Dave Aranda: Great DC Or Cool Ranch Doritos?

[Consigliere]

Why is everyone cheering for him anyway? Would rather have Randy Shannon as a DC.

Why? Is it because he is not calling plays at UF?

 

[FullyERicht]

Fullyericht, so WTH just expressed my sentiments. What's your reply?

You kinda sold me on aranda but WTH got me thinking again.

Hard not to sign with vern too. We shall see.

WTH brings some legit facts about TFL and sacks.

Where he fails in his assessment is in the idea that his players are "fat" or "bloated". His front is entirely about speed not size.

His front is, size wise, almost identical to MSU's 4-3 over. Look up their depth chart. The defense is a 3-4 defense with 4-3 personnel.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

The TFL/sack/INT thing has made me pause a little bit. The first thing you think of when you think of "Miami defense" are those three things right there.

But then the other side of the argument (that Kool wouldn't come here to play patty cake) makes sense also.

We'll see I guess.

 

[IndayArtHauz]

I don't think his players are bloated up like Folden's, WTH. His guys are actually relatively light. His is a single gap, get upfield, disrupting 3-4 more like what Stanford runs and less like what Folden ran.

This. I think most people had two concerns with the 3-4 "hybrid" D'O and Al brought: 1) could they get the personnel, 2) could they make the 2-gap work and would they insist on it if they couldn't.

You can fight over 1, but #2 is what killed them (along with a gross amount of ineptitude).

 

[KCcane]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

 

[IndayArtHauz]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

Just from his brief time as a 49er, it meant he performed on a level that mitigated the loss of Willis and so many others. Was extremely excited about his future. Some people have brought up Stanford in this thread, and in the 49ers scheme under Harbaugh Borland was fantastic.

 

[FullyERicht]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

B/C he's white and lord knows white folks are nerdy and bad at football.......right?

 

[KCcane]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

B/C he's white and lord knows white folks are nerdy and bad at football.......right?

Yeah and that Luke Kuechly fella is terrible too.

 

[LuCane]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

It wasn't a knock on Chris Borland. I think you missed the point. Borland did very well partly because of his ability to process and from the mental aspect of the game. It's one of the key attributes sought by D'Ono. The pause is caused because we don't want guys to have to process too much. Like I said earlier in the same post you quoted, though, Aranda doesn't run the same 3-4 we saw.

I just would prefer to move away from the preference for "smart, studious, info processing players." A select few great ones can combine the mental with the physical. In college, my preference is to go with athletes who have a lot of the processing done for them by the coaching staff and through scheme. It's easier and more sustainable as a defense over time. Especially one with our access to athletes.

 

[LuCane]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

B/C he's white and lord knows white folks are nerdy and bad at football.......right?

Yeah and that Luke Kuechly fella is terrible too.

Both of you missed the point and I challenge you to further the discussion from a substantive standpoint, as I answered inpost #49 . It has nothing to do with white, black or blue. It has to do with a preference for what kind of attributes.

FullyERicht, disappointed in your ****** response.

 

[Miami82]

You have to believe Richt already told Kuligowski who the DC is or who it's between. You also have to think that Kuligowski had at least as many potential job offers as Richt did. As you said, he doesn't come here to work in a system that'd contrast or limit his recipe for DL savagery. Richt making the Kuligowski hire and Kuligowski being on board with whatever DC Richt has mentioned to him should alleviate any ancillary overall style concerns.

This.

 

[fivecent]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

It wasn't a knock on Chris Borland. I think you missed the point. Borland did very well partly because of his ability to process and from the mental aspect of the game. It's one of the key attributes sought by D'Ono. The pause is caused because we don't want guys to have to process too much. Like I said earlier in the same post you quoted, though, Aranda doesn't run the same 3-4 we saw.

I just would prefer to move away from the preference for "smart, studious, info processing players." A select few great ones can combine the mental with the physical. In college, my preference is to go with athletes who have a lot of the processing done for them by the coaching staff and through scheme. It's easier and more sustainable as a defense over time. Especially one with our access to athletes.

As mentioned in the "so you want a savage DC" thread, Aranda is a coach on the rise and would likely be gone soon. The players he selects though would be here for a while and there might not be another DC as capable at running his particular scheme.

 

[Miami82]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

It wasn't a knock on Chris Borland. I think you missed the point. Borland did very well partly because of his ability to process and from the mental aspect of the game. It's one of the key attributes sought by D'Ono. The pause is caused because we don't want guys to have to process too much. Like I said earlier in the same post you quoted, though, Aranda doesn't run the same 3-4 we saw.

I just would prefer to move away from the preference for "smart, studious, info processing players." A select few great ones can combine the mental with the physical. In college, my preference is to go with athletes who have a lot of the processing done for them by the coaching staff and through scheme. It's easier and more sustainable as a defense over time. Especially one with our access to athletes.

I'll take a great athlete with instincts over a slower studious one all day long. Guess what roams the high schools in Sfla...

 

[DuffleBagYoda]

Leave him in lumberjack land

 

[LuCane]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

Just from his brief time as a 49er, it meant he performed on a level that mitigated the loss of Willis and so many others. Was extremely excited about his future. Some people have brought up Stanford in this thread, and in the 49ers scheme under Harbaugh Borland was fantastic.

See post #49 . It wasn't a knock on Chris Borland. It's discussion on what attributes a coach prefers or has a tendency to value. I prefer college coaches to do the majority of the assignment and play processing and allow athletes to go.

 

[KCcane]

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

B/C he's white and lord knows white folks are nerdy and bad at football.......right?

Yeah and that Luke Kuechly fella is terrible too.

Both of you missed the point and I challenge you to further the discussion from a substantive standpoint, as I answered inpost #49 . It has nothing to do with white, black or blue. It has to do with a preference for what kind of attributes.

FullyERicht, disappointed in your ****ty response.

I have already responded many times in this thread about the OP. I am still waiting for someone to tell me a DC other than Kirby Smart at Alabama that has had a Top 15 defense for 4 straight years or Top 10 for the last 3 years, which no one has other than Aranda. He runs an aggressive 3-4 1 gap style defense which has been over 100 times. What type of players do you think you are going to get to play in Madison, WI? Smart and studious or southern savage? He does the best with what he has.

 

[WhatTheHell]

Fullyericht, so WTH just expressed my sentiments. What's your reply?

You kinda sold me on aranda but WTH got me thinking again.

Hard not to sign with vern too. We shall see.

Where he fails in his assessment is in the idea that his players are "fat" or "bloated". His front is entirely about speed not size.

His front is, size wise, almost identical to MSU's 4-3 over.

Your post is horrendously inaccurate.


Arthur Goldberg, DE - 300 lbs. Shaped like a penguin





Conor Sheey, DE - 280 lbs. Shaped like a ******* Aunt.





Jake Keefer, DE - 275 lbs. Looks like a 40-year-old mailman.






LMAO look at these dudes. Let's compare.




Shaq Callhoun, DE - 250 lbs. Will kill your family.




Lawrence Thomas, DT - 300 lbs. Lean muscle. Will eat your food and change your channel.




Malik McDowell, DT - 275 lbs. Unlike Wisconsin's DL keeps his spare tire in his trunk, not on his waist



Demetrius Cooper, DE - 250 lbs. Looks like a Miami Hurricane DE should






Didn't we just have a DC who loves fat, pudgy, smart unathletic players?

 

[IndayArtHauz]

I encourage you to read this with an open mind. Many of you have pegged him as our next DC and have begun shoveling coal into the hype train. I don't watch Wisconsin football because I don't hate myself, but I did some digging into the stats his unit has been putting up and a few things have me worried.

Yes, on the surface his three seasons at Wisconsin are impressive. He's averaged the 7th total defense and has a top 10 scoring defense in the country during his stint there. But a lot of stats make me wonder if his philosophy is the attacking aggressive style we seek, or if we're looking directly down the bag of a Deluxe Dorito.

Here are some categories I expect a violent, aggressive, play-making defense to rank highly in, along with Wisconsin's average ranking in that category under Aranda.

Interceptions - 90th
Sacks - 52nd
Tackles for loss - 72nd


I'm left to wonder if he's not just a very good version of the late snack chip Mark D'Onofrio. At Wisconsin, Aranda does a good job keeping yards and points to a minimum. He runs a 3-4, his players are all borderline obese, and its mostly white kids from up north. They do a good job of holding opponents to low yardage, and he's also done well when it comes to keeping points off the board.

But in stats of aggression - creating turnovers, getting to the QB, living in the backfield, causing disruption plays, etc -- they're pretty bad. Does he have the mindset needed to recruit, create, and implement the savage attacking style of defense that made Miami famous? Can he handle the transition from overalls to dreads?

I'm not so sure.

He doesn't run a passive 3-4 comparable to what we've seen here. Beyond that, I think this a good thread with a potential to look deeper into what he does. The first thing I'd look at is pace of play. Specifically, how many plays teams average against his defense. His defensive numbers get an artificial boost because of those, probably. At the same time, those categories you highlighted also get an artificial tick down.

His defenses produced a bunch of turnovers in Hawaii. Then struggled at times with turnovers at Utah State.

Here's the one thing I read about him at some point last week that gave me some pause:

"You like to have 11 Chris Borlands." Chris Borland is known as a smart, studious player. Not sure how to interpret that and haven't watched Wisconsin enough to give context.

Just from his brief time as a 49er, it meant he performed on a level that mitigated the loss of Willis and so many others. Was extremely excited about his future. Some people have brought up Stanford in this thread, and in the 49ers scheme under Harbaugh Borland was fantastic.

See post #49 . It wasn't a knock on Chris Borland. It's discussion on what attributes a coach prefers or has a tendency to value. I prefer college coaches to do the majority of the assignment and play processing and allow athletes to go.

Yeah I just saw your response to a post similar to mine.

While Borland's level of performance was outstanding, if I had my pick I'd agree with you.

 

[LuCane]

He was a third round pick and one of the top rookies in the nfl before he retired unexpectedly. All that retirement **** aside why the **** wouldn't you want 11 players like that?

B/C he's white and lord knows white folks are nerdy and bad at football.......right?

Yeah and that Luke Kuechly fella is terrible too.

Both of you missed the point and I challenge you to further the discussion from a substantive standpoint, as I answered inpost #49 . It has nothing to do with white, black or blue. It has to do with a preference for what kind of attributes.

FullyERicht, disappointed in your ****ty response.

I have already responded many times in this thread about the OP. I am still waiting for someone to tell me a DC other than Kirby Smart at Alabama that has had a Top 15 defense for 4 straight years or Top 10 for the last 3 years, which no one has other than Aranda. He runs an aggressive 3-4 1 gap style defense which has been over 100 times. What type of players do you think you are going to get to play in Madison, WI? Smart and studious or southern savage? He does the best with what he has.

I have no idea why you're coming at me as if I'm insulting your wife (Aranda). I'm not against him. I know what kind of 3-4 he runs and I corrected the OP in my response immediately. I'm here to discuss and dig into anything about the potential coach. I mentioned the *one thing* that gave me pause in something I read last week. I've also acknowledged I'd like to know more about him.

I'm hesitant about *any* coach who prefers the type of player - regardless of color, which is a ****** and cheap angle to the discussion - who has the ability to process information very quickly (in college). You can grab a couple of those guys on your defense who also have the requisite athleticism. However, my comment was to wonder aloud if Aranda's style/preference requires 11 guys who can do it. I don't believe that is sustainable.

I didn't believe it for D'Ono. Now, maybe Aranda does things differently. Considering his comment about Borland and knowing the type of player he was, it merited discussion.

 

[cane since birth]

For me, it is simple, keep the points off the ***ing board.

I am down for the DC that keeps the most points off the board.

It was the same said about dorito

But he didn't perform like Aranda and he didn't do it at a P5 program. So this was NOT the same.

Not saying they the same just saying the same was said, im not a big fan of aranada his style does remind me of doritos, a little more aggressive but same concepts

But they're results are different. Correct?

Well do you like that style? Werent yall begging for a aggressive scheme?