Regarding Diaz...

[NorthFlaCane]

I understand the board is divided. I don't know if our players fit his system. I do know I'm tired of watching of watching opposing qbs sit in the pocket with 10 seconds waiting for wrs to get open. So if we do nothing else but attack the qb and blitz and put pressure on the qb, I'm down with that.

When are you going to pay Bullishnole?

 

[IndayArtHauz]

Not as high as BC or Wisconsin ...

Where was Clemson's defense ranked?

Dig those stilletos in.

6th in the nation...I'm sorry look at those rankings 7 of those 10 teams were in the chase for their respective conference championships or won them. It would've been 8 if matty mauk woulda stayed healthy. Also all four playoff teams are in the top 10

Nah. We don't need to get back to fielding top 10 defenses because Houston beat FSU in the Dyckface Bowl.

Man sponsorships are getting out of control.

 

[Zbrod95]

But none of the top 4 in 2014 finished top 10 in total D ... How is that possible? 4 outliers, in the same year?

And 2 of the final 4 this year finished outside the top 25 ...

Not as high as BC or Wisconsin ...

Who cares if we have a top 10 defense if we're playing for national titles in the next 2-3 years?!?!

The stat debates have proven that surface evaluations of Diaz prove him to be average. While the advance stats prove him to be above average. Great! That's history!

What matters most is what he does going forward.

I couldn't care less about where our defenses rank if we're winning titles.

I want to win on Saturdays, and have 15 game college seasons.

Clemson doesn't care that their defense didn't shut down UNC. They care that they won the game.

And I guarantee BC would give up some of their defensive rankings for more wins.

Where was Clemson's defense ranked?

Dig those stilletos in.

B/C 90% of the teams who won a title since at least 1999 (haven't looked further back) had top ten defenses. So connecting the dots for you, it is essentially a key component to winning a title. Get it?

Not really.

So if we fall into the 10% of champions who don't have an elite defense, you're gonna complain?

I don;t think you really understand how this works. You don't pick the numbers. It's just what happens. 90% of the time, you require a top 10 defense to win a title. The odds are tremebdously against you otherwise. Not having one is referred to as an outlier, an anomaly.

Understand yet?

type in ncaa.com defensive rankings and it'll show you two playoff teams are in the top 10 in defense and you'll also see that a whole bunch of those teams were in the chase for conference championships and were also in discussion for the playoff

 

[Zbrod95]

My bad Oklahoma finished 39th this year

 

[Zbrod95]

But none of the top 4 in 2014 finished top 10 in total D ... How is that possible? 4 outliers, in the same year?

And 2 of the final 4 this year finished outside the top 25 ...

Not as high as BC or Wisconsin ...

Dig those stilletos in.

Not really.

So if we fall into the 10% of champions who don't have an elite defense, you're gonna complain?

I don;t think you really understand how this works. You don't pick the numbers. It's just what happens. 90% of the time, you require a top 10 defense to win a title. The odds are tremebdously against you otherwise. Not having one is referred to as an outlier, an anomaly.

Understand yet?

what are you talking about dude?? type in ncaa.com defensive rankings and it'll show you three playoff teams are in the top 10 in defense

Only Alabama and Clemson are Top 10 in total defense. Only Alabama is Top 10 in scoring defense.

Yea I noticed when I double checked bro..I misread the first time

 

[Pentagon Cane]

My bad Oklahoma finished 39th this year

Only Alabama and Clemson were Top 10 in total defense. Clemson was #16 in scoring defense. Only Alabama was Top 10 in that category.

 

[MIATL]

Cfbstats.com

Total defense:

Bama = 2
Clemson = 6
Michigan State = 26
Oklahoma = 39

And just for giggles ...

Stanford ranks 43 ... Just behind Georgia Tech at 42. Cuz, ya know, rankings tell the whole story ...

But none of the top 4 in 2014 finished top 10 in total D ... How is that possible? 4 outliers, in the same year?

And 2 of the final 4 this year finished outside the top 25 ...

Not as high as BC or Wisconsin ...

Where was Clemson's defense ranked?

Dig those stilletos in.

B/C 90% of the teams who won a title since at least 1999 (haven't looked further back) had top ten defenses. So connecting the dots for you, it is essentially a key component to winning a title. Get it?

Not really.

So if we fall into the 10% of champions who don't have an elite defense, you're gonna complain?

I don;t think you really understand how this works. You don't pick the numbers. It's just what happens. 90% of the time, you require a top 10 defense to win a title. The odds are tremebdously against you otherwise. Not having one is referred to as an outlier, an anomaly.

Understand yet?

what are you talking about dude?? type in ncaa.com defensive rankings and it'll show you three playoff teams are in the top 10 in defense

 

[armstead98]

2016 Canes defense should be "top 25", without a doubt. Solid, experienced players across all 3 levels of the defense - and by my count at least 4 upper classmen with a pretty good shot at all-ACC (Corn, Muhammed, Grace, RJenkins). Plenty of others with breakout potential and all in I'd be surprised if there aren't at least 10 guys who will play in at least a few NFL games.

 

[Zbrod95]

Cfbstats.com

Total defense:

Bama = 2
Clemson = 6
Michigan State = 26
Oklahoma = 39

And just for giggles ...

Stanford ranks 43 ... Just behind Georgia Tech at 42. Cuz, ya know, rankings tell the whole story ...

But none of the top 4 in 2014 finished top 10 in total D ... How is that possible? 4 outliers, in the same year?

And 2 of the final 4 this year finished outside the top 25 ...

Not as high as BC or Wisconsin ...

Dig those stilletos in.

Not really.

So if we fall into the 10% of champions who don't have an elite defense, you're gonna complain?

I don;t think you really understand how this works. You don't pick the numbers. It's just what happens. 90% of the time, you require a top 10 defense to win a title. The odds are tremebdously against you otherwise. Not having one is referred to as an outlier, an anomaly.

Understand yet?

what are you talking about dude?? type in ncaa.com defensive rankings and it'll show you three playoff teams are in the top 10 in defense

ok your right I misread but give me this go look at Alabama's ranking since Saban has been there and then tell me if they weren't at the least top 15 defenses. I promise you 85-90% were. I'm not interested in a championship I'm interested in what bama has. I want teams to **** themselves when they walk into sun life like they used to in the ob, I want the 50 game home winning streak back, I want all that back.

 

[Miami82]

I think a few people dramatically overreacting are making the community seem more divided than it is. You have a handful of blowhards who think this guy is absolutely terrible, and who are either trolls or not capable of getting over their own preconceived notions. However, beyond that it seems like most people see this as it is. We hired a pretty good defensive coordinator, who runs the style we prefer and has shown flashes of significant upside. Most of the rational debate is considering whether he can duplicate the instant success he has shown in his last 4 stops and then sustain it at some level beyond "pretty good".

This wasn't a sure thing hire by any means, but the real conversation is trying to see whether he projects from good to great and whether he can take the next step past that.

So you are calling Lucane a troll and a blowhard?

Why is it when a poster points out a weakness he is a troll or a blowhard? I didn't see you in that thread countering anything GS was stating. He actually gave substantive evidence to back up his claim. Where were you?

 

[brcane1]

I think a few people dramatically overreacting are making the community seem more divided than it is. You have a handful of blowhards who think this guy is absolutely terrible, and who are either trolls or not capable of getting over their own preconceived notions. However, beyond that it seems like most people see this as it is. We hired a pretty good defensive coordinator, who runs the style we prefer and has shown flashes of significant upside. Most of the rational debate is considering whether he can duplicate the instant success he has shown in his last 4 stops and then sustain it at some level beyond "pretty good".

This wasn't a sure thing hire by any means, but the real conversation is trying to see whether he projects from good to great and whether he can take the next step past that.

So you are calling Lucane a troll and a blowhard?

Why is it when a poster points out a weakness he is a troll or a blowhard? I didn't see you in that thread countering anything GS was stating. He actually gave substantive evidence to back up his claim. Where were you?

Not at all. If you had seen his recent posts, you'd see that "pretty good" but not sure he is much better (while discussing it reasonably and objectively) is right where Lu is at. There is a big difference between that, and what some of the folks are doing.

 

[FullyERicht]

So a guy posts how Clemson and Bama both have top 10 Ds.

Then declares that we don't need top 10 Ds.

You are aware that those are the teams in the finals right? One of those teams gonna win a title, adding to the absurdly high percentage of teams to win a title sporting top 10 defenses (90%).

We have fans that are so desperate to convince themselves that we hired a good coach that they now no longer think elite defense matters at Miami.

 

[brcane1]

Further ***** and giggles: OU/MSU/Clemson/BAMA all are in the top 15 in advanced stats (FEI) and top 12 in (S&P+). It's almost like the comprehensive, contextualized defensive statistics do a better job indicating ability than the traditional. Advanced stats really like Diaz's defenses too.

Cfbstats.com

Total defense:

Bama = 2
Clemson = 6
Michigan State = 26
Oklahoma = 39

And just for giggles ...

Stanford ranks 43 ... Just behind Georgia Tech at 42. Cuz, ya know, rankings tell the whole story ...

But none of the top 4 in 2014 finished top 10 in total D ... How is that possible? 4 outliers, in the same year?

And 2 of the final 4 this year finished outside the top 25 ...

Not as high as BC or Wisconsin ...

Dig those stilletos in.

Not really.

So if we fall into the 10% of champions who don't have an elite defense, you're gonna complain?

I don;t think you really understand how this works. You don't pick the numbers. It's just what happens. 90% of the time, you require a top 10 defense to win a title. The odds are tremebdously against you otherwise. Not having one is referred to as an outlier, an anomaly.

Understand yet?

what are you talking about dude?? type in ncaa.com defensive rankings and it'll show you three playoff teams are in the top 10 in defense

 

[MetiSkeemz]

I look at a Diaz hire on defense like an Air Raid hire on offense. At least it'll be fun to watch even if the results aren't always great. It's going to be great to see us playing downhill on defense again.

The hope is that Diaz's philosophy will mesh perfectly with the talent base down here unlike at other stops where his results were either average or below average for the most part.

If he can't take the talent down here and consistently field top 10 defenses, then he's just an average DC. I don't want to hear any excuses for him. Either fix the defense to Miami standards, or you're a failure.

Absolutely stupid statement considering we don't have a standard and have seen multiple linemen get drafted and succeed in the NFL. While being mediocre.

 

[Ssoto0055]

Agree. The last defensive scheme was exactly that, defensive.

Don't you mean offensive? Look at how we played and how we got shredded.

 

[The Franchise]

Further ***** and giggles: OU/MSU/Clemson/BAMA all are in the top 15 in advanced stats (FEI) and top 12 in (S&P+). It's almost like the comprehensive, contextualized defensive statistics do a better job indicating ability than the traditional. Advanced stats really like Diaz's defenses too.

51 (FEI) and 37 (SP) is "really liking" in your opinion?

 

[407cane]

Further ****s and giggles: OU/MSU/Clemson/BAMA all are in the top 15 in advanced stats (FEI) and top 12 in (S&P+). It's almost like the comprehensive, contextualized defensive statistics do a better job indicating ability than the traditional. Advanced stats really like Diaz's defenses too.

51 (FEI) and 37 (SP) is "really liking" in your opinion?

No it is not for me at least. We agree there, but I do think it should be noted that Mississippi State lost 8 starters before this season and he had the unit performing nearly as well as they did the year prior (they ranked 26th in the same poll last year). No reason to indicate with his past success that they would have not improved this year under him. They also lost key contributors so it wasn't the simple case of addition by subtraction that we have been so accustomed to here with the likes of rogers, shayon green, crawford, etc.


not making excuses for the guy. I'm indifferent until I see him on our sideline and how we do, just saying it's fair to note that when discussing the numbers
SEC teams with the most returning starters in 2015

 

[clg003]

I think a few people dramatically overreacting are making the community seem more divided than it is. You have a handful of blowhards who think this guy is absolutely terrible, and who are either trolls or not capable of getting over their own preconceived notions. However, beyond that it seems like most people see this as it is. We hired a pretty good defensive coordinator, who runs the style we prefer and has shown flashes of significant upside. Most of the rational debate is considering whether he can duplicate the instant success he has shown in his last 4 stops and then sustain it at some level beyond "pretty good".

This wasn't a sure thing hire by any means, but the real conversation is trying to see whether he projects from good to great and whether he can take the next step past that.

I agree its like 5 dudes who are so butt hurt over Butch remaining on the coaching unemployed list that they all have joined this club to **** everyone else off.

There is no way your a Miami fan who knows Miami's history and the traits of a true Miami athlete who doesnt get excited about the DC hire.

Not one stat has stated how its a perfect for Miami talent. Fast aggressive and simple, just like Miami high school football.

There are no sure thing hires and if you look into our history this is the first time we have gone out and went after prime coaches and paid them like we are a FN SEC team.

There is a reason why most Miami coaches who get "it" have their careers made here and these hires prove that not only does Richt fully understand Miami football it also proves that we are finally out from under the "I hate football witch" that has tormented us for years.

To not be excited at this time for Miami football says your simply not a Miami fan.

 

[clg003]

I think a few people dramatically overreacting are making the community seem more divided than it is. You have a handful of blowhards who think this guy is absolutely terrible, and who are either trolls or not capable of getting over their own preconceived notions. However, beyond that it seems like most people see this as it is. We hired a pretty good defensive coordinator, who runs the style we prefer and has shown flashes of significant upside. Most of the rational debate is considering whether he can duplicate the instant success he has shown in his last 4 stops and then sustain it at some level beyond "pretty good".

This wasn't a sure thing hire by any means, but the real conversation is trying to see whether he projects from good to great and whether he can take the next step past that.

So you are calling Lucane a troll and a blowhard?

Why is it when a poster points out a weakness he is a troll or a blowhard? I didn't see you in that thread countering anything GS was stating. He actually gave substantive evidence to back up his claim. Where were you?

No don't even act like you guys are looking at things as objectively as luCane.

Lu says Diaz systems works best with the typical Miami athletes. Well guess what he will have here at Miami?

He also says he thinks his defense is overly complex which is an incorrect assumption. Diaz defense is known for being simple to learn and is evidence by his first year success that he has had at every single major program he has coached at.

He also says he is waiting and seeing and evaluating him further.

No where does he call him trash... no where. He is being cautiously objective.

You guys are clowns even using Lucane as someone that agrees with your obvious agenda driven hate bashing.

Your patterns are as obvious as Miami's helmet.

 

[brcane1]

That's cherry picking his worst season this decade at a new job with only 3 returning starters.

What I really meant is that the advanced stats look at him favorably compared to simpler traditional statistics that aren't adjusted for context. This season for instance mid 40s (splitting the difference between the two) is a substantial margin above what the raw yardage and scoring figures show. His defense is efficient for what it is.

Further ****s and giggles: OU/MSU/Clemson/BAMA all are in the top 15 in advanced stats (FEI) and top 12 in (S&P+). It's almost like the comprehensive, contextualized defensive statistics do a better job indicating ability than the traditional. Advanced stats really like Diaz's defenses too.

51 (FEI) and 37 (SP) is "really liking" in your opinion?