For all of the haters that were complaining about Scott all year long and that CJF had an upgrade with Foster for VT, well his defense got shredded my Tulsa with 31 pts in the first half!!! With an NFL corner!!! Maybe Scott was pretty good after all!!!
It's impossible to know how good Galen Scott is but I have said all year that he wasn't the problem; no talent in the secondary was. I'm not saying he's some kind of genius but I think he's probably a decent coach.
I agree he's probably a decent coach but it did seem our DBs were out of position a lot.
It was strange....at teams we shut teams down (Ole Miss, SMU) and other time we were torched. Wasn't a lot of in between
(12-26-2015 08:58 PM)southpaw1 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree he's probably a decent coach but it did seem our DBs were out of position a lot.
While Galen was in charge of total defense it was another of Fuente's buddy's for Tulsa that coached the defensive backs
It was not a lack of talent. Our secondary is just young. Galen Scott did a good job.
To not teach the defensive backs to turn and find the ball is just not good coaching.
I don't like to down players but #8 consistently got beat all year long.. The Coaches can't be blind to that fact.. Why didn't we ever pull the safety over to double which ever receiver he was covering.. They never did that I saw and #8 got torched all year long..
Galen Scott is not the same as Galen Hall. And, Fuente is not CJF any longer. lol
Other than that, it's an interesting discussion. We knew they would struggle this year. Lost 8 starters and replaced them with a bunch of sophomores. Then throw in losing the DC and changing the scheme.
Fact is, we were a below average D. Even considering all the high-flying O's that we played against, we still tended to give up more than our opponents other opponents. On average, out of our opponents 12 regular season games, we came in ranked 6.25 in fewest points allowed. That is, more than 6 of their other opponents gave up fewer points to them than we did. And that includes one FCS opponent.
Of course, we got in some shootouts with teams that probably led to them pushing their offenses a little more than they may have against other opponents.
I just didn't see enough progress from a young defensive unit. We peaked in the Old Miss game and then fell off badly over the next 5 games. Sure, we had the shutout vs SMU. Seemed more an aberration as an improvement.
I think Galen is a fine position coach, but not ready for the DC role.
(12-26-2015 10:43 PM)450bench Wrote: [ -> ]To not teach the defensive backs to turn and find the ball is just not good coaching.
It has seemed for the last ten years that our backs never turn and look to find the ball.
(12-26-2015 10:47 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]Galen Scott is not the same as Galen Hall. And, Fuente is not CJF any longer. lol
Other than that, it's an interesting discussion. We knew they would struggle this year. Lost 8 starters and replaced them with a bunch of sophomores. Then throw in losing the DC and changing the scheme.
Fact is, we were a below average D. Even considering all the high-flying O's that we played against, we still tended to give up more than our opponents other opponents. On average, out of our opponents 12 regular season games, we came in ranked 6.25 in fewest points allowed. That is, more than 6 of their other opponents gave up fewer points to them than we did. And that includes one FCS opponent.
Of course, we got in some shootouts with teams that probably led to them pushing their offenses a little more than they may have against other opponents.
I just didn't see enough progress from a young defensive unit. We peaked in the Old Miss game and then fell off badly over the next 5 games. Sure, we had the shutout vs SMU. Seemed more an aberration as an improvement.
I think Galen is a fine position coach, but not ready for the DC role.
All I know is CJF supposedly upgraded with Foster, and the same Tulsa team we're complaining about, scored 52 pts against a supposedly superior defense, yeah right!!! I think Foster by your rationale would be a good position coach as well, maybe not he has P5 talent!!!
Whether our DBs didn't look back for the ball really didn't matter most times, the receivers were many times well beyond our defenders, so our DBs were just attempting to catch up.
Galen is a good coach but I think he is leaving
I guess Cornelsen hasn't been working for VT on our dime or was that just a Vice problem?
(12-26-2015 11:31 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ]Whether our DBs didn't look back for the ball really didn't matter most times, the receivers were many times well beyond our defenders, so our DBs were just attempting to catch up.
Disagree. It cost us a lot. Especially against Tulsa and Houston. There is no excuse for not finding the ball.
(12-27-2015 12:56 AM)450bench Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2015 11:31 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ]Whether our DBs didn't look back for the ball really didn't matter most times, the receivers were many times well beyond our defenders, so our DBs were just attempting to catch up.
Disagree. It cost us a lot. Especially against Tulsa and Houston. There is no excuse for not finding the ball.
It's not an either-or, it is defend/cover first and look back as the retriever indicates the ball is coming his way. We were consistently poor in coverage, sometimes not having a defender within 10 yds of a receiver. No need to look back if the defender isn't in tight coverage. We need to get the tight coverage aspect down before we worry about looking back for the ball, although locating the ball is very important if the defender is actually in a coverage position - which we weren't many times.
Bottom line, we had sub-par team speed. It was particularly evident in the defensive backfield. Add that to our DB's lack of experience, and we got torched.
(12-27-2015 08:17 AM)holyterror Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line, we had sub-par team speed. It was particularly evident in the defensive backfield. Add that to our DB's lack of experience, and we got torched.
That's right, we didn't cover well most times. It was due to scheme in some cases, due to busted coverage in some cases but most times it is because our DBs were shorter & slower than the receivers they were attempting to cover. I think our coaches understood this & attempted to mask the skill deficiencies with scheme which in many cases didn't work. But this also happened more this past season because our D front couldn't get to the QB as in 2014. Give a decent QB time & even the best coverage & technique skills breaks down. And BTW, there are several talented QBs in the AAC operating good offenses that expose poor coverage.
You have to find the ball. We were not beaten, coverage wise, against Tulsa or Houston on the Hail Mary plays. We just didn't look for the ball.
Those are just tangible examples.
My chief complaint about our defense was tackling. We were in position often and consistently had bad tackling firm and let teams pick up extra yardage.
(12-26-2015 11:28 PM)michaelf Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2015 10:47 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]Galen Scott is not the same as Galen Hall. And, Fuente is not CJF any longer. lol
Other than that, it's an interesting discussion. We knew they would struggle this year. Lost 8 starters and replaced them with a bunch of sophomores. Then throw in losing the DC and changing the scheme.
Fact is, we were a below average D. Even considering all the high-flying O's that we played against, we still tended to give up more than our opponents other opponents. On average, out of our opponents 12 regular season games, we came in ranked 6.25 in fewest points allowed. That is, more than 6 of their other opponents gave up fewer points to them than we did. And that includes one FCS opponent.
Of course, we got in some shootouts with teams that probably led to them pushing their offenses a little more than they may have against other opponents.
I just didn't see enough progress from a young defensive unit. We peaked in the Old Miss game and then fell off badly over the next 5 games. Sure, we had the shutout vs SMU. Seemed more an aberration as an improvement.
I think Galen is a fine position coach, but not ready for the DC role.
All I know is CJF supposedly upgraded with Foster, and the same Tulsa team we're complaining about, scored 52 pts against a supposedly superior defense, yeah right!!! I think Foster by your rationale would be a good position coach as well, maybe not he has P5 talent!!!
Tulsa runs the Baylor offense.
They also put up 30+ on Oklahoma. They are top 20 in the nation in scoring at 37 ppg.