2019 Defense - Finally Legit after 5 years in the making?
- Thread starter tylersmyth
- Start date
Lmao...no. I can cherry pick stats too but I don't need to.
Just look at NCs won by the B1G vs the ACC. The B1G has 2 since 1970.
And aside from Ohio St the B1G has no outright NCs since the 1940s. Lmao
Mic drop.
Oh I'm sorry, I assumed that when you said every metric you meant every metric and not just the ones that you cherry picked.
I assumed that most teams ranked in top 25, or how good the conference actually plays vs opponents outside of their own conference were actually useful for measuring how one conference stacks up against another conference....but I guess that is nothing compared to using a few 1st round qb picks as proof of a conference's superiority.
I'm sure you can find some obscure metric that says the PSAC is better than the SEC....lol
Anyway... why compare OOC when you can just look at Championships?
So Top 25 teams and interconference records are too difficult and obscure for you...ok.
How about straight up ACC vs Big Ten record in the past 5 years.
ACC - 14 Wins
B10 - 20 Wins
Lol good god... yeah PSU beat Pitt so that settles it right?
How about championships? Too difficult and obscure for you?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...sec-most-picks-college-conferences/562237002/
Players drafted last year...
SEC 53
ACC 46
B1G 32
That's a significant drop after the top 2...
Players drafted last year...
SEC 53
ACC 46
B1G 32
That's a significant drop after the top 2...
Yup they both feed off each other
Hopefully when an improved passing game there will be fewer three and outs and better field position which helps a defense
The ACC has a higher ceiling in football due to its recruiting base. It's just taken it a little longer than other conferences to transition to being a football conference because basketball has always been so important. Duke only recently got rid of its track around the field. Miami only just now built an IPF. It's only about to get a network this year.
In terms of the point being made though, which is about what Narduzzi's D was facing in the Big Ten and now in the ACC, the poster was right in that his defense had it a lot easier in the Big Ten compared to the ACC. Whether the teams themselves are better is irrelevant. The questions are:
1. What kind of talent on offense was Narduzzi's D facing?
2. What kind of systems was he facing?
It might be true that Wisconsin was some elite team during the time period when Narduzzi was at MSU. And lets say MSU had to play this elite Wisconsin team every year.
But their offense is tailor made for Duzz's defense. Iowa might be a really good team. But their offense was tailor made for Duzz's defense.
It's only in the last few years, after Narduzzi was gone, that you've seen improved recruiting from schools like Minn. and Purdue and Maryland, and systems that are designed to take the game out of the box and spread you out and attack, start to take over the Big Ten.
In terms of the point being made though, which is about what Narduzzi's D was facing in the Big Ten and now in the ACC, the poster was right in that his defense had it a lot easier in the Big Ten compared to the ACC. Whether the teams themselves are better is irrelevant. The questions are:
1. What kind of talent on offense was Narduzzi's D facing?
2. What kind of systems was he facing?
It might be true that Wisconsin was some elite team during the time period when Narduzzi was at MSU. And lets say MSU had to play this elite Wisconsin team every year.
But their offense is tailor made for Duzz's defense. Iowa might be a really good team. But their offense was tailor made for Duzz's defense.
It's only in the last few years, after Narduzzi was gone, that you've seen improved recruiting from schools like Minn. and Purdue and Maryland, and systems that are designed to take the game out of the box and spread you out and attack, start to take over the Big Ten.
It really should read
National Titles.
Clemson - 2
FSU - 2
Miami - 2
OSU - 1
The refs literally stole a NC from MiamI and handed it to tO$U.
National Titles.
Clemson - 2
FSU - 2
Miami - 2
OSU - 1
The refs literally stole a NC from MiamI and handed it to tO$U.
I know you already claim to be dumb so I'll let that point slide.
It's the same reason the 6th place Coastal team manhandled the B1G West champ.
It's the same reason the 6th place Coastal team manhandled the B1G West champ.
The B10 has been a spread league for the past 15-16 years.
Wisky and Iowa probably held on the longest.
Michigan is multiple but we're pure spread under RR.
OSU has been spread since Clarett left.
PSU went spread under Galen.
Indiana, Purdue, Nebraska, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland, etc have been spread oriented teams forever.
Minnesota was probably a 21/22 personnel team during duzzs early years.
1. You cut off the first part. It's only after Narduzzi left that you saw improved recruiting and spreads.
2. Just Stop. The idea that Penn State was running a modern offense under Galen is offensive. Same thing with Michigan under Hoke.
3. Rutgers and MD weren't in the Big Ten but for one year during the Narduzzi era. So they shouldn't be counted as a team he had to stop while there.
Here are the recruiting tiers for the Big Ten during Narduzzi:
Five *: OSU and Michigan
Four: PSU and Nebraska
Three: Iowa and MSU (whom Narduzzi obviously doesn't go against)
Two: Everybody else in the Big Ten
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right
Many of these teams have now elevated the talent. That upgrade in talent, while not at the level of the ACC, combined with competent offensive coaches, has made the Big Ten a little bit more difficult to defend if you want to run Narduzzi's offense.
But he wasn't around for this. He mostly faced Two Star talent level athletes being led by incompetent offensive coaches. And when he faced them out of conference/ in-conference, he usually got lit up by them. Oregon, Baylor, Ohio State combined for about 150 points his last year at MSU.
It's pretty funny that you are using a 2 time All-ACC quarterback from NCST to try to make a point about the quality of B1G quarterbacks.
To go along with Brady who wasn't even a "full-time" starter at Michigan and posted very pedestrian numbers while he was there.
To go along with Brady who wasn't even a "full-time" starter at Michigan and posted very pedestrian numbers while he was there.
I put a smile emoji by Russ's face. hence the sarcasm.
-----------------
In the two seasons that Brady started at Michigan, he posted a 20–5 record, including wins at the Citrus Bowl (1999) and the Orange Bowl (2000). Brady finished his career ranking third in Michigan history with 710 attempts and 442 completions, fourth with 5,351 yards and 62.3 completion percentage, and fifth with 35 touchdown passes.
And he wasn't a "full-time" starter. He spent all but the last few games of his Sr sharing snaps with Henson. You also didn't mention his 17 picks...
Attack the box. Everything about CPN’s defense is about the defense moving forward. Stuff the run, bring pressure, force you to have to make plays to the outside.
That defense is a lot easier to run when the game is being played more in the box, and you don’t have speed and athleticism all over the field.
When even the worst teams in the ACC like UNC have WR cores that most Big Ten teams would gladly trade for, its far more difficult to put your corners on islands and have your safety run down to stop slot receivers and these new flex TEs.
What does "attack the box" mean?
What's the difference between say Clemson's defense and ours? Or how about a lesser talented team like TCU?
Who are the teams that box their emol's today? What team doesn't teach the front to spill? Who is basing out of cover 3 or cover 2 vs 10 or 11 personnel?
I'm talking purely coverage, run fits, reads, etc...
Everything? Nothing?
Venables runs a system that ideologically is kinda similar. Crash the box, take away the run. He just has a lot more talent to do it with.
But you're kinda getting off track here. The issue isn't whether these systems can work or if Narduzzi and Venables run the exact same thing. The original point/question was:
Whether or not this style of defense would be easier to run in the Big Ten?
That answer is undoubtedly "yes," regardless of whether it can be run successfully in the ACC.
You seem to be conflating scheme vs offensive systems and offensive talent. What your struggling to understand is in this day and age, there is not a big difference in how teams defend. Whether you do it out of an odd or even front, you're going to do run a ton of pattern match. It's been this way for a lot longer than Duzz was at msu. How Duzz teaches his safeties to read run or pass is virtually the same everywhere. They don't "attack the box" any different vs any other split field coverage.
Duzz and his msu defensive staff had recruited kids who weren't considered big time players but what they did was they developed them, kept them in the program for 4-5 years, established a sound scheme that allowed them to compete with the best.
Listen, there is no perfect scheme. The offense always has the advantage more X than not.
The system used at Pitt is used everywhere with both success and failure.
Teams with better players usually win.
He's trying to tell you that you don't know anything about football and ignore everything you see when you watch a game.
What is Narduzzi's defense premised on? What is he trying to accomplish? The first thing is to "attack the box." I don't care if he does that more or less than any other split field coverage, because I'm not comparing it to coverages. I'm saying as a matter of ideology, that's what he wants to do.
Narduzzi wants to take away the run first and foremost. Make you play outside the tackles with the passing game. He is very similar to Venables in this regard, who also plays a lot of Quarters coverage.
"Perhaps equally interesting was that even though Venables has a reputation as a quarters coverage advocate, split safety coverages comprise only about half of his non-pressure calls. The other half: he’s in single high. Even in the spread-heavy ACC, Venables is dropping a defensive back into the box 50% of the time – and that’s only counting the plays where he isn’t bringing a blitz. Venables is a man firmly committed to stopping the run, and isn’t afraid put his guys in one-on-one coverage to do it."
https://rileykolstefootball.com/2018/05/26/clemsons-brent-venables-base-defense/
This is like reading a write up on Narduzzi. Lots of quarters coverage, but even when Venables isn't playing quarters, he's crashing his safety into the box to take it away. He wants to clog up the running game and create tackles for loss. Which is exactly what Narduzzi wants to do as well.
"The end result is a defense that’s almost tailor-made for the spread-to-run... More pass-happy offenses tend to have greater success since the aggressive run fits by the safeties can often leave holes in the back end of Clemson’s coverage. Thus, in many ways, Venables’ scheme is predicated on the pass rush. If his front four is harassing the quarterback early and often, then Clemson’s scheme is incredibly hard to overcome. If they are not, then the opposing offense has a lot of opportunities to generate big plays through the air."
This is also like reading a write up on Narduzzi. As you said, EVERY defense has a weakness. From a scheme standpoint, you have to choose something to be the area where you can be gotten to. There is no such thing as schematically perfect across the board.
If there is a system where Clemson *can* have trouble, it's if you're capable of spreading them out and throwing the football. Because they are daring you to do that. And of the teams that do that, it's going to be teams that have the type of athletes capable of making plays, that are probably going to have the greatest success against Clemson's system.
Lets look at a nice Narduzzi write up to hammer the point home from a Clemson writer:
"Cover 4 allows defenses to be extremely aggressive with its safeties against the run while maintaining simplicity and flexibility in coverage. Narduzzi, in particular, loves to keep his safeties within 10 yards from the line of scrimmage to create essentially a 9 man box and shut down the run:"
Once again, Narduzzi wants to be aggressive in the box. Attack the box.
Why has it not been as successful?
"The primary culprit is, of course, a relative lack of talent. While solid in run defense thanks in part to the 9 man box, the obvious weakness here is the secondary. The cornerbacks, particularly, have not held up in quarters coverage. Most relevant to our matchup here, they were eaten alive on fades by VT’s big, athletic receiving group."
Do you understand the point being made here by some of us? It's not that Narduzzi's defense is bad from a scheme standpoint. Lots of REALLY good defenses run quarters coverage and crash the line of scrimmage.
The point being made here is that the weakness of that scheme, where it can be exploited, is through the passing game. Everybody and their mother concedes that point.
When Narduzzi was in the Big Ten, that was a really great weakness to have. For two reasons:
1. You didn't exactly have the world's greatest passing systems in the Big Ten. Even elite teams like Ohio State had more of a spread and pound offense than a modern passing system.
2. It's not a conference filled with southern speed and athleticism. You're VERY comfortable with teams on your Big Ten schedule trying to out athlete you on the outside and exploit you in the passing game. It's not really a concern Narduzzi would have a lot going against Minn. and Iowa and Indiana and Ill. and Wisconsin and NW and those teams.
That's harder to do in the ACC. Nobody is saying it can't be done. Nobody is saying Narduzzi should run a different system. He should certainly tweak the personnel, but the system is probably fine.
All people are saying is the margin for error is smaller because even bad teams like UNC have VERY good WR cores and are set up to really take advantage of where Narduzzi's system is most vulnerable.
If this is all cemented in truth why does the B10 have a winning record vs the ACC?
The problem with the article you've described is the author is focusing on Pitts base defense vs. a 21 personnel set.
When we see 2X2 or 3X1 set, which is much more common than a pro set, do you think those safeties are as box-oriented as the author describes? The answer is no. They're going to align based off recreciever splits which can take them a great distance outside the box.
Your description of crashing the box is strange. The way you describe it causes one to think the safeties are just guessing.
In terms of Southern speed.... it's a myth at the skill positions. Are some teams obviously faster at those positions sure. But, as a whole, just pay attention of pro day times across the country. Now, DL-LB, you've got a point. I Just watched 2012 Georgia vs MSU. All those skill guys from uga had no major advantage on msu defense.
Probably not the best game to watch. One thing many UGA fans pulled their hair out over Richt about was how he recruited the skill position. You can go back to that time and you'll find plenty of complaints about UGA's speed and athleticism. Richt seemed to favor the big, lumbering traditional WR.
But whatever. If you want to believe the average Big Ten team is as fast and athletic as the average southern team, that's just not a conversation I'm interested in having. You believe what you want.
Malcolm Mitchell ran 4.45 @ indy
Tavarres King ran 4.47 @Indy
Michael Bennett ran 4.45 at his pro day. I don't know if it was electronic or not.
Seems to me there was plenty of speed out there for GA that day.
So that theory is out the window.
In case you need a refresher in the talent Richt assembled in Athens, here you go..
2001 Recruiting class ranked #10 by 247 Sports
2002 Recruiting class ranked #9 by 247 Sports & #3 by Rivals
2003 Recruiting class ranked #9 by 247 Sports & #6 by Rivals
2004 Recruiting class ranked #7 by 247 Sports & #9 by Rivals
2005 Recruiting class ranked #6 by 247 Sports & #10 by Rivals
2006 Recruiting class ranked #3 by 247 Sports & #4 by Rivals
2007 Recruiting class ranked #9 by 247 Sports & #9 by Rivals
2008 Recruiting class ranked #7 by 247 Sports & #7 by Rivals
2009 Recruiting class ranked #5 by 247 Sports & #6 by Rivals
2010 Recruiting class ranked #11 by 247 Sports & #15 by Rivals
2011 Recruiting class ranked #6 by 247 Sports & #5 by Rivals
2012 Recruiting class ranked #8 by 247 Sports & #12 by Rivals
2013 Recruiting class ranked #12 by 247 Sports & #12 by Rivals
2014 Recruiting class ranked #8 by 247 Sports & #7 by Rivals
2015 Recruiting class ranked #5 by 247 Sports & #6 by Rivals
So I tend to think Richt didn't favor anything that was "lumbering" lol..
7/10 fastest 40's in Indy at the Wr position, were from guy's that played in northern or Midwestern schools.
High schools in southern states produce the most talent and speed. The gap is only going to widen. The population of our country is moving south.
Athletes show up in dense populations. I coached in the DMV for the past 3 seasons and I would put or athletes against any Southern area.
Tracy Rocker told me this past winter that the thing that separates the north and the south is big man speed. He ended up landing one of my guys.
