The Pitt game aside Ted has actually done a pretty good job. We were lucky the Clemson game didn't get worse than 26-7. Defense statistics, especially in the second half are good. I agree we do need to change up a few things but overall the defense has played better than serviceable up until Pitt. Also the tipped pass was a fluke. And the fluke turned the momentum.
Thanks for some numbers to support your position.
At clemson game sure looked like the second half clemson was playing best players but calling safe plays. The qb really had bad distance control on wide open receivers going away. They were long but went towards sideline where there were no db. We leave giant areas over middle wide open due to soft coverage and rush. If teams need first down and will take a riskvl they can get it when ever.
Yea it's obviously showingMakes their Offense work harder. Makes them stay on the field longer. Creates opportunities for turnovers. Keeps teams from getting 10 yards on first down. Forces a lot of 3rd and Mediums. Forces a lot of Field goals. Works well for the quality of Athletes we have on campus right now. Apparently it does something right because Gentry Bonds and The Swillings want to play in it. (All 4 Stars BTW)
Its going to be okay. I promise.
It worked when he had the play makers... 2014.Yea it's obviously showing
Which is why I loved Paul Electing to receive against Duh U. March down and get 7 and give our D some Momentum.
O'Leary called CPJ earlier that week and told him to give it a try.
Where are your facts lol? The style D we play does not do well for the type of athletes we have. It's easy for offenses to read so you need superior athletes to over power the offense because it allows a lot of one on ones, that doesn't help our guys at all. I don't know where you are getting your info from. I have played with some very very good players and I'm pretty familiar with how football works, and this style D we play does not work for our athletes, it works for teams that have athletes like Bama. If it was so good why are the top defenses not running it?
our defense was awful lol turnovers aren't everything. We more than likely would have gone undefeated if we had a better D. What else were we good at besides turnovers?
He runs an outdated scheme. If we was so great, we'd held Pitt to under 30. You take the 2 inept offenses the the FCS school away, you have the true stats of our D. He can recruit, but he needs to learn some modern techniques. He runs a very vanilla 4-3. The type of defense I played in middle school. Heck, even my high school defense had more pre snap movement and mixed blitzes. Which is more that I can say for him. He may be a grad, may had been a good player, may be good a school with 4 and 5 star recruits. The issue is, he read and react defense takes big, strong, quick and fundamental people to run it. We have a few on our team that fit that mold.
