defensive expectations

[gtchief]

I don't think we were reactionary at all. I think we were attacking a little too aggressively and half of our guys got corralled behind the quarterback while the rest were in coverage, so he had daylight in front of him after stepping up in the pocket.

 

[coit]

This does not sound informed. We blitzed plenty yesterday, and actually had seven loss plays (sacks or TFL). We were aggressive in coverage, which is part of the reason why the LB were never positioned well to stop the QB scrambles.

What really killed us defensively was that Barnett played like the No.1 QB he once was. Not only was he 21/31 for 202 yds in the air, he was also USF's leading rusher with 91 yds on 16 carries (5.7 ypc). He played a great game.

Most of the posters on this board, myself included, really only know if it's working or it ain't working. And yesterday obviously it wasn't working.

Thanks for saving me the thumb typing. He’s very ill informed.

 

[GTplusCPJequalsSuccess]

Thanks for saving me the thumb typing. He’s very ill informed.

Lol ok. I’m done responding to you because it really doesn’t matter. You’ve decided that you are going to continue making lame excuses for obvious coaching failures and there is no point in arguing with your woe is us attitude.

 

[coit]

Lol ok. I’m done responding to you because it really doesn’t matter. You’ve decided that you are going to continue making lame excuses for obvious coaching failures and there is no point in arguing with your woe is us attitude.

Woe is us? I’m fine with the team. I think we will have a decent season, winning 7 or 8 games. And I think we will win 8 or 9 games next year as the defense improves. I didn’t expect miracles on defense in year 1. You’d have to be ignorant of the facts to do so.

So, defense is shaky due to depth. Also CPJ mentioned that Carpenter’s backup got in at 2:30 AM due to attending a funeral and having his flight canceled. So he wasn’t at his best I’m sure.

Offense is solid, playing better than last year. TQM had a better passing day, although he lost his grip on one passs and threw an INT. Stuff happens.

 

[77GTFan]

Watching Roof’s bend but don’t break too much defense was painful. But, Ted is a good football coach. He understood our personnel. We lack speed. You have to play soft and try to contain when you lack speed.

Many of our past defenders that made it to the NFL were either a bit short or a bit lean when they signed with us. But, they could run. Outside backers like Wheeler and Hall and an edge rushers like Morgan and Johnson were really fast.

If we play a more aggressive style with slow players we are going to see lots of points scored against us. Surely our new DC knows this and will recruit kids with speed for our defense.

 

[QuadF]

Reading some of the press this morning, it sounds like we failed pretty severely in our gap coverage and its what led to the qb getting so much success scrambling.
Malik Rivera was probably the biggest loss on d as he seems to be the leader of the secondary.

I expected some confusion and issues changing schemes, but I didn't expect.it to regress from roofs Charmin levels of soft coverage. Then again, we are short on our defensive depth sucks so losses hurt a lot right now. Defense is going to need to really step up the next few weeks.

 

[QuadF]

I didn’t see you mention the injuries and ejections.

Theyre relevant to one game, sure, but the concern is the long trend. It seems like everyone (me included) expected that even with 1 game of xp and a new secondary we'd be better than last years roof squad. I'm starting to think it was more of a hope than an realistic expectation.

 

[coit]

Theyre relevant to one game, sure, but the concern is the long trend. It seems like everyone (me included) expected that even with 1 game of xp and a new secondary we'd be better than last years roof squad. I'm starting to think it was more of a hope than an realistic expectation.

Well you mention long-term trend and 1 game of experience in the same thought process.

There are those of us that think the long-term trend is more of an issue of who we can recruit and bring in rather than coaching. If our talent level is the issue, then changing coaches isn't going to change things in one or two games. Let's see where they are at the end of the season.

 

[QuadF]

Well you mention long-term trend and 1 game of experience in the same thought process.

There are those of us that think the long-term trend is more of an issue of who we can recruit and bring in rather than coaching. If our talent level is the issue, then changing coaches isn't going to change things in one or two games. Let's see where they are at the end of the season.

Injuries and ejections can lose a game, but they're not necessarily indicative of coaching quality (unless the ejections are good calls. Sounds like these were more suspect).

I'm leaning towards coaching more than talent, but I agree that we gotta let the season play out to fairly judge a change in trend. I was hoping to see woody pay dividends sooner though...

 

[coit]

Injuries and ejections can lose a game, but they're not necessarily indicative of coaching quality (unless the ejections are good calls. Sounds like these were more suspect).

I'm leaning towards coaching more than talent, but I agree that we gotta let the season play out to fairly judge a change in trend. I was hoping to see woody pay dividends sooner though...

I like seeing the aggressiveness in our new defense. I saw it yield at least one really nice sack, and I saw it put our guys out of position on several plays, and being completely vulnerable to the QB draw late in the game. Hopefully our guys will learn through the season and be really solid by late October.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Injuries and ejections can lose a game, but they're not necessarily indicative of coaching quality (unless the ejections are good calls. Sounds like these were more suspect).

I'm leaning towards coaching more than talent, but I agree that we gotta let the season play out to fairly judge a change in trend. I was hoping to see woody pay dividends sooner though...

Sounds like you didn't watch the game.

 

[ScionOfSouthland]

Watching it live, it looked like an issue of defenders leaving their assignments to me. The defensive line was playing pretty good, but the linebacker corps was all over the place. Every time they ran a screen it seemed like the linebackers were sucked into the backfield. Some got lost in coverage as well instead of contain. The defensive line and linebackers weren't working together to get coverage on the pocket. There was a few times they'd both rush the edge and the middle linebacker wasn't home. The QB would just stroll for a first down.

 

[18in32]

Watching it live, it looked like an issue of defenders leaving their assignments to me. The defensive line was playing pretty good, but the linebacker corps was all over the place. Every time they ran a screen it seemed like the linebackers were sucked into the backfield. Some got lost in coverage as well instead of contain. The defensive line and linebackers weren't working together to get coverage on the pocket. There was a few times they'd both rush the edge and the middle linebacker wasn't home. The QB would just stroll for a first down.

I agree with this. A lot of what looks like poor tackling is being out of position in the first place. Your body's going the wrong way, you have to twist, you lose momentum, your rely on your arms rather than your hips, etc. We seemed to be playing 'catch up' rather than being in position and ready to go.

In some vague and theoretical sense, where I can still dream, that means it's not a 'talent' or 'scheme' question, it's just early days of a new regime. With young players and new coaches, learning where to be and whom to read should be something we get better at over the course of this week. Err, this season.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Dunno if it's been posted already, but here are CPJ's thoughts, per Sugiura.

Tech said that defensive coordinator Nate Woody’s defense suffered from missed assignments, among other problems.

“There was a lot of missed assignments and guys that were rushing that should have been dropping and dropping that should have been rushing,” he said.

Johnson surmised that the combination of the scheme being new, South Florida’s swift tempo and Woody using a number of young players may have contributed. Linemen, he said, slanted the wrong way, “which is hard to jack up when the calls are left and right, but we managed to do it.” They also got of their assigned gaps when rushing upfield, giving quarterback Blake Barnett openings to escape the pocket for crucial gains.

“All the defenses are the same,” Johnson said. “You can’t just go out there and ball. You’ve got to stay in your gap. You can get up the field as long as you’re in your gap. But you’ve got to be in the right one.”

One possible solution, Johnson said, may be to play fewer young players.

Full article.

https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/...ch-loss-south-florida/mSXV6sN1rgL65aNJGpMCUO/

Kinda sounds like exactly what it looked like; our guys running around with no idea what they were supposed to be doing.

 

[H-town]

This does not sound informed. We blitzed plenty yesterday, and actually had seven loss plays (sacks or TFL). We were aggressive in coverage, which is part of the reason why the LB were never positioned well to stop the QB scrambles.

What really killed us defensively was that Barnett played like the No.1 QB he once was. Not only was he 21/31 for 202 yds in the air, he was also USF's leading rusher with 91 yds on 16 carries (5.7 ypc). He played a great game.

Most of the posters on this board, myself included, really only know if it's working or it ain't working. And yesterday obviously it wasn't working.

Sorry, but we did not play aggressive in coverage. CBs were 10-15 yards back. We didn't want to give up the big play. LBs were completely out of position on many plays.

 

[18in32]

Sorry, but we did not play aggressive in coverage. CBs were 10-15 yards back. We didn't want to give up the big play. LBs were completely out of position on many plays.

I guess everyone's got their own opinion. It seemed to me the LB's were out of position because they were over aggressive. Our players are young, they want to make plays – often they would fail to maintain gap/lane coverage in their enthusiasm.