Stolen from a quality Educk poster: In looking at Wisconsin's schedule, their four poorest offensive outings this year were the following: 31 v MSU (6th in total d, 10th in scoring d) 29 v Ohio State (19th in total d, 27th in scoring d) 28 v Illinois (7th in total d, 8th in scoring d) 38 v Oregon (68th in total d, 52nd in scoring d) In those games, Wisconsin's offense had the ball for 28:29, 24:12, 33:24 and 35:42, respectively. I think our defense did pretty darn well http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=128&f=1423&t=8523344
Well, the team won and the defense came up with the big plays when they needed them in the second half, but they still gave up 31 points and got pushed around for much of the game. I don't think that the defense can reasonably be expected to be as dominant as the offense, but there is a lot of room for improvement, to say the least. With experience for the corners and more beef up front I'd expect it to get better. Ed O.
This is always an interesting discussion. Our offense turns the ball back to the other team so incredibly fast, either by score, punt or turnover, that there really needs to be a relative "scoring pace" type metric put in place to more accurately assess our defense... In crunching the #s above, we come out smelling pretty darn good. First and foremost, it's important to point out that our DEFENSE gave up 31 pts (Wisconsin scored a TD on Darren Thomas' sack/strip)... -MSU yielded a point every 55 seconds. -OSU ~ 50 secs -Illinois ~ 71 1/2 secs -Oregon ~ 69 seconds Duck defense held its own or bested the best defenses that UW played all season (and some of the highest ranked Ds in the nation). This becomes even more impressive when you consider the fatigue factor. Human performance doesn't give a consistent output, but rather has a diminishing return, so it can be assumed that the more time a defense is on the field, the lesser quality of the performance, which should lead, in turn, to more points given up. Again, the ducks come up smelling like roses (sorry, had to) in this debate...
The Ducks Defense consistently takes advantage of the fatigue factor/diminishing returns by rotating more players to keep everyone fresh. By the end of the game the opposing offense is both gassed from playing a lot more snaps then they're used to and going up against Oregon players with much more left in the tank. I haven't crunched the numbers from this season yet, but last year the D averaged giving up an extra TD in the 1st half compared to the 2nd. It's true to form that they shut out the high scoring Badgers in the 4th Q. STOMP
Right. We as Duck fans know this, however national pundits that continually disrespect (or ignore) our defense doesn't use this anecdotal evidence. They use blunt statistics like avg. pts/game. Following that logic, easy statistics like opponents time of possession should be used (by them) to tell the whole story - thus my seconds/point statistic. My point is more attempting to reconcile those statistics with the anecdotal truth. As far as our national perception is concerned, I feel bringing up Chip adjusting 'normal' substitution strategy to compensate for the amount of time the D is on the field should be irrelevant - it's giving an excuse, out or "gimmick" where one is not necessary since our performance, when relatively compared to the best, speaks for itself. We do it, and it's shown to be productive, but I guess my point was, to those who use overly simple statistical analyses to evaluate the D, they're missing the bigger picture and there's a pretty easy way to remedy that. To your point, I do think being fresher pays off late in games but omitting that detail makes the case even stronger in my opinion. Once again, Chip's vastly ahead of the curve.
I still dont get this. Dont get me wrong.. I wont turn down some higher caliber defenders. But looking at our losses under Chip Kelly for example. (Boise St, Stanford, Ohio State, Auburn, LSU, USC) I can only think of Stanford and USC where the Defense was the problem for our loss (although I would think that Turnovers and countless dropped passes did us in with USC) But Boise State, Ohio St, Auburn, LSU all could have been a lot uglier IMO if the Defense didnt show up. Also I'd like to see what we do with Defenders recruited under Chip's watch. I was reading on DuckTerritory a common trend in the most recent Chip Kelly recruits. 8 of the current recruits committed are 6'5" and five of them are on the D-Line and actually only 1 is only 6'5" the rest are taller. I'm copying this post from DT with his thought on the theory which could have some truth, but I dont know. http://oregon.247sports.com/Board/45/Chip-Kelly-is-going-BIG-6646661/1
We were 60th in total defense this year, which is right smack dead in the middle. We gave up 381.0 ypg, 5th in the Pac 12. I think we need to be better in order to take that next and final step.
yeah and our victories on the scoreboard mean nothing when we're losing the Time of Possession battle STOMP
That is a bad color green FYI If you think our defense is great then cool. It's certainly a lot better than the National people think it is, but I think in order to take that next step, it needs to be better. Had our defense been a little better we would have beaten USC.
Read my comments above to know how I stand on stats like "ypg"... Even if you remove time of possession from the equation, simply adding - what, 2? 3? 4? more possessions for the other team (because of our offense) mathematically HAS to inflate things like avg. ppg, ypg, etc. If we're going to talk about averages, open things up a bit... How long is the avg. drive? How many drives/game is average? How many more drives/game does Oregon's defense face than that avg? Multiply the difference by the avg. length of a drive and subtract that from our YPG, and I guarantee you we're not still 60th... Anyone expecting us to be a top-10 defense using traditional statistics is playing too much NCAA 12, it's just not realistic. When those #s are adjusted, I think we're a top-25 defense. I DO think we need to become more opportunistic on the turnover side of things however.
Gotcha. While like I said I wouldnt turn down a dominant defense. I do think the total ypg are skewed to make it look worse with how many plays the defense on the field. So like I said, I wouldnt turn down the Mccarthy's, Armsteads, Shaq Thompson's, etc of the world... IMO What we need to take the proverbial "next step" in big games would not be choking by comitting backbreaking turnovers (Blount's Touchback fumble in the RB, DAT's Fumbles vs LSU, or stupid penalties that kill drives, or keep them alive) Or even an O-line or gameplan that can handle disruptive D-lines (Ohio State Rose Bowl, BSU, Auburn, and to an extent LSU)
it's just wrong to point a finger at the D in that game as it was the offense that struggled executing and with fumbles. Using this logic you could blame any loss in any sport on the D. Of course I'd like it if they could get even better, just as I'm in favor of the the offense and special teams play improving. In this RB game we were up against one of the best offenses in the country who had a month plus to recover, scheme, and practice for Oregon. Yet despite them having ample opportunities winning the Time of Possession war, our D did as well as anyone else's in slowing them down keeping them 2 TDs under their average. yeah I think our D is very good. It's consistently ranked at the top in yards per play in Pac 10/12 play and performed well in out of conference games. The Rose Bowl was just further proof. STOMP
