question for the "scheme is the problem" camp..

[moshated305]

The two best pass rushing DE's on the defense last year where Ojomo and Vernon. Although Vernon missed significant time due to suspension, he didn't bring anything to the table in terms of pass rushing ability once he returned. The same can be said for Ojomo before moving inside. Yet I watched Ojomo this preseason with the G-men get consistent pressure off the edge. Am I to believe he figured out how to rush the passer since joining the G-men? Ditto for OVernon. These guys are natural upfield DE's. The system they played in under coach D limited their athleticism and playmaking ability as edge rushers. For goodness sakes, Vernon even played some inside linebacker out of a 30 front against FSU last year. I mean, really? No one is going to deny that talent matters, but schemes play an important role in maximizing talent. It is my opinion that the current talent isn't being used to its maximal potential.

They weren't racking up sack totals under Shannon either who wanted his DEs getting up-field lol Maybe getting some NFL coaching and money on the line gave Ojomo more motivation. It has happened before Sam Shields, DVD and Bruce Johnson were laughed at on these boards when the NFL was brought up. They all actually made teams and played significant roles early.

No, they didn't rack up sacks, but they provided more pressure early in their careers under Shannon than they did last year with coach D as upper classmen.

DVD was a very good cover corner. The debate use to be who was best between he and RHill. My take was that if you wanted a cover corner DVD was your man. However, if you wanted a force, zone corner "cloud" RHill was more physical and better suited in that role. Shields' primary problem as a first year corner was locating the ball. Dude had the athletisim and speed needed to be a productive CB. Just on speed alone meant someone would give him an opportunity. BJohnson kind of reminded me of a poor man's DStarkes. That said, I understand your premise in that money is a great incentive,lol.

I agree, not all that happy with the play-calling on either side but I do see limited players on the field, especially on defense. People claim that this defense can't be aggressive or make plays behind the line of scrimmage but that Wilkerson kid had 70 tackles, 13 for loss and 9.5 sacks his Junior year so I don't buy the we can't be successfully with Coach D's defense. I know it takes time and I know no scheme calls for our DTs to be pushed back into our safeties lap the way Darius Smith was much of the day against KState.

 

[Staybon]

Look man....his defense is ranked 114. That is horrifying. Its not justifiable. It just isn't. Tell urself whatever u need to to sleep at night. I know enough to know that he is doing a bad job. At his current run rate he needs 1st rounders at virtually every position to field a strong defense. Guess what???? That ain't happening any time soon. He won't be around for that day at this rate. Don't kid urself.

He better get his head out of the sand and find a way to field a competent defense before we start playing the big boys.

It all start up front.. if we can't get pressure our defense is going to continue to look terrible. Now one thing that he could and should change right now is the aggressiveness of the scheme. We can't continue to be ok with not getting pressure on the QB.

thing is we went 3 DL with Cain and Cornelius moving around and both blitzed. we should have gotten the sack but Cain just missed the QB. The play call was good though. How many other times did he make that call? zero. how many times against BC? 1 time maybe? Coming into the season I was posting that we'd probably have to do that to make up for lack of pure pass rushers. So if its obvious enough for me to see then why not call it more? especially when it did provide a pressure and should have provided a sack? There are things the DC has available that most good DCs actually use and yet he sticks to the same stuff that's not even remotely working. Hopefully when they look at film they decide to use that more going forward, but its frustrating considering coming into the year we knew the personnel and their limitations. Shouldn't be a surprise that we can't get a pass rush from just lining up 4 guys and telling them to get to the QB.

 

[Staybon]

The two best pass rushing DE's on the defense last year where Ojomo and Vernon. Although Vernon missed significant time due to suspension, he didn't bring anything to the table in terms of pass rushing ability once he returned. The same can be said for Ojomo before moving inside. Yet I watched Ojomo this preseason with the G-men get consistent pressure off the edge. Am I to believe he figured out how to rush the passer since joining the G-men? Ditto for OVernon. These guys are natural upfield DE's. The system they played in under coach D limited their athleticism and playmaking ability as edge rushers. For goodness sakes, Vernon even played some inside linebacker out of a 30 front against FSU last year. I mean, really? No one is going to deny that talent matters, but schemes play an important role in maximizing talent. It is my opinion that the current talent isn't being used to its maximal potential.

They weren't racking up sack totals under Shannon either who wanted his DEs getting up-field lol Maybe getting some NFL coaching and money on the line gave Ojomo more motivation. It has happened before Sam Shields, DVD and Bruce Johnson were laughed at on these boards when the NFL was brought up. They all actually made teams and played significant roles early.

No, they didn't rack up sacks, but they provided more pressure early in their careers under Shannon than they did last year with coach D as upper classmen.

DVD was a very good cover corner. The debate use to be who was best between he and RHill. My take was that if you wanted a cover corner DVD was your man. However, if you wanted a force, zone corner "cloud" RHill was more physical and better suited in that role. Shields' primary problem as a first year corner was locating the ball. Dude had the athletisim and speed needed to be a productive CB. Just on speed alone meant someone would give him an opportunity. BJohnson kind of reminded me of a poor man's DStarkes. That said, I understand your premise in that money is a great incentive,lol.

I agree, not all that happy with the play-calling on either side but I do see limited players on the field, especially on defense. People claim that this defense can't be aggressive or make plays behind the line of scrimmage but that Wilkerson kid had 70 tackles, 13 for loss and 9.5 sacks his Junior year so I don't buy the we can't be successfully with Coach D's defense. I know it takes time and I know no scheme calls for our DTs to be pushed back into our safeties lap the way Darius Smith was much of the day against KState.

Wilkerson could be seen as the exemption to the rule. and that year where he put up 9.5 sacks by himself the team as a whole put up 24. That was in 2010 after they had improved their defense so much according to our DC. 24 sacks in the MAC with a 1st round DL on the roster who should free things up for other guys. And to make things worse 14 of those 24 sacks came in a 3 game span of Kent State (finished with 5 wins), Buffalo (finished with 2 wins) and Akron (finished with 1 win). The only other games where they registered more than 1 sack were against a 2-10 team and a 4-8 team. 5 games of 2 sacks or more (includes 3 games against teams with 2 wins or less) and 7 games of 1 sack or less (they went sackless against Ohio).

stats say that our DC's scheme just doesn't provide much when it comes to sacks/pressures - although they did have 34 sacks in 2009. but just 18 in 2008 and 20 in 2007. 1 year over 24 in his last four as a DC there. btw we only had 24 sacks last year with him and if we reach 24 this year I think most would be happy.

 

[Staybon]

and **** just looked up 2011 stats for Temple. 33 sacks and the opponents points per game went down 6. and their INTs as a defense went up 6.


this year they already got 8 sacks.

 

[CanesAreAble]

and **** just looked up 2011 stats for Temple. 33 sacks and the opponents points per game went down 6. and their INTs as a defense went up 6.


this year they already got 8 sacks.

Didn't they just give up 36 to Maryland?

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

Nobody would ever tell you that a system matters more than players for a defense. Defense isn't that complicated. I'm not sure what the point is. In fact, there is no point in that. The talent is certainly poor. Nobody could argue that. The coaches themselves have already acknowledged that they need to re-evaluate their system and thus they've implicated it in the current troubles.

Moreso on this board the question is whether these guys run some fatally flawed defensive scheme. That I cannot acknowledge. With talent and experience, the things they want to do may very well work fine. Right now, they don't have that. This defense was never going to look great and the fans were bound to complain. Nonetheless, what they've got to decide is how best to adjust their system to maximize their productivity--make the fans complain less.

You routinely assaulted prior defensive regimes who also dealt with these types of issues at points (mediocre old guys + young guys) yet never finished worse than 30ish in defense. Last year we were 45th. Right now we are 118th. It's curious to see you try to defend them with this type of irrelevant post.

 

[DaU83]

Nobody would ever tell you that a system matters more than players for a defense. Defense isn't that complicated. I'm not sure what the point is. In fact, there is no point in that. The talent is certainly poor. Nobody could argue that. The coaches themselves have already acknowledged that they need to re-evaluate their system and thus they've implicated it in the current troubles.

Moreso on this board the question is whether these guys run some fatally flawed defensive scheme. That I cannot acknowledge. With talent and experience, the things they want to do may very well work fine. Right now, they don't have that. This defense was never going to look great and the fans were bound to complain. Nonetheless, what they've got to decide is how best to adjust their system to maximize their productivity--make the fans complain less.

You routinely assaulted prior defensive regimes who also dealt with these types of issues at points (mediocre old guys + young guys) yet never finished worse than 30ish in defense. Last year we were 45th. Right now we are 118th. It's curious to see you try to defend them with this type of irrelevant post.

I'm not really trying to defend them, i'm just bringing up a valid point, that with the crap we have on D... we really can't say "it's definitely the scheme". Now, when it comes to not getting pressure and not being aggressive, I think the scheme can be blamed for that. And you're right, i did routinely assault our prior defensive regimes for sucking, because we had had at least 8 years of continuity on that side of the ball and the head man was recruiting all those guys who sucked when he was HC.. We knew it was a scheme issue because randy had his guys in there... Right now, Golden and D'Onof don't, so i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Staybon]

and **** just looked up 2011 stats for Temple. 33 sacks and the opponents points per game went down 6. and their INTs as a defense went up 6.


this year they already got 8 sacks.

Didn't they just give up 36 to Maryland?

we just gave up 52 to a team that scored multiple times with their back ups running the same 3 running plays. at least they had turnovers deep in their own territory to start their game to help contribute to those points. K State just did it the old fashioned way. Rammed it down our throat over and over.

they still have 8 sacks this year. still improved the defense in their first year minus a #1 draft pick and a draft pick of a safety with a complete turnover in the defensive coaches. our DC talks about how they turned around that Temple defense and paints a picture of it being a top notch unit. It didn't give up a ton of points on average but factor a lot of that is built off playing absolutely horrible competition. How many 2 win teams can you have in one conference?

 

[Insanecane]

I'll take scheme and Saban like coaching over players at this point. With the right scheme and coaching these young players will get better. Without the right scheme and coaching they will fail to develop ala most of the canes these past 9 years.

 

[Dingaan1828]

I would take Bama or LSU's players.

It's amazing how many people chose to answer a different question from the one the OP asked.

 

[Bicho]

Bicho ponders how temple played good d under golden with such horrible schemes?

 

[DaU83]

I would take Bama or LSU's players.

It's amazing how many people chose to answer a different question from the one the OP asked.

because the answer is not conducive to the "fire D'Onof" "the scheme sucks" posts.. the reality is that our talent on D needs time to mature.. that doesn't excuse how bad we are.. but it doesn't help for microwave results.

 

[dolewhipit18]

This is a pretty bad hypothetical.

I don't think most people think our scheme is bad, it's just bad given the players we have on the field. You can't only rush 4 guys with a poorly skilled and undersized defensive line like ours. You just can't. We get ZERO pressure.

 

[DaU83]

This is a pretty bad hypothetical.

I don't think most people think our scheme is bad, it's just bad given the players we have on the field. You can't only rush 4 guys with a poorly skilled and undersized defensive line like ours. You just can't. We get ZERO pressure.

i agree... but knowing what we know about golden, he doesn't seem like the type to do something outside of the "process" just to put a bandaid on a problem..

 

[Staybon]

This is a pretty bad hypothetical.

I don't think most people think our scheme is bad, it's just bad given the players we have on the field. You can't only rush 4 guys with a poorly skilled and undersized defensive line like ours. You just can't. We get ZERO pressure.

even with first round talent among his DL his Temple teams still didn't get sacks often. He's been in a situation where his talent was better than the other teams talent and he still wasn't getting much pressure. Two years here with the same results and 4 or 5 at Temple with the same results - his scheme doesn't produce many sacks. The numbers back up that fact. 6 years as a DC and only 1 year did his defense total more than 24 sacks.

 

[weownfsu]

Nobody would ever tell you that a system matters more than players for a defense. Defense isn't that complicated. I'm not sure what the point is. In fact, there is no point in that. The talent is certainly poor. Nobody could argue that. The coaches themselves have already acknowledged that they need to re-evaluate their system and thus they've implicated it in the current troubles.

Moreso on this board the question is whether these guys run some fatally flawed defensive scheme. That I cannot acknowledge. With talent and experience, the things they want to do may very well work fine. Right now, they don't have that. This defense was never going to look great and the fans were bound to complain. Nonetheless, what they've got to decide is how best to adjust their system to maximize their productivity--make the fans complain less.

You routinely assaulted prior defensive regimes who also dealt with these types of issues at points (mediocre old guys + young guys) yet never finished worse than 30ish in defense. Last year we were 45th. Right now we are 118th. It's curious to see you try to defend them with this type of irrelevant post.

I'm not really trying to defend them, i'm just bringing up a valid point, that with the crap we have on D... we really can't say "it's definitely the scheme". Now, when it comes to not getting pressure and not being aggressive, I think the scheme can be blamed for that. And you're right, i did routinely assault our prior defensive regimes for sucking, because we had had at least 8 years of continuity on that side of the ball and the head man was recruiting all those guys who sucked when he was HC.. We knew it was a scheme issue because randy had his guys in there... Right now, Golden and D'Onof don't, so i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

And now that they once again have their guys in there, you still give them the benefit of the doubt. This is comical.