Golden Not Happy With Defensive Performance SIAP

[Duval904]

fire Golden

he's a loser

Stupid post. Get off Canesinsight before too many people see these unintelligent comments

he needs to be fired

 

[Consigliere]

This bolded part tells you all you need to know about Golden

While Golden said he was pleased with the play of certain individuals including defensive end Anthony Chickillo, safeties A.J. Highsmith and Deon Bush, linebacker Denzel Perryman and defensive back Tracy Howard among others, he says it's crucial Miami try to get back to some of the things they did earlier this season when they held three of their first four opponents to under 300 yards of offense, forced turnovers and had better pressure on quarterbacks.

I don't follow, don't we want these things?

Those things don't just always happen. Especially against good teams, our opponents won't just regularly beat themselves. Defenses have to make them happen. I believe that's NVA's point.

How in the **** does a reporter not have the common sense to ask: "Coach, how do you believe you achieved those things earlier in the season versus what you're doing now?"

Lu, let me put it this way.

Whatever we did against UF, do that on defense. If you think forcing 5 TOs, getting pressure and holding them to 16 points is them beating themselves, I am fine with that.

Something happened that day because it isn't simply that UF sucks on offense because VT did too yet VT went APE SHlT.

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

I don't follow, don't we want these things?

Those things don't just always happen. Especially against good teams, our opponents won't just regularly beat themselves. Defenses have to make them happen. I believe that's NVA's point.

How in the **** does a reporter not have the common sense to ask: "Coach, how do you believe you achieved those things earlier in the season versus what you're doing now?"

Lu, let me put it this way.

Whatever we did against UF, do that on defense. If you think forcing 5 TOs, getting pressure and holding them to 16 points is them beating themselves, I am fine with that.

Something happened that day because it isn't simply that UF sucks on offense because VT did too yet VT went APE SHlT.

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

You expect a defense to produce 5 TOs, 2 of which were in the red zone, EVERY game?

 

[Consigliere]

Lu hit it on the head. It also happened against FAU and Savannah State and a UF team with an inept offense that still ran up large numbers against us. He's using metrics against sub par opponents. Once we hit the ACC schedule we suddenly couldn't do the things he wants the defense to do. Thats not a coincidence. Thats his coaching philosophy failing and poor coaching in general.

Let's never talk about FAU and Savannah State. Those games like USF are irrelevant. No matter how we play, no matter how we do, those games are irrelevant. As for UF, I am sorry but our defense shut them down.

You can call it what you want, you can call them a SHlTTY offense (didn't stop VT) but our D played good that day.

16 Points (MOST IMPORTANT THING and 7 came on a short field from a blocked punt)
5 Turnovers
6-15 on 3rd Down

I would take this exact performance against anyone we played this year or next year.

Right, we all would. But the point is, 5 turnovers (2 of which were in the red zone) is NOT sustainable. You cannot realistically expect that from any defense, every game.

And aside from their "****ty" offense, schematically, it played very well to what we do on defense. Another thing you can't expect from every game.

(The part in bold) I know 5 TOs aren't sustainable every game but I am cool with that if it would happen. If we hold them to 16 points, I am cool with how we got that result, especially with 5 turnovers and our offense that couldn't stay on the field.

That day we played physical football and I was happy. Against VT and Duke, we played like fhags and it showed.

 

[Consigliere]

Those things don't just always happen. Especially against good teams, our opponents won't just regularly beat themselves. Defenses have to make them happen. I believe that's NVA's point.

How in the **** does a reporter not have the common sense to ask: "Coach, how do you believe you achieved those things earlier in the season versus what you're doing now?"

Lu, let me put it this way.

Whatever we did against UF, do that on defense. If you think forcing 5 TOs, getting pressure and holding them to 16 points is them beating themselves, I am fine with that.

Something happened that day because it isn't simply that UF sucks on offense because VT did too yet VT went APE SHlT.

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

You expect a defense to produce 5 TOs, 2 of which were in the red zone, EVERY game?

I just responded to your post above, give me a second.

 

[LuCane]

I don't follow, don't we want these things?

Those things don't just always happen. Especially against good teams, our opponents won't just regularly beat themselves. Defenses have to make them happen. I believe that's NVA's point.

How in the **** does a reporter not have the common sense to ask: "Coach, how do you believe you achieved those things earlier in the season versus what you're doing now?"

Lu, let me put it this way.

Whatever we did against UF, do that on defense. If you think forcing 5 TOs, getting pressure and holding them to 16 points is them beating themselves, I am fine with that.

Something happened that day because it isn't simply that UF sucks on offense because VT did too yet VT went APE SHlT.

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

I don't love yards or hate yards. I don't view them in a vacuum. I look at what happened and ask "can this be repeated?" In basketball, a typically poor jump shooter may go 8-10 from 3PT, but with ****** form, are we just gonna keep feeding this guy the ball in crucial situations and say "hey, remember that time he went 8-10?"

We're not even getting to the more important question: "Can this be repeated against upper echelon teams?"

Then the championship question: "Can this be repeated 2 games in a row against top teams, as the playoff system will require?"

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

Lu hit it on the head. It also happened against FAU and Savannah State and a UF team with an inept offense that still ran up large numbers against us. He's using metrics against sub par opponents. Once we hit the ACC schedule we suddenly couldn't do the things he wants the defense to do. Thats not a coincidence. Thats his coaching philosophy failing and poor coaching in general.

Let's never talk about FAU and Savannah State. Those games like USF are irrelevant. No matter how we play, no matter how we do, those games are irrelevant. As for UF, I am sorry but our defense shut them down.

You can call it what you want, you can call them a SHlTTY offense (didn't stop VT) but our D played good that day.

16 Points (MOST IMPORTANT THING and 7 came on a short field from a blocked punt)
5 Turnovers
6-15 on 3rd Down

I would take this exact performance against anyone we played this year or next year.

Right, we all would. But the point is, 5 turnovers (2 of which were in the red zone) is NOT sustainable. You cannot realistically expect that from any defense, every game.

And aside from their "****ty" offense, schematically, it played very well to what we do on defense. Another thing you can't expect from every game.

(The part in bold) I know 5 TOs aren't sustainable every game but I am cool with that if it would happen. If we hold them to 16 points, I am cool with how we got that result, especially with 5 turnovers and our offense that couldn't stay on the field.

That day we played physical football and I was happy. Against VT and Duke, we played like fhags and it showed.

As far as physicality, I absolutely agree with you. We had an intensity back then that we have lacked since that game. And yeah, if we could win like that every game I would be all for it. I just don't think it's really a possibility under any scheme.

 

[Consigliere]

Those things don't just always happen. Especially against good teams, our opponents won't just regularly beat themselves. Defenses have to make them happen. I believe that's NVA's point.

How in the **** does a reporter not have the common sense to ask: "Coach, how do you believe you achieved those things earlier in the season versus what you're doing now?"

Lu, let me put it this way.

Whatever we did against UF, do that on defense. If you think forcing 5 TOs, getting pressure and holding them to 16 points is them beating themselves, I am fine with that.

Something happened that day because it isn't simply that UF sucks on offense because VT did too yet VT went APE SHlT.

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

I don't love yards or hate yards. I don't view them in a vacuum. I look at what happened and ask "can this be repeated?" In basketball, a typically poor jump shooter may go 8-10 from 3PT, but with ****ty form, are we just gonna keep feeding this guy the ball in crucial situations and say "hey, remember that time he went 8-10?"

I agree but what are you asking. Am I cool with the defense we put on the field against VT and Duke? NO! Do I want changes? YES! I am sick of it. I think I made that clear in my posts but at the same time I am not going to take away a game that they played good.

 

[Consigliere]

Lu hit it on the head. It also happened against FAU and Savannah State and a UF team with an inept offense that still ran up large numbers against us. He's using metrics against sub par opponents. Once we hit the ACC schedule we suddenly couldn't do the things he wants the defense to do. Thats not a coincidence. Thats his coaching philosophy failing and poor coaching in general.

Let's never talk about FAU and Savannah State. Those games like USF are irrelevant. No matter how we play, no matter how we do, those games are irrelevant. As for UF, I am sorry but our defense shut them down.

You can call it what you want, you can call them a SHlTTY offense (didn't stop VT) but our D played good that day.

16 Points (MOST IMPORTANT THING and 7 came on a short field from a blocked punt)
5 Turnovers
6-15 on 3rd Down

I would take this exact performance against anyone we played this year or next year.

Right, we all would. But the point is, 5 turnovers (2 of which were in the red zone) is NOT sustainable. You cannot realistically expect that from any defense, every game.

And aside from their "****ty" offense, schematically, it played very well to what we do on defense. Another thing you can't expect from every game.

(The part in bold) I know 5 TOs aren't sustainable every game but I am cool with that if it would happen. If we hold them to 16 points, I am cool with how we got that result, especially with 5 turnovers and our offense that couldn't stay on the field.

That day we played physical football and I was happy. Against VT and Duke, we played like fhags and it showed.

As far as physicality, I absolutely agree with you. We had an intensity back then that we have lacked since that game. And yeah, if we could win like that every game I would be all for it. I just don't think it's really a possibility under any scheme.

It is not possible to do this every game, I know that. But I am not going to take that game away from the kids because they played physical football that day and never backed down. The offense gave them a heaping of dog SHlT but those kids on defense came to play and did a great job.

 

[The Franchise]

Lu hit it on the head. It also happened against FAU and Savannah State and a UF team with an inept offense that still ran up large numbers against us. He's using metrics against sub par opponents. Once we hit the ACC schedule we suddenly couldn't do the things he wants the defense to do. Thats not a coincidence. Thats his coaching philosophy failing and poor coaching in general.

Let's never talk about FAU and Savannah State. Those games like USF are irrelevant. No matter how we play, no matter how we do, those games are irrelevant. As for UF, I am sorry but our defense shut them down.

You can call it what you want, you can call them a SHlTTY offense (didn't stop VT) but our D played good that day.

16 Points (MOST IMPORTANT THING and 7 came on a short field from a blocked punt)
5 Turnovers
6-15 on 3rd Down

I would take this exact performance against anyone we played this year or next year.

Right, we all would. But the point is, 5 turnovers (2 of which were in the red zone) is NOT sustainable. You cannot realistically expect that from any defense, every game.

And aside from their "****ty" offense, schematically, it played very well to what we do on defense. Another thing you can't expect from every game.

(The part in bold) I know 5 TOs aren't sustainable every game but I am cool with that if it would happen. If we hold them to 16 points, I am cool with how we got that result, especially with 5 turnovers and our offense that couldn't stay on the field.

That day we played physical football and I was happy. Against VT and Duke, we played like fhags and it showed.

You're cool with giving up 16 points per game? I think everyone on here would be cool with that. Unfortunately, the uf.ag game was clearly the outlier, and most of it had to do with forcing 5 turnovers with 2 being in the redzone. They moved the ball at will just like all the other teams have against us. The difference is that we got a bucket load of turnovers on them at opportune times, which is something that can't be replicated regularly.

 

[LuCane]

Lu, let me put it this way.

Whatever we did against UF, do that on defense. If you think forcing 5 TOs, getting pressure and holding them to 16 points is them beating themselves, I am fine with that.

Something happened that day because it isn't simply that UF sucks on offense because VT did too yet VT went APE SHlT.

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

I don't love yards or hate yards. I don't view them in a vacuum. I look at what happened and ask "can this be repeated?" In basketball, a typically poor jump shooter may go 8-10 from 3PT, but with ****ty form, are we just gonna keep feeding this guy the ball in crucial situations and say "hey, remember that time he went 8-10?"

I agree but what are you asking. Am I cool with the defense we put on the field against VT and Duke? NO! Do I want changes? YES! I am sick of it. I think I made that clear in my posts but at the same time I am not going to take away a game that they played good.

I'm happy we beat them, too. But, at the end of a game, I don't view "success" on solely results from that game. Maybe that's why I sound sour after some wins. If it looks like some **** we won't be able to do when it matters, I don't care as much. I saw us get some stops earlier in the season and said "those holes in the zone are there and an accurate QB will exploit them." It doesn't take away from the stop in that previous game, but it doesn't give me confidence it will happen when it matters.

Maybe i'm still stuck with too high of expectations. I view things pretty straightforwardly --> Will this work against FSU and in games that will lead us to ACC and national championships? Yes or no. Yes, great. No, fix it.

 

[NVA CANE]

Lu, let me put it this way.

Whatever we did against UF, do that on defense. If you think forcing 5 TOs, getting pressure and holding them to 16 points is them beating themselves, I am fine with that.

Something happened that day because it isn't simply that UF sucks on offense because VT did too yet VT went APE SHlT.

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

I don't love yards or hate yards. I don't view them in a vacuum. I look at what happened and ask "can this be repeated?" In basketball, a typically poor jump shooter may go 8-10 from 3PT, but with ****ty form, are we just gonna keep feeding this guy the ball in crucial situations and say "hey, remember that time he went 8-10?"

I agree but what are you asking. Am I cool with the defense we put on the field against VT and Duke? NO! Do I want changes? YES! I am sick of it. I think I made that clear in my posts but at the same time I am not going to take away a game that they played good.

No one is taking away the UF game. We played physical, we were excited with their performance. But UF also came into the game trying to run against us and we prepared very well for that and shut their run game down. We also caused 5 turnovers. I wouldn't be surprised if we go 5 years without cause 5 turnovers again in a game. It just doesn't happen often. Waiting for your opponent to make a mistake is not a sustainable model. Not against elite teams and **** evidently not even against average to below average teams. Those GT, UNC, WF games were brutal. When we finally faced an elite team we were carved up.

I think what we are all saying is, playing passive defense and placing the onus on the opposing team to make mistakes rather than taking it to them, is not a sustainable model for success. If you can't win the coastal with it, how can you win the MNC with it?

 

[Consigliere]

Lu hit it on the head. It also happened against FAU and Savannah State and a UF team with an inept offense that still ran up large numbers against us. He's using metrics against sub par opponents. Once we hit the ACC schedule we suddenly couldn't do the things he wants the defense to do. Thats not a coincidence. Thats his coaching philosophy failing and poor coaching in general.

Let's never talk about FAU and Savannah State. Those games like USF are irrelevant. No matter how we play, no matter how we do, those games are irrelevant. As for UF, I am sorry but our defense shut them down.

You can call it what you want, you can call them a SHlTTY offense (didn't stop VT) but our D played good that day.

16 Points (MOST IMPORTANT THING and 7 came on a short field from a blocked punt)
5 Turnovers
6-15 on 3rd Down

I would take this exact performance against anyone we played this year or next year.

Right, we all would. But the point is, 5 turnovers (2 of which were in the red zone) is NOT sustainable. You cannot realistically expect that from any defense, every game.

And aside from their "****ty" offense, schematically, it played very well to what we do on defense. Another thing you can't expect from every game.

(The part in bold) I know 5 TOs aren't sustainable every game but I am cool with that if it would happen. If we hold them to 16 points, I am cool with how we got that result, especially with 5 turnovers and our offense that couldn't stay on the field.

That day we played physical football and I was happy. Against VT and Duke, we played like fhags and it showed.

You're cool with giving up 16 points per game? I think everyone on here would be cool with that. Unfortunately, the uf.ag game was clearly the outlier, and most of it had to do with forcing 5 turnovers with 2 being in the redzone. They moved the ball at will just like all the other teams have against us. The difference is that we got a bucket load of turnovers on them at opportune times, which is something that can't be replicated regularly.

This game likely was an outlier, but did the kids play tough + physical football for the whole game? Did our offense help them out at all?

Remember this is the game where UF had the ball for 38:20, it wasn't because our D let them drive up and down the field. It was because our offense did next to nothing (what did we go 1-10 on 3rd down). The gaytors had almost double the amount of yards but it didn't matter, the kids played tough.

I don't doubt this game was an outlier and we won't have 5 turnovers per game (like I said a few times) but this game meant a lot to me and I won't discount what the kids did. These kids could have played a 5th quarter and the same thing would have happened. I was proud of that result even though it was an outlier.

Chise I know a coaching change needs to be made and the UF game doesn't discount that.

 

[Peruche]

This bolded part tells you all you need to know about Golden

While Golden said he was pleased with the play of certain individuals including defensive end Anthony Chickillo, safeties A.J. Highsmith and Deon Bush, linebacker Denzel Perryman and defensive back Tracy Howard among others, he says it's crucial Miami try to get back to some of the things they did earlier this season when they held three of their first four opponents to under 300 yards of offense, forced turnovers and had better pressure on quarterbacks.

WTF is this guy talking about.....

3 of our first 4 opponents are....

Florida Atlantic

Savannah State

South Florida

 

[Consigliere]

I think the players quit against VT. The UF game was early in the season and the defense still had confidence and bought in to Golden's philosophy. But lets not kid ourselves that UF didn't put up big numbers against us because they did. The defense did great things in that game, but a lot of what ails this defense today, we saw some of the symptoms in that UF game.

The part in bold, that is possible. I hope not because it is really scary.

The underlined part I disagree with. UF had 16 points and 5 turnovers. I know you guys love the yards talk but yards don't guaranty an outcome. UF almost doubled our yards and they lost. I know you guys love yards. I wish yards meant more last week because we had more than Duke.

I don't love yards or hate yards. I don't view them in a vacuum. I look at what happened and ask "can this be repeated?" In basketball, a typically poor jump shooter may go 8-10 from 3PT, but with ****ty form, are we just gonna keep feeding this guy the ball in crucial situations and say "hey, remember that time he went 8-10?"

I agree but what are you asking. Am I cool with the defense we put on the field against VT and Duke? NO! Do I want changes? YES! I am sick of it. I think I made that clear in my posts but at the same time I am not going to take away a game that they played good.

No one is taking away the UF game. We played physical, we were excited with their performance. But UF also came into the game trying to run against us and we prepared very well for that and shut their run game down. We also caused 5 turnovers. I wouldn't be surprised if we go 5 years without cause 5 turnovers again in a game. It just doesn't happen often. Waiting for your opponent to make a mistake is not a sustainable model. Not against elite teams and **** evidently not even against average to below average teams. Those GT, UNC, WF games were brutal. When we finally faced an elite team we were carved up.

I think what we are all saying is, playing passive defense and placing the onus on the opposing team to make mistakes rather than taking it to them, is not a sustainable model for success. If you can't win the coastal with it, how can you win the MNC with it?

I agree with the part in bold.

I just think against UF we played that physical football that we didn't play against VT and Duke. I think when we play physical that changes things but I would prefer to play physical in a different scheme.

 

[DiegoCane]

Obviously the defense stinks. Most realize the scheme stinks. But what I don't understand is what the **** happened vs Duke on run defense? We have actually been fairly competent in run defense this year:

FAU: 43 carries 3.1 ypc
UF: 44 carries 2.8 ypc
SSU: 26 carries 5.1 ypc, they had a 75 yard run when we weren't lined up (another problem we seem to have that no one else in the country has)
USF: 33 carries 3.0 ypc
Tech: 62 carries 5.4 ypc
UNC: 36 carries 2.9 ypc
WF: 25 carries 2.4 ypc
FSU: 44 carries 4.4 ypc
VTech: 47 carries 3.9 ypc
Duke: 52 carries 6.9 ypc

You can make a very good case that our D quit vs Duke. Duke isn't even that good of a running team.

akjdfkladfjasdfkl. It even makes me more mad that he says Porter, Chick, Perryman played well. If 3/7ths of your front 7 is playing well you don't give up 350+ yards on the ground to Duke. And if they really did play well, maybe you should take a good hard look at the defense you are running.

 

[RaiseCane]

Let's never talk about FAU and Savannah State. Those games like USF are irrelevant. No matter how we play, no matter how we do, those games are irrelevant. As for UF, I am sorry but our defense shut them down.

You can call it what you want, you can call them a SHlTTY offense (didn't stop VT) but our D played good that day.

16 Points (MOST IMPORTANT THING and 7 came on a short field from a blocked punt)
5 Turnovers
6-15 on 3rd Down

I would take this exact performance against anyone we played this year or next year.

Right, we all would. But the point is, 5 turnovers (2 of which were in the red zone) is NOT sustainable. You cannot realistically expect that from any defense, every game.

And aside from their "****ty" offense, schematically, it played very well to what we do on defense. Another thing you can't expect from every game.

(The part in bold) I know 5 TOs aren't sustainable every game but I am cool with that if it would happen. If we hold them to 16 points, I am cool with how we got that result, especially with 5 turnovers and our offense that couldn't stay on the field.

That day we played physical football and I was happy. Against VT and Duke, we played like fhags and it showed.

As far as physicality, I absolutely agree with you. We had an intensity back then that we have lacked since that game. And yeah, if we could win like that every game I would be all for it. I just don't think it's really a possibility under any scheme.

It is not possible to do this every game, I know that. But I am not going to take that game away from the kids because they played physical football that day and never backed down. The offense gave them a heaping of dog SHlT but those kids on defense came to play and did a great job.

No question that the physicality of our defense that day was on a different level from what we've seen the last month or so. It seemed like we were finally prepared to stand toe to toe against physical teams and stop the run. I think most people probably figured that if we had to live with Driskel passing for a bunch of yards as a trade-off for stopping the run, that was acceptable. I think most of us also thought that the forced turnovers were a sign that we had finally become a playmaking defense. I don't know where the physicality at the point of attack disappeared to. Now, we're getting blown off the ball AND we're allowing for opposing QBs to have career days.

I think when you put the UF game in context with our other games though, it's clear that the real aberration there may have been UF's turnovers. If we weren't able to force all those TOs, we may have had a similar result to the past few games - a team putting up a season high in points and yards. Now obviously, you can't ignore UF's turnovers as if we didn't cause them. However, because even in that game, our defensive scheme allowed them to move the ball, if we aren't causing turnovers, we aren't getting stops, and we're getting gashed by mediocre teams.

 

[NVA CANE]

This bolded part tells you all you need to know about Golden

While Golden said he was pleased with the play of certain individuals including defensive end Anthony Chickillo, safeties A.J. Highsmith and Deon Bush, linebacker Denzel Perryman and defensive back Tracy Howard among others, he says it's crucial Miami try to get back to some of the things they did earlier this season when they held three of their first four opponents to under 300 yards of offense, forced turnovers and had better pressure on quarterbacks.

WTF is this guy talking about.....

3 of our first 4 opponents are....

Florida Atlantic

Savannah State

South Florida

What he's talking about is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. By pointing out how well the defense played earlier in the year he is trying to say my scheme worked earlier in the year but now its not working, so clearly its the players. Thing is he doesn't mention that 3 our of the first 4 games were against DIII type schools. It's another con he is trying to pull.

 

[Consigliere]

Right, we all would. But the point is, 5 turnovers (2 of which were in the red zone) is NOT sustainable. You cannot realistically expect that from any defense, every game.

And aside from their "****ty" offense, schematically, it played very well to what we do on defense. Another thing you can't expect from every game.

(The part in bold) I know 5 TOs aren't sustainable every game but I am cool with that if it would happen. If we hold them to 16 points, I am cool with how we got that result, especially with 5 turnovers and our offense that couldn't stay on the field.

That day we played physical football and I was happy. Against VT and Duke, we played like fhags and it showed.

As far as physicality, I absolutely agree with you. We had an intensity back then that we have lacked since that game. And yeah, if we could win like that every game I would be all for it. I just don't think it's really a possibility under any scheme.

It is not possible to do this every game, I know that. But I am not going to take that game away from the kids because they played physical football that day and never backed down. The offense gave them a heaping of dog SHlT but those kids on defense came to play and did a great job.

No question that the physicality of our defense that day was on a different level from what we've seen the last month or so. It seemed like we were finally prepared to stand toe to toe against physical teams and stop the run. I think most people probably figured that if we had to live with Driskel passing for a bunch of yards as a trade-off for stopping the run, that was acceptable. I think most of us also thought that the forced turnovers were a sign that we had finally become a playmaking defense. I don't know where the physicality at the point of attack disappeared to. Now, we're getting blown off the ball AND we're allowing for opposing QBs to have career days.

I think when you put the UF game in context with our other games though, it's clear that the real aberration there may have been UF's turnovers. If we weren't able to force all those TOs, we may have had a similar result to the past few games - a team putting up a season high in points and yards. Now obviously, you can't ignore UF's turnovers as if we didn't cause them. However, because even in that game, our defensive scheme allowed them to move the ball, if we aren't causing turnovers, we aren't getting stops, and we're getting gashed by mediocre teams.

I don't know but you can't discount those turnovers and we haven't played as physical (for a whole game) since. It likely was an outlier.

 

[caneaddict]

he reminds me of Butch alot in terms of staying with his plan regardless of result.