CPJ Press Conference

[swampsting]

Wonder where PJ is building a house in the mountains?

He's had a place in the western North Carolina mountains for a long time. Think it was near Highlands. Don Shula used to be one of his neighbors.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

FWIW, I wonder if he walked up to Ted after Georgia Southern and said, "We can't give up the big play." Regardless, they've got to find a way to light a fire under our D.

I sort of thought that might have happened given how the defense changed after that. But I do think it is unrealistic to expect CPJ to start mirco managing the defense. That is what he has a DC for.

 

[Yoda]

He's had a place in the western North Carolina mountains for a long time. Think it was near Highlands. Don Shula used to be one of his neighbors.

That's where I'm headed this weekend

 

[GTRX7]

Oh, how about the "schools similar to Tech" question at the end? CPJ couldn't think of any and only came up with Purdue as the closest. I agree with him on just how unique Tech is.

What school was Ken trying to suggest was similar? I couldn't hear the question.

 

[COJacket]

Great point. If you micro-manage, you're sending a message to your players about their coordinator. You have to walk a fine line between helping to come up with a workable solution to your problem and not overstepping your boundaries.

The ultimate leadership question - how much you step in to do a direct reports job while still not killing morale, or sending the wrong messages to the troops, or developing the direct report to be all they could be, or ..... Getting alignment about a game plan in one thing. Getting execution in the moment, when your DR is supposed to be doing their job and making the right decisions is quite another. I see it all the time in the line of work that I am in.

 

[Boomergump]

We need to blitz more to stop the run too. That is part of it, especially against this zone read scheme. The way I look at it, if they are going to score anyway much of the time, you might as well bring the house. What do you have to lose? I would rather see a TD given up in 2 min vs 6 min, purely from the standpoint that our O will then have even more TOP and become more effective etc. More pressure may lead to more run outs, but it also leads to more stops and TOs, and we need those.

Lets take the UNC game as an example. If we bring pressure twice as often, then we probably give up the same number of scores, but also get 2 more possessions for our offense. This is because they score quicker when they do, leaving more clock, but also get stopped by negative type plays a couple times too. That equals a win because they weren't stopping us, nor would they, having been out there even longer on defense.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What school was Ken trying to suggest was similar? I couldn't hear the question.

I couldn't make it out but it may end up in some article or blog post Ken makes at some point. Whatever school he named CPJ replied that it had a lot more of the liberal arts; so that suggests Ken used a Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame kind of example.

 

[yellojello]

I couldn't make it out but it may end up in some article or blog post Ken makes at some point. Whatever school he named CPJ replied that it had a lot more of the liberal arts; so that suggests Ken used a Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame kind of example.

Northwestern, I believe

 

[InsideLB]

We need to blitz more to stop the run too. That is part of it, especially against this zone read scheme. The way I look at it, if they are going to score anyway much of the time, you might as well bring the house. What do you have to lose? I would rather see a TD given up in 2 min vs 6 min, purely from the standpoint that our O will then have even more TOP and become more effective etc. More pressure may lead to more run outs, but it also leads to more stops and TOs, and we need those.

Lets take the UNC game as an example. If we bring pressure twice as often, then we probably give up the same number of scores, but also get 2 more possessions for our offense. This is because they score quicker when they do, leaving more clock, but also get stopped by negative type plays a couple times too. That equals a win because they weren't stopping us, nor would they, having been out there even longer on defense.

I agree with this to an extent but only to an extent. First it depends on the team you are playing. If you are playing an offense that is known for making mistakes then it's best to make them earn their way down the field and wait for the mistakes to happen. UNC played flawlessly so this wasn't going to work with them. Second, if the other team scores too quickly then the number of plays they need to score goes down as does the number of opportunities for drive-ending penalties, mistakes, turnovers etc. So there needs to be a balance.

We did bring a fair bit of pressure on UNC late in the game. By that time they were running screen after screen after screen. Also our pressure wasn't getting home. That said this game in particular I think we were not prepared with some nuclear pressure options.

More than anything we need need a deeper, more skilled, more experienced front 4. DEs who can actually wins some 1-on-1s and get the occaisional sack or at least a QB hurry. UNC QB didn't have to hurry much at all.

 

[iceeater1969]

We need to blitz more to stop the run too. That is part of it, especially against this zone read scheme. The way I look at it, if they are going to score anyway much of the time, you might as well bring the house. What do you have to lose? I would rather see a TD given up in 2 min vs 6 min, purely from the standpoint that our O will then have even more TOP and become more effective etc. More pressure may lead to more run outs, but it also leads to more stops and TOs, and we need those.

Lets take the UNC game as an example. If we bring pressure twice as often, then we probably give up the same number of scores, but also get 2 more possessions for our offense. This is because they score quicker when they do, leaving more clock, but also get stopped by negative type plays a couple times too. That equals a win because they weren't stopping us, nor would they, having been out there even longer on defense.

I love idea of very aggressive defense - yes they will get some quick scores but for every other quick score - suppose we get a turnover or just maybe a defensive score. Another major positive (early in year especially) is we could wear out their defense to allow for more conservative time consuming drives at end of game. With more touches by offense we get more playing time for the backups which prepares us for possible injuries. With aggressive defense we get off the field quickly and can figure out what the next blitz package will look like..

Also the most important thing is we build an aggressive attacking team attitude (bend but don't break is a mixed message - telling a pitches to not throw it to a certain spot over plat- guess where the pitch goes) That helps RECRUIT top players - they will see they can help and will know they will get to be seen making plays on espn. It could expose a position coaching issue that is hard to see in bend but don't break.

Very good TO with a few very good recruits and seasoned support. + good aggressive defense with several very good recruits = good chance to beat uga. Coach has the first half and is beginning to get very good defense recruits. If we show and aggressive defense for balance of year - is it possible to dream we flip some top defense recruits. Bottom line = Send Um!

 

[prifle2]

Teams that make mistakes don't do so against us because we play our CBs 10-12 yards off the line and have them bailing out at the snap. Every QB we play has the entire first half to get comfortable and get into a rhythm with their wide recievers. If we would just move up to Bump and run or 5 yards off the line, we would see teams force many more passes and then mistakes would be made...

 

[dressedcheeseside]

This is exactly right. But its dumb. He runs the program and if he feels blitzing like hell would win he needs to walk up to ted. Say boitz 70 freaking percent of the time i dont care, and install more packages and get it done asap. Then literally the game right after this you would see that. Yet we havent. Sending messages via the press to your staff is almost like i dont want to be involved my o is fine the d sucks and i kept saying so. It just feels odd to me.

I highly doubt he uses pressers to send messages to his coordinators. Heck, he sees them face to face every day in meetings and on the practice field.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We need to blitz more to stop the run too. That is part of it, especially against this zone read scheme. The way I look at it, if they are going to score anyway much of the time, you might as well bring the house. What do you have to lose? I would rather see a TD given up in 2 min vs 6 min, purely from the standpoint that our O will then have even more TOP and become more effective etc. More pressure may lead to more run outs, but it also leads to more stops and TOs, and we need those.

Lets take the UNC game as an example. If we bring pressure twice as often, then we probably give up the same number of scores, but also get 2 more possessions for our offense. This is because they score quicker when they do, leaving more clock, but also get stopped by negative type plays a couple times too. That equals a win because they weren't stopping us, nor would they, having been out there even longer on defense.

In basketball when a bad shooter hits a 3 the coach cringes because he knows he'll be jacking up 3's all game long. I wonder if the same is true for the int we got at the end of the VT game? I wonder if that play was justification for sitting back in coverage the rest of the year?

 

[33jacket]

In basketball when a bad shooter hits a 3 the coach cringes because he knows he'll be jacking up 3's all game long. I wonder if the same is true for the int we got at the end of the VT game? I wonder if that play was justification for sitting back in coverage the rest of the year?

That play dj was not sitting back lol. He was 5 off and dropped off the five saw his guy stop and baited the qb because the qb was staring his target. DJ actually left his assignment to make that pick. Go watch the replay. If anything its a reason to play 5 off.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That play dj was not sitting back lol. He was 5 off and dropped off the five saw his guy stop and baited the qb because the qb was staring his target. DJ actually left his assignment to make that pick. Go watch the replay. If anything its a reason to play 5 off.

Yeah, you're right. What I was thinking was we didn't get that pick by sending the house. We got it by baiting the qb while in zone coverage.

 

[worthco jacket]

just an observation, but I hate the way Ken asks questions. It sounds like he's scared.

Well, PJ is not exactly known for being warm and fuzzy. Coach Dodd could have the reporters eating out of his hand with that soft Tennessee twang and folksy manner but PJ can't help himself. He's liable to bite someone's head off and does not suffer fools well.

 

[33jacket]

Yeah, you're right. What I was thinking was we didn't get that pick by sending the house. We got it by baiting the qb while in zone coverage.

Cant remember if we blitzed that play? We may have. We blitzed way more that second half. It was 2 deep iirc

 

[worthco jacket]

Our defense is getting gashed to say the least. What could it hurt to turn the pressure up.

We are gonna get beat occasionally if you load the box. But I can deal with that.

In turn, the pressure causes the offense to make a mistake or a big play.

The way I look at it is if they score on a big play it just gives our offense more T.O.P. which wears their defense down that much more.

BRING PRESSURE. LOTS OF IT. AND OFTEN.

I would rather be aggressive and lose then passive and lose.

Pure slobber knocking aggression. It needs to be our MO.

Ok, if that is what you want. But let me tell you the safeties would have to change. If we play four defensive backs and bring the house all the time they have to be the best four cover guys and that would NOT be our current safeties. Personally, I don't think changing philosophies will make that much difference but it might be worth a try. I will say that in playing against these spread option teams, corner blitzes might work better than blitzing either linebackers or safeties. If they can tackle that is.

 

[UgaBlows]

Ok, if that is what you want. But let me tell you the safeties would have to change. If we play four defensive backs and bring the house all the time they have to be the best four cover guys and that would NOT be our current safeties. Personally, I don't think changing philosophies will make that much difference but it might be worth a try. I will say that in playing against these spread option teams, corner blitzes might work better than blitzing either linebackers or safeties. If they can tackle that is.

that's what i've been thinking, we need to send some random corner and safety blitz's

 

[Northeast Stinger]

That's where I'm headed this weekend

I have a house not far from there myself. Don't get there often since I currently live in New England.