Coaching changes

[SWC75]

Because you would be asking a coach to teach a system he has never taught (if you are comparing Shafer to Ward defensively). So, instead of taking the time to teach their system, learn players, etc. you would want them to study Shafer's defense, learn how to call it, learn how to play it and so on. Tampa 2 is not what is decimating this defense. Its not like we play Tampa 2 everytime, when we blitz, we don't get there. This just is not a good defense right now no matter the scheme.

Last year's defense was not very good and this year's defense is not very good. Playing 2 dynamic offenses doesn't help either.

Babers said in a radio interview this past week that you can't defend multi-threat quarterbacks in a Tampa 2 so when we face them we aren't in the Tampa 2. I'm not sure what we are in but the idea that they are rigidly trying to run the same defense on every play and against every opponent is wrong.

 

[Crusty]

So in general I really would like to know why coaches believe that ripping the bandaid off and changing schemes over night is better then gradually changing the scheme over a year or two. Take grob for example. Took an option based team and tried to turn them into west coast spread over night. Never worked and we get a tenure that destroyed su football. Then we have marone types that walk in and gradually change the offense and we managed a few wins till his players came in. Now we have babers and ward pulling a grob and changing the defense into something that is the exact opposite of what we had. Is ripping the bandaid off and getting a defense that couldn't stop a high school team worth it just to change the system. To me I would think the smart move is to use what we have and slowly change it to give the team a chance to win. Personally I think last years defense with the current offense would have won the game yesterday. I really have a hard time seeing why the overnight change is the way to go. These coaches have to be smart people, one would think they could devise a set of plays that are close to what we ran the prior year to gain the advantage of using the players that compromise 90 %of the roster.

USF destroyed last year's defense. We simply do not have the depth of talent to compete with good teams and scheme is the least of our problems.

How exactly do you "slowly change" from one system to a completely different one? We would have players recruited for the new system being asked to learn the old one and the new one? What terminology is used? How does the new DC coach a system he himself has to learn? Not to mention that players are confused enough learning a new system without somehow leaning part of one while retaining part of another.

Thus argument is made often, but in reality it is impossible to do what you suggest.

 

[PhatOrange]

You rip the band aid off so it heals right. kids in the system need to learn the right defense from the start and not some hodgepodge. New kids coming in learn the defense they are being recruited to run.

 

[RMH44]

Sure but last year's scoring totals were also by any measure anomalous when compared with yards per game. As others have shown, yards per game historically have been a better measure of scoring average than any other metric. If this offense becomes even 10-20% more efficient, while keeping the same tempo, the scoring average increases and likely forces the opponent to play at a similar pace on offense, which can play into our hands if that's not the design of their offense. There aren't many teams left on our schedule equipped to play fast and throw alot.

Not to mention that our offensive tempo leads to our defense spending significantly more time on the field. Last year's D was somewhat protected by Shafer's slow-down "keep it close" mentality on offense i.e. less plays against.

Let's see how this week plays out.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Last year we were a much better team at home than on the road. We scored 198 points offensively vs allowing 155 points defensively in 7 games at the dome. We were 4-3 at home but 0-5 away from the dome.

In 2015 , we scored 129 points vs allowing 217 points away from the dome. Big difference defensively. Our offense didn't vary nearly as much as our defense did. Offensively, SU averaged 28 points at home, 25.8 points away (27.7 overall) but allowed 22.1 defensively at the dome but allowed a whopping 43.4 when on the road. (Overall 31 points)

Sure hope this trend gets broken.

 

[upperdeck]

USF destroyed last year's defense. We simply do not have the depth of talent to compete with good teams and scheme is the least of our problems.

How exactly do you "slowly change" from one system to a completely different one? We would have players recruited for the new system being asked to learn the old one and the new one? What terminology is used? How does the new DC coach a system he himself has to learn? Not to mention that players are confused enough learning a new system without somehow leaning part of one while retaining part of another.

Thus argument is made often, but in reality it is impossible to do what you suggest.

USF so destroyed it last year that it was 7-3 going into half time and we had a punt near midfield hit us in the head and it turned the game around.

 

[SWC75]

Last year we were a much better team at home than on the road. We scored 198 points offensively vs allowing 155 points defensively in 7 games at the dome. We were 4-3 at home but 0-5 away from the dome.

In 2015 , we scored 129 points vs allowing 217 points away from the dome. Big difference defensively. Our offense didn't vary nearly as much as our defense did. Offensively, SU averaged 28 points at home, 25.8 points away (27.7 overall) but allowed 22.1 defensively at the dome but allowed a whopping 43.4 when on the road. (Overall 31 points)

Sure hope this trend gets broken.

The previous year we were 1-5, (104-177) at home and 2-4 on the road, (105-115).

 

[TheCusian]

im under the assumption a bowl wasn't out of the question this year. Running the defense we are right now with the current players it most likely is out of the question. If there is a chance at a bowl you do what you can to get it and take the extra practices. I don't really care about playing in the crap o bowl we probably would play. It's the added practice that will pay off down the road. We brought Dino in to play his offense in a controlled environment not for a defensive scheme. Running any scheme takes advantage of what we have for a season doesn't slow down babers progression. Not making a bowl and losing out on more practice time does. I'm fully on the babers train I'm just asking why not or what if

Changing defenses mid stream wouldn't help. Remember McDonald > Lester? Not good for anyone.

 

[Ish88888]

Agreed, the problem with fitting scheme to the talent is that we had mediocre at best talent.

So let's run the scheme we want the best we can, and put our chips on that making a difference in our recruiting.

Don't need 4* talent to win. There are 20-30 programs nationwide that compete and win with 3* guys. Its all about scheming guys open and scheming guys into position on defense to make plays.

 

[CuseOnly]

Not to mention that our offensive tempo leads to our defense spending significantly more time on the field. Last year's D was somewhat protected by Shafer's slow-down "keep it close" mentality on offense i.e. less plays against.

Let's see how this week plays out.

You are kidding right?

You do realize the Time of posession for the USF game was 37 minutes SU which leaves 23 minutes that our defense was on the field?? Which might be the most TOP for our offense and the lowest amount of time our defense was on the field ever.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Don't need 4* talent to win. There are 20-30 programs nationwide that compete and win with 3* guys. Its all about scheming guys open and scheming guys into position on defense to make plays.

Uh... yeah? We're not in disagreement.

I'm just saying, I think we've overrated our talent in some cases, and so trying to scheme to our talent has meant we have a low ceiling. I much prefer that we attempt to play according to the bigger vision. If it's painful, so what? We've had plenty of pain.

 

[RMH44]

You are kidding right?

You do realize the Time of posession for the USF game was 37 minutes SU which leaves 23 minutes that our defense was on the field?? Which might be the most TOP for our offense and the lowest amount of time our defense was on the field ever.

I wasn't referring specifically to the USF game. In general, up tempo offensive teams lose the time of possession battle.

Ball control/time of possession is often part of the game plan when facing this style of offense.

 

[Cusefan78]

Changing defenses mid stream wouldn't help. Remember McDonald > Lester? Not good for anyone.

I did not mean to say change mid stream. That wouldnt work. What I was getting at was why fully commit to the Tampa two in year one when we don't have the personal. Why couldn't we run some hybrid system that gets us started towards the Tampa two but utilizes the players we have. Then year two when you have 1.5 recruiting classes you can rip the bandaid off. I just remembered marone saying he didn't have the talent to run his offense in year one so he used a hybrid system till he got his players.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I did not mean to say change mid stream. That wouldnt work. What I was getting at was why fully commit to the Tampa two in year one when we don't have the personal. Why couldn't we run some hybrid system that gets us started towards the Tampa two but utilizes the players we have. Then year two when you have 1.5 recruiting classes you can rip the bandaid off. I just remembered marone saying he didn't have the talent to run his offense in year one so he used a hybrid system till he got his players.

I believe on defense we are running a hybrid system.

 

[TheCusian]

I did not mean to say change mid stream. That wouldnt work. What I was getting at was why fully commit to the Tampa two in year one when we don't have the personal. Why couldn't we run some hybrid system that gets us started towards the Tampa two but utilizes the players we have. Then year two when you have 1.5 recruiting classes you can rip the bandaid off. I just remembered marone saying he didn't have the talent to run his offense in year one so he used a hybrid system till he got his players.

We are running exactly what you are saying we should run.

 

[Pyle]

So in general I really would like to know why coaches believe that ripping the bandaid off and changing schemes over night is better then gradually changing the scheme over a year or two. Take grob for example. Took an option based team and tried to turn them into west coast spread over night. Never worked and we get a tenure that destroyed su football. Then we have marone types that walk in and gradually change the offense and we managed a few wins till his players came in. Now we have babers and ward pulling a grob and changing the defense into something that is the exact opposite of what we had. Is ripping the bandaid off and getting a defense that couldn't stop a high school team worth it just to change the system. To me I would think the smart move is to use what we have and slowly change it to give the team a chance to win. Personally I think last years defense with the current offense would have won the game yesterday. I really have a hard time seeing why the overnight change is the way to go. These coaches have to be smart people, one would think they could devise a set of plays that are close to what we ran the prior year to gain the advantage of using the players that compromise 90 %of the roster.

I think you are flat out wrong. Last year's defense was horrible, ranked in the bottom 3rd of FBS teams. Combine that with the losses along the D line and you are living in fantasy land if you think this year's D was going to be any better. With this DL we would have generated even less pressure which is the key to Shafer's defense. He would have had to send more guys to get that pressure and that means our DBs which are already struggling would be left completely alone on their little islands getting burned all day. At least in the T2 there is supposed to be help over the top, against Ville/USF it didn't mean much. Against Colgate they shut them down all day. Both are sort of extremes in regards to expected offensive production. It's game 3, relax and let's see how we do against a peer team. If you really thought we'd be hanging with teams in the top 25 then your expectations were simply way off. We will be struggling to get to 6 this year, Cuse fans are typically in denial but alot of publications pointed at the problems on our DL as a reason we will struggle and they were not wrong.

 

[SWC75]

I believe on defense we are running a hybrid system.

If some guys are in one system other guys are in another system, is that a system?

I prefer Baber's explanation that Tampa 2 is a base defense and that you can do various things out of it, just like Boeheim can do various things withing the zone concept. This team has trouble getting a pass rush up front and stopping the run so the linebackers are having to be more aggressive. But it's still a Tampa 2.

 

[OrangeMaNPD]

I did not mean to say change mid stream. That wouldnt work. What I was getting at was why fully commit to the Tampa two in year one when we don't have the personal. Why couldn't we run some hybrid system that gets us started towards the Tampa two but utilizes the players we have. Then year two when you have 1.5 recruiting classes you can rip the bandaid off. I just remembered marone saying he didn't have the talent to run his offense in year one so he used a hybrid system till he got his players.

Did Coach Shafer ease the kids into his D when Marrone hired him?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Babers said in a radio interview this past week that you can't defend multi-threat quarterbacks in a Tampa 2 so when we face them we aren't in the Tampa 2. I'm not sure what we are in but the idea that they are rigidly trying to run the same defense on every play and against every opponent is wrong.

Which brings up the point why have your base D be something you don't use the majority of the time? How can kids learn the system if you aren't in it? Why go away from the kid's strengths if you are willing to get out of your base anyway?

Just about every team uses the QB in the run game now. On our schedule only 2 of the 12 teams do not. Does that mean we only see a Tampa 2 twice this year?

The D systems in use today were designed to stop a different era of offense. Since the O has evolved, why haven't the Ds? There needs to be a DC like Tom Landry who is willing to try something different.

 

[TheCusian]

I think you are flat out wrong. Last year's defense was horrible, ranked in the bottom 3rd of FBS teams. Combine that with the losses along the D line and you are living in fantasy land if you think this year's D was going to be any better. With this DL we would have generated even less pressure which is the key to Shafer's defense. He would have had to send more guys to get that pressure and that means our DBs which are already struggling would be left completely alone on their little islands getting burned all day. At least in the T2 there is supposed to be help over the top, against Ville/USF it didn't mean much. Against Colgate they shut them down all day. Both are sort of extremes in regards to expected offensive production. It's game 3, relax and let's see how we do against a peer team. If you really thought we'd be hanging with teams in the top 25 then your expectations were simply way off. We will be struggling to get to 6 this year, Cuse fans are typically in denial but alot of publications pointed at the problems on our DL as a reason we will struggle and they were not wrong.

We didn't play tampa 2 vs Louisville and USF per se. The style of O the run forces it.

But agree 200% on the rest.

 

[Pyle]

We didn't play tampa 2 vs Louisville and USF per se. The style of O the run forces it.

But agree 200% on the rest.

It wasn't T2 during the two big pass plays down the middle? Maybe it was some other form of cover 2 but the safeties split and they ran someone behind the lb'ers right into the S gap in the middle of the field for a TD, did it twice. Doesn't much matter, it didn't work whatever it was but as we saw against FSU, some talent you just don't stop, regardless the scheme.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It wasn't T2 during the two big pass plays down the middle? Maybe it was some other form of cover 2 but the safeties split and they ran someone behind the lb'ers right into the S gap in the middle of the field for a TD, did it twice. Doesn't much matter, it didn't work whatever it was but as we saw against FSU, some talent you just don't stop, regardless the scheme.

Neither of the first 2 big passes by Louisville was a problem with the Tampa 2. The first Cordy had man coverage and did a poor job. The 2nd either Cordy or Whitner blew the coverage. My guess was that Cordy was supposed to play zone instead of man (which made more sense given the formation), but it is possible that Whitner was supposed to play cover 1.

 

[Pyle]

Neither of the first 2 big passes by Louisville was a problem with the Tampa 2. The first Cordy had man coverage and did a poor job. The 2nd either Cordy or Whitner blew the coverage. My guess was that Cordy was supposed to play zone instead of man (which made more sense given the formation), but it is possible that Whitner was supposed to play cover 1.

Thanks for that explanation, I'm still having a little trouble figuring out this Tampa 2 thing. The last website I tried to read up on it basically said it's a cover 2 that becomes a cover 3 when the MLB reads pass. That just doesn't compute to me, if the MLB doesn't read pass then it doesn't matter what coverage you're in because you should be pursuing the ball carrier. If he does read pass then it's not Tampa 2, it's Tampa 3 where the MLB gets middle 3rd responsibility instead of a DB. Isn't it?

 

[SWC75]

Thanks for that explanation, I'm still having a little trouble figuring out this Tampa 2 thing. The last website I tried to read up on it basically said it's a cover 2 that becomes a cover 3 when the MLB reads pass. That just doesn't compute to me, if the MLB doesn't read pass then it doesn't matter what coverage you're in because you should be pursuing the ball carrier. If he does read pass then it's not Tampa 2, it's Tampa 3 where the MLB gets middle 3rd responsibility instead of a DB. Isn't it?

What we need is the Syracuse 11