Hey PK -- What would you say you do here?

[Valmy77 13,092]

51 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Our 2H defense against that ISU juggernaut offense: missed FG, TD, TD, dropped TD pass/fumble. 

 

But only allowed four possessions the whole half. I guess that is the counterpoint. We make them ground it out.

That two play "drive" with the long TD of course being the fuck up...that and Hutchinson's drop.

If our offense can play at a high level this level of defense should still be good enough (what we have showed this year generally, not necessarily in that second half). But we will see.

[bschoolprof 6,232]

22 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

But only allowed four possessions the whole half. I guess that is the counterpoint. We make them ground it out.

That two play "drive" with the long TD of course being the fuck up...that and Hutchinson's drop.

If our offense can play at a high level this level of defense should still be good enough (what we have showed this year generally, not necessarily in that second half). But we will see.

Good enough for what?

[Valmy77 13,092]

2 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Good enough for what?

To win the football games on our football schedule.

[Codaxx 5,588]

25 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

But only allowed four possessions the whole half. I guess that is the counterpoint. We make them ground it out.

That two play "drive" with the long TD of course being the fuck up...that and Hutchinson's drop.

If our offense can play at a high level this level of defense should still be good enough (what we have showed this year generally, not necessarily in that second half). But we will see.

That is not a good thing. You want more possessions if your offense has a future NFL QB, RB, and WR, not less. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Codaxx

[Valmy77 13,092]

3 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

That is not a good thing. You want more possessions if your offense has a future NFL QB, RB, and WR, not less. 

Obviously it is better to have the other guys go three and out each time, but it strikes me as better than having the opponents get a bunch of easy scores.

[bschoolprof 6,232]

5 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

To win the football games on our football schedule.

ok, but actually to win enough games on our schedule to consistently contend for the conference title?  No way. That won't happen with this staff.  

[Valmy77 13,092]

7 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

ok, but actually to win enough games on our schedule to consistently contend for the conference title?  No way. That won't happen with this staff.  

Maybe not. But it's not like any of them have the Steel Curtain or are coached by Vince Lombardi either.

We have a strategy. Limit the big plays. See if they take what we give them and not make mistakes.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Valmy77

[Valmy77 13,092]

Or that isn't our strategy and we just suck shit at actually playing defense and just coincidentally that is the impact. I don't know.

[markstanco 12,489]

3 hours ago, Squiddie said:

this angle really clarifies the non-targeting call for me!

Too bad they didnt have access to that angle, that would have helped.  But the facemask hit the pads in the opposite angle, so, same outcome. 

[Tex Long 4,326]

"Good enough" isn't.

Unless you're looking at Eight-win Steve as an upgrade.

[Valmy77 13,092]

11 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

"Good enough" isn't.

Unless you're looking at Eight-win Steve as an upgrade.

Well I am not in charge dude, what I am looking for doesn't matter. I am just speculating that maybe there is method behind the madness. Maybe this is the best strategy, or at least a possibly reasonably effective strategy, with the personnel we happen to have right now.

[gurt 736]

One thing I've considered, when you have this 'death by 1000 cuts' defense it really forces your offense to be hyper-efficient.  In the Tech and ISU games, they're going on these 15 play drives, chewing up 5+ minutes of game clock.  It makes it where if your O doesn't respond in kind, you're looking at an entire quarter gone and you've touched the ball once.  Not to mention it demoralizes your D and the O gets cold/out of sync.  Sometimes I wish they'd just be more aggressive and be feast or famine, but I'm sure I'll have holes poked in this theory.

[Valmy77 13,092]

1 minute ago, gurt said:

One thing I've considered, when you have this 'death by 1000 cuts' defense it really forces your offense to be hyper-efficient.  In the Tech and ISU games, they're going on these 15 play drives, chewing up 5+ minutes of game clock.  It makes it where if your O doesn't respond in kind, you're looking at an entire quarter gone and you've touched the ball once.  Not to mention it demoralizes your D and the O gets cold/out of sync.

Yeah that is a real problem and we saw this exact scenario play out against both Tech and Iowa State. 

[Tex Long 4,326]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

Well I am not in charge dude, what I am looking for doesn't matter. I am just speculating that maybe there is method behind the madness. Maybe this is the best strategy, or at least a possibly reasonably effective strategy, with the personnel we happen to have right now.

Good enough still isn't, will ye, nill ye. If your opinion matters not, even to yourself, then offering it is unimpointful. 

[6th Street 6,340]

9 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Well I am not in charge dude, what I am looking for doesn't matter. I am just speculating that maybe there is method behind the madness. Maybe this is the best strategy, or at least a possibly reasonably effective strategy, with the personnel we happen to have right now.

Yeah I don't think there's any method to letting opposing offenses score move downfield on 15 play drives every time they have the ball. 

[Valmy77 13,092]

1 minute ago, Tex Long said:

Good enough still isn't, will ye, nill ye. If your opinion matters not, even to yourself, then offering it is unimpointful. 

Ok what I want is whatever forces punts. I don't know enough about coaching defense or our personnel to know if a more aggressive "feast of famine" strategy would achieve that or would result in giving up more big plays.

[Valmy77 13,092]

1 minute ago, 6th Street said:

Yeah I don't think there's any method to letting opposing offenses score move downfield on 15 play drives every time they have the ball. 

I think there is. There are even terms for it. Bend but don't break. Soft coverage. Prevent. 

All that shit.

[6th Street 6,340]

Going FG, TD, TD, dropped TD pass is not bending

[Dahobbs 17,420]

1 hour ago, gurt said:

One thing I've considered, when you have this 'death by 1000 cuts' defense it really forces your offense to be hyper-efficient.  In the Tech and ISU games, they're going on these 15 play drives, chewing up 5+ minutes of game clock.  It makes it where if your O doesn't respond in kind, you're looking at an entire quarter gone and you've touched the ball once.  Not to mention it demoralizes your D and the O gets cold/out of sync.  Sometimes I wish they'd just be more aggressive and be feast or famine, but I'm sure I'll have holes poked in this theory.

 

1 hour ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah that is a real problem and we saw this exact scenario play out against both Tech and Iowa State. 

That is what happened against Tech. It isn't what happened against ISU. ISU had one drive of 13 plays or more. Tech had 4. ISU had 2 double digit drives. Tech had 6. 

ISU drives

• 3 plays, punt
• 3 plays, punt
• 11 plays, TD
• 9 plays, INT
• 6 plays, punt
• 1 play (end of half)
• 9 plays, FG
• 2 plays, TD
• 13 plays, TD
• 8 plays, fumble

Tech drives (regulation)

• 18 plays, TD
• 13 plays, TD
• 3 plays, punt
• 3 plays, punt
• 3 plays, end of half
• 4 plays, downs. 
• 15 plays, FG
• 10 plays, TD
• 13 plays, downs
• 5 plays, TD
• 11 plays, FG

Average plays per drive: ISU 6.5, Tech 8.9

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

My uneducated eyes see us running our stuff down after down, and just changing out personnel as the adjustment. It’s certainly trying something, but it’s not doing everything in our power to take away the one dude who’s beating time and again. 
 

I would be less critical of our approach if I saw us attempting that and failing. Ok, we asked them to beat us by making their second and third best option perform above their heads to beat us, or option one to make circus catches with two guys draped on him to win the play time and again. I’m not seeing that. Just trying different bodies to do the same thing. 

[Hookem2147 20,910]

13 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

My uneducated eyes see us running our stuff down after down, and just changing out personnel as the adjustment. It’s certainly trying something, but it’s not doing everything in our power to take away the one dude who’s beating time and again. 
 

I would be less critical of our approach if I saw us attempting that and failing. Ok, we asked them to beat us by making their second and third best option perform above their heads to beat us, or option one to make circus catches with two guys draped on him to win the play time and again. I’m not seeing that. Just trying different bodies to do the same thing. 

To be fair, it is a lot easier to notice schematic adjustments on offense versus on defense. The casual fan isn't going to notice a different coverage or a schematic adjustment with how a nickel plays.

If it was as easy as "take away the one dude who's beating you time and again", then the previous 6 teams on Iowa State's schedule would have done it and Hutchinson wouldn't be leading the country in receptions. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Hookem2147

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

19 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

To be fair, it is a lot easier to notice schematic adjustments on offense versus on defense. The casual fan isn't going to notice a different coverage or a schematic adjustment with how a nickel plays.

If it was as easy as "take away the one dude who's beating you time and again", then the previous 6 teams on Iowa State's schedule would have done it and Hutchinson wouldn't be leading the country in receptions. 

Texas plays two high zone to near exclusivity. Obviously there are a lot of variations there. I can’t look live and decide if we’re in some form of quarters or whatever, but I can tell when we’re robbing underneath or throwing extra coverage one way. The big give away is the extra bodies around the r threat you’re trying by to diminish. 
 

ISU had an offensive breakout against Texas. There’s a bit of difference between a given reviver catching 10 balls for 88 yards and 1 TD, and basically doubling that against us. Outlier performances happen. They just happen with regularity against us. 

[Valmy77 13,092]

2 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Going FG, TD, TD, dropped TD pass is not bending

They missed the FG and fucked up on the TD pass. That is what the strategy is supposed to force right? The other team to consistently make plays. They weren't able to execute.

I mean we gave up 21 points and Tech is the only team to score more than 30. That strikes me as bending.

But again it is possible that this is not the strategy at all and we are just fucking up and the end result just resembles a bend but don't break defense. We are actually trying to make big plays and stops.

[Hookem2147 20,910]

20 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

There’s a bit of difference between a given reviver catching 10 balls for 88 yards and 1 TD, and basically doubling that against us. Outlier performances happen. They just happen with regularity against us. 

I’m not denying Hutchinson went off against us, but he was averaging 9.5 receptions for 100 yards per game heading into our matchup. He went for 10 catches and 156 yards Saturday. He’s a good player who Iowa State has found a way to force feed all year despite teams knowing he is all they have.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Hookem2147

[Valmy77 13,092]

Noel isn't too bad either. He had a great game against us but it wasn't his outlier performance. And Hutchinson caught more passes against Kansas.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

13 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

I’m not denying Hutchinson went off against us, but he was averaging 9.5 receptions for 100 yards per game heading into our matchup. He went for 10 catches and 156 yards Saturday. He’s a good player who Iowa State has found a way to force feed all year despite teams knowing he is all they have.

He’s really good when he’s singled up or lonely in the middle of the field. 
 

That’s my point. We did very little to make it difficult for him or his QB by having to get past his first read.

Hutchison is going to get his catches  if he gets 10

of then for 8-9 yards a reception instead of 15 it’s a very different game. And we were one fortuitous drop from him having 200 yards on Saturday  

 

[Had Enough 2,054]

I’m not denying Hutchinson went off against us, but he was averaging 9.5 receptions for 100 yards per game heading into our matchup. He went for 10 catches and 156 yards Saturday. He’s a good player who Iowa State has found a way to force feed all year despite teams knowing he is all they have.

Pff shows him as catching passes versus 8 different defenders. None more than 2. 17% of routes were out of the slot. Sounds like they are moving him around and using all parts of the field.

[Hookem2147 20,910]

40 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

of then for 8-9 yards a reception instead of 15 it’s a very different game. And we were one fortuitous drop from him having 200 yards on Saturday

We were also a failed 4th and 2 twisting miraculous catch away from him having 8 catches for 119 and the game being iced without drama.

I get what you are saying, but that stuff works both ways. And God knows we were due for some luck to fall our way. We need to shore up our coverages no doubt, but I also tip my hat to a good game by a good player. I think both can be true.

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

43 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

And we were one fortuitous drop from him having 200 yards on Saturday  

It's not like we didn't suffer from Cain making two boneheaded plays, either.

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,656]

8 hours ago, Hookem2147 said:

What makes you think this is the case? We have 9 commits in the top 200 of the 247composite rankings. 4 on defense and 5 on offense.

2022 we had 12 in the top 200. 6 on offense and 6 on defense.

Top 200 players are not created equally. We have been recruiting higher quality players on the offensive side of the ball, without question. See below. The elite offensive talent has also been spread across every position, with Ewers, Baxter, Sanders, Worthy, Banks and Campbell (among others) addressing every position. The same can’t be said on defense. In particularly, we have absolutely nothing elite waiting in the wings at linebacker unless a player significantly out performs their ranking.

On 10/17/2022 at 10:49 AM, Reynolds Woodcock said:

From the 21-22 recruiting classes (inclusive of underclassman transfers like Ewers), we have 7 offensive players ranked .95 or better on the composite coming out of high school. Only 4 on defense. Among those recruits, the offensive average is .9831, whereas the defensive average is .9557.  If you extend that out to 2023 (as of now), the gap widens to 11 vs. 6. It's particularly glaring at off-ball linebacker, where we don't have a single 21-23 recruit in the .90s.  DT isn't quite as bad but still not great.  Whether PK is the right coach or not (seems like not), we will absolutely need to either hit on lower ranked prospects or use the portal for a talent infusion at those positions. 

 

 

[Codaxx 5,588]

40 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

We were also a failed 4th and 2 twisting miraculous catch away from him having 8 catches for 119 and the game being iced without drama.

I get what you are saying, but that stuff works both ways. And God knows we were due for some luck to fall our way. We need to shore up our coverages no doubt, but I also tip my hat to a good game by a good player. I think both can be true.

I think the point Bobby is making is that everyone knew ISU had 1 dangerous player. A good defensive plan will do everything in its power to take the offense’s #1 player/play out or at least minimize the damage. Texas failed to do that and nothing can change that reality.  The is bit of a reoccurring issue with PK in that regard. The defense was lost vs Riley’s bread and butter counter last year. I believe a page or 2 ago I said the biggest difference between the offensive staff and defensive staff is game prep. This situation applies. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Codaxx

[Hookem2147 20,910]

4 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Top 200 players are not created equally. We have been recruiting higher quality players on the offensive side of the ball, without question. See below. The elite offensive talent has also been spread across every position, with Ewers, Baxter, Sanders, Worthy, Banks and Campbell (among others) addressing every position. The same can’t be said on defense. In particularly, we have absolutely nothing elite waiting in the wings at linebacker unless a player significantly out performs their ranking.

We are spreading the talent out on defense last cycle and this cycle more than we ever did under Herman, who basically ignored edge and off ball LB for 3 straight cycles. We have someone committed ranted .91 or above at every level of the defense this cycle (Mitchell, Gullette, Burrell, Muhammad and Williams)

Also, Burrell is ranked as a top 10 LB in the country by every outlet except 247 (which has him in the 60’s).

[GringoSalado 1,651]

 

Posted this since we're obv. somewhat of an outlier on the chart (opposite of Illinois). btw MOFO/MOFC is Middle Of Field Open/Closed, so 2 or single-hi safeties respectively.

 

One way to look at this is that Illini has the personnel to play man and so they do, and this makes them a difficult opponent (effective man coverage).  Or maybe Illini coaches think they can't stop the run without safety in the box every play? In any event they are effective in more man/single-hi than everybody else.

Meanwhile Texas lacks coverage skills (LB?) so we protect our players by playing more 2 hi zone?

 

Or our coaches just love that scheme regardless which is what most coaches do. 

 

 

 

[DanTheHorn 4,893]

4 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Going FG, TD, TD, dropped TD pass is not bending

PK calls it bend and hope they fuck up. ISU and WVU complied.

[Texasrocks 2,124]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

That is what happened against Tech. It isn't what happened against ISU. ISU had one drive of 13 plays or more. Tech had 4. ISU had 2 double digit drives. Tech had 6. 

ISU drives

• 3 plays, punt
• 3 plays, punt
• 11 plays, TD
• 9 plays, INT
• 6 plays, punt
• 1 play (end of half)
• 9 plays, FG
• 2 plays, TD
• 13 plays, TD
• 8 plays, fumble

Tech drives (regulation)

• 18 plays, TD
• 13 plays, TD
• 3 plays, punt
• 3 plays, punt
• 3 plays, end of half
• 4 plays, downs. 
• 15 plays, FG
• 10 plays, TD
• 13 plays, downs
• 5 plays, TD
• 11 plays, FG

Average plays per drive: ISU 6.5, Tech 8.9

Against Tech, guys were in position to make plays and didn't. It seemed every conversion Tech had involved the ball carrier getting hit at or short of the first down marker and then picking up 2 or 3 more yards to extend the drive. The same exact calls with better tackling would have made that a very different game. ISU was much worse - they figured out what the defense was doing and then picked it apart. 

[Eskimohorn 5,610]

My uneducated eyes see us running our stuff down after down, and just changing out personnel as the adjustment. It’s certainly trying something, but it’s not doing everything in our power to take away the one dude who’s beating time and again. 
 
I would be less critical of our approach if I saw us attempting that and failing. Ok, we asked them to beat us by making their second and third best option perform above their heads to beat us, or option one to make circus catches with two guys draped on him to win the play time and again. I’m not seeing that. Just trying different bodies to do the same thing. 

Watched a few plays tonight. 1st or 2nd down, corner blitz off Hutchinson, pitch and catch against Thompson. that is some stupid shit.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not like we didn't suffer from Cain making two boneheaded plays, either.

Cain wasn’t in danger of single handedly taking over the game while keeping their offense alive. 
 

Yes, both teams had pretty sure big gainers flubbed, but that wasn’t the point. Their big WR should have gone for 11 catches and 200 yards against us. 

[Dahobbs 17,420]

Upon rewatch, it looks like we panicked a bit when they hit some passes against relatively tight zone coverage and starting running more man. We were also biting real hard on their run fakes. I'm pretty sure we could have kept to zone a high percentage of the time and not blitzed and been much better off. They really weren't having much success against it. It is almost like we adjusted ourselves out of winning defense. Also, Thompson had a fucking terrible game. 

[Hookem2147 20,910]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Thompson had a fucking terrible game

I think it was mentioned after the game that he had a stinger at some point so that may have been why. It was his first really bad game of the year from what I’ve seen.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

1 hour ago, Codaxx said:

I think the point Bobby is making is that everyone knew ISU had 1 dangerous player. A good defensive plan will do everything in its power to take the offense’s #1 player/play out or at least minimize the damage. Texas failed to do that and nothing can change that reality.  The is bit of a reoccurring issue with PK in that regard. The defense was lost vs Riley’s bread and butter counter last year. I believe a page or 2 ago I said the biggest difference between the offensive staff and defensive staff is game prep. This situation applies. 

This. My post above was cutoff before o could edit it. 
 

Coverage busts aside, could anyone see a discernible coherent strategy to limit Hutchison’s effectiveness?

I sure couldn’t. 
 

We do weird shit on defense. Play honest fronts with two deep safeties at incredibly inappropriate  times, substitute bizarrely, and default to sit and take it mode.  I understand that we don’t have a single edge that gives an OC a hint of heartburn, and that our coverage between the corners is adventuresome at best. Noted. I can deal with failure due to lack of Jimmy’s and Joes despite intelligent attempts to take away things the opponent does well. I see us lacking the players and just doing what we do. 
 

Sometimes we do what we do well. Sometimes what we do intersects nicely with the opponent and we look pretty good. And then sometimes the opponent is less cooperative. And still we do what we do. 

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

21 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Cain wasn’t in danger of single handedly taking over the game while keeping their offense alive. 
 

Yes, both teams had pretty sure big gainers flubbed, but that wasn’t the point. Their big WR should have gone for 11 catches and 200 yards against us. 

Unforced errors are unforced errors.  Yes, we as Texas fans like to put on our hairshirts and self-flaggelate, but Cain's bumbles were just as bad as 8's.  Each side failed to convert at least one TD.  

It's a wash.  Don't be the typical Texas fan.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Unforced errors are unforced errors.  Yes, we as Texas fans like to put on our hairshirts and self-flaggelate, but Cain's bumbles were just as bad as 8's.  Each side failed to convert at least one TD.  

It's a wash.  Don't be the typical Texas fan.

You’re conflating my side eye at our defensive foibles with some idea that I didn’t see Cain’s issues or a few other missed opportunities to put the game away in a more comfortable manner. 
 

In the context of the game we both flubbed sure fire easy 6’s. In the context of the argument at hand we did diddly to stop their only real weapon from having a career day. We’re finally getting some breaks to go our way. That’s nice. It doesn’t mean I don’t see us failing to even try to do some intelligent things to limit their only viable means of moving the football. 

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

1 minute ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

You’re conflating my side eye at our defensive foibles with some idea that I didn’t see Cain’s issues or a few other missed opportunities to put the game away in a more comfortable manner. 
 

In the context of the game we both flubbed sure fire easy 6’s. In the context of the argument at hand we did diddly to stop their only real weapon from having a career day. We’re finally getting some breaks to go our way. That’s nice. It doesn’t mean I don’t see us failing to even try to do some intelligent things to limit their only viable means of moving the football. 

There are multiple conversations going on here.  I don't disagree with your point, but there is an over-arching perspective that routinely gets ignored -- we fucked up on offense, too, and let ISU off the hook as much as vice versa.

[Valmy77 13,092]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

That’s nice. It doesn’t mean I don’t see us failing to even try to do some intelligent things to limit their only viable means of moving the football. 

Um...Noel is pretty good. Torched Baylor. Scored two TDs against us. Seems viable.

Sure if they had one guy, but when there are two it gets a little more difficult.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Valmy77

[Codaxx 5,588]

8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Unforced errors are unforced errors.  Yes, we as Texas fans like to put on our hairshirts and self-flaggelate, but Cain's bumbles were just as bad as 8's.  Each side failed to convert at least one TD.  

It's a wash.  Don't be the typical Texas fan.

That goes to the point. If you are playing Texas the one thing you want to take away is deep passes to Worthy. Make another WR make explosive plays in the pass game. Texas offenses is more layered, but you get the point.  

[El Hornarino 367]

11 hours ago, GringoSalado said:

 

 

 

 

 

All I know is every game I am yelling "Why aren't they covering that mofo?!"  Chart shows us trying to cover more mofos, but maybe we need better coverage on fewer mofos.  Take away their best mofo, at least on third down.

[HenryJames 65,868]

 

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

15 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Um...Noel is pretty good. Torched Baylor. Scored two TDs against us. Seems viable.

Sure if they had one guy, but when there are two it gets a little more difficult.

He is pretty good. I thought so when I saw the game. Both of his scores were on coverage busts. 
 

I’m fine if we fail when their second best option beats us after we take away their best option. We were trying to do something smart and didn’t have the horses to pull it off. Ok. It was pretty much the Hutchison show or bust for the last two quarters of the game. 
 

Taking away Worthy really puts a lid on our scoring potential. I’m fine with doing that to other teams. Particularly ones that aren’t good on offense to begin with. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Bobby_Batronic

[HtownHorn 14,446]

15 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Unforced errors are unforced errors.  Yes, we as Texas fans like to put on our hairshirts and self-flaggelate, but Cain's bumbles were just as bad as 8's.  Each side failed to convert at least one TD.  

It's a wash.  Don't be the typical Texas fan.

Cain messed up 3 balls that would have at least led to 17 points.

[Reynolds Woodcock 4,656]

On 10/18/2022 at 9:44 PM, Hookem2147 said:

We are spreading the talent out on defense last cycle and this cycle more than we ever did under Herman, who basically ignored edge and off ball LB for 3 straight cycles. We have someone committed ranted .91 or above at every level of the defense this cycle (Mitchell, Gullette, Burrell, Muhammad and Williams)

Also, Burrell is ranked as a top 10 LB in the country by every outlet except 247 (which has him in the 60’s).

None of that changes the fact that we are recruiting at a much higher level on offense than defense, which was the original point. .91 is fine if you want to set a modest floor for your defense, with a chance to be a good defense with the right coaching and hitting on a few guys. Maybe guys like Mitchell and Burrell out perform their rankings, but relying on that outcome almost across the board (outside of Williams and Muhammad in the 23 class) isn’t ideal, particularly when we appear to have glaring coaching deficiencies on that side of the ball.