Was our defense hamstrung in the past?

[bobongo]

Did PJ's O give us a schematic advantage? Probably

Did PJ's O hamper our D to some degree? Probably

How long til toe meets leather so that we can start psycho analyzing CGC's coaching strengths and weaknesses?

140 days.

 

[UgaBlows]

Missing open-field tackles. We were awesome at that. Allowing 3rd-and-long conversions of 1st downs. Again, awesome there.

Allowing a quick touchdown on the opponents first possession

 

[RickStromFan]

Yeah it seems we were better at 3rd and 2 than 3rd and 22. Missed tackles with poor technique always pissed me off.

Who do we think owns the missed tackle dilemma because it has gone on now for decades? Is it the players not being coachable or do the coaches just stand there and let the players practice like a bunch of idiots?

I know the HCs weren’t in any meetings demanding poor tackling technique.

agreed - not sure how that can be spun to blame the TO or PJ lol

 

[takethepoints]

Yeah it seems we were better at 3rd and 2 than 3rd and 22. Missed tackles with poor technique always pissed me off.

Who do we think owns the missed tackle dilemma because it has gone on now for decades? Is it the players not being coachable or do the coaches just stand there and let the players practice like a bunch of idiots?

I know the HCs weren’t in any meetings demanding poor tackling technique.

That's a good question. It can be a depth issue. It is easy to get hurt in realistic tackle drills; i.e. those where the D player has to play off a block or two to get to the runner. If you don't trust your #3 or 4 players at a position, then you might want to curtail tackle box drills during the season and the players can get stale. It can be a coaching issue; some coaches put more emphasis on tackling then others. Tony Dungee really pushed it while he was at Tampa and it showed. It can be a style issue: Tech's DCs - all four of them - seemed to emphasize the initial hit as the way to get people down instead of wrapping up. The idea seemed to be that half the time they'll go down and the other half they'll be slowed down enough to let the rest of the team catch up. Also, doing it that way can speed up getting to the ball.

All I know is that I sure do hope that Coach being a D specialist will cure the problem at Tech. We can take it as read that he'll intervene on this.

 

[AE 87]

I do think he was talking about CPJ’s offense. Imo he’s talking about playing to the players strengths no matter the offensive system. Thacker spoke on this aswell when asked about Campbell’s comment. I’ve been saying this for a while. Don’t put a guy in a position he’s not good at, for instance don’t put a LB who can’t cpver well on the field on 3rd and long if you are going to have him in coverage, instead if he’s good at blitzing, let him blitz.

The questioner made clear the distinction was between scheming defense to what the "opposing offense" was doing vs to what the players could do well.

I think that the response clearly indicated that this is a teaching point of the new defense. That is, Campbell was speaking to what he's heard in meetings about what the New Def philosophy is.

Let's be clear about what's being alleged here. If it is true that CPJ pressured his DC's in to playing soft bend-don't-break D, then he's evil.

As someone pointed out earlier, CPJ made several comments to the media throughout his tenure about his desire to get more pressure and about his frustration in being able to get opposing offenses off the field. If our failures in those departments were the result of CPJ hamstringing his DC into playing soft, then he would be evil, imo, for not taking the blame.

Yet, that conclusion runs counter to everything else we know about him.

 

[85Escape]

good - echo chambers suck.

There are only 15 on this site that generate most of the BS never-ending arguments, so I'm not sure it's a lot different to be honest. Echo chambers don't have to be empty.

 

[BurdellJacket]

Well … it was also Woody's first year and his D was actually very complicated. We didn't blitz as much because he didn't have the players he wanted - everyone anticipated that - and because the D took all season and then some to put in. I had great hope going forward for his Ds; we vastly improved our rate of turnovers in a single year and, with more experience, we should have been much better.

Oth, I wouldn't put it beyond Paul to intervene on D; people forget that he started out as a DC and knows a lot about that side of the ball. Also, we know that he intervened in Roof's last year when he saw some things he didn't like. Problem = he intervened to tighten up the pass coverage and get more aggressive play. So … the one instance where we know for a fact that Paul did intervene, he did it to increase the aggressiveness of the D. This isn't congruent with part of the thread.

I do know that Coach is virtually guaranteed to intervene on D. Indeed, he has a rep for being like Saban on that; i.e. there isn't a real DC at Bammer, just as chief assistant D coach for Saban. Personally, I have no problem with that. I've always felt that all the "head coaches should be CEOs" stuff is directly contradicted by experience. I'm looking for us to get better on D directly, then suffer a reverse or two in 2020. But that'll be because of the schedule, not Coach.

Well done, @takethepoints, the reason we had to play soft, BBNB was that since 2010 besides Gotsis we’ve not had a down DL that could mount pressure on the QB. Pass rush starts with inside pressure from down DLs.

 

[iceeater1969]

The questioner made clear the distinction was between scheming defense to what the "opposing offense" was doing vs to what the players could do well.

I think that the response clearly indicated that this is a teaching point of the new defense. That is, Campbell was speaking to what he's heard in meetings about what the New Def philosophy is.

Let's be clear about what's being alleged here. If it is true that CPJ pressured his DC's in to playing soft bend-don't-break D, then he's evil.

As someone pointed out earlier, CPJ made several comments to the media throughout his tenure about his desire to get more pressure and about his frustration in being able to get opposing offenses off the field. If our failures in those departments were the result of CPJ hamstringing his DC into playing soft, then he would be evil, imo, for not taking the blame.

Yet, that conclusion runs counter to everything else we know about him.

Excellent presentation however I would like to add a nuance after a re statement of previous point by others.

As has been pointed out Coach has been there the whole time and the DC s all have been hired by him and have reported to him. We all know the defensive game plan is approved by Coach. It would take a pretty passive person to be against bend but dont break and live w it for about 10 years. I am not sure how coach can say that he didnt like the concept.

Now I have no issue of logic w the concept of bend but dont break. I just really disliked ( almost used the word hated) the clearly predictable way it was deployed. Having undersized dl never shoot gap and try to hold larger oil for 2 counts before going in a gap, cb off wr 7 yds, safeties and lb stand in same predictable place were un necessary to running an effective bend but dont break.

My fact is this -in roofs last year coach could not get roof to be more aggressive at end of games . HE LET THEM BURN CLOCK (soft coverage) WHILE WE WERE BEHIND BY giving first downs. I think Coach had a real issue w the failure to step up at end of games . That's when I heard him complain about the defense.


I dont see any malice or character flaws - just strong willed coaches having different opinions of what's do able by our players verses their players.

 

[iceeater1969]

Or, it might be evidence that a good option offense is hard to stop even if you're ready for it (unless you have vastly superior talent). I loved our offense. Too bad we couldn't find a way to mitigate the negative baggage that came with it.

If u were at the game u would comment on the difference in energy level of the teams. We played well in spurts, but when blocked they were bouncing of the ground like Clemson. The texas hs coaches I brought to the game knew the recruits we had at the game and questioned their d1 ability. Only good thing was the Air Force falcon flew off.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

good - echo chambers suck.

View attachment 5564

Yes we are.

It was always fascinating to see the facts in your post so vociferously denied by some fans the past decade.

Missing open-field tackles. We were awesome at that. Allowing 3rd-and-long conversions of 1st downs. Again, awesome there.

Allowing a quick touchdown on the opponents first possession

There are only 15 on this site that generate most of the BS never-ending arguments, so I'm not sure it's a lot different to be honest. Echo chambers don't have to be empty.

Hey escape...leave ugablows and rick alone. They obviously still have things they need to get off their chests.

 

[bobongo]

If u were at the game u would comment on the difference in energy level of the teams. We played well in spurts, but when blocked they were bouncing of the ground like Clemson. The texas hs coaches I brought to the game knew the recruits we had at the game and questioned their d1 ability. Only good thing was the Air Force falcon flew off.

Wasn't there - I'll take your word for it. The loss was awfully disappointing.

 

[GTRX7]

As has been pointed out Coach has been there the whole time and the DC s all have been hired by him and have reported to him. We all know the defensive game plan is approved by Coach. It would take a pretty passive person to be against bend but dont break and live w it for about 10 years. I am not sure how coach can say that he didnt like the concept.

Didn’t CPJ fire three DCs in nine years for not producing the results he wanted? Hard to say that is a ringing endorsement for the way any of them coached.

 

[stech81]

reading what has been in the paper I guess you could say a couple of ( maybe ) good defensive players were playing offense.

 

[ncjacket79]

Didn’t CPJ fire three DCs in nine years for not producing the results he wanted? Hard to say that is a ringing endorsement for the way any of them coached.

So what you’re saying is they all sucked? That’s even more of an indictment of CPJ.

 

[awbuzz]

So what you’re saying is they all sucked? That’s even more of an indictment of CPJ.

.. or being hamstrung by the budget ... $ do make a difference.

 

[GTRambler]

Guys, I believe it all was a consistent quality of manpower problem among the defensive players that it was a coaching problem.

 

[Ibeeballin]

.. or being hamstrung by the budget ... $ do make a difference.

We can’t point to money when CTR was getting paid 800k

 

[bobongo]

We can’t point to money when CTR was getting paid 800k

Caramba, we paid eight hundred g's for that? Coaches' salaries are truly insane.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

As the saying goes " it's not the Xs and Os, it's the Jimmys and Joes". Mediocre recruiting , occasionally better results if all the stars aligned ( minimal injuries- acceptable passing attack , decent D and kicking game) over the long term. It was what it was ....time to turn the page.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

The idea behind this thread is asinine.

CPJ biggest problem was not that he was sabotaging his own defense. His biggest problem was that he wasn’t great at recruiting and, specifically, he didn’t care about trying to sell his offense. He was naive in believing the results spoke for themselves. Truth is, it was hard to convince kids to come play for the offense even if, over the decade CPJ was here, it was one of the most efficient in the country. The negative narrative was too strong and pointing at the stats wasn’t enough to dispute the narrative. Sounds like politics.