Call me crazy, but UCF was the only undefeated team last year so the defense must have done something right. Sure, they gave up a lot of points, but they obviously got stops and turnovers when they needed them. We’ve had a bend don’t break mentality for 15 years and we’ve given up single game records in both yards and points. So I’m sure it won’t be “Melvin Gordon is still running” bad. Frost said from day one they don’t want guys to fear failure. They don’t want them to be afraid to go make a great play. So the mantra has been “attack, attack, attack.” Nearly every practice video I see someone is yelling “attack.” The defense is a big unknown and maybe it will flop. But i’m Ready to see a defense that goes on the offensive trying to get to the QB and create a negative play or a TO than one that sits on it’s heels and reacts after they get hit in the mouth.
Chinander
- Thread starter husker2612
- Start date
I believe UCF ranked 2nd in take aways with a +17 margin. Nebraska was 106th with a -7 margin. That change in itself is going to do wonders for our w-l record.
I don't know if I would go as far as saying the D is letting the other team score. I do think it is a D style that will give up big plays and will get scored on. More so than we would like to see. However we are use to teams scoring large amounts on us. We just didn't get a win to go with it. If this style gets us wins so be it. A win is a win and it really doesn't matter if the score is 54-48 or 21-7. Although the blowout wins are easier on the heart. lol
I guess I don't understand some of the thinking here. I like an aggressive D that puts pressure on the O and disrupts what they are wanting to do but under control. However, that doesn't come without risks. Certainly the umbrella that Diaco played was not going to set players up to make consistent big plays. However, a D that attacks and can't cover the backside leaves people open ends up with the same result.
So, frankly, I could care less about what you call it, just play sound assignment football with great technique. The rest will take care of itself. There is no substitute for having the horses in place and the jury is still out in that regard. As I said on here before, you want to see an aggressive attacking (i.e. blitzing) D then watch Cosgrove teams. You all know how that ended up.
I know Frost is looked at as the Offensive brains but he did play D in the pros and has coached it so I would expect a D that is somewhat the same mind set as the O. It will be fun to both watch this team and read these boards!
So, frankly, I could care less about what you call it, just play sound assignment football with great technique. The rest will take care of itself. There is no substitute for having the horses in place and the jury is still out in that regard. As I said on here before, you want to see an aggressive attacking (i.e. blitzing) D then watch Cosgrove teams. You all know how that ended up.
I know Frost is looked at as the Offensive brains but he did play D in the pros and has coached it so I would expect a D that is somewhat the same mind set as the O. It will be fun to both watch this team and read these boards!
His defensive style is certainly high-risk/high reward. Susceptible to the big play with that kind of style. But as I said to someone. If we get knocked out I would prefer it be from walking into a punch moving forward rather than sitting on the ropes getting pummeled.
I remember that play. Honestly it was one of the most pathetic plays I've seen from a college football team. You think with proper coaching and technique that should never happen. But maybe with the talent level at UCF and they were tired, that sort of thing happens once in a while. But if that sort of thing happens with any regularity here, we could be in big trouble on the defensive side.
We had a defensive coordinator way back in the day who ran a fast and aggressive attacking defense that was very good, but prone to giving up big plays. What was that coach's name again? Oh yeah.... Charlie McBride
I've posted on here a few times, because I watched all the televised UCF games last year, that their defense scared/worried me as did Coach Chin. Auburn was their best game. That said, I am in the camp also of preferring an aggressive defense and will support him 110% until he gives me a reason not to.
I am pushing the envelope on that, but in a way, that is what it is. The time component of getting the ball back quickly is so important, that it in a way, it could be described as 'almost' letting the other team score, just to get the ball back. It's very close to that sort of reasoning with the number of risks taken.
The other approach is a lot more proven, you force the team to march the entire length of the field, and the odds go way down of a team actually being able to execute that, repeatedly. Under this aggressive system, it's real easy to just get gutted on a single play, again, and again, and again.
We all saw those Michigan highlights, and they had scored, 30 some odd points by the 2nd quarter?
I don't mind the disagreement from others, but I think it's going to cause people a lot more heartache than what they think.
It's very easy to say one wants an aggressive defense, it comes from an emotional place, and when your pounding your fists on the table, it seems like the logical thing to say and want.
However when teams start actually playing matchups, mis-direction, and have just as good of players as you do, well, it's becomes much easier to hit the jackpot on single plays, because guys are not afraid to miss a tackle. It becomes like a very loose slot machine, and not in a good way.
I hope I'm wrong, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but this puts a tremendous amount of stress on the offense to score. If we aren't firing on all cylinders on that side of the ball and the opponent keeps ringing the jackpot bell, it's going to get ugly quick.
I prefer his defense to what we have had at least since McBride. That defense beat Auburn. It wasn't the offense. That defense scored points, forced turnovers and made key plays. I'm not sure how it is going to play out in the Big10, but nothing can be as horrible as what we saw last year.
That defense or a defense similar to the 2009/10 versions. Either likeness would be nice!
Well the 2010 defense with Suh was not too bad.
You are either a VERY long lived troll or insane,or high.
Just please...no more patty-cake at the LOS. Get upfield and level someone.
Ok, I made a joke about it earlier, but you continue to promote the idea that our defensive strategy is to let the other team score quickly so we can score again.
You’ve got to stop with this insane idea. The defensive strategy is to be aggressive and cause havoc, resulting in takeaways and stops behind the line of scrimmage. The more disruption, the more we get the ball back sooner. +17 in the turnover department last year is a BIG deal and shows a defense that doesn’t play to let the other team score. Last year’s defense played that way, and I don’t ever want to see that again. Remember Ohio State the last 2 years? Scored on every series except going in to halftime.
What you are worried about, and understandably so, is giving up the big play. But if our defense mitigates the big plays with some of their own big plays our offense will do the rest. At least, that’s the theory.
So stop saying this defense is designed to let the other team score. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And yes, you may have struck a nerve here...
Last edited:
I agree with this - example is auburn game, you can easily tell his main goal was to shut the run down - not let them hurry and score - this is insane
Exactly. "Nothing" could possibly be worse than Smiling Mike's last year here.
The first jackass that calls for Chin's head, needs to be permanently banned from the board.
LOL, it's gonna happen the first time Chinander's D gives up a long run or pass play.
If the defense plays well enough for us to win all (or at least 8) of our games...I think we will be OK with that. but firechin.com is reserved just in case.
I wish they kept a stat that detailed how the turnovers occurred. Turnovers and takeaways are totally different things. The defense gets credit for a turnover when the QB throws a good ball but the WR lets it bounce of of himself, or when the QB and C can't connect on a snap, or the QB just throws a bad ball right to a defender, or the QB/RB exchange is bad. Those kind of turnovers aren't "forced" those are "luck" plays. Over the course of a season or a group of seasons, that number will even out. Now plays where a fumble is caused, a ball is jarred loose from a WR and ricochets into a defender's hands. Those are takeaways. Those come from the defense making a play and not so much being at the right place at the right time to recover a fumble or catch an errant pass.
Also, UCF did a good job of getting turnovers last year, 20 INT and 12 FR for 32 total turnovers. I would use that as a defensive stat and not turnover margin. Turnover margin includes what the offense does as well. UCF was plus 17 last year in TO margin. Wisconsin had 29 turnovers but was only plus 5 because their offense turned the ball over 24 times compared to UCF 15. So the Wisconsin D did what they were supposed to do, the offense let them down, in this particular category. Wisconsin was 6th in gaining turnovers but only 30th in TO margin.
Also, UCF did a good job of getting turnovers last year, 20 INT and 12 FR for 32 total turnovers. I would use that as a defensive stat and not turnover margin. Turnover margin includes what the offense does as well. UCF was plus 17 last year in TO margin. Wisconsin had 29 turnovers but was only plus 5 because their offense turned the ball over 24 times compared to UCF 15. So the Wisconsin D did what they were supposed to do, the offense let them down, in this particular category. Wisconsin was 6th in gaining turnovers but only 30th in TO margin.
exactly. I expect by half time of Akron. People are going to have to be patient. I don't care how good they look in practice, there are going to be tremendous growing pains.
Awesome post Tuco. I went back and watched Oregon/FSU in 2015 where Chin was the OLB Coach. They really took it to FSU's offense. Forced the Noles into turnovers (5) that day. Obviously he was just an OLB coach but that philosophy carried over to UCF for sure.
Well I too called it 'absolute lunacy' earlier in this thread, but for different reasons. The absolute manic score score score type of game strategy doesn't sit well with me, and this defense is designed to compliment that strategy.
So yeah, the defense will be so aggressive to get turnovers or force a 3 an out, that the third option of a busted big play for a score will happen and is a by product of the aggressive strategy, so thus, in a way, it is by design, and I do think it's nuts.
The reasoning is like a burglar saying that going to jail isn't part of his strategy, yet it is a natural by product, or one of several outcomes none the less.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but I understand that people aren't necessarily ready to come to terms with it that way, yet.
Last edited:
I agree with you on the fact that people are necessarily ready to come to terms with things. Both offensively and defensively. There are still people that believe the offense is going to change because Frost moved to the Big Ten. Even though whenever they talk about their offense they talk about how it worked at Oregon and how it worked at UCF.
I agree that the defense is going to allow yards and points, there is no 2 ways about it. I also agree that people are not going to know how to embrace 45-35 games.
What's that old saying about "luck"? It's the intersection of opportunity and preparation?
I hope you are right but I see a huge loyalty instinct in Frost that may cause him to hold onto non-productive assistants for too long.
Sometimes. You don’t prepare for bad snaps and fumbled handoffs. Those just happen. Stripping the ball, separating receiver from the ball, reading the route and picking it off. Those are takeaways, you have more of a direct causation for that turnover.
I understand where you’re coming from, and when the other team breaks big plays, it clearly will be frustrating.
On the other hand, when they force a 3 and out or get a turnover, we will be celebrating.
When was the last time we got 30+ turnovers in a season? If we can come close to that I am ok with the occasional busted play as well.
I just wouldn’t call it a defense designed to let the other team score when that is the third option, behind a 3 and out or a turnover...
Still gotta be in the right place to capitalize on them. You don't scoop one if you never got off a block.
There is a difference.
It’s the same difference as finding a $20 bill on the ground vs taking a $20 bill from someone.
