There’s a difference between watching a football game and watching the film. On Saturday night, Florida State walked away from its home opener against New Mexico State with a 34–17 win, and in real time there were stretches that looked encouraging, stretches that looked frustrating, and plenty that left you wondering exactly what happened. But the broadcast only tells part of the story. So, we went back through the All-22 film to take a closer look at what FSU actually put on tape: who won their assignments, where the breakdowns occurred, and whether some of the concerns from Saturday night look better or worse when you can see all 22 players on the field.
A disclaimer before we get started: I am not a full-time football coach, nor am I pretending to be one. I played some football in high school, have spent a lot of years studying and watching the game, and have developed a pretty good understanding of schemes, assignments, coverages and what teams are trying to accomplish. So consider this less of a coaching clinic and more of an informed set of observations from the film. There will undoubtedly be things I miss, but the goal is to get beyond the box score and evaluate what the tape actually shows. We’ll start on the defensive side of the football.
First Quarter:
T.O.P. – FSU’s defense was on the field for 8:14 of the 1st Quarter
Score – FSU 3 – NMSU 0
3rd Down: FSU allowed NMSU to convert 3 for 4
FSU’s defense was a mixed bag in the first quarter, with the opening drive exposing some legitimate concerns despite ultimately ending in a turnover. The biggest issue was tackling. Darrell Desir, Daniel Lyons, Demonte Diggs and Caleb LaVallie all missed opportunities at or behind the line of scrimmage, while Quindarrius Jones took a poor angle on another short completion.
FSU also generated very little initial push from the defensive front, allowing NMSU to stay ahead of the chains and convert three straight third downs on its opening possession. The secondary wasn’t clean either. There were multiple coverage breakdowns where receivers came open against zone concepts, including a third-and-10 conversion where NMSU had multiple options available. Even Jones’ excellent deep-ball PBU masked a busted coverage underneath that could have resulted in a big play with another second of protection.
There were encouraging signs as the quarter progressed. FSU generally maintained its run fits, and the defensive line began creating considerably more disruption. Pressure forced the errant throw that Jones intercepted in the end zone, and on NMSU’s second possession a four-man rush generated pressure before a well-executed stunt moved the quarterback off his launch point on third down and forced a harmless checkdown, resulting in a punt.
The first-quarter takeaway is that FSU’s defense showed more talent than execution. The front demonstrated an ability to affect the quarterback and Jones made two impact plays, but missed tackles, poor pursuit angles, inconsistent communication in coverage and an inability to get off the field on third down made the opening drive far more difficult than it needed to be.
Second Quarter:
T.O.P – FSU’s defense was on the field for 7:07 of the 2nd Quarter
Score – FSU 17 – NMSU 7
3rd Down: FSU allowed NMSU to convert 3 of 5
The second quarter saw the defense get more aggressive and disruptive up front, but still far too vulnerable on third down and in the back end. Tony White dialed up several pressures early, including a corner blitz on the opening snap and a five-man look with Blake Nichelson on the next play. Mikai Gbayor was particularly active, recognizing a screen, breaking up a pass in coverage and later beating the protection for FSU’s first sack of the game. The run defense was also largely solid, with the front maintaining contain and limiting New Mexico State to minimal gains on most traditional runs.
There were several individual flashes as well: Deante McCray violently discarded a guard to disrupt one run, Ma’Khi Jones reacted quickly to a perimeter throw, and Omar Graham did a good job navigating a mesh concept in man coverage. When FSU was able to generate pressure with four, the defense looked considerably more comfortable.
The problem was that many of the same first-quarter issues continued to surface. FSU surrendered two more long third-down conversions, including a third-and-11 and third-and-8 where the quarterback had far too much time and multiple receivers available against zone coverage. Quindarrius Jones gave up an enormous cushion on one of those conversions, making an already soft zone even easier to attack. The biggest breakdown came on New Mexico State’s 33-yard touchdown, where KJ Kirkland got caught staring into the backfield and allowed the receiver to get behind him while Ja’Bril Rawls took a false step anticipating help that never arrived.
There were also still too many missed tackles and occasional poor gap discipline, especially late in the half. The second-quarter film reinforced a growing theme: FSU could create disruption when it attacked, but when the pass rush stalled, the coverage behind it was far too easy to exploit. The defense was winning enough individual battles to be effective, but communication, third-down execution and consistency remained major concerns.
Third Quarter:
T.O.P – FSU’s defense was on the field for 7:24 of the 3rd Quarter
Score – FSU 24 – NMSU 10
3rd Down: FSU allowed NMSU to convert 1 of 2
The third quarter was probably the clearest example yet of the tension within FSU’s defensive approach: there were plenty of individual plays where the defense executed well, but the overall structure made life far too easy for New Mexico State’s passing game. The Aggies clearly wanted to get the ball out quickly, yet FSU continued giving receivers seven-to-nine-yard cushions on the outside. Nehemiah Chandler and Quindarrius Jones were repeatedly aligned so far off the ball that New Mexico State could essentially take free completions underneath before the pass rush had any realistic chance of affecting the quarterback.
That showed up immediately with a nine-yard completion on the opening play of the quarter and again on third-and-eight late in the quarter, when a quick curl easily moved the chains. This is where the film raises a schematic question: if Tony White knows the opponent is emphasizing quick-game concepts, it is difficult to understand how a four-man rush is supposed to consistently impact the quarterback while the secondary simultaneously concedes that much space at the line of scrimmage.
There were still some encouraging moments. Chris Jones diagnosed a bubble screen perfectly for a loss, Chandler responded to his early struggles with a nice PBU on a deep ball, and a five-man pressure created intentional grounding when Jalen Anderson got home. Deante McCray also flashed late in the quarter, first getting penetration against the inside run and then doing an excellent job setting the edge to force a run back inside. But the defense continued making things unnecessarily difficult on itself. The edge was poorly set on multiple runs, safeties were late triggering downhill, the secondary completely bit on a trick-play run fake that should have resulted in a touchdown, and Ja’Bril Rawls compounded another third-down conversion with an avoidable 15-yard personal foul.
The third-quarter takeaway is that FSU had enough individual talent to make plays, but the combination of excessive cushion, inconsistent edge discipline and a pass-rush plan that did not seem to match New Mexico State’s quick-game approach allowed the Aggies to consistently take what the defense was giving them.
Fourth Quarter:
T.O.P – FSU’s defense was on the field for 5:43 of the 3rd Quarter
Score – FSU 34 – NMSU 17
3rd Down: FSU allowed NMSU to convert 3 of 6
The fourth quarter reinforced nearly every concern that had shown up through the first three quarters, particularly with the amount of space FSU continued to concede in the secondary. New Mexico State repeatedly attacked the Seminoles with quick slants, curls and out routes, and the Aggies rarely needed the quarterback to hold the ball long enough for the pass rush to become a factor. Even when FSU sent five, the pressure either arrived too late or was picked up cleanly because the ball was coming out so quickly.
That was especially evident on the 34-yard touchdown, where New Mexico State caught FSU in a five-man pressure and simply threw the slant into the space vacated by the blitzing linebacker. The bunch formation itself did not appear to confuse the secondary; the bigger issue was the cushion at the line of scrimmage, which allowed the receiver a clean release and gave Ricky Knight III very little chance to recover. It was another example of the coverage structure and pressure package seemingly working against one another rather than together.
There were still positive individual moments. Deante McCray generated pressure on a five-man blitz, Ashland Barker delivered a strong hit to break up what initially looked like a completion, and Rylan Kennedy and Daniel Lyons combined to finally get home for a late sack. Deamontae Diggs also ended New Mexico State’s final meaningful possession by knocking down the fourth-down pass. But the film continued to show missed tackles, predictable pressure looks and a four-man rush that often had no realistic opportunity to affect the quarterback because of how quickly the ball was being delivered.
The fourth-quarter takeaway was essentially the story of the entire game: FSU could manufacture pressure and make individual plays, but the soft coverage behind it continually gave New Mexico State easy answers. When the Seminoles played tighter coverage, the defense generally looked better. When they backed off seven-to-nine yards, the Aggies repeatedly took the free yards being offered.
Conclusion:
After going through the All-22, my biggest takeaway is that FSU’s defense was not nearly as bad as the final numbers might suggest, but it also was not nearly good enough. There were flashes everywhere; the defensive line created pressure at times, several players made really good individual plays, and the run defense was mostly solid. But the consistency simply was not there. The tackling was sloppy, the edge discipline came and went, the communication in the secondary broke down too often, and the amount of cushion FSU consistently gave receivers made New Mexico State’s quick passing game way too easy.
More than anything, there seemed to be a disconnect between the pressure packages up front and the coverage philosophy behind them. You cannot expect a four-man rush to consistently affect the quarterback when he is throwing the ball in two seconds to receivers who are being given seven-to-nine yards of space.
And that is where the concern becomes much bigger moving forward. New Mexico State was able to expose these issues with a relatively simple quick-game approach. SMU has significantly more speed, better receivers, a better quarterback and an offensive system capable of identifying and attacking exactly these kinds of weaknesses. If FSU shows up against SMU playing this much soft coverage, missing tackles and struggling to get off the field on third down, this will not be a close game. SMU will take the free completions, turn some of those five-yard throws into 25-yard gains, and force Tony White to adjust in a hurry.
FSU does not need to completely reinvent its defense before SMU, but it absolutely has to tighten up the coverage, communicate better and make tackles in space. If those things do not improve, SMU has the offensive firepower to blow this defense off the field.