One year of Nate Woody. What do we think?

GTRambler

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,620
Nothing much has changed. Gained more turnovers, but otherwise no real improvements.

Tackling and pursuit angles, especially by the DBs, was the worst I’ve ever seen in a long time.

I do not expect to see much, if any change, for the better next year.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,535
I'm more excited about the future of this D than I ever was for Roof's D. I think the youth of our secondary showed this year and one of the reasons the Pass D was pretty rough.

I do have one complaint, I HATE when we only rush 3 on 3rd and long. I'm not talking about 3rd and 15, I'm saying more like 3rd and 7-10. We don't have the horses upfront to rush 3 and pressure the QB regularly and no matter how many guys you drop in coverage, if you give a decent QB enough time, somebody's gonna get open.

You have to get pressure on the QB at all costs. If he burns you, he burns you, but if you aren't getting pressure with the front three you have got to blitz, and with more than one man. There was some of that, but not enough in my unprofessional opinion - especially on third and long. If you don't get pressure, you have to have four Deion Sanderses back there. I thought our D-backs showed a lot of athleticism, but a lack of pressure up front cast them in a bad light.

Our DL played well against the run considering how light they are, but pass rushing was weak. We need more beef up front in this defense, and a lot more speed and strength at linebacker. Overall, I guess Woody did about the best that could be expected with his personnel, but I just think he ought to blitz more.
 

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
My post from TOS:

Numbers don’t lie but they don’t tell the full truth. The defense is schematically better and for the 30th time this not your typical 3-4 defense where you need 280-290lb DEs. It is predicated on quickness and getting up field. Something totally different from CTRs read &react man on a man and Groh occupy a man and build a wall on the LOS. The biggest issue this season & the reason for the skewed numbers is finishing. Whether that’s getting the QB on the ground before he gets a 1st down or horrible play recognition. Contrary to popular belief we got a good amount pressure this year, but bad tackling always seemed to follow it.

The defense should be stout next season and i expect to see some packages such as 2-4-5 with Thomas and Dominick as pass rushers. Key is to replace ASA’s disruption whether we go with the tweener like Dingle or put a big body like Chimezda/Glanton there. Someone must step up

But the talent is oozing on the side of the ball

If i had my way it would be:
NT: Adams
DE: Owens
DE: Glanton or Dingle
Jack: Charlie Thomas
MLB: BJS
WLB: Curry (hope someone overtake him)
Stinger: KOliver
CB: Swilling
CB: Walton
SS: Carpenter
FS: Juanyah

I really, really like this potential lineup!!!!
 

buzzed

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
339
For the first year in the system we did well schematically. It seemed like more so than in the recent past, they knew where to go and mostly played as a cohesive unit. The negatives that stick out the most were poor tackling and inconsistent coverage in the secondary. Even in the uga game there were a bunch of times guys were schematically in place to make a play but couldn’t ******* tackle. We do need to replace ASA’s production, but some of our best looking athletes are freshman, so I’m hopeful for the future. We need to have another recruiting class like last year. A few more elite players and I think this defense could be great.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,207
If i had my way it would be:
NT: Adams
DE: Owens
DE: Glanton or Dingle
Jack: Charlie Thomas
MLB: BJS
WLB: Curry (hope someone overtake him)
Stinger: KOliver
CB: Swilling
CB: Walton
SS: Carpenter
FS: Juanyah

For all the criticism CPJ gets for recruiting, we've actually recruited the best on the defensive side of the ball. Most of our 4 star recruits have come from that side of the ball.

I think CNW is very much like CPJ in terms of recruiting and personnel. That is, he knows his system, and he knows the attributes he wants at each position. Fans or "recruiting experts" may not agree that a certain recruit or player will fit because a lot of us are too stuck that players in a 3-4 or 4-3 (or whatever) need to look a certain way, but CNW has confidence in his coaching and development and system that he's going to prove you wrong.

Anree is a good example. No way he should be playing in a "traditional" 3-4 at DE at 250/260, but he's been the best DE we've had since Derrick Morgan.

I think as the years go by, and CNW gets "his guys" in the system, we'll start to see it all come to fruition.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,092
Location
Augusta, Georgia
I've been very pleased.

I understand that overall the defensive performance is about the same, but there are some key differences:

-All positions in roof's D were bad, and they were bad consistently. Our DLine has been great all year and the LB/DB have showed flashes here and there.
-We've won several games because the D stiffened up when it needed to and made some plays.
-We have *WAY* more turnovers on defense this year.
-The defense always improves it's performance as the game goes on. That's good coaching/adjusting. I'd like to see them start a little better though.

Not to pick on you in particular, but your post has several itemized opinions which make it easier for me to address.

-All positions in roof's D were bad, and they were bad consistently. Our DLine has been great all year and the LB/DB have showed flashes here and there.

Our DL is vastly improved, but I wouldn't call them great.

-We've won several games because the D stiffened up when it needed to and made some plays.

Can you please point to a game other than UNC we won that way? We won the Miami game because our offense mercifully held onto the ball for almost 7 minutes to close out the game after the D had let Miami go 95 yards for a TD to make it a 1 score game. I guess you could argue the UVA game, but that really came down to failed FG attempt. Last year we beat VT on a last minute Defensive play, so I reall don't see this as a huge area of improvement.

-We have *WAY* more turnovers on defense this year.

This is absolutely true, and while TOs tend to be a product of luck, and therefore an unreliable measure of defensive success, aggressive Ds tend to have more than bend don;t break Ds. I have no problems crediting CNW with this uptick.

-The defense always improves it's performance as the game goes on. That's good coaching/adjusting. I'd like to see them start a little better though.

The same was often said last year, but instead of praising the coaching, it was rather an indictment on why CTR couldn't get it right in the first half and had to wait until halftime to adjust.

My thoughts:

Don't get me wrong, I am somewhat excited about the direction of our defense. I just can't whitewash poor results and pretend they are necessarily indicators of improvement to come. Statistically speaking, with the exception of turnovers, our defense regressed drastically from last year and was on a par with the worst year of the CTR era. I get that there is a learning curve, and that improvement is usually seen somewhere in year two of a defensive change, but to say we see signs of success in this years tea leaves is a bit premature in my opinion.

Now, if we see a resurgent D in the Bowl game, after they get a month to prepare, then you could *maybe* make an argument, but I think the real answer to this thread topic is that it is simply too soon to tell. Let's give CNW 2-3 more years and a chance to get some of his own players in the system before we pass judgement either good or bad.
 

MountainBuzzMan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,684
Location
South Forsyth
Nothing much has changed. Gained more turnovers, but otherwise no real improvements.

Tackling and pursuit angles, especially by the DBs, was the worst I’ve ever seen in a long time.

I do not expect to see much, if any change, for the better next year.

Then you were not paying attention to the DL. They were like night and day difference from last year.

I agree completely with tackling and pursuit angles. I am not sure that it was worse than last year though. Based on CNW's history, I am expecting a substantial improvement. Not top 20 but top 50
 

AlabamaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,017
Location
Hartselle, AL (originally Rome, GA)
Not to pick on you in particular, but your post has several itemized opinions which make it easier for me to address.

-All positions in roof's D were bad, and they were bad consistently. Our DLine has been great all year and the LB/DB have showed flashes here and there.

Our DL is vastly improved, but I wouldn't call them great.

-We've won several games because the D stiffened up when it needed to and made some plays.

Can you please point to a game other than UNC we won that way? We won the Miami game because our offense mercifully held onto the ball for almost 7 minutes to close out the game after the D had let Miami go 95 yards for a TD to make it a 1 score game. I guess you could argue the UVA game, but that really came down to failed FG attempt. Last year we beat VT on a last minute Defensive play, so I reall don't see this as a huge area of improvement.

-We have *WAY* more turnovers on defense this year.

This is absolutely true, and while TOs tend to be a product of luck, and therefore an unreliable measure of defensive success, aggressive Ds tend to have more than bend don;t break Ds. I have no problems crediting CNW with this uptick.

-The defense always improves it's performance as the game goes on. That's good coaching/adjusting. I'd like to see them start a little better though.

The same was often said last year, but instead of praising the coaching, it was rather an indictment on why CTR couldn't get it right in the first half and had to wait until halftime to adjust.

My thoughts:

Don't get me wrong, I am somewhat excited about the direction of our defense. I just can't whitewash poor results and pretend they are necessarily indicators of improvement to come. Statistically speaking, with the exception of turnovers, our defense regressed drastically from last year and was on a par with the worst year of the CTR era. I get that there is a learning curve, and that improvement is usually seen somewhere in year two of a defensive change, but to say we see signs of success in this years tea leaves is a bit premature in my opinion.

Now, if we see a resurgent D in the Bowl game, after they get a month to prepare, then you could *maybe* make an argument, but I think the real answer to this thread topic is that it is simply too soon to tell. Let's give CNW 2-3 more years and a chance to get some of his own players in the system before we pass judgement either good or bad.


I cannot agree with this post enough. It is spot on.

It will be interesting in 2-3 years - I am rooting for CNW to greatly improve our D, mostly with recruiting, but also with coaching.
 

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,871
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
Schematically I like it and we should only get better with more time and experience. We still take **** angles but so does just about everyone in college football. Definitely need to learn to tackle better. Very rarely can we take someone down with one player and tackling someone where they fall forward for 3-4 more yards somehow seems like a win.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,083
Our DL played well against the run considering how light they are, but pass rushing was weak. We need more beef up front in this defense, and a lot more speed and strength at linebacker. Overall, I guess Woody did about the best that could be expected with his personnel, but I just think he ought to blitz more.
I've said my piece on Woody's D elsewhere, but I have to warn people about this.

If his history as a DC is any indication, Woody likes DLs that are smaller then what we had this year. He likes them "agile, mobile, and hostile" as Jake Gaither used to say. His perfect DL would be three St. Amours. I said in a recruiting thread that a lot of the young men we are recruiting as LBs out of high school might very well end up as DLs. It's speed uber alles for Woody. And, yes, we will blitz more in the future, imho; again, if history is any indication, Woody is Jerry Glanville on that.
 

Dustman

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,243
Our run defense was much better than I expected. The thing that drove me crazy was how we give up inside leverage every time on crossing routes. I attribute that to inexperience in the secondary.
 

Lavoisier

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
847
My post from TOS:

If i had my way it would be:
NT: Adams
DE: Owens
DE: Glanton or Dingle
Jack: Charlie Thomas
MLB: BJS
WLB: Curry (hope someone overtake him)
Stinger: KOliver
CB: Swilling
CB: Walton
SS: Carpenter
FS: Juanyah

That back end and OLB lineup could be very, very good. How do you feel BJS played this year when he was in? Would you feel good if he was the starter or is it based more on the upside of his athleticism?

The DL also looks good, but highlights the fact that guys like TK and Glanton who look like classic 3-techs in a 4-3 or DEs in a 3-4 are actually tweeners in our system. We should be stout against the run, but I don't know how athletic a line of 290-325-300 can be. However Adams really did surprise me the second half of the year so I guess I shouldn't judge a book by the cover.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,535
I've said my piece on Woody's D elsewhere, but I have to warn people about this.

If his history as a DC is any indication, Woody likes DLs that are smaller then what we had this year. He likes them "agile, mobile, and hostile" as Jake Gaither used to say. His perfect DL would be three St. Amours. I said in a recruiting thread that a lot of the young men we are recruiting as LBs out of high school might very well end up as DLs. It's speed uber alles for Woody. And, yes, we will blitz more in the future, imho; again, if history is any indication, Woody is Jerry Glanville on that.

We're too small already. What we need is agile, but not so small as to be prohibitively weak up front when facing 327 lb. offensive linemen.
 
Top