Secondary Questions

[zoogs]

I do find that even great coaches tend to require great players in order to perform at a highly elite level. It seems sort of ... obvious? expected? to have a drop off when the talent level drops off.

[knapplc]

Go look at what opposing defenses did to Denard Robinson last year, and how they slowed him down. Same for Braxton Miller. Both of whom torched us.

 

Blitzes are not overrated. Used correctly they are very effective. They cannot be used in all situations, but Bo uses them in nearly no situation, and that's wrong.

I guess you'll have to point me to which teams slowed them down:

 

Denard Robinson:

vs. NU - 11/18, 180 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 23 rush, 83 yds (3.6 ypc), 2 TD - 263 total yds, 4 TDs

 

vs. Notre Dame: 11/24, 338 yds, 4 TD, 3 INT; 16 rush, 108 yds (6.8 ypc), 1 TD - 446 total yds, 5 TDs

vs. Mich St.: 9/24, 123 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT; 18 rush, 42 yds (2.3 ypc), 1 TD - 165 total yds, 2 TDs

vs. Iowa: 17/37, 194 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 12 car, 55 yds (4.6 ypc) - 249 total yds, 2 TDs

vs. Ohio St. - 14/17, 167 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT; 26 rush, 170 yds (6.5 ypc), 2 TD - 337 total yards, 5 TDs

 

So Michigan St. (#5 in the country in yards allowed and arch-rival) had him bottled up, Iowa was about the same and ND and Ohio St. were much worse. I suppose you can throw VaTech in as a team that bottled him up but it's a lot easier to have everyone on the same page when you have a month to prepare.

 

 

Braxton Miller:

vs. NU (3 quarters) - 5/8, 95 yds, 1 TD; 10 rush, 91 yds (9.1 ypc) - 186 total yds, 1 TD

 

vs. Mich St. - 5/10, 56 yds, 1 INT; 9 rush, -27 yds (-3.0 ypc) - 29 total yds

vs. Wisconsin - 7/12, 89 yds, 1 TD; 19 rush, 99 yds (5.2 ypc), 2 TD - 188 total yds, 3 TD

vs. Penn St. - 7/17, 83 yds, 1 TD; 18 rush, 105 yds (5.8 ypc), 1 TD - 188 total yds, 2 TD

vs. Michigan - 14/25, 235 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 16 rush, 100 yds (6.3 ypc), 1 TD - 335 total yds, 3 TD

 

So, again, Mich St. had his number, Wisc & Penn St. were comparable and he torched Michigan. You can argue that he compiled his stats against us in only 3 quarters but he only completed one pass and had 3 rushes for 12 yards playing all but 5 plays of the third quarter so we were doing better in the second half and our offense was actually holding the ball which is a large part of why both these QBs were able to put up the stats they did against us.

 

I don't argue that I wish we could do some things differently but I think is misleading when people talk like we're the only team that has problems with mobile QBs. They hurt a lot of people and, as shown above, they hurt a lot of teams worse than us.

 

There were games where teams were effective in slowing each guy down. In none of those games did the defense play Bo's 2010/2011 style of containment. That's my point.

['SkersRule]

Couldn't be. I look better in high heels.

 

I'd probably be willing to pay a small admission fee to see that.

 

[girlknowsfootball]

We have a solid 2-deep with experience across the entire secondary. We haven't had that since 2009 (our phenomenal season). Beyond that 2-deep we have a long list of young guys and older guys without experience who could easily come in a fill spots if we suffer any injury problems.

 

Starters: S-Daimion Stafford, S-PJ Smith, NB-Ciante Evans, CB-Mohammed Seisay, CB-Andrew Green

2nd String: S-Courtney Osborne, S-Harvey Jackson, NB-Braylon Heard, CB-Stanley Jean Baptiste, CB-Josh Mitchell

 

7-8 Others: Charles Jackson, LeRoy Alexander, Alonzo Moore, Antonio Bell, Corey Cooper, Daniel Davie, Justin Blatchford, etc.

 

Our Secondary is going to be the strongest part of our Defense and most likely our entire team this season. Bo has said himself, we are more multiple and mentally light years ahead of where we were last year with our secondary. In Bo's defense a good secondary is key. When we have a really good backfield, it frees the line up to be more creative and take more risks. Terry Joseph has had the secondary take quizzes every day of practice. If they don't pass then one of the guys who passes teaches the guy who didnt and they have physical punishment as well. He's taking these guys through mental reps every week and getting them serious about learning how things work. It has really paid off.

[knapplc]

gkf, what do you mean by "solid?" We have guys who have played, but unfortunately nobody has truly impressed back there.

 

We have no idea if Mo Seisay is going to translate to a solid contributor this year. PJ Smith spent a lot of time doing nothing last year, and even though Ciante Evans started six more games than Smith, Smith had a better year statistically. Andrew Green performed well enough at the end of the year, but how much improvement he makes from last year to this is anyone's guess. There is nothing in this group that makes me think that our CBs are going to be "solid." Sure, it's possible, but there is nothing guaranteeing that.

 

I would characterize our defense - especially our secondary - as anything but "solid." I'd say it's a rebuilding area with lots of question marks and very few solid answers.

[lionsfan93]

I am on the same page as gkf. I think the secondary will be the strength of our defense, if not of the entire team. While Seisey hasn't stepped foot on the field for us, he did well at Memphis, he did very well at JUCO, and the coaches have only said great things about him so far. Bo is going to be more involved this year and I like what I hear about TJ so far. I'm optimistic.

[knapplc]

I am on the same page as gkf. I think the secondary will be the strength of our defense, if not of the entire team. While Seisey hasn't stepped foot on the field for us, he did well at Memphis, he did very well at JUCO, and the coaches have only said great things about him so far. Bo is going to be more involved this year and I like what I hear about TJ so far. I'm optimistic.

 

Damion Stafford. He did well at JUCO and the coaches said good things about him this time last year. While he didn't have a bad season, he wasn't the impact player we need Seisay to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE - I'm not saying we'll be bad. We may be very good. I'm just not seeing anything other than blind homerism that says we'll be good. We just have as much chance to be bad as we have to be good.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

I do find that even great coaches tend to require great players in order to perform at a highly elite level. It seems sort of ... obvious? expected? to have a drop off when the talent level drops off.

Totally disagree..... See New England Patriots!!! Other than Tom Brady. Name 5 sure fire hall of FAMERs from their 3 super bowl teams! Listen to all the whiny steeler fans bitch about not having more HOFers from the steel curtain teams. How many guys get in from TOs 3title teams? Now how many we want but how many realistically get in? My point.... Coaching wins! Or Steve Fischer would have 2 rings! Give the Fab five dean smith or coach k with a more disciplined approach and don't tell me they don't win a least one title.

 

Now I'm not saying you can win without some good players but talent can only get you so far!

[girlknowsfootball]

gkf, what do you mean by "solid?" We have guys who have played, but unfortunately nobody has truly impressed back there.

 

We have no idea if Mo Seisay is going to translate to a solid contributor this year. PJ Smith spent a lot of time doing nothing last year, and even though Ciante Evans started six more games than Smith, Smith had a better year statistically. Andrew Green performed well enough at the end of the year, but how much improvement he makes from last year to this is anyone's guess. There is nothing in this group that makes me think that our CBs are going to be "solid." Sure, it's possible, but there is nothing guaranteeing that.

 

I would characterize our defense - especially our secondary - as anything but "solid." I'd say it's a rebuilding area with lots of question marks and very few solid answers.

 

By "solid" I mean, Bo has been glowing about the secondary. He said we will be more multiple this year than we have been EVER since he's been here. He said the guys get the mental stuff this year and that is translating to them playing quicker, smarter, more aggressive, more intense. A lot of those guys are very athletic, they just were skiddish to make mistakes and not wanting to get chewed out by Bo. They played at the speed of their mental understanding... and still made mistakes along the way. If the mental understanding is there then that makes the physical part shine. I think that was the major difference between the defense of 2009 and the defense of last year... the mental aspect. Those young players might be just as much as athletic and talented as Amukamara or Haag or Gomes... but what keeps them from wrecking havoc on the field is their lack of confidence in their mental game and their lack of understanding of the mental game. Once that catches on, the athleticism shows and the players do the quick turn around.

 

I don't like to follow the star system but I think it is a good example for demonstrating my view here. If you look at Rivals... in order for a player to be considered for a 4*, he has to be able to run a 40yd dash in a certain speed at his position, he has to have a vertical jump of at least ____, he has to be able to lift a certain amount of weight for upper and lower body... and then those skills have to translate onto film via ball skills, good hip movement, good tackling, good hands, etc. Once all those statistics are rated and averaged... the player is assigned a star status. Each star has a minimal margin, thus 4* athletes grade out very similarly across the board... one may be a little quicker, one may have a little better hands but be a little slower... etc. Now is this system 100% accurate? Absolutely not. But it's a way of achieving an assessment of a guys athleticism.

 

 

So my point is this...The scholarship players we sign at DB, are all similar in speed and athleticism, they're all 3* and 4* kids with slim margins of difference. They're all brought in running 4.4's or 4.5's, jumping 30-36" verticals, squatting similar weights, etc. So what you have is a bunch of talent who can compete and run with each other. This is the college team. What seperates a starter from a 3rd string guy at a major D1 school where you have 15 DB's as stated above, starts with the small things. It comes down to who knows 5 more motion shifts than the other guys, who knows 5 more WR routes to cover and exactly where to be on each one. These sorts of things are what seperate a starter from a backup. Courtney Osborne may be faster than PJ smith... but if Osborne hesitates a second to think about what to do on a play and Smith is already moving in the right direction before the play starts knowing exactly what to do... then Smith looks like the faster and better player. If Ciante Evans lets one guy get past him because he comes up to help a LB instead of dropping back in coverage... but Braylon Heard takes two steps back before the play starts and already has the momentum in his body going backwards because he got a head start on the play, then Braylon makes the play and looks really good.

 

So it is all the mental game. We have 15 guys that have the speed and vertical jump to cover WR's... but maybe only 3 get that head start and body momentum in the right direction 99% of the time. We're going to think those guys are way more athletic, faster, and better because we see them make the play on the ball.

 

This year... Terry Joseph is forcing players to learn intricate details of the mental aspect of the game. He's testing them with quizzes at their lockers every day, he's testing them with quizzes in the film room and on the white board every day... he's giving them what they need to get that one step head start that will make all the difference at this level where everybody on the field is running on similar par levels. THIS IS WHY WE'RE BETTER THIS YEAR THAN THE PAST 2 YEARS. We're getting a lead off to steal second... and therefore beating the 2nd baseman who is only 15ft away. We're all moving in unison... connecting the dots and communicating where each dot is. Our athleticism has always been constant... it's the mental repetitions that have lagged at times.

[knapplc]

By "solid" I mean, Bo has been glowing about the secondary. He said we will be more multiple this year than we have been EVER since he's been here. He said the guys get the mental stuff this year and that is translating to them playing quicker, smarter, more aggressive, more intense.

 

Bo glowed about the team heading into last season, too. Summer optimism doesn't always translate to Fall success. This is all just fluff, with no substance. We've seen it before and we've been disappointed with the results.

 

This year... Terry Joseph is forcing players to learn intricate details of the mental aspect of the game. He's testing them with quizzes at their lockers every day, he's testing them with quizzes in the film room and on the white board every day... he's giving them what they need to get that one step head start that will make all the difference at this level where everybody on the field is running on similar par levels. THIS IS WHY WE'RE BETTER THIS YEAR THAN THE PAST 2 YEARS. We're getting a lead off to steal second... and therefore beating the 2nd baseman who is only 15ft away. We're all moving in unison... connecting the dots and communicating where each dot is. Our athleticism has always been constant... it's the mental repetitions that have lagged at times.

 

This is all well and good, and I hope it translates into a better secondary, but every team does versions of this kind of thing. None of it is any kind of guarantee that we'll be better.

 

In fact, losing Dennard (and Amukamara before him) tells us that the cupboard is just that much more bare, and we've yet to see anyone step up. It would be a lot more comforting had one of our DBs last year appeared all set to be Fonzie's heir apparent, but nobody showed that, and that's with me fully recognizing the solid work Green put in at the end of the year (just finished watching the Iowa game again and he looked good).

 

I'm not trying to be a downer here. I just want people to temper their expectations of this defense. We will, most likely, not be a flashy defense. We will, most likely, not be better this year than last. In fact, it would be very surprising if we were.

[The Dude]

The entire secondary were playing better towards the end of the season last year. Sure it had something to do with Dennard getting healthy, but Stafford and Green were playing better. I'd be surprised if they're not better game 1 than they were last year game 1. Mo Seisay might not step in and be a great player right away, but I have to imagine he'd be better than Green or Evans were game 1 last year. I mean, he can't be any worse could he? That's a wasted scholarship if he is. I think whoever the other safety is will be much more athletic than Cassidy. His understanding of the defense might not be as good, so we'll call that a wash for argument's sake.

 

I'd be absolutely stupefied if our secondary wasn't better than they were last year at the beginning of the season, and there's plenty of reason to believe they'll improve as the season goes on.

[zoogs]

I do find that even great coaches tend to require great players in order to perform at a highly elite level. It seems sort of ... obvious? expected? to have a drop off when the talent level drops off.

Totally disagree..... See New England Patriots!!! Other than Tom Brady.

 

Belichick does a masterful job. He's probably one of the best in the game.

 

That said, where is New England without Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, and Wes Welker?

 

When Cassell stepped in that one year, he still had Moss and Welker to throw to. Or how about their D, which has had some very bad years lately, without Wilfork? Belichick is widely regarded as a defensive genius, and yet NE has put up some of the worst defenses for years, trying to get by with their limitations, because they haven't managed to acquire the right pieces.

 

You're right that talent can get you so far, but my point is, so can coaching.

[NUance]

I do find that even great coaches tend to require great players in order to perform at a highly elite level. It seems sort of ... obvious? expected? to have a drop off when the talent level drops off.

Totally disagree..... See New England Patriots!!! Other than Tom Brady.

 

Belichick does a masterful job. He's probably one of the best in the game.

 

That said, where is New England without Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, and Wes Welker?

 

When Cassell stepped in that one year, he still had Moss and Welker to throw to. Or how about their D, which has had some very bad years lately, without Wilfork? Belichick is widely regarded as a defensive genius, and yet NE has put up some of the worst defenses for years, trying to get by with their limitations, because they haven't managed to acquire the right pieces.

 

You're right that talent can get you so far, but my point is, so can coaching.

Belichick does do a masterful job. He's a master at identifying and signing talented players who've been overlooked by other teams. Brady is the posterboy for this. Look at Dennard. Belichick got Dennard for a fire-sale bargain price. All because of an incredibly poorly timed DUI. Belichick does this same thing time and again, getting an incredible bang for his buck on "special situation" guys.

[COMPTON]

The secondary is looking like it could be the strongest part of the defense this year, for safeties guys like Stafford, Smith, and Osborne rotating in at safety, Harvey Jackson and Corey Cooper (if he finally settles there) could also find meaningful time as well.

 

For corner we'll Seisay who could be special, Green and Evans both improving from last year, Baptiste may rotate back in a little bit along with Josh Mitchell who's a dang good athlete, if Charles Jackson doesn't redshirt he could find his way onto the field as well.

 

We have the athletes for the secondary, now if they can all get in the field.

[bshirt]

I think blitzing is overrated. It's best if we can get the rush from the 4-man front. Of course, this isn't always possible and blitzes can be effective. However, I would think in my limited knowledge that blitzes work best against pocket-passing statues. The ones Bo has figured out already. Sending a blitzing 'backer or DB on a real mobile QB is asking to get burned. Blitzes are going to be even easier to evade than an open-field tackler for those guys, because the blitzer is charging.

 

And once evaded, if there's no run lane open, we're short a man in coverage. Coverage can only really work for a certain amount of time. Taking a man away from coverage, and going against a QB who can evade him 1-on-1 and extend plays from the pocket, seems like a low-percentage, high-risk strategy.

 

Go look at what opposing defenses did to Denard Robinson last year, and how they slowed him down. Same for Braxton Miller. Both of whom torched us.

 

Blitzes are not overrated. Used correctly they are very effective. They cannot be used in all situations, but Bo uses them in nearly no situation, and that's wrong.

I guess you'll have to point me to which teams slowed them down:

 

Denard Robinson:

vs. NU - 11/18, 180 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 23 rush, 83 yds (3.6 ypc), 2 TD - 263 total yds, 4 TDs

 

vs. Notre Dame: 11/24, 338 yds, 4 TD, 3 INT; 16 rush, 108 yds (6.8 ypc), 1 TD - 446 total yds, 5 TDs

vs. Mich St.: 9/24, 123 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT; 18 rush, 42 yds (2.3 ypc), 1 TD - 165 total yds, 2 TDs

vs. Iowa: 17/37, 194 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 12 car, 55 yds (4.6 ypc) - 249 total yds, 2 TDs

vs. Ohio St. - 14/17, 167 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT; 26 rush, 170 yds (6.5 ypc), 2 TD - 337 total yards, 5 TDs

 

So Michigan St. (#5 in the country in yards allowed and arch-rival) had him bottled up, Iowa was about the same and ND and Ohio St. were much worse. I suppose you can throw VaTech in as a team that bottled him up but it's a lot easier to have everyone on the same page when you have a month to prepare.

 

 

Braxton Miller:

vs. NU (3 quarters) - 5/8, 95 yds, 1 TD; 10 rush, 91 yds (9.1 ypc) - 186 total yds, 1 TD

 

vs. Mich St. - 5/10, 56 yds, 1 INT; 9 rush, -27 yds (-3.0 ypc) - 29 total yds

vs. Wisconsin - 7/12, 89 yds, 1 TD; 19 rush, 99 yds (5.2 ypc), 2 TD - 188 total yds, 3 TD

vs. Penn St. - 7/17, 83 yds, 1 TD; 18 rush, 105 yds (5.8 ypc), 1 TD - 188 total yds, 2 TD

vs. Michigan - 14/25, 235 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 16 rush, 100 yds (6.3 ypc), 1 TD - 335 total yds, 3 TD

 

So, again, Mich St. had his number, Wisc & Penn St. were comparable and he torched Michigan. You can argue that he compiled his stats against us in only 3 quarters but he only completed one pass and had 3 rushes for 12 yards playing all but 5 plays of the third quarter so we were doing better in the second half and our offense was actually holding the ball which is a large part of why both these QBs were able to put up the stats they did against us.

 

I don't argue that I wish we could do some things differently but I think is misleading when people talk like we're the only team that has problems with mobile QBs. They hurt a lot of people and, as shown above, they hurt a lot of teams worse than us.

 

Absolutely.

 

What's so amazing is that so very many posters here are always sobbing for a return to some cement shoes pocket qb like Z. Lee or Z. Taylor. You would think "Nebraska" fans more than anyone else would understand what huge threat to defenses a great running qb is but......NOOOOOooo! They demand a Dan Marino 1st and foremost but if he runs like M. Vick that's ok too. Like they just grow on trees.

 

Ha....it's never boring here!

 

GBR!!