I know everybody is losing their mind about the offense, but the D was really really good on Saturday. Obviously the D Line is still a problem. Losing Hewitt and replacing him with Mihota was probably the biggest setback. Mihota is no where near game ready and it showed. Belmar and Gaines were serviceable, (only time I really noticed Gaines was when he was covering a Receiver for some reason)
On the bright side, I really really really like our LBs. Dax and Rico were the bright spots of the team. Throw Rivers and Ashby into the mix, and the LBs are really going to be the strength of the team in the next 2-3 years. Beside a few breakout runs, the LBs were able to keep BCs rushing attack in check. 3rd down is still an issue, but I think that that gets a lot better with experience.
What did you guys think? Should Dax be the starter at Mike when Ashby comes back? Should Rico start at OLB? I really like Rico. He doesn't have the size that Tremaine had, but he's still a really suitable replacement and moves better in the open field than Rivers did.
Another Idea- Rivers has a considerable size advantage and his body is shaped really well, Do you guys think that it might be better to move him to DE? Again, he is built much better than guys like Belmar and Gaines, and it doesn't look like recruiting at that position has been a strong suit, also, it doesn't seem like he has much of a future where he was based on how Rico is playing.
Not really a hot take, just mean't as a discussion starter
Positive Take: LBs (Rivers at DE???)
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I was really impressed with the defense in a few areas where I saw improved/spirited play.
1) Tackling was much improved overall, and Quillen and Farley looked better making tackles. We were regularly taking on Dillon and tackling low with solid leverage and wrapping up. I was very impressed with how well we did against Dillon for the most part.
2) Rico and Dax at linebacker played fast and downhill, I feel like we saw more aggressive and faster play from them. They also were not lacking in passion in the slightest bit.
3) Belmar made some plays. Our pass rush was pretty non-existent, but Belmar made several tackles following in pursuit of the rb's from the backside.
Regarding Rivers to DE, he has the size, but I'm not sure he has the bend. Also, DE isn't quite as thin as DT, we're just very green at the position right now.
let's put him at DT then. /s
As badly as non 100% Vinny was getting blown off the ball it might help. I feel for that guy right now because he is clearly not himself but he is gutting it out.
The D played really, really well? I'm all for some optimism, and there was a definite improvement from GT, but we did give up 219 rushing yards, and several 20+ yard rushes where the dude was untouched. We also gave up 31 points to a Scot Loeffler led offense. I'm not saying that BC is bad, they've been pretty good all year, but we allowed them to hit their season averages in basically every offensive mark (total yards, rush yards, points), and they've played some BAD teams.
This wasn't a defensive meltdown (GT), but everyone and their brother would have been upset about this defensive performance on any other year. Not saying we should be freaking out about the defense, there's some reason for cautious optimism (especially given the cobbled together unit that was out there), but this wasn't a glowing defensive performance.
To be fair, the offense handed them one of those scores with the horribly dropped pass to interception inside our 20. The D still gave up the touchdown, but that was damn near guaranteed points of some kind no matter what.
I also think the defense probably gives up less points if we do better on offense. Going three and out on so many drives in the 2nd half is not only tiring for the defense, but it increases the sheer number of plays we faced, period. A few more first downs on offense could have flipped field position more effectively and reduced to the number of BC's possessions. The offense and defensive performances are separate, but they have a dynamic relationship where they can absolutely have effects on the other.
Our offensive drives in the 2nd half:
1) 3 and out
2) 3 and out
3) 3 and out
4) 2 plays, interception
5) 4 plays 10 yards, punt
6) 6 plays 13 yards, missed field goal
7) 6 plays 34 yards, turnover on downs
8) 10 play 75 yards, touchdown
9) 4 plays, 6 yards, turnover on downs.
That is blow your brains out bad, and it did the defense no favors at all.
Glad to see the Drive chart. When the offense cannot sustain, the defense will suffer.
It goes back to our poor running game. Each running play was a slow developing move to Off-tackle, our running back ran into a wall and no-where to go. I would suggest a Zone Read where we can actually allow the QB to decide what to do based on how the defense is set. You'll at least gain some yards, burn the clock a little and from there we can design to throw off it
I agree it looked like we were stubbornly just trying to run it unsuccessfully up the middle, but do we know for certain that these were not read plays where the QB made the wrong decision?
Yeah, most definitely. Three straight three and outs is not going to do anyone any favors, and minus the turnover at the 25, the score stays closer, the whole game shifts. There was definitely stuff to like, Dax looked good, our secondary was better than it has been.
I think people are swinging way too hard both directions too quickly though. Our defense looked better than it had the last couple weeks, and suddenly the defense is really great. The defense is probably improving. That's definitely fair. But this overreaction just feels like setting ourselves up for disappointment when our inconsistent defense continues to be inconsistent.
Big picture, definitely more in favor of optimistic overreactions than pessimistic ones, so maybe I should quit being a negative nancy.
I'm talking about what I saw from the team in this particular game. I'm not assuming anything moving forward, just that my assessment of the BC game was that the defense played well enough to win, but the offense failed to play their part in the second half. Obviously, there have been other games we have relied more on our offense this season.
Sorry, not in response to you there, that was more at the OP. And FWIW, I think you're probably right, with even a decent offensive performance, this is a way different game. But the OP said the defense was great; that was the whole of what I disagreed with.
woof.
I knew the second half was bad, but I didn't realize just how bad
I thought the young DE's played their best game the year. Garbutt made a few plays and Proctor looked fast and athletic in his limited snaps. Porcher impressed as well.
I also think this was by far Farley's best game of the season other than FSU. Actually made some good tackles and was solid in coverage all day.
Maybe it's starting to "click" for some of these defensive guys. Sure would be nice to see some noticeable progress and development over these last three games. Maybe put a little optimism and excitement back into the program before heading into the offseason
Funny thing is we were bashing the shit out of the defense a week ago. It was warranted, but the linebackers show a hell of a lot of promise. DL and secondary is in trouble though.