Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
It was obvious that they were running with great success. That's what tells them that they are going to run. It was apparently clear to everyone except our coaches.
Those numbers aren't available at the start of the half, so they couldn't be used to predict anything. They only tell you what happened, not what was going to happen.
Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
I question the evaluator that questions why we run so much 3-4. You ask most knowledgeable Xs and Os person and they'll tell you the most optimal way to defend the spread offenses of today is with a 3-4 multiple front. Of course, not the passive way we run it.
Here's an interesting article about the NFL struggling to defend the read option. It even discusses the move toward more passive approaches to defense (and not in a good way).
http://grantland.com/features/after-offseason-searching-nfl-coaches-know-how-defend-read-option/
The old 4-3, 2-deep defenses we used to run likely would get lit up by the new spread/read option offenses. One thing that people here often forget is that every defense is "read and react" unless you're just blitzing everyone. Our players seem to react a lot more slowly than they should be, which I blame the coaches for. I don't think they're trying to run a bad scheme at all, but it's very clear that they aren't succeeding at teaching it. Even worse, the players are not even executing the basics (tackling), which I also blame the coaches for. If they go into the GT game with the same approach they took to Corn****erville, it could be a repeat of that game where GT ran for 472 yards against Randy's defense.
I disagree that our old defense would be lit by the "new" offenses, especially the read option. The option was the offense of choice before we came along and the wishbone was very much a read option. Miami destroyed it as an acceptable D1 offense and relegated it high school and the academies. How did the read option do against Ravens with Ed and Ray? I suspect it would be fine against the spread also because of the pressure it brought. But it is not just 4-3 or 3-4 discussion. We won our first NC with a 5-2, which is basically a 3-4. My issue is that I don't not believe our old defenses were "read and react". I remember that being discussed every time someone got off a screen play or QB slipped contain or we got fooled for a 20 yard gain. Talk would always be about that is the price of the "act then read" defense Miami plays. I remember, "meet me at the QB and play run along the way"-- that is act then react. Hey, our old defense got used before Al got here too, but it was the lack of DTs that was the problem, well, maybe coaching was slacking also. But Dig Daddy would be on Al's defense and it would not matter because he would only be allow to stand at LOS and dance with guards until ball carrier got to him. Perpetration is the secret to defense. Let the other guy find ways to adapt to it while you beat his QB and RBs to death in the backfield.
Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
How am I giving them an out? Please re-read my post. I merely pointed out in the second part of my post that numbers compiled as a result of the game are not predictive.Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
It was obvious that they were running with great success. That's what tells them that they are going to run. It was apparently clear to everyone except our coaches.
Those numbers aren't available at the start of the half, so they couldn't be used to predict anything. They only tell you what happened, not what was going to happen.
I understand that. They didn't exactly sling it in the first half either. Plus they are a known running team. U sound like u are giving them an out.
Somewhere, somebody has a picture of Golden an D'Onofrio in the locker room shower with Sandusky.
Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
Don't teams usually come out with the intention of stopping the run first to make offenses one-dimensional?
Isn't that basic defensive football? Stop the run the first.
Al Golden is seriously f'n delusional everybody mocks him HS coaches, college coaches, ex-NFL players, radio host, fans, everybody sees his 3-4 Defense is a disaster and he's in complete denial
I question the evaluator that questions why we run so much 3-4. You ask most knowledgeable Xs and Os person and they'll tell you the most optimal way to defend the spread offenses of today is with a 3-4 multiple front. Of course, not the passive way we run it.
How am I giving them an out? Please re-read my post. I merely pointed out in the second part of my post that numbers compiled as a result of the game are not predictive.Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
It was obvious that they were running with great success. That's what tells them that they are going to run. It was apparently clear to everyone except our coaches.
Those numbers aren't available at the start of the half, so they couldn't be used to predict anything. They only tell you what happened, not what was going to happen.
I understand that. They didn't exactly sling it in the first half either. Plus they are a known running team. U sound like u are giving them an out.
Normally I'd agree with this thought but with this coaching staff I'd argue that those numbers are quite predictable.How am I giving them an out? Please re-read my post. I merely pointed out in the second part of my post that numbers compiled as a result of the game are not predictive.Second half 39 possessions. 36 run 3 passes. Now I am no wizard, but to me it's CRYSTAL clear they were going to run.
It was obvious that they were running with great success. That's what tells them that they are going to run. It was apparently clear to everyone except our coaches.
Those numbers aren't available at the start of the half, so they couldn't be used to predict anything. They only tell you what happened, not what was going to happen.
I understand that. They didn't exactly sling it in the first half either. Plus they are a known running team. U sound like u are giving them an out.
Normally I'd agree with this thought but with this coaching staff I'd argue that those numbers are quite predictable.How am I giving them an out? Please re-read my post. I merely pointed out in the second part of my post that numbers compiled as a result of the game are not predictive.It was obvious that they were running with great success. That's what tells them that they are going to run. It was apparently clear to everyone except our coaches.
Those numbers aren't available at the start of the half, so they couldn't be used to predict anything. They only tell you what happened, not what was going to happen.
I understand that. They didn't exactly sling it in the first half either. Plus they are a known running team. U sound like u are giving them an out.
I didn't say predictable, I said predictive.