My rant...

[sebastian91]

Duke could run harder? Hahahahahaha


Lost me there.

Open your eyes and watch the replay. Tell me he's goin full tilt on that 4th down play or that play where he had to reverse field. Watch it and tell me he doesn't unnecessarily stutter step before hitting the hole.

What hole? There was no hole.

 

[OBLIVION]

Duke could run harder? Hahahahahaha


Lost me there.

Open your eyes and watch the replay. Tell me he's goin full tilt on that 4th down play or that play where he had to reverse field. Watch it and tell me he doesn't unnecessarily stutter step before hitting the hole.

Should have ran Hagens on that 4th and 1.

 

[bbcane]

Easy to defend? How do you figure that?

Every pass play cuts the field in half. Do you think the QB is sitting there looking at both sides of the field. His primary and secondary read are almost always on the same side of the field.







A roll out cuts the field in half period. I am not saying it is bad to roll out. It actually simplifies reads. Which is a good thing for Morris. Make no mistake no tom Brady or Drew Brees is rolling out more than once a game if at all.

 

[Coach Macho]

I think WildCat brings some of the "just a high school coach" ***** on himself because of the attitude he projects. Maybe he's a great guy in person, but he's a real dyck on message boards. I respect his knowledge of football and enjoy when he breaks down specific plays...that said, I do think he could use an infusion of common sense on some things. There's a lot of assumption and speculation in some of his analyses, which he really shouldn't be doing without knowing what the specifics of a certain play call were...which he could only know by talking to the coaches and/or players. Just my take. I have no beef with him otherwise.

I project the attitude that I know WTF I'm talking about, cause most of the time I do. Have I been wrong before? Sure. The real problem is that most casual fans get offended when someone speaks with conviction and knows their ****. The handful of people on here that football have gone toe to toe with me on subjects and THAT is what I like to see. Don't get mad at me if I talk like I know, just prove me wrong.

You can project the attitude that you know WTF you're talking about without being a dyckhead...just sayin.

Explain "being a ****head" because I haven't insulted or belittled anybody that didn't attack me first. Sometimes you can't help but be a ****head on here, especially if your opinion goes against the grain cause people will attack you.

I express my opinion and sometimes it goes against the popular. I don't come on here with my chest pumped out telling everybody they should listen to me cause I'm a somewhat successful high school coach. I only start talking **** like that when somebody attacks me and/or my knowledge. (which you can almost guarantee is gonna happen) Do some thorough reading and tell me who was the first to be a ****head. Go look somewhere around the 4th or 5th page and tell me who started with the insults and belittling.

 

[sebastian91]

I think WildCat brings some of the "just a high school coach" ***** on himself because of the attitude he projects. Maybe he's a great guy in person, but he's a real dyck on message boards. I respect his knowledge of football and enjoy when he breaks down specific plays...that said, I do think he could use an infusion of common sense on some things. There's a lot of assumption and speculation in some of his analyses, which he really shouldn't be doing without knowing what the specifics of a certain play call were...which he could only know by talking to the coaches and/or players. Just my take. I have no beef with him otherwise.

I project the attitude that I know WTF I'm talking about, cause most of the time I do. Have I been wrong before? Sure. The real problem is that most casual fans get offended when someone speaks with conviction and knows their ****. The handful of people on here that football have gone toe to toe with me on subjects and THAT is what I like to see. Don't get mad at me if I talk like I know, just prove me wrong.

You can project the attitude that you know WTF you're talking about without being a dyckhead...just sayin.

Explain "being a ****head" because I haven't insulted or belittled anybody that didn't attack me first. Sometimes you can't help but be a ****head on here, especially if your opinion goes against the grain cause people will attack you.

I express my opinion and sometimes it goes against the popular. I don't come on here with my chest pumped out telling everybody they should listen to me cause I'm a somewhat successful high school coach. I only start talking **** like that when somebody attacks me and/or my knowledge. (which you can almost guarantee is gonna happen) Do some thorough reading and tell me who was the first to be a ****head.

You started this thread with a ****head post.

 

[Coach Macho]

I think WildCat brings some of the "just a high school coach" ***** on himself because of the attitude he projects. Maybe he's a great guy in person, but he's a real dyck on message boards. I respect his knowledge of football and enjoy when he breaks down specific plays...that said, I do think he could use an infusion of common sense on some things. There's a lot of assumption and speculation in some of his analyses, which he really shouldn't be doing without knowing what the specifics of a certain play call were...which he could only know by talking to the coaches and/or players. Just my take. I have no beef with him otherwise.

I project the attitude that I know WTF I'm talking about, cause most of the time I do. Have I been wrong before? Sure. The real problem is that most casual fans get offended when someone speaks with conviction and knows their ****. The handful of people on here that football have gone toe to toe with me on subjects and THAT is what I like to see. Don't get mad at me if I talk like I know, just prove me wrong.

You can project the attitude that you know WTF you're talking about without being a dyckhead...just sayin.

Explain "being a ****head" because I haven't insulted or belittled anybody that didn't attack me first. Sometimes you can't help but be a ****head on here, especially if your opinion goes against the grain cause people will attack you.

I express my opinion and sometimes it goes against the popular. I don't come on here with my chest pumped out telling everybody they should listen to me cause I'm a somewhat successful high school coach. I only start talking **** like that when somebody attacks me and/or my knowledge. (which you can almost guarantee is gonna happen) Do some thorough reading and tell me who was the first to be a ****head.

You started this thread with a ****head post.

LOL. Cause it's different than what the majority might think? The ****?

 

[sebastian91]

I project the attitude that I know WTF I'm talking about, cause most of the time I do. Have I been wrong before? Sure. The real problem is that most casual fans get offended when someone speaks with conviction and knows their ****. The handful of people on here that football have gone toe to toe with me on subjects and THAT is what I like to see. Don't get mad at me if I talk like I know, just prove me wrong.

You can project the attitude that you know WTF you're talking about without being a dyckhead...just sayin.

Explain "being a ****head" because I haven't insulted or belittled anybody that didn't attack me first. Sometimes you can't help but be a ****head on here, especially if your opinion goes against the grain cause people will attack you.

I express my opinion and sometimes it goes against the popular. I don't come on here with my chest pumped out telling everybody they should listen to me cause I'm a somewhat successful high school coach. I only start talking **** like that when somebody attacks me and/or my knowledge. (which you can almost guarantee is gonna happen) Do some thorough reading and tell me who was the first to be a ****head.

You started this thread with a ****head post.

LOL. Cause it's different than what the majority might think? The ****?

Nope. It's all in the delivery. Read it again.

 

[Coach Macho]

Easy to defend? How do you figure that?

Every pass play cuts the field in half. Do you think the QB is sitting there looking at both sides of the field. His primary and secondary read are almost always on the same side of the field.







A roll out cuts the field in half period. I am not saying it is bad to roll out. It actually simplifies reads. Which is a good thing for Morris. Make no mistake no tom Brady or Drew Brees is rolling out more than once a game if at all.

And what difference does it make if you cut the field in half? Is the defense gonna move their other defenders over? LOL

The field is always cut in half for a QB anyway. He doesn't sit there and scan the whole field.

 

[Coach Macho]

Duke could run harder? Hahahahahaha


Lost me there.

Open your eyes and watch the replay. Tell me he's goin full tilt on that 4th down play or that play where he had to reverse field. Watch it and tell me he doesn't unnecessarily stutter step before hitting the hole.

What hole? There was no hole.

Watch again. If you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[AtrainCane]

well, well, well. What do we have here.....

 

[Coach Macho]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[AtrainCane]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

We tried to tell them....

 

[Miami82]

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.

You mentioned specific years where we ran "heavy" Cover 3. It's a totally different scheme and asks the LBs to play zones that our LBs were never "heavily" asked to play. We played far more man underneath than we ever did Cover 3. We brought a Safety down more often when Shannon's strict 2-deep began to show its limitations because we couldn't get the same rush from our front 4 and guys were chasing all over the field. Strictly citing Greg Threat's tackles as "proof" that we played Cover 3 is flawed.

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.

I don't really disagree with anything you said there, which is weird because it seems to contradict what you said in the original post. You openly claimed that scheme was irrelevant: "the scheme is not really important...if it was, everyone would run the same thing." What you're writing in this more recent post makes sense and I don't disagree we're still hamstrung and have consciously chosen to play a certain way. I've said as much in dozens of posts.

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.

Again, not sure what any of that has to do with what you stated earlier. You said "No DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it..." That's not true. There are poor fits. Bad decisions by coordinators exist. They're human. What works in one place with great LBs (Manny Diaz's year at Ole Miss and his first year at Texas) may not work in another scenario (when he had different LBs/Ends doing what he wanted them to do). Scheme *is* important in the very sense that the execution of the players has to be a good match for their skill sets.

I answered in red above.

I came across this post. For an interesting take on "scheme matters". Lots of good conversation in this thread.

 

[AZHurricane]

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.

You mentioned specific years where we ran "heavy" Cover 3. It's a totally different scheme and asks the LBs to play zones that our LBs were never "heavily" asked to play. We played far more man underneath than we ever did Cover 3. We brought a Safety down more often when Shannon's strict 2-deep began to show its limitations because we couldn't get the same rush from our front 4 and guys were chasing all over the field. Strictly citing Greg Threat's tackles as "proof" that we played Cover 3 is flawed.

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.

I don't really disagree with anything you said there, which is weird because it seems to contradict what you said in the original post. You openly claimed that scheme was irrelevant: "the scheme is not really important...if it was, everyone would run the same thing." What you're writing in this more recent post makes sense and I don't disagree we're still hamstrung and have consciously chosen to play a certain way. I've said as much in dozens of posts.

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.

Again, not sure what any of that has to do with what you stated earlier. You said "No DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it..." That's not true. There are poor fits. Bad decisions by coordinators exist. They're human. What works in one place with great LBs (Manny Diaz's year at Ole Miss and his first year at Texas) may not work in another scenario (when he had different LBs/Ends doing what he wanted them to do). Scheme *is* important in the very sense that the execution of the players has to be a good match for their skill sets.

I answered in red above.

I came across this post. For an interesting take on "scheme matters". Lots of good conversation in this thread.

I was never convinced that the "PennmedCanefan" who posted on this board was the original from Grassy. Not as smart or succinct.

 

[Miami82]

I was never convinced that the "PennmedCanefan" who posted on this board was the original from Grassy. Not as smart or succinct.

Agreed, still a pretty good thread.

 

[AUcane]

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.

You mentioned specific years where we ran "heavy" Cover 3. It's a totally different scheme and asks the LBs to play zones that our LBs were never "heavily" asked to play. We played far more man underneath than we ever did Cover 3. We brought a Safety down more often when Shannon's strict 2-deep began to show its limitations because we couldn't get the same rush from our front 4 and guys were chasing all over the field. Strictly citing Greg Threat's tackles as "proof" that we played Cover 3 is flawed.

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.

I don't really disagree with anything you said there, which is weird because it seems to contradict what you said in the original post. You openly claimed that scheme was irrelevant: "the scheme is not really important...if it was, everyone would run the same thing." What you're writing in this more recent post makes sense and I don't disagree we're still hamstrung and have consciously chosen to play a certain way. I've said as much in dozens of posts.

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.

Again, not sure what any of that has to do with what you stated earlier. You said "No DC runs an inferior system or he wouldn't run it..." That's not true. There are poor fits. Bad decisions by coordinators exist. They're human. What works in one place with great LBs (Manny Diaz's year at Ole Miss and his first year at Texas) may not work in another scenario (when he had different LBs/Ends doing what he wanted them to do). Scheme *is* important in the very sense that the execution of the players has to be a good match for their skill sets.

I answered in red above.

I came across this post. For an interesting take on "scheme matters". Lots of good conversation in this thread.

I was never convinced that the "PennmedCanefan" who posted on this board was the original from Grassy. Not as smart or succinct.

Graduating med school made him lazy. -

 

[Marcelo2988]

Coach Macho pretty much had everything right except the Walford s.hit

Walford looks pretty good now huh?

 

[DiegoCane]

Coach Macho pretty much had everything right except the Walford s.hit

Walford looks pretty good now huh?

Coach Macho had it right on the defense, then he talked to D'O a few times and changed him mind. Should have stuck to his guns

 

[poncho0091]

Coach Macho pretty much had everything right except the Walford s.hit

Walford looks pretty good now huh?

Coach Macho had it right on the defense, then he talked to D'O a few times and changed him mind. Should have stuck to his guns

This is the first thing that comes to mind. He was a complete 180 last year from what he said in this thread.

 

[DomWorld_Peace]

Does anyone honestly think D'Onofrio is running the defense independent of Golden? Changing DCs doesn't change the scheme.

BTW I don't have a problem with the scheme. Guys aren't executing. You mentioned the AJ Highsmith play. He made at least 3 or 4 negative plays today. AQM had Winston in the backfield twice on 3rd downs, but he didn't bring him to the ground. You have to make plays when the opportunities are there.

As for the spot-dropping, I don't know. I think it's more likely our LBs suck at pattern recognition. Cornileus has ZERO awareness, and yet he seems to be a trusted Nickel LB.

For me it's most certainly a talent issue.

oh