Optimistic about the defense? Why?

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Who has been telling you that? Probably was a year or two in there where it was true.

Also, 3rd and long conversion issues isn’t because of our DB play. It’s because we’ve had exactly 1 legit pass rush threat since ‘09.

Every preseason on this and other boards.

 

[Techster]

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago and Wes Durham was interviewing a coach, can't remember who, and they straight up said that every DC that Paul hired was told to run the bend but don't break and specifically not to play press coverage. There was a certain style that Paul wanted which is fine, but why rotate DC's and especially hire an aggressive DC when you won't let him be aggressive and run his system? Nate did what he could, but he wasn't allowed to run the defense that he wanted to run. Defense was Paul's downfall imo.

Interesting...

I said many times in the past, when a coach leaves, a lot of closets get cleaned out and all the "negative" stuff about the former coach gets aired out. I don't think we've heard the last of it. Just how it goes once a coach leaves.

 

[bobongo]

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago and Wes Durham was interviewing a coach, can't remember who, and they straight up said that every DC that Paul hired was told to run the bend but don't break and specifically not to play press coverage. There was a certain style that Paul wanted which is fine, but why rotate DC's and especially hire an aggressive DC when you won't let him be aggressive and run his system? Nate did what he could, but he wasn't allowed to run the defense that he wanted to run. Defense was Paul's downfall imo.

I don't get that at all. A bend-but-don't-break defense seems incongruous with a ball-control offense. If you're trying to control the clock...

Still, we were able to win time of possession in most cases. TOP could have been more lopsided with an aggressive defense.

 

[Milwaukee]

Interesting...

I said many times in the past, when a coach leaves, a lot of closets get cleaned out and all the "negative" stuff about the former coach gets aired out. I don't think we've heard the last of it. Just how it goes once a coach leaves.

I don't think it's so much of a negative on Paul, I'd be willing to bet he was transparent with Nate from the jump about expectations and the way he wants the majority of the scheme to function. The coach that was being interviewed wasn't bitter about it, he was just being transparent with Wes. Nate blitzed and stunted whenever and wherever he could, he pushed the line I'm sure, but he was on a leash like the others.

 

[Milwaukee]

I don't get that at all. A bend-but-don't-break defense seems incongruous with a ball-control offense. If you're trying to control the clock...

Still, we were able to win time of possession in most cases. TOP could have been more lopsided with an aggressive defense.

Yea, I'm pretty sure it's much deeper than "bend but don't break", they were just summarizing. There's a reason Paul wanted the conservative style, I mean the dude won natty's and knows what he wants to go with his offensive style. It's not just him being stubborn and not wanting to change, I just think that in his head he's won like that everywhere so the medicine works. Hell, he had success here overall in the grand scheme of things even with his defensive achilles heel.

 

[lv20gt]

I don't get that at all. A bend-but-don't-break defense seems incongruous with a ball-control offense. If you're trying to control the clock...

Still, we were able to win time of possession in most cases. TOP could have been more lopsided with an aggressive defense.

It wasn't incongruous. The point was to shorten games and limit possessions. Holding onto the ball is one way of doing that. Forcing teams to take a long time on their drives is another.

 

[bobongo]

Yea, I'm pretty sure it's much deeper than "bend but don't break", they were just summarizing. There's a reason Paul wanted the conservative style, I mean the dude won natty's and knows what he wants to go with his offensive style. It's not just him being stubborn and not wanting to change, I just think that in his head he's won like that everywhere so the medicine works. Hell, he had success here overall in the grand scheme of things even with his defensive achilles heel.

Conservative defenses fared better for him in the lower levels than at p5. Maybe because up here, top recruits were turned off by the conservative style. But that's just a guess...

Paul Johnson has more knowledge about coaching in his pinky fingernail than I have in my whole fat body, but it seems to me that you'd want the defense to get off the field so you could get down to business with you ball-control offense. That's why I was so cranked about Woody coming here, but Paul asking him to go conservative answers the question of why Woody's defense here didn't much resemble the aggressive style he had at Appalachian State.

 

[bobongo]

It wasn't incongruous. The point was to shorten games and limit possessions. Holding onto the ball is one way of doing that. Forcing teams to take a long time on their drives is another.

So, you have a ball-control offense and you want to force them to have one, too. I'm not sure I see how that gives you any advantage, but I guess that's what he was doing.

He knows more about it than I do, of course, but I still don't get it. I thought the whole idea of a ball-control offense was to keep the other team off the field.

 

[lv20gt]

So, you have a ball-control offense and you want to force them to have one, too. I'm not sure I see how that gives you any advantage, but I guess that's what he was doing.

A ball control offense is predicated around the idea of shortening the game and lowering the total number of possessions. The ideal case is you hold it and force them into a 3 and out, but forcing them to go 10+ drives to score also shortens the game and gives them more opportunities to make a mistake that ends the drive, which is a bigger deal because fewer drives mean each stop is worth more.

 

[684Bee]

So, you have a ball-control offense and you want to force them to have one, too. I'm not sure I see how that gives you any advantage, but I guess that's what he was doing.

He knows more about it than I do, of course, but I still don't get it. I thought the whole idea of a ball-control offense was to keep the other team off the field.

CPJ’s belief that he could win with pretty much whatever talent he was given hurt us on D more than O.

On O, we had a schematic advantage. On D, we just had sub par talent with no tactical advantage.

 

[iceeater1969]

So, you have a ball-control offense and you want to force them to have one, too. I'm not sure I see how that gives you any advantage, but I guess that's what he was doing.

He knows more about it than I do, of course, but I still don't get it. I thought the whole idea of a ball-control offense was to keep the other team off the field.

It's like old school basketball - work the ball for great shot then fall back for 2 3 defense in the paint. You hope they miss and u get all rebounds. No fast break on long rebounds and above all dont try to steal ball or trap at mid court. And never full court. Now make every foul shots. When they miss 2, we win. The short old guys can hang w the kids at the gym.

When applied to fb and our rush option with less than dominant talent, we tried to A never make mistakes,B move the ball while burning clock C stop them by keeping the play in front of us till they were in red zone D hope they make a mistake. This translates to regular 7-5 years. Add a few talented guys and you are 9-3.
Then like in the gym the other guys do something like have a snow bird who doesn't come down on d and he gets easy scores. Then we double dribble and are behind. But we arent able to fast break. Then more and more teams press us full court.

Now if gt had recruited some beast defense guys - and said go get them, we could have put pressure on the other team when we dont have the ball as well as well as when we do.
That ends up as sometimes 5-7 , still a a few 7-5 , some 8-4 or 9-3 and a few 10-2 or 11-1 .
The safe road w limited talent is the TO w the bend break. Trouble is you cant ATTRACT d talent doing this.

The elite road is the TO w the aggressive defense. Kids want to play aggressive defense.

Even the Air Raid figured out its defense had to be aggressive so they got off the field.

I hope coach gets another p5 opportunity at a place that recruits some serious defensive talent.

 

[bobongo]

The elite road is the TO w the aggressive defense. Kids want to play aggressive defense.

That's what I thought we were going to get with Woody, at long last. Seems to me the other team isn't going to make so many mistakes with the D playing soft. And as you point out, kids want to play aggressive defense.

Thanks to all for the input on why we ran the bend-but-don't-break style D. I understand the theory, but I still don't buy it. Our defenses generally sucked, more like bend and break.

Looking forward to a more aggressive style D that kids will want to play in.

 

[Animal02]

That's what I thought we were going to get with Woody, at long last. Seems to me the other team isn't going to make so many mistakes with the D playing soft. And as you point out, kids want to play aggressive defense.

Thanks to all for the input on why we ran the bend-but-don't-break style D. I understand the theory, but I still don't buy it. Our defenses generally sucked, more like bend and break.

Looking forward to a more aggressive style D that kids will want to play in.

Yes it was frustrating.....even with a 2 TD lead, the outcome was usually in doubt.

 

[Ibeeballin]

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago and Wes Durham was interviewing a coach, can't remember who, and they straight up said that every DC that Paul hired was told to run the bend but don't break and specifically not to play press coverage. There was a certain style that Paul wanted which is fine, but why rotate DC's and especially hire an aggressive DC when you won't let him be aggressive and run his system? Nate did what he could, but he wasn't allowed to run the defense that he wanted to run. Defense was Paul's downfall imo.

I can somewhat confirm this

My issue with the philosophy is we employed it 3rd down as well, especially 3rd & long. Play soft zones but not your guys disciplined enough to jumping 5yd routes allowing a deeper route behind you to get open for a 1st down or DBs drop beyond the sticks.

 

[UgaBlows]

I hope he's right, too, but Army runs a similar offense and they ranked #8 in total defense last year.

We've had DC's in and out of here over the last decade and none of them were able to get our defense up to snuff. The last one had excellent credentials, IMO, and our problems last year looked to me to be mainly problems of personnel. We lack strength and speed, except for the defensive backfield. The weight room can help address our problems of strength. Better upper body strength will help our tackling. There is no remedy for a lack of speed. I am not optimistic but I am always hopeful. I actually thought the defensive backfield showed a good bit of athleticism. Their problems had more to do with inexperience and an almost total dearth of pressure on the QB. The rest of the defense needs to hit the weight room hard.

What do you think Army’s Def would have been ranked if they played our schedule? I’m going to make a pretty safe assumption that we have way more talant than them on D, so the difference btwn us and them must be all coaching right? Or is it an easy schedule?

 

[bobongo]

What do you think Army’s Def would have been ranked if they played our schedule? I’m going to make a pretty safe assumption that we have way more talant than them on D, so the difference btwn us and them must be all coaching right? Or is it an easy schedule?

Probably better than #111 (FEI). Like maybe #41 (FEI). The whole point I was making is that you can have a good defense and play a quirky offense at the same time. FEI takes into account strength of schedule. They were 70 spots in front of us in FEI. They had a far better defense, period. They gave up 28 in OT to Oklahoma. Ask yourself if our defense was even capable of doing that on their best day.

 

[gt69hjcollins]

The biggest factor, I think, is the fact that for the first time in 12 years our defense will be practicing and scrimmaging against a shotgun-formation spread offense constantly and consistently all through the football practices, from the spring to the fall to the actual regular season football schedule. Instead of doing all of that (or at least a good bit of it) against CPJ’s flexbone spread option offense.

Now starting with this spring’s practices, we will see whether this difference will make any difference in the team’s defensive performance during next year’s regular football season games.

It will be interesting to watch.

I think you have a good point. The key to consistent performance is repetition. Certainly effective coaching is vital, but once the message is received, it must be practiced until it becomes a habit. Practicing every day against a more common offense should give them more effective reps.

 

[UgaBlows]

Probably better than #111 (FEI). Like maybe #41 (FEI). The whole point I was making is that you can have a good defense and play a quirky offense at the same time. FEI takes into account strength of schedule. They were 70 spots in front of us in FEI. They had a far better defense, period. They gave up 28 in OT to Oklahoma. Ask yourself if our defense was even capable of doing that on their best day.

So the difference between us and them is coaching right? Its def not talent, and probably not schedule. If that is the case then i don’t see a reason why we can’t be better next year on defense.

 

[bobongo]

So the difference between us and them is coaching right? Its def not talent, and probably not schedule. If that is the case then i don’t see a reason why we can’t be better next year on defense.

Both, probably. Just because Army is G5 doesn't mean they can't have better talent. There are a number of teams in G5 that have better talent in some areas than some P5 teams. In P5, we're near the bottom in defensive talent, IMO. We will probably be a little better next year, but I wouldn't think it likely that we will have what one would call a good defense. We are weak and slow at linebacker, and we are losing our starters on the DL to graduation. The defensive backfield should be better, because they all come back more experienced this year. But I'm not at all sold on the linebackers. I'm ignoring the hype and going by what my own two eyes saw last year. Speed is what it is, but these guys need to hit the weight room hard.

 

[RickStromFan]

I'm hopeful (not quite optimistic lol) that our defense can only improve with the recent hires from how bad it's been over the last decade and welcome the change of direction in the program. Any change is preferable to the malaise we had settled into. I didn't see Woody as any real improvement over the other DCs we'd churned through and am glad we have a defensive minded HC. Am hopeful that translates into better D.