Gibbs and AU DB's

[Aubie7 0]

I don't follow recruiting. Don't see a need to as it takes four years to pan out. No need getting upset over who we got, or didn't get. There was one thing, however, that really stoodout in a article I read this morning. We signed one DB and he was 5-11 in height. This realy irks me. Time and time again, over several years, going back to CTB's days, we haved lined up 5-8 to 5-11 DB's against 6 foot plus receivers from other teams. It is a losing battle. I know there are big DB'S out there because other schools have them in place. AU just doesn't sign them, or go after them. The DB position (corner, safety, Strong Safety) is a huge weakspot for our team. Look back at last season, and especially the Bowl game, and see how bad we were hurt. They don't cover well, they don't tackle especially well either. Is it coaching? That is my next point,

I read where Gibbs is leaving. Great! Our defensive schemes this year were terrible, particularly down the stretch. His plans of man-to-man and press coverage on receivers didn't develop. We played too much of a cushion all year and were repeatedly burned by it. There must be someone out there who can do a better job of coaching this position. As is, with no newcomers on board, we are hurting in the secondary for 2006. This has to be our weakest link for this year. I don't see the situation getting any better. Starting in 2007, we will have to go with new players, which puts the defense even further behind.

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

[WarTim 3,456]

"Intelligent feedback"? Okay. I totally disagree with your entire post.

[Aubie7 0]

"Intelligent feedback"? Okay. I totally disagree with your entire post.

217009[/snapback]

You would. The truth always bothers you. Would you care to elaborate?

[TexasTiger 12,950]

"Intelligent feedback"? Okay. I totally disagree with your entire post.

217009[/snapback]

Me, too.

[StatTiger 3,188]

7 of the top ten CB's in terms of interceptions in the NFL were 5-11 or shorter.

Law 5-11

O'Neal 5-11

Bailey 6-0

Vasher 5-10

Gamble 6-1

Bly 5-9

Hall 5-10

Lucas 6-0

Barrett 5-10

Barber 5-10 ( tied with multiple players )

Auburn's top 4 CB's on the current depth chart:

5-11

6-3

6-1

6-0

[CircleDrill 178]

We were owned in the bowl game because of a soft pass coverage style defense that doesn't work in college football. This was something that was talked about all season long...I know an awful lot of true Auburn fans who were absolutely NOT happy with the defense. And it is not because of the size of the backs so much as it was the style defense, poor tackling technique, etc.

[Aubie7 0]

7 of the top ten CB's in terms of interceptions in the NFL were 5-11 or shorter.

Law 5-11

O'Neal 5-11

Bailey 6-0

Vasher 5-10

Gamble 6-1

Bly 5-9

Hall 5-10

Lucas 6-0

Barrett 5-10

Barber 5-10 ( tied with multiple players )

Auburn's top 4 CB's on the current depth chart:

5-11

6-3

6-1

6-0

217017[/snapback]

And just how many of those played at Auburn?

[Aubie7 0]

We were owned in the bowl game because of a soft pass coverage style defense that doesn't work in college football.  This was something that was talked about all season long...I know an awful lot of true Auburn fans who were absolutely NOT happy with the defense.  And it is not because of the size of the backs so much as it was the style defense, poor tackling technique, etc.

217057[/snapback]

Thanks. An acutal sign of brain waves. Yes the overall scheme stunk! Hopefully, this coaching change will produce better results.

[TrueBlue72 0]

That original post shows the most complete lack of football knowledge that I've seen posted on any AU board. Only on TI would I expect to see anything so delusional!!!

StatTiger shot the first paragraph so full of holes with his usual statement of facts that it sank quicker than a lead beach ball.

The second paragraph is utter nonsense too. We have SEVEN, yes SEVEN current or former starters returning to the defensive backfield. With the right defensive scheme, this could be one of the strongest secondaries fielded in CFB in years.

[Aubie7 0]

That original post shows the most complete lack of football knowledge that I've seen posted on any AU board.  Only on TI would I expect to see anything so delusional!!!

StatTiger shot the first paragraph so full of holes with his usual statement of facts that it sank quicker than a lead beach ball. 

The second paragraph is utter nonsense too.  We have SEVEN, yes SEVEN current or former starters returning to the defensive backfield.  With the right defensive scheme, this could be one of the strongest secondaries fielded in CFB in years.

217064[/snapback]

You are so full of it. IF they were so great, then why hasn't it shown up? The number of RETURNING STARTERS is what is scary about this secondary. Stat Tiger's Stats are just that: stats. He threw in several players from different teams, who play on the PRO LEVEL. Nothing to do with college or Auburn. Meaningless stats are all they are.

Example: A Mayor could say that no thief over 6 foot has ever robbed a store in my town. However, he doesn't tell you that over 200 robberies were committed by thiefs under 6 foot.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

217008[/snapback]

So intelligent feedback has to agree with your point of view or it's just "sunshine." Interesting world you live in.

Actually, DB was not a position we were focusing on this year. We had greater needs at WR, OL and DL than we did DB...so I'm not that concerned with who we signed there this year especially since we could only count 23 schollys against this year.

Relax dude. Two of the guys we signed last year who redshirted are 6 ft tall or more (Patrick Trahan, 6-2) and Walter McFadden (6-0) and Lorenzo Ferguson (RS-Fr.) stands at 6-2. Patrick Lee is 6-0.

But also, being over 6 ft is not some automatic indicator of greatness. Pitts still gets out of position and burned from time to time and he's 6-1. Will Herring, while great against the run had trouble in coverage and he's 6-3. I'm not saying I want a bunch of 5-8 guys running around out there, but I'm much more concerned about speed, quickness, jumping ability, technique and instincts than an inch here or there on height.

Sorry if that's too "sunshine" for you. I tried to look at our roster objectively and assess our needs as well as who we already have coming up the ranks. Feel free to stay in a bad mood though.

[WarTim 3,456]

7 of the top ten CB's in terms of interceptions in the NFL were 5-11 or shorter.

Law 5-11

O'Neal 5-11

Bailey 6-0

Vasher 5-10

Gamble 6-1

Bly 5-9

Hall 5-10

Lucas 6-0

Barrett 5-10

Barber 5-10 ( tied with multiple players )

Auburn's top 4 CB's on the current depth chart:

5-11

6-3

6-1

6-0

217017[/snapback]

Did someone mention the T R U T H ? ? ?

[TrueBlue72 0]

Gee, this is too much like trying to reason with a Bammer. The facts only confuse them and make them angry.

[Auburn910 0]

Appears to me the top ten CBs in the NFL were all 5'10'' or taller from stat tigers numbers. A lot were 5'10'' or 5'11'' but that is a lot better than 5'8'' and 5'9''. Our secondary was a major problem all season and was also the weak link during out 13-0 season. If we did not have Carlos that year to lock down one side how bad would it have been? We rotate players in and out and they keep getting burnt. I think coaching as a lot to do with this area of the team, you cant be an expert at everything and our coaches do a dang good job overall. However, we do have a problem in the secondary and this need was not addressed. What if david irons had not received his 6th year? He got this memo late in the process, the coaches had not recruited players to fill that void if he left. Just some constructive criticism of the seemingly lack of effort at finding some CBs

One more point. If you have a freak maybe you can give up an inch or two in height, spud web can dunk you know. How about look at average players not some freaks in the NFL to make the comparisons.

I agree with Aubie. There is room to question.

[WeagleDMS 0]

When you have a kid in high school who is above 6 foot tall they usually stick him at reciever. Corners are not as tall as recievers on average. It makes sense, just think about it.

[AUslug 1]

When you have a kid in high school who is above 6 foot tall they usually stick him at reciever.  Corners are not as tall as recievers on average.  It makes sense, just think about it.

217120[/snapback]

Nothing makes sense for Aubie7 unless he says so. I don't think it was so much as the players not being tall enough, they weren't wide enough. Multiple games this past season showed that whenever the AU secondary got burned was because they were 10-15 yds from the wideout. Gibbs soft Cover 2 was just pitiful with the type of secondary personel that Auburn has. The safties and corners hardly got burned on man to man, it was almost always because they were in a zone/picking flowers set. Maybe the next DC will be more aggressive and try to get the linebackers involved in a consistent pass rush.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

5"11 range isn't unusual for a cornerback.

Cowboys secondary has 3 of their 4 CB's 5"11 under.

You have forgotten about verticle jumping ability. There are 5"10 CBs that will get up higher than 6"0 recievers. Recievers also know where they are going and CB's have to adjust, lower center of gravity aids in making them quicker and more agile on their cuts.

I think the secondary didn't look as good cause we lost Rosegreen and Rogers (who is 5"10 btw) and both had been what 3 year starters? Rogers effectively took away a entire side of the field all by himself, allowing the Rosegreen to pick up the mistakes on the other side. We need development in the secondary, and that is why Tuberville has been searching for a secondary coach.

[StatTiger 3,188]

You said...

We signed one DB and he was 5-11 in height. This realy irks me. Time and time again, over several years, going back to CTB's days, we haved lined up 5-8 to 5-11 DB's against 6 foot plus receivers from other teams. It is a losing battle. I know there are big DB'S out there because other schools have them in place. AU just doesn't sign them, or go after them.

The stats I posted were to refute the comments you made in your initial post. You made it sound like CB's who are 5-8 to 5-11 is a negative thing, so I posted the top CB's in the NFL this past season in terms of interceptions. You also stated that we we have consistently signed short corners since the Terry Bowden era, so I posted the height of our 4 CB's on the depth chart. The shortest one was 5-11.

[StatTiger 3,188]

Oh, by the way...

Tuberville enters his 8th season on the Plains so what difference does it make what Bowden did?

For the record, Tuberville has signed 29 defensive backs while at Auburn. 24 of the 29 DB's were 5-11 or taller.

I do agree the issue should be more about coaching technique than height.

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

I don't follow recruiting. Don't see a need to as it takes four years to pan out. No need getting upset over who we got, or didn't get. There was one thing, however, that really stoodout in a article I read this morning. We signed one DB and he was 5-11 in height. This realy irks me. Time and time again, over several years, going back to CTB's days, we haved lined up 5-8 to 5-11 DB's against 6 foot plus receivers from other teams. It is a losing battle. I know there are big DB'S out there because other schools have them in place. AU just doesn't sign them, or go after them. The DB position (corner, safety, Strong Safety) is a huge weakspot for our team. Look back at last season, and especially  the Bowl game, and see how bad we were hurt. They don't cover well, they don't tackle especially well either. Is it coaching? That is my next point,

I read where Gibbs is leaving. Great! Our defensive schemes this year were terrible, particularly down the stretch. His plans of man-to-man and press coverage on receivers didn't develop. We played too much of a cushion all year and were repeatedly burned by it. There must be someone out there who can do a better job of coaching this position. As is, with no newcomers on board, we are hurting in the secondary for 2006. This has to be our weakest link for this year. I don't see the situation getting any better. Starting in 2007, we will have to go with new players, which puts the defense even further behind.

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

217008[/snapback]

I absolutely agree with you about our defensive schemes last year. I think the secondary played very poorly but I disagree with you on the reasons why. I don't think it has anything to do with the talent we have in the secondary, I think it is the coverages and the schemes that were put in as part of the overall game plan.

I thought the whole year that Auburn did not utilize the speed of the defense like they should have. It seemed like we were always being reactive instead of making the offense reactive. I thought we could have pressured more from the LB and SS spot. Our ends are so quick that when they rushed from the outside, it left the middle wide open. This hurt us a couple of times.

I am excited about the possiblity of a new coach coming in. I think Auburn has a ton of speed that went under utilized last year and I think the right scheme can make the defense better.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Gimmie some verticles numbers Stat

[Aubie7 0]

You said...

We signed one DB and he was 5-11 in height. This realy irks me. Time and time again, over several years, going back to CTB's days, we haved lined up 5-8 to 5-11 DB's against 6 foot plus receivers from other teams. It is a losing battle. I know there are big DB'S out there because other schools have them in place. AU just doesn't sign them, or go after them.

The stats I posted were to refute the comments you made in your initial post. You made it sound like CB's who are 5-8 to 5-11 is a negative thing, so I posted the top CB's in the NFL this past season in terms of interceptions. You also stated that we we have consistently signed short corners since the Terry Bowden era, so I posted the height of our 4 CB's on the depth chart. The shortest one was 5-11.

217145[/snapback]

Thanks! You just made my point for me. The best DB'S we have, at the moment (according to you)are in the 6 foot range. Although, the group hasn't played well so far. We do not need 5-8 guys back there.

[Aubie7 0]

7 of the top ten CB's in terms of interceptions in the NFL were 5-11 or shorter.

Law 5-11

O'Neal 5-11

Bailey 6-0

Vasher 5-10

Gamble 6-1

Bly 5-9

Hall 5-10

Lucas 6-0

Barrett 5-10

Barber 5-10 ( tied with multiple players )

Auburn's top 4 CB's on the current depth chart:

5-11

6-3

6-1

6-0

217017[/snapback]

You posted the "TOP 4" not all that have been signed over the years. Again, you took some numbers and bent them into you argument (which is not working).

[Aubie7 0]

Please don't respond to this post with "Sunshine" remarks. I am looking for intelligent feedback. Thanks.

217008[/snapback]

So intelligent feedback has to agree with your point of view or it's just "sunshine." Interesting world you live in.

I am just trying to follow the rules as you have set them. The "agree with me or you are wrong attitude" seems to be the norm around here. You are one of the biggest proponents of this style.

Now, go ahead and disagree with me on that!

[Aubie7 0]

When you have a kid in high school who is above 6 foot tall they usually stick him at reciever.  Corners are not as tall as recievers on average.  It makes sense, just think about it.

217120[/snapback]

Please re-read your post here. You make no sense at all. What 'makes sense" to you? So, in your thinking a 6-3 290 pound guy will make a better receiver than a 5-10 185 guy? Right? I mean, after all the 290 pound guy is taller!