forums

Baker: play calling or scheme?

Advertisement
Gi0logy said:
Those numbers will likely look different after this week but I hear you.

I think our defense is in that tier 2 discussion (good to great not but elite). It’s an opportunistic defense which I personally believe is what you need in this day and age of high scoring offenses.

It’s nearly impossible to shut out every team you play. But this is the type of defense that can struggle in giving up points and yards yet still have a good game with some perfectly timed turnovers/negative plays.

One thing is for sure...getting players like James Williams, Leonard Taylor, Avantae, etc can certainly elevate us to that elite tier.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
 
Go Canes!! said:
Go through Louisville offensive totals through the first 3/4th of the game against us and Pitt. They are virtually identical. They scored six points in the first half against us and had 20 points through 11 drives against both teams. The difference in those games was Pitt controlled clock, dominating in TOP while we scored at will, including multiple one play drives. That gave Louisville a ton more chances to make plays offensively. So your description of those two games are not remotely accurate.

Besides that game, the greater reality is this D, with very few exceptions does it's job just about every single week. It dominates ****** offenses and keeps us in games against the better ones. In today's college football that is something not a lot of teams can say. Just ask Oklahoma and Texas.

So it's not about **** or subjective stats. It's about recognizing what college football is and where our defense is within it. When it comes to that perspective, sorry the absurd nitpicking and mind numbing hot takes from some of the arm chair coordinators here is beyond ludicrous.
Click to expand...
You're saying Louisville put up 34 points and 500+ while 3 of their guys had career days SIMPLY BECUASE THEY HAD MORE CHANCES? (Because our offense scored so quickly)

Why couldn't we just stop them on those extra chances?
Is there a rule stating that the opponent's offense HAS to score if they get a few extra possessions?

And no, we don't always "dominate" ****ty offenses. Have you not noticed how many times we've allowed mediocre QB's to have career days versus us? Or FIU's RB to have a career day? Or Kelly Bryant starting the game 17-17 passing? Or Wisconsin's QB looking like Dan Marino, when they struggled to throw the forward pass all season? Or how about VT scoring 28 points in the first half while we ignored their TE?

There's no rule in football that says your defense HAS to give up points/yards if they're on the field longer. I would expect an "elite" defense to buckle up in those situations.
 
Go Canes!! said:
Through three games:

Our opponents have scored 7,6 and 3 first half points.
We are 13th in 3rd down D
We are 3rd in TFL
We are 13th in sacks
We are 14th in scoring D

You can go back to arm chair DCing now.
Click to expand...
👆An excellent point, and I would add👇

For further context, our Canes hung on FSU:
517 total yards
6.1 ypp

Cardinals put upon our Canes
516 total yards
6.1 ypp

and from the vault... BYU hung on Texas (and sent Manuela packing immediately afterwards)
679 total yards
6.86 ypp


Now, of course, each game had their own set of circumstances and the rule sets are heavily skewed to favor Os over Ds.

However its remarkable (good and bad) of what the Manuela/Baker D philosophy produces over time.

As someone said before, is our Canes D good, but not elite enough to see an ACC Champ or make a playoff run?

More simply asked: what is Miami's stronger unit--O or D?
 
Last edited:
Coach Macho said:
You're saying Louisville put up 34 points and 500+ while 3 of their guys had career days SIMPLY BECUASE THEY HAD MORE CHANCES? (Because our offense scored so quickly)

Why couldn't we just stop them on those extra chances?
Is there a rule stating that the opponent's offense HAS to score if they get a few extra possessions?

And no, we don't always "dominate" ****ty offenses. Have you not noticed how many times we've allowed mediocre QB's to have career days versus us? Or FIU's RB to have a career day? Or Kelly Bryant starting the game 17-17 passing? Or Wisconsin's QB looking like Dan Marino, when they struggled to throw the forward pass all season? Or how about VT scoring 28 points in the first half while we ignored their TE?

There's no rule in football that says your defense HAS to give up points/yards if they're on the field longer. I would expect an "elite" defense to buckle up in those situations.
Click to expand...

No it means just about any defense in college football, no matter how good, is going to give up points to a solid to very good offense if they are given more opportunities to do so.

We scored 47 points and had the ball 20 minutes of the Louisville game. Pitt on the other hand scored 23 points but had the ball 36 minutes of the game. Had we put together multiple long drives in the second half instead of literally scoring on every play, their stat line would have looked far different don't you think?

That matters.
 
Last edited:
Empirical Cane said:
An excellent point, and I would add...

For further context, our Canes hung on FSU:
517 total yards
6.1 ypp

Cardinals put upon our Canes
516 total yards
6.1 ypp

and from the vault... BYU hung on Texas (and sent Manuela packing immediately afterwards)
679 total yards
6.86 ypp


Now, of course, each game had their own set of circumstances and the rule sets are heavily skewed to favor Os over Ds.

However its remarkable (good and bad) of what the Manuela/Baker D philosophy produces over time.

As someone said before, good, but elite enough to see an ACC Champ or make a playoff run?

More simply asked: who os Miami's stronger unit? O or D?
Click to expand...

Our offense is our stronger unit...in only it's first season...with no spring...a new QB and 2 Freshman RB's.
 
I think technically it's the play calling as there's a whole host of plays in the playbook / scheme that work. That said, obviously the theory behind the defence is unsound as competent QBs / OCs carve it up. The whole scheme is predicated on disrupting a drive - be it TFLs or turnovers. You really have to be a step ahead of the offence for it to be dominant - which Baker never is (and Diaz sometimes was, especially after half time).

I'd prefer us to go with something a little more conventional / conservative on defence. Less Fire Zone blitzes (with the blitzer coming from Siberia), more 4 man rushes and playing sound coverage behind it.
 
Advertisement
OldhamA said:
I'd argue our defence is a more talented unit though.
Click to expand...
I disagree but let’s say that is accurate, for arguments sake, why is the Offense the strength of the team? You’re only proving Macho’s point.
 
Will Blake baker take a Louisville approach with a bend but don’t break mentality. Clemson offense is very explosive so just try and keep everything in front of you.
 
Coach Macho said:
You're saying Louisville put up 34 points and 500+ while 3 of their guys had career days SIMPLY BECUASE THEY HAD MORE CHANCES? (Because our offense scored so quickly)

Why couldn't we just stop them on those extra chances?
Is there a rule stating that the opponent's offense HAS to score if they get a few extra possessions?

And no, we don't always "dominate" ****ty offenses. Have you not noticed how many times we've allowed mediocre QB's to have career days versus us? Or FIU's RB to have a career day? Or Kelly Bryant starting the game 17-17 passing? Or Wisconsin's QB looking like Dan Marino, when they struggled to throw the forward pass all season? Or how about VT scoring 28 points in the first half while we ignored their TE?

There's no rule in football that says your defense HAS to give up points/yards if they're on the field longer. I would expect an "elite" defense to buckle up in those situations.
Click to expand...
Just saw the Pitt Louisville condensed game and I’m not a coach.
It’s hard to argue against what your saying.
last year few years our total defense was ranked higher than Pitt but this year they’re playing pretty well.
What did Pitt do differently from what we did against Louisville ?
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
First off, you can't just throw out statistics without context. If your defense gives up 30 points in the first half and your team falls behind by a mile but then proceeds to shut out the opponent in the second half, did they actually have a really good half of defense or was the opponent just getting conservative with a big lead and playing a bunch of second and third team players?. Just like if your defense throws a shutout in the first half but gives up a bunch of yards and points in the second half because you've got a big lead and are playing a bunch of second and third team players. In 2020, where you're only a positive covid test from having to reshuffle your entire lineup, getting reserves into a game where you're already up by 20+ points is more important than keeping your first team in there the whole game and having prettier final statistics.


As for scheme or coaching, it's probably more on the coaching and playcalling than the scheme it's self. The scheme has inherent weaknesses but every scheme does. It's an offensive game and the best offenses beat the best defenses most of the time today. They're willing to sacrifice gap integrity to maximize pressure and backfield penetration. I can't argue with this philosophy. You've got to make splash plays to succeed on defense today. Whether it's turnovers or tfls, just playing a vanilla scheme and hoping the offense shoots it's self in the foot will get you beat. you need to force the action. They make getting the opponent behind in down and distance a priority and I'm 100% on board with that philosophy. The fire-zone blitz has been a Manny Diaz staple forever and it can still be effective in the right circumstance. They usually play cover 3 behind it to avoid giving up the chunk play if the blitz doesn't get home. It's a solid philosophy. My issue, and pretty much everyone else's issue is the over-reliance on the exotic blitz that often takes way too long to get to the quarterback. If you want to bring pressure, fine but you don't need to try to disguise your blitz by having the blitzer line up ten yards off the line of scrimmage. Even if that guy gets through completely free, the QB is still going to have a time to get the pass off. It's stupid and pointless and hits at far too low of a rate to keep doing it. My other big issue on pass downs is when they play man, the linebackers always rush the passer if the running back stays in to block. I'd like to just drop both LBs into the middle of the field in these scenarios. Especially if your CBs are playing with outside leverage. If you're trying to funnel receivers towards the middle of the field, you need to have somebody there to prevent the easy slants and crossers.

The defense has not been dominant but it's been good to very good since Manny has been here. There are areas to improve but maybe expecting dominance despite not having a single player drafted in the first three rounds is expecting too much? Maybe, considering the good but not great talent they've had, good but not great results are par for the course? They've had one borderline first round quality player in 4+years and he only played one season. If they were loaded with first rounders and still having these issues, I'd really be concerned.
 
KANE said:
Both. We blitz at dumb times during the games, and we TRY to play a ton of zone coverages, behind said blitzes. This opens up craters of space in the defensive backfield. Mix in the fact that our blitzers look like they are ALWAYS getting there late, it gives opposing QB's a much clearer view of where to go with the ball. It's like we're trying to be too cute with our schemes, and it's probably going to hurt us BIG somewhere in the season. My .02
Click to expand...
Spot on brother!!
 
Back
Top