Coach Golden quotes from today

[Cane1996]

From Matt Porter @mattyports:

- Asked Golden how he can be better in Year 4. Said he'll be more hands-on, delegate his time better.

- Al on the QB race: "It is wide-open."

- Golden says Canes adding Heaps doesn't reflect on the current QBs, and it's just him wanting to add experience. He's very good politically.

- Asked if the gap between FSU/the rest of the ACC is as big as it was in the 90s, Golden said a flat "no." Talent everywhere, he said.

- Al talking about overuse of players and specalization of athletes at a young age. Says it's important to let them have fun w/ football.

- Al Golden: "The defense was better on any day this spring as it was any day last year."

- Golden on Petrino: "Bobby's got a great offensive mind." Says "controlling variables" will be hard since they won't know UofL's personnel.

- Al said this team needs to "turn this season into 12 one-game missions," then adds "we haven't done that yet."

- Al Golden on how Canes can win Coastal: Got to settle QB situation quickly, get 8-10 OLs, get a punter, and DL needs to close every gap.

Story from Matt Porter:

http://caneswatch.blog.palmbeachpos...lliams-recovery-qb-battle-defensive-upgrades/

Does this mean we can look forward to a Top 70 defense this year?

 

[Classic]

No problem with any of that. Good response. I'm a Niners fan and completely agree that if you've got the guys, it's not a bad scheme to run. Question is, is it a good scheme to implement in the collegiate ranks. That's entirely up for debate...as we're having trouble installing it, but Saban runs something similar with Kirby Smart at Bama, and has been dominant these past few years defensively (other than last year's debacle with OU in their bowl game).

The only thing I will say is that everywhere they've been, Golden/NoDFrio have run that 3-4 Multiple D. I think they feel that was a part of their success and why they made it from Temple to Miami, so they were going to implement that no matter what...regardless of what other scheme the personnel here was a fit for.

I think their focus is a hybrid of what you're saying: they tried to fit those square pegs into round holes the best they knew how with what they had these past few seasons (i.e.--they probably put Shayon Green in the best position to succeed within the scheme, he just wasn't talented enough/good enough fit to succeed). Now, it looks like they have the guys to fit the scheme, IMO, so we'll see if it gets any better.

If it doesn't, hand me a pitchfork and a torch along with everyone else.

I'm no football mad scientist like the rest of this board. I just analyze what I saw and I don't like it. (a) I see a team that has allowed more points during ACC play (each season). (b) I see a team that is not playing physically tough football. I think the reason we saw (a) and (b) is because of a combination of:

1. We're not putting our kids in the best position to succeed (Scheme, DC and HC). They forced a scheme or as you so eloquently put it they tried to fit those square pegs into round holes.

2. The coaches are not good at teaching technique and fundamentals (Jethro).

3. The talent is not that good (Rodgers, Highsmith, Green, Robinson, Cornelius etc.).

4. The kids were not mature enough or didn't understand the playbook (young kids, lack of focus etc.)

My problem is you can fix (3) and (4) with talent and development. That doesn't mean it will fix (1) and/or (2). We will see. I'm not asking for much from the defense either, just keep the other team under 22-23 points during ACC play.

You've been exhausting lately, Consigliere, but this was a great post. I agree for the most part. I'm not sold on #2 being a true contributor to our defensive woes, but perhaps. Three and four will theoretically be improved this year. Hoping that all this "we're back to attacking!" and "the defense looks better this spring than any day last year" lip service shows itself in scheme and success come Labor Day.

 

[freespirted305]

Great Post cumulative of all the defensive woes. I am no fan of this scheme but am looking forward to this season due to (3). Nothing (even putting a DE on a WR) upsets me more than plays like Rodgers failing to make a play in that FSU game two years ago when he was in perfect position or Highsmith facing the wrong way on that Benjamin play against FSU last yr.

No problem with any of that. Good response. I'm a Niners fan and completely agree that if you've got the guys, it's not a bad scheme to run. Question is, is it a good scheme to implement in the collegiate ranks. That's entirely up for debate...as we're having trouble installing it, but Saban runs something similar with Kirby Smart at Bama, and has been dominant these past few years defensively (other than last year's debacle with OU in their bowl game).

The only thing I will say is that everywhere they've been, Golden/NoDFrio have run that 3-4 Multiple D. I think they feel that was a part of their success and why they made it from Temple to Miami, so they were going to implement that no matter what...regardless of what other scheme the personnel here was a fit for.

I think their focus is a hybrid of what you're saying: they tried to fit those square pegs into round holes the best they knew how with what they had these past few seasons (i.e.--they probably put Shayon Green in the best position to succeed within the scheme, he just wasn't talented enough/good enough fit to succeed). Now, it looks like they have the guys to fit the scheme, IMO, so we'll see if it gets any better.

If it doesn't, hand me a pitchfork and a torch along with everyone else.

I'm no football mad scientist like the rest of this board. I just analyze what I saw and I don't like it. (a) I see a team that has allowed more points during ACC play (each season). (b) I see a team that is not playing physically tough football. I think the reason we saw (a) and (b) is because of a combination of:

1. We're not putting our kids in the best position to succeed (Scheme, DC and HC). They forced a scheme or as you so eloquently put it they tried to fit those square pegs into round holes.

2. The coaches are not good at teaching technique and fundamentals (Jethro).

3. The talent is not that good (Rodgers, Highsmith, Green, Robinson, Cornelius etc.).

4. The kids were not mature enough or didn't understand the playbook (young kids, lack of focus etc.)

My problem is you can fix (3) and (4) with talent and development. That doesn't mean it will fix (1) and/or (2). We will see. I'm not asking for much from the defense either, just keep the other team under 22-23 points during ACC play.

You've been exhausting lately, Consigliere, but this was a great post. I agree for the most part. I'm not sold on #2 being a true contributor to our defensive woes, but perhaps. Three and four will theoretically be improved this year. Hoping that all this "we're back to attacking!" and "the defense looks better this spring than any day last year" lip service shows itself in scheme and success come Labor Day.

 

[weownfsu]

Year 4 same ****....

No, year four and some very different ****....actually some semblance of depth and talent for the first time.

:roll-canes3:

 

[Hurricane Warrior]

Our defense is not the problem so far... still early but they have played much better than the last couple of years.