We just had four defensive guys blow up the combine, four guys who led the No. 9 defense in the country, and people are seriously questioning the coaching ability of the guy who was the defensive coordinator. Jesus. People point to turnovers? I'll point to the bounce of the ball -- we had more than our share of dropped interceptions and fumbled balls bouncing back into the hands of the opposition. That's luck, not coaching.
This combine showed not only how good the defensive players (and coaches) were but once again reinforces how malpractice-level bad the offensive coaching was that this team did not go to a bowl game. You don't like Steve Mariucci? Fine. Name any group of coaches you trust, throw them in a film room and they would be equally appalled by what passed for offensive coaching last year.
We just had four defensive guys blow up the combine, four guys who led the No. 9 defense in the country, and people are seriously questioning the coaching ability of the guy who was the defensive coordinator. Jesus. People point to turnovers? I'll point to the bounce of the ball -- we had more than our share of dropped interceptions and fumbled balls bouncing back into the hands of the opposition. That's luck, not coaching.
This combine showed not only how good the defensive players (and coaches) were but once again reinforces how malpractice-level bad the offensive coaching was that this team did not go to a bowl game. You don't like Steve Mariucci? Fine. Name any group of coaches you trust, throw them in a film room and they would be equally appalled by what passed for offensive coaching last year.
We just had four defensive guys blow up the combine, four guys who led the No. 9 defense in the country, and people are seriously questioning the coaching ability of the guy who was the defensive coordinator. Jesus. People point to turnovers? I'll point to the bounce of the ball -- we had more than our share of dropped interceptions and fumbled balls bouncing back into the hands of the opposition. That's luck, not coaching.
This combine showed not only how good the defensive players (and coaches) were but once again reinforces how malpractice-level bad the offensive coaching was that this team did not go to a bowl game. You don't like Steve Mariucci? Fine. Name any group of coaches you trust, throw them in a film room and they would be equally appalled by what passed for offensive coaching last year.
Nobody said he was a bad coach, he is a great coach; all we said is that talented players had a lot to do with the defense's success, and that although he is a great coach he wasn't giving his best effort.
People realize that his two years here weren't Don Brown's only two years in coaching, right? His history says Pal is wrong, and his two years here were consistent with that history.
What was interesting was when I asked him what he thought of the game itself and our big win, he said "I don't watch games, I watch players".
I'd go even furhter and say that the failure to get turnovers was the biggest weakness with Brown's defense. When you play a pressure style, it is critical that you turn teams over, because you are more susceptible to the big play, since you are taking a more risk. Last year's team in particular had the fewest interceptions of any UConn defense in years. It also had fewer fumble recoveries. To some degree fumbles might be a question of luck, but not interceptions.I don't want to argue against the statement that Don Brown made the defense better, because it was certainly a great defense and he was at the helm. The only thing that I'll take a little exception to is the statement where you say you hope whatever Don had rubs off on Hank Hughes. It's not like Hank Hughes is chopped liver. Hank has had a successful defense for many years. And although this last Don Brown defense was statistically better in terms of yardage, the Hughes defenses always seemed to have a knack of gaining a high amount of turnovers. I know part of that is due to the "bend, don't break" philosophy, but those turnovers definitely led to wins...
Here is a fact that says it all. Opponents offenses were more successful against our defense, than our offense was against theirs. They ran the ball better, threw for more touchdowns, and protected the ball better. Its pretty simple to anyone that watched the games.
Except that EVERY quarterback is instructed to take a sack rather than throw into pressure, and I can think of a number of balls that were thrown up for grabs and turned into big plays. Just off the top, Buffalo's late score was one such play. there was one in the Louisville game, too, though if you want to credit their quarterback I guess you can. There were a couple of others.Or opposing QBs were instructed to take sacks instead of throw under pressure. If you were facing this defense you would definitely not want guys throwing balls up for grabs. Knowing we can't score means you can take a sack and live to fight another series.
Except that EVERY quarterback is instructed to take a sack rather than throw into pressure, and I can think of a number of balls that were thrown up for grabs and turned into big plays. Just off the top, Buffalo's late score was one such play. there was one in the Louisville game, too, though if you want to credit their quarterback I guess you can. There were a couple of others.
J187Money,
I get what you're saying. But every team drops interceptions. Last year I think Johnny Mac had at least 6 dropped. But when I think this team had the fewest of any UConn team in the D1A era, and ranked at the bottom of the list among D1A. And we had 2 NFL calibre corners. Over the past years our INTs have been:
2005-14, 2006-12, 2007-NA, 2008-18, 2009-12, 2010-20, 2011-18, 2012-6. Even the 2 not very good teams, 05 and 06 had 14 and 12 respectively. The 2007 link didn't work and I don't recall how many we had then, but I think it was not unusually low. So UConn has typically been in the Top half, usually the top third of the nation in INTs. Until last year. I have to think it had something to do with the schemes, guys not being in position to make plays, or not coached to make interceptions but to be in position to bat the ball down or make the tackle.
I guess the other thing this data does is it gives me a little more confidence that we'll be fine with Hankcalling the shots on that side of the ball. We may not have the same number of top players, but as far as approach we'll be fine with Hank.
To an extent I would,yes. that was a "transition" year before Brown had his defense fully implemented. I don't know, though. It might have been that 2012 was a fluke. he didn't stick around long enough to find out.So we discount 2011?
Masters and Friend (yes, I said Friend) will get sniffs.
To an extent I would,yes. that was a "transition" year before Brown had his defense fully implemented. I don't know, though. It might have been that 2012 was a fluke. he didn't stick around long enough to find out.
The players loved him. And when he was rumored to be leaving for Yale last year the to be seniors went nuts (at least some of them) which may be why he stayed and only stayed to see them through.
The 11th ranked defense in the country got "destroyed" by short passes?
I swear that some of you watch one game each weekend.
My use of the word "destroyed" was poor. Coach Brown did not adjust when offenses adjusted in the second half. Western Michigan found a soft spot (underneath passes), and exploited it non stop. Brown continued to allow linebackers to cover wideouts.
I thought Coach Brown did very well here. He is a master motivator and had to deal with a horrible offense that consistently went 3 and out and put the defense in some terrible positions.
But I do think he did not always make the right adjustments.