Golden asked about 3rd and 2

BzXHUYqCcAAkNF7.jpg


Manny doing work

So your defense relies on turnovers, Al. Good luck buddy.

I'm sick of all this we didn't get off the field on 3rd down, didn't get stops on first down. We ****ing know that, the question is why you fat ****ing piece of ****. Corbata de Mierda

If you want to cause turnovers, you should be hitting the QB and FB every dam play. Which we didn't.

Of course we did. It might have been seven yards downfield on 3rd and 1, but we hit them.
 
Advertisement
BzXHUYqCcAAkNF7.jpg


Manny doing work

So your defense relies on turnovers, Al. Good luck buddy.

I'm sick of all this we didn't get off the field on 3rd down, didn't get stops on first down. We ****ing know that, the question is why you fat ****ing piece of ****. Corbata de Mierda

If you want to cause turnovers, you should be hitting the QB and FB every dam play. Which we didn't.

Of course we did. It might have been seven yards downfield on 3rd and 1, but we hit them.

I forget whether it Lu or D who said this but when you're playing that far back from the line its like trying to tackle a piano moving downhill. They're caught in space hoping to wrap up. Instead of coming downhill at the ball carrier its the opposite.
 
BzXHUYqCcAAkNF7.jpg


Manny doing work

This reasoning is absurd. So what Golden is saying is that we're comfortable letting their B back, the guy that carries the ball most frequently in their offense, getting almost 5 yards a carry as long as we aren't giving up the pitch play or the deep pass, and we're going to rely on taking the ball away from them. The clear problem in that reasoning is that when their B back carries it 29 times (out of 65 rushes) for almost 5 ypc, they are setting themselves up for 3rd and short almost every time, which means stopping them on 3rd and short is nearly impossible, because we're willing to concede the fullback dive. And, because the handoff to the B back is not a risky play, the chances of causing a turnover is also much lower. And we're so concerned about getting beat deep by a team that throws it 7 times in a game (out of 70 plays) that we'd rather die a slow death with our safeties 12 yds deep rather than force them to beat us with their weaker passing game?

And as he's now stated twice, we were okay with giving up 250+ rushing to them...

I get that GT is going to get yards with that offense, and that it's tough to hold them to less than 150 rushing yards, but to be okay with 250+? Given that number, we're basically putting ourselves in a position that if we aren't perfect on offense, or don't force a turnover, there is no way to win the game, since GT is going to control the clock. This is another clear example of our coaching staff's play not to lose mentality, instead of a mentality of playing to win by forcing the action.
 
BzXHUYqCcAAkNF7.jpg


Manny doing work

So your defense relies on turnovers, Al. Good luck buddy.

I'm sick of all this we didn't get off the field on 3rd down, didn't get stops on first down. We ****ing know that, the question is why you fat ****ing piece of ****. Corbata de Mierda

If you want to cause turnovers, you should be hitting the QB and FB every dam play. Which we didn't.

Of course we did. It might have been seven yards downfield on 3rd and 1, but we hit them.

I forget whether it Lu or D who said this but when you're playing that far back from the line its like trying to tackle a piano moving downhill. They're caught in space hoping to wrap up. Instead of coming downhill at the ball carrier its the opposite.

I mentioned it after the Nebraska game. Because, in a kind of absurd way, EVERY SINGLE coaching camp, clinic or seminar that you go to has a defensive coach talking about stopping a good RB *before he gets started downhill.*

To add to that, I played Safety and tackling anyone who's already coming downhill at you is a losing proposition whether you're the biggest guy in the world, surest tackler or whatever. The ability to cutback into wide open space or just the sheer physics of tackling a guy coming at you full speed when you've likely taken your first two steps back in coverage (and have to guess where he's going) are just parts of what makes this a weird approach to consistently rely on.
 
Last edited:
So your defense relies on turnovers, Al. Good luck buddy.

I'm sick of all this we didn't get off the field on 3rd down, didn't get stops on first down. We ****ing know that, the question is why you fat ****ing piece of ****. Corbata de Mierda

If you want to cause turnovers, you should be hitting the QB and FB every dam play. Which we didn't.

Of course we did. It might have been seven yards downfield on 3rd and 1, but we hit them.

I forget whether it Lu or D who said this but when you're playing that far back from the line its like trying to tackle a piano moving downhill. They're caught in space hoping to wrap up. Instead of coming downhill at the ball carrier its the opposite.

I mentioned it after the Nebraska game. Because, in a kind of absurd way, EVERY SINGLE coaching camp, clinic or seminar that you go to has a defensive coach talking about stopping a good RB *before he gets started downhill.*

To add to that, I played Safety and tackling anyone who's already coming downhill at you is a losing proposition whether you're the biggest guy in the world, surest tackler or whatever. The ability to cutback into wide open space or just the sheer physics of tackling a guy coming at you full speed when you've likely taken your first two steps back in coverage (and have to guess where he's going) are just parts of what makes this a weird approach to consistently rely on.


Nobody else plays defense this way because it doesn't work. AG and D insist on trying to be the smartest guys in the room every Saturday, but trip over their own feet with future NFL players littering the roster.
 
Advertisement
Golden is so far in over his head it's amazing.

He's basically explaining what we all know: he coaches scared. So terrified of allowing a big play he concedes small chunks of yards. He'd rather let them bleed the clock and slowly move up and down the field instead of having a defense that tries to make plays and MAYBE, allows a couple big ones.

Softest coach we've ever had.
 
Last edited:
How is Golden still employed as a college coach?

How can anyone on the BoT or in the admin support this clown?

Un****inreal.
 
Advertisement
This guy talks about the defense not getting off the field on 3rd and 4th down, but is defense is whats allowing the 3rd/4th and short. You give GT that and you're going to lose.
 
Had a bad feeling about this game when Perryman was interviewed during the week and he said he didn't expect anything new from GT. You beat a team 5 times in a row and you didn't expect them to try something even a little bit different?
 
Exactly. We have one of the fastest teams in the country in the secondary and we are always so ******* afraid of getting beat deep.
 
Matt Porter ‏@mattyports 1m1 minute ago
Golden: "The last three years we've beat that team running the same stuff." Difference: got third down, fourth down stops and takeaways.
.

2013 we gave up 30 points and 339 yards rushing.
2012 we gave up 36 points and 419 total yards.

Al is saying that giving up 30+ points and 300+ yards rushing is ok. It's the same thing as when Donofrio said "yards don't matter." It's a microcosm for why Al Golden sucks at coaching football. The goal should be to destroy the other team. To annihilate them. To pummel them into submission. To limit them to as close to 0 yards as humanly possible. To beat them so soundly that you won't lose on a bad call, random fumble, interception, or bad bounce. But he doesn't have that in him, not in a single fiber of his being. He's soft, conservative, and scared. He's plays to not lose instead of to win. He's a loser. His vaginal philosophy has spread through the team and throughout every aspect of the program. Like a disease. It has infected everyone, coaches, players, even a lot of the fans.
 
Advertisement
Idk if this was posted yet.

Q: Your struggling puts a microscope on everything. People are posting pictures of the defense off TV. Like a third and two play in both games, Nebraska and Georgia Tech, they'll snap the screen and it'll show Denzel Perryman, for instance, seven yards off the ball on third and one or third and two and the play gets converted and that opens up a snowstorm of criticism. What would be the explanation for things like that which might be contributing to the struggles in getting off the field on third down?

Golden: Denzel's depth is a function of the defense. Depending what we're doing with the defensive tackles his first gap might have to get outside (and he needs room off the line to get there). He's never supposed to be seven yards, we want him at six. We tried to get him to move up during the game. … in terms of the Georgia Tech game, that was designed. He's designed to be there. The tackles and perhaps one of the outside linebackers who was blitzing is responsible for the dive. Many times he's responsible for the dive because many of the times we're asking him to scrape fast because the outside linebacker is coming. What I'm saying is we move them back in certain instances because we're bringing the outside linebacker and his [Perryman's] gap (would be) outside. I don't know which play you're talking about. The last three years we beat that team running the same stuff. We got takeaways, third down stops, got a fourth down stop. And the offense in both years was 50 percent last year, 60 something the year before in Atlanta. That makes it a markedly different game. You have to beat that team as a team. We didn't play well enough on defense, have to get off the field on defense, and the offense and special teams didn't help the defense.
 
Idk if this was posted yet.

Q: Your struggling puts a microscope on everything. People are posting pictures of the defense off TV. Like a third and two play in both games, Nebraska and Georgia Tech, they'll snap the screen and it'll show Denzel Perryman, for instance, seven yards off the ball on third and one or third and two and the play gets converted and that opens up a snowstorm of criticism. What would be the explanation for things like that which might be contributing to the struggles in getting off the field on third down?

Golden: Denzel's depth is a function of the defense. Depending what we're doing with the defensive tackles his first gap might have to get outside (and he needs room off the line to get there). He's never supposed to be seven yards, we want him at six. We tried to get him to move up during the game. … in terms of the Georgia Tech game, that was designed. He's designed to be there. The tackles and perhaps one of the outside linebackers who was blitzing is responsible for the dive. Many times he's responsible for the dive because many of the times we're asking him to scrape fast because the outside linebacker is coming. What I'm saying is we move them back in certain instances because we're bringing the outside linebacker and his [Perryman's] gap (would be) outside. I don't know which play you're talking about. The last three years we beat that team running the same stuff. We got takeaways, third down stops, got a fourth down stop. And the offense in both years was 50 percent last year, 60 something the year before in Atlanta. That makes it a markedly different game. You have to beat that team as a team. We didn't play well enough on defense, have to get off the field on defense, and the offense and special teams didn't help the defense.

I just ******* laughed out loud. I love that ****. It's like arguing with a latin girlfriend. We're talking about why you lied about some phone call that happened at 1AM, and she wants to blow **** up, toss knives and scream that "it happened at 12:45AM!!!"
 
this guy is literally the anti Shannon. the way we played GT is completely mind boggling. hey concede teh FB on every play. genius

99 out of 100 coaches say to shut down the FB dive first and foremost. wtf is wrong with F/A/G?
 
Advertisement
It was so frustrating sitting in the stands on Saturday night and watching that FB dive go for 4 or 5 or 6 yds every time and we never made one adjustment to stop it. We never ever ever make the offense adjust to the pressure we are putting on them, it is the most anti-aggressive D I have ever seen, this crap does not belong in Miami
 
BzXHUYqCcAAkNF7.jpg


Manny doing work

So your defense relies on turnovers, Al. Good luck buddy.

I'm sick of all this we didn't get off the field on 3rd down, didn't get stops on first down. We ****ing know that, the question is why you fat ****ing piece of ****. Corbata de Mierda

If you want to cause turnovers, you should be hitting the QB and FB every dam play. Which we didn't.

Of course we did. It might have been seven yards downfield on 3rd and 1, but we hit them.

This guy is so contradicting. He wants to give up 5 yard a pop so he can "stop" the "big play" but then he complains his defense was on the field too long. Of courser if you give 5 yards a carry your defense will be on the field the whole game. What a jackass. Hes making so many excuses he cant keep them straight in his head anymore.
 
Idk if this was posted yet.

Q: Your struggling puts a microscope on everything. People are posting pictures of the defense off TV. Like a third and two play in both games, Nebraska and Georgia Tech, they'll snap the screen and it'll show Denzel Perryman, for instance, seven yards off the ball on third and one or third and two and the play gets converted and that opens up a snowstorm of criticism. What would be the explanation for things like that which might be contributing to the struggles in getting off the field on third down?

Golden: Denzel's depth is a function of the defense. Depending what we're doing with the defensive tackles his first gap might have to get outside (and he needs room off the line to get there). He's never supposed to be seven yards, we want him at six. We tried to get him to move up during the game. … in terms of the Georgia Tech game, that was designed. He's designed to be there. The tackles and perhaps one of the outside linebackers who was blitzing is responsible for the dive. Many times he's responsible for the dive because many of the times we're asking him to scrape fast because the outside linebacker is coming. What I'm saying is we move them back in certain instances because we're bringing the outside linebacker and his [Perryman's] gap (would be) outside. I don't know which play you're talking about. The last three years we beat that team running the same stuff. We got takeaways, third down stops, got a fourth down stop. And the offense in both years was 50 percent last year, 60 something the year before in Atlanta. That makes it a markedly different game. You have to beat that team as a team. We didn't play well enough on defense, have to get off the field on defense, and the offense and special teams didn't help the defense.

I just ****ing laughed out loud. I love that ****. It's like arguing with a latin girlfriend. We're talking about why you lied about some phone call that happened at 1AM, and she wants to blow **** up, toss knives and scream that "it happened at 12:45AM!!!"

LMAO!!!!!!


Edit: BTW, I'm not as much of as X & O guy as some of you, but after reading Golden's response, is he not basically saying without even realizing it that we are tipping our hand when we plan on doing certain things?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top