as far as flipping Tech guys, Dontrell Cobbs 6'4 260 DE 3 star is interesting. They also have a 3 star QB J D. Head. Don't know if CJB is interested in Head.
Purdue's New Defensive Coordinator: Bob Diaco
- Thread starter ZLaner
- Start date
Who isn’t interested in Head??
But seriously, it’s too late to flip guys to signed already.
He was making $2hunded thousand at Lal. Tech has anybody heard what he signed for to coach the Purdue defense?
Almost anyone brought in is going to have a resume that is somewhat incomplete if we are to get someone who ‘breaks-our’ into an excellent DC. If they were already great we don’t get them, they probably go to the NFL or elsewhere
With all the firings already in the NFL, it's going to be hard to fill all those slots.
That is a good point
I have always been in favor of ‘trust the HC’ since this staff came here
It can’t be easy to start from where they started from
Also with the Transfer Portal they have to manage egos all of the time-‘make me happy or i’ll leave’
He had to build up a group with leaders in them first because a good leader controls the egos by getting the masses to ‘buy-in’
Not easy
I’d like to see the comparison of the LaTech starting LBs with PUs. Granted, Holt was high school sized so he’s an outlier but in general, I bet LaTechs LBs are bigger and faster.
That’s the great debate....if you had your choice, would you want a great D or great O?
As one who has coached many years, I always wanted a strong defense. If I can score one run and hold you to none...I win.
Defense predicates what the offense is able to do on both sides of the ball.
I've always thought that high scoring offenses are for show
That sounds very much like old school big ten 3 yards and a cloud of dust philosophy.
And that won games. With Defense.
Got to win it in the trenches Bone. No where else but in the trenches.
I’m not disagreeing. You gotta win the line of scrimmage.
But I think you have to have enough offense and creativity to win a shootout if needed.
That's an antiquated way of thinking that just doesn't work anymore. With rule changes and the way the game is called, the offense has been given too many advantages over defenses. You no longer see 3-0 games like you used to. And you don't see the option winning games like it used to for Nebraska or the wishbone for Okie. It's now a spread and pro style offense winning games. You can believe what you want. But running a team like you described would lose games and fan interest.
I remember sitting in the stands for a Purdue loss to Ohio State (10-6) and also for last year's Purdue win over Ohio State (49-20). Last year was a LOT more fun.
We'll have to disagree again.
You're already seeing defenses step up with new schemes to counter the spread and pro style. Everything new becomes old, and what was once old will become new again.
We'll have to disagree again.
Here's where your logic loses its luster.
Team Scoring Defense:
#1 - Clemson - 11.5 points allowed per game
#10 - Wisconsin - 16.1
#25 - Buffalo - 21.6
#50 - Rice - 25.9
We're not going to build a top 10 defense at Purdue, based solely on being able to get the recruits. So let's say we focus on a top 25 defense. Buffalo gave up 22 points per game. The 50th best defense (Rice) only gave up 4 points per game more. So with your logic, we would spend most of our recruiting efforts building a top10 to top 25 scoring defense, which are going to give up between 16 and 22 points per game, on average.
Top Scoring Offenses
#1 - LSU - 48.9 points per game
#10 - Louisiana - 38.8
#25 - Auburn - 34.0
#50 - Boston College - 30.9
So my question is, why wouldn't we focus on having somewhere between a top 25 and top 50 scoring defense, that gives up between 22 and 26 points per game? And then have a top 25 offense that scores 34 or more points a game?
BTW, here are the scoring offense and defense rankings for the 4 teams in the playoffs this year.
LSU - Offense #1, Defense #28
Clemson - Offense #4, Defense #1
Ohio State - Offense #3, Defense #4
Oklahoma - Offense #6, Defense #62
What do each of these teams have in common? They are all in the top 6 in scoring offense. What do they not have in common? Only 2 of the teams have top 25 defenses. And one of them plays in a crappy ACC conference, which clearly inflates their defensive rankings.
So you can see your argument of defense over offense holds no water.
Quit using facts - it only seems to confuse him.
I'm more interested in what schemes he's historically ran. Watching OSU - Clemson, and what Brent Venables does with that Tiger defense is awesome. Exotic blitzes and stunts everywhere and he adapts his defense each year based on the roster. That is the most important part. This year, Clemson's strength isn't the D-Line, so you're seeing more 3 man fronts.
It's a hell of a lot easier to look like a defensive genius when nearly your entire defensive two-deep on defense is 4* and 5* athletes. They have incredible depth and athleticism.
The biggest difference this year for LSU was a good to great QB. I have lived here for 14 years now and just shook my head watching the QB play of the past. To tell you the truth Etling made a big difference as well.
Im not as amazed with those coaches and teams when you consider the talent level that they have available to them....
You realize you are essentially describing Harbawl’s 2018 Michigan team, right? Top 3 defense in the country all year, but the first time they played a real deal offense, Urban hung 62 on them. With the current rules in CFB, great O beats great D.
True - I was more trying to get at that I hope our new DC is flexible and doesn't force his scheme even if the roster doesn't fit it. At the end of the day, he needs to be good at recognizing talent, coaching them up, and putting them in the best position to make plays.
He does.
Former ND player was interviewed by Lafayette sports station this morning, and made that point.
There was an article I had found in a Louisiana paper about Diaco. It was from the time he was hired and specifically discussed that he plays both the 3-4 and 4-3, depending upon the best scheme to fit his personnel. I have no doubt that he'll choose what's best for Purdue as well. Seems like an energetic(and somewhat quirky) guy whose players feed off of his energy and who really want to play for him. I appreciated the fire that Holt had but felt like he may have sometimes overused the negative reinforcement side of the coin.
There was something going on with Coach Holt and the team, including his coaching peers. I am actually surprised he wasn't let go after the bowl game last year. But that is now water under the bridge. Waiting till this time to change and getting Coach Diaco to do the job may be better in the long run than trying to hire a really good DC for this past year. Time will tell but I am with great anticipation to next season for the entire team.
I believe that the defense will show improvement next season, and would have even if Holt had been retained. This is due primarily to the fact that Purdue will finally have better depth, size and at least a bit of experience on that side of the ball(especially on the D-line). That being said, I believe that the change needed to be made, and that Diaco will guide a better defense than what Holt could have done.
