 

[CaneAlmighty]

To sum all of this **** up for some of the mental midgets on the board…here are the teams (in bold) that finished with a top 30 defense and also had a top 30 3rd down conversion percentage and/or were top 30 in TOP (some had both)…double check me, I may miss a few:

Total Defense in 2013:
1 Louisville 13 1049 2220 779 3269 4.20 251.5
2 Michigan State 14 1212 2319 873 3531 4.04 252.2
3 Florida State 14 1747 2193 963 3940 4.09 281.4
4 Virginia Tech 13 1442 2240 812 3682 4.53 283.2
5 Alabama 13 1381 2344 771 3725 4.83 286.5
6 Iowa 13 1669 2271 861 3940 4.58 303.1
7 Wisconsin 13 1333 2633 839 3966 4.73 305.1
8 Florida 12 1709 2062 712 3771 5.30 314.3
9 Cincinnati 13 1358 2745 861 4103 4.77 315.6
10 Bowling Green 14 2108 2392 890 4500 5.06 321.4
11 Florida Atlantic 12 2012 1933 800 3945 4.93 328.8
12 Utah State 14 1495 3138 1019 4633 4.55 330.9
13 USC 14 1684 3005 942 4689 4.98 334.9
14 Western Kentucky 12 1935 2135 763 4070 5.33 339.2
15 LSU 13 1862 2567 872 4429 5.08 340.7
16 Stanford 14 1256 3553 989 4809 4.86 343.5
17 North Texas 13 1567 2961 881 4528 5.14 348.3
18 Mississippi State 13 1874 2667 833 4541 5.45 349.3
19 South Carolina 13 2000 2550 833 4550 5.46 350.0
20 Oklahoma 13 1789 2763 846 4552 5.38 350.2
21 South Florida 12 1677 2532 777 4209 5.42 350.8
22 Tulane 13 1604 2958 932 4562 4.89 350.9
23 Vanderbilt 13 1922 2690 909 4612 5.07 354.8
24 Clemson 13 2024 2608 920 4632 5.03 356.3
25 TCU 12 1570 2707 886 4277 4.83 356.4
26 Kansas State 13 1808 2857 919 4665 5.08 358.8
27 Baylor 13 1886 2794 985 4680 4.75 360.0
28 Georgia Tech 13 1505 3178 849 4683 5.52 360.2
29 UCF 13 1592 3114 879 4706 5.35 362.0
30 Rice 14 2259 2838 957 5097 5.33 364.1

The correlation between TOP and Defensive stats is undeniable.. Anyone that does not grasp it by now never will.

 

[FullyERicht]

A correlation is not a cause.

The defense is bad bc it is bad; it then reaches historically bad bc of the offense going 3 and out all the time. It makes things worse.

But it is not the difference between a top 25 defense and being in the 100s defensively. It's a pathetic attempt to deflect from the real issues that are chief among the defensive problems.

Also, the better your defense, the more time you give the ball to the O, and the less time your opponent has the ball. This is why the Gators have decent TOP stats despite one of the most inept offenses in recen memory.

 

[CyberCane]

A correlation is not a cause.

The defense is bad bc it is bad; it then reaches historically bad bc of the offense going 3 and out all the time. It makes things worse.

But it is not the difference between a top 25 defense and being in the 100s defensively. It's a pathetic attempt to deflect from the real issues that are chief among the defensive problems.

Also, the better your defense, the more time you give the ball to the O, and the less time your opponent has the ball. This is why the Gators have decent TOP stats despite one of the most inept offenses in recen memory.

You're exactly right. Each side of the ball effects the other--the entire point that some fools were missing. It's not deflecting at all. We have not had a good defense and our coordinator has not proven himself to be the right guy. Might entire point is to illustrate that our offense wasn't doing our defense any favors.
That said, if your defense is amazing but your offense is going three and out all the time…your defense is going to get worn down.

 

[MIA42178]

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?

 

[Miami82]

A correlation is not a cause.

The defense is bad bc it is bad; it then reaches historically bad bc of the offense going 3 and out all the time. It makes things worse.

But it is not the difference between a top 25 defense and being in the 100s defensively. It's a pathetic attempt to deflect from the real issues that are chief among the defensive problems.

Also, the better your defense, the more time you give the ball to the O, and the less time your opponent has the ball. This is why the Gators have decent TOP stats despite one of the most inept offenses in recen memory.

and to add great defenses score or give the O short fields to work with.

 

[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.

 

[CyberCane]

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.