Re: Do we have a new DB coach yet?
Or an offense that can protect one.I'll settle for one that can hold a 21-6 lead.![]()
Or an offense that can protect one.I'll settle for one that can hold a 21-6 lead.![]()
I can't back this up with any statistics, but it seems to me more and more teams with big leads wind up loosing lately. Used to be blamed on the famous prevent defense, but I think there is more to it now.I'll settle for one that can hold a 21-6 lead.![]()
What do you think it is?I can't back this up with any statistics, but it seems to me more and more teams with big leads wind up loosing lately. Used to be blamed on the famous prevent defense, but I think there is more to it now.
I think both coaches and players are to blame. One, the players have a natural let down. They're not playing at the same level they were when they got the lead. Secondly, I think coaches quit calling the game and coaching like they did when they got the lead. With today's high powered offenses it doesn't take long to erase a 28 point lead. Plus, once "Mo" is on the other sidelines it is very hard, next to impossible to get back.What do you think it is?
Oh, ok... I get that. I thought he was referring to some rule change or something.I think both coaches and players are to blame. One, the players have a natural let down. They're not playing at the same level they were when they got the lead. Secondly, I think coaches quit calling the game and coaching like they did when they got the lead. With today's high powered offenses it doesn't take long to erase a 28 point lead. Plus, once "Mo" is on the other sidelines it is very hard, next to impossible to get back.
No nothing to do with rules and Buzzard pretty much said what I think. Also, I believe teams trailing big will go completely go away from conventional wisdom and take risks they normally wouldn't do and all of a sudden the other team is the one reeling and the wheels come off.Oh, ok... I get that. I thought he was referring to some rule change or something.
#4 rushing defense in the country (#1 in the SEC) = 'running on us at will'?people were running on us at will.
I think both coaches and players are to blame. One, the players have a natural let down. They're not playing at the same level they were when they got the lead. Secondly, I think coaches quit calling the game and coaching like they did when they got the lead. With today's high powered offenses it doesn't take long to erase a 28 point lead. Plus, once "Mo" is on the other sidelines it is very hard, next to impossible to get back.
One thing IMO that CNS can improve on is coaching like he expects the players to play.No nothing to do with rules and Buzzard pretty much said what I think. Also, I believe teams trailing big will go completely go away from conventional wisdom and take risks they normally wouldn't do and all of a sudden the other team is the one reeling and the wheels come off.
nope you are wrong. Gary Danielson says that doesn't exist.I think both coaches and players are to blame. One, the players have a natural let down. They're not playing at the same level they were when they got the lead. Secondly, I think coaches quit calling the game and coaching like they did when they got the lead. With today's high powered offenses it doesn't take long to erase a 28 point lead. Plus, once "Mo" is on the other sidelines it is very hard, next to impossible to get back.
Idk what you watched this year but we had one game that we had that problem this year in OSU and they won the championship easily.I like the hire because CNS likes the hire. But our issues on defense do not start & end with the DB's IMO.
people were running on us at will. I don't know he answer or issue, but I'm sure CNS does.
Giving up 2 long runs against OSU means teams ran at will on us? Take a look at the entire body of work not the last thing you saw.I like the hire because CNS likes the hire. But our issues on defense do not start & end with the DB's IMO.
people were running on us at will. I don't know he answer or issue, but I'm sure CNS does.
I couldn't agree more. I thought that the 2010 Auburn game would end that forever but apparently old habits die hard. I also think it applies to when we have the young guys in and are finishing off an opponent, we should call the game like a normal game. With the attrition that we have from the NFL draft it is imperative that our young guys get as many chances to play as possible. Those opportunities should be close to real game situations, not just running up the gut 3 times.One thing IMO that CNS can improve on is coaching like he expects the players to play.
This is what I mean: Numerous times we've been fortunate to go into halftime with a sizeable lead...seemingly playing at the top of our game...and CNS will tell the sideline reporter "We got to come out and play like the score is 0-0."
However, what we've seen is the coaches don't seem to coach like it's 0-0 in the second half.
We all agree that there is a time to "call off the dogs" but with today's offenses the time is not in the 3rd quarter when you've only got a 2 or 3 td lead.
Beg to differ on who our best cover guy was - it was far and away Cyrus Jones this year. 2013 was rough for him, but he brought his lunchpail to work every game in 2014 and was never consistently challenged like some of the other guys. what I think was really lacking was a ball-hawk at FS to help over the top. I was thankful that Perry was able to get another year and play because we didn't have anyone else behind who would have been better, and he actually played very well except for against the deep ball. The problem is I don't know that we have anyone on the roster right now who fits the bill either. Spring will be interesting.Idk what you watched this year but we had one game that we had that problem this year in OSU and they won the championship easily.
A running qb like does not exactly count as a rushing attack to coach's either unless it's an offense like the barn or Oregon. We had a huge problem in the secondary and I think it's a mix of coaching and lack of athletes back there. Landon was a great run stopper and SS but not great in coverage yet he was the best cover guy which is a problem.
Getting Tucker is not great only for the secondary but for the whole defense because he brings in experience and will help game plan. Just cause a coach coaches one position doesn't mean he doesn't help game plan and improve the defense as a whole. His experience will bring new blitzes and possibly coverages and alignments as long with new techniques in covering a guy.
That's one of the reason I think we would benefit from EJ moving to safety... that is of course assuming tony brown is as advertised...Beg to differ on who our best cover guy was - it was far and away Cyrus Jones this year. 2013 was rough for him, but he brought his lunchpail to work every game in 2014 and was never consistently challenged like some of the other guys. what I think was really lacking was a ball-hawk at FS to help over the top. I was thankful that Perry was able to get another year and play because we didn't have anyone else behind who would have been better, and he actually played very well except for against the deep ball. The problem is I don't know that we have anyone on the roster right now who fits the bill either. Spring will be interesting.