You must have missed Cullen Christian playing last night.
this may be of some local interest
You must have missed Cullen Christian playing last night.
I guess I did. He is not listed on the player participation list on NCAA's site.
Nobody is demanding a top 5 pass defense.
Right ...middle of the pack, serviceable. Why is that too much to ask?
If we had a middle of the pack, serviceable roster, we could have a defense just as good. Do you remember Brian's season preview? Everyone knew this is what was going to happen on defense when they looked at the preseason depth chart. Complaining about it and searching for alternate causes at this point is kind of nuts.
Go back and look at the comments to Brian's season preview. Most people thought he was being too pessimistic. Go back to the prediction thread. Most people thought 7-5 was realistic or even a tad pessimistic.
We all want to believe (and do believe on gameday) the team will win and I think that weighs in on any prediction a little bit. I just don't understand the folks who read all the predictions/analysis and then complain when it comes to pass and pretend that they are mad about only the manner in which the predicted result is coming to pass. Things like "I knew the defense would suck but why is JT Floyd making this particular mistake covering receivers" seem insane. Everybody knew JT Floyd wasn't good going into the season and that the only option to replace him would be true freshmen. Did they think he would do everything right, be in position to make a play on the ball, but then the pigskin would magically travel through his body and into the receivers hand, ruining the performance of the defense?
I did some research and made a new thread on the topic of preseason expectations. I was surprised to see you said 9-3.
I'm an optimist on gameday (and I think that thread came out the night before UConn).
So why we should take you seriously now, after a loss? It seems natural to be pessimistic after losses, so don't those color judgment too?
Are you suggesting I am being too pessimistic after the loss? Or that I should be more understanding of others pessimism? And I wasn't optimistic after a win, but rather approaching the void with optimism (and more of a best-case-scenario than a prediction) so I don't quite see the correlation either way.
For the record, I think our defense will continue to suck the remainder of the year. I think they will be much improved next year and combined with the offense's continued improvement we will have a very good team (if not I'm all for job security speculation). What I don't like is people who assume this is the ceiling of Rodriguez's program (when the team is so young and set to return 20+ starters next year) or who complain that young players who everyone expected to play poorly are playing poorly but aren't failing in the right way or with the proper "fundamentals" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
You're basically saying that though you said 9-3, I shouldn't treat that as a real prediction (despite it being labeled a prediction thread) because it was before a game and people get optimistic before games. So my question is what makes you think you're seeing the situation more objectively now? I submit that you're just fooling yourself in thinking you can.
I am no longer sure of anything. The world has no meaning.
But on a serious note, I think there is a big difference between picking a number out of a hat the night before the season starts and saying "This team will be much improved next year because they return virtually the entire two-deep and that kind of boost in experience almost always lead to on-field improvement." Seems pretty objective to me.
Well yeah, that makes sense as long as you're content to be vague and broad in predicting improvement. But where the rubber meets the road is when you answer the question that naturally follows. That is, "how much?" Then we're back to essentially picking numbers out of a hat.
This is a very roundabout way of trying to convince you that if 9-3 was your expectation, it's preposterous to say our current situation was foreseeable, even likely, in hindsight.
It is not taking the prediction thread seriously enough. 9-3 was more hope than expectation, and I definitely foresaw the DOOM on defense.
Who knew the internet saved all the crap I type in?
Because his original prediction was unsubstantiated, whereas his now "pessimistic" prediction is rather substantiated.
How much information he has has nothing to do with how objectively he can analyze it.
This is a decent indicator, though, no? No? Okay, I'll keep going:
West Virginia - 6th
senior, senior, RS junior, sophomore
Miami - 7th
junior, RS sophomore, RS senior, RS junior
Boise State - 8th
junior, senior, senior, RS sophomore, RS senior
Air Force - 9th
junior, junior, senior, freshman
Utah - 10th
freshman, senior, RS junior, senior, and a guy who has been on the team since 2005(?)
Arkansas - 11th
senior, junior, RS junior, RS senior
Kentucky - 12th
sophomore, junior, junior, junior
I wonder how far we will have to go before we find a secondary that has even two starters with less than three years of experience? I'll keep going later when I have time. I am interested in the answer.
Instead of looking at what the best defense look like relative to ours, why not look at how other teams with similar experience are performing?
If there was a list out there somewhere that ranked everybody's secondary by experience, believe me, I would use it. The only way I know to find this information is to go through the rankings team-by-team, player by player. It is tedious. I have a lot of free time at work so maybe I'll compile the entire list this week along with side-by-side rankings of experience and pass defense ranking. What a blast that will be.
and tell me you think they would be serviceable as juniors and seniors.... I just don't see that happening. There is a definite lack of talent, but also a lack of developing talent. The blame is two fold, and some of that has to fall on RR.
How can we say that there is a lack of developing talent when it comes to our secondary? They haven't had a chance to develop yet. Let's not talk about guys like Turner and Emilien, either. Vlad's knee not being the same and JT liking pizza and donuts too much is not on the staff.
Yeah, it would be tedious, but we'll definitely learn something. I'll totally +1 you if you do it. Maybe a preseason mag where you can flip through depth charts easily would be a good place to start.
I just realized that it isn't necessary to do all 120 teams, either. The experience level of the secondary of 0-9 Akron or 1-7 Western Kentucky is completely irrelevant. I'd kind of like to drop teams like Washington State, Duke, and Vanderbilt, maybe who will more than likely have a poor ranking regardless of experience level. There are so few of them in BCS conferences, though, that it may not matter.
Here's what I'm thinking:
I could include all BCS conference schools and the independents plus all teams from the other conferences with a .500 or better record plus BYU, who is 4-5 right now but should be in this just so we can see what a secondary of 25-year old mormons looks like. That makes it somewhere around 85-90 teams.
I would like to just start over and do 2009 so there is an entire season of data. It would be more difficult to find accurate rosters for every school, though.
Sounds great. Another potential route, if you want to be more restrictive in the teams included, is to look back in time. This might be significantly harder though. Good luck!
...if I would use Air Force to support your argument since they are more of an example of what good coaching can accomplish with guys who are simply playing football as a diversion from studying engineering while waiting to become fighter pilots. They basically have four Air Force cadet versions of Jordan Kovacs on the field. The fact that a service academy--in this day and age--can do what a traditional football powerhouse like Michigan cannot, just makes the situation all the more sad. Michigan doesn't have to have the best pass defense in college football but it sure would be nice if they were near the absolute worse.
I'm not picking and choosing schools to support an argument. I don't know if you noticed the numbers next to the names of the schools or not, but I'm just going down the list.
This should illustrate that talent (all those guys are still blue-chip recruits) and coaching (I've heard Monte Kiffin knows a little about defense) are secondary (puns galore!) to experience.
USC has faced some pretty potent offenses and QB's in Locker (Wash), Luck (Stanford) and Thomas (Oregon). Outside of Stanzi, we have not faced an elite QB, and no Cousins is not an elite QB. You saw what a good defense did to him.
USC made him look as good as Mel Kiper thinks he is. Locker hasn't done shit against anybody else this year.
Good point, however, I'm willing to bet those other teams would have had better success against a third string walk-on QB.
a Fr QB on the road yesterday and forced him into a couple of turnovers. Other then one sack we had in the 2nd half, I am not sure we forced a hang nail out of a former walkon QB.
We played that same kid, picked off his first pass and hardly let him get a first down. What is your point? PSU is better than ND.
can you find where a walk-on QB in his first career start led his team to 41 points? I am going to go out on a limb and say this is the only time this season.
Check back for recruiting rankings in February, you can't say if the class is bad or not yet. Not until signing day.
research you did regarding the obviously young secondary. However, the problem is deeper than just the secondary, It is also the missing fundamentals, the missed assignments and poor play at linebacker. Yes, the secondary is young and should improve but their defenses problems run much deeper than that.
We're starting two sophomores at linebacker too. Why do you think inexperienced players produce poorer results than experienced ones? Precisely because they miss assignments, have poor fundamentals, miss tackles, etc. Does anybody remember our 2005 defense with Burgess and Harris starting for the first time (as juniors mind you)? They couldn't stop anybody and a year later they were world beaters. It takes time.
The secondary isn't the only problem on the defense. Sure, the inexperience of our DBs paints a part of the picture, but to bury your head in the sand and say that the defensive coaching has nothing to do with this melt down is asinine.
I don't have my head buried in the sand. Of course the coaching staff isn't perfect. Of course there are other issues with the defense. I am only bringing attention to one factor, and it is a MAJOR one.
assign a percentage to this defenses problems. I say 50% coaching, 25% talent, 25% experience. A good coach makes a world of difference. If this team lacked experience but was sound in the tackling game they would have won last night. That's not the case and fundamentals come down to coaching.
I honestly don't know. There are too many variables and I don't know dick about coaching a college football team.
but I think it is valid to criticize RRod because this is his third year, and putting aside how bare the cupboard may have been when he arrived, if he and his defensive staff had paid sufficient enough attention to recruiting DBs, we would at least have some RS Sophomores or true Juniors as starting DBs. I think that is the problem most people have. In year 3, we should not be stuck with this amount of youth.
I think it is also a little naive to assume that the coaching staff is 100% blameless on the flamouts (Cissoko, Turner, Emilen, Smith). This staff recruited them, and for some reason has not had a great track record so far of developing 4-5 star talent on defense (add Campbell to the mix there). Maybe RRod, who coached hungry 2 and 3 stars with chips on their shoulders while at WVU, does not realize that 4 and 5 star guys sometime respond differently given the amount of adulation and coddling they are used to -- more and more, coaching top talent in CFB wouls seem to require more managing of egos that NFL coaches have to do, given the explosion of HS recruit worship that has taken place over the past 5 years. I think a lot of 4 and 5 star kids come in with a sense of entitlement and maybe not the work ethic they need. Motivating them is very different (and in some ways harder) than motivating a kid like Kovacs.
that we had guys who had experience leave the program for lack of playing time. Now, is Vinopal really better than Vlad? Vino was in position to make stops last night but he was run over repeatedly. Maybe a bigger guy (like Emilien) would have been better there?
I guess we will never know...
This is all valid criticism, for sure. There is nothing wrong with hanging that on the coaches. Going forward, though, firing RR would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, imo.
I support RRod but I can see why people are pissed....and 3 years seems like a lot of patience.
It's been three years of pain. I hate it, too. It just seems like this is the worst possible time to make a change, though. We need to see this through to 2011 with 19 starters back. We all knew the issues with this team going in. Next year is the tipping point, one way or the other, imo.
about this year's team. And I bet a fair amount of you would be willing to say that after next year about 2012's team if they go 6-6 next year or something not competitive.
Maybe you were saying that last year. I was not. Either way, does any of that change the depth chart?
Also, I have already stated in this thread where I will stand if next year doesn't go well. By well, I mean REALLY well.
If we aren't in the running to win the Big 10 next year (or whatever division we're in) all the criticism of Rodriguez and anyone else on the staff is valid. I think he's going to deliver. You can disagree, but he deserves the shot to have one year with his own guys as upperclassmen and 20 or so returning starters.