Aliotti peaked?
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 1:02 PM PST
30 comments
First, this is not an overreaction in response to one game. His consistent defensive plan of allowing the other team to freely make it to the red zone, thus preventing the secondaries from being burned, limiting what the opponent's offense can do, thus making defensive play calling easier has frustrated me for years.
Still, I admit Aliotti isn't bad. But, even if he's better than two out of three defensive coordinators, that still means that, in every third game, the opposing team has better execution on the defensive end, even if they don't necessarily have the athletes to take full advantage.
Look at how poorly the "D-Boyz" performed last year, and how well they are doing in the NFL. Defensively, Oregon has had the talent; they have just failed to execute.
Keeping Aliotti will obviously be enough to keep Oregon as one of the top three teams in the Pac-10, but is that really what Oregon's intentions are? To be viewed by much of the country the same as Nevada - an interesting and cute non-contender with a gimmicky but fun offense? Thus, even with Oregon's impressive defensive performances with one blemish this year, I'd like to see Kelly bring in someone new. It's his team; it should be his regime. If Oregon wants to be national championship contenders, they need to evolve offensively.
Before you disagree, consider some of these concerning Aliotti post-game quotes:
- "Defense? Isn't that where they cut a pregnant woman's stomach open to get the baby out? Not really sure how that would have helped us out there!"
- "I call it the spread defense, because when we run it, the other team covers the spread"
- "We were outplayed. They could PASS and RUN. When a FOOTBALL TEAM can PASS and RUN, it's really hard to defend against."
- "There's no 'D' in 'team'"
- "Stats don't decide the game; the score does. Awe! Dammit!!"
- "You want a few defensive stops? Well, I want a pony, but you don't hear me complaining!"
- "I-Formation!"
"But Coach Aliotti! We're on defense!"
"I-Formation!!" - "Efense wins championships"
Does a change this off-season really sound that bad?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.
0 recs |
30 comments
Email
Print
Comments
You lost me with this gem:
His consistent defensive plan of allowing the other team to freely make it to the red zone
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Nov 9, 2009 1:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Last season, it seemed like the secondaries would get burned consistently. Oregon’s red zone defense was pretty effective. It wasn’t like there was a huge difference in play calling; it simply eliminated the threat of deep passes.
I also found another Aliotti quote:
“You can focus attention to the fact that we weren’t able to stop the run, but that completely overlooks the fact that our players got to meet THE Reggie Bush! I tell ya – that kid is something special! #1 draft pick? Easy. We’re even talking #1 in my heart! THE Reggie Bush… Imagine that!”
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it seemed like
That’s the problem. One’s perception is hardly indicative of actual results.
Oregon’s secondary didn’t get burned consistently last year.
It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"
by JShufelt on Nov 9, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to remember a non-BCS bound Boise State getting close to 400 yards passing against Oregon and Rose Bowl-bound USC getting close to 450. Ignoring games against upper caliber teams, then, yeah, I guess they did alright. But they definitely didn’t live up to the hype or the talent level…
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But looking at actual statistics that mean something, that argument makes NO sense. You’ve only mentioned your perception on the issue. Looking at any “Passing Yards/Rushing Yards/Total Yards” statistics is one of the worst measures of a defensive performance.
It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"
by JShufelt on Nov 9, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
…and the score would be better? 32-37 Boise State and 10-44 USC in those two games where Oregon’s pass defense was terrible. X)
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They weren’t lights out, but they weren’t horrible either. Overhyped? Sure! But you’ve only provided tangential arguments on why Kelly should bring in someone new, and have nothing really substantial.
The defense didn’t play very well against Stanford – but HOW is that Aliotti’s fault? Not saying it isn’t, I’m just looking for analytical reasons – not post-game quotes.
It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"
by JShufelt on Nov 9, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How is the defense playing terrible the defensive coordinators fault? You do realize what a defensive coordinator does, right?
And, like I’ve said, Aliotti is a good coordinator. But he’s not a great one. And with him as the defensive coordinator, I’m still seeing Oregon topping out as the general consensus Pac-10 runner up. Considering how dominant Oregon’s offense can be and how that’s helping Oregon pull in a higher caliber of recruits, it’s a shame to see inconsistencies in the defense, especially when they’ve had NFL caliber players receiving playing time as rookies (Byrd, Chung, Unger..).
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How is the defense playing terrible the defensive coordinators fault? You do realize what a defensive coordinator does, right?
It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"
by JShufelt on Nov 9, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even a cursory glance at the statistics shoots down this theory.
For the amount of passes that Oregon defended last year, they gave up a relatively few number of 25+ yard passes. In fact, they gave up the same number as Oregon State (25), even though Oregon State defended around 180 fewer passes.
Unfortunately, due to other factors (mostly safety play), Oregon gave up a ridiculously large amount of mid level passes (15-24) yards. This was mostly due to the personnel. We can talk all we want about the D-Boyz, but what we were missing last year was a free safety. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the worst defensive game of this season for the team was also the worst defensive game for our free safety. This is not coincidence.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Nov 9, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Another note, there were massive defensive changes after the USC disaster, which was when we realized TJ Ward was terrible at defending the pass. Oregon changed a lot of defensive schemes at that point. There were very good reasons to make these changes, and they were very successful overall.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Nov 9, 2009 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
…and if there was a playoff system instead of the BCS, this would be more than acceptable. But unfortunately that isn’t the case, and every game matters. Defensive coordinators need to be able to get a feeling for their players during their frosh/soph years or early in the season and make adjustments accordingly. Waiting until another team identifies them, then exploits them causing a blow out really hurts in the post season.
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
defensive coordinators need to be able to get a feeling for their players during their frosh/soph years or early in the season and make adjustments accordingly.
Do you actually believe that’s what happened? And are you actually saying that a defensive coordinator should never have to make adjustments?
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Nov 9, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No; I’m saying that, in the current BCS system where losses, even early in the season, heavily penalize teams in the off-season, teams in the tier above Oregon need to be able to make these adjustments without having to be blown out (albeit only defensively) to unmask these weaknesses. Until Oregon can do this, it’s questionable whether they can hang with the top teams. Kelly isn’t the only offensive mastermind out there…
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don’t think that the Oregon defense is going to change a whole lot after the Stanford game, because there was no problem with the gameplan. Stanford out-executed the Ducks big time.
As far as coaching in general, I really don’t know what your point is. You play your best, and you learn from that. Boise State and USC last year exposed major flaws in our defenses, and both of those offenses had the capabilities to expose those flaws. If we hadn’t lost the way that we did, you’d likely be here complaining about the other way we’d given up a bunch of yards or points.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Nov 9, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In other news
TJ Ward was terrible at defending ANYTHING on Saturday. I can’t count the number of times we’d watch a play start to unfold, see the ball start heading one direct and then see TJ on the opposite side of the field flying in the other direction. Not that he was necessarily any worse than Boyett or Matthews or Tukuafu (who was absolutely invisible), but I saw him on the wrong side of the play way too many times.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Nov 9, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
interesting perspective. Quote from Rob Moseley’s Twitter after he went home to watch the game on DVR
T.J. Ward played a helluva game. The rest of the secondary, not so much.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
by dvieira on Nov 9, 2009 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It seemed to me...
That Boyett was the safety that played a terrible game
Defense, Im talking to you! You want to kill this Osweiler fella...Come on defense, FOCUS god dammit!
I respect you Juju, you and your gorgeous brilliance
by CaDuck on Nov 9, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boyett played really bad. Wasn’t finishing tackles and just got outsmarted by Luck and the Furd’s pass plays. Then again, he’s a redshirt freshman. So I’m not that worried about it.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by Takimoto on Nov 9, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not ready to throw him under the bus just yet.
Sometimes good players have great days. Sometimes great players have career days.
Luck & Gerhart happened to do that on the same day. Plus, our D-line is big on speed rather than size…in other words, custom made for the smallish tailbacks every Pac-10 team besides Stanford features.
Not so much for a frigging tank like Gerhart. Give that guy his due, he’s impressive.
And Luck was unconscious with some of those downfield passes he connected on. The coverage didn’t even look bad, Luck and his receivers were lights-out.
by HoodRiverDuck on Nov 9, 2009 2:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If only Oregon had some sort of power running back on the team that they could practice against…
Defending USC with Bradford and McKnight running the ball is much more difficult than defending just Gerhart. Gerhart has a power game; everyone knows that. He has played in enough games this season to know how Stanford is going to utilize him.
Respect goes out to Gerhart, Luck, and the (overlooked when giving praise) receivers that caught some amazing passes, but I still refuse to believe Stanford’s offense, even on a career day, is going to be that dominant to a point where they could score on 10 of 13 drives. Oregon’s defense, for whatever reason, definitely choked. They failed to stop both Stanford’s run game and their pass game.
Gerhart was clearly Stanford’s biggest weapon, but Oregon failed to stop him defensively for fear of getting burned on the pass. The result was this loose coverage defense that allowed Gerhart to drive at will and left Stanford’s receivers with enough space to complete passes. Yes, several passes were contested, but don’t pretend that Oregon was playing lock down defense when it came to pass coverage. I’d much rather have seen Oregon try hard to shut down Gerhart and put the pressure on Luck and Stanford’s receivers to consistently make passes. The athleticism advantage of Oregon’s defense and their faster pace during practice would have eventually worked more in their favor.
But mostly what I’m frustrated about is that Stanford and their coaches watched past Oregon games, even blowouts like USC, and found MAJOR holes in the defensive schema that they could exploit. Oregon appears to have done nothing to review past performances, be it dominant ones, to look at areas where they could improve and make adjustments. Defensive changes were completely reactionary, and then failed at that. Half-time corrections made on defense still allowed 20 points to be scored in the second half, which realistically was more due to Stanford wearing down than an actual corrective coaching changes.
Technically, this wasn’t a blowout. Oregon’s offense did very well and kept the game competitive. And kudos to Stanford; their execution was perfect. But a Rose bowl contending team giving up over 500 yards to a middle-tier Pac-10 team isn’t a bad day or a career day by two people on the opposing team – It’s being out-coached on the defensive end, be it from bad calls, not having the players focused or ready, etc.
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly don’t think that you know that much about how defense works. Case in point:
I still refuse to believe Stanford’s offense, even on a career day, is going to be that dominant to a point where they could score on 10 of 13 drives.
But your further analysis of what our defense was trying to do was not even factually correct! Early in the game, we tried to stop the run, and were successful, but Luck hit long passes, and that threw our initial gameplan to crap.
What’s so great about this argument though, is that had we kept with the original gameplan, and let Luck burn us all day long, everyone would be asking why didn’t we change anything? When a good offense is running at full speed and executing in all phases, it is literally unstoppable. We as Duck fans should know that, we see it just about every other week.
Oregon appears to have done nothing to review past performances, be it dominant ones, to look at areas where they could improve and make adjustments
Lastly, this is sensantionalistic bull crap with absolutely no basis in reality.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Nov 9, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stanford’s first 2 touchdowns were from Gerhart rushes. In fact, 3 of the 4 touchdowns Stanford scored in the first half were rushing touchdowns. Not sure how you consider that Oregon stopping the rush…
But what I’m curious about is why you think Oregon was completely powerless to stop Stanford? Clearly I’m not a defensive coordinator, and I’ve never claimed to know more than Aliotti, but Wake Forest, Oregon State, and Arizona found ways to not give up 50 points to this team. And Washington State, Wake Forest, San Jose State, Washington, UCLA, Oregon State, Arizona, and Arizona State all found ways to keep Gerhart under 223 yards. That still looks to me like Oregon’s defense choked – either because of bad coaching, an inability to make the correct changes, because the players weren’t ready/focused, etc. rather than Stanford suddenly becoming one of the nation’s elite offenses…
by JasonStern on Nov 9, 2009 4:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Check out my previous article on this topic., and it disects the first few drives.
I would encourage you to go back and look at the gameplans that were run and the matchups in the game. You can point to yards and whatnot all you want, but that is a very poor way to judge defensive gameplans and adjustments. Stanford was executing. And when a defense executes, you can’t do much about it.
I would also not that Arizona has one of the better defenses in the Pac-10, and they gave up 584 yards to Stanford. This had nothing to do with choking. Teams play better on some days than others, and Stanford played a just about perfect game offensively, where almost everything went their way. They were able to get into the exact type of game that they needed to in order to win.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Nov 9, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All we can do is trust that our Defensive coaching staff rebounds...
And creates a better executed gameplan for ASU…
Defense, Im talking to you! You want to kill this Osweiler fella...Come on defense, FOCUS god dammit!
I respect you Juju, you and your gorgeous brilliance
by CaDuck on Nov 9, 2009 4:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I guess I’m curious who gets the credit in your mind for games that we won. Somehow I doubt you will give credit to Aliotti for the Cal game or the UCLA game or even the USC game. By your logic, I assume you will give credit to
1) offensive gameplan made defense irrelevant
2) All of those teams aren’t very good
3) it was the players, not Aliotti who did the work
I’m not saying Aliotti is a world beater and if you look back at his averages, his defenses rank right in the middle of the Pac-10. It’s an average defense. At the same time though, players have to execute and make plays. We dropped two for sure interceptions on defense that would have killed scoring drives. We didn’t get any pressure on the QB. We got exposed on the corners where our injuries and inexperience are looking to overtake us.
Going undefeated in the Pac-10 is hard (only 4 teams have done it since 1996). This is one game. Fire the coach after one game when he has been performing well, right along side his defense, is just reactionary.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
by dvieira on Nov 9, 2009 4:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
First let me state that I do not write under the pseudonym JasonStern... hehe
Second, I can see Jason’s frustration. If going into the game you know their #1 threat is Gerhart you do everything you can to stop that. You play that gameplan out to the end and if the second option beats you… so be it.
But I also agree with Jared above:
When a good offense is running at full speed and executing in all phases, it is literally unstoppable.
It was damn near impossible to stop Stanford on Saturday. Much like it was damn near impossible to stop Oregon against USC.
Here’s my main bone of contention with this post. Give Aliotti more time. He just switched to the base 3-4 this year and has barely even recruited the players necessary to run it properly. We have the LB’s but we need bigger DT’s and DE’s If we had Ngata in this set, Gerhart would still be on his back. Tukuafu, Bair, Ferras, Taeaina, and Rowe are doing their best (and damn fine if I do say so myself) up to this point.
That defensive alignment (3-4) is highly susceptible to a power running game. What kills it more than anything is playing from behind. If Stanford was forced to play from behind (i.e. Wake, Zona, etc) they would not have been able to keep all those horses in.
Give Aliotti time to finish off the recruiting and run the 3-4 a couple more years and you will consistently see an increase in our defensive abilities. The 3-4 lets the playmakers roam (LB’s, Safeties) and gives the guys up front the responsibility of taking on multiple blockers and stopping the run. Our lineman on Saturday could do neither. It allowed O-lineman to take on the LB’s and the HB to run away from (or in Gerhart’s case over) the safeties. You have to commit even more guys to stop the run (which Aliotti did not) or allow yourself to get burned with the pass. Aliotti will learn that, and make adjustments the next time we face this type of running threat. There is no reason to call for his head just yet.
Kenny Wheaton #20; The Pick - 1994 v UW. Matthew Harper #20; The Pick #2 - 2007 v USC. John Boyett #20;...
by Matt Daddy on Nov 9, 2009 6:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jared is completely correct here.
Gerhart was not dominant in the first couple of drives and only after Luck started throwing the ball downfield, did he have success. I point to you here for proof.
Stanford’s first drive, resulted in a three play drive for a 29-yard FG. Gerhart had 2 carries for 4 yards. Essentially this was a three and out, as Owusu had an excellent return into Oregon territory.
Stanford’s second drive resulted in a nine play, 75 yards for a TD (Gerhart 1-yard run). Gerhart had three carries for 9 yards. Two other men carried twice for three yards. The remainder of the plays were three of four passing and 48 yards, not counting a 15 yard PI penalty.
Clearly Stanford was throwing the ball and Oregon was stopping the run. On the first two drives, Gerhart had 13 yards on 5 carries…Luck was three of five for 48 yards and had the PI penalty. After that, Oregon was on their heels trying to defend the pass and the run.
The next drive you get a Gerhart rush for four yards, a Luck incompletion and another PI penalty. Gerhart then rushes for five yards, then Luck throws for 17. Gerhart rushes for 10, then 13 then no gain. Incomplete pass, then Gerhart for 11 on 3rd and 10. Gerhart for one and then four for a TD.
The Stanford offensive gameplan was great and Oregon did what they could to stop it. They had no answers for Gerhart and Luck and they played a fantastic game. I think the coordinators on D have done a fine job this year. We as fans cannot allow ourselves to get bent out of shape because of one game. The D wasn’t overmatched by any means. They were out-executed, plain and simple.
May we hand you your taints on a silver platter...
by 071903 on Nov 9, 2009 6:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think part of JasonStern’s frustration comes from the thought of, you have to keep doing it and if Luck beats you, that is a much easier “pill” to swallow.
Jared is right too, in that you would then have people on here saying, “Gerhart wasn’t hurting us, why didn’t we try and stop the pass more.” Really, in a game like that it is a no win situation.
My belief is that if we had continued (more than just the first quarter) to force Luck to win, we would have had a better chance to make plays. The safeties, LBs and CBs are where our playmakers are at… not the D-line. I would have preferred Aliotti to continue to gang up on the run and force Luck to beat us… would that have meant we definitely win? I’ve resigned myself to the fact that No. No matter what we did Saturday, Stanford was playing better… although we’ll never know.
Kenny Wheaton #20; The Pick - 1994 v UW. Matthew Harper #20; The Pick #2 - 2007 v USC. John Boyett #20;...
by Matt Daddy on Nov 9, 2009 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
