We might just have a heck of a D

[kcsu]

Taking a look at the staff headed up by DC Ward i think that we might just have a really solid D. Ward seems to have had excellent success at each of his jobs. The results that he got at BG are exceptional. I know that our emphasis has been on the O as it should be but im also encouraged by the potential on the other side of the ball.

 

[Pyle]

Taking a look at the staff headed up by DC Ward i think that we might just have a really solid D. Ward seems to have had excellent success at each of his jobs. The results that he got at BG are exceptional. I know that our emphasis has been on the O as it should be but im also encouraged by the potential on the other side of the ball.

I'm confused, excellent at BG? They had the 86th ranked defense last year. How is that excellent? They gave up more TDs than we did.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

That is asking too much. I think we will get better as the year goes on but asking kids to play in a new system and be good right away isn't realistic. The secondary should be fine. Plenty returns there. Same for the DTs. But the DEs will be an issue. LBs will be interesting to see. Franklin regressed quite a bit last year. Also will he stay at MLB? Hodge has had 2 bad seasons in a row. It will be interesting to see if he keeps his job.

 

[JrodCuse]

I'm confused, excellent at BG? They had the 86th ranked defense last year. How is that excellent? They gave up more TDs than we did.

They had an explosive offense. Their D was on the field longer because of how quickly they could score. Plus teams were playing from behind a lot, hence you give up a few more TDs. I think we were ranked in the 90s last year despite trying to play a slow it down grind it out game? They play fast and up tempo and have a better D? Plus they lost iirc about 8 or 9 starters from the previous year?

 

[PAcuse]

I'm confused, excellent at BG? They had the 86th ranked defense last year. How is that excellent? They gave up more TDs than we did.

Bowling Green also played two more games and 237 more plays then we did...

 

[Pyle]

They had an explosive offense. Their D was on the field longer because of how quickly they could score. Plus teams were playing from behind a lot, hence you give up a few more TDs. I think we were ranked in the 90s last year despite trying to play a slow it down grind it out game? They play fast and up tempo and have a better D? Plus they lost iirc about 8 or 9 starters from the previous year?

But our D was bad because we had no offense. So basically what you are saying is that if you have a bad offense then you'll have bad defense because D is on the field too long, but if you have a great offense, you'll have a bad defense because the D will be on the field too long? So the only way to have a good defense is to have a mediocre offense? That's what it sounds like you're saying. I can tell you Clemson had both a great offense and great defense so I'm not sure I buy that theory.

 

[PhatOrange]

They had an explosive offense. Their D was on the field longer because of how quickly they could score. Plus teams were playing from behind a lot, hence you give up a few more TDs. I think we were ranked in the 90s last year despite trying to play a slow it down grind it out game? They play fast and up tempo and have a better D? Plus they lost iirc about 8 or 9 starters from the previous year?

that's some serious spin.

 

[TheCusian]

I'm confused, excellent at BG? They had the 86th ranked defense last year. How is that excellent? They gave up more TDs than we did.

I'd throw out national rankings as they don't take plays per game into account.

For example:

Bowling Green, total D: #86
Syracuse, total D: #99
*Baylor, total D: #61
*BC, total D: #1

Bowling Green, yards per play: #50 at 5.40, 1040 plays

Syracuse, yards per play: #106 at 6.21, 847 plays

Baylor, yards per play: #37 at 5.19, 994 plays

BC, yards per play: #1 at 4.07, 750 plays

The Tampa 2 is perfect for this offense in that it's really difficult for college QB's to throw against. Babers believes that teams will be throwing because they will be down a score or three . It will create a ton of INT's:

Bowling Green, INT: #8 at 1.69 per game

Syracuse, INT: #71 at .92 per game

Baylor, INT: #33 at 1.08 per game (played more games than BC)

BC, INT: #42 at 1.08 per game

(Side note: they gave up more TD's, but we gave up more points)

And finally, just for fun - let's look at offense

Bowling Green, yards per play: #15 at 6.74
Syracuse, yards per play: #102 at 5.11
Baylor, yards per play: #2 at 7.26
BC, yards per play: #124 at 4.40

 

[TheCusian]

that's some serious spin.

Not spin, stats bear it out.

 

[Pyle]

I'd throw out national rankings as they don't take plays per game into account.

For example:

Bowling Green, total D: #86
Syracuse, total D: #99
*Baylor, total D: #61
*BC, total D: #1

Bowling Green, yards per play: #50 at 5.40, 1040 plays

Syracuse, yards per play: #106 at 6.21, 847 plays

Baylor, yards per play: #37 at 5.19, 994 plays

BC, yards per play: #1 at 4.07, 750 plays

The Tampa 2 is perfect for this offense in that it's really difficult for college QB's to throw against. Babers believes that teams will be throwing because they will be down a score or three . It will create a ton of INT's:

Bowling Green, INT: #8 at 1.69 per game

Syracuse, INT: #71 at .92 per game

Baylor, INT: #33 at 1.08 per game (played more games than BC)

BC, INT: #42 at 1.08 per game

(Side note: they gave up more TD's, but we gave up more points)

And finally, just for fun - let's look at offense

Bowling Green, yards per play: #15 at 6.74
Syracuse, yards per play: #102 at 5.11
Baylor, yards per play: #2 at 7.26
BC, yards per play: #124 at 4.40

Nice analysis, thanks.

 

[GoCuse08]

Bowling Green also played two more games and 237 more plays then we did...

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

 

[upperdeck]

two other spins, the talent at SU on D is better than BG so his D may be better, of course the talent on Off in the ACC is better too. I think the youth on D hurt us more than anything talent wise.. just too many blown assignments. simpler scheme and more experience could really show this year if the dline holds up.

 

[kcsu]

I'm confused, excellent at BG? They had the 86th ranked defense last year. How is that excellent? They gave up more TDs than we did.

Yes but that was up from 116 the year before and i believe they had to start about 5 walk ons. In addition they were one of the leading teams in take aways. Prior to that he had E Ill ranked in the top 20 in the country again with a bunch of take aways. The point is that Ward is a proven DC not a position coach who is making a huge jump like we did with Shaf and McDonald. I feel confident that we will not revert on D and might just make a nice improvement.

 

[BlazeOrange]

But our D was bad because we had no offense. So basically what you are saying is that if you have a bad offense then you'll have bad defense because D is on the field too long, but if you have a great offense, you'll have a bad defense because the D will be on the field too long? So the only way to have a good defense is to have a mediocre offense? That's what it sounds like you're saying. I can tell you Clemson had both a great offense and great defense so I'm not sure I buy that theory.

Good offense/Bad Defense ---> We're on the field more because opponents will get more possessions after we score. They will also tend to be trailing and taking more chances. Some will hit and affect our stats, but it also creates opportunities for the D.

Bad offense/Bad Defense ---> We're on the field more because opponents will get more possessions after we go 3 and out. They will also tend to be leading and trying to run clock, which limits opportunities for the D and tires them even more if they can't stop long drives.

It's not 100% one way or the other as either scenario can give up a big play and meathead teams will employ a clock control game plan against a high tempo offense. But that gameplan goes out the window once they fall behind, forcing them to run plays that they didn't feature heavily in practice. It would also be interesting to see some time per series stats, as I suspect the D with an explosive offense still gets longer breaks than one that is mostly going 3 and out. That little bit of recovery time can make a big difference with athletes at this level.

 

[SoBristol]

That is asking too much. I think we will get better as the year goes on but asking kids to play in a new system and be good right away isn't realistic. The secondary should be fine. Plenty returns there. Same for the DTs. But the DEs will be an issue. LBs will be interesting to see. Franklin regressed quite a bit last year. Also will he stay at MLB? Hodge has had 2 bad seasons in a row. It will be interesting to see if he keeps his job.

Yes, there are challenges with that defense. It should be better, simply because there are 8 returning starters, compared to only 3 in 2015.
That said, I am not sure what you mean by "fine" in assessing our secondary. The new staff will start with the #14 ranked secondary in the league. Many rivals will have a returning DB (or two) who was at least honorable mention in all league voting -- we have no one who was in that conversation. New coach Monroe will need to try a lot of combinations to improve this group.

 

[tep624]

Two big problems for our Defense to be really strong this year:

1) Lack of personnel in the secondary - yes we added some new recruits in the '16 class but none stand out as immediate difference makers, I think they all could use a redshirt year

2) The DE situation - we added some strong recruits in the '16 class that appear physically ready to me to contribute, but we still have an extremely inexperienced depth chart and not a very deep one at that. Yes we can move some players around from DT to DE and yes we have some serious athletes at DT, but it's still a major ? as it stands right now.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Yes, there are challenges with that defense. It should be better, simply because there are 8 returning starters, compared to only 3 in 2015.
That said, I am not sure what you mean by "fine" in assessing our secondary. The new staff will start with the #14 ranked secondary in the league. Many rivals will have a returning DB (or two) who was at least honorable mention in all league voting -- we have no one who was in that conversation. New coach Monroe will need to try a lot of combinations to improve this group.

IMO we have talent in the secondary. The reason they were ranked so poorly was a mixture of youth, scheme, and Whigham. I like what we have seen from Hudson, Dowels, Winfield, Ellison, Cordy, Whitner. I think we will be fine with those guys. Obviously they need to show it on the field. I am more worried about DE and LB, but it is just my opinion. Also IMO Shafer's system asked too much from the secondary. For college CBs Lyn, Anderson, Reddish were a pretty solid group of guys and we still couldn't stop anyone. I think this scheme will be better for our players.

 

[money3189]

Our defense will be fine. Ward is a very sharp coach. Tampa 2 is just scratching the service when describing his defense. He has lots of variations and adjustments based on how the offense is trying to attack him.

 

[OrangePA]

But our D was bad because we had no offense. So basically what you are saying is that if you have a bad offense then you'll have bad defense because D is on the field too long, but if you have a great offense, you'll have a bad defense because the D will be on the field too long? So the only way to have a good defense is to have a mediocre offense? That's what it sounds like you're saying. I can tell you Clemson had both a great offense and great defense so I'm not sure I buy that theory.

Our defense was bad because it was bad.

We couldn't tackle or get off the field on third down.

The offense was actually fairly productive - at time Dungey, Frederick, Ishmail, Phillips and others were pretty darn explosive.

The long drives that UVA and Pitt used to beat us were all on our defense - not our offense.

 

[Ish88888]

While I am all in on Dino and company m Shafer had a great attacking style ( minus last season) i enjoyed watching a Scott Shafer defense. The Tampa 2 is rare in the college game and is bend but don't break. We need big and talented safeties and defensive lineman that can penetrate and cause problems. The backers have to be good in space. Think the Sapp and John Lynch Bucs defenses. Just worry about this approach in the ACC.

 

[TheCusian]

Our defense was bad because it was bad. We couldn't tackle or get off the field on third down. The offense was actually fairly productive - at time Dungey, Frederick, Ishmail, Phillips and others were pretty darn explosive. The long drives that UVA and Pitt used to beat us were all on our defense - not our offense.

There was promise on offense - and that combined with Baber's system is why I'm amped for the season. But the stats paint a pretty clear picture on both sides of the ball and it was ungood.

 

[OburgCuse]

Our defense will be fine. Ward is a very sharp coach. Tampa 2 is just scratching the service when describing his defense. He has lots of variations and adjustments based on how the offense is trying to attack him.

Except for that damn triple option

 

[money3189]

two other spins, the talent at SU on D is better than BG so his D may be better, of course the talent on Off in the ACC is better too. I think the youth on D hurt us more than anything talent wise.. just too many blown assignments. simpler scheme and more experience could really show this year if the dline holds up.

Your absolutely right. The talent on SU defense is way better. I dont know what games other people where watching. I didnt see many good players on BG's defense and it wasnt from bad coaching. Just 1 or 2 decent players to be honest, and guess what. The MLB was a walk on QB. They turned that kid into a 1st team all Mac player as a sophomore. Their next decent player was a CB. He was a walk on too. Besides them, they had no players, just 1 all league player on a defense that won the Mac. I think its amazing their not last in national rankings.

 

[bnoro]

Our defense was bad because it was bad.

We couldn't tackle or get off the field on third down.

The offense was actually fairly productive - at time Dungey, Frederick, Ishmail, Phillips and others were pretty darn explosive.

The long drives that UVA and Pitt used to beat us were all on our defense - not our offense.

Our offense couldn't stay on the field on third down.

If they didn't complete a miracle throw to Ish down the field, get a long run from Fredericks, or get a 15 yard penalty we were three and out.

We barely had 350 yards of offense against UVA and Pitt, so you could argue that our offense also lost us those games.

 

[kcsu]

our blitz heavy D placed way too much pressure on the secondary. We simply lacked the personal to play shafer ball and the coaches didnt have an alternative