Folden on Joe Rose

[Pentagon Cane]

I'll never understand how people downplay turnovers.

Especially turnovers in a game of few possessions.

Who's downplaying? I'm just saying it didn't cost us the game like many have said on this site. Armstrong fumbled at midfield, late in the 1st and 4 plays later we scored a TD. Should that have cost Nebraska the game? Remember, Duke's fumble occurred just after an Armstrong INT. And if it wasn't for a garbage TD with 22 seconds remaining, we would have lost by 17. Duke's fumble did not cost us the game. 343 yards against did.

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Dude, just stop. Somehow, Nebraska overcame their turn over that resulted in 7 points for us and commenced to beat us. And let me remind you, we were only down by 7, early in the 4th, AFTER the Duke fumble, and still lost. Because we continued to play off the ball and protect against the big play. 343 rushing yards against. THAT is what had a TREMENDOUS impact.

We certainly had our chances after that play. Down 31-21, we got to the 6 yard line, took a sack and kicked at field goal. Down 34-24 Brad threw an interception in the end zone.

You can never fault a kid trying to make a play.

 

[dk72]

I'll never understand how people downplay turnovers.

Especially turnovers in a game of few possessions.

Who's downplaying? I'm just saying it didn't cost us the game like many have said on this site. Armstrong fumbled at midfield, late in the 1st and 4 plays later we scored a TD. Should that have cost Nebraska the game? Remember, Duke's fumble occurred just after an Armstrong INT. And if it wasn't for a garbage TD with 22 seconds remaining, we would have lost by 17. Duke's fumble did not cost us the game. 343 yards against did.

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Exactly. Duke's fumble and the immediate return of the fumble by Nebraska for a touchdown was likely a 10-14 point swing in the game...a game we lost by 10. Did the inability to stop the run amplify the importance of that fumble? Of course. But pretending that the fumble could not have been the difference between winning and losing is ridiculous.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

I'll never understand how people downplay turnovers.

Especially turnovers in a game of few possessions.

Who's downplaying? I'm just saying it didn't cost us the game like many have said on this site. Armstrong fumbled at midfield, late in the 1st and 4 plays later we scored a TD. Should that have cost Nebraska the game? Remember, Duke's fumble occurred just after an Armstrong INT. And if it wasn't for a garbage TD with 22 seconds remaining, we would have lost by 17. Duke's fumble did not cost us the game. 343 yards against did.

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Dude, just stop. Somehow, Nebraska overcame their turn over that resulted in 7 points for us and commenced to beat us. And let me remind you, we were only down by 7, early in the 4th, AFTER the Duke fumble, and still lost. Because we continued to play off the ball and protect against the big play. 343 rushing yards against. THAT is what had a TREMENDOUS impact.

We certainly had our chances after that play. Down 31-21, we got to the 6 yard line, took a sack and kicked at field goal. Down 34-24 Brad threw an interception in the end zone.

You can never fault a kid trying to make a play.

I'm not faulting our players. They make mistakes. Especially an offense lead by a true freshman QB. But I don't think anyone can say it's not scheme when we allow 343 rushing yards with zero tackles for loss. I blame the defensive game plan for that loss, not a fumble. They were a +1 for the game, that does not = 17 point win. 343 rushing yards = 17 point win though.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

I'll never understand how people downplay turnovers.

Especially turnovers in a game of few possessions.

Who's downplaying? I'm just saying it didn't cost us the game like many have said on this site. Armstrong fumbled at midfield, late in the 1st and 4 plays later we scored a TD. Should that have cost Nebraska the game? Remember, Duke's fumble occurred just after an Armstrong INT. And if it wasn't for a garbage TD with 22 seconds remaining, we would have lost by 17. Duke's fumble did not cost us the game. 343 yards against did.

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Exactly. Duke's fumble and the immediate return of the fumble by Nebraska for a touchdown was likely a 10-14 point swing in the game...a game we lost by 10. Did the inability to stop the run amplify the importance of that fumble? Of course. But pretending that the fumble could not have been the difference between winning and losing is ridiculous.

It wasn't likely because we were not even in field goal range. Again, we were within 7 points early in the 4th. We could have recovered. Nebraska somehow did when one of their turnovers resulted in a TD for us.

 

[DiegoCane]

I'll never understand how people downplay turnovers.

Especially turnovers in a game of few possessions.

Who's downplaying? I'm just saying it didn't cost us the game like many have said on this site. Armstrong fumbled at midfield, late in the 1st and 4 plays later we scored a TD. Should that have cost Nebraska the game? Remember, Duke's fumble occurred just after an Armstrong INT. And if it wasn't for a garbage TD with 22 seconds remaining, we would have lost by 17. Duke's fumble did not cost us the game. 343 yards against did.

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Dude, just stop. Somehow, Nebraska overcame their turn over that resulted in 7 points for us and commenced to beat us. And let me remind you, we were only down by 7, early in the 4th, AFTER the Duke fumble, and still lost. Because we continued to play off the ball and protect against the big play. 343 rushing yards against. THAT is what had a TREMENDOUS impact.

We turned the ball over 3 times on the road.

You can attempt to neglect that all you want. It's still there.

And the rushing yards had nothing to do with the gameplan against Nebraska and EVERYTHING to do with players being undisciplined.

Wow.

 

[jerzeycane]

Who's downplaying? I'm just saying it didn't cost us the game like many have said on this site. Armstrong fumbled at midfield, late in the 1st and 4 plays later we scored a TD. Should that have cost Nebraska the game? Remember, Duke's fumble occurred just after an Armstrong INT. And if it wasn't for a garbage TD with 22 seconds remaining, we would have lost by 17. Duke's fumble did not cost us the game. 343 yards against did.

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Dude, just stop. Somehow, Nebraska overcame their turn over that resulted in 7 points for us and commenced to beat us. And let me remind you, we were only down by 7, early in the 4th, AFTER the Duke fumble, and still lost. Because we continued to play off the ball and protect against the big play. 343 rushing yards against. THAT is what had a TREMENDOUS impact.

We turned the ball over 3 times on the road.

You can attempt to neglect that all you want. It's still there.

And the rushing yards had nothing to do with the gameplan against Nebraska and EVERYTHING to do with players being undisciplined.

Wow.

I overstated.

The fault was largely on the players however.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Dude, just stop. Somehow, Nebraska overcame their turn over that resulted in 7 points for us and commenced to beat us. And let me remind you, we were only down by 7, early in the 4th, AFTER the Duke fumble, and still lost. Because we continued to play off the ball and protect against the big play. 343 rushing yards against. THAT is what had a TREMENDOUS impact.

We turned the ball over 3 times on the road.

You can attempt to neglect that all you want. It's still there.

And the rushing yards had nothing to do with the gameplan against Nebraska and EVERYTHING to do with players being undisciplined.

Wow.

I overstated.

The fault was largely on the players however.

I swear to god, this MUST be Al Golden. Gotta be.

 

[Pentagon Cane]

You're lying just like your coach did when he said we didn't play with the lead vs GaTech.

There are multiple screen shots that say differently than what you're saying. In particular, 3rd and short situations where he was over 6 yards off.

Yes, 5 to 6 yards is the proper depth against the Flexbone for the MIKE. You put him 3 yards off the ball then I'm running midline all day long and twice on Sundays because he'll be lost in the wash and can't scrap. You don't even understand the offense that I can tell you. There were other things they should have done in that ballgame. They did make some adjustments and move the nose to 1-technique but they really needed to walk the safety up and tighten the edge guys.

He was MORE than 5-6 yards off on MULTIPLE short yardage situations. I'm not arguing to bring him even closer. The fact is, he was not in position to make the plays. You know how I know it was our scheme and NOT our players? Because a team rushed for 343 ****ing yards and we had ZERO tackles for loss. Stop shifting blame on the players and own up to the fact that we were OUTCOACHED.

Sure, we were outcoached. That was obvious. But please tell me how we were to stop the dive when our two tackles were getting dominated. What are you going to do about the midline and the option? You don't stop the dive in a base defense against Flexbone it makes for a long night.

That was in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP game.

Are you gonna tell me it takes 4 years and mostly upperclassmen and most of the season and a great game from an All American to not get embarrassed by a middle of the road Big10 team running the same play over and over and over and over again?


If that's true, Golden should be fired today.

I'm saying Perryman didn't play well. That's all. BTW, your "middle of the road Big 10 team" is ranked #15 and sits at 8-1. They're going to win the Big 10 West and get Michigan State again on a neutral field.

I hear you about Perryman. The thing is our scheme is admittedly designed such that every player must win his individual assignment on every play, or it will break. If we can't figure out how to win when 1 or 2 guys have a bad game, then we're gonna end up with 3 losses and 3rd place in the coastal more often than not. That is my problem with Golden and co.


We'll see the Huskers end up. They will probably finish the season ranked, though, which will continue the trend with Golden and L's against quality teams.

Perryman is your best player bar none. If he had better tackles to protect him more he'd have Luke Kuechly like numbers.

Better tackles will improve everything on D for sure. It would also have helped if we adjusted to put a lineman over the center to keep him from running right to Perryman on every play.

We scored 31 points with a freshman qb on the road and supposedly the most experienced and talented defense we've had since Golden arrived in CG. Players may not have made all american tackles against Nebraska, but the defensive failure is squarely on the coaching staff.


And about GT and the dive its again on the coaching...
it is easy to stop the option. Block down, step down. We don't do it, b/c we don't put linemen in a spot to succeed, we don't emphasize getting upfield with the ends, we don't play press coverage, and both our safeties are 20yds off the line on every play.

I've got no issue with your first point. They did move the nose to 1-technique against Georgia Tech eventually. I wish they would just move Kamalu inside. He's more explosive in 3-technique.

No issue with your second point. They run too complicated a defense for this level. Too much responsibility and too many different techniques.

I'll disagree on your third point. The Flexbone is a bear to defend. It is hard to rep it and you need a lot of time to prepare. You just don't see it enough. Only team that really, really blew it up that I can recall is LSU. When Georgia smoked Georgia Tech two years ago Tech was able to run the ball well in a blow loss. They get themselves in trouble when they turn the ball over and play from behind. I wish we'd run 4-3 under/over as opposed to 3-4 under/over. Just easier at this level.

 

[Pentagon Cane]

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Dude, just stop. Somehow, Nebraska overcame their turn over that resulted in 7 points for us and commenced to beat us. And let me remind you, we were only down by 7, early in the 4th, AFTER the Duke fumble, and still lost. Because we continued to play off the ball and protect against the big play. 343 rushing yards against. THAT is what had a TREMENDOUS impact.

We turned the ball over 3 times on the road.

You can attempt to neglect that all you want. It's still there.

And the rushing yards had nothing to do with the gameplan against Nebraska and EVERYTHING to do with players being undisciplined.

Wow.

I overstated.

The fault was largely on the players however.

So if they're undisciplined then that's on the coaches.

 

[canesrdynamite]

Yes, 5 to 6 yards is the proper depth against the Flexbone for the MIKE. You put him 3 yards off the ball then I'm running midline all day long and twice on Sundays because he'll be lost in the wash and can't scrap. You don't even understand the offense that I can tell you. There were other things they should have done in that ballgame. They did make some adjustments and move the nose to 1-technique but they really needed to walk the safety up and tighten the edge guys.

He was MORE than 5-6 yards off on MULTIPLE short yardage situations. I'm not arguing to bring him even closer. The fact is, he was not in position to make the plays. You know how I know it was our scheme and NOT our players? Because a team rushed for 343 ****ing yards and we had ZERO tackles for loss. Stop shifting blame on the players and own up to the fact that we were OUTCOACHED.

Sure, we were outcoached. That was obvious. But please tell me how we were to stop the dive when our two tackles were getting dominated. What are you going to do about the midline and the option? You don't stop the dive in a base defense against Flexbone it makes for a long night.

I'm saying Perryman didn't play well. That's all. BTW, your "middle of the road Big 10 team" is ranked #15 and sits at 8-1. They're going to win the Big 10 West and get Michigan State again on a neutral field.

I hear you about Perryman. The thing is our scheme is admittedly designed such that every player must win his individual assignment on every play, or it will break. If we can't figure out how to win when 1 or 2 guys have a bad game, then we're gonna end up with 3 losses and 3rd place in the coastal more often than not. That is my problem with Golden and co.


We'll see the Huskers end up. They will probably finish the season ranked, though, which will continue the trend with Golden and L's against quality teams.

Perryman is your best player bar none. If he had better tackles to protect him more he'd have Luke Kuechly like numbers.

Better tackles will improve everything on D for sure. It would also have helped if we adjusted to put a lineman over the center to keep him from running right to Perryman on every play.

We scored 31 points with a freshman qb on the road and supposedly the most experienced and talented defense we've had since Golden arrived in CG. Players may not have made all american tackles against Nebraska, but the defensive failure is squarely on the coaching staff.


And about GT and the dive its again on the coaching...
it is easy to stop the option. Block down, step down. We don't do it, b/c we don't put linemen in a spot to succeed, we don't emphasize getting upfield with the ends, we don't play press coverage, and both our safeties are 20yds off the line on every play.

I've got no issue with your first point. They did move the nose to 1-technique against Georgia Tech eventually. I wish they would just move Kamalu inside. He's more explosive in 3-technique.

No issue with your second point. They run too complicated a defense for this level. Too much responsibility and too many different techniques.

I'll disagree on your third point. The Flexbone is a bare to defend.

Well one thing about the flexbone or any option attack... you can't sit back and give the offense time to be comfortable and make their reads. Just about the worst thing you can do is just hold the line and hope you can see what's happening, get there in time, and then make the play.

We didn't take away anything consistently in that GT game. If you take away the dive and get upfield to clobber the qb as a rule, there are less options for the offense and more opportunities to force the action for the defense.

It's completely mindblowing that we are 11th in total defense and 97th in tackles for loss (per ncaa stats today), but it fits the defensive philosophy that we have played for most of Golden's tenure.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

He was MORE than 5-6 yards off on MULTIPLE short yardage situations. I'm not arguing to bring him even closer. The fact is, he was not in position to make the plays. You know how I know it was our scheme and NOT our players? Because a team rushed for 343 ****ing yards and we had ZERO tackles for loss. Stop shifting blame on the players and own up to the fact that we were OUTCOACHED.

Sure, we were outcoached. That was obvious. But please tell me how we were to stop the dive when our two tackles were getting dominated. What are you going to do about the midline and the option? You don't stop the dive in a base defense against Flexbone it makes for a long night.

I hear you about Perryman. The thing is our scheme is admittedly designed such that every player must win his individual assignment on every play, or it will break. If we can't figure out how to win when 1 or 2 guys have a bad game, then we're gonna end up with 3 losses and 3rd place in the coastal more often than not. That is my problem with Golden and co.


We'll see the Huskers end up. They will probably finish the season ranked, though, which will continue the trend with Golden and L's against quality teams.

Perryman is your best player bar none. If he had better tackles to protect him more he'd have Luke Kuechly like numbers.

Better tackles will improve everything on D for sure. It would also have helped if we adjusted to put a lineman over the center to keep him from running right to Perryman on every play.

We scored 31 points with a freshman qb on the road and supposedly the most experienced and talented defense we've had since Golden arrived in CG. Players may not have made all american tackles against Nebraska, but the defensive failure is squarely on the coaching staff.


And about GT and the dive its again on the coaching...
it is easy to stop the option. Block down, step down. We don't do it, b/c we don't put linemen in a spot to succeed, we don't emphasize getting upfield with the ends, we don't play press coverage, and both our safeties are 20yds off the line on every play.

I've got no issue with your first point. They did move the nose to 1-technique against Georgia Tech eventually. I wish they would just move Kamalu inside. He's more explosive in 3-technique.

No issue with your second point. They run too complicated a defense for this level. Too much responsibility and too many different techniques.

I'll disagree on your third point. The Flexbone is a bare to defend.

Well one thing about the flexbone or any option attack... you can't sit back and give the offense time to be comfortable and make their reads. Just about the worst thing you can do is just hold the line and hope you can see what's happening, get there in time, and then make the play.

We didn't take away anything consistently in that GT game. If you take away the dive and get upfield to clobber the qb as a rule, there are less options for the offense and more opportunities to force the action for the defense.

It's completely mindblowing that we are 11th in total defense and 97th in tackles for loss (per ncaa stats today), but it fits the defensive philosophy that we have played for most of Golden's tenure.

Clemson leads with 78 tackles for loss with only 272 opp. rushing attempts (3.0 yds/rush)
We have only 45 TFL with 359 opp. rush attempts (3.31 yds/rush)

Clemson is 10th in rushing defense. We're 32nd

Clemson is 4th in sacks. We're 34th

We just weren't playing aggressive in the losses.

 

[canesrdynamite]

Sure, we were outcoached. That was obvious. But please tell me how we were to stop the dive when our two tackles were getting dominated. What are you going to do about the midline and the option? You don't stop the dive in a base defense against Flexbone it makes for a long night.

Perryman is your best player bar none. If he had better tackles to protect him more he'd have Luke Kuechly like numbers.

Better tackles will improve everything on D for sure. It would also have helped if we adjusted to put a lineman over the center to keep him from running right to Perryman on every play.

We scored 31 points with a freshman qb on the road and supposedly the most experienced and talented defense we've had since Golden arrived in CG. Players may not have made all american tackles against Nebraska, but the defensive failure is squarely on the coaching staff.


And about GT and the dive its again on the coaching...
it is easy to stop the option. Block down, step down. We don't do it, b/c we don't put linemen in a spot to succeed, we don't emphasize getting upfield with the ends, we don't play press coverage, and both our safeties are 20yds off the line on every play.

I've got no issue with your first point. They did move the nose to 1-technique against Georgia Tech eventually. I wish they would just move Kamalu inside. He's more explosive in 3-technique.

No issue with your second point. They run too complicated a defense for this level. Too much responsibility and too many different techniques.

I'll disagree on your third point. The Flexbone is a bare to defend.

Well one thing about the flexbone or any option attack... you can't sit back and give the offense time to be comfortable and make their reads. Just about the worst thing you can do is just hold the line and hope you can see what's happening, get there in time, and then make the play.

We didn't take away anything consistently in that GT game. If you take away the dive and get upfield to clobber the qb as a rule, there are less options for the offense and more opportunities to force the action for the defense.

It's completely mindblowing that we are 11th in total defense and 97th in tackles for loss (per ncaa stats today), but it fits the defensive philosophy that we have played for most of Golden's tenure.

Clemson leads with 78 tackles for loss with only 272 opp. rushing attempts (3.0 yds/rush)
We have only 45 TFL with 359 opp. rush attempts (3.31 yds/rush)

Clemson is 10th in rushing defense. We're 32nd

Clemson is 4th in sacks. We're 34th

We just weren't playing aggressive in the losses.

This is my issue with Golden & Dnofrio's defensive philosophy. They do not coach a fundamentally aggressive brand of football.

 

[weownfsu]

Teams like FSU can come back from 21 down against Louisville, after a ****load of interceptions, because their coaches don't put them in impossible positions to where the game is over if they make one mistake.

Our coaches put our players in terrible situations so they have to play basically flawless football, and then our piece of **** scumbag "fans" blame losses on one of the best players in UM history when like every other football player ever, he makes a mistake.

Like, we didn't lose to UT in 2003 because Sean Taylor fumbled a punt. We lost to UT that year because we had a horrific offense and Coker refused to play to our O's strengths, so the margin of error was incredibly small and not surprisingly, college kids didn't play a flawless game.

 

[bobbydigius]

This makes it all the more glaring. We were marching down the field against them after the pick and about to either tie the game or take the lead.

Suddenly, you go from marching to tie/take lead...to being down two possessions. It might not have lost us the game, but to deny that it had a TREMENDOUS impact on the outcome is to be ignorant.

Dude, just stop. Somehow, Nebraska overcame their turn over that resulted in 7 points for us and commenced to beat us. And let me remind you, we were only down by 7, early in the 4th, AFTER the Duke fumble, and still lost. Because we continued to play off the ball and protect against the big play. 343 rushing yards against. THAT is what had a TREMENDOUS impact.

We turned the ball over 3 times on the road.

You can attempt to neglect that all you want. It's still there.

And the rushing yards had nothing to do with the gameplan against Nebraska and EVERYTHING to do with players being undisciplined.

Wow.

I overstated.

The fault was largely on the players however.

You would think that Joe Paterno's disciple would have had the undisciplined part figured out in year 4, no? This was the same Nebraska rushing attack that was held in check against McNeese St, and absolutely neutered by Mich St. That entire game was on the defense and the staff, game should have been a two possession win for us not them…..

 

[Canezum5]

Teams like FSU can come back from 21 down against Louisville, after a ****load of interceptions, because their coaches don't put them in impossible positions to where the game is over if they make one mistake.

Our coaches put our players in terrible situations so they have to play basically flawless football, and then our piece of **** scumbag "fans" blame losses on one of the best players in UM history when like every other football player ever, he makes a mistake.

Like, we didn't lose to UT in 2003 because Sean Taylor fumbled a punt. We lost to UT that year because we had a horrific offense and Coker refused to play to our O's strengths, so the margin of error was incredibly small and not surprisingly, college kids didn't play a flawless game.

couldnt have said it better myself.

Louisville loss was not on the o-line and kaaya it was on Golden and Coley for crippling the playbook.

Nebraska loss wasnt on Kaaya and duke. it was on Donofrio and Golden for that passive crap they were running calling it a defense.

Georgia tech loss wasnt on Kaaya. It was on donofrio and golden for the very same reason the Nebraska game was.

The defense and coaching lost those games not the players.

Youve got to have zero football IQ to think that there was nothing wrong with the defense and it was all on the palyers for the Nebraska and Gt games.

 

[poncho0091]

Dude yall people crazy we have a Coach who care about this school and i know some of yall fan who are still living in the past fan dont understand that this program is really trending up and yall can't give Coach the credit he deserves because we are not winning the **** man is rebuilding a program that was down in the dumpster. Listen iam a young Canes fan so my take on Golden is different i love the guy he is a Leader like he said yesterday on the Joe Rose morning show its easy for people to stand in the back in point fingers and put someone down instead of leading and thats soooo true. I would love to see what yall are going to say when we beat FSU whats going to be yall crazy fans excuses "we beat a weaker FSU team" GTFO of here man yall need to really chill and support the man and his GREAT Staff because they not leaving we are staying the course either your with us or against it doesn't matter....

This is not about living in the past, this is about seeing with our own eyes the failures of the coaching staff. Living in the past would indicate we are expecting this to be a championship team. Noone is saying that, but we **** well have the talent to not give up 343 yards to a crap big 10 team who nearly lost to Mcneese St.

As you said, you're a young cane fan and you've never seen success from this team. I almost envy the fact that you have no clue what it is for your team to be on top of the college world, and to see what we are now, but this is again not about the past. This is about our coaching staff creating some of the worst defensive performances of any coaching staff to ever coach here.