Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SWC75, post: 3569, member: 289"] Here are the defensive numbers for the same years I posted for the offense above, including turnover margin: YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Rush 116.7 (28) 135.8 (42) 170.2 (73) 171.9 (85) 138.1 (42) Pass 106.2 (18) 100.1 (14) 108.7 (28) 303.8 (117) 222.1 (62) Total 301.2 (14) 311.9 (18) 359.2 (46) 475.7 (113) 360.3 (47) Scoring 22.1 (36) 19.3 (23) 20.3 (26) 33.8 (98) 25.0 (57) Turnovers[I] [/I]-7 (97) -6 (87) +15 (7) +2 (49) +7 (20) YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Rush 186.6 (86) 187.3 (97) 185.1 (110) 207.8 (108) 189.4 (101) Pass 240.1 (90) 185.4 (21) 214.2 (76) 260.9 (102) 225.1 (83) Total 426.8 (100) 372.7 (57) 399.3 (107) 468.7 (111) 414.5 (101) Scoring 28.6 (76) 26.8 (67) 24.6 (72) 4.8 (104) 32.7 (101) Turnovers[I] [/I]+2 (51) -4 (82) +11 (7) -6 (96) -1 (67) YEAR 2009 2010 Rush 101.80 (13) 136.2 (41) Pass 235.2 (85) 165.3 (7) Total 337.0 (37) 301.5 (7) Scoring 27.9 (81) 19.3 (17) Turnovers[I] [/I]-6 (97) -4 (75) The 2000 team outgained the opposition by an average of 66 yards per game and went 6-5. The 2001 team was outgained by 30 yards per game and went 10-3. Why? Because with a healthy Dwight Freeney, we went from -6 in turnover margin to +15. That, along with the problems stopping a power running game is one of two complaints, (the only two) about Scott Shafer’s defense. For all their aggressiveness, they haven’t generated a lot of turnovers. We are -6 and -4 the last two years. With a limited offense, not creating turnovers is a serious deficiency. Since aggression normally does produce turnovers, I think this is an anomaly. We are due for a big year in this regard and with a veteran offense, we should have a + turnover margin, maybe not +15 but it should be good. The defense isn’t going to fall apart, despite the graduation losses and injuries. At times they will look very impressive. But I don’t think they can be relied upon to carry the team, as they did last year. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?