Would you rather... Solid D or a solid O?

[SoBristol]

NO, IT DOES NOT.

That's exactly what we've been trying for the past 15 years. Hasn't been much winning over that stretch.

I don't think that is fair. We tried to open it up with Paulus in 2009 with Spence's offense; McDonald was trying the spread and bubble screens much of last year (before Lester modified the play-calling in November) and then again this season until the change.

The winning (I know it was only 8 wins) came from a better defense in 2010 and again in 2012 (combined in that year with a more versatile no huddle offense). The foundation of the offense was running the ball. We edged into a bowl last season primarily on a run-first offense, with Hunt's running making a difference. It wasn't pretty, I know.

I get the dream of a high-octane offense. And that would be fine, if we ever get the QB and fleet WRs to make it work.

 

[SWC75]

Maybe we need to define "solid". To me that means it gives you a chance to win but isn't a dominant facotr in the game.

I'll take high-octane offense with a mediocre defense over a tough defense with a mediocre offense.

I'll take an above average defense with a poor offense over an above average offense with a lousy defense.

We could do this all day. It would be incorrect to assume any of us are satisfied with any of the "options".

I'll take winning over losing, no matter how we did it.

 

[Pat Kelly]

Respect from who? Not from enough of our own fan base. That's really who we need. Fill the stadium, better recruits will come.

Not the Stadium's fault we can't get good recruits… that's down to coaching.

 

[Chip]

Not the Stadium's fault we can't get good recruits… that's down to coaching.

We can debate that for years, and cycle through coaches for years.

But if we continue to play our games in front of half empty crowds, then we'll end up with the type of recruits that a half empty stadium gets.

 

[Pat Kelly]

We can debate that for years, and cycle through coaches for years.

But if we continue to play our games in front of half empty crowds, then we'll end up with the type of recruits that a half empty stadium gets.

If Boston College can win eight straight bowl games playing at Alumni, no reason we can't do the same.

 

[Rocco]

We can debate that for years, and cycle through coaches for years.

But if we continue to play our games in front of half empty crowds, then we'll end up with the type of recruits that a half empty stadium gets.

The more I think about it, the more having an exciting offense with shootout games would draw bigger crowds. Bigger crowds = better recruits. Right? Problem solved.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The more I think about it, the more having an exciting offense with shootout games would draw bigger crowds. Bigger crowds = better recruits. Right? Problem solved.

YES!

 

[SWC75]

The more I think about it, the more having an exciting offense with shootout games would draw bigger crowds. Bigger crowds = better recruits. Right? Problem solved.

Which brings us back to the issue of whether you run what would be an exciting offense with good recruits before you have them to attract those recruits even if you won't run it very well or win very much while you are doing it.

But then we've already done that debate.

 

[tipphill]

didn't frank maloney have some good offense and no defense??? somebody correct me if i am wrong. my memory is not the best during his years. although i did think he got short changed a little

 

[Chip]

The more I think about it, the more having an exciting offense with shootout games would draw bigger crowds. Bigger crowds = better recruits. Right? Problem solved.

The problem with threads like this is that it doesn't have to be a shootout. Keep the hard nosed shtick for defense. We're halfway there.

 

[CusefanATL]

A - but just barely. If it had been 30+ it would be a no-brainer for me.

Ha I remember in 1998 an announcer was talking about how good our offense was. They have scored 30 or more in "x" straight games.

30 used the be the barometer for really offenses. Now its the barometer for really bad offenses.

 

[CusefanATL]

I asked the ladies though and a solid D usually leads to solid O's... wait what are we talking about?

MVP of this thread

Im close to giving you MVP of the football board.

 

[Millhouse]

fwiw

ranked yards per play (ypp) offense, ypp defense, and ypp margin for each team this year. then i correlated the rank of offense ypp to ypp margin then correlated defense ypp to ypp margin

offense is 73% correlated, defense is 66%

if the goal is to be better than your opponents in yards allowed and gained per play, being better at offense gets you a little farther. maybe it's just because there is a lower bound on defense and no upper bound on offense.

last year the correlation was 80% on offense, 75% on defense.

last year the difference between the 20th and 80th percentile offense is .2 yards more than the difference between the 20th and 80th percentile offense

i wanted to leave out the tails because horrible dregs and amazing factories throw it off. the point is that moving up the same number of spots on offense makes a slightly bigger yardage difference than the same improvement on defense.

 

[Crusty]

Ha I remember in 1998 an announcer was talking about how good our offense was. They have scored 30 or more in "x" straight games.
.
30 used the be the barometer for really offenses. Now its the barometer for really bad offenses.

To get to the top 25 we need a good D and an offense that can score about 33-35

 

[CusefanATL]

To get to the top 25 we need a good D and an offense that can score about 33-35

Im with ya Crusty... just pointing out how the game has evolved in 16 years.

 

[SWC75]

didn't frank maloney have some good offense and no defense??? somebody correct me if i am wrong. my memory is not the best during his years. although i did think he got short changed a little

Maloney put his best guys on defense to start with and went 6-5 his second year with a team similar to the 1983-84 Coach Mac teams and the 2010 and 2014 teams. That allowed him to recruit Art Monk and Joe Morris and from 1976-79 we had good offensive teams with inadequate defense. I think the reason was that, playing in the crumbling rockpile of Archbold, Maloney couldn't keep the goo recruiting going, (which is why things collapsed in Mac's second year when Morris was gone and he had to start from scratch). Mac was able to keep the defense going whole recruiting MacPherson, Moore, Owens, etc. When we got both the defense and offense going at once they complimented each other and we started winning big and did so for 15 years. That's what we need to do now: keep playing good defense and get the guys who will ignite the offense, (rather than chosing one over the other).

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That's what we need to do now: keep playing good defense and get the guys who will ignite the offense, (rather than chosing one over the other).

That is sound and rational.

The thing is though, we're so much more desperate than that. We need people to have a reason to stay excited. The Syracuse fan community dog has been kicked a few too many times. Every time we've gotten a little taste of winning, we've played a game in the Dome and either stunk or gutted out a low scoring win. That doesn't cut it for keeping the community engaged.

Offense is the answer, because for our fan base, sad as it is to say, offense is a novelty. I'm not saying we don't need to win. We need winning, but we need to win in an entertaining (ie high scoring) way, and that will make losing more palatable if we're doing it in an entertaining way (ie shootouts).

We're really not that far. We play the right kind of defense. McDonald not panning out hurts a lot, because I think he had the right idea, we just couldn't execute it. Lester scares me a little if he's the OC going forward, because if his plan is to go double tight end with big backfields and stuff I'm not confident that we'll ever see much improvement from the offense.

 

[Lawrinson14]

This question is such a no brainer. Syracuse plays in a dome. An environment in which a high powered passing offense would thrive.

If SU football wants to own something like SU basketball has the zone, it should do everything in its power have a devastating air-focused offense. -it. Throw the ball 50-60 times a games.

This program needs an identity. Why not choose one that takes advantage of our environment?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This question is such a no brainer. Syracuse plays in a dome. An environment in which a high powered passing offense would thrive.

If SU football wants to own something like SU basketball has the zone, it should do everything in its power have a devastating air-focused offense. -it. Throw the ball 50-60 times a games.

This program needs an identity. Why not choose one that takes advantage of our environment?

It blows my mind that something so obvious is lost on so many people, and has been ignored by our program.

 

[Millhouse]

It blows my mind that something so obvious is lost on so many people, and has been ignored by our program.

too many nfl fans who make an exception for syracuse

 

[Rocco]

This question is such a no brainer. Syracuse plays in a dome. An environment in which a high powered passing offense would thrive.

If SU football wants to own something like SU basketball has the zone, it should do everything in its power have a devastating air-focused offense. -it. Throw the ball 50-60 times a games.

This program needs an identity. Why not choose one that takes advantage of our environment?

With the kids we're getting from Florida, Georgia and NJ, we have the athletes to figure it out.

Will be interesting to see what happens in the offseason with offensive staff/style.

 

[TheCusian]

This question is such a no brainer. Syracuse plays in a dome. An environment in which a high powered passing offense would thrive.

If SU football wants to own something like SU basketball has the zone, it should do everything in its power have a devastating air-focused offense. -it. Throw the ball 50-60 times a games.

This program needs an identity. Why not choose one that takes advantage of our environment?

I don't think it has to be pass heavy to that extreme to be effective. Baylor, Philly Eagles - want to run 1st and foremost. But then they can really sling it all over based on what the D does. Taking advantage of the dome doesn't mean pass automatically - perfect conditions help running too.

I'd say a pass first - with some misdirection running, all at a quick tempo. I think what McDonald was attempting to install philosophy-wise - just with actual intelligent play calling and scheme.

 

[BlazeOrange]

That's what we need to do now: keep playing good defense and get the guys who will ignite the offense, (rather than chosing one over the other).

But if we're known for defense, we'll attract better recruits for the defense. Which is a good thing, but has limitations. However, if SU = WR U, RB U, etc., elite players on that side of the ball will want to play here. The advantage is we can keep the best on offense and move the others (who are likely to be better overall players) to the defensive side. This change is much more common than recruited defensive players changing to offense.

 

[SWC75]

This question is such a no brainer. Syracuse plays in a dome. An environment in which a high powered passing offense would thrive.

If SU football wants to own something like SU basketball has the zone, it should do everything in its power have a devastating air-focused offense. -it. Throw the ball 50-60 times a games.

This program needs an identity. Why not choose one that takes advantage of our environment?

If we wanted to throw the ball 50-60 times a game, we'd better complete more of them than we do now. We started the season with an up=-tempo, pass heavy offense and wound up punting or trying field goals too many time. It's not the pace of the offense or even the type of offense. it's how many successful plays you run.

 

[SUFan44]

And this is why having a solid D doesn't benefit as much as a solid O. Plain and simple.