My rant...

[Mico Jones]

But this isn't D'Onofrio's philosophy. This is Golden's philosophy. Will Golden change his philosophy? He might make tweaks, but I don't think we're suddenly going to become a cover 1 team or something like that.

And I think we ARE making up for talent deficiencies. The defense has come a long way. A healthy Deon Bush picks off that sideline pass that 30 misplayed. A healthy Bush tackles Wilder two yards behind the line of scrimmage instead of letting him run into the end zone.

I thought we did about as well as to be expected last night. FSU's offense is super-legit right now. If we had last year's defense this year, we would've been down 49-7 at the half.

I'm not talking about the physical limitations of players like Highsmith and Cornelius.

I'm talking about players running through our defense unchecked. I'm talking about the flats not ever being accounted for. I'm talking about only bringing in McCord and AQM on third and long. I'm talking about using a LB to cover a slot receiver. I'm talking about treating 2nd and long as a passing down. I'm talking philosophical and schematic issues.

What happens if we're not able to bring in horses that can get after the QB when just rushing four? Will we adjust or will we continue to play this bend but don't break that's so easily exploited. I don't have faith in D to stop a balanced offense at this point and it's not because we've been playing with average players.

I don't know, man.

I just don't care about the nitpick stuff like a LB covering a WR. Everybody does that.

The defense forced a lot of 3rd downs, and we didn't make plays to get off the field.

I've never really been a guy to complain about the defensive scheme. I didn't really have a problem with Shannon's "vanilla" scheme that everybody hated.

Just give me some beasts on defense that know where they're supposed to be.

That has been a reoccurring theme though regardless of talent level of the opposition. We couldn't get off the field against Wake Forest either. They were 8-16 against us last week, in their game against Syracuse they were shut out and went 4-19 on third downs. There is a talent issue for sure but I also feel we have coaching concerns as well.

Again, do you guys actually pay attention to the games? Campanaro broke his collarbone in the first quarter against Syracuse and is out for the season. He had caught something like 75% of their passes this season. Their second leading receiver got hurt late in the game against us, and didn't play against SU. If we didn't have to face either of those guys, they wouldn't have converted 8 of 16 third downs. I doubt they convert 3.

What about Louisiana-Monroe & Boston College...

 

[CanesAreAble]

I'm not talking about the physical limitations of players like Highsmith and Cornelius.

I'm talking about players running through our defense unchecked. I'm talking about the flats not ever being accounted for. I'm talking about only bringing in McCord and AQM on third and long. I'm talking about using a LB to cover a slot receiver. I'm talking about treating 2nd and long as a passing down. I'm talking philosophical and schematic issues.

What happens if we're not able to bring in horses that can get after the QB when just rushing four? Will we adjust or will we continue to play this bend but don't break that's so easily exploited. I don't have faith in D to stop a balanced offense at this point and it's not because we've been playing with average players.

I don't know, man.

I just don't care about the nitpick stuff like a LB covering a WR. Everybody does that.

The defense forced a lot of 3rd downs, and we didn't make plays to get off the field.

I've never really been a guy to complain about the defensive scheme. I didn't really have a problem with Shannon's "vanilla" scheme that everybody hated.

Just give me some beasts on defense that know where they're supposed to be.

That has been a reoccurring theme though regardless of talent level of the opposition. We couldn't get off the field against Wake Forest either. They were 8-16 against us last week, in their game against Syracuse they were shut out and went 4-19 on third downs. There is a talent issue for sure but I also feel we have coaching concerns as well.

Again, do you guys actually pay attention to the games? Campanaro broke his collarbone in the first quarter against Syracuse and is out for the season. He had caught something like 75% of their passes this season. Their second leading receiver got hurt late in the game against us, and didn't play against SU. If we didn't have to face either of those guys, they wouldn't have converted 8 of 16 third downs. I doubt they convert 3.

What about Louisiana-Monroe & Boston College...

What about it?

The transitive property is so dumb.

Just because team A beats team B, and team C beats team A, doesn't mean C is going to beat B.

And that goes for statistics as well.

Syracuse shut out Wake, therefore Syracuse is better coached than us on defense. But wait...they lost 56-0 to Georgia Tech.

Boston College almost beat FSU, therefore they're better. But wait...they got blown out by UNC. But wait...UNC got blown out by ECU. But wait...ECU lost to Tulane and Florida Atlantic. But wait...Tulane got blown out by Syracuse, and FAU got blown out by us and on and on and on...

 

[DiegoCane]

Maybe it's finally time people realized (Duke's) a very good back, but not nearly as good as people here think he is.

This.

I've been saying it for a while. I love Duke, but he isn't an elite college football RB. Very very good, but not elite.

Where the **** do people come up with this ****? Name me 5 better backs in college, I'll sit back and wait.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

I guess you're more forgiving of D than I am.

I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

My point is that regardless of scheme, people will complain.

Before it was too much man. Then too much zone. Now it's the TYPE of zone.

When's the last time the majority of the fan base liked the scheme?

Give me some werewolves and cyclopses and cyborgs running on diesel fuel, and I'm good.

In general people don't even understand the scheme. Shannon morphed from straight 2 deep man to a matchup zone system (2005) with a couple years of heavy cover 3/cover 1 (2003/2006, 2004 before it fell apart) and all the while people complained about it like it was the same defense. People will never like the "scheme" unless they like the results. And even then they'll complain in the rare games when it doesn't work. It's easy to criticize when you don't have to fix it.

The scheme is really not that important. If it was, everybody would run the same thing. The difference between the best coordinators and the inferior ones is talent and the ability to execute the scheme, whatever it is. That's pretty much it. No DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it, and nobody runs a superior system or everybody would follow suit.

 

[Notsince1985]

I'm not talking about the physical limitations of players like Highsmith and Cornelius.

I'm talking about players running through our defense unchecked. I'm talking about the flats not ever being accounted for. I'm talking about only bringing in McCord and AQM on third and long. I'm talking about using a LB to cover a slot receiver. I'm talking about treating 2nd and long as a passing down. I'm talking philosophical and schematic issues.

What happens if we're not able to bring in horses that can get after the QB when just rushing four? Will we adjust or will we continue to play this bend but don't break that's so easily exploited. I don't have faith in D to stop a balanced offense at this point and it's not because we've been playing with average players.

I don't know, man.

I just don't care about the nitpick stuff like a LB covering a WR. Everybody does that.

The defense forced a lot of 3rd downs, and we didn't make plays to get off the field.

I've never really been a guy to complain about the defensive scheme. I didn't really have a problem with Shannon's "vanilla" scheme that everybody hated.

Just give me some beasts on defense that know where they're supposed to be.

That has been a reoccurring theme though regardless of talent level of the opposition. We couldn't get off the field against Wake Forest either. They were 8-16 against us last week, in their game against Syracuse they were shut out and went 4-19 on third downs. There is a talent issue for sure but I also feel we have coaching concerns as well.

Again, do you guys actually pay attention to the games? Campanaro broke his collarbone in the first quarter against Syracuse and is out for the season. He had caught something like 75% of their passes this season. Their second leading receiver got hurt late in the game against us, and didn't play against SU. If we didn't have to face either of those guys, they wouldn't have converted 8 of 16 third downs. I doubt they convert 3.

What about Louisiana-Monroe & Boston College...

What about them? Every freaking game is different. You can't say, this team played this team close, but we only beat them by this, so we suck. That's ridiculous. What about South Alabama? They beat Tulane and Tulane beat ECU and ECU beat UNC by 24 and we only beat UNC by 4, so we're not as good as South Alabama. See how dumb that logic is? Want to take it a step further? FAU beat Tulane by 17, but wait...we beat FAU by 28...I'm so confused.

 

[CaneTheGaytors]

Maybe it's finally time people realized (Duke's) a very good back, but not nearly as good as people here think he is.

This.

I've been saying it for a while. I love Duke, but he isn't an elite college football RB. Very very good, but not elite.[/QUOTE}

Where the **** do people come up with this ****? Name me 5 better backs in college, I'll sit back and wait.

^^^This.

 

[LuCane]

I guess you're more forgiving of D than I am.

I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

My point is that regardless of scheme, people will complain.

Before it was too much man. Then too much zone. Now it's the TYPE of zone.

When's the last time the majority of the fan base liked the scheme?

Give me some werewolves and cyclopses and cyborgs running on diesel fuel, and I'm good.

In general people don't even understand the scheme. Shannon morphed from straight 2 deep man to a matchup zone system (2005) with a couple years of heavy cover 3/cover 1 (2003/2006, 2004 before it fell apart) and all the while people complained about it like it was the same defense. People will never like the "scheme" unless they like the results. And even then they'll complain in the rare games when it doesn't work. It's easy to criticize when you don't have to fix it.

The scheme is really not that important. If it was, everybody would run the same thing. The difference between the best coordinators and the inferior ones is talent and the ability to execute the scheme, whatever it is. That's pretty much it. No DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it, and nobody runs a superior system or everybody would follow suit.

That's probably the worst post I've ever read from you.

First of all, Cover 3 was never "heavy" under Shannon except when Bill Young was here. Even when we had Sean Taylor, as the ultimate centerfielder, it wasn't "heavy" here. I have no idea what you're even calling Cover 3.

People will like the scheme if they believe that, at least in theory, it's the best choice for placing our athletes in the best possible position. Some prefer a simple approach. Some prefer a more complex scheme. And, on and on. Your generalization is horrific here. I don't even know what "it's easy to criticize when you don't have to fix it" means. It's a message board. It's being discussed.

As for your "scheme is really not that important...if it was, everybody would run the same thing," that makes no sense. It's almost strangely illogical. The fact that so many guys run something different and add wrinkles/variations to completely different philosophies is a clear sign that scheme and philosophy are BOTH (because they're distinct) important. You're basically saying their irrelevant.

Finally, your "no DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it" is just beyond comprehension coming from someone who's spent 10 years discussing football on message boards. Are you saying there is no such thing as a poor fit in terms of a system and that anyone can throw any system out there so long as the players are good and they can get them to execute it? So, a team wish a smallish front (say, VTech) would get the same result in 3-4 system (say, Stanford's)? Weird stuff.

 

[thebizzness]

Was Larry Coker a great OC or did we just have 3 deep ballers everywhere?

 

[Big Sky Cane]

We need Bill Young as our DC again with using our speed and Petri as our d-line coach...guys can coach (especially Petri)

Well considering Bill Young was just hired last week as a defensive consultant at Wyoming.....I think his options are open.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Are you saying there is no such thing as a poor fit in terms of a system and that anyone can throw any system out there so long as the players are good and they can get them to execute it? So, a team wish a smallish front (say, VTech) would get the same result in 3-4 system (say, Stanford's)? Weird stuff.

Not speaking for PMC, but my guess is he's saying that there's a reasonable methodology for every conventional scheme that's been employed. Sure there's such a thing as a bad fit. You wouldn't 2-gap if you had a 240-LB Nose Tackle.

Golden has a particular scheme that he wants to install, and he's recruiting toward that. His scheme may not jibe with the sensibilities of many fans, but a considerable amount of thought went into Golden's decision to run this. And it's proven to be successful at many schools.

Now, I think the variance comes in the ability to evaluate talent and develop talent. Some grad assistant isn't going to be able to run Gus Malzahn's offense as well as him, but that's obviously not an indictment of the scheme.

If people think Golden and D'Onofrio suck at installing the defense they want, I'd accept that argument over "this scheme won't work here", as if there's something fundamentally wrong with it. Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[LuCane]

Are you saying there is no such thing as a poor fit in terms of a system and that anyone can throw any system out there so long as the players are good and they can get them to execute it? So, a team wish a smallish front (say, VTech) would get the same result in 3-4 system (say, Stanford's)? Weird stuff.

Not speaking for PMC, but my guess is he's saying that there's a reasonable methodology for every conventional scheme that's been employed. Sure there's such a thing as a bad fit. You wouldn't 2-gap if you had a 240-LB Nose Tackle.

Golden has a particular scheme that he wants to install, and he's recruiting toward that. His scheme may not jibe with the sensibilities of many fans, but a considerable amount of thought went into Golden's decision to run this. And it's proven to be successful at many schools.

Now, I think the variance comes in the ability to evaluate talent and develop talent. Some grad assistant isn't going to be able to run Gus Malzahn's offense as well as him, but that's obviously not an indictment of the scheme.

If people think Golden and D'Onofrio suck at installing the defense they want, I'd accept that argument over "this scheme won't work here", as if there's something fundamentally wrong with it. Just doesn't make sense to me.

There are significant variants between what Golden/D'Ono run as their version of the 3-4 and other versions of the 3-4. As you and I have talked about, I believe we took a particular approach last night (and in general) because we think playing for less mistakes gives us the best chance to win right now. I don't know if that will be the case in the future (in terms of philosophy). I don't think it's irrational of WildCat to ask why it seems like we're "covering areas" and how that is hurting us. To say that scheme is "just fine" because "if not they wouldn't do it" is nonsensical. Al Golden himself has made adjustments to our approach - offensively and defensively. Should we not accept that those adjustments are acknowledgments that something they were previously doing was not "fine" because "if not they wouldn't have run it."

I think the discord between you and Wildcat - at least in summary - is what was described earlier in this thread. I'm not saying our "scheme" is broken (can't find anywhere where I'm talking about that) because I think we've simply made a conscious decision to play this way. However, if we're going to win games, we have to score some points or pray for egregious mistakes from the opponent's offense. When it comes to big games, it'll be on the offense, I think.

This is winding toward a "Jimmies and Joes" vs "Xs and Os" discussion, which I find unfortunate. It's not one or the other, and at least in college, I think most accept it's more Jimmies and Joes. We can still discuss the relevance of the Xs and Os.

 

[supacane]

I have a totally different angle. Dno is not a good play caller. He gets his pants pulled down too many times by mediocre teams and every big game he gets embarrassed. We hung in the first half because Morris played fairly well and we had two picks. They still gashed us. Like i said before, stunting your DEs inside and your DTs outside on a QB who is a threat to break contain is straight lunacy. That has nothing to do with scheme, you just don't do that there on 3rd down.

 

[hoops156]

I was watching them as they were walking through the tunnel about to come out for the kick-off, and I was stunned. I've never seen such an emotionless UM team. Later on when Morris and Green went out for the coin toss, Morris looked like he was scared. The ****-Noles were pumped up and ready to go. I told my dad that I did not like their body language. The Canes teams of old would have come out there ready to bust some *** and kick somebody's teeth in. I love Golden and have been a huge supporter of his, but this isn't UM football. UM football is agressive, letting the defense penetrate and wreak havoc. UM football is letting our DB's play man-to-man and kick the opponents *** and then talk **** afterwards. UM football is ****y, sure of itself and bad to the motha ****in bone, not this conservative, bend-but-don't-break BS. You got stallions, let them be stallions. I agree we still have to get better at certain positions talent wise. But if you don't let the dogs out, they can't hunt. Until Golden realizes this and we get our killer instinct back, ala the JJ, Erickson and Butch days, we will never be fully back. Improved...yes...but not elite. I still stand with my boys at the U, just keeping it real.

This is just dumb, and proves you're looking for reasons to bash the coaches. Bash them for the scheme, but the team was plenty pumped up. There was plenty of emotion. They were talking trash the entire night. They were celebrating big plays, they were jumping around from the second they took the field until the game was out of reach. I saw more emotion from Miami than from FSU pregame. I don't know what you were watching (actually I do, you saw what you wanted to see, what fits your agenda).

We must've been watching different things. I saw a flat Miami team.

i was at the game and they were not flat. randys team in 10 was flat. this team didn't come out flat.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

The funny thing is if Golden ever get's the D to a dominate level......the naysayers will be proven correct anyway because "they finally did what you recommended" years ago.

 

[sebastian91]

OP, send Donna your freaking resume. D'Onofrio has forgotten more about football than you'll ever know. This defense lacks talent and depth. If you can't see that, you're as blind as you are stupid.

 

[LuCane]

The funny thing is if Golden ever get's the D to a dominate level......the naysayers will be proven correct anyway because "they finally did what you recommended" years ago.

Who are the naysayers? I realize this board is all about ____ vs. ____, but who are these naysayers and what do they say exactly?

 

[hoops156]

to me this game wasnt a coaching issue. it was a talent issue. we don't have the depth to play w FSU right now. they have talent in their depth chart that we just don't have right now. well get there but we were overmatched last night.

 

[sebastian91]

D and Golden are inseparable so that's that. One's not leaving without the other unless Golden heads to the league or something. So you are left with hope. We must remember that the defense was HISTORICALLY bad last year and still lacks talent--most of us thought it'd be ranked in the 60s or so. At least I did. It has bested that and realistically that first half was as bad as FSU has looked on offense all year. Those are positives. But, the overall philosophy of the defense is still to keep everything in front and to play to 3rd down and the red zone especially against good teams.

The question is whether there is a next phase to this. We have played more man this year and we are better at mixing coverages. Those are noticeable differences. As the talent continues to upgrade, will we be a more aggressive unit that more regularly attacks an offense? We don't know for certain. That's what we have to hope for. I can't exclude it because it's hard to flip defensive styles between games. We're set up to be a controlling, bend-but-don't-break unit this year but that does not mean that we have to continue to play that way when we have guys better than the Greens and Gaines and Highsmiths and Rodgers of the world.

We have really stupid fans. You're going to have to dumb down this logic for them.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Are you saying there is no such thing as a poor fit in terms of a system and that anyone can throw any system out there so long as the players are good and they can get them to execute it? So, a team wish a smallish front (say, VTech) would get the same result in 3-4 system (say, Stanford's)? Weird stuff.

Not speaking for PMC, but my guess is he's saying that there's a reasonable methodology for every conventional scheme that's been employed. Sure there's such a thing as a bad fit. You wouldn't 2-gap if you had a 240-LB Nose Tackle.

Golden has a particular scheme that he wants to install, and he's recruiting toward that. His scheme may not jibe with the sensibilities of many fans, but a considerable amount of thought went into Golden's decision to run this. And it's proven to be successful at many schools.

Now, I think the variance comes in the ability to evaluate talent and develop talent. Some grad assistant isn't going to be able to run Gus Malzahn's offense as well as him, but that's obviously not an indictment of the scheme.

If people think Golden and D'Onofrio suck at installing the defense they want, I'd accept that argument over "this scheme won't work here", as if there's something fundamentally wrong with it. Just doesn't make sense to me.

There are significant variants between what Golden/D'Ono run as their version of the 3-4 and other versions of the 3-4. As you and I have talked about, I believe we took a particular approach last night (and in general) because we think playing for less mistakes gives us the best chance to win right now. I don't know if that will be the case in the future (in terms of philosophy). I don't think it's irrational of WildCat to ask why it seems like we're "covering areas" and how that is hurting us. To say that scheme is "just fine" because "if not they wouldn't do it" is nonsensical. Al Golden himself has made adjustments to our approach - offensively and defensively. Should we not accept that those adjustments are acknowledgments that something they were previously doing was not "fine" because "if not they wouldn't have run it."

I think the discord between you and Wildcat - at least in summary - is what was described earlier in this thread. I'm not saying our "scheme" is broken (can't find anywhere where I'm talking about that) because I think we've simply made a conscious decision to play this way. However, if we're going to win games, we have to score some points or pray for egregious mistakes from the opponent's offense. When it comes to big games, it'll be on the offense, I think.

This is winding toward a "Jimmies and Joes" vs "Xs and Os" discussion, which I find unfortunate. It's not one or the other, and at least in college, I think most accept it's more Jimmies and Joes. We can still discuss the relevance of the Xs and Os.

Oh I don't think there's anything wrong with changing philosophies, making adjustments, adding wrinkles, etc... I just don't agree with the "our scheme is broken" rhetoric, which you've never trumpeted. But many, many have.

I also don't think this philosophy relies on egregious mistakes from the opposition. However, I think egregious mistakes compound the problems for opposing offenses.

If think if we want to have a defense that could keep FSU (or similarly elite offenses) in the mid-20s or lower, we need elite talent. We're not there yet.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

I guess you're more forgiving of D than I am.

I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

My point is that regardless of scheme, people will complain.

Before it was too much man. Then too much zone. Now it's the TYPE of zone.

When's the last time the majority of the fan base liked the scheme?

Give me some werewolves and cyclopses and cyborgs running on diesel fuel, and I'm good.

In general people don't even understand the scheme. Shannon morphed from straight 2 deep man to a matchup zone system (2005) with a couple years of heavy cover 3/cover 1 (2003/2006, 2004 before it fell apart) and all the while people complained about it like it was the same defense. People will never like the "scheme" unless they like the results. And even then they'll complain in the rare games when it doesn't work. It's easy to criticize when you don't have to fix it.

The scheme is really not that important. If it was, everybody would run the same thing. The difference between the best coordinators and the inferior ones is talent and the ability to execute the scheme, whatever it is. That's pretty much it. No DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it, and nobody runs a superior system or everybody would follow suit.

That's probably the worst post I've ever read from you.

First of all, Cover 3 was never "heavy" under Shannon except when Bill Young was here. Even when we had Sean Taylor, as the ultimate centerfielder, it wasn't "heavy" here. I have no idea what you're even calling Cover 3.

People will like the scheme if they believe that, at least in theory, it's the best choice for placing our athletes in the best possible position. Some prefer a simple approach. Some prefer a more complex scheme. And, on and on. Your generalization is horrific here. I don't even know what "it's easy to criticize when you don't have to fix it" means. It's a message board. It's being discussed.

As for your "scheme is really not that important...if it was, everybody would run the same thing," that makes no sense. It's almost strangely illogical. The fact that so many guys run something different and add wrinkles/variations to completely different philosophies is a clear sign that scheme and philosophy are BOTH (because they're distinct) important. You're basically saying their irrelevant.

Finally, your "no DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it" is just beyond comprehension coming from someone who's spent 10 years discussing football on message boards. Are you saying there is no such thing as a poor fit in terms of a system and that anyone can throw any system out there so long as the players are good and they can get them to execute it? So, a team wish a smallish front (say, VTech) would get the same result in 3-4 system (say, Stanford's)? Weird stuff.

I disagree entirely. First of all, Shannon teams later in his tenure ran quite a bit of cover 3/cover 1. For instance, the 8 man front mixing those defenses was the entire reason Greg Threat rang up 100 tackles in 2004. When we went on a horrific 3 game stretch in which teams exploited us we broke down and simplified back to his basic cover 2 man. Greg Threat could never rip off 100 tackles in our 2001/2002 style of defense.

Everybody has their preferences. Personally I prefer an aggressive yet simpler system because I think it's easier to take something basic and apply it to different offenses when you have 20 hours a week, and I think that pressuring the passer is paramount in modern day. Kiffin/Dungy's defenses for instance. But I accept that D'Onofrio's system or Schiano's for instance (which was quite complicated late in its day here) are fine as well. It's about having the right players and teaching them to execute. Now, surely there are poor fits for specific personnel, but most defensive coaches understand the type of personnel they want to run their system. I take it Golden/D are smart enough to make that determination. Right now I'd argue that we don't have the personnel to be great playing *any* system. We don't have explosion up front or athleticism in the back. But once these guys replenish the system, D'Onofrio's system won't be the limitation. It'll be the recruiting and the execution.

If anybody ever asks why Nick Saban is so successful, it's not because he's concocted some system that nobody else understands. It's because he recruits well, develops his players well, and teaches them to play his defense well. Same deal with any other successful coordinator. Likewise when a coach goes bad (eg Mickey Andrews), is it because his system fell apart--the same one that worked previously? Generally not. He just doesn't have the athletes anymore, or isn't as effective getting the execution.