Excited about defense.

[Carl Spackler]

Here's a clip of the defense under Edsall, against the exact same Y-stick/ three step drop triangle QB read based offensive system....in 2010. Compare and contrast to what the defense looked like in this cut up of offensive plays against Oklahoma, vs. how it looked against Holgorsen's offense he brought from OSU to WVU in 2011. To me the play of our linebackers and they way they tend to move, is what stands out the most. Gratz TD return for an INT came on a classic what's called MESH pattern where two receivers are crossing horizontally in the middle of the field.

 

[businesslawyer]

last year with the new scheme our LBs were a little unsure of themselves, but another year in the system should be the difference between having to think about where to go and it being more instinctual. speed can be harmful if the LB goes where they're not supposed to go. we knew going into last season that there would be a big adjustment period defensively and then a big improvement in year 2. that's what the Don Brown fans at MD predicted and so far they have the first half right. i think we'll show a big step up in year 2.

I am hoping that this, rather than Karl's, is the correct analysis. Because if it's Karl's, and our schemes are too optimistic for our talent, this is going to be a really long season.

I am willing to give P the benefit of the doubt and assume the schemes will work better this year with the same personnel just because of familiarity. We'll see.

 

[businesslawyer]

Here's a clip of the defense under Edsall, against the exact same Y-stick/ three step drop triangle QB read based offensive system....in 2010. Compare and contrast to what the defense looked like in this cut up of offensive plays against Oklahoma, vs. how it looked against Holgorsen's offense he brought from OSU to WVU in 2011. To me the play of our linebackers and they way they tend to move, is what stands out the most. Gratz TD return for an INT came on a classic what's called MESH pattern where two receivers are crossing horizontally in the middle of the field.

I think your description of Edsall's defense is absolutely correct. But if it allowed mediocre athletes with little behind them to perform consistently year in and year out, one would have to be a moron to change it. And I am not and have never called our coach a moron.

I will hope that the same athletes will perform this year like they did in '10, but with more experience and size, and the D will be good. If our schemes will never work on D until we have a roster with an entirely different type of athlete, we're screwed. Because I don't see more than a marginal gain in the athletes coming in to the program.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Well, if the change requires better athletes just to achieve comparable results, then I'm against the change and the change would seem stupid ab initio. I am hoping that it's more than that. I'm hoping that our players can achieve the same or better results in the new scheme, but they weren't acting in it instinctively enough last year for it to work. I would think the definition of a good scheme is one that gets better results out of the same players than a scheme that would work great if you're starting players who are more athletic than what you have.

? Wouldn't you rather have better athletes than inferior? Always? What does getting results have to do with that? I think you're putting apples and oranges together there. Trying to define a "good scheme" in the fashion you do...is well....too Edsallian for me.

A good defensive scheme, is one that puts players in position to make plays to stop an offense, and forces offensive players to have to make plays and adjust their play call design to advance the ball. A bad defensive scheme, is one that has players out of position, and an offensive team has simply to run the play they've called as it's drawn up to advance the ball.

We constantly forced teams to change what they were doing on offense last year. The WVU game is a perfect example. Holgorsen completely changed his game plan at half time, and exploited our weaknesses, which should be much stronger this year.

I don't think our defensive coaches put players in positions,a t any time, last year, where they weren't capable of succeeded due to physical restrictions.....if that's what you're trying to say. I do think that we were limited by having only three linebackers, physically - by simple fatigue. You disagree, that's fine.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I am hoping that this, rather than Karl's, is the correct analysis. Because if it's Karl's, and our schemes are too optimistic for our talent, this is going to be a really long season.

I am willing to give P the benefit of the doubt and assume the schemes will work better this year with the same personnel just because of familiarity. We'll see.

Where did I write that BL? If i did, I need to go correct it. I'm not tryign to convey that message at all.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Where did I write that BL? If i did, I need to go correct it. I'm not tryign to convey that message at all.

You didn't say that. But, that's the concern that BL has (and I share).....that we don't know if we have the right personnel on D to run Brown's schemes. I'm not saying we do or we don't. We'll find out this fall.

But this was my biggest gripe with the staff last year. They tried to force too much too soon regardless of the personnel. I still maintain, that if they dialed it back a notch and implemented schemes that fit the personnel we had, we probably would've gone bowling last year. Too often for my taste I saw the staff trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (that's what she said).

 

[Carl Spackler]

BTW - our DL destroyed the WVU OL in that game. We didn't have as much success with Oklahoma OL in 2010. Oklahoma never had to change a thing they were doing against us our defensive backers and coverage to put up 48 points through the entire game. WVU, had to change everythign they were doing by halftime, because they couldn't handle us at the line of scrimmage, but our coverage shells were blown apart on assignments in the middle of the field as we were playing a completely different defensive scheme, with completely new players.

Both teams, played the exact same kind of offensive schemes against us to start.

I expect that against a similar offensive attack in 2012, an offense that's really good, our defense will be able to keep the point totals under 20, rather than over 40.


AND....the reason I expect to be better, has nothing to do with needing different athletes. We're going to do it with the same players we had last year, just better depth behind them pushing them, and more linebackers to bring in and out with the varying defensive fronts.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You didn't say that. But, that's the concern that BL has (and I share).....that we don't know if we have the right personnel on D to run Brown's schemes. I'm not saying we do or we don't. We'll find out this fall.

But this was my biggest gripe with the staff last year. They tried to force too much too soon regardless of the personnel. I still maintain, that if they dialed it back a notch and implemented schemes that fit the personnel we had, we probably would've gone bowling last year. Too often for my taste I saw the staff trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (that's what she said).

I think that if they were to do it again, they wouldn't do anythign differently. Remember, this is a coaching staff, that went into 2011, with essentially zero knowledge of their player's capabilities, and learned on the fly what they were capable of not capable of, and they challenged them to succeed.

I don't know, if I'ma player, that's exactly what I want from my coaches, put me in position to make somethign happen, and expect me to do it.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Our defense will also be helped by the fact that we won't see an offense in 2012 that's in the same stratosphere as WVU or Oklahoma.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The most important thing though, to help our defense be as good as they can be this year, is to actually have some kind of potent, diverse offensive attack to put up points.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Our defense will also be helped by the fact that we won't see an offense in 2012 that's in the same stratosphere as WVU or Oklahoma.

Don't be so sure. I'm concerned about NC State, and our schedule is not nearly as easy people would tend to think.

 

[Dann]

ncst offense isn't anything special but some writers think there defense will be very good.

i actually think lville and usf will have great offenses this year. its bj's last shot to do something and down in the ville ppl are loving that bridgewater kid and crew.

 

[businesslawyer]

Where did I write that BL? If i did, I need to go correct it. I'm not tryign to convey that message at all.

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

If we struggled for a year learning new ways of doing things, fine. I can live with that. But if it's not that -- if we're asking a D that can achieve results playing conservatively and repetitively to play in a different way that they are not able to accomplish -- how would that not be coaching?

And, I'm not saying that will happen this year. I'm giving P and crew the benefit of the doubt and assuming we will be able to defend a pass this year. But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Louisville 2012 game is this year's version of 2011 West Virginia, for me at least. Different outcome desired of course. I want to beat that team. Badly. Lot of work to do before we go to Kentucky though.

 

[Carl Spackler]

If we struggled for a year learning new ways of doing things, fine. I can live with that. But if it's not that -- if we're asking a D that can achieve results playing conservatively and repetitively to play in a different way that they are not able to accomplish -- how would that not be coaching?

And, I'm not saying that will happen this year. I'm giving P and crew the benefit of the doubt and assuming we will be able to defend a pass this year. But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

No. No. No. Go back and take the time, if you've got it to actually watch the two cut ups I've put up. Pause and play liberally. It will take a good 1/2 hour to do it if you're not used to looking at clips. The linebackers are plenty athletic enough - two of them were new by the way from 2010, and only one in 2011 played regularly under Edsall anyway. I'm not arguing that they need plays off. I think that a LOT was asked of those three players, adn they performed as well as they could, adn that fatigue was inevitable. Go to the film.

#1. I think that an attack style, pursuit, horizontally and vertically, constantly - by the linebackers, is more physically taxing, than a step, read nad backpedal or pursue type of play. The style of play in 2011, was that attack/pursuit, while the style of play in 2010.

#2. If you look at the film from 2011 especially, we are in all kinds of different formations on defense, 3 man down, 4 man down, all different kinds of spacing and pressure from different places. We did it all witht he same 3 linebackers. I'm saying that with all those different looks, and situations, it's ideal to have specific personnel groupings to run in and out. a fourth linebacker to bring in and out, will give the defense flexibility it didn't have in 2011.

I think Jimmy was talking aobut nickel coverage packages (5 DB's). Well, another option to a nickel, espeically if you're going to put 3 men down on the line, is the extra linebacker, rather than the extra DB. We were pretty effective with nickel coverage packages - I think - last year, but you give up a lot in the front by doing that regularly, and you need to be able to stop the run first and foremost and always.

So it's not about spelling, or resting linebackers on purpose, it's about the style of play that the dfense brings, and having designed personnel groupings, with enough players, that by default, keeps legs fresh.

 

[mattp]

But this was my biggest gripe with the staff last year. They tried to force too much too soon regardless of the personnel. I still maintain, that if they dialed it back a notch and implemented schemes that fit the personnel we had, we probably would've gone bowling last year. Too often for my taste I saw the staff trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (that's what she said).

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

 

[sdhusky]

But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?

Seems like you are forgetting another possibility - that Edsall's defense wasn't the absolute best possible. Maybe, just maybe, its possible to have a defense that can win against top 25 competition? Maybe, its possible to actually finish in the top 10?

Those are the goals of PP. Edsall's summit was 8-5 and top 35

 

[businesslawyer]

Seems like you are forgetting another possibility - that Edsall's defense wasn't the absolute best possible. Maybe, just maybe, its possible to have a defense that can win against top 25 competition? Maybe, its possible to actually finish in the top 10?

Those are the goals of PP. Edsall's summit was 8-5 and top 35

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.

 

[businesslawyer]

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

No. No. No. Go back and take the time, if you've got it to actually watch the two cut ups I've put up. Pause and play liberally. It will take a good 1/2 hour to do it if you're not used to looking at clips. The linebackers are plenty athletic enough - two of them were new by the way from 2010, and only one in 2011 played regularly under Edsall anyway. I'm not arguing that they need plays off. I think that a LOT was asked of those three players, adn they performed as well as they could, adn that fatigue was inevitable. Go to the film.

#1. I think that an attack style, pursuit, horizontally and vertically, constantly - by the linebackers, is more physically taxing, than a step, read nad backpedal or pursue type of play. The style of play in 2011, was that attack/pursuit, while the style of play in 2010.

#2. If you look at the film from 2011 especially, we are in all kinds of different formations on defense, 3 man down, 4 man down, all different kinds of spacing and pressure from different places. We did it all witht he same 3 linebackers. I'm saying that with all those different looks, and situations, it's ideal to have specific personnel groupings to run in and out. a fourth linebacker to bring in and out, will give the defense flexibility it didn't have in 2011.

I think Jimmy was talking aobut nickel coverage packages (5 DB's). Well, another option to a nickel, espeically if you're going to put 3 men down on the line, is the extra linebacker, rather than the extra DB. We were pretty effective with nickel coverage packages - I think - last year, but you give up a lot in the front by doing that regularly, and you need to be able to stop the run first and foremost and always.

So it's not about spelling, or resting linebackers on purpose, it's about the style of play that the dfense brings, and having designed personnel groupings, with enough players, that by default, keeps legs fresh.

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

Have a nice day.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Isn't that the implication of what you're writing? That LBS that were performing well under Edsall couldn't do the job in Brown's D because they weren't athletic enough or didn't get enough plays off?

If we struggled for a year learning new ways of doing things, fine. I can live with that. But if it's not that -- if we're asking a D that can achieve results playing conservatively and repetitively to play in a different way that they are not able to accomplish -- how would that not be coaching?

And, I'm not saying that will happen this year. I'm giving P and crew the benefit of the doubt and assuming we will be able to defend a pass this year. quote]


But you seem to be telling me that we only needed 3 good LBs to win Edsall's way and we need 6 to win Brown's way. If that is indeed the case, how isn't Brown's way inferior?


Again....NO NO NO. That's not what I'm saying. Lawyers. I'm saying exactly what I write! not something else LOL.

We don't need 6 to win Brown's way. I'm saying our defense will be more flexible, and able to do more, with at least one more linebacker available to put into personnel packages, and that will help keep legs fresh, and we didn't really have that last year....among many other things it will help with. And btw, I'd rather have 6 linebackers that I can put into a game at any time over three, any day, no matter who's coaching.

 

[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.