Was our defense hamstrung in the past?

[RickStromFan]

The 1999 Ga Southern defense had to practice against an option offense all season yet it was a great defense.


"GSU may not have been the defensive outfit that it had been in the Erk Russell era, but there was no shortage of talent on the defensive side of the ball during the 1999 campaign.

The Eagles had one of the best nose tackles to ever play for the program, in Voncellies Allen. Allen, a senior, was the anchor of the GSU defense during the 1999 season, as he was an Associated Press All-American. Allen completed the 1999 campaign with an astonishing 22 tackles-for-loss.

Despite the Eagles’ record-breaking offense which garnered most of the praise during the 1999 season, Allen led an unheralded defense. The defense, however, led the league in total defense (317.3 YPG), scoring defense (17.5 PPG) and rushing defense (129.3 YPG)."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1258384-southern-conference-football-mirror-images

The 1999 FCS Eagles were also one of the elite FCS teams and were probably more talented than anyone on that schedule, outside of Oregon St, as your article points out.

We were neither elite nor FCS during PJ's tenure. The best defense we had was not-coincidentally the most-talented: 2009.

 

[gtg391z]

Practicing against the tripleO for all of spring and fall ball is not insignificant, plus our scout team composed of kids recruited for tripleO was probably pretty ineffective at replicating a decent passing and pass blocking scheme for our D to prepare against.

This. Add to it that kids didn't want to play in against the TO in practice, the negative recruiting, and it was a self fulfilling prophecy. I admit the critics at the beginning were right and I was wrong.

 

[LibertyTurns]

This. Add to it that kids didn't want to play in against the TO in practice, the negative recruiting, and it was a self fulfilling prophecy. I admit the critics at the beginning were right and I was wrong.

The best way to get something to work is to tell everybody at the beginning of the process all the reasons why what you’re going to try sucks and won’t work. Stay on message after that and you’ll get what you said you’ll get. They must teach people that in leadership school.

 

[takethepoints]

We made a big deal the last few years about teams getting an extra week to prepare for our offense. It was hard to get your scout team up to speed to execute the TO, and they could never be as fast. That same thing follows for our D. Our scout team could never simulate a pro style or RPO offense with any efficiency, so our D was always at a disadvantage.

All this about the scout teams and opponents Os misses a major point.

Scout teams almost always have a bad time replicating what opponents are going to do. Players are on the scout team for a reason. When the D hits the field for games they face much higher levels of talent and experience. This is less the case with top 10 teams because of their quality depth, but for most programs you simply get a glimpse of what you'll be up against. It really doesn't matter what O you are running; the differences in talent and experience make imitating what your D will face a losing proposition for most teams.

 

[GTRX7]

So what you’re saying is [that all our D coordinators] sucked? That’s even more of an indictment of CPJ.

I am saying that, until we hired Woody, I don't think CPJ ever got his first choice D coordinator because the school did not want to shell out the money. I am saying that I do believe that the spread option offense was partially to blame for our defense because (1) it hampered our ability to recruit, (2) it limited reps for our first team defense against a traditional first team offense in spring and fall practice, or, more likely, both. I am also saying that it is fair to criticize CPJ for only being an average recruiter and not getting enough talent. I am also saying it is fair to criticize CPJ for taking too "hands off" approach on the D, as he was head coach, not just the offensive coach. So, yes, I am 100% saying that I lay blame on our poor defense on CPJ during his tenure. I have no doubt of that.

What I am not saying, and what I think is silly, is the idea proposed by the OP that our defense was hamstrung by CPJ because he (1) took too much of a hands-on approach and micromanaged his D coaches or (2) forced his D coaches to play too conservative. IMHO, those particular criticisms are silly, revisionist, and contradicted by every single public statement he made here over his tenure.

 

[iceeater1969]

Don’t know if or how much our old offense impacted our defense but also don’t know why a reference to a team from 1957 has anything to do with the discussion.

Please reference cheese's post of a 99 fcs team as irrelevant.

99 and 57 are irrelevant except that they were both aggressive.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Please reference cheese's post of a 99 fcs team as irrelevant.

99 and 57 are irrelevant except that they were both aggressive.

Not exactly. I have no idea what your reference tries to say. Mine says that it is very possible to have a very good defense paired with a CPJ offense if you have the players.

 

[slugboy]

Not exactly. I have no idea what your reference tries to say. Mine says that it is very possible to have a very good defense paired with a CPJ offense if you have the players.

Army did a pretty good job of it, for what they're able to field. For some reason, CPJ didn't.

 

[smokey_wasp]

At the end of the day, to most of us, it doesn't particularly matter whether our defenses have sucked due to recruiting or scheme/strategy/philosophy, coaching, or more likely all of the above We all agree they were bad. And we have a staff that is trying to fix all those issues. Wouldn't it be best to just support their efforts?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

At the end of the day, to most of us, it doesn't particularly matter whether our defenses have sucked due to recruiting or scheme/strategy/philosophy, coaching, or more likely all of the above We all agree they were bad. And we have a staff that is trying to fix all those issues. Wouldn't it be best to just support their efforts?

How is a defense of the prior staff, on any topic, contrived as a hit on the current one? The current staff hasn’t done anything on the field to even be criticized for.

 

[Animal02]

How is a defense of the prior staff, on any topic, contrived as a hit on the current one? The current staff hasn’t done anything on the field to even be criticized for.

Basically accusing others of what they are guilty of........Because many posters here cannot help but take shots at the previous staff......they naturally assume that people that appreciate the past are taking shots at the new staff.

 

[smokey_wasp]

How is a defense of the prior staff, on any topic, contrived as a hit on the current one? The current staff hasn’t done anything on the field to even be criticized for.

I dunno. Why is any well reasoned criticism of the previous staff taken as some egregious personal attack that immediately triggers this defensiveness as if we've insulted the prophet Muhammed?

Sure, we could all never speak of the past again. But sometimes it comes up in a conversation and we want to compare certain things. If you're taking that as a "shot" that's a you problem, IMO.

To be clear, there are people around here who do take actual shots, but the poster who got this conversation started is not one of those people.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I dunno. Why is any well reasoned criticism of the previous staff taken as some egregious personal attack that immediately triggers this defensiveness as if we've insulted the prophet Muhammed?

Sure, we could all never speak of the past again. But sometimes it comes up in a conversation and we want to compare certain things. If you're taking that as a "shot" that's a you problem, IMO.

To be clear, there are people around here who do take actual shots, but the poster who got this conversation started is not one of those people.

Ha...there can be a lot of argument of what is well reasoned. Topic will be a fan favorite for generations I guess.

 

[ncjacket79]

I am saying that, until we hired Woody, I don't think CPJ ever got his first choice D coordinator because the school did not want to shell out the money. I am saying that I do believe that the spread option offense was partially to blame for our defense because (1) it hampered our ability to recruit, (2) it limited reps for our first team defense against a traditional first team offense in spring and fall practice, or, more likely, both. I am also saying that it is fair to criticize CPJ for only being an average recruiter and not getting enough talent. I am also saying it is fair to criticize CPJ for taking too "hands off" approach on the D, as he was head coach, not just the offensive coach. So, yes, I am 100% saying that I lay blame on our poor defense on CPJ during his tenure. I have no doubt of that.

What I am not saying, and what I think is silly, is the idea proposed by the OP that our defense was hamstrung by CPJ because he (1) took too much of a hands-on approach and micromanaged his D coaches or (2) forced his D coaches to play too conservative. IMHO, those particular criticisms are silly, revisionist, and contradicted by every single public statement he made here over his tenure.

Okay. I can buy this post.

 

[eetech]

All I can say is that I heard him publicly criticize both Groh and Roof, but I never heard him publicly criticize Woody.

1 year at the end of which he chose to retire and he was his 4th DC.

I don’t think the fact that he did not criticize him in a year where he chose to retire tells you much.

 

[GTRX7]

Okay. I can buy this post.

Sold! ncjacket79 and I have come together to solve all Tech disagreements. Next step, on to fix the US political system. Lets go!

 

[bobongo]

Man, I have come down on both sides of this argument (I might be just wishy-washy). But here's how it looks to me:

On the one hand, it seems intuitive that practicing against the scout team (simulating the opponent), or practicing against the first- and second-team offense (running the option) is not optimal. Against the scout team, the offense your seeing is just nowhere near as good as the one you'll see on game day, and against the option offense, it won't be the same offense you'll see on game day.

However, there are the examples of option teams that put good defenses on the field (Georgia Southern led its conference in defense, and Army ranked #8 in the nation in defense, and far better than us in FEI). So it's proven that you can put a good defense on the field with an option offense.

So here's the conclusion I've come to at long last (until I change my mind again): Preparing a defense on a team that runs an oddball offense is not optimal, but the more important factor is personnel. The players we've had were roughly the same caliber on offense and defense, but the offense had a scheme that gave us an advantage. The defense didn't have that same luxury. Call the defense vanilla or whatever, but the more important factor is that we just haven't had the horses, and couldn't mask that fact on defense as we could on offense by a superior scheme that could neutralize the personnel disadvantage. Sure, we could have had better DC's (I think in particular Roof and Groh were lacking), and the offensive scheme hampered us somewhat. But the more important factor has been personnel.

Now, the question is why were Georgia Southern and Army able to come up with better personnel (relative to their level of competition) than us. Perhaps the answer to that is that it's easier to recruit to that level (FCS for Ga. Southern and G5 for Army). The oddball offensive scheme just doesn't effect those schools like it does at the P5 level, one reason being that far fewer of the players at the lower levels are going to have pro ball in their sights. Now, as for whether we could have done a better job recruiting than we did - well, I think we could have (I don't think our staff was made up of particularly good recruiters), but the oddball scheme does seem to have much more of an adverse effect on recruiting at the P5 level.

 

[AE 87]

Man, I have come down on both sides of this argument (I might be just wishy-washy). But here's how it looks to me:

On the one hand, it seems intuitive that practicing against the scout team (simulating the opponent), or practicing against the first- and second-team offense (running the option) is not optimal. Against the scout team, the offense your seeing is just nowhere near as good as the one you'll see on game day, and against the option offense, it won't be the same offense you'll see on game day.

However, there are the examples of option teams that put good defenses on the field (Georgia Southern led its conference in defense, and Army ranked #8 in the nation in defense, and far better than us in FEI). So it's proven that you can put a good defense on the field with an option offense.

So here's the conclusion I've come to at long last (until I change my mind again): Preparing a defense on a team that runs an oddball offense is not optimal, but the more important factor is personnel. The players we've had were roughly the same caliber on offense and defense, but the offense had a scheme that gave us an advantage. The defense didn't have that same luxury. Call the defense vanilla or whatever, but the more important factor is that we just haven't had the horses, and couldn't mask that fact on defense as we could on offense by a superior scheme that could neutralize the personnel disadvantage. Sure, we could have had better DC's (I think in particular Roof and Groh were lacking), and the offensive scheme hampered us somewhat. But the more important factor has been personnel.

Now, the question is why were Georgia Southern and Army able to come up with better personnel (relative to their level of competition) than us. Perhaps the answer to that is that it's easier to recruit to that level (FCS for Ga. Southern and G5 for Army). The oddball offensive scheme just doesn't effect those schools like it does at the P5 level, one reason being that far fewer of the players at the lower levels are going to have pro ball in their sights. Now, as for whether we could have done a better job recruiting than we did - well, I think we could have (I don't think our staff was made up of particularly good recruiters), but the oddball scheme does seem to have much more of an adverse effect on recruiting at the P5 level.

I resonate with all of this.

However, you didn't address the issue which prompted this thread. It is not the same discussion from the last 11yrs regarding the impact of our O on our D.

The new claim is that CPJ directed his DCs to play soft privately while complaining about lack of aggression in the media publicly.

 

[YJMD]

I resonate with all of this.

However, you didn't address the issue which prompted this thread. It is not the same discussion from the last 11yrs regarding the impact of our O on our D.

The new claim is that CPJ directed his DCs to play soft privately while complaining about lack of aggression in the media publicly.

Who really knows? I think there is another possibility, one I've seen professionally in several different ways. CPJ was hands-off with the defense unless they screwed up -- at which point his feedback was likely harsh. Thus, although his public comments and individual philosophy is aggressive, getting out of the way of the DC, etc., the biggest impact of his coaching style was to cause DCs to be fearful of him. That could work differently in many ways. It might discourage them from being proactive about advocating for changes to how practice is done to accommodate better teaching, installing schemes more applicable to other offenses, etc. To avoid his criticism, they might have chosen less aggressive schemes. Even though results may have been poor, and he might make negative comments about performance and approach, if it is not specific, they'll avoid the most fear-inducing confrontations and further entrench an attitude that he's not actually there to help.

This might contrast sharply with CPJs beliefs about things, and to some degree responsibility rests on grown adults to tolerate someone getting on their arses and to advocate for what they think is best regardless, but realistically most people will avoid overt conflict if they are able to, seek to do the best they can, and take personal responsibility for failings of their unit completely missing attention to opportunity to improve working conditions.

Ultimately, program culture is big time HC responsibility. I think CPJ was somewhat of a mixed bag. I'm deeply proud of his integrity and straightforwardness and successes as our coach and throughout his career. I'm deeply proud of the individual bonds he made with his players and how he helped shaped them into finer people as well as players. I respect his keen football mind and ability to outfox other coaches on gameday. I also think we are seeing how a more involved and constructively minded HC can change things for our culture. We don't know how CGC stacks up against CPJ in all those other areas.

 

[bobongo]

I resonate with all of this.

However, you didn't address the issue which prompted this thread. It is not the same discussion from the last 11yrs regarding the impact of our O on our D.

The new claim is that CPJ directed his DCs to play soft privately while complaining about lack of aggression in the media publicly.

I understand that the issue which prompted the thread is not the one I addressed. But I'm saying that the overriding issue which "hamstrung our defense" was the fact that we were running an oddball offense at the P5 level. As for an edict to play soft, if that happened then that's an issue, too. But fundamentally, I'm saying that running that (or any) offense not familiar to the NFL is going to have a deleterious effect on recruiting, especially at the P5 level, because players with NFL aspirations are going to tend to shy away from it. And it affected the defense more than the offense because the offense was such that it mitigated its effect on that side of the ball.

I know this is a digression, but I can't help adding that I love the offense we ran per se. It was the side effect it had on recruiting that was ultimately its undoing.