Coach JT and the defense....

MoverofFridge2

MoverofFridge2

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Messages
2,261
has been a topic of good debate the past couple of days.

My problem with JT and the defense actually lies with our offense. When you have to play more than 70 plays on defense you are asking to get beat. Blitz packages and schemes are effective when you do not have to spend so much time on the field.

I will say JT is not above being scrutinized. He is a coach getting paid good money to stop offenses. I am not a big fan of all the blitzing, but I will admit there is nothing better when it is effective.

Bottom line is our putrid offense has to keep the defense off the field.

Over the past six years, when our defense has played 60 or less snaps we have won. (I am doing research to back the statement) We have had 5 games where our defense has had their hinnies handed to them. (See Clemson, VT)

The old addage that a good defense is a good offense does not pertain to us right now.
 
mover2

You would have to agree that this year our defense has had poor timing...particularly for a defense with 7/8 returning starters and 7 seniors starting.

The problem is WHEN we give up the long drives. Against VT our offense had momentum after a nice drive resulting in a FG. Then...instead of getting them back on the field while in rythm (rare I understand) we let them have a demoralizing long march down the field that kept the O on the sidelines for what seemed 5-7 minutes. Then we promptly gave up the onside kick...then allowed another long slow drive. Our O must not have touched the ball for 10-12 minutes.

We did the same thing against Maryland. We had a long drive on O to open the 3rd qtr...gained momentum back....then we gave up yet another demoralizing long drive to suck the wind out of our sails.

Same thing against Virginia.

In sum total, the defense does pretty well...but this year the timing of giving up long drives has stunk. Opponents have figured out how to expose our schemes. Heck...Army could have done better if they did not either drop passes or miss the open receiver.

Thursday night was a team effort loss.
 
Just to confirm what people above me said, the very first drive of the game for VT was a 16 play scoring drive. There's your above average amount of plays right there, and you can't say that's because the D was tired. Then of course there was the onside kick, which wasn't the defense's fault but it also wasn't the offense's fault. That led to a 6 play scoring drive. So the first 22 defensive plays of the game came after one offensive possession which resulted in a score...in this case I don't think that the bad defense was a product of the offense.
 
hiveredtech said:
mover2

The problem is WHEN we give up the long drives. Against VT our offense had momentum after a nice drive resulting in a FG. Then...instead of getting them back on the field while in rythm (rare I understand) we let them have a demoralizing long march down the field that kept the O on the sidelines for what seemed 5-7 minutes. Then we promptly gave up the onside kick...then allowed another long slow drive. Our O must not have touched the ball for 10-12 minutes.

We did the same thing against Maryland. We had a long drive on O to open the 3rd qtr...Thursday night was a team effort loss.
Click to expand...


This is another "other than that" type of argument. You get that from Chan?

How can you possibly argue about time of posession here?

VT had the ball for 37 minutes because our offense sucks, AS USUAL. I thought VT threw the kitchen sink at us...they had some pretty good plays on that 2nd drive of theirs. Give them SOME credit.

3 and out, 3 and out, int, int, punt, etc.. etc... etc.. that's how we roll on O and that's how Gailey persistently screws over JTenuta. Personally, I'm surprised he's stuck around this long.
 
wesleyd21 said:
How can you possibly argue about time of posession here?

VT had the ball for 37 minutes because our offense sucks, AS USUAL.
Click to expand...

Our offense started with the ball. Kept it for 2:32. Punt. VT gets the ball, keeps it for 1:26. Punt. We get the ball, keep it for 2:12 and score. VT gets the ball, our defense has been on the field for a grand total of one minute and 26 seconds. VT goes for 16 plays, score, then the onsides kick, then six more and score again. The offense, of course, does not see this ball during any of that time. VT keeps the ball for ten minutes and thirteen seconds. Do you really think that is because our offense sucked?

Now, this is not to defend the offense, because the whole game we did have short possessions and did make the defense go back on the field. But if you think the defense is allowing 16 play drives in the first quarter(not an isolated incident, remember UVA) because they're tired and are on the field too long, then we need a new strength and conditioning coach.
 
Our defense is currently ranked #3 in the ACC this year. It was #6 last year, #5 in 2005, #6 in 2004, and #7 in ACC in 2003. Tenuta has never finished the year with one of the top 2 defenses in the ACC ever.

Is Tenuta a good DC, Yes! His defense as been better than our offense every year he's been at GT. But guys, the defense just hasn't been there in some of our games this year. In half our losses the offense scored over 20 points.

You live by the blitz, you die by the blitz. It's fun to watch; but it's hard to win a championship with it.
 
wouldnt it make more sence to think that maybe vt driving the ball down the field had more to do with them playing well then us playing bad. you guys act like no team should be able to score on us. i feel like our d makes enough stops per game to put us in possition to win the game. you are not going to win many football games by scoreing just a field goal.
 
Face it, gys, we are undersized. Did you see the difference in size between VT's oline and our D-line lined up against each other?

Tenuta does a lot with what he has to work with, he has to design these blitzing high risk schemes instead of brute forcing because we ain't got the horses.

Yes, our guys are talented and fast, which makes his schemes work, but sometimes against some opponents they don't work and that's when you need the offense to step up. Has our offense ever stepped up?
 
GEETEELEE said:
Face it, gys, we are undersized. Did you see the difference in size between VT's oline and our D-line lined up against each other?

Tenuta does a lot with what he has to work with, he has to design these blitzing high risk schemes instead of brute forcing because we ain't got the horses.

Yes, our guys are talented and fast, which makes his schemes work, but sometimes against some opponents they don't work and that's when you need the offense to step up. Has our offense ever stepped up?
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have your first string and second string running backs out due to injury, then you need the defense to step up, did they?

Every defensive lineman we have was recruited while Tenuta was here. If you think they are all too small, then where should we place the blame for that? My point is that we have small athletic DL because that is what Tenuta wanted to fit his scheme.

I don't think anyone is argueing that Tenuta is not a good DC; but far too many people think our defense is the '85 Bears and Tenuta is Buddy Ryan.
 
You could even argue that the "D" has better athletes than the "O". I can only think of a couple of players that are really good athletes on the offensive side of the ball.
 
GEETEELEE said:
Face it, gys, we are undersized. Did you see the difference in size between VT's oline and our D-line lined up against each other?

Tenuta does a lot with what he has to work with, he has to design these blitzing high risk schemes instead of brute forcing because we ain't got the horses.

Yes, our guys are talented and fast, which makes his schemes work, but sometimes against some opponents they don't work and that's when you need the offense to step up. Has our offense ever stepped up?
Click to expand...

You do need the offense to step up, but you also have to be able and willing to adjust. Why is it we shut teams down better in the second half? Why can't we make those changes on the fly in the first half? That's what frustrates me.
 
ncjacket said:
You do need the offense to step up, but you also have to be able and willing to adjust. Why is it we shut teams down better in the second half? Why can't we make those changes on the fly in the first half? That's what frustrates me.
Click to expand...

Nobody's brought up the fact in this thread that CJT is up top rather than on the field during the first half. Not saying this is the answer, but do you think that he has trouble getting the message across down on the field (for whatever reason) until he can interact personally at the half?
 
Sometimes you have your first string and second string running backs out due to injury, then you need the defense to step up, did they?
Click to expand...
Nope. but they have on many other occasions....when has the offense stepped up?

Why is it we shut teams down better in the second half? Why can't we make those changes on the fly in the first half?
Click to expand...

I don't really know the procedure, but I'm guessing it's altering the game plan - you wouldn't want to get 1/2 way through making adjustments and then have the D have to take the field due to a TO.... so you wait until halftime to alter the game plan.

Just speculating here....
 
hiveredtech said:
mover2

You would have to agree that this year our defense has had poor timing...particularly for a defense with 7/8 returning starters and 7 seniors starting.

In sum total, the defense does pretty well...but this year the timing of giving up long drives has stunk.

Thursday night was a team effort loss.
Click to expand...

I agree with that Hivered. What has been disappointing is the lack of turnovers we have caused.
 
gth816f said:
Just to confirm what people above me said, the very first drive of the game for VT was a 16 play scoring drive. There's your above average amount of plays right there, and you can't say that's because the D was tired. Then of course there was the onside kick, which wasn't the defense's fault but it also wasn't the offense's fault. That led to a 6 play scoring drive. So the first 22 defensive plays of the game came after one offensive possession which resulted in a score...in this case I don't think that the bad defense was a product of the offense.
Click to expand...

I am NOT saying every drive is a product of bad offense or a tired defense...my point is you can not ask a defense to play 80 plays a game in our scheme and not get burned.
 
my 2 cents:

I think the big problem with our defense is that the best athletes are on the d-line, and an even bigger problem (and by far the biggest in my opinion) is the lack of speed in our secondary. and i'm not talkin about coverage skills, i'm talking about pure speed. I think we are the slowest team in the ACC, don't even think it's close really. Offense too, but that's for another thread. Look at our secondary, there's not ONE player that can keep up with a skill position player for any other team in the ACC (not counting TE's and FB's). i've not seen many D1 schools with a team as slow as ours. It's really obvious on Saturdays.

speed kills, and we don't have a lick of it
 
GTfanNBama said:
my 2 cents:

I think the big problem with our defense is that the best athletes are on the d-line, and an even bigger problem (and by far the biggest in my opinion) is the lack of speed in our secondary. and i'm not talkin about coverage skills, i'm talking about pure speed. I think we are the slowest team in the ACC, don't even think it's close really. Offense too, but that's for another thread. Look at our secondary, there's not ONE player that can keep up with a skill position player for any other team in the ACC (not counting TE's and FB's). i've not seen many D1 schools with a team as slow as ours. It's really obvious on Saturdays.

speed kills, and we don't have a lick of it
Click to expand...


Very good observation, but the lack of coverage skills just emphasizes the speed point to the nth degree. Give me guys that can run, because they have the ability to cover their mistakes with speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top