Collins/Thacker Defensive Scheme Question

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,446
You sure we are all Tech fans here? Look more like Tech factions to me. I’ve never seen people who want to either scorch the earth or want redemption for the last regime.
Fans should be upset about a staff that’s produced arguably the worst three year stretch in program history. And the coaching staff will always take the blame for that.

So do you think it will change this year and he will redeem himself?
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,446
That would imply players from Miss. St & Temple are smarter than ours.

The major issue has been deemed that there was a case of the rumor game was going on the defensive side. Safety was told to do one thing CBs were told another to alleviate that, both were fired, there will be only 1 DB voice in the room & for now Thacker will not be the messenger
I’m the scenario you’re describing someone is not coaching very well. At least a position coach - I’m guessing that’s Burton and Popovich since they were each let go? What about the DC? If both his guys are failing to communicate correct and he’s not able to identify and fix the problem is he still coaching well? Then Collins - two levels below him failing to produce results and he’s coaching well?

I think what you’re getting at is that the guy knows defensive scheme, knows how to implement it, and that him taking over the D will help turn things around. That’s believable in my opinion. But, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that it proves he can be a head coach. That proves he can be a good DC. Maybe that will be enough to win though because I’m pretty sure that’s how Johnson operated (in reverse) for the most part. But it does scare me that he will only struggle more with the game management stuff that he has been obviously horrible at.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,664
I understand what you’re saying, and I’m telling you that because of our current financial situation it will not work. In order to do what you are suggesting you would have to find somebody willing to accept the HC position at a P5 school with significant financial, institutional, and other limitations at well below market value, which would probably be somewhere in the $1.5-2M range. The only person who would accept that much responsibility at that far below market level would be someone who is not close to qualified for the job. That means you’re looking at someone like a G5 coordinator with no HC experience, a very young P5 position coach with no HC experience, or an old coach who has spent most of his career below the FBS level and has never even sniffed a P5 HC job before. How are you going to convince quality coordinators and position coaches to come work under someone like that? Even if you do pay the HC $1M less than what we are now, you only have an additional $1M there to spend. Chip Long is making $400k more than CDP, and if you brought in a DC to replace Thacker who made an additional $400k, you only have $200k left to spread between 8 more assistants. I’m not sure you’ll find quality assistants willing to take a job with the many challenges that exist here for slightly more cash, and work under a HC who’s severely under-qualified.

Like I said, your plan may work at a school who has the resources and ability to put more money into their program, and is already paying in the middle tier of market level. They could potentially drop their HC payment structure into the bottom tier and still find a reasonable candidate while saving money to spend on quality assistants.
Thanks for reply.

I disagree with you on what type of HC we would get to take the job at a reduced salary. When we built our private engr company from 5,000,000 a year to 1,500,000 a day we found that we very senior retired PManagers to come in and guide the efforts of highly qualified and performance bonused project team.
How would i do this at Gt.
I would make this offer to CGC - we and you are beginning to look for quality position coaches that we both can agree are going to hire and retain by appropriate contracts. We are going after position coaches that love their work and are not trying to climb the oc to head coach big bucks road. Cgc will help fund this out of his contract ( refundable if we win big)

To get chc to accept we also agree to significantly up the budget for oc and dc who we both agree will come in as a short stepping stone to a top p5 . This offer is an offer cgc is one he cant refuse to take.

The cycle of blow it up is not viable unless money comes out of the air.
I looked on Knights and we see that gtaa has increased the debt to 385,000,000 from 225,000,000. Yea, we have tapped our gtaa donors to be on the hook for more buildings ( i think) .


If we have good loyal position coaches, $$ for coordinators, and a guiding HC that can recruit and market, we have a sustainable organization that doesnt collapse when one part fails.
.


We are in sad $$ $$'shape relative to the rest of P.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,664
I’m the scenario you’re describing someone is not coaching very well. At least a position coach - I’m guessing that’s Burton and Popovich since they were each let go? What about the DC? If both his guys are failing to communicate correct and he’s not able to identify and fix the problem is he still coaching well? Then Collins - two levels below him failing to produce results and he’s coaching well?

I think what you’re getting at is that the guy knows defensive scheme, knows how to implement it, and that him taking over the D will help turn things around. That’s believable in my opinion. But, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that it proves he can be a head coach. That proves he can be a good DC. Maybe that will be enough to win though because I’m pretty sure that’s how Johnson operated (in reverse) for the most part. But it does scare me that he will only struggle more with the game management stuff that he has been obviously horrible at.


Sewak says hi.
In his last month at gt before the great effort in Detroit, in a meeting where ol watched a filmed practice, he cussed out a senior for not knowing the assignment. It was a freshman. No one said anything.

Yea, its bad now but it was bad at end.
 

Jmonty71

Banned
Messages
2,156
Does anyone know what we’ve been running on defense for the past couple years? I’ve been trying to figure out what the schematic philosophy is but can’t seem to grasp it. I know that there doesn’t seem to be a strong preference for any particular alignment or personnel in the front 7 because I’ve seen us vary it widely. In the secondary, does anyone know whether we favor a particular coverage scheme? For example, I’ve been watching the Seahawks for years, and Pete Carroll is well known for his Cover 3 philosophy. It’s caused a lot of communication issues because the corners are asked to understand so much mentally. Has that been our problem? Are we running a lot of Cover 3 or Cover 4 with our corners in zone? Or do we prefer more of a man coverage approach? Has there been consistency in what we ask our DBs to do, or has it been all over the place like our front 7?
The issue isn't with the scheme. It's the fact, that this particular scheme requires certain talents at some key positions. To explain. This scheme leaves some holes and those holes can be plugged with the right talent / skill set. First and foremost, you have have to have a BIG NG or DT, whatever you want to call it. But, that middle DT needs to be able to play the 2 gap and plug up any runs up the middle. He cannot get pushed around like a rag doll. Or he needs to have the attention of 2 OLs, to be able to move him. That's the biggest part of the puzzle. Next to that? 2 fast and I mean fast LBs that can perform blitzes and get the other team's QB on his is azz... As my old coach used to say, no QB will ever complete a pass when they are on their azz.... Those 2 key components are MUSTS in this scheme. I think the 4-3 is a little more forgiving when you don't have blazing talent, to be honest. Since we (admittingly) don't have blazing talent, I fail to see why we don't use the 4-3. I'm not against a 3-4 or 3-3... In fact, I totally understand those schemes have a lot more blitz packages and you can do some crazy stuff with line ups... I get it... However; if you don't have the talent or skill set players to run it, why run it? That's my #1 issue.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,862
How did we get in such a financial hole? O’Leary’s stadium expansion? Hewitt’s contract?
Hewitt's buyout was $7.2M, that hardly is what is causing the debt issues. The debt issues are caused from all the athletic facilities we've been building. We are basically building facilities to 'keep up with the Joneses' that we don't really have the money to support.

Basically starts with the North stands and then continues with all the major building projects we've had since.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,862
Did anyone else see this comment by Collins at his PC yesterday and take it to mean that Thacker will remain as DC with 'extra help' from Collins.

“Through the course of my career, I’ve been tabbed by others as one of the elite college defensive coaches in football. For me to use that expertise to help Thack(er), help the defensive staff, I’m going to use it to the fullest of my abilities.”
 

croberts

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
869
Did anyone else see this comment by Collins at his PC yesterday and take it to mean that Thacker will remain as DC with 'extra help' from Collins.

“Through the course of my career, I’ve been tabbed by others as one of the elite college defensive coaches in football. For me to use that expertise to help Thack(er), help the defensive staff, I’m going to use it to the fullest of my abilities.”
Yea, a soft demotion of Thacker with Collins running the show.
When Collins came 3 years ago, I had actually hoped it would be something like this. I felt our offensive production would drop off but our defense and improved recruiting would more than offset the difference.
 

okiemon

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,783
Did anyone else see this comment by Collins at his PC yesterday and take it to mean that Thacker will remain as DC with 'extra help' from Collins.

“Through the course of my career, I’ve been tabbed by others as one of the elite college defensive coaches in football. For me to use that expertise to help Thack(er), help the defensive staff, I’m going to use it to the fullest of my abilities.”
This may sound snarky, but it’s a serious question: has he not used his expertise to help Thacker for the past three years? If not, why not?
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,446
This may sound snarky, but it’s a serious question: has he not used his expertise to help Thacker for the past three years? If not, why not?
I know. He really sounds silly when he says stuff like this. Plus it’s super arrogant to talk about how elite you are when your teams haven’t been producing at a high clip for five years now.

We all know about the last few years, but going back to Temple he was 56 and 47 in total D and 56 and 66 in scoring D. Not nearly as bad, but hardly elite.
 

Ash

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
779
This may sound snarky, but it’s a serious question: has he not used his expertise to help Thacker for the past three years? If not, why not?

Unfortunately...I think he has. It's not been enough to overcome the systemic issues we have on D.
 

TromboneJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
861
Location
Seattle, WA
So after looking into the basics of how different coverage shells work, it’s now no surprise to me that there was so much confusion in the secondary. Cover 6 seems very difficult and appears to require a very high level of communication, understanding of roles, and situational awareness. If I were stepping into a new job as a defensive coordinator, I don’t think I would even touch Cover 6 until I felt confident about the execution of simpler coverage shells. If I were Collins or Thacker (or Tillman), I would spend this next offseason quickly picking a base shell, whether it’s Cover 1, Cover 2, or Cover 3. And I would drill it into the secondary until it becomes second nature and something they can fall back on during up-tempo situations. Then and only then (if we even mange to get to that point) would I select a second coverage shell that looks similar enough for disguising coverage (such as switching between Cover 3 and Cover 1, or alternatively modifying Cover 3 to have man coverage on one side). I was really upset at Collins yesterday because I thought he was messing around and experimenting too much with the defense, but I think his issue was that he underestimated the difficulty of teaching the various coverages and stubbornly assumed that if he just kept at it that all the communication issues would iron themselves out with time. We had 3 DCs in 3 consecutive years, and I think that put us behind the curve in development of players. I think it’s been a long time since CGC has had to build a defense essentially from scratch (if he ever had to do that), and I don’t think he appreciated how badly he needed to simplify and establish a common foundation first. He should have figured that out sooner, but he did have a lot on his plate, and hopefully Chip Long will free him up to focus more on the defense.
 

ramblin_man

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,065
Location
Augusta,GA
Circulating on Twitter:
1639684036593.jpeg
 

Ibeeballin

Im a 3*
Messages
6,081
The issue isn't with the scheme. It's the fact, that this particular scheme requires certain talents at some key positions. To explain. This scheme leaves some holes and those holes can be plugged with the right talent / skill set. First and foremost, you have have to have a BIG NG or DT, whatever you want to call it. But, that middle DT needs to be able to play the 2 gap and plug up any runs up the middle. He cannot get pushed around like a rag doll. Or he needs to have the attention of 2 OLs, to be able to move him. That's the biggest part of the puzzle. Next to that? 2 fast and I mean fast LBs that can perform blitzes and get the other team's QB on his is azz... As my old coach used to say, no QB will ever complete a pass when they are on their azz.... Those 2 key components are MUSTS in this scheme. I think the 4-3 is a little more forgiving when you don't have blazing talent, to be honest. Since we (admittingly) don't have blazing talent, I fail to see why we don't use the 4-3. I'm not against a 3-4 or 3-3... In fact, I totally understand those schemes have a lot more blitz packages and you can do some crazy stuff with line ups... I get it... However; if you don't have the talent or skill set players to run it, why run it? That's my #1 issue.

This is not a 2-gap defense
 

Ibeeballin

Im a 3*
Messages
6,081
So after looking into the basics of how different coverage shells work, it’s now no surprise to me that there was so much confusion in the secondary. Cover 6 seems very difficult and appears to require a very high level of communication, understanding of roles, and situational awareness. If I were stepping into a new job as a defensive coordinator, I don’t think I would even touch Cover 6 until I felt confident about the execution of simpler coverage shells. If I were Collins or Thacker (or Tillman), I would spend this next offseason quickly picking a base shell, whether it’s Cover 1, Cover 2, or Cover 3. And I would drill it into the secondary until it becomes second nature and something they can fall back on during up-tempo situations. Then and only then (if we even mange to get to that point) would I select a second coverage shell that looks similar enough for disguising coverage (such as switching between Cover 3 and Cover 1, or alternatively modifying Cover 3 to have man coverage on one side). I was really upset at Collins yesterday because I thought he was messing around and experimenting too much with the defense, but I think his issue was that he underestimated the difficulty of teaching the various coverages and stubbornly assumed that if he just kept at it that all the communication issues would iron themselves out with time. We had 3 DCs in 3 consecutive years, and I think that put us behind the curve in development of players. I think it’s been a long time since CGC has had to build a defense essentially from scratch (if he ever had to do that), and I don’t think he appreciated how badly he needed to simplify and establish a common foundation first. He should have figured that out sooner, but he did have a lot on his plate, and hopefully Chip Long will free him up to focus more on the defense.

Pretty much every college in America runs Cov 6
 

Randy Carson

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,306
Location
Apex, NC
Would employing a defensive scheme (such as Cover 3 or Cover 6) be analogous to playing the Sicilian or the French Defense in chess in that you play it over and over and over until you get so good at it that the White...er...offense has trouble winning the game?
 
Top