i think I can talk myself into giving Shafer more time

[SUFaninNJ]

Let's give SS a lifetime contract based on this. Nobody who is a fan has an exit strategy on the program. SS is 10-15 he has to get closer to .500 as he was hired to continue momentum from 23-23 and not to go backwards. Please don't try saying criticism of SS is abandonment of being an SU fan.

Get over yourself. I wasn't referring to you or your posts.

 

[reedny]

i shared the link but i don't like backwards pitches. too many fumbles

Well ok, but I thought the point was ... statistically, trick plays = explosive plays, and explosive plays have a higher correlation with a successful outcome than TO's.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

I agree with this. I don't think our D has been elite but I give SS credit for doing a solid job and compared to our offense the D has looked really good.
My point was that I can give SS a break if the D struggles as long as we see real improvement on offense and if we had a consistent offense to go with SS history it should lead to 7-9 wins per year. If not we are praying for 6-6 each year which sucks.

The D hasn't been elite or even good. It has been decent. There have been plenty of games where the D has lost us games. Last year the D really stepped up after Hunt's injury. Hopefully that carries over to this year despite the turnover in personnel. Also it was Bullough's 2nd season here and 2nd season game planning for the ACC. That is optimism that our D can go from decent to good.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

I just hope, that the key members of this staff stay together.

Out of curiosity who do you feel are the ket members and why? Not looking to debate but looking to try and understand.

 

[Alsacs]

The D hasn't been elite or even good. It has been decent. There have been plenty of games where the D has lost us games. Last year the D really stepped up after Hunt's injury. Hopefully that carries over to this year despite the turnover in personnel. Also it was Bullough's 2nd season here and 2nd season game planning for the ACC. That is optimism that our D can go from decent to good.

I have tried having this opinion. I can't wait for TheCusian response. Our D has been okay but compared to offense it has looked better. I like you have higher expectations to call it good.

 

[orangefog]

The D hasn't been elite or even good. It has been decent. There have been plenty of games where the D has lost us games. Last year the D really stepped up after Hunt's injury. Hopefully that carries over to this year despite the turnover in personnel. Also it was Bullough's 2nd season here and 2nd season game planning for the ACC. That is optimism that our D can go from decent to good.

I have convinced myself that the D was actually better than they performed, due to the O struggling and not staying on the field long enough for the D to get rest.

 

[Finwad32]

Out of curiosity who do you feel are the ket members and why? Not looking to debate but looking to try and understand.

1) Daoust & Acosta
1A) Bullough & Lester, Lea
2) Adam, Reed, Moreland & Smith

For the record, I think highly of every member of this staff.

 

[PhatOrange]

Didn't the defense finish in the top 30 in nearly every category last year? That's pretty good if not great. They might have been solidly great if they weren't on the field for entire games.

And in 2013, even with several epic beatdowns, they finished top 35 in total defense.

 

[PhatOrange]

1) Daoust & Acosta
1A) Bullough & Lester, Lea
2) Adam, Reed, Moreland & Smith

For the record, I think highly of every member of this staff.

and I get the feeling Moreland is going to leap up into that first tier.

 

[Alsacs]

No matter what I want Bobby Acosta on this staff in the future. That guy after we lost Coach P and all of his NJHS contacts has gotten SU back into NJ. I do give credit for SS hiring him and smartly promoting him to WR coach. He needs to remain on this staff as long as we can hold on to him.

 

[Alsacs]

Didn't the defense finish in the top 30 in nearly every category last year? That's pretty good if not great. They might have been solidly great if they weren't on the field for entire games.

And in 2013, even with several epic beatdowns, they finished top 35 in total defense.

Our D was 37th in PPG. We did well against CMU, Wake, NC State, Duke, Clemson. Our D got shredded by Notre Dame, Maryland, Florida State, Pitt and okay against Louisville and BC.

This narrative our D was great is not right. When I think of a dominating D I like of Clemson, Ole Miss, Stanford last year. We weren't as good as the numbers said.

 

[TheCusian]

I have tried having this opinion. I can't wait for TheCusian response. Our D has been okay but compared to offense it has looked better. I like you have higher expectations to call it good.

I'll take the bait.

I think, as always you can't just say "okay" or "decent" or "good" - those are all subjective terms. Especially arguing decent vs good (one tick apart from each other). What measure are we using "total defense" or "scoring defense" etc? Nationally or in conference? Relative to our talent (do we play above our recruiting ranking)? If you finish in the top 30 of 100+ teams, that's in the top 1/3 of all D1. Is that "decent" or "good"?

It's not enough to say "our D has lost us some games"... Did the offense not play at all? How about special teams? We know that offenses and defenses play different with a lead vs being behind. How does that factor?

I think if you combine all of Shafer's years you'd find one bad D, a bunch of decent, and a few good years. I'd even call 2010 a very good year (#7 nationally in overall D). The numbers bear this out. So I'd pick somewhere between decent and good.

---

This is not an answer to the original point but I think what people are talking about is trust. Which side of the ball have you trusted more in the Marrone/Shafer era? Which side needs fixing? Has the D been good enough to be a bowl team?

That's obvious. And that's why I think if we see a DECENT offense (60-40) and modest slippage from our D (35-45) - we'll see Shafer and company back next season.

 

[TheCusian]

Our D was 37th in PPG. We did well against CMU, Wake, NC State, Duke, Clemson. Our D got shredded by Notre Dame, Maryland, Florida State, Pitt and okay against Louisville and BC.

This narrative our D was great is not right. When I think of a dominating D I like of Clemson, Ole Miss, Stanford last year. We weren't as good as the numbers said.

Now you're switching to "great"? I'll gladly argue with you - but you can't move the goal posts like that. No one in their right mind is saying we were as good as Clemson or Stanford on D last year.

 

[Alsacs]

I'll take the bait.

I think, as always you can't just say "okay" or "decent" or "good" - those are all subjective terms. Especially arguing decent vs good (one tick apart from each other). What measure are we using "total defense" or "scoring defense" etc? Nationally or in conference? Relative to our talent (do we play above our recruiting ranking)? If you finish in the top 30 of 100+ teams, that's in the top 1/3 of all D1. Is that "decent" or "good"?

It's not enough to say "our D has lost us some games"... Did the offense not play at all? How about special teams? We know that offenses and defenses play different with a lead vs being behind. How does that factor?

I think if you combine all of Shafer's years you'd find one bad D, a bunch of decent, and a few good years. I'd even call 2010 a very good year (#7 nationally in overall D). The numbers bear this out. So I'd pick somewhere between decent and good.

---

This is not an answer to the original point but I think what people are talking about is trust. Which side of the ball have you trusted more in the Marrone/Shafer era? Which side needs fixing? Has the D been good enough to be a bowl team?

That's obvious. And that's why I think if we see a DECENT offense (60-40) and modest slippage from our D (35-45) - we'll see Shafer and company back next season.

My point boils down to this in context of the best in the nation we aren't there. I have never said the D has been poor I just hate false narratives which is what happens here. I give JB the benefit of the doubt for our offense struggling these past 2 years because he has always had a good offense team. SS has not earned that benefit of the doubt because his resume doesn't warrant it.

Our D has been okay and I would even give SS a break if the D struggles this year as long as the O improves greatly into the top 50-60 range.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

Didn't the defense finish in the top 30 in nearly every category last year? That's pretty good if not great. They might have been solidly great if they weren't on the field for entire games.

And in 2013, even with several epic beatdowns, they finished top 35 in total defense.

Nationally ranking aren't apples to apples comparisons. Schedules and quality of opponents vary too much. The best metric IMO is comparing your in conference stats vs your conference peers. Looking at just the Atlantic that means 6 like games. The 2 crossovers create some difference but there isn't a significant difference between any of those teams. Last season was statistically our best D in the last 6 years despite the putrid O.

Points per game we were 4th out of 7 teams in the Atlantic. This number can be skewed though because of the O.

Yards per game we were 4th. Again this can be hurt by having a bad O.

QB rating we were 6th. IMO this is the best number to judge your passing D. It takes into account completion %, yards, TDs, INTs, and in a way QB pressure. The more pressure you get the worse you would expect the rating to be. We were pretty bad in this regard.

Yards per carry we were 4th. IMO this is a better indicator of your rushing D as the pure rushing yards per game number can be skewed by pace of play and the score of the game, as teams ahead rush more. For instance GA Tech was 7th in ACC in YPG but 12th in YPC. You can argue that we would be better here if not for the bad O. Assuming that the D got tired.

Sacks we were 5th. I hope that this year's DL can do a better job.

TFL we were 6th. Again the DL needs to step up.

Turnovers we were in a three way tie for 3rd.

3rd down D we were 3rd which is pretty good. Especially if the D was "tired".

Redzone TD % we were 2nd. This is really good. It shows that we tightened up once teams got into the Redzone.

20+ yard runs (big play) we were 3rd which is good.

20+ yard pass plays (big play) we were excellent leading the Atlantic and the ACC.

The ACC Atlantic last year was pretty bad on O. BC, Clemson, Louisville, and Wake all had their struggles. That is going to skew national rankings. IMO it doesn't matter what defenses do in the MAC, B12, etc. What matters is SU's opponents. Last year we were decent vs the run. We were mediocre vs the pass. We were good at preventing big plays, getting off the field on 3rd down, and preventing TDs once in the Redzone. Overall I would say that statically we were a decent D. However taking into consideration our awful O I think that you can say that we had a good D last year.

Looking back at 2010-2013 the D underperformed vs last season statistically. IMO not a single one of those defenses were good. They were all decent. IMO a D can be great, good, decent, mediocre, bad, or awful. There is nothing wrong with being decent. It is actually a positive. However it seems our fans think of Shafer as a D genius and statistically there has been no supporting evidence.

 

[Alsacs]

Now you're switching to "great"? I'll gladly argue with you - but you can't move the goal posts like that. No one in their right mind is saying we were as good as Clemson or Stanford on D last year.

I will say good and if you want to say great is wrong fine. I would give our defense a B- or maybe a B.

 

[TheCusian]

My point boils down to this in context of the best in the nation we aren't there. I have never said the D has been poor I just hate false narratives which is what happens here. I give JB the benefit of the for the offense struggling these past 2 years because he has always had a good offense team. SS has not earned that benefit of the doubt because his resume doesn't warrant it.

Our D has been okay and I would even give SS a break if the D struggles this year as long as the O improves greatly into the top 50-60 range.

Oh, no - his resume does warrant the benefit of the doubt when it concerns the defense.

 

[Alsacs]

Oh, no - his resume does warrant the benefit of the doubt when it concerns the defense.

Please read my last sentence to the post responded too. I just said I would give him a break if the D struggles as long as the O improves to the 50-60 range.

 

[TheCusian]

I will say good and if you want to say great is wrong fine. I would give our defense a B- or maybe a B.

I'd agree with a B to B-. To me that's good enough to into the top 1/3 of the ACC IF our offense were the same quality.

 

[Alsacs]

I'd agree with a B to B-. To me that's good enough to into the top 1/3 of the ACC IF our offense were the same quality.

Go read and SWC question to the coach thread. Our O averaged 17 PPG the team that finished 65th right in the middle of the nation Rice averaged 29 PPG.
SWC showed Syracuse has only averaged 30 PPG 7 season in our history. That means we need an offensive mind in the HC job IMO. Not a D-III OC with no experience other than 2 yrs as QB coach.

 

[PhatOrange]

Our D was 37th in PPG. We did well against CMU, Wake, NC State, Duke, Clemson. Our D got shredded by Notre Dame, Maryland, Florida State, Pitt and okay against Louisville and BC.

This narrative our D was great is not right. When I think of a dominating D I like of Clemson, Ole Miss, Stanford last year. We weren't as good as the numbers said.

I don't think the defense was great but I did think they were pretty good.

Only 3 teams went over 400 yards. ND, FSU and Pitt.

Maryland had 369 yards. LVille 352. BC 302

An offense in the same ballpark as the defense the team probably goes 8-5 with a chane at 9-4.

 

[TheCusian]

Nationally ranking aren't apples to apples comparisons. Schedules and quality of opponents vary too much. The best metric IMO is comparing your in conference stats vs your conference peers. Looking at just the Atlantic that means 6 like games. The 2 crossovers create some difference but there isn't a significant difference between any of those teams. Last season was statistically our best D in the last 6 years despite the putrid O.

Points per game we were 4th out of 7 teams in the Atlantic. This number can be skewed though because of the O.

Yards per game we were 4th. Again this can be hurt by having a bad O.

QB rating we were 6th. IMO this is the best number to judge your passing D. It takes into account completion %, yards, TDs, INTs, and in a way QB pressure. The more pressure you get the worse you would expect the rating to be. We were pretty bad in this regard.

Yards per carry we were 4th. IMO this is a better indicator of your rushing D as the pure rushing yards per game number can be skewed by pace of play and the score of the game, as teams ahead rush more. For instance GA Tech was 7th in ACC in YPG but 12th in YPC. You can argue that we would be better here if not for the bad O. Assuming that the D got tired.

Sacks we were 5th. I hope that this year's DL can do a better job.

TFL we were 6th. Again the DL needs to step up.

Turnovers we were in a three way tie for 3rd.

3rd down D we were 3rd which is pretty good. Especially if the D was "tired".

Redzone TD % we were 2nd. This is really good. It shows that we tightened up once teams got into the Redzone.

20+ yard runs (big play) we were 3rd which is good.

20+ yard pass plays (big play) we were excellent leading the Atlantic and the ACC.

The ACC Atlantic last year was pretty bad on O. BC, Clemson, Louisville, and Wake all had their struggles. That is going to skew national rankings. IMO it doesn't matter what defenses do in the MAC, B12, etc. What matters is SU's opponents. Last year we were decent vs the run. We were mediocre vs the pass. We were good at preventing big plays, getting off the field on 3rd down, and preventing TDs once in the Redzone. Overall I would say that statically we were a decent D. However taking into consideration our awful O I think that you can say that we had a good D last year.

Looking back at 2010-2013 the D underperformed vs last season statistically. IMO not a single one of those defenses were good. They were all decent. IMO a D can be great, good, decent, mediocre, bad, or awful. There is nothing wrong with being decent. It is actually a positive. However it seems our fans think of Shafer as a D genius and statistically there has been no supporting evidence.

You choose the metric and describe "our fans" as all thinking he's a genius on D. I don't think anyone here has said he's a genius since I've been posting here. I think most think he's been decent to good. No more, no less.
--
I think our D has been good enough to get us to a bowl game in all but 1 year of the Marrone/Shafer era (2011). I think that's the most relevant point. Our offense needs to be as good. Then you build momentum, build recruiting classed that get better year to year (like they have), and start to change the narrative until you're in contention.

 

[SWC75]

Go read and SWC question to the coach thread. Our O averaged 17 PPG the team that finished 65th right in the middle of the nation Rice averaged 29 PPG.
SWC showed Syracuse has only averaged 30 PPG 7 season in our history. That means we need an offensive mind in the HC job IMO. Not a D-III OC with no experience other than 2 yrs as QB coach.

9 times: 1904, (we beat Manhattan 144-0), 1916, (we opened against "All-Syracuse"), the 1959 team, the 1987 team, the four McNabb years and Nassib's senior year.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

This is not an answer to the original point but I think what people are talking about is trust. Which side of the ball have you trusted more in the Marrone/Shafer era? Which side needs fixing? Has the D been good enough to be a bowl team?

That's obvious. And that's why I think if we see a DECENT offense (60-40) and modest slippage from our D (35-45) - we'll see Shafer and company back next season.

I trust the D staff completely. I do not expect to see any mediocre or bad Ds under Shafer. However I also do not expect him to turn SU into VA Tech on D. Having a consistently good D is a positive and will certainly be good enough to get you into a Bowl. All we need is a decent O and we are set.

 

[TheCusian]

Go read and SWC question to the coach thread. Our O averaged 17 PPG the team that finished 65th right in the middle of the nation Rice averaged 29 PPG.
SWC showed Syracuse has only averaged 30 PPG 7 season in our history. That means we need an offensive mind in the HC job IMO. Not a D-III OC with no experience other than 2 yrs as QB coach.

What the tells me is that it's much easier to score and holding teams to 24 is very helpful in winning games. We don't need a OC HC. We just need a good OC. And you can't say Lester isn't one. yet.