This is the biggest flaw in the defense in my opinion. If we could shed blocks, we might have gotten to the football last night. As is, none of our defenders have hand-fighting skills. As a fan of combat sports, this is terribly disappointing!
Doesn't help that we rarely blitz and our secondary is a non-threat in the run game and give up an automatic 5-yards on screens.
We need to give the opposing offense more to think about. MTSU didn't have to adapt last night to our defense. Which is extremely deflating to watch as they continually gouged the defense with seemingly the same three or four plays.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
We were out matched in size, speed, and strength. We need 2 more FBS level recruiting class to have enough depth. Our lack of size and speed on special teams especially kickoff and return teams is noticeable. We are playing semi -big boy football. Let's see if we can turn this setback into a win next week. I hope we are not too banged up.
(09-27-2014 08:48 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't help that we rarely blitz and our secondary is a non-threat in the run game and give up an automatic 5-yards on screens.
We need to give the opposing offense more to think about. MTSU didn't have to adapt last night to our defense. Which is extremely deflating to watch as they continually gouged the defense with seemingly the same three or four plays.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Hey Drunkard I noticed this too: our no-threat pass run/ non blitz scheme. Quarterback just sits back there and picks up apart. Nice to meet you.
We are still an FCS level team in many respects many of the positions filled by FBS recruits that are very young. IMO, it's going to take 2 more years of quality recruiting to catch up to the big boys. Unfortunately, it's a painful process right now, but I like this teams fight.
(09-27-2014 01:58 PM)N2theBlue Wrote: [ -> ]We are still an FCS level team in many respects many of the positions filled by FBS recruits that are very young. IMO, it's going to take 2 more years of quality recruiting to catch up to the big boys. Unfortunately, it's a painful process right now, but I like this teams fight.
True that.
But....
I'm sorry, but last night was more on the coaches than the players, on both sides of the ball
(09-27-2014 01:24 PM)odu83alumni Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 08:48 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't help that we rarely blitz and our secondary is a non-threat in the run game and give up an automatic 5-yards on screens.
We need to give the opposing offense more to think about. MTSU didn't have to adapt last night to our defense. Which is extremely deflating to watch as they continually gouged the defense with seemingly the same three or four plays.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Hey Drunkard I noticed this too: our no-threat pass run/ non blitz scheme. Quarterback just sits back there and picks up apart. Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you as well. And always good to see ODUAlum78.
(09-27-2014 02:17 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 01:24 PM)odu83alumni Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 08:48 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't help that we rarely blitz and our secondary is a non-threat in the run game and give up an automatic 5-yards on screens.
We need to give the opposing offense more to think about. MTSU didn't have to adapt last night to our defense. Which is extremely deflating to watch as they continually gouged the defense with seemingly the same three or four plays.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Hey Drunkard I noticed this too: our no-threat pass run/ non blitz scheme. Quarterback just sits back there and picks up apart. Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you as well. And always good to see ODUAlum78.
Great to see you guys. I enjoyed the company of odumon84 as well.
I must say that ODU True Blue turning out to be such a party animal surprised me! I had not seen that side of him,
I'd buy the "we still have fcs players" argument a little bit more if we didn't get shredded by Hampton.
At some point, you have to start looking at the scheme and system.
App st. Beat michigan at the big house with fcs players. Our guys aren't that weak and feeble, our coaches just call an extremely soft gameplan.
I'm sorry, but you can counteract a lack of size with ingenuity.
(09-27-2014 03:37 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]I'd buy the "we still have fcs players" argument a little bit more if we didn't get shredded by Hampton.
At some point, you have to start looking at the scheme and system.
App st. Beat michigan at the big house with fcs players. Our guys aren't that weak and feeble, our coaches just call an extremely soft gameplan.
I'm sorry, but you can counteract a lack of size with ingenuity.
I agree. Our defense was bad against FCS teams and still is. We play to not get beat deep way too much. It's time to make them complete the damn pass. I fully realize that a secondary's best friend is a strong pass rush, but that can also work the other way too. It's time for opposing QB's to get their career games against somebody else.
The giants improved their defense significantly in the offseason not by signing talented lineman at a premium cost, but instead signing Rodgers cromartie, Walter Thurmond from Seattle and several other solid defensive backs (will demos, zac bowman etc.)
The theory there is, if you can cover just a few tenths of a second longer, you give the defensive lineman that much more time to get to the Qb. Seattle is wrecking the nfl with a very similar defensive strategy.
Our soft corner coverage encourages teams to exploit our defense, which they willingly do.
How many 15+ yard passes (in the air) did mtsu throw last night?
3? Maybe 5?
They dink and dunked us and ran the ball down our throats but they only beat us deep on the last touchdown of the game where we couldn't get any pressure and had a blown coverage (even with the soft zone).
For crying out loud, push guys up, start playing physical and make college qb's beat you over the top. Maybe not Cato next week, but make some of the less talented qb's in college beat you with their arms. Take your chances with that instead of slowly getting pounded into the turf game after game after game.
I mean seriously, how much more evidence do we need that what we are currently doing, isn't working.
The vanilla defenses we run just encourage teams to assert their will and give them absolutely nothing to think about at all. I don't think our personnel is that bad and it's a giant cop out to keep blaming the players for a terrible, unimaginative scheme.
The JUCOs we've recruited for the last 2 years are not FCS level players (and they're 3rd & 4th year players). Neither are the last 2 full recruiting classes. That excuse is getting tiresome.
(09-27-2014 07:47 PM)odusteeler Wrote: [ -> ]The JUCOs we've recruited for the last 2 years are not FCS level players (and they're 3rd & 4th year players). Neither are the last 2 full recruiting classes. That excuse is getting tiresome.
Well, MTSU has been recruiting for 100 years.
(09-27-2014 08:41 PM)LuckyLion Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 07:47 PM)odusteeler Wrote: [ -> ]The JUCOs we've recruited for the last 2 years are not FCS level players (and they're 3rd & 4th year players). Neither are the last 2 full recruiting classes. That excuse is getting tiresome.
Well, MTSU has been recruiting for 100 years.
They can only stay for 5.
(09-27-2014 09:06 PM)odusteeler Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 08:41 PM)LuckyLion Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 07:47 PM)odusteeler Wrote: [ -> ]The JUCOs we've recruited for the last 2 years are not FCS level players (and they're 3rd & 4th year players). Neither are the last 2 full recruiting classes. That excuse is getting tiresome.
Well, MTSU has been recruiting for 100 years.
They can only stay for 5.
Huh?
Thought LuckyLion's point is that MTSU has been doing this for so long (100 years) that the art of finding and recruiting talent, as well as what one would deem complimentary talent for that matter, at the FBS level, is more of a second nature to MTSU than it is for ODU.
(09-29-2014 07:08 PM)ziggy1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 09:06 PM)odusteeler Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 08:41 PM)LuckyLion Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2014 07:47 PM)odusteeler Wrote: [ -> ]The JUCOs we've recruited for the last 2 years are not FCS level players (and they're 3rd & 4th year players). Neither are the last 2 full recruiting classes. That excuse is getting tiresome.
Well, MTSU has been recruiting for 100 years.
They can only stay for 5.
Huh?
Thought LuckyLion's point is that MTSU has been doing this for so long (100 years) that the art of finding and recruiting talent, as well as what one would deem complimentary talent for that matter, at the FBS level, is more of a second nature to MTSU than it is for ODU.
And my point is this - we've got more than simply '2 FBS recruiting classes' that everyone likes to proclaim. We've put well north of 50 players on scholarship over the last 2 years. Quite a few were JUCOs. This was done to provide experience and fill in talent gaps. These players aren't 18 year old freshman - they're 3rd & 4th year students when they arrive in most cases. And since they've been recruited post-FBS announcement, I assume they're FBS-level JUCOs. So that's really 2 recruiting classes of high school players AND 2 years of FBS-level JUCOs. The simple math is thus: 50/85=~60% replacement. And let's not discredit some of our FCS recruits either. Some of those guys are good enough to play at this level. I'm sure nobody in they're right mind would toss Heinicke out with the bath water.
We're in our 6th season. Our coaches were recruiting long before they got to ODU. They certainly don't need 100 years of history to get where they want to go. They have the resources to build the team now, not some far off date in the future.
I guess my point is, if you're going to go get JUCOs to build your team with, they should come in combat ready. They might not know the schemes or assignments, but they should be able to win their individual matchups. Age should not be the excuse.
I think our zone coverage scheme is a bad fit for a couple of reasons. (1) We are in a region that produces a ton of fast strong DBs that can get up in your face and lock a guy down. (2) We are a young team, and probably will be for a little while. It is a lot easier to have freshmen just worry about locking their man down, than it is for them to learn the intricacies of zone coverage. I hate zone coverage in college football, especially if you are able to recruit athletes.
That said, I don't really know how good our DBs are and its possible they would get burned deep constantly in man. Overall, I think the defense has improved immensely. Unfortunately, so has the competition.
Our D has improved and I am pleased. The problem is that we allow 68.7 percent of passes to be completed as a result of our reluctance to get beat over the top. That is dead last in FBS (128 teams).
Even that would be fine if we were forcing field goals once teams are driving. Unfortunately once a team strings together a couple of first downs, their drives end in seven. The offenses we have played do not begin to compare with the one we will see on Saturday.
I like this D, just need it to hold teams to more FGA's
I believe there is still an excuse for recruiting. And I think a new program gets a "pass" for the first 5 or 6 years in case the first couple of recruiting classes do not pan out. And I think a move up to FBS should reset that grace period to get in a rhythm of a higher level of talent.
But like I said earlier, and as ODUR8R and Razor have said, this bend but don't break philosophy is just not working. The MT game is an example of what happens if our offense is not perfect. The Rice game is an example of when our offense is perfect (last second 3 point win). We just can't expect our offense to be perfect all the time.
We have enough history to know that if we get burned over the top for a 55 yard TD, it is not a big deal because there was something like a 75% chance they would have scored in another 6 plays anyway. If anything, we come away with a fresher defense for later in the game. If we need to run the clock to make up for that time not spent, we can figure out a way to do that on offense.
(09-27-2014 07:47 PM)odusteeler Wrote: [ -> ]The JUCOs we've recruited for the last 2 years are not FCS level players (and they're 3rd & 4th year players). Neither are the last 2 full recruiting classes. That excuse is getting tiresome.
Doesn't mean it's not true. Why did anyone think we could recruit some JUCOs, and 2 FBS classes and think we'd have the depth to compete with schools that have had players on their strength and conditioning program for 4 or 5 years?
The last 2 recruiting classes were FBS recruits, sure, but they are still "young" players. Our team's depth and overall strength won't be where it needs to be to consistently compete with FBS schools until our FBS recruits are upperclassmen--juniors and seniors. We need FBS recruits that have spent 3, 4, or 5 seasons in the program, not 1 or 2 sprinkled with JUCOs who have also only been here a short time.
And yes, we have some JUCO recruits, but that doesn't mean they all pan out. We need an entire cycle of actual FBS recruits--5th year seniors all the way through freshman before this gets where it needs to be. We need to be able to redshirt any freshman we want, not any freshman we can. We're not there yet. Our team is not "mature" yet, even with the JUCOs.
I know this is a message board and we can all do it better than the professionals, but people need to be realistic. There's not a "solution" posted on this board that the staff hasn't talked about. Now they may not have tweeted about it enough to satisfy us, but they've talked about it.