i think I can talk myself into giving Shafer more time

[Fjoinkay]

Go and read KOIII's post on the schedule mattering in determining these rankings. That 2010 D was good but it got torched by Washington and Kansas State not exactly the best Os that season. They were good but also played a BE schedule and outside of WVU there weren't any good Os in that conference that year to give them credit they did shut down WVU which was our best W that season and we played 2 D-1AAs and Akron. Not many good Os that season.

The talent on the roster was good though Chandler and the LBs so I would say that was a good D top 30 D but not an great D.

The 2010 D was very good.

If you are going to reason this way about 2010, then you have to reason that way about 2014.

 

[Alsacs]

The 2010 D was very good.

If you are going to reason this way about 2010, then you have to reason that way about 2014.

I just said they were good. TheCusian wants to claim they were better than that. I would say they were good but the schedule inflated their overall numbers. We played Washington, Akron, Maine Colgate Boston College. Our D dominated 4 of those teams. We played a soft BCS conference. I give the 2010 D props. They struggled against Kansas State and Washington. The O bailed them out only 1 time and it was a great win in the Pinstripe Bowl.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

Go and read KOIII's post on the schedule mattering in determining these rankings. That 2010 D was good but it got torched by Washington and Kansas State not exactly the best Os that season. They were good but also played a BE schedule and outside of WVU there weren't any good Os in that conference that year to give them credit they did shut down WVU which was our best W that season and we played 2 D-1AAs and Akron. Not many good Os that season.

The talent on the roster was good though Chandler and the LBs so I would say that was a good D top 30 D but not an great D.

There were 120 D1A teams that year. Here are the ranks of those teams nationally in total O:

Akron 119th
Washington 76th
Maine 84th in D1AA
Colgate 18th in D1AA
USF 105th
Pitt 73rd
WV 67th
Cincy 32nd but had their 3rd string QB starting our game
Louisville 71st
RU 114th
UConn 95th
BC 109th
K St 62nd

IMO that 2010 D was our best D against the pass in the last 6 years. In Big East play we were between 3rd and 5th in every category (out of 8 teams). So we weren't good at anything but also were not bad at anything. IMO we were borderline good. Definitely not a Top 10 D like our 7th national ranking.

 

[Scooch]

Defense is for suckers, anyway.

Score points.
Win games.
Profit.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...llege-football-coaches-dissect-demise-defense

 

[K Otto XLIV]

Defense is for suckers, anyway.

Score points.
Win games.
Profit.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...llege-football-coaches-dissect-demise-defense

IMO the issue with defense is old school thinking. Everyone used to play a 5-2 then it moved to 4-3 before some people went to a 3-4. The D always lags behind in personnel. To many D coaches "grew up" being 4-3 guys. It is what they know and they are reluctant to change their base D. IMO that is silly unless you have SEC talent on D. There is no reason to have a 4-3 D as your base in today's game. It puts you in a mismatch. Teams should be running either a 4-2, 3-4, or 3-3 stack. There is a reason why RichRod wants his DC to use a 3-3 stack. It is what he feels is the most effective D. Shafer's Okie did so well against WV because it has a big DE playing over the C, two edge rusher DE/LB hybrids playing wide, 2 MLBs, 2 SSs playing like hybrid OLBs, 2 CBs, and 2 FSs.

 

[Fjoinkay]

I just said they were good. TheCusian wants to claim they were better than that. I would say they were good but the schedule inflated their overall numbers. We played Washington, Akron, Maine Colgate Boston College. Our D dominated 4 of those teams. We played a soft BCS conference. I give the 2010 D props. They struggled against Kansas State and Washington. The O bailed them out only 1 time and it was a great win in the Pinstripe Bowl.

Okay, okay. I also have to point out that the 2010 offense was DC3 and not much else. He was great, but the offense did very little overall. Last season and 2010 are similar in some ways except last season SU was in the ACC and then of course there were all of the other crippling particulars about last season that put pressure on the D. We will never know how good the D was last year or how much they improved across the season. I think they improved a bunch.

 

[Alsacs]

Okay, okay. I also have to point out that the 2010 offense was DC3 and not much else. He was great, but the offense did very little overall. Last season and 2010 are similar in some ways except last season SU was in the ACC and then of course there were all of the other crippling particulars about last season that put pressure on the D. We will never know how good the D was last year or how much they improved across the season. I think they improved a bunch.

I am not questing SS ability to coach a D. I don't think our D has been the problem. They have done the job well enough. We just need to be able to say that the reputation of D being better than it actually is has become a narrative I like to prevent for being fact. The O has been the problem outside of 2012. We need a more consistent O in 2015 or the D won't matter.

 

[TheCusian]

Maryland scores in the 40s if they run any offense in the 2nd half. I get your are glass is full even when its only 25% full guy but they torched us in the first half. How many punts did the D force in that first half? Our O moved the ball on their D but their O torched our D.

We gave up one 60 yard drive for one TD.
One blown coverage for 80yds.
Another 55 yard drive for a FG.

The score was 17-13.

The other two scores were 1 pick 6 for their defense, and one 25 yd drive after Dixon got his punt blocked.

That's 14 pts to end the half where they went 25 total yards.

To answer your question, 3 punts by Maryland in the first half. 6 in the second. 9 total punts. They had 369 yards for the game (we had 589).

"Torched" is a strong adjective. I might apply it to our offensive production had we scored on all those drives.

 

[TheCusian]

I am not questing SS ability to coach a D. I don't think our D has been the problem. They have done the job well enough. We just need to be able to say that the reputation of D being better than it actually is has become a narrative I like to prevent for being fact. The O has been the problem outside of 2012. We need a more consistent O in 2015 or the D won't matter.

This is the thing though. You're not fighting against anyone on that. Most here would say his defenses have been decent to good. That's the truth. The strawman needs a rest.

I've been beating the "if we had a mediocre offense" we'd be bowling every year for 8 months.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Defense is for suckers, anyway.

Score points.
Win games.
Profit.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...llege-football-coaches-dissect-demise-defense

that, BALL CONTROL ALL DAY ERDAY

 

[Alsacs]

We gave up one 60 yard drive for one TD.
One blown coverage for 80yds.
Another 55 yard drive for a FG.

The score was 17-13.

The other two scores were 1 pick 6 for their defense, and one 25 yd drive after Dixon got his punt blocked.

That's 14 pts to end the half where they went 25 total yards.

To answer your question, 3 punts by Maryland in the first half. 6 in the second. 9 total punts. They had 369 yards for the game (we had 589).

"Torched" is a strong adjective. I might apply it to our offensive production had we scored on all those drives.

C'mon man. Please I like that we have people like you in our fanbase. I am glad the program hasn't broken you. I really want to do well and turn the corner and be on the upswing. That game against Maryland our D was not good. Sorry you don't get to say blown coverages like it is nothing. Maryland's WRs had more speed. They torched us. Why you are fighting this I don't know.
Our O from the 20 t0 the 20 was really good in this game. 31-13 UMD shut it down. The 2nd half UMD did nothing but try to move the clock.

 

[leftytg]

IMO the issue with defense is old school thinking. Everyone used to play a 5-2 then it moved to 4-3 before some people went to a 3-4. The D always lags behind in personnel. To many D coaches "grew up" being 4-3 guys. It is what they know and they are reluctant to change their base D. IMO that is silly unless you have SEC talent on D. There is no reason to have a 4-3 D as your base in today's game. It puts you in a mismatch. Teams should be running either a 4-2, 3-4, or 3-3 stack. There is a reason why RichRod wants his DC to use a 3-3 stack. It is what he feels is the most effective D. Shafer's Okie did so well against WV because it has a big DE playing over the C, two edge rusher DE/LB hybrids playing wide, 2 MLBs, 2 SSs playing like hybrid OLBs, 2 CBs, and 2 FSs.

not sure if you saw this article, but in light of your post I think you might find it interesting.

http://grantland.com/features/hard-knocks-playing-defense-with-tcus-gary-patterson/

 

[TheCusian]

C'mon man. Please I like that we have people like you in our fanbase. I am glad the program hasn't broken you. I really want to do well and turn the corner and be on the upswing. That game against Maryland our D was not good. Sorry you don't get to say blown coverages like it is nothing. Maryland's WRs had more speed. They torched us. Why you are fighting this I don't know. Our O from the 20 t0 the 20 was really good in this game. 31-13 UMD shut it down. The 2nd half UMD did nothing but try to move the clock.

You must not have read my post earlier. 80 yards on one busted play. Do the math - subtract 80 from 369. That's not dominance. That's a missed assignment.

Go check the box score and subtract that play from their QB's total. Not a great day.

You're not really being honest. They did slow things down a bit - but they couldnt be sure we were not going to score every drive with the amount of yardage we were piling up.

I'm fighting you on this because of the same thing you've been fighting in this thread - a false narrative. We should have won that game.

 

[Fjoinkay]

I am not questing SS ability to coach a D. I don't think our D has been the problem. They have done the job well enough. We just need to be able to say that the reputation of D being better than it actually is has become a narrative I like to prevent for being fact. The O has been the problem outside of 2012. We need a more consistent O in 2015 or the D won't matter.

Btw, the Big East was 4-2 in bowl games after the 2010 season. The coaches in the Big East were pretty good that year too.

You can think that the SU D's reputation is hyped somewhat, but I don't think that at all. I'm not sure why that would cross anyone's mind at this point.

 

[Fjoinkay]

You must not have read my post earlier. 80 yards on one busted play. Do the math - subtract 80 from 369. That's not dominance. That's a missed assignment.

Go check the box score and subtract that play from their QB's total. Not a great day.

You're not really being honest. They did slow things down a bit - but they couldnt be sure we were not going to score every drive with the amount of yardage we were piling up.

I'm fighting you on this because of the same thing you've been fighting in this thread - a false narrative. We should have won that game.

I agree, and I think it was another factor in the change at OC.

 

[Alsacs]

You must not have read my post earlier. 80 yards on one busted play. Do the math - subtract 80 from 369. That's not dominance. That's a missed assignment.

Go check the box score and subtract that play from their QB's total. Not a great day.

You're not really being honest. They did slow things down a bit - but they couldnt be sure we were not going to score every drive with the amount of yardage we were piling up.

I'm fighting you on this because of the same thing you've been fighting in this thread - a false narrative. We should have won that game.

I wish you and I could argue this point in front of a neutral arbitrator and see how it would be ruled. I can't believe this take but then again I wish I could be as optimistic as you as it really is a good thing to be around. Your positive which is fine when I factor in reading your posts.

 

[TheCusian]

I wish you and I could argue this point in front of a neutral arbitrator and see how it would be ruled. I can't believe this take but then again I wish I could be as optimistic as you as it really is a good thing to be around. Your positive which is fine when I factor in reading your posts.

Thanks. I think .

That game ticked me off more than any other last year. It was right there. Just score one more TD. Clean up one coverage and keep your specials mistake free (punt block led to score, missed FG).

 

[upperdeck]

if you were sitting at the game i cant see how anyone could think maryland was torching the D. a backwards pass that goes 90 yds when it seemed like were in control. other than the 90 yd play they avg like 3 yds a play the first half. ND on the other hand controlled the game with the same play 20 times.

I would agree maryland had too much speed at 2 spots not much we can do about that except wonder why we never have the speed advantage over any team it ever seems.

had the offense not screwed up we win the game by 30. even in the 2nd half the offense put the game out of reach. i dont think maryland ran anything different in the 2nd half we just didnt put ourselves in as bad a spot to blow coverage.

 

[CuseOnly]

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.

SO the best metric is to compare our defensive stats when playing, FSU, Clemson and Louisville every year and then extrapolating that to we are between average and good?

 

[Chip]

if you were sitting at the game i cant see how anyone could think maryland was torching the D. a backwards pass that goes 90 yds when it seemed like were in control. other than the 90 yd play they avg like 3 yds a play the first half. ND on the other hand controlled the game with the same play 20 times. I would agree maryland had too much speed at 2 spots not much we can do about that except wonder why we never have the speed advantage over any team it ever seems. had the offense not screwed up we win the game by 30. even in the 2nd half the offense put the game out of reach. i dont think maryland ran anything different in the 2nd half we just didnt put ourselves in as bad a spot to blow coverage.

I love listening to people explain away that Maryland loss last year. Never gets old.

A Randy Edsall team would never sit on a 3 score lead. More offense, more more more. That's how Edsall plays it!

 

[reedny]

i think it is very debatable that trick plays = explosive plays

But you cited the article as an example of explosive plays, and it clearly says:

A fair number (maybe even a majority) of those 20+ yard plays with three players touching the ball were trick plays like this one.

 

[SWC75]

Sorry I said 7 instead of 9.

No problem the point is the same: to compete in modern football we've got to be able to score as few Syracuse teams have.

 

[SWC75]

I think Shafer's defensive record is very good considering the lack of help from the offense. His defenses have spent a lot of time on the field, in poor field position and with the score not in their favor. those things all matter. The defenses of good offensive teams are better rested, face fewer plays that start farther form their goal line and can take more chances to make big defensive plays.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

not sure if you saw this article, but in light of your post I think you might find it interesting.

http://grantland.com/features/hard-knocks-playing-defense-with-tcus-gary-patterson/

Patterson is very innovative. Personnel too. He will recruit HS RBs and make them DEs. He wants as many athletes on D as possible.

 

[Millhouse]

But you cited the article as an example of explosive plays, and it clearly says:

A fair number (maybe even a majority) of those 20+ yard plays with three players touching the ball were trick plays like this one.

i don't think it's a very good sample

again i just shared the link because i thought it was interesting, i was pretty

explosiveness isn't the only factor. turnovers do still matter. being explosive throwing the ball forward is much better than being explosive throwing the ball backward.

i think kevin kelly likes the attention and now that other people are catching on that punting sucks, he's looking for new ways to be different. i've been hollering about punting for over 15 years on the board, i'm not patting myself on the back for it, just pointing out that it doesn't begin and end with kevin kelly

i haven't seen good data about it - i suspect a lot of what's considered explosive are teams that need to go 80 yards tossing the ball around and gaining 30 as the game ends

there is no sample of teams that have multiple laterals in regular game situation. kelly might be right but it's a hypothesis at this point