What would people rather have: LSU or Bama like defense or Ore/Okie St like O?

[44PRIDE]

All you offense junkies...listen up. SU v. Penn State in Happy Valley. (Doug Marrone year 2)

Penn State 1st & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 2nd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 3rd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 4th & goal: Field Goal...

Tell me that defensive series didn't get you jacked up...

 

[Scooch]

All you offense junkies...listen up. SU v. Penn State in Happy Valley. (Doug Marrone year 2)

Penn State 1st & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 2nd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 3rd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 4th & goal: Field Goal...

Tell me that defensive series didn't get you jacked up...

HUH?

 

[kingottoiii]

absolutely - 1998 season was more fun than 2001 season even though SU had a better record in 2001 - it's great to win with great D and no O, but it's not exactly "fun" to watch for a full season

Not fair to compare the two. One we were preseason Top 15 with a Heisman candidate. We won the conference. The other we weren't ranked preseason.

IMO a strong D is less likely to have a What game that a strong O.

 

[Scooch]

Not fair to compare the two. One we were preseason Top 15 with a Heisman candidate. We won the conference. The other we weren't ranked preseason.

IMO a strong D is less likely to have a What game that a strong O.

At the same time, it's not like this is a complete hypothetical.

If I'm not mistaken, our D in '99, definitely in '00, was very highly ranked. And yet we went 13-10.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, you can win with a great O, great D, or some combination of the 2. But in terms of choice, I'd murder a drifter to see the SU equivalent of Oregon's offense under the teflon 6 times a fall.

 

[OrangeMojo]

Not fair to compare the two. One we were preseason Top 15 with a Heisman candidate. We won the conference. The other we weren't ranked preseason.

IMO a strong D is less likely to have a What game that a strong O.

how is that not fair to compare? given what you said the 2001 season should have been even more fun as it was not expected, and yet it wasn't

1998 was lead by a great award candidate offensive player, 2001 was lead by a great award candidate defensive player - 1998 they were preseason Top 15 and 2001 they were Top 15 in the final rankings (1998 I don't believe they ended up top 15) - an yet I'd take 98 over 01 every single time

IMO it's a wonderful comparison for this topic.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But in terms of choice, I'd murder a drifter to see the SU equivalent of Oregon's offense under the teflon 6 times a fall.

Just one?

 

[timkay99]

My comment on this thread is this, it doesn't matter how much you score, if you don't stop the opponents and still lose, you aren't going to get fans.

Imagine your a Washington fan. Would you have actually enjoyed watching Baylor put up 60+ on you?
Team has to win to get fans in the seats. Whichever way they do that will get fans in.

 

[Scooch]

My comment on this thread is this, it doesn't matter how much you score, if you don't stop the opponents and still lose, you aren't going to get fans.

Imagine your a Washington fan. Would you have actually enjoyed watching Baylor put up 60+ on you?
Team has to win to get fans in the seats. Whichever way they do that will get fans in.

If you can score like some of the teams we're discussing then you will win more than you lose. Do you think that if SU was annually in the top 20 for scoring/yardage and winning 8+ games a year we'd wouldn't be drawing better than we are now? Take a look at our attendance in the lates 90s, there's your answer.

Again, there's a big difference between trying to build a team that can win a BCS championship, and everything else.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

My comment on this thread is this, it doesn't matter how much you score, if you don't stop the opponents and still lose, you aren't going to get fans.

Team has to win to get fans in the seats. Whichever way they do that will get fans in.

All things being equal, I think if you're losing games 49-42 vs 16-13, you'll get more people to come to the higher scoring game.:noidea:

 

[dollarbill44]

Since we're comparing past SU teams, I'd take '87 over either '98 or '01. Very good defense, very good offense.

 

[kingottoiii]

how is that not fair to compare? given what you said the 2001 season should have been even more fun as it was not expected, and yet it wasn't

1998 was lead by a great award candidate offensive player, 2001 was lead by a great award candidate defensive player - 1998 they were preseason Top 15 and 2001 they were Top 15 in the final rankings (1998 I don't believe they ended up top 15) - an yet I'd take 98 over 01 every single time

IMO it's a wonderful comparison for this topic.

So you think this is the same?

Nearly beating NC Tenn, beating defending NC Michigan on the road, beating VT on the last play, blowing out Miami, winning the BE, playing in a BCS Bowl

vs

Starting the year 0-2, beating VT on the road, playing in the Insight

We could have won every game 14-10 in 98 and 49-24 in 2001 and 98 would have been more exciting.

 

[OttosBestFriend]

All things being equal, I think if you're losing games 49-42 vs 16-13, you'll get more people to come to the higher scoring game.:noidea:

Chicks dig the long ball.

 

[CusefanATL]

I would much rather have a fun offense.

I have thought about how boring it would be to be a butler or wisconsin fan over the last few weeks.

 

[CusefanATL]

All you offense junkies...listen up. SU v. Penn State in Happy Valley. (Doug Marrone year 2)

Penn State 1st & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 2nd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 3rd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 4th & goal: Field Goal...

Tell me that defensive series didn't get you jacked up...

That was year 1...

 

[44PRIDE]

All you offense junkies...listen up. SU v. Penn State in Happy Valley. (Doug Marrone year 2)

Penn State 1st & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 2nd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 3rd & goal: STUFFED
Penn State 4th & goal: Field Goal...

Tell me that defensive series didn't get you jacked up...

HUH?

In Doug's first visit to Happy Valley as a coach, Penn State was looking at a 1st and goal from the 2 yard line.

Our defense stuffed Penn State 3 times at the goal-line to force a field goal. To me, that defensive stand is what got me excited about the Marrone era.

I guess I was the only one...

 

[Millhouse]

My comment on this thread is this, it doesn't matter how much you score, if you don't stop the opponents and still lose, you aren't going to get fans.

Imagine your a Washington fan. Would you have actually enjoyed watching Baylor put up 60+ on you?
Team has to win to get fans in the seats. Whichever way they do that will get fans in.

no one enjoys losing but if you can keep up, it can be a somewhat fun memory later on.

washington is going to feel pretty good about their qb next year and chalk up that game to baylor being baylor. rgIII won the heisman for a reason

 

[omniorange]

For me the answer is simple. Which is more realistic for a private institution in the northeast that plays in a dome - an LSU/Alabama type defense or a Stanford/Oregon/OSU/Baylor type offense?

As Scooch has already pointed out, we aren't likely to win a BCS title any time soon, but we could win ACC championships and some Orange Bowls with a great offense.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

In Doug's first visit to Happy Valley as a coach, Penn State was looking at a 1st and goal from the 2 yard line.

Our defense stuffed Penn State 3 times at the goal-line to force a field goal. To me, that defensive stand is what got me excited about the Marrone era.

I guess I was the only one...

Ummm, PSU didn't kick a field goal in that game. They scored 4 TDs.

We lost 28-7.

 

[OttosBestFriend]

In Doug's first visit to Happy Valley as a coach, Penn State was looking at a 1st and goal from the 2 yard line.

Our defense stuffed Penn State 3 times at the goal-line to force a field goal. To me, that defensive stand is what got me excited about the Marrone era.

I guess I was the only one...

Wanna know how exciting it was?

I, and about 96% of the rest of us on here, totally forgot about that sequence.

Now, how many of us forgot the reverse for a TD by Kirby Dar Dar ran against Florida on the opening kickoff 20 years ago?

Answer: None.

 

[timkay99]

If you can score like some of the teams we're discussing then you will win more than you lose. Do you think that if SU was annually in the top 20 for scoring/yardage and winning 8+ games a year we'd wouldn't be drawing better than we are now? Take a look at our attendance in the lates 90s, there's your answer.

Again, there's a big difference between trying to build a team that can win a BCS championship, and everything else.

I will say that if you score more, early on fans will start coming. But, if the defense sucks and you lose games 49-42, fans are still going to stop showing up at some point.

I mean sure, if SU was in the top 20 for scoring/yardage and winning 8+ games a year, they would draw better. But, if Syracuse was winning 8+ games a year period, people will show up and the draw would be good.

I mean, Syracuse has had very few winning seasons recently. Success needs to be sustained. I honestly don't know if it matters how a team does it, but if they win, fans will come. No one has decided to not see a team because they don't win in the style they like (at least that I am aware of)

I am not sure if fans will tolerate a high scoring offense that doesn't win games. If a team is losing, they are losing. Fans don't want to see losing teams.

The only thing is the discussion on the board and amongst fans is about why the defense can't stop anybody as opposed to why the offense can't score.

 

[Scooch]

I will say that if you score more, early on fans will start coming. But, if the defense sucks and you lose games 49-42, fans are still going to stop showing up at some point...

I think we're just talking past each other.

You said it doesn't matter if you have an awesome offense and you lose, because the fans won't turn out. Well sure, I agree. Losing teams don't tend to draw. It's possible to have an awesome defense and lose too.

But what you suggested wasn't really addressing the question. You were presupposing that having an awesome offense and losing wouldn't draw. But the question was whether we wanted an awesome offense or an awesome defense. Either way can get you wins, no one should be debating that (e.g. LSU, Oklahoma State).

 

[44PRIDE]

Ummm, PSU didn't kick a field goal in that game. They scored 4 TDs.

We lost 28-7.

Hey man, cut me some slack. It was a cruddy day of post vacation catch-up at work today and I didn't have time to research properly.

In my mind's eye, we held them to a field goal dammit!

 

[Boston Tiger]

Or even a Stanford offense? Assuming the other side of the ball would be average for a BCS team.

Seeing all these bowl games, I'm loving the entertainment value of the offense and think it would do us wonders for getting butts in seats and recruiting, but there is something about a suffocating defense that just demoralizes opposing teams.

I love defenses that can take over the games and demoralize the opponent, because they can make a so-so offense look pretty good. LSU has had some pretty potent offenses in the past, but a defense like this one is much, much more satisfying. Special teams play is another thing that helps set this LSU team apart, since that's another way to grab the momentum in a game.

 

[ithacat]

Offense wins games...Defense wins championships

Give me defense every day

Not sure that's true anymore. It isn't true in the NFL. Without a real playoff in D1 we can't be certain if it's true there anymore.

 

[syr02esq]

Or even a Stanford offense? Assuming the other side of the ball would be average for a BCS team.

Seeing all these bowl games, I'm loving the entertainment value of the offense and think it would do us wonders for getting butts in seats and recruiting, but there is something about a suffocating defense that just demoralizes opposing teams.

How about a Baylor offense?