forums

NAME YOUR DC FOR NEXT YEAR

Advertisement
mjackson6 said:
**** poor LB play is the gateway to the suck of this defense. They aren’t good at blitzing, aren’t good in coverage, take bad angles in the run game, they’re slow, and the consistently get themselves out of position. Hard to mask deficiencies when there are no efficiencies that they can use to cover it up. Bad recruiting and identification of talent. Trending towards this athletic and Swiss army defense everywhere except LB where we continue to recruit downhill plodders that aren’t versatile.

Plug in Shaq and Pinckney and it’s the same defense or better than years past. Not because they’re any more athletic or versatile but they stay in the right position, don’t take bad angles, and they tackle consistently. They also had a knack for timely blitzes. Hope Flagg, Brooks, Huff, and Cave get it figured out before next year.
Click to expand...
But isn’t the fact that we can’t get coach up the LBs to stay in the right position and not take bad angles, not consistently fall for misdirection a huge red flag? Clemson can get walk ons with limited athleticism playing sound football, with worse physical limitations. Not getting guys to play disciplined football falls squarely on the coaching, regardless of talent.
 
AllAboutTheU said:
Clemson can get walk ons with limited athleticism playing sound football, with worse physical limitations. Not getting guys to play disciplined football falls squarely on the coaching, regardless of talent.
Click to expand...

Those LBs get on the field because of their IQs. Clemson turns down more athletic prospects in favor of those guys because they are easier to coach and you can put more on them.

This isn’t an excuse for our coaches because they recruited these players. But to me, the simple explanation is the right one. We’re a Top 35 defense instead of a Top 15 defense because we have bad linebackers.
 
The problem is I don’t see Manny hiring an independent DC like he did with OC. Due to his defensive background, I think he’d go with someone he’s familiar with like Baker who is just an extension of Diaz with Diaz still having a main say in staff choices, so his buddies will still hang around.
 
Advertisement
DMoney said:
Those LBs get on the field because of their IQs. Clemson turns down more athletic prospects in favor of those guys because they are easier to coach and you can put more on them.

This isn’t an excuse for our coaches because they recruited these players. But to me, the simple explanation is the right one. We’re a Top 35 defense instead of a Top 15 defense because we have bad linebackers.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but safety play has been inconsistent and corner play has teetered as well. But with respect to the LBs, the coaching staff is trying to sell us that it hasn’t been bad in their comments, versus telling us that they expect more out of veteran backers. There’s some disconnect with what we’re seeing on the field and what I’m hearing Blake Baker say weekly.
 
AllAboutTheU said:
But isn’t the fact that we can’t get coach up the LBs to stay in the right position and not take bad angles, not consistently fall for misdirection a huge red flag? Clemson can get walk ons with limited athleticism playing sound football, with worse physical limitations. Not getting guys to play disciplined football falls squarely on the coaching, regardless of talent.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I wouldn’t dispute otherwise. It may be a different conversation if Baker/Manny didn’t also coach and recruit every LB on the roster. Granted they’ve had some tough luck with injuries to Steed and Jennings and lost Wilder for good. I like a lot of guys in that room and it might look a lot different with Wilder on the field. I’m more concern with why Brooks and Huff can’t get up to speed.. their athleticism alone could mask all the inefficiencies they may have within the scheme.

Especially considering that McCloud and Jennings haven’t blown the staff away with their alignment and taking care of their responsibilities. They admit that themselves. Makes me question even more why the young guys can’t play more.. basically beating a dead horse harping on that at this point. Everyone who watches a Miami game and knows who is on our roster could tell you that. So either they whiffed in recruiting again or they’re not willing to give/take away opportunities. Both are concerning.
 
DMoney said:
It’s Manny’s defense. If you have problems with the scheme, it’s Manny’s scheme.

People are talking about the calls, but I suspect the real reason our defense is worse is that we have bad LBs. Manny is the one who recruited them.

The other issue is that CFB is becoming an arcade game. We aren’t even that bad statistically- in the 30s in scoring defense and yards per play. We aren’t near the elite, but that has more to do with our lack of elite talent at certain positions.
Click to expand...
Hard to ignore the improvement last year when manny took over. I don’t think this defense is as lacking in talent as is being made out to be.
 
Advertisement
RemainMack said:
No I read it correctly. You struggle with quite a bit so I’ll help you.

1. No again the 3 million part did not go over my head. We dont have to have a 3 million dollar roster to have a much better defense than what Blake Baker has been giving us and/or to run a 3-4 or any other defense. Where on earth did you come up with that? Pretty stupid comment. We already have a lot of guys or current recruits who could be ends in a 3-4: Harrison-hunte, L Taylor, etc. And guys like Harvey or cameron williams could be Outside linebackers. Our roster already has a lot of translatability from a scheme and athleticism standpoint. And not even discussing a 3-4 yes we can have a much better defense in general with a lot of the coaches mentioned in this thread.

2. You struggle (like most on this board) with the difference between a trend and several outliers. Georgia has had a GREAT defense since Smart has been there. You can’t hand pick numbers you want and I’ll go based on trends:

This year post Uf loss: 21 in scoring defense still 29 in total defense despite playing several top ten offenses in the country.
2019: number 4 in total defense, first in scoring defense
2018: 13th in total defense, 20th on scoring defense
2017: 4th in total defense, 4th in scoring defense

On average only Clemson has been better overall in the last 4 years. Who else has been better? So another stupid comment.

3. Your comments about us not having the money and roster to have the same roster as those teams or have a better fit to south Florida guys DOES tie in to Golden and Donofrio. You aren’t just saying that the system won’t work because we can’t buy elite talent or it requires certain ‘types’ lol. You also have a tainted opinion of the 3-4 and thinking it’s a poor fit due to what Donofrio did here (s fl kids need an attacking 4-3). It’s implied by comments like ‘types’ etc which makes no sense given what we already have on our roster and what we would have access to in the future.

Unfortunately a lot of the guys I mentioned don’t just explicitly run a 3-4 either in their schemes (going multiple). you don’t have to have a 3 million dollar roster to run it.
Click to expand...
I disagree with what you said about their linebackers. Those guys are freaks. They looked bad because they were put in bad positions by their coaches who didn’t adjust. Also credit to Mullen for exploiting it. They threw a million wheel routes and they worked. But those guys are good. Rice and dean are legit as ****
 
dirtyred786 said:
I was a little hesitant to believe Manny took over, however the CB blitz from Couch was very Manny-ish. When Manny was DC we saw how he consistently used the corner blitz with Mike Jackson, Bandy and other guys. When Baker took over it stopped. Baker seems more apt to bringing safeties from the secondary. I can't recall many CB blitzes this season actually. Now in a crucial moment last night, when its rumored Manny took over, we saw a CB blitz, a Manny defensive staple.
Click to expand...
Baker likes blitzing the safety from N. Miami Ave.
 
Back
Top