On that last drive by csu their receivers seemed to be wide open. Is our secondary playing zone and so they are only guarding a certain area? Are we playing man coverage and just getting beat by superior athletes? What is going on here and are there any changes we can make at this point to improve for future games?

It looked to me that we were playing zone on those but I'm going to have to watch the game replay to be sure. I was there in person watching the corners and they didn't look to be covering anyone in particular.

Firmly believe remaining scholarships need to go to grad transfers that play the following positions — CB, S, and DL. On the former two groups, to guys at least 5’11 or 6’0.

I say that, and then we’re going to need to re-stock the cupboard at WR too.

Compared to the end of the game defense against UNLV versus CSU it was not good. I understand to a point playing some zone on the backend on the last drive, but you need to also rush 5-6 guys and drop 5 in the zone. We needed to get pressure on the QB on the last drive which we did not. Compare that against UNLV and we brought the house and it really flustered the QB.

I agree. If we could have sacked the csu qb the game would've pretty much been over. They had no timeouts.

They did catch a lot of balls on the last drive, but I feel they were mostly over the middle. We only rushed three, so shouldn't of the Linebackers and Safeties have some responsibilities there?

I feel our CB's have done a lot better at coverage since the AF game. They couldn't get off blocks vs Boise or byu, but alas, they're big teams.

YouEssYou wrote: ↑

October 23rd, 2021, 9:06 am

On that last drive by csu their receivers seemed to be wide open. Is our secondary playing zone and so they are only guarding a certain area? Are we playing man coverage and just getting beat by superior athletes? What is going on here and are there any changes we can make at this point to improve for future games?

Prevent defense will prevent you from winning every time.

OrangeCountyAggie wrote: ↑

October 23rd, 2021, 12:38 pm

YouEssYou wrote: ↑

October 23rd, 2021, 9:06 am

On that last drive by csu their receivers seemed to be wide open. Is our secondary playing zone and so they are only guarding a certain area? Are we playing man coverage and just getting beat by superior athletes? What is going on here and are there any changes we can make at this point to improve for future games?

Prevent defense will prevent you from winning every time.

Yup. I yelled at the tv a lot last night but I came unglued when I saw the dbs giving a 15 yard cushion the last two drives. They had been decent most of the game but for some STUPID!!! reason we decided to openly let them score the last two drives of the game. Of course we lucked out and they missed the FG but we blew a two possession lead using prevent defense. This has mostly disappeared because people have realized how bad it is, but for some reason Banda hasn’t gotten the message. Ridiculous.

They ran that same play 4 times last night. The first time in the third quarter when their QB missed the guy going down the seam wide open with nobody within 20 yards. I knew they'd go back to it at some point. They used it again twice on their 4th quarter TD drive (one of which was the touchdown pass) and once on the missed FG drive. That play is a blueprint for all the teams coming up because we have no answer to it this far.

Diaz/Banda are big believers in zone because they want to limit big plays.

Their scheme is very poor in covering slot receivers and tight ends up the seam, among other things

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

October 23rd, 2021, 11:08 pm

Diaz/Banda are big believers in zone because they want to limit big plays.

Their scheme is very poor in covering slot receivers and tight ends up the seam, among other things

This question isn’t meant to be as snarky as it sounds, but what is the scheme designed to be good at? It feels like the objective is to force field goals, where the goal of the Aranda/Orlando style was an aggressive blitz-heavy scheme designed to get the opposing team off the field (knowing we’d occasionally get burned for big plays).

I know which I preferred. Nothing against Banda, but I’m not a fan of the defense, and really don’t think we can recruit the quality and quantity of DL and DBs to run it very well.

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2021, 2:02 am

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

October 23rd, 2021, 11:08 pm

Diaz/Banda are big believers in zone because they want to limit big plays.

Their scheme is very poor in covering slot receivers and tight ends up the seam, among other things

This question isn’t meant to be as snarky as it sounds, but what is the scheme designed to be good at? It feels like the objective is to force field goals, where the goal of the Aranda/Orlando style was an aggressive blitz-heavy scheme designed to get the opposing team off the field (knowing we’d occasionally get burned for big plays).

I know which I preferred. Nothing against Banda, but I’m not a fan of the defense, and really don’t think we can recruit the quality and quantity of DL and DBs to run it very well.

Not sure if Banda will be exactly like Diaz but as a Miami fan I can honestly say I hate the scheme.

Philosophically, it makes sense. Offenses are really good and keeping teams under 28 can be tough. So try and kill drives by getting sacks or tackles for loss and limit big plays so teams have to extend drives giving you more chances at drive killing plays.

Schematically, I hate it. It gives up leverage very easily in pursuit of disruption and good offenses can take advantage. The coverage can be too soft at times (during the BYU game whenever they loaded one side with receivers we played so far off they had easy 10 yard completions). Miamis 2017 defense forced a ton of big plays and turnovers and they had a very good year but If it’s not doing those things it is very vulnerable

Watch how often our DL drops their shoulder instead of engaging a DL with his hands or how easily we give up leverage in pursuit of getting in the backfield. Whenever Miami would play a team with a bad QB, they could dominate because the QB couldn’t take advantage of what the defense gives up but a competent QB and the defense would struggle

Again, Banda will probably evolve and do different things but the Diaz scheme is a bit of a mess.

It gives up leverage far too easily, setting the edge is not emphasized enough, and good offenses can take advantage.

Well, it is still giving up big plays. Other than CSU, every other team burned is for a big touchdown. Most of those were running plays.

NVAggie wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2021, 7:41 am

Well, it is still giving up big plays. Other than CSU, every other team burned is for a big touchdown. Most of those were running plays.

I was surprised we didn't give up long runs against CSU. The game is 60 minutes and we need to play the whole game. That being said up until the last 2 drives the defense played well. I just hated the last to defensive drives with only rushing 3-4 which killed us.

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2021, 10:20 am

NVAggie wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2021, 7:41 am

Well, it is still giving up big plays. Other than CSU, every other team burned is for a big touchdown. Most of those were running plays.

I was surprised we didn't give up long runs against CSU. The game is 60 minutes and we need to play the whole game. That being said up until the last 2 drives the defense played well. I just hated the last to defensive drives with only rushing 3-4 which killed us.

I think we gave up one real long one and then a lot around 6-8 yards.

Because gap discipline and leverage aren’t emphasized, it’s really easy to break gash runs and a lot of responsibility is on the safeties to clean that up.

I think in almost every game we have given up a long run around the left edge (offense’s left). This will likely continue against any decent team.

It really is a bad scheme and I hope Banda evolves away from it a bit. He’s done a good job adjusting during games for the most part and I think he’s timed some blitzes and other plays well. He was a great position coach and recruiter and he’s an ambitious guy so I think he’ll be quick to adjust the scheme if he has to.

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2021, 12:12 pm

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2021, 10:20 am

NVAggie wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2021, 7:41 am

Well, it is still giving up big plays. Other than CSU, every other team burned is for a big touchdown. Most of those were running plays.

I was surprised we didn't give up long runs against CSU. The game is 60 minutes and we need to play the whole game. That being said up until the last 2 drives the defense played well. I just hated the last to defensive drives with only rushing 3-4 which killed us.

I think we gave up one real long one and then a lot around 6-8 yards.

Because gap discipline and leverage aren’t emphasized, it’s really easy to break gash runs and a lot of responsibility is on the safeties to clean that up.

I think in almost every game we have given up a long run around the left edge (offense’s left). This will likely continue against any decent team.

It really is a bad scheme and I hope Banda evolves away from it a bit. He’s done a good job adjusting during games for the most part and I think he’s timed some blitzes and other plays well. He was a great position coach and recruiter and he’s an ambitious guy so I think he’ll be quick to adjust the scheme if he has to.

I do not and never will understand a defensive scheme that does not preach gap and assignment discipline. Yes there are some blitz and stunt packages that are going to leave a zone hole or require cover 0 at certain spots but you can be aggressive and disciplined.

There is no bigger sin as a player or coach than to lose contain. These guys blow it off like they don't care.

I saw some nice zone blitzes against unlv and thought we would do that to put csu out of business. Instead we drop 8 guys who run a way from a te in the seam like he had rabies.