Time for Shafer to Step it Up

[OrangeinBoston]

I've been disappointed with the defense so far this season: 5.4 yards per rush, 5.7 yards per play (Holy Cow!), and a whole-lot-of points surrendered even when you take out those caused by special teams foul-ups. There has been talk about improvements on the DL, improvements in the secondary but the statistics don't appear to support any improvement.

Big game coming up. It appears they will be without a starting CB. If there ever was a time to step it up, it's now.

 

[RMH44]

I've been disappointed with the defense so far this season: 5.4 yards per rush, 5.7 yards per play (Holy Cow!), and a whole-lot-of points surrendered even when you take out those caused by special teams foul-ups. There has been talk about improvements on the DL, improvements in the secondary but the statistics don't appear to support any improvement.

Big game coming up. It appears they will be without a starting CB. If there ever was a time to step it up, it's now.

Happy to see you're feeling better today

J/k...very good points and I think we'll happy with the D after Saturday's game.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

what number will Shafer be wearing on Saturday?

 

[Rocco]

It appears they will be without a starting CB. If there ever was a time to step it up, it's now.

If his starting CB is out, why is it his time to step up??? It is another player's time to step up, not his. He calls the plays and runs the D. He isn't on the field.

You have a serious hard-on for this staff.

 

[GoSU96]

I've been disappointed with the defense so far this season: 5.4 yards per rush, 5.7 yards per play (Holy Cow!), and a whole-lot-of points surrendered even when you take out those caused by special teams foul-ups. There has been talk about improvements on the DL, improvements in the secondary but the statistics don't appear to support any improvement.

Big game coming up. It appears they will be without a starting CB. If there ever was a time to step it up, it's now.

200 yds rushing given up on 4 plays.

The other 106 plays have netted 398 yards, or 3.6 ypc and 132 per game. Agree there needs to be improvement but don't go overboard, those 4 runs are really skewing some numbers.

I would love to see them get to sub 3yds per carry, and sub 300 in total defense. If they could get there with the way the offense is playing and lights out.

Areas that need to improve.

1. Redzone pass defense, too many TD's allowed.

2. Decrease in completion percentage allowed.

3. No more 70 yd runs.

They have improved immensely in passing yards allowed, they were 98 last year and current 18 and allowing almost 100yds less per game. They are better on 3rd down defense, and tackles for a loss as well. Slight improvement in total defense and sacks as well. It's not all disaster.

 

[upperdeck]

look back at the big plays.. a reverse, a play action pass on press coverage, one long run because the safety didn't bother to try and make a tackle. two of them were plays that should never have gone more than 5-10 yds. the pass was a good call against the D.

 

[Upstate]

What's going to be big in this game, which has killed us this year is the yards after contact. gang tackling and getting receivers on the ground after the catch will be huge. They've got no Marquise Lee or Robert Woods.

 

[Crusty]

I am not quite sure what to make of this D yet. They play brilliantly at times and then make obvious mistakes that give up big plays or scores. They seem big enough, fast enough and have some real pleasant additions up front. The LBs have looked lackluster for stretches and the secondary has gotten fouled up and found themselves in mismatches a few times that have cost TDs.

They have certainly kept us in the games and seem to have heart but the miscues are frustrating.

I have a feeling that they will come into their own as the season progresses but maybe I am just looking through orange colored glasses.

 

[kingottoiii]

I am not quite sure what to make of this D yet. They play brilliantly at times and then make obvious mistakes that give up big plays or scores. They seem big enough, fast enough and have some real pleasant additions up front. The LBs have looked lackluster for stretches and the secondary has gotten fouled up and found themselves in mismatches a few times that have cost TDs.

They have certainly kept us in the games and seem to have heart but the miscues are frustrating.

I have a feeling that they will come into their own as the season progresses but maybe I am just looking through orange colored glasses.

We have one playmaker on D, zero LBs, and no DEs. Right now we are all DT and DB.

That being said, Shafer has been up and down his entire career here. There will be games where the D looks brilliant and then games where they can't do anything.

 

[GoSU96]

We have one playmaker on D, zero LBs, and no DEs. Right now we are all DT and DB.

That being said, Shafer has been up and down his entire career here. There will be games where the D looks brilliant and then games where they can't do anything.

Solid job of analysis. Man do you know what you are talking about.

Outstanding.

 

[SoBristol]

Shafer deserves a lot of credit, and respect, for 2010 -- when the D carried the team. 2011 we were short of talent, esp at LB, and our DBs were playing hurt.

This year, hard to say what we have. USC had great receivers; SB will rack up rushing yards on a lot of teams. We lack a good pass rush; Diabate has speed and some instincts, but lacks the ideal size for his role.

We should get better as the jucos contribute more in the DL. There is enough depth to work with and promising underclassmen (Reddish, Morgan, Eskridge, Desir) who should get bigger roles. The offense can do its share, allowing the D to get rest. So, this is a good test for Shafer, especially in the second half of the season.

 

[kingottoiii]

Shafer deserves a lot of credit, and respect, for 2010 -- when the D carried the team. 2011 we were short of talent, esp at LB, and our DBs were playing hurt.

This year, hard to say what we have. USC had great receivers; SB will rack up rushing yards on a lot of team. We lack a good pass rush; Diabate has speed and some instincts, but lacks the ideal size for his role.

We should get better as the jucos contribute more in the DL. There is enough depth to work with and promising underclassmen (Reddish, Morgan, Eskridge, Desir) who should get bigger roles. The offense can do its share, allowing the D to get rest. So, this is a good test for Shafer, especially in the second half of the season.

Fallacy. 2010 the D played well in 5 of 13 games. The D absolutely carried the team to victories over USF, WV, and Cincy. They played well against cupcakes Akron and Maine. They rest of the games they played poorly and had a large part in the outcomes in a negative way. We had plenty of talent that year on D. No excuse for soem of those stinkers.

 

[SoBristol]

Fallacy. 2010 the D played well in 5 of 13 games. The D absolutely carried the team to victories over USF, WV, and Cincy. They played well against cupcakes Akron and Maine. They rest of the games they played poorly and had a large part in the outcomes in a negative way. We had plenty of talent that year on D. No excuse for soem of those stinkers.

You need to add Rutgers to that list of victories led by the defense. And that makes a real good list and I would say that the D was exceptional against USF, WV, Cincy and Rutgers. The defense did its part against Louisville, but got worn down in the second half, when the offense was overwhelmed. We had talent that year (Hogue, Smith, Chandler and a couple of DBs) but not "plenty". Lacked good size in the DL (Chandler wasn't filled out yet, and the DTs were smallish), which contributed to not being able to handle teams with big strong lines and talent at RB.
K-State in the bowl was on a slippery frozen field -- helped our offense; hurt our D.
By many stats, our D that year was top 15. I'd say that was excellent -- certainly compared to anything our O or specials have done in the past decade.

 

[kingottoiii]

You need to add Rutgers to that list of victories led by the defense. And that makes a real good list and I would say that the D was exceptional against USF, WV, Cincy and Rutgers. The defense did its part against Louisville, but got worn down in the second half, when the offense was overwhelmed. We had talent that year (Hogue, Smith, Chandler and a couple of DBs) but not "plenty". Lacked good size in the DL (Chandler wasn't filled out yet, and the DTs were smallish), which contributed to not being able to handle teams with big strong lines and talent at RB.
K-State in the bowl was on a slippery frozen field -- helped our offense; hurt our D.
By many stats, our D that year was top 15. I'd say that was excellent -- certainly compared to anything our O or specials have done in the past decade.

Hell no. RU sucked ass that year and ran the wildcat 29 times for 166 yards with Deering. That D was embarrassing. We were lucky that they missed all those FGs. If we had any clue how to stop the wildcat, that game would have been over at halftime. And Cincy was all about confusing a backup QB. I give them credit for doing so, but it was a backup. USF and WV were simply awesome performances but we had plenty of stinkers that people like to forget around here. The Louisville game the O wasn't all that bad. Heck we led at halftime. Louisville's O totally controlled the game the second half, on the road, with a walk on QB, and missing their starting RB. Totally unacceptable. If they got worn down it was because they couldn't get off the field not because of the O.

Overall the D's stats looked nice on the year. But part of that is from playing a very weak schedule. The D led us to three victories. It prevented us from just as many if not more.

 

[SoBristol]

Hell no. RU sucked ass that year and ran the wildcat 29 times for 166 yards with Deering. That D was embarrassing. We were lucky that they missed all those FGs. If we had any clue how to stop the wildcat, that game would have been over at halftime. And Cincy was all about confusing a backup QB. I give them credit for doing so, but it was a backup. USF and WV were simply awesome performances but we had plenty of stinkers that people like to forget around here. The Louisville game the O wasn't all that bad. Heck we led at halftime. Louisville's O totally controlled the game the second half, on the road, with a walk on QB, and missing their starting RB. Totally unacceptable. If they got worn down it was because they couldn't get off the field not because of the O.

Overall the D's stats looked nice on the year. But part of that is from playing a very weak schedule. The D led us to three victories. It prevented us from just as many if not more.

Well we disagree with a lot of that, except for the part about "the D's stats looked nice".
The Louisville game was in the Dome (I was there) -- the Louisville D crushed our O-line, pressured Nassib constantly, and the O couldn't stay on the field in the second half.
We beat Rutgers with an opportunistic D (sure those missed FGs sealed the deal). When you hold a team to a TD and missed FGs, the D did its job.

 

[SmilinBob]

I still think a strong offensive line can bull rush the SU D. If the corners can lock up the wr's it'll help but I'm not sold on the strength of this dline yet, it's better but the next 4 games will show us a lot because those teams are pretty good at it.

 

[SoBristol]

I still think a strong offensive line can bull rush the SU D. If the corners can lock up the wr's it'll help but I'm not sold on the strength of this dline yet, it's better but the next 4 games will show us a lot because those teams are pretty good at it.

Yes -- we are light in the LB crew as well. There was a reason the staff went out for juco help in the DL. We have decent numbers (depth), but need Zian Jones and Devan Walls to emerge over the next 2 or 3 weeks.

 

[SmilinBob]

I agree and it almost seems today that you need two sets of LB's, one for the bullrush and the other for the pass happy or you recruit guys that have speed and size...that's what I'm rooting for!

Yeah, looking at the schedule Pitt, Rutgers and UConn will try to ram it down our throats and play action us if they can. That's why I'm hoping our corners can lock down and lb's can hang with the rest pass or run and you are right, we are undersized at lb and if those two DT's can step up, that will be a much needed shot in the arm.

 

[kingottoiii]

Yes -- we are light in the LB crew as well. There was a reason the staff went out for juco help in the DL. We have decent numbers (depth), but need Zian Jones and Devan Walls to emerge over the next 2 or 3 weeks.

So why get all that beef and not use it? I know it was "just Stony Brook" but why invite them to run the ball to the right side, be surprised when they do, and then never adjust? It was still a ball game halfway through the 4th Q. Why have a DT basically playing NT and your DE play so wide? And if you are going to do that, why not put Goggins at DE?

SB ran mostly to the left in the 1st Q. The rest of the game everything was to the right. I bet that was "going away from their run tendencies" and what "caught" Shafer off guard. Well when you align your DL that way, SB would be stupid not to run through that huge natural hole where the blockers out number the defenders. If Minn saw this then they should have a run audible where they switch to a run to the right given our DL alignment. Then after the game Shafer can say they went away from their tendencies again.

Again I realize it was just SB and do not want to show our run blitzes. I can buy that as a factor for our struggles. But why even play a base D there? You give Minn film on how to attack your base D. We certainly won't blitz every play. If SB was going to go with 1 WR and 2 TE sets, isn't it silly to go with 4 DBs and keep your Ss back? Wouldn't it have made more sense to slide the DE inside more, have Davis come off the corner, and Shamarko replace where Davis would be at LB? All that shows Minny is what we would do if they go with a 1 WR and 2 TE set. Since Minny never runs that, they get absolutely nuttin out of the film. However at the very least they now know to have a run switch to the right when we align a certain way.

 

[SmilinBob]

I'm thinking that Minny uses a new wrinkle SU hasn't seen yet and will adjust to it at halftime.

 

[RMH44]

So why get all that beef and not use it? I know it was "just Stony Brook" but why invite them to run the ball to the right side, be surprised when they do, and then never adjust? It was still a ball game halfway through the 4th Q. Why have a DT basically playing NT and your DE play so wide? And if you are going to do that, why not put Goggins at DE?

SB ran mostly to the left in the 1st Q. The rest of the game everything was to the right. I bet that was "going away from their run tendencies" and what "caught" Shafer off guard. Well when you align your DL that way, SB would be stupid not to run through that huge natural hole where the blockers out number the defenders. If Minn saw this then they should have a run audible where they switch to a run to the right given our DL alignment. Then after the game Shafer can say they went away from their tendencies again.

Again I realize it was just SB and do not want to show our run blitzes. I can buy that as a factor for our struggles. But why even play a base D there? You give Minn film on how to attack your base D. We certainly won't blitz every play. If SB was going to go with 1 WR and 2 TE sets, isn't it silly to go with 4 DBs and keep your Ss back? Wouldn't it have made more sense to slide the DE inside more, have Davis come off the corner, and Shamarko replace where Davis would be at LB? All that shows Minny is what we would do if they go with a 1 WR and 2 TE set. Since Minny never runs that, they get absolutely nuttin out of the film. However at the very least they now know to have a run switch to the right when we align a certain way.

Question for you... and judging from most of your posts it won't take long for you to answer.

What, if anything, do you like about the SU FB program i.e. staff, schemes, program direction, recruiting etc? I'm sure there are other posters waiting breathlessly for your assessment, after all, you are an expert.

 

[kingottoiii]

Question for you... and judging from most of your posts it won't take long for you to answer.

What, if anything, do you like about the SU FB program i.e. staff, schemes, program direction, recruiting etc? I'm sure there are other posters waiting breathlessly for your assessment, after all, you are an expert.

I like the new O. In fact I was calling for us to use it last year. It made more sense given the team we had.

I like that we have a lot of depth all over the field. We no longer have to play a guy like Max Meisel.

I like what Marrone does off the field and the type of kids that he is trying to bring in. I admire that he is trying to do things the right way and seems to truly care about the kids.

I like that Marrone is an alumn. He seems to care a lot about SU and if successful would be here for the long haul.

I like that Marrone is a student of the game. He knows a lot about stats, history, schemes etc.

I like that Marrone seems to be a lot like me personality wise, is from NYC, and is Italian.

I like that Marrone seems very competitive.

Question for you why don't you ever evaluate what is going on and instead take shots at other posters while adding nothing? Was there anything not true about my post? Or should I just be naive and assume everything will turn out roses?

Do you think given our O personnel last year our best shot at winning was to pound it with a 150lb RB?

Are you not concerned that we always start off slow and have to play from behind?

Do you think we have been bringing in play makers on either side of the ball? This is year 4 already.

Are you happy that we have lost 7 straight games against D1A competition?

Are you happy that we didn't make a Bowl last year?

Are you happy about the late season struggles every year?

Are you happy that we struggle in the craptacular BE?

What type of record talent wise do you think we have this year? Are we on pace to achieve that record?

Are you happy that we have no DEs and no LBs this year and likely next year as well?

When you have a lot of talent and depth at DB, why not use it more?

Has Shafer's D shown any consistency? Or has it been hit or miss? He has done great against Spread passing teams. He has stunk against pro set teams.

Has Shafer been good at making adjustments or have teams gone to the same plays over and over against us?

Have we been recruiting well? Have our rankings been sufficient? Are there playmakers on the field?

Have you been happy with Marrone's in game strategy?

Have you been happy that Mr Discipline has a team that is quite undisciplined and penalty ridden?

Do you think it was wise for Marrone to marry a BC grad? Doesn't that show a lack of judgement?


There are still a lot of questions and this is year 4. We have 9 games left for this staff to answer/fix these questions. At this point there is no reason to be anything but cautiously optimistic.

 

[wfschrec]

What's going to be big in this game, which has killed us this year is the yards after contact. gang tackling and getting receivers on the ground after the catch will be huge. They've got no Marquise Lee or Robert Woods.

And Marion Barber III ain't walking through that door ... hurrah ...

 

[wfschrec]

We have one playmaker on D, zero LBs, and no DEs. Right now we are all DT and DB.

That being said, Shafer has been up and down his entire career here. There will be games where the D looks brilliant and then games where they can't do anything.

So I take it you don't like MPB? And Spruill has been playing well .. the biggest issue for the LBs has been finishing tackles ... a plethora of times Shafer had them in position to make plays and they failed to finish ... can't put that on the DC ... also Dibate in the USC game made bad reads and left cut back lanes open leading to some runs that never should have gone as far as they did ... Shafer can only do so much to get these guys into the proper position ... its on the players to execute.

 

[kingottoiii]

So I take it you don't like MPB? And Spruill has been playing well .. the biggest issue for the LBs has been finishing tackles ... a plethora of times Shafer had them in position to make plays and they failed to finish ... can't put that on the DC ... also Dibate in the USC game made bad reads and left cut back lanes open leading to some runs that never should have gone as far as they did ... Shafer can only do so much to get these guys into the proper position ... its on the players to execute.

I think MPB has been solid thus far. But he hasn't made an impact in any of the games. If your best DE is solid, then you have issues. I don't think Spruill has been making many plays.

I agree that Shafer can only do so much given these players. But we have seen issues all four years with the D and that concerns me. IMO we have too many holes based on how we play. It isn't just the players. We have our DBs playing too softly too often IMO. We play zone with a three man rush too often. If we get beat because of talent so be it. But I can't stand when we make things easy by the way scheme.

Funny thing is the first 6 games or so were likely Shafer's best IMO. We saw a lot more press coverage. Sure we got beat deep from time to time but it took away the soft stuff. It also made our run D a lot better, as our Ss were playing near the LOS. Not to mention we were more likely to blitz as well. I loved the way we played D early on in 2009. We attacked and put pressure on the O to execute. Since then things have changed IMO. More soft coverage, more zone, Ss playing back, less blitzing. That has resulted in more long frustrating drives. I rather see us go back to early 2009 and if we get beat, we get beat. Its on the kids. But to sit back in a slow death march IMO is hardly trying to stop the other team.