Not that it matters, but I know CMA is close with Little Briles. Briles UT days, before transferring, and I remember CMA stopping by Cullen multiple times when he was an assistant out recruiting the Houston Area.
I could see CMA being willing to go to a more âbalancedâ attack that takes advantage of the personnel we have recruited, i.e. dual threat QBs. King has a really good deep ball; I know I was surprised by that. However, completely changing to a pass-oriented spread option or even the Air Raid is not going to happen.
Out of the candidates mentioned; Harrell at UNT ran a more balanced offense than I would have expected, and Wrightâs offense at Toledo was very balanced. The one thing that would need to change for any of the candidates is to understand how to incorporate the QB run into the offense effectively.
Having said all of that, the one thing I will attest to in all of this is the run game needs a little more imagination (although I am not as concerned as some about running between the tackles). Imaginative for me means doing more than the QB read option where it is RB up the middle or QB around the edge depending on the DEâs action. Switch it up, donât be so predictable.
1 Like
Weâre gonna need more than 40 a game if we have the same DC (i.e Memphis game).
1 Like
We do not run the read option. We run the zone read. Running the read option would be nice, however.
Have there been rumors on this?
You are correct. Was referring to the zone read.
Just not fairâŠdid you say that about Orlando when his D gave up 48 offensive points to them? CMD defense gave up 35 and Winchester could have saved 7 but drop pick in his hands.
Also helping that comeback were 2 pass interference calls and a personal foul by the D.
In addition the 17-0 halftime lead was greatly helped by 2 turnovers created by D that gave O very short fields they converted into 10 of 17 points .
UCF was supposed have great D and how did that work out in AAC champ game vs Memphis?
5 Likes
Your logic is normally sound but to compare a DC (TO) who will ultimately get a head coaching job to a DC (CMD) who will never sniff a promotion isnât logical. Youâre also comparing 4 different teams (I didnât see many Peach-bowl starters on this defense this year). But if we are to refer to last year and beyond, one thing CTO did that CMD has yet to do is, walk our corners up instead of playing prevent D. Not only did he fail with personnel placement given context (having Matt Adams repeatedly cover slot receivers, for one example), he rarely made adjustments when needed. Every drop back passer looked like a future college HOFâer when they played against CMD. Also, we canât isolate one variable (JW dropping a game sealing interception) and ignore the other thousand possible outcomes that could have lead to a victory beforehand. If we are to hold the former OC accountable, letâs hold the DC accountable for his flaws as well. One of his flaws is the prevent D that only prevents us from winning games. lol
I realize this OC thread has been hijacked by DC talk, but I have some thoughts on the defense this last year. The problem I saw was that our linebackers were significantly slower than in years past. Iâm no coach, but what I remember from the CTO years was that our DL would absorb blocks and our smaller-but-quicker linebackers could get pressure and make plays in the backfield. That was sorely missing this year. While Matt Adams has a certain skill set (laying the wood), he is not fast and could not generate the same backfield pressure that Steven Taylor, Elandon Roberts, etc. could. This meant opposing QBs had basically all day to throw. The Jack Boyz of years past were so successful because QBs were constantly pressured and forced into throwing ill-advised passes. We just werenât able to generate significant enough pressure this year.
It always seems nice to have bruisers at ILB, but to make a CTO or CMD defense successful, you need fast ILBs with a nose for the football. You can also send nickels and safeties on blitzes to force QBs to make quicker decisions. When you have a DT like Ed OIiver who can absorb double teams on nearly every play, thereâs really no excuse for not getting pressure to the QB. Our DL and ILB recruiting efforts, in my humble opinion, need to be more focused on fast ILBs rather than big bruisers. Speed kills and, like cowbell, we need more of it.
3 Likes
I didnât compare CTO to CMD other than vs Ferguson and MemphisâŠthatâs a fair comparison. You have an issue with CMD scheme, which I understand. But itâs blinding you from giving him and thus years defense any credit for doing a pretty solid job. They actually gave up less points per game than last year and didnât play any FCS opponents.
CTO certainly deserves much credit for wins vs Okla, FSU, Louisville etc. So why did Memphis beat up his same D that shut down Okla? Did he forget how coach that night? Or did players performance contribute?
But CTO super aggressive scheme got beat worse vs MemphisâŠhe also got beat by SMU and NavyâŠwhich CMD didnât.
All of this doesnât mean CMD is a better coachâŠit just means thereâs more than one way to skin a cat.
And player performance within these schemes plays a big part of whether they are successful.
To be fair CMD had only 1 scholarships CB of his top 3 this yearâŠJohnson converted WR and Myers a walkon now scholarship. Thatâs what he walked into. If you re watch the Arizona and TT gamesâŠand see how many times IJ got beat deepâŠyou will have some understanding of why CMD played so soft going forward. Iâm not a fan of soft coverage either, but I think he did what he needed to get through the year and numbers were top third in many categories including most importantly points allowed
4 Likes
Thatâs what a 3-4 attacking defense should look like. CMA was recommended to hire CMD so the defense wouldnât change much. He changed it alright. lol He rarely brought more than 4, backed the corners up and expected to get pressure with just 3 most of the time. QBâs picked us apart.
1 Like
A defense that blitz all the time is predictable and easy to pick apart. We saw Orlandoâs D could not stop Memphis or even SMU
3 Likes
Youâre extrapolating a bit. Stats can be inflated. Yes we didnât give up as many points, but what teams moved the ball at will against his scheme? Tulane, and Tulsa. Did you watch the 2nd half of Temple game? They began to move the ball. A decent scoring defense does not equate to a good defense overall. Case and point, we have to compare the redzone offenses of the teams we held to low points with the rest of the country. More than likely they had poor redzone offenses against a decent redzone defense.
Obviously he was out-coached? But he lost to Tulane and Tulsa⊠Again, why are we comparing teams that are not the same? The only way teams are the same is if 100% of the roster returns and 100% of the coaches return. [quote=âManster54, post:51, topic:10207â]
All of this doesnât mean CMD is a better coachâŠit just means thereâs more than one way to skin a cat.
And player performance within these schemes plays a big part of whether they are successful.
[/quote]
Right player performance is key defensively, but not offensively (see OC âdemotionâ)? Thereâs definitely some contradiction here.
Sorry, in two of those cases, the offense put the defense in horrible positions, and against Temple, our consensus All-American nose tackle left the game injured. That probably played a little bit of a factor in Temple being able to move the ball consistently in the 2nd half.
So, it is okay for you to extrapolate, but not him?
Again, the offense put the defense in horrible positions in both of those games. Those losses were 80% offense not doing jack s*** or turning the ball over and 20% defensive lapses.
He never said that, you are inferring it. However, when the offense struggles with three different QBs, your problems are bigger than player performance.
2 Likes
Iâm not. They in fact did have poor redzone offenses( I was trying to be passive to not sound rude). They also had some of the worst offenses in the country, overall, as well.
What is this context youâre bringing up? I donât understand the need if the OC wasnât given the same grace. I guess the OC was to blame for the turnovers in that game that lead to bad field position.
Iâm inferring to the implications you and him made on this board (see above conversations). And please tell us what the problems could be-specifically. Try not to blame one person, weâre using context, remember.
Dust off Jugular John Jenkins!!
Yes, you did. You are deriving outside meaning from statistical analysis, i.e. that CMD is not as good as CTO. That is extrapolation. It is the same as Manster extrapolating that CMD and CTO similarly performed against a common opponent using statistics; in his case, points allowed.
Arenât you doing the same thing, but on the defensive side of the ball? Blaming it on the coordinatorâs scheme when the players were as much at fault? Hello Pot, this is Kettle.
Predictable play-calling falls on one person, the OC, but I already know you think that Johnson sat in the booth twiddling his thumbs and CMA was deciding what plays were called.
2 Likes
No I wasnât. I was discussing scheme, and results based on that scheme. He was pulling stats from 10 different teams and was borderline transitive property. lol My argument was never of the statistical variety, my focus was a comparison between the two coaches schematically. I didnât begin to entertain the idea of comparing 30 different teams until I said: [quote=âxsmithcoog116, post:49, topic:10207â]
But if we are to refer to last year and beyond, one thing CTO did that CMD has yet to do is, walk our corners up instead of playing prevent D. Not only did he fail with personnel placement given context (having Matt Adams repeatedly cover slot receivers, for one example), he rarely made adjustments when needed. Every drop back passer looked like a future college HOFâer when they played against CMD.
[/quote] and even then, I was referring to scheme.
Satirical sarcasm evades you, I see.
Straw man, and unrelated.
âŠdiscussing scheme using redzone offenses and defenses as an example - extrapolation. If you want, I can quote your own words again from above that you use to try and justify your argument regarding âscheme.â
The only thing that is evading me is how you continue to attack the methodology that someone uses to form an argument for why they feel that the scheme for the defense was warranted based upon inexperience in the secondary, and then use the exact same methodology that you just attacked and pretend that your argument stands on higher ground. The fact that you donât see that you are doing that is hilarious!
3 Likes
Youâre more than welcomed to do so, just make sure you quote my first post made, discussing scheme. Make sure you add a footnote that suggests I only entertained someone elseâs extrapolation, and it wasnât my point to begin with.
Lol If the methodology that Iâm âattackingâ involves extrapolation and comparing apples to oranges, then I can see the humor. Whatâs even more funny is you canât see that I referred to scheme and not numbers in my first post (my point). Whatâs the most funny of all is you (Cary) refused to acknowledge turnovers or any context for the OCâs struggles, but chose to give a whole host of excuses (letâs call it context to be nice) for the DC is hilarious!