Golden WQAM Signing Day Interview

[NateDogg]

Said the defense has improved. No longer relying on freshman.

Am I missing someone?

Aside from Burns used sparingly near the end of the season, and AQM on 3rd downs, what freshmen played significant time, let alone were relied on?

what he said: "no longer relying on freshman"

what he meant: "no longer relying on seniors who play lik HS freshman"

 

[FullyERicht]

I think he should move Barrow to QBs, Carroll to Dline, and hire Bill Clinton to coach WRs next year.

Pathetic job by an all recruiting staff. This time next year we'll have a new coach. Maybe the ************** will get it right this time, but I doubt it.

 

[Ukcanes1]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

 

[fincane]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

Just because the D would've been on the field less doesn't mean they would've been better. We're going to give them less opportunities to be completely hopeless. This is what Golden is trying to sell and it is stupid.

 

[BWCD]

Plain & simple--they know the D is bad. So do we. If you can't fix it via scheme changes or personnel, you have to find some ways to help play away from your weakness.

Our offense had enough talent to be that way to play away from the D. If we had been more ball-control with the occasional explosive play, then the D could have probably played better in spurts. Even great defenses can't do well when they're playing 75+ snaps/game. A relatively sucky defense can play somewhat better when the snaps they have to play are minimized.

Our best bet to win most games (esp. against FSU/VT/Duke/Louisville) would have been to spread the ball around, move the chains, and hold on to the football. All of those ***-whoopins we took, we got killed in TOP, and were atrocious on 3rd down offensively.

If you don't agree with that, then GFY.

 

[BWCD]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

Just because the D would've been on the field less doesn't mean they would've been better. We're going to give them less opportunities to be completely hopeless. This is what Golden is trying to sell and it is stupid.

No one says they would have been a great defense. BUT--If your offense is better than your defense, then you want it on the field more often. The less snaps the D could have played, the less snaps the opponent's O is on the field, reaming them a new *******. We all want a great Canes defense of old, but we don't have it right now. Given that...TOP and better 3rd down percentage offensively should have been the gameplan.

It's facking simple. How do you not get this???

 

[sebastian91]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

Just because the D would've been on the field less doesn't mean they would've been better. We're going to give them less opportunities to be completely hopeless. This is what Golden is trying to sell and it is stupid.

Then you haven't listened to anything he's said. In the end, actions speak louder than words, and he has to do something with the defense. And the offense needs to get better, too.

 

[Ukcanes1]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

Just because the D would've been on the field less doesn't mean they would've been better. We're going to give them less opportunities to be completely hopeless. This is what Golden is trying to sell and it is stupid.

What D is better the longer it's out on the field? AG doesn't have to sell me on anything. That's some basic ish imo.

 

[fincane]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

Just because the D would've been on the field less doesn't mean they would've been better. We're going to give them less opportunities to be completely hopeless. This is what Golden is trying to sell and it is stupid.

No one says they would have been better. If your offense is better than your defense, then you want it on the field more often. The less snaps the D could have played, the less snaps the opponent's O is on the field, reaming them a new *******. We all want a great Canes defense of old, but we don't have it right now. Given that...TOP and better 3rd down percentage offensively should have been the gameplan.

It's facking simple. How do you not get this???

I'm not talking about great. I'm talking about competent. An average defense hopes there offense keeps them off the field. The defense he ran out their had no hope no matter how much time the offense spent on the field. What was he hoping to have happen? Have the offense protect the defense so they would only give up 400 yds a game in ACC play? The fact that its just accepted with "welp we stink defensively, nothing more, nothing less" is ridiculous. What has he been doing for three seasons that we're still at the point where we hope time of possession by our offense keeps us in games? People here eating it up. Why is the offense expected to be good to great and you're talking about the defense like we should've expected it to be 90th in country. Allowing season high days to bad offenses.

 

[fincane]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

Just because the D would've been on the field less doesn't mean they would've been better. We're going to give them less opportunities to be completely hopeless. This is what Golden is trying to sell and it is stupid.

What D is better the longer it's out on the field? AG doesn't have to sell me on anything. That's some basic ish imo.

What kind of coach is stating publicly to protect his defense and deflect that the other side of the ball needs to protect us?

 

[JerzeyCane32]

Golden coming up on cbs sports

 

[jerzeycane]

Plain & simple--they know the D is bad. So do we. If you can't fix it via scheme changes or personnel, you have to find some ways to help play away from your weakness.

Our offense had enough talent to be that way to play away from the D. If we had been more ball-control with the occasional explosive play, then the D could have probably played better in spurts. Even great defenses can't do well when they're playing 75+ snaps/game. A relatively sucky defense can play somewhat better when the snaps they have to play are minimized.

Our best bet to win most games (esp. against FSU/VT/Duke/Louisville) would have been to spread the ball around, move the chains, and hold on to the football. All of those ***-whoopins we took, we got killed in TOP, and were atrocious on 3rd down offensively.

If you don't agree with that, then GFY.

Can't do this when your QB is limited in not only throwing the entire route tree, but limited in his ability to go through a progression.

There were FAR too many times where it was 3rd and 5 or 3rd and 7...and we all KNEW we were ****ed

 

[sebastian91]

OK, let's use the bowl game as an example. The defense actually wasn't awful for most of the first half. But, they got worn down because the offense couldn't get anything going, and they broke down in the 2nd half. Do you disagree with that assessment?

BTW, no one "accepts" that the defense sucked. We just know that it sucked and hoped that the talented, experienced offense run by a senior QB could've done something to help it out. This really isn't difficult to understand.

 

[Ukcanes1]

If the offense would've been more efficient then our D would've been better. Our 3rd down conversion % was abysmal. Yup even worse than the defenses 3rd down %.
We get either problem corrected next year and we should have a **** good season.

Just because the D would've been on the field less doesn't mean they would've been better. We're going to give them less opportunities to be completely hopeless. This is what Golden is trying to sell and it is stupid.

What D is better the longer it's out on the field? AG doesn't have to sell me on anything. That's some basic ish imo.

What kind of coach is stating publicly to protect his defense and deflect that the other side of the ball needs to protect us?

I've heard him state the faults on D and also deflect. It's frustrating as ****. But it's a team sport so I can see why he does it sometimes. Still frustrating since we're not getting the results or development we were hoping to have.

Now to my question...

 

[BWCD]

An average defense hopes there offense keeps them off the field.

I would characterize our D as below average. I was hoping every single game that our offense would keep our defense off the field as much as possible.

The defense he ran out their had no hope no matter how much time the offense spent on the field.

Right...which means the less possessions our D had to play, the less yards/points they would give up. Would you rather give up 2-3 80+ yard/5+ minute scoring drives in a game, or 5? I'd rather give up none, but given the choice...2-3.

The fact that its just accepted with "welp we stink defensively, nothing more, nothing less" is ridiculous. What has he been doing for three seasons that we're still at the point where we hope time of possession by our offense keeps us in games? People here eating it up. Why is the offense expected to be good to great and you're talking about the defense like we should've expected in to be 90th in country. Allowing season high days to bad offenses.

Listen here you mental midget...I'm ****ed about the D too. The fact that you're expecting us to trot out the 2001 national title team's defense every time we play means YOUR expectations aren't where they're supposed to be...not mine. I wish our D didn't suck. I think the pieces coming in will help us be better, but the scheme is still a major issue that may not be solved until D'Onofrio/Golden are gone.

The facts are this:

1) We are terrible defensively. Young talent not being ready and the scheme being horrid are a combination for disaster...as we've seen.

2) I know he's had 3 years to try and fix it. The fact is, he hasn't yet. And it likely won't get fixed until he gets fired. Til then--our D sucks.

3) Since our D sucks, and the main goal is winning ballgames...what's the formula to try and do that?

4) Wait a sec...we're pretty talented offensively. Why not keep them on the field as much as possible and wear down the opponent's D, and keep the opponent's offensive possessions to a minimum? That's not a bad way to approach winning ballgames if you can't instantly fix the D, and your 3 years of trying to fix it have failed thus far.

I can't help it if you can't see that our D was horrible, and that in order to win ballgames (which is THE GOAL), we had to play with what we had. I don't want a D rated in the 80's/90's, I want defenses like we had in the 80's/90's. WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW. So...we have to play with what we have until coaching changes or scheme changes come, and/or our talent starts to click and play better on that side of the football.

Don't facking act like we're "accepting" anything by saying that the O could have helped out the D. It's a plain-as-day observation that's been backed up by metrics on other threads that were probably over your head to read to begin with.

 

[JerzeyCane32]

Top recruiters saying golden in the mold of the next saban message board rejects want him fired ctfu

 

[jerzeycane]

Yo man, almost universally Golden is loved and lauded for his efforts.

People here despise the man.

Interesting case study.

 

[sebastian91]

"FROM NATIONAL CHAMPS TO NATIONAL CHUMPS! THANKS BUTCH!"

That should tell you all you need to know about this fanbase.

 

[rudebuddha]

Yo man, almost universally Golden is loved and lauded for his efforts.

People here despise the man.

Interesting case study.

Easy to explain: he coaches at Miami with the Miami fan base.

You just have to peruse this site for 10 minutes to know the character of our fan base.

 

[MadCane]

The problem isn't him pointing out the offensive flaws. It is the way he does it. Don't use it as a deflection. When your asked about the offense's issue, go ahead and answer. Too much blame. Not enough acceptance.

He has readily acknowledged the issues on defense. That doesn't change the fact that the offense isn't helping.

The second sentence out of his mouth shouldn't be "oh by the way the offense isn't good at this either" Does he blame the defense for not creating enough short fields for the offense when the offense is struggling? The only reason they won any ACC games was because of the offense. As image conscious as he is he should be aware that rubs people the wrong way.

That fact he got after the offense for not matching Duke score for score when his defense gave up 48 pts is just awful.

He's not coaching you. He's coaching his entire team. He wants to emphasize that it's a team game, and they need to help each other out. When one unit is poor, and everyone knows it, the other side has to do its part mitigate those deficiencies. Not a bad lesson to teach.

By the way, nobody with half a brain believes that he was saying that the offense was the main reason that the defense was poor. Despite the fact that you want him to, it's not smart to throw half of your team under the bus.

He is responsible for it all. He is responsible for mitigating deficiencies.

Who knows what this guy believes when he is selling that line of bullcrap about improvements on defense the Monday after the Penn State debacle.

Rule #1 of a leader: don't divide your team. Probably the most basic rule of leadership out there.
Rule #1 of a fan: divide the team, look for people to blame, crucify them mercilessly. Blame the leader if he doesn't outwardly express your message board views.

The two are mutually exclusive.