Some Random Nuggets

[OrangePA]

yardage rankings

all games
offense 90
defense 64

conf games
offense 84
defense 43
what you saw or didn't see doesn't matter.

generally yards tell the story in college over enough games

pros is different, green bay gives up more than they gain. they're probably not as good as their record. New England and GB are the 2 worst defenses in the league in ypg. maybe it's because of the cap, can't be good at both?

I just took a look at the 2011 defensive rankings because you maintain that that decides the value of a unit.

The following teams have defenses that are worse than the SU defense based upon the final NCAA Rankings: (1) K-State; (2) Northwestern; (3) Texas A&M; (4) Auburn; (5) Oregon State; (6) Arizona State; (7) Washington; (8) Texas Tech; (9) Oklahoma State and (10) Purdue

Just to name a few.

I suspect that week to week those teams faced far better offenses than we did this year.

I don't think that those rankings mean all that much or at the very least can be misleading.

I don't think it's a cooincidence that two defensive coaches are not being retained.

And, once again, I think most SU Football fans tend to criticize the offense regardless. I suspect that is because we lay folks think we know more about offense than defense.

Okay, Millhouse, it's your turn. Tell me how ignorant I am.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

And, once again, I think most SU Football fans tend to criticize the offense regardless. I suspect that is because we lay folks think we know more about offense than defense.

I think there's another part to this - most fans criticize the offense because poor play on defense can be forgiven much more easily. Poor performance on offense is difficult to forgive.

 

[OrangePA]

I don't take any issue with you feeling that you're right.

And I know what I saw against UConn during the second half, and against Louisville, Cincinnati, USF and Tulane - a defense that could not tackle and could not defend either the run or the pass.

I also understand that we had a large number of young players, having lost Tribbey, Lewis, Holmes, Suter, Merkerson, Hogue, Smith, and others on that side of the ball.

I am also very optimistic that next year the young defense will show vast improvement.

 

[OrangePA]

Wake Forest, Tulane, and Toldeo, yes, maybe

Rhode Island. The offense was TERRIBLE.
USC. The offense was TERRIBLE (except for the 1st drive and the trick play)
Rutgers. The offense was TERRIBLE.

WVU, both sides were great.

In what world did they carry the D for 7 games.

The offense gave us the lead at UConn and the defense could not hold it in the second half.

The Huskies ran the ball down our throat and scored on every second half possession.

Cincy and Louisville pretty much moved the ball at will.

Tulane moved the ball at will.

 

[djcon57]

The offense gave us the lead at UConn and the defense could not hold it in the second half.

The Huskies ran the ball down our throat and scored on every second half possession.

Cincy and Louisville pretty much moved the ball at will.

Tulane moved the ball at will.

I was responding to the comment that the offense CARRIED THE TEAM in the first 7 games. What are you responding to? Did we play UConn, Cincy, and LVille in the first 7 games?

 

[Chip]

The offense gave us the lead at UConn and the defense could not hold it in the second half.

The Huskies ran the ball down our throat and scored on every second half possession.

Cincy and Louisville pretty much moved the ball at will.

Tulane moved the ball at will.

Louisville is a tough one to put on the D. Were they good? No, not good. But in the end, only gave up 343 yards and 27 points. That backbreaking run play which kind of spiraled into us being the worst option run stopping team in the country was a defining play. But in that Louisville game, the offense literally did nothing. 4 TDs wins that game. Maybe that's a stretch, but not usually in college football. Offense had 3 points until a garbage time TD drive. Only 185 yards until that garbage time TD drive brought us all the way to 246.

Tulane had a passing field day. UConn had a QB spread option field day in the 2nd half, Cincy had a screen pass field day. All those teams certainly took advantage of a defense that didn't play well. What's interesting, and potentially troubling, is how they all attacked, and destroyed us, in different ways.

 

[SeeMore Glass]

Really, what difference does it make? The offense couldn't score at crucial points of the game and the defense couldn't get a stop at crucial points of the game. Combine this with laughably incompetent special teams play and you get the total collapse that constituted the second half of the season...If Marrone is engaged in reflective self-analysis, he will address the coaching deficiencies on offense in much the same way as presumably he is in the process of doing on defense. Unfortunately, the hiring of assistant coaches does not appear to have received a great deal of attention in THE NOTEBOOK.

I just took a look at the 2011 defensive rankings because you maintain that that decides the value of a unit.

The following teams have defenses that are worse than the SU defense based upon the final NCAA Rankings: (1) K-State; (2) Northwestern; (3) Texas A&M; (4) Auburn; (5) Oregon State; (6) Arizona State; (7) Washington; (8) Texas Tech; (9) Oklahoma State and (10) Purdue

Just to name a few.

I suspect that week to week those teams faced far better offenses than we did this year.

I don't think that those rankings mean all that much or at the very least can be misleading.

I don't think it's a cooincidence that two defensive coaches are not being retained.

And, once again, I think most SU Football fans tend to criticize the offense regardless. I suspect that is because we lay folks think we know more about offense than defense.

Okay, Millhouse, it's your turn. Tell me how ignorant I am.

 

[kingottoiii]

I was responding to the comment that the offense CARRIED THE TEAM in the first 7 games. What are you responding to? Did we play UConn, Cincy, and LVille in the first 7 games?

The O performed well against Wake, USC, Toledo, Tulane, and WV. We won four of those games. The RI game the O was good the first half. Then the 2nd half we were dead set on getting our running game going. The RU game the O sucked ass. So one unacceptable performance out of 7 games, 5 of which we won, is a good job. The D was good against RU and WV. The Wake, Toledo, and Tulane games we won despite our D.

 

[djcon57]

So one unacceptable performance out of 7 games, 5 of which we won, is a good job. The D was good against RU and WV. The Wake, Toledo, and Tulane games we won despite our D.

"The O fell apart and was pathetic the last 5 games. The first 7 they carried the D."

Which is it?

 

[kingottoiii]

"The O fell apart and was pathetic the last 5 games. The first 7 they carried the D."

Which is it?

Say what? The first 7 games are not the last 5. What is your point? The first 7 games the O was the reason we won 5 of those games. The O was a big part of why we lost the last 5. The D consistently stunk all year outside of a few outliers. The O won us games this year on their own. The D did not.

 

[Pyle]

As for the Kinder comments, it was supposed to be assumed we were running a different offense. You have to believe that Nassib and Loeb would not be the front runners in an option style attack. The fact is DM and Hackett wanted their pro style and that means pocket QBs like Nassib and Loeb. Problem is they aren't good enough to run it. Hence the reason why I suggested a different offense might have been in order to utilize talents available. I wholeheartedly admit that perhaps we could have been worse. Maybe the other guys CANT run that attack. I was simply stating an opinion that the scheme and personnel we used didn't work. 84th in the country kind of supports that.

 

[rrlbees]

As for the Kinder comments, it was supposed to be assumed we were running a different offense. You have to believe that Nassib and Loeb would not be the front runners in an option style attack. The fact is DM and Hackett wanted their pro style and that means pocket QBs like Nassib and Loeb. Problem is they aren't good enough to run it. Hence the reason why I suggested a different offense might have been in order to utilize talents available. I wholeheartedly admit that perhaps we could have been worse. Maybe the other guys CANT run that attack. I was simply stating an opinion that the scheme and personnel we used didn't work. 84th in the country kind of supports that.

they aren't ever going to run the option offense. and just because 1 qb has better or quicker feet doesn't mean they can run the option offense either and it doesn't mean we have other players that can execute an option offense such as an ol.

 

[44PRIDE]

 

[OrangeMaNPD]

So...does anyone know if the OP's friend is still a manager on the team?

 

[SUFan44]

You are probably right. My analysis is subjective. I admit that. I go by what I see.

But, I believe that I'm right on this issue.

You're absolutely wrong in this case, and I'll tell you why.

You say different teams play different opponents throughout the nation. That is true.

However, within a conference each team plays the same opponents, no? Is this not true?

So let's take a look at the conference-only stats.

Syracuse is dead last in scoring offense in the BIG EAST. They averaged 20.9 points per game, a full two points below any other team.

Syracuse's defense, however, ranked fifth in scoring defense, allowing 28.1 ppg.

Total offense ranked fifth, total defense ranked fifth. Wash. And much better than I expected, to be honest.

Both sides had issues, but for Syracuse to be dead last in scoring offense in conference games, I would think, to a logical person, would make them believe the offense was ABSOLUTELY the problem this year.

A few other tidbits: We need a punt returner/punt return team. Our punt return average was 1.2 ypr. We have four (FOUR!) punt returns in seven BIG EAST games. Either punters on opposing teams are getting off ridiculous punts, or we suck at punt returns. I'm guessing it's the latter.

Also, our punting was last in the league at 33.9 ypp. Pretty poor, and it shows we had a freshman punter and I believe we also need a special teams coach.

For as bad as people like to rip the offensive line, we were fourth in the conference in sacks allowed.

We were also dead last in penalty yardage. Young team, or poor discipline? You be the judge.

Final thing -- our offense in the red zone was seventh out of eight teams. Needs to be better. I truly believe that once you get inside the 20, play calling becomes a huge component in success. Hackett needs to get better at this.

 

[GoSU96]

Just so I'm clear, because I really like to make sure I totally understand the current talking points... Did the job of the staff get "easier" because this board, and the fan base in general, was almost universally optimistic from December 29th, 2010 through mid-October 2011? But the griping that has occured after a 5 game season-wrecking losing streak has ruined that? So in other words, the program does better when we're winning, as opposed to losing? Hmmmm, I did not see that coming.

Sorry, I'll be more sincere... I think you're a lapdog for the staff. "Harder"? We have a toothless media that hasn't said boo about Marrone's job security. But we have like a half-dozen consistently negative posters on a site read by, at best, a few thousand people a month, and their job is "harder" because of it?

I'll say it again, if this program can't overcome the critical posts of IB and kcsu then we're totally ****-ed. That's weak.

Yep, the negativity on this board has only popped up since the last 5 games.

Where the hell have you been?

It's not me saying it's making their job harder.

 

[Pyle]

 

[Scooch]

Yep, the negativity on this board has only popped up since the last 5 games.

Where the hell have you been?

It's not me saying it's making their job harder.

You didn't address my question. Was the staff's job easier when this board was generally positive for 8 months?

Didn't we just land our biggest recruiting gets since all this negativity overwhelmed the program?

Again, this fan base is pretty damn meek compared to most BCS level programs. But you know this. You know that bIg time fan bases boo the ever loving crap out of underperforming QBs. You know that media in big time program's markets will spend hours upon hours shredding head coaches.

Coaches think everything makes everything harder. I have no doubt that coaches would prefer to play in empty stadiums with no media coverage whatsoever. Everything is a burden to those guys, it's remarkable really. For such big tough guys they really whine a lot.

The ultimate question is whether the tone of this board makes it harder for us than it is for other programs? I can't possibly imagine that's the case, but then I don't expect people to ever have perspective or place things in context.

 

[kingottoiii]

Yep, the negativity on this board has only popped up since the last 5 games.

Where the hell have you been?

It's not me saying it's making their job harder.

Marrone should be worried about figuring out how to coach at this level, not about an internet forum. SU hasn't had a Top 75 O in ages. SU has had one winning season in the last 10 years. If Marrone has internet posters on his mind then he is in way over his head and should resign before he hurts the program. His antics this year have been totally unacceptable.

 

[CiceroSwamp]

RUTGERS

 

[rrlbees]

You're absolutely wrong in this case, and I'll tell you why.

You say different teams play different opponents throughout the nation. That is true.

However, within a conference each team plays the same opponents, no? Is this not true?

So let's take a look at the conference-only stats.

Syracuse is dead last in scoring offense in the BIG EAST. They averaged 20.9 points per game, a full two points below any other team.

Syracuse's defense, however, ranked fifth in scoring defense, allowing 28.1 ppg.

Total offense ranked fifth, total defense ranked fifth. Wash. And much better than I expected, to be honest.

Both sides had issues, but for Syracuse to be dead last in scoring offense in conference games, I would think, to a logical person, would make them believe the offense was ABSOLUTELY the problem this year.

A few other tidbits: We need a punt returner/punt return team. Our punt return average was 1.2 ypr. We have four (FOUR!) punt returns in seven BIG EAST games. Either punters on opposing teams are getting off ridiculous punts, or we suck at punt returns. I'm guessing it's the latter.

Also, our punting was last in the league at 33.9 ypp. Pretty poor, and it shows we had a freshman punter and I believe we also need a special teams coach.

For as bad as people like to rip the offensive line, we were fourth in the conference in sacks allowed.

We were also dead last in penalty yardage. Young team, or poor discipline? You be the judge.

Final thing -- our offense in the red zone was seventh out of eight teams. Needs to be better. I truly believe that once you get inside the 20, play calling becomes a huge component in success. Hackett needs to get better at this.

It's not as simple as looking at points scored just as it isn't as simple as looking at any one or two stats. Look at the whole package of stats and you'll see that the offense was not near as bad as you think. Moqui, I think, put it best when he said the O outperformed the D in the first 7 games which led to the 5-2 record while they both sheet the bed in the last 5. But ponder some of these stats and points related to the offense.

- The O was 5th in BE offense
- We got in the red zone the 2nd most times yet were last in conversions (red zone is very much play calling)
- We were horrible in PR and so so in KR compared to the other teams, thus giving us longer fields. Hurts PPG opps.
- We were 4th in rushing off, 5th in passing and 5th overall.
- 4th in passing efficiency
- 4th in 1st downs
- 1st in 3rd down conversions
- 5th in time of possession

but we were
- last in penalties

Bottom line is, the O was better in almost all those stats than our D. Some of those things impact scoring that aren't just the O's problem. We had longer fields, we would drive the ball then shut down in the red zone, we would kill ourselves with penalties (yes that is part of the offense, but still hurts ppg).

The offense was middle of the road average compared against our BE opponents whereas the defense was no better and in many cases worse. We would see a huge increase in the one stat of PPG if we were more efficient inside the 20, had less penalties, and had better special teams so that we had comparable field position to our opponents. Also, don't forget we had more All BE performers on offense than any BE team.

There is no clear cut answer but IMO, the offense was average, the defense below average and the specials well below average. I also put 2 things directly on the coaching and that is red zone and penalties.

 

[Scooch]

Great post, Bees.

To me it's a matter of expectations and judging each unit against them. Consensus was that the D would be worse than the past 2 seasons, and that we couldn't play the same style of ball to eek out low scoring, close wins as we had. The O seemingly would be better, with an experienced QB, improving OL, and decent enough skill guys.

So while the O wasn't GRobian bad, it wasn't nearly good enough to compensate for an expected defensive deficiency. And personally I'm pretty disappointed that our O was as blah as it was given that our HC has an offensive pedigree and was in yearr 3 of implementing his system. I don't expect Oregon, but I expect more than what we got.

I don't care about assessing blame, because all 3 units were complicit, but in terms of expectations I was most disappointed with the O.

Actually, scratch that, most disappointing was the ST. That was an absolute embarassment, amd probably is what has me most concerned about the competence of this staff.

 

[Millhouse]

It's not as simple as looking at points scored just as it isn't as simple as looking at any one or two stats. Look at the whole package of stats and you'll see that the offense was not near as bad as you think. Moqui, I think, put it best when he said the O outperformed the D in the first 7 games which led to the 5-2 record while they both sheet the bed in the last 5. But ponder some of these stats and points related to the offense.

- The O was 5th in BE offense
- We got in the red zone the 2nd most times yet were last in conversions (red zone is very much play calling)
- We were horrible in PR and so so in KR compared to the other teams, thus giving us longer fields. Hurts PPG opps.
- We were 4th in rushing off, 5th in passing and 5th overall.
- 4th in passing efficiency
- 4th in 1st downs
- 1st in 3rd down conversions
- 5th in time of possession

but we were
- last in penalties

Bottom line is, the O was better in almost all those stats than our opponents (def). Some of those things impact scoring that aren't just the O's problem. We had longer fields, we would drive the ball then shut down in the red zone, we would kill ourselves with penalties (yes that is part of the offense, but still hurts ppg).

The offense was middle of the road average compared against our BE opponents whereas the defense was no better and in many cases worse. We would see a huge increase in the one stat of PPG if we were more efficient inside the 20, had less penalties, and had better special teams so that we had comparable field position to our opponents. Also, don't forget we had more All BE performers on offense than any BE team.

There is no clear cut answer but IMO, the offense was average, the defense below average and the specials well below average. I also put 2 things directly on the coaching and that is red zone and penalties.

long fields hurt the offensive yardage and short fields hurt the offensive yardage.

yards yards yards. who gives a crap about every piddly stat. if we're good at the stats you cherry pick, we must suck at the other stats you don't cherry pick in order for yards to be so lousy.

in conference we gained 353 (84th) and gave up 365 (43rd rank)

a defense that gives up 365 ypg is better than an offense that gains 353.

"would you take it?" is a good way to look at this stuff.

going into the year, who wouldn't have taken a 365 ypg defense in conference? (well, i guess there were some people who thought we could stay a top 10 d...)

who would've taken 353 ypg from the offense

 

[Chip]

[quote="rrlbees, post: 133734 Moqui, I think, put it best when he said the O outperformed the D in the first 7 games which led to the 5-2 record while they both sheet the bed in the last 5.
[/quote]

Poor KingOtto, he gets no respect. Now he's being confused with a poster who primarily posts on the hoops board.

 

[rrlbees]

Great post, Bees.

To me it's a matter of expectations and judging each unit against them. Consensus was that the D would be worse than the past 2 seasons, and that we couldn't play the same style of ball to eek out low scoring, close wins as we had. The O seemingly would be better, with an experienced QB, improving OL, and decent enough skill guys.

So while the O wasn't GRobian bad, it wasn't nearly good enough to compensate for an expected defensive deficiency. And personally I'm pretty disappointed that our O was as blah as it was given that our HC has an offensive pedigree and was in yearr 3 of implementing his system. I don't expect Oregon, but I expect more than what we got.

I don't care about assessing blame, because all 3 units were complicit, but in terms of expectations I was most disappointed with the O.

Actually, scratch that, most disappointing was the ST. That was an absolute embarassment, amd probably is what has me most concerned about the competence of this staff.

Agree as far as expectations. I expected more from the offense and knew the defense would be down. But again, was the O hamstrung by some things like longer fields and curious red zone play calling. I didn't think they would be #1 in the BE, but I guess I did think they would be a bit better than middle of the road. My expectations that weren't met on offense were mainly the OL and the WR's behind Lemon as well as I don't understand the inability of Nassib to be more accurate deep. The ST were a huge disappointment especially in the coverage teams and returns. It was also disappointing that when Krautman was hurt we had nobody that could kick off at all and he had to do it hurt. Just a season of disappointment and missed opportunities. I still content that the rutgers game was the killer even though we bounced back to beat WVU. I want that 4th down at the 6 inch line back.