https://mobile.twitter.com/frederick...59186556190721
Printable View
Wow. Chatter all week and peaking today, but that is the first "confirmed" statement I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wade Garrett
Hip hip hooray!
That's from 8:07 this morning.
Hard to believe no one confirmed all day
Talks are going on- havent heard that they have reached a deal yet
Didn't notice that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Interesting. So no desperation on Sirmon's part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Poster
Do we have a list of potential candidates to replace him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Poster
You'd have to ask DanQuote:
Originally Posted by Wade Garrett
Hopefully we interview Nate woody. He's run a 3-4 at app st and finished top 20 in total defense the last 2 seasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wade Garrett
Paging IYOKQuote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
My biggest question here is WTF is Colorado thinking?
How could any head coach look at our defense this year & want to hire Sirmon as anything other than a LBs coach?
Darn good question
He would be a great get!Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
I don't keep up with Colorado football a lot but....Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
It seems to me based on what I have read that they are having a lot of trouble finding a DC since Leavitt left for whatever reason. To them they're probably happy to get a guy with SEC and USC experience that is considered a good recruiter.
Not upset to see him go, it just adds to the bad look of constant turnover at that position. Maybe CDM goes back where he found Diaz and Collins.
It's not an ideal situation for us. We do need continuity. That said, he performed poorly enough that it is very concerning. The good news is our DC's are at least landing other power five jobs for the most part. It's not like Tyrone Nix who was at Ole Miss and then went to Middle Tennessee State and then he got fired from there. I'm honestly fine either way because I see both sides. It's probably best to bring in someone that we believe will succeed though.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyDawg94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml4CsPvLG0kQuote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Check this interview out. It's a little dated since it's from 2014 but he's pretty impressive.
That 3-4 shit will never work. Please don't bring anyone else in who thinks that will work
We need a good coach period. If he can get the 3-4 to work at Sun Belt Appalachain State with a bunch of 2-3 star mountain men and almost beat Tennessee with it there is zero reason he can't get it to work here. He would also have an advantage over Sirmon because we have actually been running a version of the 3-4 for a year- and likely a more complicated one than what he runs. We also have been shifting our recruiting and amassing legit 3-4 personnel in the meantime which should ease the transition phase as well. And no doubt we have upgraded our personnel no matter who our DC is or what scheme we run next year is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgfan01
It appears to me as if we are in a 3-4 cycle right now- LSU is switching to it and Arkansas is rumored to be switching to it as well. It seems like every bowl game I watch I see at least one of the teams running a version of it whether it is Alabama or Air Force. I have no doubt the 4-3 will come back in due time though.
He's a sharp coach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
I hope I'm not pulling an Ole Miss Spirit here, but I think Bob Diaco would be my first choice. I'm not sure where he ends up but you won't find very many former Broyle's Award winners out there. I would definitely be fine paying him a million. I just don't know how realistic that is and/or if he has something else lined up. I think with him being a Northerner it might help as far as fitting in with the rest of Dan's staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
I agree with Dawgfan. Let's get away from the 3-4. Now and then it's ok, but it's a bend - don't break and we bent so much the other team constantly got in the end zone.
I used to be more of a fan of the 4-3 till I did a little research on it vs the 3-4. Basically it's way easier to read where the defense is going to be when they are in a 4-3. Under Mullen our bend don't break really applies with the secondary's coverage. This is what I think we need to completely overhaul. How our DBs play defense/coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianlander
I really don't care if it 4-3, 3-4 or 3-2-3-3 or 5-5-1 just as long as whoever we hire has a pretty good pedigree and track record actually running a defense. The issue to me is that our DC is the second most important position on the entire staff behind Mullen and should be a guy we are more than willing to pay in the 800K-1M range. Its Dan's offense and Dan is going to do what Dan is going to do offensively, but Mullen needs to hire a DC he can rely on and let the man do his job! DC is not the spot we need to have guys learning on the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianlander
The 3-4 is better at stopping the spread and mobile QBs.
That's a matter of opinion. Nick Saban and his 3-4 with far and away the best defensive talent in the country- gave up 511 yards and 35 points to a Spread team.Quote:
Originally Posted by preachermatt83
I find it hilarious people keep saying that- yet 3-4 college teams most of the time use a 4 man front
He's clearly a sharp dude and interviews well. That's the only answer, bc he isn't a good DC so far. He must be Kinda like Lane Kiffin, a guy that interviews well and always lands better jobs than he's qualified for despite never proving much on the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
I think it's a little early to label him like that. I think he'll eventually be a decent DC. We just didn't have the right situation for him. First DC job, lots of turnover on the defensive staff, a couple of serious talent deficiencies to deal with, and then no experience with a 3-4. Yeah, the arkansas game was awful even after taking all of that into account, but I'm guessing he was just overwhelmed by that point. I bet he's smart enough to figure things out if he gets into a better situation. He may never be great, but I think the situation made him look a lot worse than he probably is.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
Kind of like Rick Ray, sounds good in an interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
I find it funny that some keep calling it a 3-4 defense when it is in fact a hybrid scheme that uses both even and odd fronts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Poster
the Problem I saw was the only move our down line knew was a bullrush. We seemed to never twist or stunt. When We blitzed (as a former Dog lineman told me) we only blitz air not gaps. we Put our Linebackers in $hitty positions that made it hard to make tackles. There was always a Guard going untouched right at our Middle Linebacker. our safeties were always to far back to tackle effectively but never in position in coverage. Do one or the other, but it was always neither.
This is correct. It is infuriating. I would be willing to bet that our D linemen had very specific orders to stay in their lane, contain, rush straight ahead, occupy their offensive lineman, etc.....very predictable, procedural, "look at my scheme/philosophy". Guess what, this generated very little pressure on the QB because we did it the same EVERY time, "don't make a mistake, be smart, execute". If I were a defensive player I would rather have someone ask me to kill the QB or smash someone. Our passive philosophy put extra pressure on our green CB's. Reality is this year's defense sucked. Is that on Sirmon, or on Mullen's Philosophy behind the scenes? Who knows.....? Diaz and Collins leave from MSU and go back to playing a more aggressive, attacking effective style (both ranked highly this yr in defense) and the evidence is damning.Quote:
Originally Posted by tcdog70