Ron Mendoza's Defense

GoMeanGreen1999 · September 14, 2007

Best comparison ever on this board.
I'm beginning to hate Cover 1 as much as the draw.

They might should rename "Cover 1" to either "Cover 0" or just simply "Cover none".

GoMeanGreen1999 · September 14, 2007

I'm having a hard time understanding the "Our offensive system puts more pressure on the defense" statements?
In our system, if the O scores quickly, say in 3-5 plays, then the defense has to go right back out there? Is that where this is coming from? If that happens,
then if the defense theoretically does what it's suppose to do and gets the ball right back in a "3 and out"(which our Defense did do there late in the 4th quarter against smu, twice), then the offense goes right back out. Then over the course of the game if this keeps up I count the offense on the field for more plays, not the defense? Whereas, in our old system in the past, the O goes out and "3 and outs" all day long and happily punts it back to the opposing team, that to me seems to put real pressure on the defense because their on the field all day long? So I'm not buying it, but that's nothing new for me?
Rick

I am going to have to agree - you can't convince me that our defense is out on the field more this year than they were the last two seasons.

FirefightnRick · September 14, 2007

I am going to have to agree - you can't convince me that our defense is out on the field more this year than they were the last two seasons.

Well, I suppose if you can't get a stop and an opponent dinks and dunks you all the way down the field for an 11 play drive, then our O goes out and scores in 5 plays, I can see it. But who's fault is that?

Rick

Edited September 14, 2007 by FirefightnRick

September 14, 2007

I don't think the defense is any worse than it was the last couple years. I wasn't even really comparing with immediate past NT teams. I was comparing to a team that say could possess the ball a long time and run more time off the clock. So many passes is not taking much time off the clock. Hence, the defense should be on the field more of the game.

Smitty · September 14, 2007

I'm having a hard time understanding the "Our offensive system puts more pressure on the defense" statements?
In our system, if the O scores quickly, say in 3-5 plays, then the defense has to go right back out there? Is that where this is coming from? If that happens,
then if the defense theoretically does what it's suppose to do and gets the ball right back in a "3 and out"(which our Defense did do there late in the 4th quarter against smu, twice), then the offense goes right back out. Then over the course of the game if this keeps up I count the offense on the field for more plays, not the defense? Whereas, in our old system in the past, the O goes out and "3 and outs" all day long and happily punts it back to the opposing team, that to me seems to put real pressure on the defense because their on the field all day long? So I'm not buying it, but that's nothing new for me?
Rick

The theory is that the defense is on the field for more plays over the course of a game with a no-huddle offense than with a traditional offense. Even when the offense has scoring drives, those drives take less time off the clock than a traditional offense. The game has a faster pace and more plays, resulting in more rapid fatigue, and so depth becomes a bigger issue. It's not meant as an indictment of the offense, rather it means that you need more athleticism and more depth on defense, and that will take time to assemble. In other words, we need to be patient and let the program develop.

But patience seems to be in short supply.

Got5onIt · September 14, 2007

The theory is that the defense is on the field for more plays over the course of a game with a no-huddle offense than with a traditional offense. Even when the offense has scoring drives, those drives take less time off the clock than a traditional offense. The game has a faster pace and more plays, resulting in more rapid fatigue, and so depth becomes a bigger issue. It's not meant as an indictment of the offense, rather it means that you need more athleticism and more depth on defense, and that will take time to assemble. In other words, we need to be patient and let the program develop.
But patience seems to be in short supply.

Has everyone forgotten the offense from last year?? It was 3 & out 90% of the time. Defense was on the field most of those games it seemed. It would be interesting to see the average offensive time of possessions per game for NT & their opponents from 2006.

buff64 · September 14, 2007

After several yrs. of three and out off., it seems to me the def. is getting less not more playing time . It is nice to see the off. stay on the field and sustain drives for a change. The defensive team may have a disadvantage ,because they face only our passing off. in practice and not the power running type .

Charlie NT 73 · September 14, 2007

The NT defense is made up of players coming off 5-18 the last 2

years. The defense has good players but not great players. Several

defensive players that were to be real studs this season have not

lived up to their hype. Several defensive players were moved over to

offense. Right now the defense just does not have the difference

makers--although they could become difference makers.

Battling each other in practice may look good, but, battling against

another team in a game allows a coach to find out who can play

the college game.

Firsrt-I believe the defensive staff will figure out which players need to

be on the field, and make defensive adjustments to the defensive

schemes. Second-the staff will see the position players needed, and

target the needs during recruiting. Third-lets give Mendoza some

room to grow and develop the defense with the players he currently

has to work with.

Edited September 14, 2007 by charlie nt73

island eagle · September 14, 2007

The NT defense is made up of players coming off 5-18 the last 2
years. The defense has good players but not great players. Several
defensive players that were to be real studs this season have not
lived up to their hype. Several defensive players were moved over to
offense. Right now the defense just does not have the difference
makers--although they could become difference makers.
Battling each other in practice may look good, but, battling against
another team in a game allows a coach to find out who can play
the college game.
Firsrt-I believe the defensive staff will figure out which players need to
be on the field, and make defensive adjustments to the defensive
schemes. Second-the staff will see the position players needed, and
target the needs during recruiting. Third-lets give Mendoza some
room to grow and develop the defense with the players he currently
has to work with.

The bottom line is that is what we are all hoping for.

KBJ · September 14, 2007

Has everyone forgotten the offense from last year?? It was 3 & out 90% of the time. Defense was on the field most of those games it seemed. It would be interesting to see the average offensive time of possessions per game for NT & their opponents from 2006.

Time of Possession

UNT OPP

2003 30:29 29:31

2004 29:16 30:44

2005 27:49 31:59

2006 30:16 29:30

2007 (2 games) 28:29 31:31

SHOSS · September 14, 2007

Yes, the defense hasn't performed quite yet... But 2 games? Come on... 2 games... We live in the age of the knee-jerk. Please lets give the Dodge era some time... Mendoza will learn as he goes this season...probably the next couple of seasons... patients... Lets all just enjoy this season without expectation... They are learning at a completely new level.

Calling for Mendoza's job is rediculous... Come on people...

KingDL1 · September 14, 2007

Well here we are after our second game with Dodge and and we are b*tching. Why? Several expected us not to win a game this year.

At the SMU game we saw glimmers of excellence on the offense, the passing system, our quaterback, our recievers, the Field goals and extra points have been perfect. And Punting well pretty dang good. On D we saw the Defense stop SMU when they had to, but it was the offense that let them down, that and two really bad calls, the knee down and the mystery face mask.

Dodge and his staff are teaching our group of student athletes new systems, so give him time. At the SMU game I realized Dodge is training the fans also, we as fans tasted Victory and we wanted it, yes many of us damn right expected it as the game rolled on. That had to be one of the most exciting games I had watched UNT play ever, short of the win over Cincy. Hell I though I was going to have a heart attack, we all know that game could have gone either way. Remember that is supposed to be SMU's best team in 20 years their PONY UP team. Dodge has us cranked up and our expectations are rising fast. What is the old saying, "Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water."

In the interview with the MG Insider, Dodge talks about the D Free Dodge Interview. He says that there were something like 17 or 18 missed tackles in the SMU game that should have been made, not ones that we were beat on play, but just mistakes in tackling. Dodge said that made up for around 187 yards of SMU offense. They are going to fix it.

Edited September 14, 2007 by KingDL1

Smitty · September 14, 2007

After several yrs. of three and out off., it seems to me the def. is getting less not more playing time . It is nice to see the off. stay on the field and sustain drives for a change. The defensive team may have a disadvantage ,because they face only our passing off. in practice and not the power running type .

I'm sure our defense is facing a scout-team offense in practice that's running a simulation of the opponent's offense.

But KBJ's research shows that UNT's time of possession is down, and that means the defense is out there more. Two extra minutes is a lot for a team with limited depth.

Please understand that I'm not complaining. I love this offense, and I'm patient enough to understand that it's going to be a year or two or three before everything is in place to make this system work. I'm not judging anything - this is just a theory as to one factor impacting the defense's performance. I could not agree with SHOSS more - calling for anyone's job is utterly ridiculous.

To me, this season is judged only on how well the new systems are installed, how well the team reacts, and how much the team improves over the course of the season. I don't think you judge this season on wins or losses. Those judgments come two and three years down the line.

TIgreen01 · September 14, 2007

In the interview with the MG Insider, Dodge talks about the D Free Dodge Interview. He says that there were something like 17 or 18 missed tackles in the SMU game that should have been made, not ones that we were beat on play, but just mistakes in tackling. Dodge said that made up for around 187 yards of SMU offense. They are going to fix it.

Good to hear. I say give the guy (Mendoza) time. He ALMOST fixed a glaring weakness from the OU game in one week--our CBs and Safeties overrunning plays and trying to do too much on their islands. We did a much better job of keeping the SMU WRs and RBs in front of us and holding them up so help could arrive....that was in one week. Tackling against SMU was still pretty bad overall, though---I just can't wait for the day when we stop going for the big forearm blow and wrap up instead. Hopefully we'll be there by FAU??

bigrobdsp · September 14, 2007

I am just happy that I am not the only one questioning our defensive strategy. SMU will not approach their offensive output against us all year. If they end up doing this poorly all year long on Defense there will have to be a change. no offense can put up enough points to overcome SMU getting 600 yards on us.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 14, 2007

Like a healthy financial UNT contributor from Dallas told me today: "We are talking about a defense that was part of a team that won 5 games the last 2 years so, why are some of our best fans/alums beginning to panic now?"
Just like TDodge is in his honeymoon stage, so is Mendoza, folks, so shouldn't we also give him ample time to adapt to NCAA D1-A as well?
GMG!

That's the problem...with nine returning starters, we didn't figure this to be an "on-the-job" training year for Mendoza. He looked to be the one who had the athletes with experience on his side of the ball.

And, again, it begs the question...if we expected so much from the offensive side of the ball and are happy with their performance so far, why would we be cutting the defensive coaches slack now when we expected them to have the stronger of the two units coming out of the gate?

The dimmest of people say, "Well, football is football...there's not much difference between a high school and college coach." People, there's a world of difference. And, we're discovering that on the defensive side of the ball.

FAU was thought to be middle of the pack material in the Sun Belt this year. If they're tearing us up in two weeks like SMU did last week...it's just going to be tough to watch. I don't see why we have to accept losing for the sake of a high school coach "adapting." Maybe that's why UNT has never been a great program. Lack of foresight (dropping to I-AA), apathy (low support from the school and fanbase), combined with a "build it long term" instead of "win now" attitude.

Rice went to a bowl game last year on the power of one coach coming in with a good coaching staff. He leaves, and they're beaten by I-AA Nicholls State, then drummed by...Baylor, the perennial Big 12 doormat?

Bob Stoops took OU to a bowl game in season one after that program hadn't sniffed a winning season in five years. Urban Meyer immediately turned in winners at mid-majors Bowling Green and Utah before going to Florida. Jeff Tedford took the Cal program, the Pac 10 doormat, who hadn't had a winning season in eight years and immediately began winning.

Why is it that we always have to wait? Hiring a high school coach to lead the thing was risky. But, to then watch as he hired several other high school coaches...it has never made any sense to me.

Adapt.

Come on, give us a break.

Win. Cover and tackle. And win.

Got5onIt · September 14, 2007

But KBJ's research shows that UNT's time of possession is down, and that means the defense is out there more. Two extra minutes is a lot for a team with limited depth.

Disparity between seasons is not that great, IMO. 2 minutes can break down to what. 30 seconds a qtr?

Anyway, my point is that defense is not like offense. The gameplan for the defense relies heavily on the opponent. This is true for your offensive gameplan, but it's still not on the level defensive strategy is. Yes, there are differing base defenses, but it doesn't change considerably from team to team. This is why I heavily question our preparedness and in-game adjustments on the defensive side of the ball. However, I will say this, defense does rely heavily on talent when compared to the other side of the ball. There are no such things as "systems" players on defense...

Edited September 14, 2007 by Got5onIt

UNTSIG · September 14, 2007

it's laughable that when someone questions our defensive philosophy, the only thing some people want to do is compare it to last year and say give the coach time. It's ok to criticize. Come on North Texas, I thought we were tired of excuses? Our defense was horrible against OU and SMU. Everyone says that OU is understandable and I agree with that. However, there are two things with our defense that has concerned me. One is that we are not aggressive. I understand that we don't have a defense that is very athletic and thus blitzing is going to leave corners out on an island or leave the middle of the field open. However, they are tearing us up by spreading out our defense and with us putting no pressure on the qb. Our defensive line is not good enough to put pressure on their own. We consistently sent 4 people against SMU and you can do the math... 4 on 6 (5 linmen and running back and/or tight end) is not going to work out to well for us most of the time. The second thing that bothers me is a lack of in game adjustments. It seems that the same defense we run in the first minute of the game is the same defense we are running 79 or 45 points later in the last minute of the game. I don't see the adjustments. We go with the same game plan on defense throughout the game.

The offense we run does put more pressure on the defense.

meangreendork · September 14, 2007

it's laughable that when someone questions our defensive philosophy, the only thing some people want to do is compare it to last year and say give the coach time. It's ok to criticize. Come on North Texas, I thought we were tired of excuses? Our defense was horrible against OU and SMU. Everyone says that OU is understandable and I agree with that. However, there are two things with our defense that has concerned me. One is that we are not aggressive. I understand that we don't have a defense that is very athletic and thus blitzing is going to leave corners out on an island or leave the middle of the field open. However, they are tearing us up by spreading out our defense and with us putting no pressure on the qb. Our defensive line is not good enough to put pressure on their own. We consistently sent 4 people against SMU and you can do the math... 4 on 6 (5 linmen and running back and/or tight end) is not going to work out to well for us most of the time. The second thing that bothers me is a lack of in game adjustments. It seems that the same defense we run in the first minute of the game is the same defense we are running 79 or 45 points later in the last minute of the game. I don't see the adjustments. We go with the same game plan on defense throughout the game.
The offense we run does put more pressure on the defense.

I think the D needs variety; something else has to be happening besides zone coverage. I mean, throw something in that hasn't been tried because it keeps the offense honest, and especially if other things aren't working. I want to see more blitzing, I want to see something else besides pushing around up front and our LBs and Secondary being spread open. It's the honest truth, here.

The defense is also being worn out by their field time. Usually, you'll see a coach who has shallow defense do things to keep the offense on the field like run the ball or try to get some short passes in. It seems like our guys on defense are just getting tired come the 3rd quarter, and that means they need better conditioning, the offense should eat up more time, and the D coach should adjust his plans accordingly. We had a similar problem last year so many fast 3-and-outs. You'd see our D do pretty well at first, but around the 3rd or 4th, they were sluggish.

Mean Green 93-98 · September 14, 2007

I think the D needs variety; something else has to be happening besides zone coverage.

I assume you mean man coverage? Running some zone schemes would be a great idea.

meangreendork · September 14, 2007

I assume you mean man coverage? Running some zone schemes would be a great idea.

Been sick. You'll have to forgive me. But yes, please...variety. If what you have tried doesn't work, then if anything...try EVERYTHING until something does. Even if it's ALL OUT BLITZ then, do it.

Hahaha... ALL OUT! ALL OUT!

I think our guys should do that and then sit back.

HoustonEagle · September 14, 2007

The defense no doubt did not play well. But, IMO we lost the SMU game due to turnovers.

Coach · September 14, 2007

One of the worsts things you can do as a coach is abandon the things you know and believe in because it doesn't work immediately. Just keep coaching them up.

Quoner · September 14, 2007

One of the worsts things you can do as a coach is abandon the things you know and believe in because it doesn't work immediately. Just keep coaching them up.

worked for dickey.