California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana combined together dwarf the total of all the northern states.
2019 Defense - Finally Legit after 5 years in the making?
- Thread starter tylersmyth
- Start date
That's why you see so many northern schools in the south.
There are plenty more athletic skill players than lineman/linebackers. Just attend any combine or camp see the reps the lineman get vs the skills.
That's what separates the have's and have not's. - athletic big guys!!!
Matt Canada proved at Indiana you can produce freaky offensive #'s due to scheme and skill talent. He also proved you don't win that much in that process if you can stop people. Big guys who can run are at a premium.
Chiming in late but, "Hell No". Get ready for another 6 - 6 season. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so.
PS: If Narduzzi goes 8 - 4 regular season and wins a bowl game ( finally ) I'll be amazed and consider it a big success for him. The Honeymoon is over for Narduzzi and hope doesn't spring eternal.
Let's see: Loses: Penn State - Narduzzi gets out coached again, UCF - Put in last years tape, North Carolina - Thursday Night Fiasco in front of 20,000, Miami - again, put in last years tape, Syracuse - on the road and improving under Dino Babbers, Georgia Tech - New Coaching Staff, On the road.
This is Optimistic, this is assuming he somehow beats UVA who is coming off a 28-0 bowl win vs a good South Carolina team, Va Tech on the road, Duke on the road and an improved BC team. Hell Ohio U under Frank Solich will give Narduzzi all he wants.
The question is if he goes 4 - 8 or 5 - 7 what will Heather Lyke do?
Like I said, whatever you say.
If the Big Ten is as fast and athletic as the ACC, okay.
If Mark Richt's WR recruiting wasn't a complaint from UGA fans while he was there, okay.
If you polled every coach in college football and asked them:
On a year to year basis, whose offensive talent would you rather face on a given Saturday: Indiana or UNC, what do you think the answer would be?
I mean, how many schools in the Big Ten have had as many WRs taken in the first couple of rounds of the NFL Draft as GT has *while* GT was running the TO???
Thomas went in the First Round. The kid that replaced Thomas as their go-to WR went in like the first or second round. I'd be curious to see what Indiana, Purdue, Ill, Minn., etc. have produced in that time period. I'd almost be willing to bet our TRIPLE OPTION southern team has dwarfed most of the Big Ten in skill position talent on offense.
I just showed you Georgia's receivers were plenty fast. Both of the starters became NFL players. From 2001-2015 richt only had 2 recruiting classes that weren't top 10. These things don't fit your agenda so you refute them. I get it, it's cool to agree to disagree.
Cash - with all this ACC talent on offense why does the B10 have a substantial win/loss record vs the ACC?
Cash - GT finished in 1st or 2nd place 7X in 11 years under Johnson. Why would you want to compare them to the bottom dwellers in the b10?
I’m comparing talent. GT has a bottom tier recruiting under Johnson. The point I’m making is fairly simple.
That even our team that runs an offense system that is poison on the recruiting trail. Even our team that doesn’t really use WRs and so struggled landing them. Even our team that has an insane academic standard that closes it off to the best talent in the south. Even *that* team, has produced just as much, if not more, offensive WR talent than most Big Ten schools. Simply because, even with all of those limitations, it’s located in the south. And the south is a different animal.
I think the craziest part about interacting with you isn’t that you disagree with the logic. That’s fine. But you seem incapable of even understanding the logical argument being made.
Cash - I've countered the original point that Duzz wasn't successful because his scheme fit the B10 and doesn't in the acc. According to the experts msu was not a recruiting powerhouse. His defenses both players and scheme were superior to the opposition. That is called coaching.
The scheme isn't harder to run in the acc.
You need to understand coverage -
1. We are not exclusively in press quarters. You won't see us in it vs 3X1, twins, empty, etc. You rarely see us in it on obvious passing downs where Duzz like everyone else like to play cover 3 with pressure.
2. Say you want to base out of cover 2 vs 2X2 sets. My question is what is rule for cb when #2 goes vertical? Do you sit his Ass in the flat? What happens if #1 goes vertical? The answer is your faaked! So, even cover 2 teams run a bastardized version of quarters vs 2 verts. Alabama won a NC over Georgia with this same dilemma. The bottom line is you're going allow your apex player to handle the back out while carrying #2. It's the safest most sound way to handle 2X2 spread sets - quarters!!!!
Is Duzz without fault - no. I'd like to see us in more read 2 with our CBS @ 7 yards. I'd like get out of special vs 3X1. Everyone knows how we play 3X1 and they try to isolate our boundary lb. I'd like to see the front set opposite the back vs 3X1. I'd like to see us recruit better at the field lb.
Finally, if the acc is superior in talent to the b10 , why don't they have a winning record vs the b10?
The scheme isn't harder to run in the acc.
You need to understand coverage -
1. We are not exclusively in press quarters. You won't see us in it vs 3X1, twins, empty, etc. You rarely see us in it on obvious passing downs where Duzz like everyone else like to play cover 3 with pressure.
2. Say you want to base out of cover 2 vs 2X2 sets. My question is what is rule for cb when #2 goes vertical? Do you sit his Ass in the flat? What happens if #1 goes vertical? The answer is your faaked! So, even cover 2 teams run a bastardized version of quarters vs 2 verts. Alabama won a NC over Georgia with this same dilemma. The bottom line is you're going allow your apex player to handle the back out while carrying #2. It's the safest most sound way to handle 2X2 spread sets - quarters!!!!
Is Duzz without fault - no. I'd like to see us in more read 2 with our CBS @ 7 yards. I'd like get out of special vs 3X1. Everyone knows how we play 3X1 and they try to isolate our boundary lb. I'd like to see the front set opposite the back vs 3X1. I'd like to see us recruit better at the field lb.
Finally, if the acc is superior in talent to the b10 , why don't they have a winning record vs the b10?
Better yet, if Narduzzi's defense is supposedly better suited to match up with Big10 offenses, how is Pitt 1-5 against the Big10 since joining the ACC?
Except that wasn’t the original point. You’re just lost here.
*Nobody* is saying Narduzzi’s scheme can’t work here. This is what is so laughable about what you’re saying. You’re tilting at windmills.
Every scheme has pressure points. Areas you have sacrificed strength to be really good in other areas.
The quality of your defense is then going to be determined by:
1. How good are you in the areas you designed the defense to be good in at the expense of other areas?
2. Your ability to get talent to mitigate the weaker areas (if corners on an island is the potential weak point, you get lockdown corners).
The point people are making is that you have less margin for error in the ACC. Not that the system can’t work, but that the system itself isn’t going to take you as far in the ACC as it will in the Big Ten. Because there are better passing attacks with better talent than what was in the Big Ten. Even our Triple Option teams recruit better WR talent than most of the Big Ten.
Once again, nobodyyyyyyy is arguing his defense can’t work. The point is he has failed to do the things needed to make it work in the ACC. Whereas the Big Ten he coached in would have been a little more forgiving of these failures.
You keep wanting to show everybody why the scheme is good or why it can work in the ACC. But that’s just a debate you’re having with yourself.
Cash - why does the B10 have a winning record against the ACC if the talent and coaching is so much better????
Cash - why would you compare GT, a team that has won or been runner up 7/11X in the coastal under PJ, against bottom dwellers in the b10??? I think that kind of hurts your argument don't you think? A team with marginal recruiting prowess has had a great deal of success in the coastal. What's that say about the coastal? Why don't you compare them to top tier of the B10 teams?
Cash - why would you compare GT, a team that has won or been runner up 7/11X in the coastal under PJ, against bottom dwellers in the b10??? I think that kind of hurts your argument don't you think? A team with marginal recruiting prowess has had a great deal of success in the coastal. What's that say about the coastal? Why don't you compare them to top tier of the B10 teams?
If you are going argue that Narduzzi's D isn't able to contain ACC offenses, GT is an odd team to use as an example. Yes, GT has put some good wideouts in the NFL, but how many times were they lining up with 4 wides, as opposed to their A backs? They are also one of the most run heavy teams in CFB, so a scheme and alignment that has the back 7 helping against the run seems to be an argument in favor. But during HCPN's tenure, he has done a decent job of containing GT's offense, at least relative to their averages.
If I had to pick an offense that gives him fits it would be Duke.
If I had to pick an offense that gives him fits it would be Duke.
The problem with the defense has been pass rush from the front 4, and LBs who struggle to cover / lack the speed to cover. They should be playing nickel or some hybrid against every team that spreads it out - which is basically everyone in the ACC. They've done this more under Bates so I hope it continues.
Look at the LBs they're bringing in and also moving guys like Campbell to LB. Guys in the 6' to 6'2 range going 200 - 220 who can run. You can see a transition happening, and it has to. The only bigger LB is going to be the Mike.
Look at the LBs they're bringing in and also moving guys like Campbell to LB. Guys in the 6' to 6'2 range going 200 - 220 who can run. You can see a transition happening, and it has to. The only bigger LB is going to be the Mike.
I’ve already explained why I brought up GT. How are you not understanding this???
I get that you don’t like the example, but *why* I’m bringing it up is obvious. I’ve now explained it fully to you.
The point I’m making here is about speed and athleticism. That even low ranked recruiting classes in the ACC produce better skill position athletes, because they draw from the south. GT is a PERFECT example of that. You want me to compare the low ranked recruiting classes of GT to the high ranked classes of the Big Ten, and you think that would disprove the point?
And I don’t care why the Big Ten has more success in your small sample size. Could be great coaching from the Big Ten, could be bad coaching from the ACC. Could be injuries. Could be turnover luck. I don’t know. Your sample size is so small than anything could explain it.
But you’re continuing to be lost in the argument here. Nobody is arguing the Big Ten isn’t better per se. So pointing to Big Ten teams winning is irrelevant.
What we are asking is why Narduzzi’s defense sucks while at Pitt?
So the better league is to be determined by the strength of its top program only, and/or using a moving goalpost of a timeframe going back 20 years to validate teams like Miami or FSU, as opposed to what the original post was, which is what’s the better league currently?
Got it.
Why wouldn’t you use a 10 or 20 year time frame to provide more accurate data? A few years isn’t long enough.
ACC vs B10
BY DECADE
W L T Win % PFPG PAPG
2010's 19 26 0 42.2 25.6 28.0
2000's 11 15 0 42.3 22.6 24.4
1990's 10 12 0 45.5 21.8 27.7
1980's 10 8 0 55.6 22.5 22.3
1970's 9 11 1 45.2 15.0 22.3
1960's 4 14 0 22.2 14.1 26.4
1950's 3 1 1 70.0 16.2 13.6
Cash - is this sample size too small too?
You would think with all this Southern speed in this wide open era they'd be able to average more than 25ppg vs these slow northern teams.?
BY DECADE
W L T Win % PFPG PAPG
2010's 19 26 0 42.2 25.6 28.0
2000's 11 15 0 42.3 22.6 24.4
1990's 10 12 0 45.5 21.8 27.7
1980's 10 8 0 55.6 22.5 22.3
1970's 9 11 1 45.2 15.0 22.3
1960's 4 14 0 22.2 14.1 26.4
1950's 3 1 1 70.0 16.2 13.6
Cash - is this sample size too small too?
You would think with all this Southern speed in this wide open era they'd be able to average more than 25ppg vs these slow northern teams.?
GT was the #1/#2 in the coastal during that majority of that time frame.
I could care less about the recruiting rankings.
Compare them vs #1 or #2 teams in the B10 during that time frame.
The fact that GT was beating other top acc programs is why you compare the top b10 teams to them.
lol. Wut? You've used recruiting class rankings to show me how talented UGA receivers are, but now you don't care about them? That's cute trick.
And once again, it's I COULDN'T care less.
You keep wanting to prove to me that the ACC hasn't had the best teams. I've already conceded that point, so it's odd you keep bringing it up.
It's possible for a team/league to:
1. Have lots of speed and athleticism.
2. Have horrible coaching and other circumstances that mitigate it and therefore still produce disappointing results.
Hell, we play a team in the Coastal that is probably THE best example of that over the last 15 years. The ACC as a whole is probably THE best example of that due to it's basketball first mentality for too long.
So lets say the Big Ten is better. You no longer have to hammer that point home anymore.
Now to the *actual* point: the ACC while Narduzzi has been in it has more dynamic offenses and better speed and athleticism than what he faced on a weekly basis in the Big Ten, and therefore, his margin for error is less.
Nothing you have written has gone to this. Every one of your posts is a straw man. You're arguing against ghosts.
You want to say, "Yeah, but GT has been good." But that's the entire point. While it's true that the ACC being down has helped GT during that time frame, they've had FOUR WRs draft into the NFL. So it's not as if they are taking average talent and beating everybody because the league sucks so bad, which is the point you are trying to make.
The point I'm making is that even the lower end southern recruiting classes, at a school that *should not be able to bring in WRs,* can provide enough NFL talent at the skill positions.
You saying, "that's not fair. GT has talent! So you can't compare them to Purdue" is the exact point of the GT argument.
Cash - were going have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the dialogue, it's been awhile that I've got into posting.
I think my opinion is that Duzz needs better DL/LB to get over 7-8 hump. I think he had better development at msu along the front. I disagree his prominence as a DC was due to msu having a huge talent advantage in the b10. I disagree that at the skill positions, there is a huge discrepancy between northern and Southern schools. I've maintained that for years
I watched the 2008 pitt wvu game the other day. We need that kind of talent that dw had on the front going forward.
BTW, cash I think Indiana had 3-4 Wr's drafted during gts run lol...
I think my opinion is that Duzz needs better DL/LB to get over 7-8 hump. I think he had better development at msu along the front. I disagree his prominence as a DC was due to msu having a huge talent advantage in the b10. I disagree that at the skill positions, there is a huge discrepancy between northern and Southern schools. I've maintained that for years
I watched the 2008 pitt wvu game the other day. We need that kind of talent that dw had on the front going forward.
BTW, cash I think Indiana had 3-4 Wr's drafted during gts run lol...
BTW, I don't believe the b10 is drastically better than the ACC. I think the acc and the b10 are pretty close. Clemson and osu are the obvious outlier.
Which is just sad.
I picked GT because they are:
1. In the lowest southern tier of recruiting in the ACC by the link I provided.
2. Don't use WRs, and is insanely difficult for them to recruit WRs.
And yet, Indiana has maybe been able to equal the amount of NFL WRs that a TRIPLE OPTION team was able to produce, with far more chances to do it because they gave far more WR scholarships. "lol" @ you not seeing how that is just proving my point.
Yes, the ACC has sucked.
It was a basketball conference for far too long, which made it slow to get to get out of the gates when the tide turned away from basketball.
You keep wanting to argue the Big Ten is better. Nobody is saying otherwise. It actually doesn't matter if they are.
Like, Texas Tech can suckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk as a football team under Kingsbury. That's irrelevant to a discussion whether it was difficult to defend the Texas Tech offense under Kingsbury.
Johnson and Thomas weren't Paul Johnson recruits. They were used pretty damn well.
Smelter was a former mlb player who joined the team after playing 3 years in the pros.
Waller/Hill were the only true WR recruit Johnson had drafted.
Johnson truly catered his scheme with Johnson and Thomas.
Having 2 true Wr recruits drafted in 11 years that you recruited isn't causing me to buy into your logic.
If anything it shows me how good of a coach pj is and how poor the rest of the coastal was.
Because the post from a known zero credibility Lair slappy that started all this nonsense was:
Exactly... it may work in the Little 10, but the ACC is a different beast with better programs, better talent, and much better QB play.
That’s a crock. ACC football at this point is one uber elite program-Clemson-and with FSU in the tank, a bunch of nothing. It has always been a basketball league with a couple of football programs. Always.
That's pretty important to the discussion. It's also why I said earlier that Pitt's defense could be hurt by how bad the offense has been.
Extremely important. Imo, the 2 most important offensive stats are time of possession and red zone scoring. Flip the field in the punt game and it's amazing how much more effective a defense can play.
Number of possessions and plays combined with efficiency/points per possession are presently more important stats than time of possession. The idea of playing slow to possess the ball and eat up clock is obsolete. Wisconsin still does it reasonably effectively, not sure anyone else does.
How about this? Maybe we (Pitt fans) should adopt a new 2019 slogan (especially for the defense).
My vote would be for: "No More Talk - No More Promises - Just Show Us"
And then we can discuss the results after the season is over.
My vote would be for: "No More Talk - No More Promises - Just Show Us"
And then we can discuss the results after the season is over.
Only if you have the offense to do it. It's insane to think that a coach wouldn't prefer to keep the ball away from the other teams offense.
But that’s not how you judge a defense. Time of possession is perhaps how you mask the deficiencies, not how you judge the defense.
And it depends on the coach. Of course every coach would prefer for the other team to literally never have a snap on offense.
But many coaches are going with tempo because they realize it’s to their advantage for both teams to run as many plays as possible in a game.
The service academies still do.
One of the benefits of time of possession is you shorten the game. The less plays run in a game, the more the game favors the team with the lesser talent. Because fewer plays mean lucky bounces and turnovers have a greater impact.
Run enough plays, those things tend to even out, thereby making it more likely that the better team will win.
So if you’re Rutgers or Oregon State or Kansas or one of the academies, you should be trying to eat up the clock every possession.
A program is built over years. FSU has been one of the top programs. Just because you have a couple down years does not mean you are all of a sudden a bad program. The SEC is by far the best football conference. It is absurd to make a demonstrative statement that the Big 10 has been better than the ACC. There have been times when Miami, FSU, and Clemson were the most dominant or one of the most dominant programs over the last 20 years. OSU is the only Big 10 team that can make that claim.
Last season Pitt was 5th in Time of Possession and Clemson was 86th...which offense would you say was better?
