« UM Sports Hall Of Fame: This Date In Hurricane History | Main | Analysis 2014: First Half vs Second Half Scoring »

December 14, 2014

Comments

1mg of Epi

Saw this on another board... Here's your 6-6 D, 111th in TFL.

Lol

Chick ***** (5 star)
Chad ***** (5 star)
AQM **** (4 star)
McCord **** (4 star)
Hamilton **** (4 star)
Harris **** (4 star)
D Jackson **** (4 star)
Perryman **** (4 star)
Kirby **** (4 star)
Bush **** (4 star)
Howard **** (5 star)
Carter **** (4 Star)
Corn Elder **** (4 Star)
Burns **** (4 star)

dj moonbat

Saw this on another board... Here's your 6-6 D, 111th in TFL.

Lol

Chick ***** (5 star)
Chad ***** (5 star)
AQM **** (4 star)
McCord **** (4 star)
Hamilton **** (4 star)
Harris **** (4 star)
D Jackson **** (4 star)
Perryman **** (4 star)
Kirby **** (4 star)
Bush **** (4 star)
Howard **** (5 star)
Carter **** (4 Star)
Corn Elder **** (4 Star)
Burns **** (4 star)

Posted by: 1mg of Epi | December 16, 2014 at 09:07 AM


Yeah, but when all residue of the cloud is but a distant memory, and Al has nothing but 5 stars, LOOK OUT! That will be a unit that easily breaks into the Top 80 in TFL.

30CINCO

This blog made total defense their top rallying point for last years defense because it was terrible. But when it's good, it's an incomplete stat.

LOL!!

#flipmodesquad

dj moonbat

This blog made total defense their top rallying point for last years defense because it was terrible. But when it's good, it's an incomplete stat.

LOL!!

#flipmodesquad

Posted by: 30CINCO | December 16, 2014 at 09:27 AM


I actually have to agree with this. Still, there's the eye test. I watched all the games but one, and my impression of the defense was that it was improved, but still unimpressive. Can you honestly say that the defense LOOKED GOOD this year?

UMike

I think the total defense number can be a little misleading depending on your opponents. But haters will point to low numbers and bootlickers will point to high ones, just how the Space works.

I mean if you give up 31 to Louisville, 41 to Nebraska, 34 to Cincy, and 30 to a BAD UVA team and 35 to another bad team in Pitt it dont matter where you D ranks...you will not have a good win-loss record.

We looked good against bad teams in the middle of the year before getting bad again, even to bad teams.

Go Canes

Posted by: dj moonbat | December 16, 2014 at 09:35 AM

I can say it. This D was good enough to get us 10 wins.

The offense, particiularly in the second half of our losses, and even in a lot of our wins, did little or nothing to get us a W.

UMike

Go Canes...I dont think you were watching the same games as the rest of us. Giving up 30 and 35 to UVA and PITT, below 500 teams is NOT a D that is good enough to win 10 games... unless we play 10 Arkansas States.

UMike

I will admit there was some improvement from last year, however this is not a GOOD d. We had a nice little run after the GT game against bad teams where some changes were made, but them the staff go all cocky and went back to what they thing is best/right, and well we all know how it ended.

Ohio_Cane

Think Go meant skill-wise good, not effort/coaching good.

UMike

A good D will carry the team to wins when the O struggles.

UMike

Ohio.. if that is what he meant then I will agree, we have the players on D to be able to be a D that helps win 10 games.

Go Canes

Total points is very misleading when it comes to this D.

I posted not long ago, the Louisville game began with 1 score sandwiched around 9 punts. They also had a special teams TD.

The Cincy game was 41-13 going into the fourth before we emptied the bench. They also had a defensive score.

UVA got two First and goals on the our 3 after a blocked FG attempt and a roughing the kicker on us.

The issues with this team were on the offense and its inability to do anything in the second half of games.

Ohio_Cane

Les Miles will not coach Michigan.

Geoff Collins (Miss St DC) will DC at UF.

UMike

The issues with this team were on the offense and its inability to do anything in the second half of games.

Posted by: Go Canes | December 16, 2014 at 09:59 AM

I thought for sure it was lack of fan support

CaneRock

UM rush defense in 6 losses...1,326 yards, 15 TDs, on 273 attempts. 6 teams said..."Why throw?"

Ohio_Cane

I thought for sure it was lack of fan support

Posted by: UMike | December 16, 2014 at 10:00 AM
-----------------------------------------

*Rimshot*

SinisterCane

Posted by: 30CINCO | December 16, 2014 at 09:27 AM

This is true, the CANEZ 2nd half offense this year is terrible, whether it be play calling or execution, something needs to change next year, you can't expect to keep going 3 and out and not affect the defense 2nd half stamin

SinisterCane

^^^^^^^
stamina

dj moonbat

Go Canes...I dont think you were watching the same games as the rest of us. Giving up 30 and 35 to UVA and PITT, below 500 teams is NOT a D that is good enough to win 10 games... unless we play 10 Arkansas States.

Posted by: UMike | December 16, 2014 at 09:47 AM


There is no question, though, that -- relative to the other teams in the country -- the offense (#45) wasn't as good as the defense.

Frankly, I'm a little baffled how it happened.

UM had a QB who was in the top 20 nationally in passing efficiency and TDs, even if he was only #32 in passing yards. He was 14th nationally in Yards Per Attempt, which has always been the passing stat with the tightest statistical correlation to team success.

Duke Johnson was #12 in rushing yards per game. Dorsett was #1 in yards per reception. Walford was #2 in yards and touchdowns nationally.

These are weird stats to see in conjunction with an offense that simply couldn't get it done when it needed to. But somehow, that's what UM had.

SinisterCane

IMHO if the Golden was a MMA fighter he would try to win on points vs. Kimbo Slice

1mg of Epi

I can say it. This D was good enough to get us 10 wins.

The offense, particiularly in the second half of our losses, and even in a lot of our wins, did little or nothing to get us a W.

Posted by: Go Canes | December 16, 2014 at 09:40 AM

No way. Not even in the ACC. Not even close. Not saying the O was good either, but our inability to make second half adjustments, even against bad teams, puts way too much pressure on an offense that needs to score on just about every possession to begin with.

Can you please point out an Xs and Os reason why this is a sound defensive scheme. Answer a question... I really would like reason to believe.

1mg of Epi

The issues with this team were on the offense and its inability to do anything in the second half of games.

Posted by: Go Canes | December 16, 2014 at 09:59 AM

Truth is, were both right. Neither side could adjust. One other point... Go look at VTs second half O stats, especially 3rd qtr. they absolutely ran the ball down our throat at will. If not for their fumbles we could easily have lost that game. I pointed it out then but didn't harp on it as soup doesn't like us to point out the negatives after a win, no matter how obvious.

The reason the D is harped on here is because the flaws are so obvious, and could be fixed so damn easily! It's frustrating.

UMike

dj.. might be play calling at certain times during games, not the players

dj moonbat

dj.. might be play calling at certain times during games, not the players

Posted by: UMike | December 16, 2014 at 10:18 AM


Sure, but sometimes the playcalling must have been pretty good, or the players wouldn't have racked up those individual stats.

The amazing thing about this team was that it found a way to blow it, no matter what. Offense, defense, special teams -- maybe a combination of all three. Whatever it took, this team was going to find the way.

Soft like rotten fruit.

UMike

dj... that is a good point.. one way or another they find a way to blow it.

CaneRock


Can you please point out an Xs and Os reason why this is a sound defensive scheme.

Posted by: 1mg of Epi | December 16, 2014 at 10:10 AM

The defensive scheme is sound, but the problem is, we're exchanging giving up the big play, for getting our @$$e$ kicked up front.

UMike

Any scheme, philosophy or whatever that continues to give up the same play over and over is flawed.

CaneRock

UMike, the scheme is sound, but here's the problem...we're trying to play a "box em' in" scheme, with "spill & kill" personnel.

UMike

CR you're my boy, but nothing will convince me this scheme is "sound" lol

1mg of Epi

The defensive scheme is sound, but the problem is, we're exchanging giving up the big play, for getting our @$$e$ kicked up front.
Posted by: CaneRock | December 16, 2014 at 10:33 AM

How is that sound?

UpNorthCane27

I think a defense needs to be versatile, like my boy Bill Belichicks pats defense.

plays a 3-4 and 4-3 and any other scheme that gets the job done.

I know the Phin fans who saw the game this weekend can attest to what im saying.

CaneRock

My issue with the idiot Golden, is Him saying you "can't play with 200 LB LBs". It's as if He was saying, that UM historically played with 200 LB LBs, that we never produced big LBs...which is straight BULL$H!T! Look at the 2001 defense, that defense was prototype across the board!

AfriCane

Saw this exchange on cane insight & thought it was a funny read:

Quote Originally Posted by Dwinstitles View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Loudiamonds20 View Post
Irvin don't want to be here. Forget him. We need kids who want to be canes!! Let's move on
Lol dis dat dumb shyt dat keeps us losing.


Anyway dat Robert kid yo I saw the first minute of the hilight tape and know he's a beast. Has the sped and explosiveness to be a beast in college.
Nah, this aint what keep us losing, but i agree we can't get fixated on a single player and say if we don't get him we are done. its not just the coaching staff, our administration needs to man up and make football a priority like our fans on this board do. money is the key to why we keep losing these days. We are now considered on the same level as the big programs, but don't compete with them as far as facilities go. If Tim Irvin comes here it would be cool, but he isn't gonna turn the program around. Its not about how many stars these kids have, its about how much heart they have. As seen on both of "The U" documentaries. Those actually made me realize how important it is to have something to be known for. The administration has nothing except the past to be known for...that just aint gonna cut it, no matter who is coaching or signing LOIs. We need to be realistic, in a program like ours we definitely need kids to come here that just want to be here, they play harder and are more committed to the cause. People you have to beg and convince...you have to keep begging and convincing throughout their tenure. I'll take the Duke Johnson types and D.P. types who want to win and keep a chip on their shoulder. Al Golden may be our guy....u never know.....I remember we wanted Butch out of here too, back in 97/98. We had little talent and looked horrible. This now is better than that and despite really bad losses on the field, and I HATE losing but there is still something to be said for our brand. I don't think we need to tear everything down....and start over again. We need to exercise a little more patience (as hard as that is I know) and let these coaches and player develop together. Then get somebody in the administration to believe in the football program again and put their money where their mouth is. Check out Alonzo Highsmith

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/m...12-column.html

Ohio_Cane

you're my boy, but nothing will convince me

Posted by: UMike | December 16, 2014 at 10:53 AM
--------------------------------

Boy, that type of attitude reminds me of someone. Who is it that U guys always make fun of for not adjusting or listening to critics? Won't adjust no matter what facts or stats are presented to him? Oh yeah, Al Golden.

The Dude

Some really good posts this AM from both sides.

USAFCane

what I got out of the U 2

1. The school leadership is culpable for the program's regression to mediocre. They clearly made a decision to distance themselves for the swagger of the 80s an 90s. They struck oil with Butch Davis and he was able to build us back-up but went cheap with Coker and then Shannon. Unfortunately, Shapiro occurred and I believe they have likely taken steps to distance themselves from that part of the game (despite this happening everywhere). With the ACC $$$ money is guaranteed and mediocrity with no drama is now acceptable.

2. AG is not great but can't compete with the top programs from facilities, to coaching hires and often times big recruits. He will continue to 6-8 wins a year. Mediocre is now acceptable. He will stick around unless nest year is a disaster.

3. Unless the new president has a focus on making the football team big time we all have accept 6-8 win seasons.

4. Glimmer of hope? Highsmith type orgs raising funds in the millions and leveraging that with leadership to get the football team to where it should be. Money always talks.

Right now the brand still carries weight. Without progress it won't last.

The program is eerily close to the start of the U 1. Empty stadium, overall program apathy so who will the savior be this time around so we finish this decade like we did the 80s.

I believe we've lost our mojo, that mojo is swagger. Yes, it came with controversy at times (ironically mimicked everywhere in sports now) yet the Butch Davis teams had swagger without the controversy except the subsequent Shapiro mess. FSU took our swagger.

Finally, without any doubt the NCAA had been gunning for us since we reinvented the game in the 80s. 90s probation and the Shapiro mess that took 3 years and amounted nothing along with shady practices make it clear wasn't compliance it was vindictive. Phillips said it best, they took 3 years to investigate activities that occur at evey big program in the country.

As the wire's Omar says "you come for the king you best not miss". Perhaps the best win we've had is we took down the NCAA versus the other way around. Rules have and will change where players will benefit financially and NCAA will be powerless.

Go Canes

There's nothing wrong with this scheme. You can argue it's too soft but most schools are running some variation of it.

SinisterCane

Posted by: Go Canes | December 16, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Could you name exactly which schools?

UMike

Boy, that type of attitude reminds me of someone. Who is it that U guys always make fun of for not adjusting or listening to critics? Won't adjust no matter what facts or stats are presented to him? Oh yeah, Al Golden.

Posted by: Ohio_Cane | December 16, 2014 at 11:19 AM

SOUP.. he just crossed the line!!!

UMike

Yea... nothing wrong with the scheme smdh

Ohio_Cane

Did U just tell on me? LOL

Go Canes

FSU runs primarily a 3-4 for one.

SinisterCane

Just wait until Chickillo gets to the NFL and BALLZ out of control and only will you then understand how bad they're coaching abilities are with this staff

SinisterCane

Posted by: Go Canes | December 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Are they running 2 or 1 gaps technique?

Go Canes

I'll be interested to see where Chik gets drafted.

SinisterCane

Total Defense:

UM #14 FSU #51

Total TFL:
UM #111 FSU #66

UMike

Talk about me, talk about my family... but to compare me to Golden.. that is just taking it to far.

SinisterCane

ACC has 7 teams ranked in the top 30 for Total defense.

Ohio_Cane

Total TFL:
UM #111 FSU #66

Posted by: SinisterCane | December 16, 2014 at 11:50 AM
----------------------------------------

Now compare their DL and LB's to ours.

dj moonbat

Now compare their DL and LB's to ours.

Posted by: Ohio_Cane | December 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM


I think Sinister was trying to show that FSU is getting more TFL, even though the yardage number isn't as good, as a way of showing that their scheme is different, even though it's a 3-4.

But maybe I'm misreading.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007