The Defensive Stats I think matter most

[LuCane]

But our defense shouldve been knocking their offense off balance from start to finish. Blaming the offense is an excuse when teams like Bama before now have been carried to championships by dominant defenses despite subpar offensive play.

It's not really about blame. We root for a single team comprised of both offense and defense. It's about understanding why things are happening. If the expectation is an elite, "Bama-like" defense, why even bother debating? I don't think anyone thinks we're there.

 

[Notsince1985]

If we had even a remotely competent offense this defense would be treated like royalty. Great post.

I disagree... the defense was getting torched the entire 1st half against a depleted UNC offense. Had nothing to do with the other side of the ball.

And yet, what was the score?

I never believed we were going to lose at any point in this game. The score was lower than ours so we won.

But our defense shouldve been knocking their offense off balance from start to finish. Blaming the offense is an excuse when teams like Bama before now have been carried to championships by dominant defenses despite subpar offensive play.

I'm not even concerned about the 19 UNC scored, I'm more concerned about the fact that they left points on the field. If our offense only scored 24 points they shouldve only scored 6 or 7.

You really can't see the correlation between the offense going 3 and out or 6 and out and the defense playing poorly or worse than they should?

 

[The Franchise]

To take it a little farther with actual numbers, here is what some other teams have held UNC to this year:

VT--172 yards and 11 first downs
UVA--257 yards and 12 first downs
Notre Dame--265 yards and 13 first downs
GT--247 yards and 11 first downs
Duke--377 and 15 first downs

Then, against us, they went for 428 yards and a whopping 27 first downs. That's pretty awful when viewed in the context of what they've done against their other opponents. That's a ton of resets to 1st down when you give up 27 first downs.

I genuinely do appreciate you decided to play contrarian on this one, because it made me look up more context and further supported my point. Here is the answer to your stats above. I'll repeat I'm not saying the defense is elite. I'm saying the defense isn't bad and also that your points, so far, aren't supported:

You said: VT--172 yards and 11 first downs
VT offense produced 181 rushing yards, 21 first downs, 4 total non-TD drives of 4 plays or less

You said: UVA--257 yards and 12 first downs
UVA offense produced 151 rushing yards, 23 first downs, 4 total non-TD drives of 4 plays or less

You said: Notre Dame--265 yards and 13 first downs
ND offense produced 341 rushing yards, 27 first downs, 4 total non-TD drives of 4 plays or less (2 caused by Turnover), their offense basically crushed UNC with control

You said: GT--247 yards and 11 first downs
GT offense produced 403 rushing yards, 22 first downs, 4 total non-TD drives of 4 plays or less (1 caused by Turnover), their offense basically crushed UNC with control

You said: Duke--377 and 15 first downs
Duke offense produced 186 rushing yards, 20 first downs, 3 total non-TD drives of 4 plays or less

I have no agenda other than to try to find out the "why" through some objective measures - whether watching the plays or the data. My position is the defense has failed to meet fairly lofty expectations, but are performing decently well according to the numbers comparable to opponents within proper context. If you want to attack that position, we can continue to look stuff up.

I'd say there's validity to my opinion that we gave up way too many first downs yesterday and, as a result of that, gave up way too many yards. I'm viewing it strictly in the context of UNC's horrific offense, them being decimated by injuries, and the results other teams put on them.

If you want to talk about "lofty expectations" versus the other teams that throttled UNC's offense, then I guess we'd need to take the contextual discussion even farther to discuss the talent level of the teams that dominated UNC's offense. I'd venture a guess that more of our defenders will make an NFL impact than the defenders from the other teams.

I think you're going a little too far to justify yesterday's defensive effort. I don't think it was "above average" given everything I cited. I think it was OK. It was much better than our putrid offensive performance for sure, but I think UNC is a better defense than they are an offense. So there's that too.

In its entirety, which is all I really care about, it was a terrible performance by our team all the way around. I don't know where this "historically bad" thing stems from, but if that's the troll ghost you're battling, then you'll never win that battle. We are far from historically bad.

We weren't very good yesterday though in any phase of the game. I guess if we're handing out participation trophies, the D wins the "Smartest ****** Award" for yesterday's game.

At the end of all this, I won't convince you of that it wasn't an "above average" defensive performance yesterday, and you won't convince me that it was. I enjoyed the debate though.

 

[The Franchise]

UNC is a PUTRID offense, and the numbers I posted weren't a single game aberration. That's a 5 game sample of an assortment of teams that choked UNC's offense to death, and I don't think any of them, aside from possibly ND, are offensive juggernauts.

The theory is significantly undermined when you look at it in the context of those game flows and how those opponents' offenses controlled the game via rushing yards, first downs and less short drives than we had. And, you're right, none of them were really "juggernauts," further supporting the point. The stats to support my comments are in post #57 above.

Do you think the defense not allowing 27 first downs would have allowed them to get off the field more than they did yesterday?

 

[LuCane]

I think you're going a little too far to justify yesterday's defensive effort. I don't think it was "above average" given everything I cited. I think it was OK. It was much better than our putrid offensive performance for sure, but I think UNC is a better defense than they are an offense. So there's that too.

In its entirety, which is all I really care about, it was a terrible performance by our team all the way around. I don't know where this "historically bad" thing stems from, but if that's the troll ghost you're battling, then you'll never win that battle. We are far from historically bad.

We weren't very good yesterday though in any phase of the game. I guess if we're handing out participation trophies, the D wins the "Smartest ****** Award" for yesterday's game.

At the end of all this, I won't convince you of that it wasn't an "above average" defensive performance yesterday, and you won't convince me that it was. I enjoyed the debate though.

I didn't go a little too far. I made one post and the rest are responses to posters fairly trying to undermine the point. If my post was thorough in response to you, it's because I consider you a good poster who required substantial support instead of a one-liner.

And, at the end, if what I've written and all that data doesn't convince you there's a serious link between what the offense and defense do, then so be it. I also enjoyed this. It made us look up stuff we probably wouldn't have bothered with otherwise.

 

[The Franchise]

I think you're going a little too far to justify yesterday's defensive effort. I don't think it was "above average" given everything I cited. I think it was OK. It was much better than our putrid offensive performance for sure, but I think UNC is a better defense than they are an offense. So there's that too.

In its entirety, which is all I really care about, it was a terrible performance by our team all the way around. I don't know where this "historically bad" thing stems from, but if that's the troll ghost you're battling, then you'll never win that battle. We are far from historically bad.

We weren't very good yesterday though in any phase of the game. I guess if we're handing out participation trophies, the D wins the "Smartest ****** Award" for yesterday's game.

At the end of all this, I won't convince you of that it wasn't an "above average" defensive performance yesterday, and you won't convince me that it was. I enjoyed the debate though.

Factually, I didn't go a little too far. I made one post and the rest are responses to posters fairly trying to undermine the point. If my post was thorough in response to you, it's because I consider you a good poster who required substantial support.

And, at the end, if what I've written and all that data doesn't convince you there's a serious link between what the offense and defense do, then so be it. I also enjoyed this. It made us look up stuff we probably wouldn't have bothered with otherwise.

I know there's a serious link between the offense and defense. I know also that it flows both ways and that the offense didn't cause the defense to give up 27 first downs. Sometimes, bad defense affects the offense too, and bad special teams affects both.

We were bad in all 3 phases. It happens sometimes. I'm just glad we were able to win while being bad in all 3 phases.

 

[LuCane]

UNC is a PUTRID offense, and the numbers I posted weren't a single game aberration. That's a 5 game sample of an assortment of teams that choked UNC's offense to death, and I don't think any of them, aside from possibly ND, are offensive juggernauts.

The theory is significantly undermined when you look at it in the context of those game flows and how those opponents' offenses controlled the game via rushing yards, first downs and less short drives than we had. And, you're right, none of them were really "juggernauts," further supporting the point. The stats to support my comments are in post #57 above.

Do you think the defense not allowing 27 first downs would have allowed them to get off the field more than they did yesterday?

I can only answer your rhetorical question with another:

Do you think the offense gaining 59 rushing yards, 16 first downs and clear over double of the very short drives as UNC's other opponents would have helped the defense?

The answers to both our questions are yes. Seems like we've made our points.

 

[KrazyCane]

If we had even a remotely competent offense this defense would be treated like royalty. Great post.

I disagree... the defense was getting torched the entire 1st half against a depleted UNC offense. Had nothing to do with the other side of the ball.

And yet, what was the score?

I never believed we were going to lose at any point in this game. The score was lower than ours so we won.

But our defense shouldve been knocking their offense off balance from start to finish. Blaming the offense is an excuse when teams like Bama before now have been carried to championships by dominant defenses despite subpar offensive play.

I'm not even concerned about the 19 UNC scored, I'm more concerned about the fact that they left points on the field. If our offense only scored 24 points they shouldve only scored 6 or 7.

You really can't see the correlation between the offense going 3 and out or 6 and out and the defense playing poorly or worse than they should?

Yeah in a dog fight against an equal or superior opponent those details matter. But against 1-7 UNC that shouldn't have been an issue. Of course the Offense needs to figure out how to dominate a 1-7 team as well though.

 

[The Franchise]

UNC is a PUTRID offense, and the numbers I posted weren't a single game aberration. That's a 5 game sample of an assortment of teams that choked UNC's offense to death, and I don't think any of them, aside from possibly ND, are offensive juggernauts.

The theory is significantly undermined when you look at it in the context of those game flows and how those opponents' offenses controlled the game via rushing yards, first downs and less short drives than we had. And, you're right, none of them were really "juggernauts," further supporting the point. The stats to support my comments are in post #57 above.

Do you think the defense not allowing 27 first downs would have allowed them to get off the field more than they did yesterday?

I can only answer your rhetorical question with another:

Do you think the offense gaining 59 rushing yards, 16 first downs and clear over double of the very short drives as UNC's other opponents would have helped the defense?

The answers to both our questions are yes. Seems like we've made our points.

My point all along is that we were pretty bad in all 3 phases yesterday. I don't think the defense was "above average" based on what other teams have done to UNC's offense.

 

[TheEye]

If we had even a remotely competent offense this defense would be treated like royalty. Great post.

I disagree... the defense was getting torched the entire 1st half against a depleted UNC offense. Had nothing to do with the other side of the ball.

Torched for 6 points? Unacceptable.

Yeah, actually the defense was on the field a LOT in those drives. Even had an amazing goal line stand!

 

[LuCane]

UNC is a PUTRID offense, and the numbers I posted weren't a single game aberration. That's a 5 game sample of an assortment of teams that choked UNC's offense to death, and I don't think any of them, aside from possibly ND, are offensive juggernauts.

The theory is significantly undermined when you look at it in the context of those game flows and how those opponents' offenses controlled the game via rushing yards, first downs and less short drives than we had. And, you're right, none of them were really "juggernauts," further supporting the point. The stats to support my comments are in post #57 above.

Do you think the defense not allowing 27 first downs would have allowed them to get off the field more than they did yesterday?

I can only answer your rhetorical question with another:

Do you think the offense gaining 59 rushing yards, 16 first downs and clear over double of the very short drives as UNC's other opponents would have helped the defense?

The answers to both our questions are yes. Seems like we've made our points.

My point all along is that we were pretty bad in all 3 phases yesterday. I don't think the defense was "above average" based on what other teams have done to UNC's offense.

Wait, I said the defense has been above average for the year based on the numbers I provided. Yesterday, they were just average and could have been really helped by even a decent, perhaps more unpredictable run game.

 

[KrazyCane]

But our defense shouldve been knocking their offense off balance from start to finish. Blaming the offense is an excuse when teams like Bama before now have been carried to championships by dominant defenses despite subpar offensive play.

It's not really about blame. We root for a single team comprised of both offense and defense. It's about understanding why things are happening. If the expectation is an elite, "Bama-like" defense, why even bother debating? I don't think anyone thinks we're there.

No not Bama like yet but again we are talking about a 1-7 football team. Every team in the coastal that played UNC before us, held them to fewer points. GT and VT held them to 7, Duke held them to 17... the expectations for our defense should be reasonably set atleast somewhere in the middle between those scores regardless of what the offense is doing.

My issue is we are always getting beat the same way on defense which makes it a coaching issue... linebackers hitting wrong gaps, blitz on the edge failing to contain allowing the qb to escape on the outside. Etc.

 

[LuCane]

But our defense shouldve been knocking their offense off balance from start to finish. Blaming the offense is an excuse when teams like Bama before now have been carried to championships by dominant defenses despite subpar offensive play.

It's not really about blame. We root for a single team comprised of both offense and defense. It's about understanding why things are happening. If the expectation is an elite, "Bama-like" defense, why even bother debating? I don't think anyone thinks we're there.

No not Bama like yet but again we are talking about a 1-7 football team. Every team in the coastal that played UNC before us, held them to fewer points. GT and VT held them to 7, Duke held them to 17... the expectations for our defense should be reasonably set atleast somewhere in the middle between those scores regardless of what the offense is doing.

My issue is we are always getting beat the same way on defense which makes it a coaching issue... linebackers hitting wrong gaps, blitz on the edge failing to contain allowing the qb to escape on the outside. Etc.

I wrote a long post above about how to help look at the UNC games in the context of both offense and defense. Every team that played them ran for nearly 3x the amount of rushing yards we did yesterday. They also had half the short drives. We're just not at the level yet where our defense can totally shut down any opponent without the same help from their offense other teams get.

 

[CaneMutiny06]

The defense did an OK job yesterday, and they've been pretty good most of the year. I can't wait till we can have a season where we're not blaming one side of the ball for our foibles as a team.

Stats, as always, can be misleading. Lu looked at the 3rd down defensive stats, which were OK (against a horrible offense) and wondered why we let them run 94 plays when we were pretty good on 3rd down D.

One problem Diaz had before he got here was giving up a lot of 2nd and longs. We can't only focus on 3rd down D being OK and then automatically blame the offense for keeping the defense on the field for 94 plays. The defense likely gave up too many conversions on 2nd down. I'm not going to look that up because it's not important enough to me.

Regardless, a good defense would have completely dominated that version of UNC's team. We wouldn't be looking to blame the offense for keeping them on the field too much. It should have been a 3 and out festival all day long against that horseshyt offense led by a 3rd string cripple and missing all of their production from last year and even from earlier this year. We should have completely smothered them from start to finish and given up basically nothing.

The offense was horrible yesterday, but the defense gave up way too much too regardless of some quoted stats. Neither played at an acceptable level. And our Punter continues to kick like his right leg is paralyzed.

Agree with all this.

They had 27 first downs against us yesterday. For an offense that ******, that qualifies as a red flag.

 

[brock]

The defense has been okay overall, no one can defend how terrible our run defense has been this year though

 

[canecat]

Uh I think we have a top 10 D I don't need stats to tell me that. We are on the feild too much but we make plays period. Also we might give up 2-4 big plays a game but the rest of the plays we kill it . I have zero concerns about our D. If our O was consistent people would be worshipping this D. I said yesterday our D is very predictable in a good way. We give up 2-4 big plays ( plays of 20+ yards) but cause 10 or so really bad plays by the other offense ( take aways , sacks , big tackles for loss ) and then the rest of the game teams might get a yard or 2 against us.

 

[canecat]

The defense has been okay overall, no one can defend how terrible our run defense has been this year though

Again for like 2-4 runs a game . The rest of the runs we allow nothing really . It is a sign of how young we are . We won't be allowing those next season . But I cannot complain when our Dlne and LBS are young overall and our secondary is all new basically. For the D to be this good so early on is surprising . I do get annoyed when people have Bama like expectations in year 2 of the rebuild. Our O needs to be more consistent but beyond that I have zero complaints for the situation we are in. This program has been a trash heap since like 2005 or so. To be one of 4 major undefeated teams at this point is beyond expectations.

 

[fraggle]

Rosier had way to many batted balls...also some should consider that every team works to improve, regardless of their record and weak teams early in the season usually improve the most...that's college football where an entire team cycles rosters every 4 or 5 years and the improvement factor occurs during the season. I like that Richt stays on the team to improve and I'd bet he has plenty of improvements in mind after the NC game. VT has a loss, the question is have they improved more or less than we have...find out Saturday at 8 PM

 

[Canegrad89]

TOS on offense directly impacts a defense. The defense did a great job considering they where forced to keep us in the game all day yesterday... We only had 16 first downs! We had 10 possessions of 4 snaps or less.

While I agree with others that the Defense wasn't great against a depleted UNC offense (including an inexperienced QB), the lack of first downs by our offense combined with the fact that we typically score fast when we do score (see the Jeff Thomas TD for example which was blazing fast & the end of the Herndon 51 yard TD was pretty fast too) puts a lot of pressure on the D (they were out there a lot). The defensive stats against UNC would have looked a whole lot better if we had consistently run the ball well, had more T.O.P. and were consistently moving the chains. The DL is great, the LBs are a mixed bag (some great play & some big bust plays), the DBs have improved significantly as the season has progressed but we could simply use more elite talent at 1-2 spots there (and more quality depth). Cutting out silly penalties will be very important against Va Tech & ND. No hitting out of bounds or late hits. Those helped UNC big time yesterday.

 

[jw410]

To take it a little farther with actual numbers, here is what some other teams have held UNC to this year:

VT--172 yards and 11 first downs
UVA--257 yards and 12 first downs
Notre Dame--265 yards and 13 first downs
GT--247 yards and 11 first downs
Duke--377 and 15 first downs

Then, against us, they went for 428 yards and a whopping 27 first downs. That's pretty awful when viewed in the context of what they've done against their other opponents. That's a ton of resets to 1st down when you give up 27 first downs.

That's beyond awful.. lawd.. we allowed 27 first downs. ..

Absolutely no excuse for that.. I wonder how film session goes tomorrow.