The Defensive Stats I think matter most

[Shogungts]

I was told we're "saving stuff." I guess we'll find out in 7 days. If we don't see the wrinkles then, when does it come out?

I know that you probably can't tell us how told you this, but was there anymore context? Considering how close our last 4 games have been, I can't fathom that we have "stuff" installed that we think would work that we aren't using unless:

- They are afraid that they won't be executed properly - in which case, I would be curious to see if they thought that could somehow be changed (more practice)
- They are specific to match ups (defensive style, other teams skillset, etc) that have not been favorable so far

Anything else you can share there?

 

[canefan88xbl]

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.

When the offense can't move the ball against a horrific defense. It gives the opposing team more opportunities...

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

The agendas on this website are so ******* weird, I swear.

 

[sabrose]

In the red zone with space compressed, athleticism becomes more important and we out athlete most of the teams we play .Hence our good scoring defense numbers. That said teams are max protecting and running slants against us and Manny needs to disguise his blitzes and cover the middle of the field better.
We did much better against NC when we didnt blitz.

 

[The Franchise]

I appreciate Lu's analysis, but the defense, while making plays when it really matters, has not lived up to the expectations I had for it going into the season. I haven't analyzed the defense or the stats and don't know the exact problem, but I was expecting the defense to completely shut down opponents and that hasn't happened. I am stunned by how many big plays we give up every week, especially in the running game.

And I saw better punters yesterday on optimist football fields than our punter.

I think almost all of us had too high of expectations for the defense, the sophomore LBs, what the new Safeties could replace the two NFL guys, etc.

That said, I also think the point of this thread holds up: we're not looking at an average defense, much less a "bad" or "historically bad" defense. I don't find that supported by any evidence.

Do you think the expectation is too high if we expect to shut down a really bad offense like UNC that was down to its 3rd string QB and has been decimated by injuries? They got 27 first downs on us and 428 yards. That is pretty bad considering how bad UNC's offense has been all year.

 

[sabrose]

UNC wasnt a horrific defense. They lost almost all of their players to injury on offense. But no defense can look good with an offense as bad as theirs. That was a bad defensive performance against UNC. We over blitzed and played right into their hands.

 

[sabrose]

UNC wasnt a horrific defense. They lost almost all of their players to injury on offense. But no defense can look good with an offense as bad as theirs. That was a bad defensive performance against UNC. We over blitzed and played right into their hands.

The QB that came in may have had little experience but he was clearly better in terms of decisiveness and athleticism to the guy we took out. I expect he will play more as the season goes on.

 

[iLoveTDs]

I appreciate Lu's analysis, but the defense, while making plays when it really matters, has not lived up to the expectations I had for it going into the season. I haven't analyzed the defense or the stats and don't know the exact problem, but I was expecting the defense to completely shut down opponents and that hasn't happened. I am stunned by how many big plays we give up every week, especially in the running game.

And I saw better punters yesterday on optimist football fields than our punter.

I think almost all of us had too high of expectations for the defense, the sophomore LBs, what the new Safeties could replace the two NFL guys, etc.

That said, I also think the point of this thread holds up: we're not looking at an average defense, much less a "bad" or "historically bad" defense. I don't find that supported by any evidence.

Do you think the expectation is too high if we expect to shut down a really bad offense like UNC that was down to its 3rd string QB and has been decimated by injuries? They got 27 first downs on us and 428 yards. That is pretty bad considering how bad UNC's offense has been all year.

It's really bad. That QB was awful, yet we kept running the same delayed blitzes and he kept throwing the quick slant. We finally got away from that and we dropped 7, rushed 4 and shut down his passing efforts. But then he started scrambling, and not once did we decide to spy him.

I don't like that Diaz refuses to spy these QBs that run.

 

[canefan88xbl]

I was told we're "saving stuff." I guess we'll find out in 7 days. If we don't see the wrinkles then, when does it come out?

I know that you probably can't tell us how told you this, but was there anymore context? Considering how close our last 4 games have been, I can't fathom that we have "stuff" installed that we think would work that we aren't using unless:

- They are afraid that they won't be executed properly - in which case, I would be curious to see if they thought that could somehow be changed (more practice)
- They are specific to match ups (defensive style, other teams skillset, etc) that have not been favorable so far

Anything else you can share there?

People said this last year about Richt's offense going into the FSU game. We only showed 15% of our playbook or 30%. The fact is, the offense is vanilla. It relies on execution and often superior talent. It is frustrating, because while our defense has made some mistakes this season, a competent offense would have us rolling. 3 points off 4 turnovers and a blocked punt is unacceptable. Equally bad against Cuse. We have zero flow in the play calling. You can point to us failing to execute, but if we aren't capable, we need to make adjustments to things we CAN do. Forget I-formation, why can't we get under center and show some play action, or hand the ball off, or naked bootleg with Rosier. We did this all last year, with a QB who couldn't move as well. Va Tech and ND are going to ball over that UNC tape, because Rosier was double-clutching, and hesitating all day. Even on the Thomas TD pass, he wasn't decisive.

 

[Canefam]

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.

 

[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.

 

[LuCane]

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.

I appreciate the attempt at a common sense guess as to why we were on the field for over 33% more UNC plays than what they've averaged on the season, but it's not supported by your theory of giving up 2nd and longs.

1st Half

UNC 1st drive - 3 and out, no second and long conversions
UNC 2nd drive - no 2nd and long conversions
UNC 3rd drive - no 2nd and long conversions, drive aided by a roughing the passer call on a 2nd down
UNC 4th drive - no 2nd and long conversions, drive aided by a 4th and 1 conversion, 17 total plays for 51 yards, 3 yards per play
UNC 5th drive - no 2nd and long conversions, drive aided by Robert Knowles holding call for first down on a 3rd down
UNC 6th drive - 4 plays and done, no 2nd and long conversions


2nd half

UNC 7th drive - 3 plays and out, no second and long conversions
UNC 8th drive - 3 plays and out, no second and long conversions
UNC 9th drive - UNC touchdown on 4 plays, here was the long pass on 2nd down
UNC 10th drive - UNC ended drive on INT, no second and long conversions
UNC 11th drive - UNC ended on INT, no second and long conversions
UNC 12th drive - UNC had 10 plays for 41 yards, 4.1 yards per play would put us top 5 in country, no second and long conversions
UNC 13th drive - UNC ended drive on INT, no second and long conversions
UNC 14th drive - UNC TD drive 57 total yards, two conversions on 2nd down on a ridiculously gassed defense
UNC 15th drive - UNC 3 plays and fumble, UNC aided by personal foul on Zach Mccloud, no second down conversions otherwise

In 15 drives and 93 total plays, UNC converted three (3) total 2nd downs. The theory of "likely gave up too many conversions on 2nd down" is not supported.
Further, on the other hand, the offense had ten (10) non-TD drives of 4 plays or less.
In the second half alone, when the defense was essentially on the field the entire time, here were the offense's drives:

1. 1 play TD to Jeff Thomas
2. 3 and out
3. 4 and FG, 9 total yards
4. 4 and done, 17 total yards
5. 8 plays, 59 yards, turnover on downs
6. 3 and out
7. 6 plays and TD
8. 3 and INT
9. 3 and out
10. 1 and fumble
11. 6 plays and 10 total yards to end game

Add in three (3) three and outs in the first half.

If your point is we should have allowed basically no yards, movement and forced them to 15 drives of 3 and outs, I think the defense expectations aren't in line with reality. As I said above, I do agree we all had higher expectations for the defense being closer to elite. In hindsight, part of that had to do with what we thought the LBs and Safeties could do, when in reality they're sophomores and new guys.

 

[LuCane]

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.

Again, let's be clear about what we're debating. If the point is the defense can be better and isn't capable of crushing opponents by being elite, we're going to waste our time. Everyone agrees.

How many 3 and outs did the offenses of the teams you listed produce? Did their offenses help or hurt the cause?

 

[The Franchise]

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.

I appreciate the attempt at a common sense guess as to why we were on the field for over 33% more UNC plays than what they've averaged on the season, but it's not supported by your theory of giving up 2nd and longs.

1st Half

UNC 1st drive - 3 and out, no second and long conversions
UNC 2nd drive - no 2nd and long conversions
UNC 3rd drive - no 2nd and long conversions, drive aided by a roughing the passer call on a 2nd down
UNC 4th drive - no 2nd and long conversions, drive aided by a 4th and 1 conversion, 17 total plays for 51 yards, 3 yards per play
UNC 5th drive - no 2nd and long conversions, drive aided by Robert Knowles holding call for first down on a 3rd down
UNC 6th drive - 4 plays and done, no 2nd and long conversions


2nd half

UNC 7th drive - 3 plays and out, no second and long conversions
UNC 8th drive - 3 plays and out, no second and long conversions
UNC 9th drive - UNC touchdown on 4 plays, here was the long pass on 2nd down
UNC 10th drive - UNC ended drive on INT, no second and long conversions
UNC 11th drive - UNC ended on INT, no second and long conversions
UNC 12th drive - UNC had 10 plays for 41 yards, 4.1 yards per play would put us top 5 in country, no second and long conversions
UNC 13th drive - UNC ended drive on INT, no second and long conversions
UNC 14th drive - UNC TD drive 57 total yards, two conversions on 2nd down on a ridiculously gassed defense
UNC 15th drive - UNC 3 plays and fumble, UNC aided by personal foul on Zach Mccloud, no second down conversions otherwise

In 15 drives and 93 total plays, UNC converted three (3) total 2nd downs. The theory of "likely gave up too many conversions on 2nd down" is not supported.
Further, on the other hand, the offense had ten (10) non-TD drives of 4 plays or less.
In the second half alone, when the defense was essentially on the field the entire time, here were the offense's drives:

1. 1 play TD to Jeff Thomas
2. 3 and out
3. 4 and FG, 9 total yards
4. 4 and done, 17 total yards
5. 8 plays, 59 yards, turnover on downs
6. 3 and out
7. 6 plays and TD
8. 3 and INT
9. 3 and out
10. 1 and fumble
12. 6 plays and 10 total yards to end game

Add in three (3) three and outs in the first half.

If your point is we should have allowed basically no yards, movement and forced them to 15 drives of 3 and outs, I think the defense expectations aren't in line with reality. As I said above, I do agree we all had higher expectations for the defense being closer to elite. In hindsight, part of that had to do with what we thought the LBs and Safeties could do, when in reality they're sophomores and new guys.

They did something to convert a whopping 27 first downs against us. They only got 6 on 3rd down, so they were extending drives before 3rd down.

Look at the post above to see what UNC's other opponents have held them to this year.

 

[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.

Again, let's be clear about what we're debating. If the point is the defense can be better and isn't capable of crushing opponents by being elite, we're going to waste our time. Everyone agrees.

How many 3 and outs did the offenses of the teams you listed produce? Did their offenses help or hurt the cause?

Our offense was horrible yesterday. I'm not attempting to excuse them or to say their poor play had no affect on our D. But our defense wasn't that much better given the opponent we were playing.

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.

 

[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?

 

[LuCane]

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

Yesterday, we had 59 rushing yards, 16 first downs, and 8 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.

 

[Notsince1985]

Another thing to take into account. Feagles is not exactly always helping the defense out either. His 38.5 yard punt average is giving the opponents good field position more often than not.

 

[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.

 

[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.