Position Group Rankings Part 3 - Defensive Backs

[BillySee58]

Losses: CB Zach Whitfield, S Jakii Moore, S Matthew Dash

Top Returners: SR S James Gray, JR S Kishawn Mcclain, SR CB Kenny Buyers, SR CB Chad Davis, SO CB Nate Brooks

Additions: JUCO DB Dee Baulkman, JUCO DB Darius Turner, HS S Khairi Muhammad, HS CB Jameel Moore

Other Returning Scholarship Players: SR S John Shilleci, SO S Cedric Fernandes, SO CB Ashton Preston, SO CB Andrew Jones, RS FR CB Taylor Robinson

A quick note is that our base is supposedly going to have a 5th DB being a rover-type, LB/Safety hybrid. I expect to see Brandon Garner and Eji Ejiya there, but for now I'm going to include them with LBs until we see how things really look.

As for the rest of the DBs, this position group may be the most established unit on the team. Kenny Buyers is probably the most recognized name on the team, being our last defensive starter from the bowl team remaining. Mcclain may be our best overall defensive player, with Gray pretty close as well.

I expect a good competition opposite Buyers between experienced senior Chad Davis, team leader in pass breakups, and Nate Brooks, a CUSA all-freshman team selection. Throw in another player coming off a promising freshman season in Ashton Preston and you have pretty good depth at CB. Cedric Fernandes was playing a lot as a freshman early last year before he got injured. Getting him back should help.

It'll be interesting to see where JUCOs Baulkman and Turner fit in. I'm guessing Baulkman at safety and Turner at CB. I also have a feeling we see something from Andrew Jones this year. I expect both freshmen to redshirt.

This group should be one we rely on. My holdup with this group is that while they've made a lot of tackles, they've been lacking as a group in the big-play department, and were completely shredded in the passing game last year. Our secondary gave up an alarming 69% completion percentage, as well as just 4 interceptions against 24 touchdown passes allowed. That has to improve, and these guys need to be playmakers instead of just racking up tackles after the first down marker has been passed if we are going to push .500 this year. But definitely a group that brings stability and confidence to a defense looking for a big turnaround this year.

Position Group Rank: 3rd

[MeanGreenTexan]

The safety depth scares me.   If McClain or Gray go down, we're in serious trouble back there.

[GOMG2013]

People still don't really understand the defensive system we were running.  It was not designed for big plays.  Especially from the secondary.  It did not put these guys in position to make plays in the passing game very often.

Even in 2013 our safties came up and made big hits AFTER the catch, to cause a pass breakup or fumble.  Only when we had a lead and it was an obvious passing down would we take a risk.

Last two years we rarely even had a lead to take a risk in the passing game.

Our secondary will benefit the most with a new defensive coach and system.  The impact may be just as dramatic as the change on offense.  

Corners were forced to play 10 yards off.  They didn't want to. Most of the time, corners were not allowed to bump and press.  While the corners were lined up 10 yards, the safties came up to help out in the run.  LBs were supposed to help the corners on the short underneath stuff.  

As a corner, you aren't coming up and jumping short routes without safety help.  It's suicide.  And If you are going to be on an island one on one, you would at least want a fighting chance and be able to bump the Wr...especially on the goalline.

The defensive philosophy was just as lame as the offense.  

3 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

The safety depth scares me.   If McClain or Gray go down, we're in serious trouble back there.

Buyers...

[BillySee58]

5 minutes ago, GOMG2013 said:

People still don't really understand the defensive system we were running.  It was not designed for big plays.  Especially from the secondary.  It did not put these guys in position to make plays in the passing game very often.

Even in 2013 our safties came up and made big hits AFTER the catch, to cause a pass breakup or fumble.  Only when we had a lead and it was an obvious passing down would we take a risk.

Last two years we rarely even had a lead to take a risk in the passing game.

Our secondary will benefit the most with a new defensive coach and system.  The impact may be just as dramatic as the change on offense.  

Corners were forced to play 10 yards off.  They didn't want to. Most of the time, corners were not allowed to bump and press.  While the corners were lined up 10 yards, the safties came up to help out in the run.  LBs were supposed to help the corners on the short underneath stuff.  

As a corner, you aren't coming up and jumping short routes without safety help.  It's suicide.  And If you are going to be on an island one on one, you would at least want a fighting chance and be able to bump the Wr...especially on the goalline.

The defensive philosophy was just as lame as the offense.  

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't make enough plays and that they need to this year if we're going to be decent. That's what I'm saying. Not that we had some awesome scheme and pass rush so they should've been picking off passes left and right last year.

Edited February 19, 2016 by BillySee58

[MeanGreenTexan]

9 minutes ago, GOMG2013 said:

People still don't really understand the defensive system we were running.  It was not designed for big plays.  Especially from the secondary.  It did not put these guys in position to make plays in the passing game very often.

Even in 2013 our safties came up and made big hits AFTER the catch, to cause a pass breakup or fumble.  Only when we had a lead and it was an obvious passing down would we take a risk.

Last two years we rarely even had a lead to take a risk in the passing game.

Our secondary will benefit the most with a new defensive coach and system.  The impact may be just as dramatic as the change on offense.  

Corners were forced to play 10 yards off.  They didn't want to. Most of the time, corners were not allowed to bump and press.  While the corners were lined up 10 yards, the safties came up to help out in the run.  LBs were supposed to help the corners on the short underneath stuff.  

As a corner, you aren't coming up and jumping short routes without safety help.  It's suicide.  And If you are going to be on an island one on one, you would at least want a fighting chance and be able to bump the Wr...especially on the goalline.

The defensive philosophy was just as lame as the offense.  

Buyers...

If you hope/expect more man-press coverage, then I certainly hope Buyers is moved to Safety.  Dude was torched deep often, hence the 10-yd cushion helped him alot.  The reason he was so good in that system is because he is excellent at shedding blocks to get to the ball on any kind of WRscreen play or RBsweep play.

Asking Buyers to move up to the LOS and press a WR is risky for sure.

[GOMG2013]

2 minutes ago, BillySee58 said:

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't make enough plays and that they need to this year if we're going to be decent. That's what I'm saying. Not that we had some awesome scheme and pass rush so they should've been picking off passes left and right last year.

You talked about being shredded and completion percentage...the defensive system played a role in that and there was no mention of the defensive style.

Especially with LBs covering and corners pretty much conceding at least 5 yards by lining up 10 yards off the man.  The defensive system held them back...

but when we discuss offensive personel on here, it is assumed there will be an explosion of talent cause of a new system.

And if we want to get specific, the main ones who were shredded may not even be on the field...Whitfield, Preston, Brooks, and LBs were usually the ones who gave up the biggest plays.  

[GOMG2013]

3 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

If you hope/expect more man-press coverage, then I certainly hope Buyers is moved to Safety.  Dude was torched deep often, hence the 10-yd cushion helped him alot.  The reason he was so good in that system is because he is excellent at shedding blocks to get to the ball on any kind of WRscreen play or RBsweep play.

Asking Buyers to move up to the LOS and press a WR is risky for sure.

I expect to see Buyers at the nickel or safety.  Davis should be a LOCK at corner, but this is a new coaching staff...Over the last two years, he has shown he is the best cover on the team, even with the limitations of the defense.  He hasn't given up any memorable big plays in the passing game in 2 years and even the passes he has given up, the coverage was very tight.

The JUCO and Brooks will most likely battle it out for the other corner if Buyers doesn't want it.  From some info I had a few years ago, Buyers wanted to move to safety.  In 2014, Buyers moved to nickel and Davis came in to play corner on 3rd downs. Since we have that as a full time position now, I can see him in it.

I think CB depends on what Buyers decide.  If Buyers wants to play corner, he will still beat out Brooks, even with his limited man skills.  It's not like Brooks didn't get beat...

[BillySee58]

34 minutes ago, GOMG2013 said:

You talked about being shredded and completion percentage...the defensive system played a role in that and there was no mention of the defensive style.

Especially with LBs covering and corners pretty much conceding at least 5 yards by lining up 10 yards off the man.  The defensive system held them back...

but when we discuss offensive personel on here, it is assumed there will be an explosion of talent cause of a new system.

And if we want to get specific, the main ones who were shredded may not even be on the field...Whitfield, Preston, Brooks, and LBs were usually the ones who gave up the biggest plays.  

Sure the scheme had a big part to do with that. But we played off in 2014 and kept opponent completion percentage slightly under 60%. Cosh' 2010 K-State defense we played against gave up 55% completion percentage. There is no one single reason a defense gives up 69% completion percentage, but the scheme certainly was a big factor, but not the only factor. I know the LBs gave up a good amount. That's part of why I have them lower in my unit rankings. Interesting about Buyers, though. I've been thinking he would have been a safety at some point but it never happened under Mccarney.

When you're 1-11 and really only in two games you have a long way to go to get to a bowl game. You pretty much need notable improvement everywhere. DB play needs to improve, but not as drastically as most units on this team, IMO. That's essentially what I'm showing. And while coaching needs even more drastic improvement, that's not what I'm looking at here.

Edited February 19, 2016 by BillySee58

[GOMG2013]

24 minutes ago, BillySee58 said:

Sure the scheme had a big part to do with that. But we played off in 2014 and kept opponent completion percentage slightly under 60%. Cosh' 2010 K-State defense we played against gave up 55% completion percentage. There is no one single reason a defense gives up 69% completion percentage, but the scheme certainly was a big factor, but not the only factor. I know the LBs gave up a good amount. That's part of why I have them lower in my unit rankings. Interesting about Buyers, though. I've been thinking he would have been a safety at some point but it never happened under Mccarney.

When you're 1-11 and really only in two games you have a long way to go to get to a bowl game. You pretty much need notable improvement everywhere. DB play needs to improve, but not as drastically as most units on this team, IMO. That's essentially what I'm showing. And while coaching needs even more drastic improvement, that's not what I'm looking at here.

I agree. The higher completion percentage is an issue, and some of it had to do with personell.  2014, we had Buyers.  We were supposed to have Buyers in 2015, but he was hurt. 

Mac, (I am assuming) begged Whitfield to come back.  Corner is not his spot at all.  Most of the time Whitfield had good games and plays, it came when he was at nickel.  Whitfield was the veteran corner, but was still picked on immediately.  Then preston got a shot, then brooks. So you are right and the numbers support it.  2015 was worse than 2014 and the corner opposite of davis was the target no matter who it was.

But like I said, the guys that gave up the big plays wont have a big role next year and some are gone.  Buyers is back and he's going to play somewhere.  First man off the bench will also have experience now because I am assuming that will be Brooks.  

We could field an experienced 5 next year, so going off what happened with Whit, freshmen, and a bad scheme last year may be as irrelevant as forecasting this year's offense based on what we did on offense last year.

 

[Ben Gooding]

1 hour ago, GOMG2013 said:

I expect to see Buyers at the nickel or safety.  Davis should be a LOCK at corner, but this is a new coaching staff...Over the last two years, he has shown he is the best cover on the team, even with the limitations of the defense.  He hasn't given up any memorable big plays in the passing game in 2 years and even the passes he has given up, the coverage was very tight.

The JUCO and Brooks will most likely battle it out for the other corner if Buyers doesn't want it.  From some info I had a few years ago, Buyers wanted to move to safety.  In 2014, Buyers moved to nickel and Davis came in to play corner on 3rd downs. Since we have that as a full time position now, I can see him in it.

I think CB depends on what Buyers decide.  If Buyers wants to play corner, he will still beat out Brooks, even with his limited man skills.  It's not like Brooks didn't get beat...

 I hope our new coaching staff is a little more forthcoming with what THEY think and what benefits the team the most. If Buyers at corner benefits the most then have him there as with safety as well. If Buyers being on the bench is more of a benefit then sit him down. We have some dudes in the secondary that can ball and I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that any one player is locked in at any position except for maybe Jeff Wilson. 

[GOMG2013]

1 minute ago, Ben Gooding said:

 I hope our new coaching staff is a little more forthcoming with what THEY think and what benefits the team the most. If Buyers at corner benefits the most then have him there as with safety as well. If Buyers being on the bench is more of a benefit then sit him down. We have some dudes in the secondary that can ball and I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that any one player is locked in at any position except for maybe Jeff Wilson. 

Buyers had shown he can play corner.  Even if he got beat at times.  All corners get beat, especially in college.  I will be shocked if he is on the bench.

Well duh about the position being a lock, if you want to get technical...these are predictions...Davis very well could be out of the starting lineup with buyers and balkman starting...but if we are making predictions based on past performance and playing time, I say Davis is a lock.

If not, I'm sure he could find a place to play his final year of eligibility. 

[Aldo]

No slight to Buyers, but is he being given too much credit here as a shoo-in starter? 

Great great tackler yes (if the opponent didn't have a full head of steam), but not as fast and athletic as Davis, Preston. Got beat on slants regularly. Good coverage against the sideline, tho.

There are tons of factors that affected DB play last year. I feel that if front 7 play was better (rushing the passer, vs the rush, vs the play action), our DBs could be a stronger unit.

[GOMG2013]

1 hour ago, Aldo said:

No slight to Buyers, but is he being given too much credit here as a shoo-in starter? 

Great great tackler yes (if the opponent didn't have a full head of steam), but not as fast and athletic as Davis, Preston. Got beat on slants regularly. Good coverage against the sideline, tho.

There are tons of factors that affected DB play last year. I feel that if front 7 play was better (rushing the passer, vs the rush, vs the play action), our DBs could be a stronger unit.

I don't think so.  I think some are giving the youngsters too much credit.  Nate showed some potential last year, but let's not forget he got beat a lot.  We give him a pass cause he was a true freshman.  He looked good considering he was a freshman.  He still was out of place and did not belong on the field yet.

Buyers showed he can play D1 football.  He may not be able to press, but he can give us at minimum, average covering ability.  And he may be able to play more aggressive if we decide to finally have a safety back there. 

Buyers has two spots he could potentially start at also.  Nickel or corner.

[GrandGreen]

I actually think this unit could be very good in CUSA terms.  Yes, scheme wise they played way too loose on the corners last year.   That was a coaches decision whether based on a very conservative defensive plan or fear that they would get beat often is open to debate.  

It will be great to have Buyers, he is getting way too criticism in this thread IMO.   Basically, NT returns starters at every position and has adequate depth particularly with the newcomers.  A weak linebacker corp and a very questionable pass rush made last year's secondary look significantly worse then it was.   Should be the best unit on the defense this year.  

[Ben Gooding]

5 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

I actually think this unit could be very good in CUSA terms.  Yes, scheme wise they played way too loose on the corners last year.   That was a coaches decision whether based on a very conservative defensive plan or fear that they would get beat often is open to debate.  

It will be great to have Buyers, he is getting way too criticism in this thread IMO.   Basically, NT returns starters at every position and has adequate depth particularly with the newcomers.  A weak linebacker corp and a very questionable pass rush made last year's secondary look significantly worse then it was.   Should be the best unit on the defense this year.  

I slightly agree with this. However, I remember tons of times (as in vs every QB faced) opposing QB's getting the ball out on time and in rhythm.  That is a secondary issue regardless of what pass rush we had to offer. The consistency of on time and in rhythm balls are indicative of the horrid coverage and not the weak rush, though the rush was usually weak. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Ben Gooding

[GOMG2013]

13 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

I slightly agree with this. However, I remember tons of times (as in vs every QB faced) opposing QB's getting the ball out on time and in rhythm.  That is a secondary issue regardless of what pass rush we had to offer. The consistency of on time and in rhythm balls are indicative of the horrid coverage and not the weak rush, though the rush was usually weak. 

Huh?  Pressure is what gets a QB off rhythm...not coverage.  Mixing up the coverage will cause the QB to hesitate or second guess himself.

UNT didn't allow the corners to play mind games with QBs.  It was very rare our corners would mess with a qb, by lining up like they will press, then back off at the last minute, or vise versa, where we line up off man, then close in and cover right at the last minute.  

It was known ahead of time almost every play they will be 10 yards for at least 3 years.  And as a QB, if you know the corners were nor going to jump a short route, it was easy pickings.  Just don't throw a mistake.  I have never seen corners play so safe on any level of football.  Ever.

I take that last statement back. UH did it when Skladany coached there too...

Edited February 19, 2016 by GOMG2013

[Ben Gooding]

7 minutes ago, GOMG2013 said:

Huh?  Pressure is what gets a QB off rhythm...not coverage.  Mixing up the coverage will cause the QB to hesitate or second guess himself.

UNT didn't allow the corners to play mind games with QBs.  It was very rare our corners would mess with a qb, by lining up like they will press, then back off at the last minute, or vise versa, where we line up off man, then close in and cover right at the last minute.  

It was known ahead of time almost every play they will be 10 yards for at least 3 years.  And as a QB, if you know the corners were nor going to jump a short route, it was easy pickings.  Just don't throw a mistake.  I have never seen corners play so safe on any level of football.  Ever.

I take that last statement back. UH did it when Skladany coached there too...

Sure pressure does get QB's off rhythm.

[GOMG2013]

31 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

I actually think this unit could be very good in CUSA terms.  Yes, scheme wise they played way too loose on the corners last year.   That was a coaches decision whether based on a very conservative defensive plan or fear that they would get beat often is open to debate.  

The corners were getting beat no matter what, and that is going to be the case with any corner or style of play.  Corners get beat.

The main reason our corners played 10 yards off was to play safety and help out in the run game.  If you play tight coverage, it's easier for you to get blocked and you can't react to the run.  We stopped the run with numbers so the safeties came up.

Like most fans on here say, if that DL, and really the whole front 7, could stop the run, we wouldn't have had to play the defense we played.