A year? Truly great defenses maybe twice per decade. Alabama '11. LSU '07. Miami '01. Michigan '97. Nebraska '95. Those are truly GREAT defenses at the college level.again, the word "great" gets bandied about way too often. Our 2012 D was far from great. The Pitt game wouldn't have happened if it was. And IMO offense rules in the college game. All we had to be was somewhat functional defensively these past three years and the overall record would look a lot better. At the least the scores would be more competitive.
Stats don't lie. Flood helms a historically bad defense.
- Thread starter rutgers4life11
- Start date
A year? Truly great defenses maybe twice per decade. Alabama '11. LSU '07. Miami '01. Michigan '97. Nebraska '95. Those are truly GREAT defenses at the college level.again, the word "great" gets bandied about way too often. Our 2012 D was far from great. The Pitt game wouldn't have happened if it was. And IMO offense rules in the college game. All we had to be was somewhat functional defensively these past three years and the overall record would look a lot better. At the least the scores would be more competitive.
Fair enough. But yeah, I'd say to be great I think an undefeated or one loss season and a conference championship would be requisite.
Seels
You would be right if we were playing the Schiano defense
We are NOT. Not even close
The schemes are getting further and further away from what Greg ran
And what we are recruiting is different as a result
We are recruiting bigger lineman now...like everyone else
We are recruiting bigger linebackers now...more like everyone else
We always competed for the same types of dbacks
I think we are recruiting bigger players but the schemes seem to be the leaning to the same. The issue is that the last 2.5 years are secondary has been very inexperienced so we haven't been able to run things like we ran in 2012. I thought this was the year it changed with Barnwell and Boggs at the corners but obviously that got blown out of the water. So we are once again trying to change things up.
We give up record amounts of yardage every week because?…I bet you guys didn't know this.
We have no money!
We have no money!
Need to buy some of that acreage back ?
Or hire a better defense team [winking]
But you get what you pay for, so agree: money is a major problem.
Seels
We have to agree to disagree here
The schemes we are running are nothing like before
And it's not about protecting the secondary
Of course they are not, we have lost continuity at the DC. At this point who on the staff has any real familarity with what Schiano did on D? Hell, we don't even have any real continuity of schemes on offense, and that is nominally what Flood has experience running. Lose this DC and we'll change schemes again, because the only way you really have true continuity of schemes is if your HC is the guy who implements them.
That team had 7 NFL picks.
All GS recruits .
Fudd can't recruit. We have no depth. Look at our LB Depth. A real issue.
Back before Schiano left there were many on this board who were upset that Schiano never won a BigEast Title. There were many on this board who were extremely tough on him. I don't know if Schiano read the board at the time but there were a lot of armchair quarterbacks on Schiano's game day coaching abilities. There were a few, who thought schiano should leave. well he did. and now we much more mediocre coach and our program is regressing in EVERY category! The stats indeed do not lie and look at *Rutgers academically what is happening. Its not good folks, and I wish schiano were still here. Very little chance that lightening strikes twice on RU.
Edit- *Rutgers Football academics.
Well of course the team regressed when you hire a guy to be head coach who was never even an offensive coordinator let alone a head coach at any level. That one is on pernetti.
It's hard to compare season to season in the recent past because our schedule has been so dramatically different year to year.
Comparing 2015 to 2014 is fairly consistent, once the season is done, because we play a pretty consistent schedule of teams (though you have to get both WSU and Army in your data before you can really compare, given how extreme their offenses are on both ends).
Comparing 2014/15 to 2013 or earlier doesn't work as well, just because of the teams faced.
2015/2014 - Ohio State, Michigan State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, TTFP, Indiana, Maryland, WSU, Army, FCS... the only real variance is Tulane/Kansas, and the bowl opponents UNC/TBD. These are two good years to make a basis of comparison. Admittedly, there are complicating factors such as the unexpected losses of players from one season to the next [Dailey, Barnwell, Boggs, Peele, Stephenson, Hamilton (injury), Jacobs (injury), Austin (injury), Carroo (missed 3 of 7 games - 2 full, 2 halves), etc], and the suspension of Flood for 3 games.
2013 - Louisville, UCF, Fresno State, Cincy, Notre Dame, Houston, SMU, Arkansas, UConn, USF, Temple, E. Mich, FCS. There is not a single team that compares from 2013 to 2014/15. Different styles of play, different level of opponent, etc... comparing stats from one season to the next is like apples and oranges.
2012 - Louisville, Kent State, Cincy, Cuse, VTech, Pitt, UConn, Arkansas, Temple, USF, Tulane, Army, FCS. Only 6 of 13 games overlap from 2012 to 2013... and only 2 of the 6 teams that finished with the best records. While there's at least some basis to compare year to year, the majority of the schedule changed from year to year - meaning different styles/levels of play, again.
2011 - WVU, Cincy, Ohio, UNC, Louisville, Iowa State, Pitt, Cuse, UConn, Navy, USF, Cuse, Army, FCS. This is a much more normal season-to-season comparison from 2011 to 2012... 8 teams remain the same, 5 changed (usually just 4 OOC games, but this is close). The added change factor was the loss of WVU and the pick of up Temple (a pretty big difference there, which should see some improvement in rankings from 2011 to 2012 all on its own).
2010 - WVU, UNC, Pitt, USF, Cuse, UConn, Army, Louisville, FIU, Tulane, Cincy, FCS. 9 teams overlap from 2010 to 2011, which should make for a great comparison from year to year.... but the complicating factor of LeGrand's injury mid-way through 2010 puts an asterisk on comparisons.
2005-2009 are also pretty consistent, as they have a steady conference schedule plus Army or Navy (very similar in style, but not necessarily in quality).
Comparing 2015 to 2014 is fairly consistent, once the season is done, because we play a pretty consistent schedule of teams (though you have to get both WSU and Army in your data before you can really compare, given how extreme their offenses are on both ends).
Comparing 2014/15 to 2013 or earlier doesn't work as well, just because of the teams faced.
2015/2014 - Ohio State, Michigan State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, TTFP, Indiana, Maryland, WSU, Army, FCS... the only real variance is Tulane/Kansas, and the bowl opponents UNC/TBD. These are two good years to make a basis of comparison. Admittedly, there are complicating factors such as the unexpected losses of players from one season to the next [Dailey, Barnwell, Boggs, Peele, Stephenson, Hamilton (injury), Jacobs (injury), Austin (injury), Carroo (missed 3 of 7 games - 2 full, 2 halves), etc], and the suspension of Flood for 3 games.
2013 - Louisville, UCF, Fresno State, Cincy, Notre Dame, Houston, SMU, Arkansas, UConn, USF, Temple, E. Mich, FCS. There is not a single team that compares from 2013 to 2014/15. Different styles of play, different level of opponent, etc... comparing stats from one season to the next is like apples and oranges.
2012 - Louisville, Kent State, Cincy, Cuse, VTech, Pitt, UConn, Arkansas, Temple, USF, Tulane, Army, FCS. Only 6 of 13 games overlap from 2012 to 2013... and only 2 of the 6 teams that finished with the best records. While there's at least some basis to compare year to year, the majority of the schedule changed from year to year - meaning different styles/levels of play, again.
2011 - WVU, Cincy, Ohio, UNC, Louisville, Iowa State, Pitt, Cuse, UConn, Navy, USF, Cuse, Army, FCS. This is a much more normal season-to-season comparison from 2011 to 2012... 8 teams remain the same, 5 changed (usually just 4 OOC games, but this is close). The added change factor was the loss of WVU and the pick of up Temple (a pretty big difference there, which should see some improvement in rankings from 2011 to 2012 all on its own).
2010 - WVU, UNC, Pitt, USF, Cuse, UConn, Army, Louisville, FIU, Tulane, Cincy, FCS. 9 teams overlap from 2010 to 2011, which should make for a great comparison from year to year.... but the complicating factor of LeGrand's injury mid-way through 2010 puts an asterisk on comparisons.
2005-2009 are also pretty consistent, as they have a steady conference schedule plus Army or Navy (very similar in style, but not necessarily in quality).
Last edited:
We do not recruit well enough to have a D dominate based on physical attributes. A good schiano style Rutgers defense requires players that know their roles and can all make the same reads... Quickly.. And MOVE to where they are supposed to be.
I give this D a bit of a pass this year. Losing that many players for various reasons has killed off the chance to be good, IMHO. However, all this experience SHOULD result in better D next year. We shall see if Flood can manage that.
I give this D a bit of a pass this year. Losing that many players for various reasons has killed off the chance to be good, IMHO. However, all this experience SHOULD result in better D next year. We shall see if Flood can manage that.
Well, never to early to look ahead, right? >.<
Secondary looks like it'll be a year better... but still a lot of young guys at corner.
LB, though.... we're definitely losing Gause and Lewis, and Longa would be a RS Senior if he stays. Not a lot of other guys seeing time there this year.
Wait for it...it's coming...the inevitable "but we've got a TON of talent coming in at LB next year" response.
My point is I am not blaming the D. Changing the DC alone ain't gonna fix this. The problem is bigger than the D... imo... But if you want to focus on that.. Everyone healthy with an O worth a damn... I think the talent we have on D next year could be top 40-50.
Good ol Rutgers
That's exactly not the problem
The problem is we don't have a real defensive scheme. We are playing defense different each week depending on the oppppnent
We had the same problem with the offense über schianos
You need to have a system and recruit for it and stick with it
We used to on the defensive side of the ball
Don't see it at all now
That's exactly not the problem
The problem is we don't have a real defensive scheme. We are playing defense different each week depending on the oppppnent
We had the same problem with the offense über schianos
You need to have a system and recruit for it and stick with it
We used to on the defensive side of the ball
Don't see it at all now
Blowout losses under Flood
Kent State
Pitt
Houston
Cincy
UConn
UCF
tOSU (x2)
MSU
Wisconsin
Nebraska
TTFP
There is no common string there...except Flood himself. The range from MAC to AAC to B1G is meaningless.
The only tell tale is that things got much worse once Smith left.
Kent State
Pitt
Houston
Cincy
UConn
UCF
tOSU (x2)
MSU
Wisconsin
Nebraska
TTFP
There is no common string there...except Flood himself. The range from MAC to AAC to B1G is meaningless.
The only tell tale is that things got much worse once Smith left.
^right on the money NotinRHouse. We're averaging 3-4 blowouts a year under Flood. That's insane. Hey, every once in awhile it happens, even to good coaches... but not 12 times. And let's not forget a lot of these happened at home, and sets back our season attendance every time.... because no one ever wants to see that type of game again.
This isn't just a one year problem. It's a problem that developed the moment Flood took over, and has only gotten worse every single year. The numbers this year may be some of the worst in program history... and we still haven't played Wisconsin, Michigan and Nebraska all on the road. Record books here we come???
This isn't just a one year problem. It's a problem that developed the moment Flood took over, and has only gotten worse every single year. The numbers this year may be some of the worst in program history... and we still haven't played Wisconsin, Michigan and Nebraska all on the road. Record books here we come???
Interesting discussion. And my perception has been that yes, we've been weaker on D since Schiano left, barring the 2012 season. But the phrase "stats don't lie" is not helping anybody's case given how completely meaningless it is.
Stats are inanimate, they don't lie or tell the truth. However, the people compiling and presenting the stats do often lie, or at best, paint a factually correct, but contextually inaccurate picture.
Stats are inanimate, they don't lie or tell the truth. However, the people compiling and presenting the stats do often lie, or at best, paint a factually correct, but contextually inaccurate picture.
That's a given. We have had a lot of turnover at the DC spot. We are down a lot of talent on D this year including the best play by far, Hamilton. How can anyone properly gauge Rossi's abilities under these circumstances? You want to say we have failed at recruiting to get us to this point... don't hang that on Rossi. Note: I am all for changing the entire coaching staff. I just think you are off base blaming the D and DC when the overall problems and the problems on O are much more worthy of blame... imo.
I'll go further supporting your idea. Schiano committed to his scheme so much he used it when he shouldn't have.. and it cost us games and blowout losses in his early years. I racked my brain while we were losing to Buffalo and Villanova and UNH before I stumbled upon that obvious point. Schiano was pulling all kinds of stunts and blitzes while we had the superior talent to play man on man straight up D and beat those teams. It was because he wanted the unit to play that Miami attacking D.. no matter what. He knew we'd need that experience when we were playing teams that had equal or better talent.. and eventually, it all paid off... but man it was ugly at times. And, no, I don't see that going on here and now.
Similar threads
