DC Hired - No Joke!

**Steve** · 02-17-2009, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by kucyclone

In the one game ISU and USF had between a common opponent, USF held them to one fewer point with decidedly more talented personnel (Selvie, McKenzie, etc.). Is this really that big of an upgrade? Or is it just the difference between Big 12 and Big East offenses?

I actually think it's a pretty good hire, especially considering that it is now mid-February. Hopefully we can find a solid pass rush like USF has had the last few years with Selvie. I think that, generally, is the key to slowing down a lot of the spread looks that are abundant in our conference.

Kansas looked over matched when Selvie was at full strength in the 1st half. He was not nearly as effective after getting dinged up and KU made a 2nd half run to make it respectful.

**cycloneman003** · 02-17-2009, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by sel4cy

Wally runs a 4-3 with a 1 or 2 corner press on the wideouts. You have to have 2 corners that are read and reactors and good linebackers

i think we got the corners for that... not sold on the LB's yet but i think Jackson/Knott/Klein could be able to help out. especially Princeton Jackson

**jdoggivjc** · 02-17-2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by sel4cy

Wally runs a 4-3 with a 1 or 2 corner press on the wideouts. You have to have 2 corners that are read and reactors and good linebackers

In other words, we no longer have to worry about not having the appropriate personnel to run the Tampa 2 (and yet running it anyway, adjustments and actually attempting to stop the other offense be damned...)?

**Al_4_State** · 02-17-2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Stewo

USF has had good teams, no doubt, but if you think that Big East to the Big 12 is lateral move, you need to be checked. The level of play is just not the same. It doesn't matter how good we have been.

The Big East to the Big 12 is not a lateral move, it's obviously a step up, BUT USF to ISU is probably a step down. USF has done well out of conference (they beat KU this year, Auburn last year) lately, and the Big East has some scary good offenses (much like the one's CPR so effectively handled). I guarantee nationally, people would view this as a step down, even though we play in a tougher conference. Had we played in the Big East this year, I doubt our record would have been much better. We would've beaten Syracuse, for sure, and that's probably it...

**weR138** · 02-17-2009, 03:41 PM

McMurphy calls Burnham's move "lateral". I find this short-sighted. We are afterall in the BXII; yes we've underachieved lately and USF has been very good but imagine what the BXII would look like to the nation if ISU, Baylor, CU and KSU can get their **** together and Pellini gets UNL back to top form. That would be in the back of my head if I were Burnham.

It's also not a lateral move when you're getting more $$$

**jbhtexas** · 02-17-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by kucyclone

Can someone translate this to English for me?

Translation: You are supposed to be completely and utterly school-girl giddy over this choice of DC. And because your response did not fully display this giddyness and rained on the parade, so to speak, you must be trashed because of it.

I thought your common-opponent tidbit was interesting, and certainly didn't warrant the harsh responses you got from jdoggivjc, knownothing, and others...

**Stewo** · 02-17-2009, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Al_4_State

The Big East to the Big 12 is not a lateral move, it's obviously a step up, BUT USF to ISU is probably a step down. USF has done well out of conference (they beat KU this year, Auburn last year) lately, and the Big East has some scary good offenses (much like the one's CPR so effectively handled). I guarantee nationally, people would view this as a step down, even though we play in a tougher conference. Had we played in the Big East this year, I doubt our record would have been much better. We would've beaten Syracuse, for sure, and that's probably it...

I don't disagree, but I'm just saying that everything in the Big 12 is on a grander scale. With the deffense we had last year, we may have gone .500 in the CIML, but the fact is, we play in the Big 12 and with the coaches CPR is bringing in, I don't see us being the laughing stock much longer.

**Al_4_State** · 02-17-2009, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Stewo

I don't disagree, but I'm just saying that everything in the Big 12 is on a grander scale. With the deffense we had last year, we may have gone .500 in the CIML, but the fact is, we play in the Big 12 and with the coaches CPR is bringing in, I don't see us being the laughing stock much longer.

It's looking that way to me too.

**IsUaClone2** · 02-17-2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by cyhiphopp

So what is Burnhams Iowa tie? That he worked with DMac?

No, the tie is that Wally's son recruited Iowa for Elon -- good enough? Works for me.

**Cy's Taxi** · 02-17-2009, 03:55 PM

Holy ****!!!.... well now we won't have all those new DC threads.....

**jdoggivjc** · 02-17-2009, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

Translation: You are supposed to be completely and utterly school-girl giddy over this choice of DC. And because your response did not fully display this giddyness and rained on the parade, so to speak, you must be trashed because of it.

I thought your common-opponent tidbit was interesting, and certainly didn't warrant the harsh responses you got from jdoggivjc, knownothing, and others...

I disagree. Like I said, if we do the "common opponent" game based on the Kansas outcome, our defense last year isn't all that much worse than Oklahoma's defense. But I'd say that season statistics, scoreboards, and postseason play would disagree with that argument. Just because we had a similar point total against Kansas that USF did certainly does not mean that our horrible defense was on par with USF's top 25 defense. It's actually quite the ridiculous argument.

**ajk4st8** · 02-17-2009, 03:59 PM

Absolutely thrilled with this hire as most are!

**Aclone** · 02-17-2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

In other words, we no longer have to worry about not having the appropriate personnel to run the Tampa 2 (and yet running it anyway, adjustments and actually attempting to stop the other offense be damned...)?

Well, I don't think that anyone can say that we have the perfect personnel for this scheme, either--yet.

**IsUaClone2** · 02-17-2009, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by cyingreen

Don't know as his actual age has been addressed. Figuring if he graduated from college in '63, that would make him 21 or so then, which means he was born in about 1942, which makes him around 66. At last, a coach older than me.

I don't think that's a big deal. 1., if he's in good health, it's not a problem, and 2. age certainly hasn't hurt Norm Parker. Let's hear it for those of us over 60!!

I'm one of the over 60 crowd and I certainly don't see anyone wrong with this hire. Sounds good to me.