This may be true. It just depends on whether there was a change in approach after the 2nd half of the TN game. I don't think the talent/maturity of the players changed that much after that game, so if there was a change in becoming more aggressive, as CPJ's comments suggested, our success would stem more from that then from a combination of factors, imo.
What I'm seeing on game film (UNC, Pitt) vs what we did vs TN is:
1. We are tackling much, much better. Breaking down more consistently, using good form, not gambling wildly to make a big play and let guys off for big yardage. Night and day difference.
2. Defending the screen. TN toasted us again and again with the screen. Our failure to defend it while staying aggressive loosened up our D considerably. We were better vs JSU, better still vs Pitt, and lights out vs UNC. Big time improvement.
3. Win the point of attack. We are getting more bodies to the point of attack. LB's are moving more decisively and are more consistent in their run fits. DL have been slanting and stunting more, and have been effective doing so (quickness to get to their assignment, correct location, getting off blocks, making tackles or clogging lanes). If you run it and it works you run it again, and lately it's been working. We recruited these smaller, quicker type DT's (Branch, Glanton, Cerge-H, etc.) so we could run this type of defense.
4. Pass rush + coverage. I wouldn't say our pass rush is formidible, but I would say it's improved and that there are more threats (St Amour, Simmons, Branch) on the DL to win one-on-one battles. Meanwhile the secondary is giving the DL time to make the QB uncomfortable or get a sack.
I just see that we're getting better and I like it.