Wayne Williams off the team

[LeMoyneCuse]

How about shifting to a 3-4? It might help preserve our DL depth... I could also see Thompson, Simmons, and Arciniega making awesome 3-4 pass rushers

We're already playing with relatively undersized Defensive Tackles. How do we expect to stop the run up the middle in a 4-3, let alone with a 3-4?

I'm assuming we're going to play lots of 3-3-5 (Okie), mixed with lots of 4-3 that sort of plays like a 5-2, like we did when D. Smith or Diet Tab were the MLB (blitz/run stop on the line on nearly every play).

Shafer's defensive system is in place, and Bullough has continued it. They're not going to throw a brand new defense in with two months to learn it.

 

[AAM62]

That's what she said.

Well played

 

[OttoinGrotto]

1. Out scoring your opponent is the only way you win games. Pretty sure everyone agrees on that point.

This is true. However, there are different philosophies to how you end up there. There's a philosophy of "having enough" and a philosophy of gluttony. When it comes to offense, greed is good.

We've seen tendencies towards trying to "have enough" but the way college football is trending, I don't think that actually works. Maybe you scrape by here and there and win a game, but long term it's a bad play.

If we're playing to benefit the defense first, we're going to fail. The question to ask ourselves is if there are any conditions under which we play for offense first - when you see a weakening DL, reliance on true freshmen, etc. its fair to ask if we slant decision making in favor of the offense. If there aren't conditions where we decide to do things in favor of our offense, and our default is always in the defense's favor, well... we've got a low ceiling and an uphill battle.

 

[RF2044]

Would we need to have additional roster attrition to potentialy add another platoon DT [i.e., a serviceable JUCO or prep school prospect], to bolster depth?

 

[KaiserUEO]

This is the kind of BS post that gives you guys a bad rep.

1. Out scoring your opponent is the only way you win games. Pretty sure everyone agrees on that point.
2. There is a specific kind of glee you guys take in predicting things to go poorly. It's really a bad look.

aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh :bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

Oh Lord

 

[TheCusian]

This is true. However, there are different philosophies to how you end up there. There's a philosophy of "having enough" and a philosophy of gluttony. When it comes to offense, greed is good. We've seen tendencies towards trying to "have enough" but the way college football is trending, I don't think that actually works. Maybe you scrape by here and there and win a game, but long term it's a bad play. If we're playing to benefit the defense first, we're going to fail. The question to ask ourselves is if there are any conditions under which we play for offense first - when you see a weakening DL, reliance on true freshmen, etc. its fair to ask if we slant decision making in favor of the offense. If there aren't conditions where we decide to do things in favor of our offense, and our default is always in the defense's favor, well... we've got a low ceiling and an uphill battle.

First off - I always find this premise kind of funny. On offense, they are trying to score as many points as possible. On defense you're trying to keep the other team from scoring. If you want to get in the weeds about it, you start talking about slanting decisions and philosophies. It's really more simple than all that.

But if I was to play along, I'd say there are two reasons Shafer leads with his offense this year:

1. He has confidence in his system and players to actually produce offensively.
2. He's terrified of his defensive liabilities.

I don't think #2 happens given 4 of the first 5 games should be games where the defense holds. #1 is the million dollars question.

 

[TheCusian]

aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh :bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang: Oh Lord

That one was for you. Glad you noticed XOXO.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Would we need to have additional roster attrition to potentialy add another platoon DT [i.e., a serviceable JUCO or prep school prospect], to bolster depth?

Were at the Max for this class assuming everyone qualifies, we can't add anyone else unless someone doesn't make the grade and by that point it would be to late.

 

[kcsu]

Im going to miss the Swagger Beast really expected great things out of him.

For this year i do think we see a bunch of Oakie. I believe that we are going to see Big John, Slayton, Samuels, and Thompson move inside. Rony Charles has the size and maybe we get a few snaps out of him. In reviewing the roster could Taylor Hindy move over? OG is a position of strength for us i doubt he gets much run and he has the size to play inside. Also one if not both of the frosh have to be ready. We will be ok

 

[TheCusian]

"You guys"? 1. There's scoring 17 and scoring 35. Our D is going to be challenged, we need to score more points. A lot more. If we try, and fail, at white knuckling our way to 6 wins I don't want to hear from people saying "we *all* thought the D would be OK" and "hindsight is 20/20". 2. Yeah, I revel in how much this program has struggled the past 15 years. I hated the 90s. Do you read your own posts?

My point was probably too subtle. Was simply pointing out the inherit hopelessness in your take before the team even takes the field.

Your take: Our offense will have to carry the load.
OttoinGrotto: ha!ha!
you: just want to be able to say told you so.

So to refresh - you're trying to get out in front on believing we'll suck?!

---

If we strip out the pessimism, there is a kernel of truth to it - it's just not as extreme as you've stated. I also don't think it will take a philosophical change from the HC (or better yet - that such a change would garner enough points one way or another).

My take is that the offense will improve and be in the 60's. And the defense will still be better than the offense and will end up in the 40's. That will be good enough for a bowl game.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

On offense, they are trying to score as many points as possible.

I don't think that's true.

 

[TheCusian]

I don't think that's true.

How so?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

How so?

Because we often give up and punt when we're close to scoring.

 

[TheCusian]

Because we often give up and punt when we're close to scoring.

We've gone down this road before. I don't think you can judge SS philosophy based the second half of last year. Freshmen QB's make most coaches skittish.

Better examples include taking chances with Hunt in short yardage, long FG tries once had faith in the kicker, etc.

Lots of mythology about Shafer is overstated.

 

[Scooch]

My point was probably too subtle. Was simply pointing out the inherit hopelessness in your take before the team even takes the field. Your take: Our offense will have to carry the load. OttoinGrotto: ha!ha! you: just want to be able to say told you so. So to refresh - you're trying to get out in front on believing we'll suck?! --- If we strip out the pessimism, there is a kernel of truth to it - it's just not as extreme as you've stated. I also don't think it will take a philosophical change from the HC (or better yet - that such a change would garner enough points one way or another). My take is that the offense will improve and be in the 60's. And the defense will still be better than the offense and will end up in the 40's. That will be good enough for a bowl game.

Man, you really are over the top on this "negativity" kick now.

We have an alarming lack of experience and depth on the DL. We are replacing many players throughout that unit. It is reasonable to believe that the D may not be as good as it has been. Many people here have suggested as such.

Our offense has been pretty freakin' bad for all but one season in the past many. We also have had a tendency to defer offense to defense.

Therefore, since this is a discussion board and I am discussing things. I believe we need to emphasize scoring this season and not try to play it exceedingly safe offensively and defer to the D.

That's hopeless?! I'm HOPING the O can carry that load.

I'm also saying that NOW so that IF we in fact play it safe offensively and the D struggles to carry the load entirely, as other have suggested might happen, people won't attack me with the "where were you in the summer saying this" nonsense.

Are we clear?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

We've gone down this road before. I don't think you can judge SS philosophy based the second half of last year. Freshmen QB's make most coaches skittish.

Better examples include taking chances with Hunt in short yardage, long FG tries once had faith in the kicker, etc.

Lots of mythology about Shafer is overstated.

I wasn't just including the 2nd half of last season in that assessment.

 

[TheCusian]

Man, you really are over the top on this "negativity" kick now. We have an alarming lack of experience and depth on the DL. We are replacing many players throughout that unit. It is reasonable to believe that the D may not be as good as it has been. Many people here have suggested as such. Our offense has been pretty freakin' bad for all but one season in the past many. We also have had a tendency to defer offense to defense. Therefore, since this is a discussion board and I am discussing things. I believe we need to emphasize scoring this season and not try to play it exceedingly safe offensively and defer to the D. That's hopeless?! I'm HOPING the O can carry that load. I'm also saying that NOW so that IF we in fact play it safe offensively and the D struggles to carry the load entirely, as other have suggested might happen, people won't attack me with the "where were you in the summer saying this" nonsense. Are we clear?

The Shafer plays it safe mythology got ramped up unfairly and is based around 3-4 play calls in games that didn't matter and when the offense had cratered dramatically.

Are we shocked that Shafer had more trust in his defense either year!?! Really? They were leaps better both years. And last half of last year was extreme. I think it's way overstated.

We've never seen a Shafer led team where the offense is better than the defense. We only saw one team in the past 6 where that was true.

We'll see if things even out if he'll go for it more. I don't know. I do know that you're "hoping" for sounded a lot like snark to me in the posts that followed. Which is fine - say what you want - just don't get upset when someone questions both the logic and tone of what you've said.

 

[baggerbob]

...AND he got rushed out onto the field as a true freshman, whereas he would have benefitted immensely from a redshirt year.

Yes after sitting out the first half against Northwestern, got in for a few plays the 2nd half, and wasted an entire year. That was a bad move by Doug, after not playing the 1st half, should have red-shirted.

 

[iommi]

Im going to miss the Swagger Beast really expected great things out of him.

For this year i do think we see a bunch of Oakie. I believe that we are going to see Big John, Slayton, Samuels, and Thompson move inside. Rony Charles has the size and maybe we get a few snaps out of him. In reviewing the roster could Taylor Hindy move over? OG is a position of strength for us i doubt he gets much run and he has the size to play inside. Also one if not both of the frosh have to be ready. We will be ok

I really hope Thompson is not moved inside again. Why weaken two positions? It's clear that Thompson could become a weapon as an edge rusher. Keep him as an end and let him use his athletic ability to rush the passer. Our secondary could very well be a disaster; I'd think a pass rush is imperative and Thompson could be the key.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The Shafer plays it safe mythology got ramped up unfairly and is based around 3-4 play calls in games that didn't matter and when the offense had cratered dramatically.

1. We're talking about small sample sizes so 3-4 decisions do matter, and if the call didn't matter to those games, that's a clear example of a decision defaulting to defense.

Are we shocked that Shafer had more trust in his defense either year!?! Really? They were leaps better both years. And last half of last year was extreme. I think it's way overstated.

Again, if you don't trust your defense, that's even more of a reason to make decisions that make their job easier.

We've never seen a Shafer led team where the offense is better than the defense. We only saw one team in the past 6 where that was true.

Which unit is better is the wrong question. Until the rules change such that defenses score points in ways other than safeties, offense is the only answer. EVERYBODY in college football understands this. I think we're comfortable with our misunderstanding.

We'll see if things even out if he'll go for it more. I don't know. I do know that you're "hoping" for sounded a lot like snark to me in the posts that followed. Which is fine - say what you want - just don't get upset when someone questions both the logic and tone of what you've said.

I get where Scooch is coming from. The sad thing is, we've all seen how these discussions play out.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Guys, it's not that easy to just switch positions or go both ways. This isn't high school ball.

 

[kcsu]

I really hope Thompson is not moved inside again. Why weaken two positions? It's clear that Thompson could become a weapon as an edge rusher. Keep him as an end and let him use his athletic ability to rush the passer. Our secondary could very well be a disaster; I'd think a pass rush is imperative and Thompson could be the key.

Very good point. I do see him moving around especially if Jake is ready to play

 

[TheCusian]

1. We're talking about small sample sizes so 3-4 decisions do matter, and if the call didn't matter to those games, that's a clear example of a decision defaulting to defense. Again, if you don't trust your defense, that's even more of a reason to make decisions that make their job easier. Which unit is better is the wrong question. Until the rules change such that defenses score points in ways other than safeties, offense is the only answer. EVERYBODY in college football understands this. I think we're comfortable with our misunderstanding. I get where Scooch is coming from. The sad thing is, we've all seen how these discussions play out.

Yeah - I don't have the stomach to go down this road again. I just think you're screwed either way when the two sides are that far apart. The philosophy is impossible to judge effectively.

 

[RF2044]

I really hope Thompson is not moved inside again. Why weaken two positions? It's clear that Thompson could become a weapon as an edge rusher. Keep him as an end and let him use his athletic ability to rush the passer. Our secondary could very well be a disaster; I'd think a pass rush is imperative and Thompson could be the key.

Agree 100% intellectually, but we need to be able to rotate guys inside to stop the run.

I'll bet Shafer is kicking himself for not renewing Ryan Sloan's scholarship...

 

[iommi]

Agree 100% intellectually, but we need to be able to rotate guys inside to stop the run.

I'll bet Shafer is kicking himself for not renewing Ryan Sloan's scholarship...

Rotating is fine. I think Thompson might be so good that teams will have to game plan somewhat to stop him (or at the very least RT will be mentioned a lot on scouting reports). If I'm right, then moving him around would make it tougher to game plan against. Even still, rotate him inside occasionally, if need be, but make his primary position DE.