forums

Dave Aranda: Great DC Or Cool Ranch Doritos?

Another thing to be cognizant of is that a lot of teams that get a lot of sacks do so at the expense of also giving up a lot of big plays.

A guy like Jon Tenuta comes to mind. His defenses are hyper aggressive and put up good sack and TFL numbers usually. But they also get torched a lot.

I think it's more important to be consistently disruptive and to cause quick decisions and confusion than it is to necessarily rack up big sack numbers.
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
LuCane said:
KCcane said:
LuCane said:
WhatTheHell said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Did he say, "I want 11 Borlands because he was so smart and could decipher my complicated defense" or did you just assume that that was the reason he wanted 11 Borlands? Perhaps, he wanted 11 Borlands because Borland was a great football player who played like a bat out of ****.
Click to expand...

No assumption. It was in the context of how he spent more time than the others studying film.
 
Last edited:
SMFH WTH has no clue what he's talking about.

A 3-4 front that goes 272, 300, and 268 is SMALL.

Their LBs are 246, 238, 228, 236.......

By comparison Miami's front went like this:

DL: 275, 315, 314
LBs: 250, 220, 240, 260

His defense is nothing like Al Goldens.

You are aware that there are a dozen different ways to play 3-4 and 4-3 defenses? It's not just two defenses and thats it.
 
LuCane said:
The Franchise said:
LuCane said:
KCcane said:
LuCane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Did he say, "I want 11 Borlands because he was so smart and could decipher my complicated defense" or did you just assume that that was the reason he wanted 11 Borlands? Perhaps, he wanted 11 Borlands because Borland was a great football player who played like a bat out of ****.
Click to expand...

It was in the context of how he spent more time than the others studying film.
Click to expand...

Not to split hairs, but doesn't every coach love gym rats? It's part of the reason everyone loved Dorsey and Ed Reed. Just because Borland was studious and Aranda loved him doesn't necessarily mean that players have to be unathletic book worms to excel in his defense.
 
The Franchise said:
Another thing to be cognizant of is that a lot of teams that get a lot of sacks do so at the expense of also giving up a lot of big plays.

A guy like Jon Tenuta comes to mind. His defenses are hyper aggressive and put up good sack and TFL numbers usually. But they also get torched a lot.

I think it's more important to be consistently disruptive and to cause quick decisions and confusion than it is to necessarily rack up big sack numbers.
Click to expand...

Aggression without selling your soul, that's what I like about Aranda. Lots of confusion and disguising
 
FullyERicht said:
SMFH WTH has no clue what he's talking about.

A 3-4 front that goes 272, 300, and 268 is SMALL.

Their LBs are 246, 238, 228, 236.......

By comparison Miami's front went like this:

DL: 275, 315, 314
LBs: 250, 220, 240, 260

His defense is nothing like Al Goldens.

You are aware that there are a dozen different ways to play 3-4 and 4-3 defenses? It's not just two defenses and thats it.
Click to expand...

As a 4-3 Over team, you'd imagine:

Jenkins or Norton 0-shaded
Norton, Willis, or Moten in the 3-tech
Chad Thomas DE
AQM out wide
Young filling B
Owens @ Mike
Grace @ Will
 
Last edited:
KCcane said:
WhatTheHell said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Big Ten doesnt pass as much but you would think they would have more Tackles for loss. I just thought I would add this from his time at Utah State.

In 2012, Aranda was a nominee for the Broyles Award as the Aggies defense finished in the top 15 of all FBS schools in all four major defensive categories; seventh in scoring defense (15.4 points per game), 13th in rushing defense (113.8 yards per game), eighth in pass-efficiency defense (14 interceptions, 12 touchdowns, 54.1% completion rate, 5.7 yards per attempt) and 14th in total defense (322.1 ypg). Also 7th in sacks with 42. 40th in tackles for loss with 80.
Click to expand...
I really think you've shown the difference in fast SEC players against slow Big Ten players..
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
LuCane said:
The Franchise said:
LuCane said:
KCcane said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Did he say, "I want 11 Borlands because he was so smart and could decipher my complicated defense" or did you just assume that that was the reason he wanted 11 Borlands? Perhaps, he wanted 11 Borlands because Borland was a great football player who played like a bat out of ****.
Click to expand...

It was in the context of how he spent more time than the others studying film.
Click to expand...

Not to split hairs, but doesn't every coach love gym rats? It's part of the reason everyone loved Dorsey and Ed Reed. Just because Borland was studious and Aranda loved him doesn't necessarily mean that players have to be unathletic book worms to excel in his defense.
Click to expand...

Of course, man. Please read my post and subsequent posts in their full context. I'm basically looking at all aspects of Aranda. Trying to learn about him. I make a comment about something I read that gives me slight pause, as I emphasized. That's a piece I read somewhere about how he'd like 11 of X-player because of X reason (he studied like a maniac). Then, I explicitly state I just hope it doesn't mean he values processing info over X. And, finally state that I don't know if that's the case because I've probably watched 3 or less Wiscy games.

I think it's important to know what level of complexity a D-Coordinator requires of his players. I think it's extremely important, especially as part of a discussion where we're going to learn about this potential coach, to pull out any perspectives he's offered. Someone else noted his players feel he simplifies it for them. That was helpful.

I think some posters overreacted to the comment as an attack on Borland, others on Aranda and finally others on "white players" (which is ridiculous, as Crawford and Fentress are guys whose abilities to process info was valued here over athleticism, I got on Golden and D'ono for it..last time I checked, they don't look white).

Anyway, still a lot to learn about Aranda (if he will even be the guy).
 
iLoveTDs said:
When Aranda came to Wisconsin, he wanted a defense that was not only stout but one that could utilize quickness and pressure. He implemented a 3-4 defense instead of the 4-3 scheme the team had used for years. It has taken time, but he now has players that fit his system, and perhaps there is no better example than outside linebackers Biegel and Joe Schobert. Together, they lead the team in tackles for loss with 15, the most by any linebacker duo in the country.

"It's just an attack-style defense," Schobert said. "Trying to get after the quarterback, get the offense in situations where they have to drop back and make some pass plays and then be able to dial up pressures from anywhere on the field."

(On Aranda) "A guy that's truly detailed in his preparation and yet doesn't stop there. It's in his communication with the players. It's not what we know as coaches, it's what your players know. I think our players have confidence in him."
Click to expand...

[video=youtube_share;KY8Xn1u_b9M]http://youtu.be/KY8Xn1u_b9M[/video]
 
South Florida boys can't play that complex 30 front bs.
4-3 , get some dogs on dline, let them hunt. Not think.
 
Advertisement
Not understanding why anyone would be upset at hiring Aranda.

If it's because of the whole 3-4 thing well you're just retarded.

We'd be lucky to have him
 
I didn't read all the post but have you checked his resume at Utah state? He was solid there too but I'm not worried.... we're in the ACC, right?
 
Back
Top