Excited about defense.

[Carl Spackler]

No, that's not my implication. That is what I thought you were implying.

Oh.

 

[Carl Spackler]

So what is your implication BL? You were wrong about what you thought my implication was, although I didn't actually intend to imply anythign beyond what I actually wrote.

 

[sdhusky]

Not even going to engage you. This coach needs to win games for this program using whatever players he can get and whatever schemes he thinks he can win with.

That;s the point. Edsall's schemes were great against MAC teams but worthless against top teams. If we ever want to be a top team, we need a defense that can stop a top team.

Brown's D has a chance to slow down Bose or Houston. Edsall would have gotten blown out. See Michigan or WVU or Oklahoma

 

[businesslawyer]

That;s the point. Edsall's schemes were great against MAC teams but worthless against top teams. If we ever want to be a top team, we need a defense that can stop a top team.

Brown's D has a chance to slow down Bose or Houston. Edsall would have gotten blown out. See Michigan or WVU or Oklahoma

O.K., you win, I'll play.

Yes, it's reasonable to assume that a D that couldn't stop Western Michigan is more likely to stop Michigan than one that stopped Western Michigan level opponents. You have adequate proof to conclude that Edsall's schemes would never be different if he was able to recruit better players. That is, of course, why the wise people at UConn fired Edsall.

There. Did that make you feel better? We will never know how Edsall would have done at UConn in 2011 and beyond. We do know how P would do at UConn in 2011 (not good enough). We will now see how he does in 2012 and beyond. Hopefully, he does well enough that no one will ever feel the need to mention Edsall again so I can stop being goaded into these pointless, entirely repetitive and time wasting discussions.

 

[sdhusky]

O.K., you win, I'll play.

Yes, it's reasonable to assume that a D that couldn't stop Western Michigan is more likely to stop Michigan than one that stopped Western Michigan level opponents. You have adequate proof to conclude that Edsall's schemes would never be different if he was able to recruit better players. That is, of course, why the wise people at UConn fired Edsall.

There. Did that make you feel better? We will never know how Edsall would have done at UConn in 2011 and beyond. We do know how P would do at UConn in 2011 (not good enough). We will now see how he does in 2012 and beyond. Hopefully, he does well enough that no one will ever feel the need to mention Edsall again so I can stop being goaded into these pointless, entirely repetitive and time wasting discussions.

Oh, we are comparing a new scheme and its success against an established scheme? How did Edsall's defense work out year one at MD?

I have adequate proof that Edsall wouldn't have recruited better players because he didn't recruit better players, Come on, the trailer argument can't forever excuse his lack of top tier talent. Personally, I believe that while UCONN went past the trailer stage, he never did in his head when he was in living rooms.

We know how Edsall did 2011 and before. Not good enough. No top 15 finishes. No major bowl wins. No wins against top teams. Not good enough.

 

[pj]

I was with Carl until he objected to BL's point that P's/Brown's defense needs 6 linebackers while Edsall's needed 3.

Don Brown said after last season that the team was really hurt by having only 3 linebackers, and with more depth they would have been much better, but they wanted to give their reserve linebackers redshirt years. So we know the staff thinks they need 5-6 backers. Also, clearly, they made an effort to add depth to the LB crew with Graham Stewart and Ryan Donohue.

Was Edsall's defense able to get by with 3? I'm sure Edsall would prefer to have more, but Carl agrees that Edsall's defense was much less taxing to the legs.

But even if Edsall's scheme would have delivered marginally better results, it was the right thing for P and Brown to install their system. As it was they were one McEntee interception, or one Blidi injury, away from going to a bowl. I think if they'd installed their system and gone 6-6 for a bowl, they would have been quite pleased. The extra practice time would have set the team up very nicely for this year.

 

[businesslawyer]

I was with Carl until he objected to BL's point that P's/Brown's defense needs 6 linebackers while Edsall's needed 3.

Don Brown said after last season that the team was really hurt by having only 3 linebackers, and with more depth they would have been much better, but they wanted to give their reserve linebackers redshirt years. So we know the staff thinks they need 5-6 backers. Also, clearly, they made an effort to add depth to the LB crew with Graham Stewart and Ryan Donohue.

Was Edsall's defense able to get by with 3? I'm sure Edsall would prefer to have more, but Carl agrees that Edsall's defense was much less taxing to the legs.

But even if Edsall's scheme would have delivered marginally better results, it was the right thing for P and Brown to install their system. As it was they were one McEntee interception, or one Blidi injury, away from going to a bowl. I think if they'd installed their system and gone 6-6 for a bowl, they would have been quite pleased. The extra practice time would have set the team up very nicely for this year.

I have said before that I don't have an issue with them installing their schemes, and I credit them for having dialed it back a bit on O during the conference schedule and avoiding the trainwreck that Edsall had at Maryland (although I think schemes were not a material part of his issues).

 

[pj]

I think the P/Brown scheme is much better in every respect. Better able to defend a diversity of offenses, better able to prepare players for the NFL.

That said, it is complex and requires time to learn. It needs smart, athletic players. In football generally, you need good players at all 11 positions because one breakdown kills the whole defense. I think with time for players to learn the system and for recruiting to bring in players suited to the system, we'll see a consistently strong defense. Like Carl, I'm excited to see it this year.

 

[businesslawyer]

We know how Edsall did 2011 and before. Not good enough. No top 15 finishes. No major bowl wins. No wins against top teams. Not good enough.

As this is your point, and you've made it as clearly (and repetitively) as TDH makes his point that we need to be better in the passing game, have you ever considered whether there is really a need to jump into more technical discussions that don't turn on whether our prior coach was "good enough?"

Just a thought. If I lived in San Diego, I'd be saving my time for golf. Or watching women wearing fewer clothes. Or something.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Total system change. P told us last spring(via Dez) that the decision was made to throw the kitchen sink at them. I think they expected confusion, could not determine how much. A very good source told us at the end of the year that the guys were indeed confused. Perhaps the system change dictated a certain type of athlete/player leading to a depth problem within certain postion groupings on the team. Expect improved execution based on a better understanding of the system alone.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I was with Carl until he objected to BL's point that P's/Brown's defense needs 6 linebackers while Edsall's needed 3.

Don Brown said after last season that the team was really hurt by having only 3 linebackers, and with more depth they would have been much better, but they wanted to give their reserve linebackers redshirt years. So we know the staff thinks they need 5-6 backers. Also, clearly, they made an effort to add depth to the LB crew with Graham Stewart and Ryan Donohue.

Was Edsall's defense able to get by with 3? I'm sure Edsall would prefer to have more, but Carl agrees that Edsall's defense was much less taxing to the legs.

But even if Edsall's scheme would have delivered marginally better results, it was the right thing for P and Brown to install their system. As it was they were one McEntee interception, or one Blidi injury, away from going to a bowl. I think if they'd installed their system and gone 6-6 for a bowl, they would have been quite pleased. The extra practice time would have set the team up very nicely for this year.

I'm not sure how where this Edsall's D was fine with 3 backers and Brown's needs 6 comes from in this discussion. I'm pretty sure it's not me, and I'm not sure what I disagreed with about it - that you mention.

It's quite simple. When you're going to play D in a way that varies the front of the down lineman at the line of scrimmage the way we do, it's beneficial (in many ways - of which legs....is just one) to have at least 4 linebackers that you can put out on the field regularly.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Total system change. P told us last spring(via Dez) that the decision was made to throw the kitchen sink at them. I think they expected confusion, could not determine how much. A very good source told us at the end of the year that the guys were indeed confused. Perhaps the system change dictated a certain type of athlete/player leading to a depth problem within certain postion groupings on the team. Expect improved execution based on a better understanding of the system alone.

I remember listening to P talk about Coach Brown's defensive philosophy at some point in the past eyar, dont' remember when. I remember him clearly talking about the structure of the defense, and that the appearance of chaos, is the farthest thing from what it really is. Watchign the cut ups of the offensive plays vs. West Virginia, I see it. We forced them out of their base offense what they wanted to do in 2011. In 2010, we did not force Oklahoma to do anything different, even with a pick 6 on the classic crossing route.

Defending the Y-stick 3 step pass drop offensive route trees and system (it's called the Air Raid System) is very difficult to do. We faced two programs that do it very well against WVU, and Oklahoma in the past two seasons, with two completely different approaches. Both times - we gave up over 40 points. It was the second defensive approach that gave us the better opportunity to stop it.

Therefore I agree with the concept that the defensive system moving forward, gives us a greater chance to be among the best programs in the country, than we had before.

The passing offense in the two defensive cut ups I posted, just like Sid Gillman revolutionized so long ago, will always be able to find an opening in the defense by stretchign both horizontally and vertically, you're not going to shut out a well oiled offense that runs the system. YOu can contain it though, and you can force mistakes.

The key though, is that football is a complimentary game. We need offense to generate points, keep time of position, and we need kicks and coverages to generate points and favorable field position.

YOu can contain a potent offense to under 20 points, but you have to score more than 20 to win.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

As this is your point, and you've made it as clearly (and repetitively) as TDH makes his point that we need to be better in the passing game, have you ever considered whether there is really a need to jump into more technical discussions that don't turn on whether our prior coach was "good enough?"

Just a thought. If I lived in San Diego, I'd be saving my time for golf. Or watching women wearing fewer clothes. Or something.

Think sdhusky is a creationist(building a cfb program)

 

[Carl Spackler]

BTW: in the two games I'm comparing. They were played on January 1, 2011 and October 7, 2011 respectively. 10 months apart, with the same defensive front, but two different linebackers, and three different defensive backs from the January game to the October game against two programs with very good offenses - taht both played the same style of offense. I really don't know where this Edsall's players can't do what Brown expects of them argument comes from, or vice versa (don't even know what the arugument ther e is? what the implication there was?

I think it's pretty clear that we were stifling West Virginia in October and forced them out of what they wanted to do on offense, and that game was very much in question for them until late in the thrid quarter until our own offensive problems, turnovers, field position and fatigue let loose the explosion of points allowed in the third quarter - while against oklahoma in January, 8 months earlier, aside for a few very early moments in the game, the game was never really in doubt for Oklahoma, and they never felt the need to change anythign about their game plan,a nd that was with an offense that had more veterans and experience and threats to offer than our offense in 2011 had.

also: in the two games I've been comparing, ALL of the players involved - were primarily recruited by Edsall? I jsut don't get the discussion that's developed there in this thread about that whole concept. We did better on defense in the second game than in the first in the comparison, IMNSHO, and hte difference wasn't the players, it's waht the palyers were doing.

 

[businesslawyer]

BTW: in the two games I'm comparing. They were played on January 1, 2011 and October 7, 2011 respectively. 10 months apart, with the same defensive front, but two different linebackers, and three different defensive backs from the January game to the October game against two programs with very good offenses - taht both played the same style of offense. I really don't know where this Edsall's players can't do what Brown expects of them argument comes from, or vice versa (don't even know what the arugument ther e is? what the implication there was?

I think it's pretty clear that we were stifling West Virginia in October and forced them out of what they wanted to do on offense, and that game was very much in question for them until late in the thrid quarter until our own offensive problems, turnovers, field position and fatigue let loose the explosion of points allowed in the third quarter - while against oklahoma in January, 8 months earlier, aside for a few very early moments in the game, the game was never really in doubt for Oklahoma, and they never felt the need to change anythign about their game plan,a nd that was with an offense that had more veterans and experience and threats to offer than our offense in 2011 had.

also: in the two games I've been comparing, ALL of the players involved - were primarily recruited by Edsall? I jsut don't get the discussion that's developed there in this thread about that whole concept. We did better on defense in the second game than in the first in the comparison, IMNSHO, and hte difference wasn't the players, it's waht the palyers were doing.

How many points did we give up to WVU the year before all these changes gave us a much better chance of containing them? Just curious.

And please don't take that point for more than it is meant. It is meant to imply that Karl has us deep into paralysis by analysis. It is not meant to say that the Brown D might not end up being an improvement. It might and I hope it is. Just that it hasn't yet demonstrated that it is (despite your attempt to pick out one game to make a point).

 

[Carl Spackler]

You mean the 13-10 game right? Am I mistaken? The game with 7 turnovers by WVU? The Stewart decision to punt? Yup we won that game. Did you really just compare the offense that Holgorsen installed at WVU in 2011, to the offense that WVU was running when they came to Rentschler in 2010? I must be dreaming.

Paralysis by analysis? By comparing the defense against oklahoma and 2011 WVU withing 10 months of each other with video cut ups of every single snap? '

I think you BL, like me, just don't like to be wrong and it's hard to admit when you are.

 

[pj]

Karl has us deep into paralysis by analysis.

What paralysis? More like garrulousness by analysis.

Just curious - do you spell his name wrong by mistake, or intentionally?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

would you have sacrificed some development of the system last year to get to 6-6 or 7-5 if it meant it took us an extra season to accomplish what they're trying to do?

while it's nice to go to a bowl, i'm glad they did what they did so the players will be better prepared for this season. it's not an easy decision but ultimately i think you have to let the coaches do their thing. if we just wanted to maintain continuity we could have hired Foley as HC, but our decision was to go with P so i think you have to let them fully implement their system, even if it means growing pains. besides there's no guarantees that a slowed down implementation would have resulted in more wins

That's a fair question to ask. And we won't know if it was worth missing a bowl game or not until after this season is over at the very least.

Personally, I would've rather gone bowling last year and implemented the schemes at a slower pace. Because there's no guarantee that throwing the kitchen sink at them will pay off in years down the road. But that's just my opinion.

The staff has every right to implement their schemes at whatever pace they feel like. But there are consequences if it doesn't work out. Two more seasons like last and we'll be looking for a new coach.

 

[pj]

Personally, I would've rather gone bowling last year and implemented the schemes at a slower pace.

I'm sure the coaches would agree -- because then they've had had an extra month of practice time and gotten to the same or better level of preparation by the end of the season.

The trouble is, you don't know if the slower pace is going to be the difference between bowling and not bowling until the end of the season and hindsight. I don't blame them for the kitchen sink approach, I would have done the same. I only wish they had preserved the lead at Vanderbilt and let the defense win that game.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'm sure the coaches would agree -- because then they've had had an extra month of practice time and gotten to the same or better level of preparation by the end of the season.

The trouble is, you don't know if the slower pace is going to be the difference between bowling and not bowling until the end of the season and hindsight. I don't blame them for the kitchen sink approach, I would have done the same. I only wish they had preserved the lead at Vanderbilt and let the defense win that game.

Please, let's not drag up the Vandy discussion again. Not while Carl is around anyway.

 

[Dann]

That's a fair question to ask. And we won't know if it was worth missing a bowl game or not until after this season is over at the very least.

Personally, I would've rather gone bowling last year and implemented the schemes at a slower pace. Because there's no guarantee that throwing the kitchen sink at them will pay off in years down the road. But that's just my opinion.

The staff has every right to implement their schemes at whatever pace they feel like. But there are consequences if it doesn't work out. Two more seasons like last and we'll be looking for a new coach.

yup its a big risk vs reward thing. my take is that the staff decided to throw away last year a bit(scheme vs a extra win like vandy/ist maybe)for development because they know this year with everyone coming back, plus a new qb that this could be its best shot at a major run. we lose alot after this season so it may be a 2013 year of struggling somewhat. i think they put eggs in the 2012 season going all out with as many new playmakers coming in as possible and developing what they had. another reason i think this is the way we are using the jucos for 3012 on to reload quickly. they have a strategy, i'm foaming to see it work. if it doesn't by 2014, then yes the coaching issue will be a big one.

2011- new scheme, we find out who can hack it. depth is a issue. we were a .500ish team.
2012- get a juco qb, 2 transfer wr's for depth and some other spots also. joe williams, ryan d etc depth pickups from transfers and jucos...2011 kids have the expierence now and we brought in a handful of jan kids also. go for a huge run as we still have a bcs bid this year as the BE.
2013- we lose like 10 key players to draft/grad. we relaod with jucos and recruits that are size ready for this level. we have a qb in year 2 and our wr's are still around with our rbs. d is now the big question. we may be more of a shootout b12 team with our o for once in our short history carrying us and our d developing.
2014- whitmer is a sr along with several others on o eligibility wise(lyle/wr's), the last years young d now has some experience under them, we look to make another big run.

i think this is the staffs plan. just my opinion.

 

[businesslawyer]

What paralysis? More like garrulousness by analysis.

Just curious - do you spell his name wrong by mistake, or intentionally?

Spackler is a character in a movie -- I don't recall Bill Murray ever telling anyone whether it is Carl or Karl.

Accidentally -- never noticed until you pointed it out.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Vanderbilt is a game, that I firmly believe, had the coaching staff had more opportunity to spend time with our own players prior to beginning the season, we would have won. Offensive play calls were made, such that players were expected to make things happen on offense, that were'nt capable of making it happen.

I've said in this discussion that the coaching staff on defense didn't ask too much of the players or put them in situations where they were over their heads, physically, mentally, whatever...so to say. I can't say the same thing for the offense. It needed to be done though. You can't evaluate what you've got, if you can't see them performing in pressure situations and put them in situations where players that play their respective positions need to get a job done, and we were starting from basically scratch, with an expansion team, on offense in 2011 and a coaching staff that had literally time that could be counted in hours, to evaluate before the season began.

 

[Carl Spackler]

yup its a big risk vs reward thing. my take is that the staff decided to throw away last year a bit(scheme vs a extra win like vandy/ist maybe)for development because they know this year with everyone coming back, plus a new qb that this could be its best shot at a major run. we lose alot after this season so it may be a 2013 year of struggling somewhat. i think they put eggs in the 2012 season going all out with as many new playmakers coming in as possible and developing what they had. another reason i think this is the way we are using the jucos for 3012 on to reload quickly. they have a strategy, i'm foaming to see it work. if it doesn't by 2014, then yes the coaching issue will be a big one.

2011- new scheme, we find out who can hack it. depth is a issue. we were a .500ish team.
2012- get a juco qb, 2 transfer wr's for depth and some other spots also. joe williams, ryan d etc depth pickups from transfers and jucos...2011 kids have the expierence now and we brought in a handful of jan kids also. go for a huge run as we still have a bcs bid this year as the BE.
2013- we lose like 10 key players to draft/grad. we relaod with jucos and recruits that are size ready for this level. we have a qb in year 2 and our wr's are still around with our rbs. d is now the big question. we may be more of a shootout b12 team with our o for once in our short history carrying us and our d developing.
2014- whitmer is a sr along with several others on o eligibility wise(lyle/wr's), the last years young d now has some experience under them, we look to make another big run.

i think this is the staffs plan. just my opinion.

I disagree Dan. I was asked by a parent of a player last year, prior to the season beginning, if I thought that the new coaching staff would treat 2011 as a 'throwaway' year. The answer was unequivocablly NO. They would implement their new systems, and at the same time, do everything they possibly could to give the 2011 team a winning season.

THey failed at that by going 5-7, and the early games, are particularly biting now, in hindsight, because of failing to reach that goal and getting to the post season.

But the outgoing seniors, got one feather to stick in their caps, and that was a senior day smackdown of a Rutgers team that was looking to go BCS bowling, and circumstance had it, that we were in the hunt for a leage title still in November, and we were in the hunt for the post season until the final game of the season.

I said it before, before last season began, an I'll say it again now, had the 2011 squad made the post season, to me, it would be one of the more masterful jobs of coaching a college football team that I have ever seen.

I fully expect to be bowling this year.

 

[huskynation]

Vanderbilt is a game, that I firmly believe, had the coaching staff had more opportunity to spend time with our own players prior to beginning the season, we would have won. Offensive play calls were made, such that players were expected to make things happen on offense, that were'nt capable of making it happen.

I've said in this discussion that the coaching staff on defense didn't ask too much of the players or put them in situations where they were over their heads, physically, mentally, whatever...so to say. I can't say the same thing for the offense. It needed to be done though. You can't evaluate what you've got, if you can't see them performing in pressure situations and put them in situations where players that play their respective positions need to get a job done, and we were starting from basically scratch, with an expansion team, on offense in 2011 and a coaching staff that had literally time that could be counted in hours, to evaluate before the season began.

The coaching staff, had 16 spring practices ( that were taped, reviewed and analyzed throughout the spring and summer before training camp), and training camp ( 29 practices) to evaluate players prior to the 2011 Season. So to say that coaching staff only had a couple of hours is an exaggeration. Now granted, any first year coach will tell you that 45 practices isn't enough to fully implement offensive and defensive systems, especially when you have an inexperienced offense coming in learning a nuanced pro style system. And I think that Jimmy Serrano made an excellent point that if the coaching staff had scaled back some of the complexity, the team probably would have made it to a bowl game.

Fact is the team was 5-7 and 3-4 in the big east for a reason. They just weren't that good. The defense forced alot of turnovers, they were extremely good against the run, however, you couldn't call them a great defense because of constant inconsistency, and because they had one of the worst pass defenses in the country statistically. ( So it makes sense to think that maybe the safeties and linebackers were paying a little bit to much attention to the run and getting burned alot. But the real problem with the team was on the offensive side of the ball, having an offense, thats ranked almost last in the nation in a host of offensive categories like 3rd down conversion rate. Throw in a horrible or confused offensive line that almost leads the nation in sacks allowed and a really inexperienced, unathletic starting qb and what do you get 5-7, 3-4 in the big east.