Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

---

I don't agree with this. It's not Dave's overarching job to coordinate the defense. It's his job to oversee a winning program. If he can do the latter with someone else in that DC role, as he did in 2021, good for him.

We hired him to be the head coach. If he ends up being more successful as a CEO type, it doesn't really matter what we perceived his skill set and strengths to be when we hired him.

---

You might disagree with this approach, but from hearing Mack talk about it through the years (and particularly in the aftermath of deciding to keep him after 2023), this is my best read on Mack's thinking. If the "Dave as defensive coordinator" strategy doesn't pay off now that we are paying as much as most of our big 12 competitors for players (and Mack believes it was really a fair test of the theory, as in not an unusual run of injuries), I think Mack will likely conclude that this was a failed experiment and move on. Again, I'm optimistic that won't happen but that's just my read on Mack's mindset having listened to what he's said publicly about the whole affair.

---

If we win seven-plus games by outscoring opponents this year (and I think we will), Dave Aranda's not going anywhere. I would hazard to guess that he's not getting fired regardless of what happens this season, barring a complete bottom out to three wins, which I don't think is even a possibility with our schedule.

I think Mack is all in on Dave Aranda at this point. We're going to do anything we can to make this work. And if that means continuing to shore up the house crack by crack, that's what we'll do. The next -- and maybe last -- crack is the defense. If everything else in the program is going well, Aranda will be given the chance to address that unit the same way he did the offense -- by going out and getting a proven coordinator to "fix" that side of the ball.

---

well, maybe you're right in that scenario. hopefully we have both an improved defense and >7 wins and never have to test your theory.

---

That would be ideal. But I've seen enough of Dave Aranda's defense to feel that it's probably time to go get an outside coordinator regardless. We're six-plus years in and still can't guys to be where they're supposed to be on run fits or in pass coverage.

Whatever it is we're trying to do isn't working with the talent we're able to get on campus.

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The amount of posters who complain about the Briles years is so damm weird to me. Dude won tons of big games

---

We didn't win a single big out-of-conference game under Briles. Nobody outside of the teams playing in them cares about the Alamo, Holliday or Russell Athletic Bowls.

We were afraid to play anyone with a pulse before conference and lost the only two big bowl games we ever played.

Briles was a great football coach and did a lot of impressive things at Baylor. But this idea that he had us on the precipice of national relevance and championship seasons is Baylor fan fiction. It's mythology.

---

Timing was the issue here IMO. Elite O. An improving D with uptick in quality recruiting need more time but itself was on the "precipice". We'll never know of course but 2016 was an altogether different animal than prior seasons. Then came Iowa State injury and Baylor's responses.

drahthaar said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The amount of posters who complain about the Briles years is so damm weird to me. Dude won tons of big games

---

We didn't win a single big out-of-conference game under Briles. Nobody outside of the teams playing in them cares about the Alamo, Holliday or Russell Athletic Bowls.

We were afraid to play anyone with a pulse before conference and lost the only two big bowl games we ever played.

Briles was a great football coach and did a lot of impressive things at Baylor. But this idea that he had us on the precipice of national relevance and championship seasons is Baylor fan fiction. It's mythology.

---

Timing was the issue here IMO. Elite O. An improving D with uptick in quality recruiting need more time but itself was on the "precipice". We'll never know of course but 2016 was an altogether different animal than prior seasons. Then came Iowa State injury and Baylor's responses.

---

The UCF game will always piss me off.

That was Baylor's chance to ascend into a new stratosphere, and Briles was too busy flirting with Texas to have his team ready for what was the biggest game of his Baylor tenure to that point.

The Michigan State game sucked, too, but they were more talented than we were on the lines. We had no business getting worked over by that UCF team.

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

---

I don't agree with this. It's not Dave's overarching job to coordinate the defense. It's his job to oversee a winning program. If he can do the latter with someone else in that DC role, as he did in 2021, good for him.

We hired him to be the head coach. If he ends up being more successful as a CEO type, it doesn't really matter what we perceived his skill set and strengths to be when we hired him.

---

You might disagree with this approach, but from hearing Mack talk about it through the years (and particularly in the aftermath of deciding to keep him after 2023), this is my best read on Mack's thinking. If the "Dave as defensive coordinator" strategy doesn't pay off now that we are paying as much as most of our big 12 competitors for players (and Mack believes it was really a fair test of the theory, as in not an unusual run of injuries), I think Mack will likely conclude that this was a failed experiment and move on. Again, I'm optimistic that won't happen but that's just my read on Mack's mindset having listened to what he's said publicly about the whole affair.

---

If we win seven-plus games by outscoring opponents this year (and I think we will), Dave Aranda's not going anywhere. I would hazard to guess that he's not getting fired regardless of what happens this season, barring a complete bottom out to three wins, which I don't think is even a possibility with our schedule.

I think Mack is all in on Dave Aranda at this point. We're going to do anything we can to make this work. And if that means continuing to shore up the house crack by crack, that's what we'll do. The next -- and maybe last -- crack is the defense. If everything else in the program is going well, Aranda will be given the chance to address that unit the same way he did the offense -- by going out and getting a proven coordinator to "fix" that side of the ball.

---

well, maybe you're right in that scenario. hopefully we have both an improved defense and >7 wins and never have to test your theory.

---

That would be ideal. But I've seen enough of Dave Aranda's defense to feel that it's probably time to go get an outside coordinator regardless. We're six-plus years in and still can't guys to be where they're supposed to be on run fits or in pass coverage.

Whatever it is we're trying to do isn't working with the talent we're able to get on campus.

---

last year we had massive personnel problems on defense we tried to remedy through $$ and the portal.

This year we are one game in. Early returns obviously are not good, but I think it's too early yet to write the obit on the 2025 defense. We spent a lot of $$ to help on the personnel side but it takes time for players to learn to play together and in a new defense. With Jackie going down we had almost the entire defense with some combination of starting for the first time, playing in a new position, playing on a new team, and playing in a new defense. It was bad --- 31 points in play, but we've seen much worse and a good bit of the problem was tackling (typical game one issue) not scheme/preparation. All our worst defensive nightmares could come true this year, starting this week, but I don't think that's certain yet.


Regarding the defensive line, the combination of Alex (RIP), Bett theft, Jackie injury, and Samu spring injury (not to mention our best safety going down on back end) are also BRUTAL for that line. Dave seemed very worried about the line at the press conference, but he's certainly not going to just keep trying the same thing.

bear2be2 said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The amount of posters who complain about the Briles years is so damm weird to me. Dude won tons of big games

---

We didn't win a single big out-of-conference game under Briles. Nobody outside of the teams playing in them cares about the Alamo, Holliday or Russell Athletic Bowls.

We were afraid to play anyone with a pulse before conference and lost the only two big bowl games we ever played.

Briles was a great football coach and did a lot of impressive things at Baylor. But this idea that he had us on the precipice of national relevance and championship seasons is Baylor fan fiction. It's mythology.

---

Timing was the issue here IMO. Elite O. An improving D with uptick in quality recruiting need more time but itself was on the "precipice". We'll never know of course but 2016 was an altogether different animal than prior seasons. Then came Iowa State injury and Baylor's responses.

---

The UCF game will always piss me off.

That was Baylor's chance to ascend into a new stratosphere, and Briles was too busy flirting with Texas to have his team ready for what was the biggest game of his Baylor tenure to that point.

The Michigan State game sucked, too, but they were more talented than we were on the lines. We had no business getting worked over by that UCF team.

---

Hard truth here. Plus, we had no business losing to Mich St the way we did.

drahthaar said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The amount of posters who complain about the Briles years is so damm weird to me. Dude won tons of big games

---

We didn't win a single big out-of-conference game under Briles. Nobody outside of the teams playing in them cares about the Alamo, Holliday or Russell Athletic Bowls.

We were afraid to play anyone with a pulse before conference and lost the only two big bowl games we ever played.

Briles was a great football coach and did a lot of impressive things at Baylor. But this idea that he had us on the precipice of national relevance and championship seasons is Baylor fan fiction. It's mythology.

---

Timing was the issue here IMO. Elite O. An improving D with uptick in quality recruiting need more time but itself was on the "precipice". We'll never know of course but 2016 was an altogether different animal than prior seasons. Then came Iowa State injury and Baylor's responses.

---

The UCF game will always piss me off.

That was Baylor's chance to ascend into a new stratosphere, and Briles was too busy flirting with Texas to have his team ready for what was the biggest game of his Baylor tenure to that point.

The Michigan State game sucked, too, but they were more talented than we were on the lines. We had no business getting worked over by that UCF team.

---

Hard truth here. Plus, we had no business losing to Mich St the way we did.

---

About 12-15 plays had to go against us in an extremely specific way (like Corey Coleman getting an offensive face mask penalty called on him when we were inside the 5 yard line, something I've never seen called before or since), and they all went against us. It really was a freak occurence. That was an awful day, made worse by the fact that I was in Colorado and skipped a powder day to watch the game.

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

I always thought the defense was serviceable once we got Bennett. The reality is that we just could never recruit at a high level on defense for whatever reasons. Bennett did as well as he reasonably could with what he had and at very least his philosophy complimented the overall team strategy. Bennett's pedigree is strong and he had respectable defenses everywhere he went.

Regarding Dave, yes, I continue to believe the coach that was once the highest paid coordinator in the country and coached Baylor's best defense in decades can put together a good defense with adequate talent and time (the talent excuse is gone after the $$ investment in off-season). Mack holds the same view or Dave wouldn't be here, and his opinion actually matters. If Mack is wrong it should be clear by the end of this year if not sooner.

---

Our defenses under Bennett were designed to be hyper-aggressive and force turnovers. They weren't necessarily good (I'd argue it's impossible to field a good defense running that offense the way the did back then), but they made plays. And with the offense we had at the time, that was usually enough.

The problem with the current defense is that it's a bend-and-break defense. If you're going to be bad, at least be aggressive and force turnovers.

---

Ya I think that's exactly why Bennett's defense never bothered me even though not highly ranked. If it got scored on it typically was quick, so you didn't have to sit around for half the game as a team methodically marched down the field converting third downs and your offense gets cold.

I think Dave developed a successful bend don't break defenses at schools like Wisconsin where he had top of nation ranked defenses, and it's hard to break away from what got you to where you are.

When Dave re-jigged the defense over the off-season I'm sure he thought in detail about how it would compliment the offensive scheme.

the reality is that as bad as we all felt about the defensive performance against Auburn, he was one made tackle and one bad holding call away from doing enough to potentially win because of our offense. Missed tackles will get you a loss in any scheme, even with the catastrophic loss of Jackie, so I think it's hard to conclude his scheme was definitely unsound. If you make that first third down tackle against Jackson maybe the next time he feels like he better throw it. Once a QB feels like you can't tackle him he feels invincible and is just never going to throw it unless he has to or it's wide open. We basically turned him into Vince Young in the national title game.

It will be interesting to see how the overall philosophy changes as the season unfolds.

---

It's still very early, obviously, and we only have a one-game sample to go on. But I want to see significant improvement on the defensive side this season.

And if we don't, I want to see an established defensive coordinator brought in next season and given full control to do for our defense what Spavital has done for our offense.

---

In my view the defense will approve or Dave is gone. If you aren't paying him for good defense his entire value proposition makes no sense. And I'm optimistic he will get there but I think that was basically the deal when Mack kept him around. I paid you to at least have a good defense and you're going to coach it yourself now so at least we should have that. It's gotta work or that whole decision makes no sense.

---

I don't agree with this. It's not Dave's overarching job to coordinate the defense. It's his job to oversee a winning program. If he can do the latter with someone else in that DC role, as he did in 2021, good for him.

We hired him to be the head coach. If he ends up being more successful as a CEO type, it doesn't really matter what we perceived his skill set and strengths to be when we hired him.

---

You might disagree with this approach, but from hearing Mack talk about it through the years (and particularly in the aftermath of deciding to keep him after 2023), this is my best read on Mack's thinking. If the "Dave as defensive coordinator" strategy doesn't pay off now that we are paying as much as most of our big 12 competitors for players (and Mack believes it was really a fair test of the theory, as in not an unusual run of injuries), I think Mack will likely conclude that this was a failed experiment and move on. Again, I'm optimistic that won't happen but that's just my read on Mack's mindset having listened to what he's said publicly about the whole affair.

---

If we win seven-plus games by outscoring opponents this year (and I think we will), Dave Aranda's not going anywhere. I would hazard to guess that he's not getting fired regardless of what happens this season, barring a complete bottom out to three wins, which I don't think is even a possibility with our schedule.

I think Mack is all in on Dave Aranda at this point. We're going to do anything we can to make this work. And if that means continuing to shore up the house crack by crack, that's what we'll do. The next -- and maybe last -- crack is the defense. If everything else in the program is going well, Aranda will be given the chance to address that unit the same way he did the offense -- by going out and getting a proven coordinator to "fix" that side of the ball.

---

well, maybe you're right in that scenario. hopefully we have both an improved defense and >7 wins and never have to test your theory.

---

That would be ideal. But I've seen enough of Dave Aranda's defense to feel that it's probably time to go get an outside coordinator regardless. We're six-plus years in and still can't guys to be where they're supposed to be on run fits or in pass coverage.

Whatever it is we're trying to do isn't working with the talent we're able to get on campus.

---

last year we had massive personnel problems on defense we tried to remedy through $$ and the portal.

This year we are one game in. Early returns obviously are not good, but I think it's too early yet to write the obit on the 2025 defense. We spent a lot of $$ to help on the personnel side but it takes time for players to learn to play together and in a new defense. With Jackie going down we had almost the entire defense with some combination of starting for the first time, playing in a new position, playing on a new team, and playing in a new defense. It was bad --- 31 points in play, but we've seen much worse and a good bit of the problem was tackling (typical game one issue) not scheme/preparation. All our worst defensive nightmares could come true this year, starting this week, but I don't think that's certain yet.


Regarding the defensive line, the combination of Alex (RIP), Bett theft, Jackie injury, and Samu spring injury (not to mention our best safety going down on back end) are also BRUTAL for that line. Dave seemed very worried about the line at the press conference, but he's certainly not going to just keep trying the same thing.

---

I agree with most of what you post here. But my issue with Aranda's defense is that, outside of 2021, it has never been sound during his time at Baylor.

I'm not asking for an elite defense or elite personnel. I'm asking for assignment football. And outside of one outlier year, we have never had that under Dave Aranda.

If he can't get guys where they're supposed to be on a regular basis, it's time to bring in someone else who can. Either his scheme is too complex to grasp or requires talent that we can't consistently bring in to run. But we are consistently unsound, and there's no good excuse for that in Year 6 or 7.

drahthaar said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The amount of posters who complain about the Briles years is so damm weird to me. Dude won tons of big games

---

We didn't win a single big out-of-conference game under Briles. Nobody outside of the teams playing in them cares about the Alamo, Holliday or Russell Athletic Bowls.

We were afraid to play anyone with a pulse before conference and lost the only two big bowl games we ever played.

Briles was a great football coach and did a lot of impressive things at Baylor. But this idea that he had us on the precipice of national relevance and championship seasons is Baylor fan fiction. It's mythology.

---

Timing was the issue here IMO. Elite O. An improving D with uptick in quality recruiting need more time but itself was on the "precipice". We'll never know of course but 2016 was an altogether different animal than prior seasons. Then came Iowa State injury and Baylor's responses.

---

The UCF game will always piss me off.

That was Baylor's chance to ascend into a new stratosphere, and Briles was too busy flirting with Texas to have his team ready for what was the biggest game of his Baylor tenure to that point.

The Michigan State game sucked, too, but they were more talented than we were on the lines. We had no business getting worked over by that UCF team.

---

Hard truth here. Plus, we had no business losing to Mich St the way we did.

---

We definitely should have won the Michigan State game, but it became apparent pretty early that we weren't going to be able to run on them or stop their run game. So if our scoring pace ever slowed, it was always possible that they would fight their way back into the game because we had no way of shortening that game with a lead.

Our skill players were excellent, but they were the stronger team on both lines. That loss, while inexcusable circumstantially, was understandable from a personnel perspective.

My car ended up breaking down in the lot and needing a tow back to Waco. Such a terrible day.