Jump to content

For What It's Worth

flyeater

By flyeater
in Mean Green Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Monkeypox Mentor

Monkeypox

Posted
Posted

Ok, so maybe you're sitting there reading this and thinking...giving up 19.5 points per game doesn't sound so bad? (You're right too...I'd take that average over our 55 points per game this year every single time.) Well, just to put that in some perspective, giving up an average of 19.5 points per game in NCAA this year would rank us at #31, tied with Wyoming, in scoring defense. Now that's not bad...but it's far from great.

In which case, we've had a great defense what... ONE YEAR in the last bit of forever? Personally, I'd see #31 as being pretty great, ESPECIALLY given a heavy passing offense.

gangrene Enthusiast

gangrene

Posted
Posted

The problem with stats is that they don't capture the intangible "It" for winning.

I just love how stats were a good were good indicator when they told the story you wanted them tell and helped you conclude that "for the most part, I think Mendoza's boys were getting the job done..." but when they tell a different story, you proclaim how they "don't capture the intangible "It" for winning." What the hell does that mean anyway??

And, then, when it really turns sour, you say:

Yes. Time to pinch this one off.

I'm not intentionally singling you out for your defense of Mendoza, but your defense is really weak. Our defense has some serious issues and history seems to indicate that SLC has been plagued with the same problems we're now experiencing throughout their 79-1 run. Aside from being "out-athleted" for Mendoza's chosen defensive schemes, I honestly don't know what the problem is. I thought maybe it was because Todge's offensive style puts us at a significant time of possession disadvantage our it was tiring out our defense more quickly...but I looked up TOP for this year and that's not really the case. We trailed only slightly to OU, SMU and Arkansas and actually lead against FAU. I heard one of the announcers in last night's South Carolina-Kentucky game say something about how tough it is to be Steve Spurrier's defensive coordinator. I assumed he meant because Spurrier's teams tend to play high scoring games too and that often puts the defense in a bad position.

As many others have already stated, our defense wasn't even close to being this bad last year. And, returning 9 of 11 players from that team gave us hope that defense wouldn't be much of a problem this year. Were we ever wrong on that one!!

Monkeypox Mentor

Monkeypox

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm not intentionally singling you out for your defense of Mendoza, but your defense is really weak. Our defense has some serious issues and history seems to indicate that SLC has been plagued with the same problems we're now experiencing throughout their 79-1 run. Aside from being "out-athleted" for Mendoza's chosen defensive schemes, I honestly don't know what the problem is. I thought maybe it was because Todge's offensive style puts us at a significant time of possession disadvantage our it was tiring out our defense more quickly...but I looked up TOP for this year and that's not really the case. We trailed only slightly to OU, SMU and Arkansas and actually lead against FAU. I heard one of the announcers in last night's South Carolina-Kentucky game say something about how tough it is to be Steve Spurrier's defensive coordinator. I assumed he meant because Spurrier's teams tend to play high scoring games too and that often puts the defense in a bad position.

As many others have already stated, our defense wasn't even close to being this bad last year. And, returning 9 of 11 players from that team gave us hope that defense wouldn't be much of a problem this year. Were we ever wrong on that one!!

Well, I think it's early to judge a scheme after 4 games, especially given the body bag games. To me, there's not much difference in someone scoring 50 and someone scoring 70 as you have no shot either way, but it'll skew the scoring pretty badly (especially, again, after only 4 games). Then, you've got to account for the TOP when the opposing defense is given short yardage by blocked punts or score on a quick strike because a DB makes a boneheaded play in single coverage late in the game. And then you have to account for the change in offensive playstyle NOT tiring out the opposing defense as much, particularly when it's not clicking and takes us forever just to get a 1st down. Personally, despite these returning starters, this defense has never really been great (other than one year in which NONE of these guys were around), so it's hard for me to accept that the scheme is really the problem at this point and time. I know some like to look at last year only, but one year can be anomylous, and expecting linear progression, particularly given coaching and scheme changes, seems ill-advised.

In 2005, for example, our defense was sufficiently terrible: 31.5 PPG, 436.6 YPG.

Personally, to get an accurate representation at this time, I think you'd have to throw out, every year, our body bag games. Now, I wouldn't throw out games where we simply get blown out by people against whom we SHOULD compete. Keep your Tulsas, Louisiana Techs, etc. in there, but your Oklahomas, UTs, Arkansas - take out those games defensively and then see where we stand and you might get a better idea how our defense is doing.

There are plenty of problems with our coaching and adjustments. But players need to step up as well, and blindly accepting their ability because the team defense performed decent one year while throwing the coaching staff under the bus after 4 games might seem like fun, but it just doesn't make much sense to me.

Edited by Monkeypox
gangrene Enthusiast

gangrene

Posted
Posted

In which case, we've had a great defense what... ONE YEAR in the last bit of forever? Personally, I'd see #31 as being pretty great, ESPECIALLY given a heavy passing offense.

If it's so great, then why do you have add the caveat?

I'd be extremely happy with that too...but that just ain't gonna happen. Taking those high school defensive scoring stats and comparing them to NCAA D-1A stats is like comparing Halle Berry to Roseanne Barr....I just meant for it to be a hypothetical. But, I guess it all really depends on how each of us define great. To me, a great defense would have to be in the top 25, if not the top 10. Sure, we've had some really good defenses in the past 10 years, but it's all relative...relative to the teams we were playing. While we consider holding OU to 37 points (in 2003) a good thing, most other schools would deem that a failure.

gangrene Enthusiast

gangrene

Posted
Posted

Well, I think it's early to judge a scheme after 4 games, especially given the body bag games. To me, there's not much difference in someone scoring 50 and someone scoring 70 as you have no shot either way, but it'll skew the scoring pretty badly (especially, again, after only 4 games). Then, you've got to account for the TOP when the opposing defense is given short yardage by blocked punts or score on a quick strike because a DB makes a boneheaded play in single coverage late in the game. And then you have to account for the change in offensive playstyle NOT tiring out the opposing defense as much, particularly when it's not clicking and takes us forever just to get a 1st down. Personally, despite these returning starters, this defense has never really been great (other than one year in which NONE of these guys were around), so it's hard for me to accept that the scheme is really the problem at this point and time. I know some like to look at last year only, but one year can be anomylous, and expecting linear progression, particularly given coaching and scheme changes, seems ill-advised.

In 2005, for example, our defense was sufficiently terrible: 31.5 PPG, 436.6 YPG.

Personally, to get an accurate representation at this time, I think you'd have to throw out, every year, our body bag games. Now, I wouldn't throw out games where we simply get blown out by people against whom we SHOULD compete. Keep your Tulsas, Louisiana Techs, etc. in there, but your Oklahomas, UTs, Arkansas - take out those games defensively and then see where we stand and you might get a better idea how our defense is doing.

There are plenty of problems with our coaching and adjustments. But players need to step up as well, and blindly accepting their ability because the team defense performed decent one year while throwing the coaching staff under the bus after 4 games might seem like fun, but it just doesn't make much sense to me.

I think I have to agree with much of that. I don't think we'll ever see what I'd consider a great defense on this team, with the type of offense we now have in place. I think eventually we'll be much like Texas Tech has been in that we'll play in a lot of high-scoring games and just hope that we have more points on the board than our opponents when the clock stops ticking. When we start winning games 42-35 and 52-45, I don't think we'll have as many people complaining about our defense (although it will be equally as bad, if not worse, in the statistical categories).

That was really the main point I wanted to make by posting in this thread in the first place. I've seen SLC play many, many games in the same shoot-out fashion as Texas Tech (only SLC was much more successful at it) and I think that's what we'll eventually get here.

FirefightnRick Experienced

FirefightnRick

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, I think it's early to judge a scheme after 4 games, especially given the body bag games. To me, there's not much difference in someone scoring 50 and someone scoring 70 as you have no shot either way, but it'll skew the scoring pretty badly (especially, again, after only 4 games). Then, you've got to account for the TOP when the opposing defense is given short yardage by blocked punts or score on a quick strike because a DB makes a boneheaded play in single coverage late in the game. And then you have to account for the change in offensive playstyle NOT tiring out the opposing defense as much, particularly when it's not clicking and takes us forever just to get a 1st down. Personally, despite these returning starters, this defense has never really been great (other than one year in which NONE of these guys were around), so it's hard for me to accept that the scheme is really the problem at this point and time. I know some like to look at last year only, but one year can be anomylous, and expecting linear progression, particularly given coaching and scheme changes, seems ill-advised.

In 2005, for example, our defense was sufficiently terrible: 31.5 PPG, 436.6 YPG.

Personally, to get an accurate representation at this time, I think you'd have to throw out, every year, our body bag games. Now, I wouldn't throw out games where we simply get blown out by people against whom we SHOULD compete. Keep your Tulsas, Louisiana Techs, etc. in there, but your Oklahomas, UTs, Arkansas - take out those games defensively and then see where we stand and you might get a better idea how our defense is doing.

There are plenty of problems with our coaching and adjustments. But players need to step up as well, and blindly accepting their ability because the team defense performed decent one year while throwing the coaching staff under the bus after 4 games might seem like fun, but it just doesn't make much sense to me.

Let's throw out the body bag games from '05 and '07.

2005

399.8 ypg, would have ranked us 77th in total defense.

26 ppg, would have ranked us 62nd in scoring defense.

2007

470 ypg, would have us ranked 108th overall in total defense

34 ppg, would have us ranked 100th overall in scoring defense.

The season aint over yet, but this could turn out to be one of our all time worst defenses in North Texas football history by one of our most veteran, experienced groups, ever..

Rick

Edited by FirefightnRick
Monkeypox Mentor

Monkeypox

Posted
Posted

If it's so great, then why do you have add the caveat?

I'd be extremely happy with that too...but that just ain't gonna happen. Taking those high school defensive scoring stats and comparing them to NCAA D-1A stats is like comparing Halle Berry to Roseanne Barr....I just meant for it to be a hypothetical. But, I guess it all really depends on how each of us define great. To me, a great defense would have to be in the top 25, if not the top 10. Sure, we've had some really good defenses in the past 10 years, but it's all relative...relative to the teams we were playing. While we consider holding OU to 37 points (in 2003) a good thing, most other schools would deem that a failure.

Well, because realistically, with a high-powered passing offense, more pressure is placed on a defense. If you have a quick-strike offense, you give the opponents more opportunities to score, and you tire their defense out less. A power-running offense will help tire out the defenses, but also lessens the time and opportunity for your own offense to score. And that will show up on the statistics.

And those REALLY GOOD defenses (is being ranked in the 70s really good?) WERE helped out by a running scheme.

And again, based on what you're saying, we've BEEN a failure on defense for years, which is part of what makes it hard for me to understand why it's suddenly all Mendoza's fault after 4 games, 2 of which were body bag games.

I don't LIKE what I've seen of Mendoza's scheme from what I've seen, but I don't feel I can accurately judge its performance at this point and time. I don't LIKE the fact that we have a near complete lack of experience on the defensive side of the ball, but I'll at least give some of the guys some collegiate coaching time before I start ranting and raving, especially since we haven't had a really good defense around here anyway, and were routinely blown out by Texas and Arkansas before.

Do I LIKE it? Hell no. Did I really expect new coaches to come in and immediately turn us from a doormat into a good college football team? Hell. No.

Monkeypox Mentor

Monkeypox

Posted
Posted

Let's throw out the body bag games from '05 and '07.

2005

399.8 ypg, would have ranked us 77th in total defense.

26 ppg, would have ranked us 62nd in scoring defense.

2007

470 ypg, would have us ranked 108th overall in total defense

34 ppg, would have us ranked 100th overall in scoring defense.

The season aint over yet, but this could turn out to be one of our all time worst defenses in North Texas football history by one of our most veteran, experienced groups, ever..

Rick

Where'd you get your 2007 numbers? I've got 534 for SMU and 322 for SMU, averaging out to: 428 ypg and 34 ppg

But the point remains that our defenses have never been that good. Being experienced isn't the same as being good. AND, as you pointed out, the season isn't over yet, so you're comparing 2 non-body bag games to an entire season, where we ranked, without our toughest opponents, in the 60s and 70s on defense. Since BK's junior year, we haven't had a good defense, and back then it was easier on them because we ran the ball all the time.

No doubt the defense has been atrocious. But I think conditioning, talent, and brains have all played as big a part in its failures as the scheme has.

FirefightnRick Experienced

FirefightnRick

Posted
Posted (edited)

Where'd you get your 2007 numbers? I've got 534 for SMU and 322 for SMU, averaging out to: 428 ypg and 34 ppg

But the point remains that our defenses have never been that good. Being experienced isn't the same as being good. AND, as you pointed out, the season isn't over yet, so you're comparing 2 non-body bag games to an entire season, where we ranked, without our toughest opponents, in the 60s and 70s on defense. Since BK's junior year, we haven't had a good defense, and back then it was easier on them because we ran the ball all the time.

No doubt the defense has been atrocious. But I think conditioning, talent, and brains have all played as big a part in its failures as the scheme has.

534 yards for SMU + 406 for FAU = 940/2=470

Personally, to get an accurate representation at this time, I think you'd have to throw out, every year, our body bag games. Now, I wouldn't throw out games where we simply get blown out by people against whom we SHOULD compete. Keep your Tulsas, Louisiana Techs, etc. in there, but your Oklahomas, UTs, Arkansas - take out those games defensively and then see where we stand and you might get a better idea how our defense is doing.

That's exactly what I did. In comparing the '06 and '07 seasons, I threw out all the body bag games. A one year progession that you can compare 17 returning veterans to is a better comparison in my oppinion than comparing all the seasons before '05. And as poor as we were in '05 we were not the worst.

And I don't recall anyone here claiming that our defense has been good since 2003, but the 17 veteran starters who returned for this year finished the '06 season ranked 64th nationally. But because of reasons that seem quite clear to me, they are now the WORST. Not just NOT GOOD, but the absolute WORST in the nation. You cannot ignore that fact. We have a veteran defense that KNOWS how to make stops. But because of the system they are NOW playing in they look as if they couldn't define STOP with a dictionary. They didn't just somehow wake up after their last game of the '06 season and decide to pack it in the rest of their college carreers. There is a reason for it.

And I fail to see how an offense that can make more first downs than the previous year, that stops the clock more often than the previous year and can move the chains making more first downs places pressure on a defense? Dickey ball was the epitome of the great 3 and out. Kassell and company barely got to take their helmets off before they had to go right back out on the field. Of course if we were able to have the offensive success like Arkansas did last saturday and score on 6 different drives in 4 plays or less(3 of which went for over 60 yards..62,69,79), then yeah. I can see how that doesn't give the defense much of a chance to stay off the field. But that hasn't been the case for our offense this year at all.

Arkansas had the ball 34 seconds more in time of possession than we did which works out to a bit over 2 seconds per possession, however North Texas actually got one more possession (17) than Arkansas (16) did during the game. You can't claim they were on the field more than Arkansas in any amount that would coincide with being over pressured or being tired out from the typical expectations over the course of a 60 minute football game?

Rick

Edited by FirefightnRick
Monkeypox Mentor

Monkeypox

Posted
Posted (edited)

How many 1st downs did we get vs. Arkansas? How many in the first half at all? The players, these veteran defensive players, as pointed out, weren't ever very good. The scheme may not be the problem when there are other issues. Also, and I know this is hard to understand, but we're only FOUR games into the season, so it's just plain ridiculous to call this the worst defense we've had.

And while DD ball was the epitome of 3 and out, we haven't fared that well with the passing game and it takes MUCH LESS TIME off the clock each 3 and out. In Arkansas and Oklahoma, we barely got any 1st downs the 1st half at all.

These defensive veterans aren't good. You don't miss tackles and assignments and make boneheaded plays and give up a number of big plays only because of a scheme. They have a great deal of responsibility in the matter. Have you considered the option that they just aren't learning the new scheme very well? Have you considered that if we had more consistent success on the offensive end, like, say, we DIDN'T throw picks late in the game when we're up vs. a conference opponent, that things might look different? Maybe if our DB doesn't go for a big play when there's no help and lets a WR get behind him for a huge TD pass, we have a chance still? Oh, that's right, it was the SCHEME'S fault he didn't keep position.

Also, it's been FOUR GAMES. Repeat after me - FOUR GAMES. Look at things after the year is up and THEN make assessmentsm, and, you know what? I'll tell you it's been ONE season.

I KNOW what it was like in the Kassell years, but then again, back then, we had Kassell, and right now there's not a member on this D that could hold his jock.

I don't like our scheme, but giving up 60 and 80 points isn't just a scheme issue.

Edited by Monkeypox
MeanMag Rising Star

MeanMag

Posted
Posted

Well, I suppose if it is too soon to judge the defense after 4 games, then it should be too soon to demand to coach dodge that he changes QB's. And lets throw out what they did in the body bag games too. In fact, after 4 games, it still isn't clear whether Todd Dodge is human, or God.

Monkeypox Mentor

Monkeypox

Posted
Posted

Well, I suppose if it is too soon to judge the defense after 4 games, then it should be too soon to demand to coach dodge that he changes QB's. And lets throw out what they did in the body bag games too.

Except that this isn't year one for a certain QB, I agree. As I stated in the other thread, I don't think you can make the QB change at this point while the team is still in the conference race. Again, I don't like it, but I don't think it would really serve the team at this time.

However, Meager threw 3 costly picks in the game vs. FAU, and, uhm, don't look now, but our passing efficiency is bottom of the barrell. So I guess you could say our offensive scheme isn't working and Todge needs to start playing some Dickeyball after 4 games.

FirefightnRick Experienced

FirefightnRick

Posted
Posted

Just one example for you, I won't go into the rest of it.

Have you considered that our defense wasn't allowed to tackle during 2 a days in game situations but rather were forced to touch then allow the guy with the ball

to run on by? And then they were expected to make tackles against OU a week later?

I'm curious, how many games have you seen this year in person MonkeyPox?

Rick

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Tell a friend

    Love GoMeanGreen.com? Tell a friend!

  • What's going on Mean Green?

    1. 23

      JUCO players will have 4 years NCAA eligibility remaining

      I think in your scenario part of what will happen is that the players will end up splitting into two groups: those that are minor league FB players destined for the NFL (short CFB term) and those that treat it as a full time job (longer CFB term). To your point, the NFL will be grabbing the best players when they are younger. Those that don't make the NFL will be the ones that remain in college. This will get more interesting once the players get turned into "employees", which is likely just a matter of time. When this happens, there will initially be restrictions on the employment, but like everything else, lawsuits will force changes, eventually making the players normal employees of the university. This will be followed by the legal challenge to get unlimited eligibility because it will be claimed that you can't fire an employee after 2 years, simply for hitting a "term limit". So, you say make them "contract" employees. That will have it's own set of problems. The next challenge will be to remove total "player" limits since these are just employees. Just as you can't limit how many janitors, professors, or secretaries a school can hire, you can't limit the number of hired "players". While it will likely be possible to limit the number of "active players" for a game, the hiring limit will have to be removed. While pro teams do have roster limits, that is purely self imposed by the league. The schools aren't going to do it (likely not legally allowed either) and the powerless NCAA will be able to do nothing about it. So, eventually, you have a system where schools can hire as many players as they want and keep them as long as they want. People can scoff at this, but the whole system is going to be driven by court decisions as this continues down the slippery slope that almost everybody predicted. It's why I smh at people that simply say "make them employees". As usual, they usually haven't considered either of the two issues I mentioned and I'm sure there are many other issues to address as well. HR is gonna' LOVE dealing with all of this! Now, where do HS players fit into this whole situation? As others have mentioned, this is really going to affect them and it's vary as the timeline moves along through the court challenges, resulting in the various changes. It will likely take at least a decade or more to get most of them resolved. I'm really not sure what's going to happen, but, as usual, the greatest HS players will be treated differently than the average and differently again for the "walkons". Until the system settles into some version addressing the two issues I described above (and many others), it will depend on the order in which the various changes are challenged/accepted/rejected by the courts. Given just the two I mentioned, you can make your own determination as to what will happen to the various HS students AND the existing players, some of which could be at a location for many years. We'll start in stage #1 and progress to stage #4, but stages #2,#3 could happen in the any order. YES eligibility limitations; YES hiring limits: TBD YES eligibility limitations; NO hiring limits: TBD NO eligibility limitations; YES hiring limits: TBD NO eligibility limitations; NO hiring limits: BIG$$ university can simply buy up all of the HS players that are willing to sit on the bench for big money? (similar to no salary cap in pros). As mentioned earlier, I can only imagine the "fun" this is going to bring to HR (and to the players, um, I mean employees) as annual "employee evaluations" are performed. As an example, given stage #3, how is a school going to deal with a situation where there are numerous 8+ year "employees" with a "meets expectation" but needs to get rid of them to make room for a great HS players or "transfers"? They could artificially "downgrade" an employee's evaluation, but anybody that's familiar with the corporate world knows this can lead to lots of trouble, including more lawsuits if they don't have a lot of info to back it up. And if you're in a public school, I'm sure there's a ton of processes to go through before terminating an employee, i.e. PIP plan, etc. Things like this is what will cause the situation to advance to stage #4 more quickly. Regarding the NFL, once we hit stage #4, schools will become even more direct minor league/farm systems for the NFL and the NFL will begin to get MUCH more involved. Luckily, NFL teams and owners are some of the most upstanding, values-minded people, so they won't do anything underhanded. /sarc
      meaniegreenie in Mean Green Football
    2. 5

      SMUt getting owned by State

      I don’t like SMU, but this is very “little brother” energy to have this thread
      GoGreenBeans in Mean Green Football
    3. 5

      SMUt getting owned by State

      Their QB is playing like he owes his bookie.
      untphd in Mean Green Football
    4. 5

      SMUt getting owned by State

      Almost
      Green with Envy in Mean Green Football
    5. 5

      SMUt getting owned by State

      Oh good another Smut thread.
      • 1
      • Haha
      97and03 in Mean Green Football

  • Popular Contributors

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      15,504
    • Most Online
      1,865
    Jepper
    Newest Member
    Jepper
    Joined

  • Most Points

    1. 1
      El Paso Eagle
      El Paso Eagle
      169,814
    2. 2
      NT80
      NT80
      136,348
    3. 3
      KingDL1
      KingDL1
      130,640
    4. 4
      greenminer
      greenminer
      123,675
    5. 5
      TheReal_jayD
      TheReal_jayD
      108,704

  • Biggest Gamblers

    1. 1
      EdtheEagle
      EdtheEagle
      26,590,947
    2. 2
      UNTLifer
      UNTLifer
      4,480,984
    3. 3
      untphd
      untphd
      841,051
    4. 4
      flyonthewall
      flyonthewall
      670,422
    5. 5
      3_n_out
      3_n_out
      578,480
    6. 6
      SteaminWillieBeamin
    7. 7
      cousin oliver
      cousin oliver
      448,120
    8. 8
      UNT_FH_FR_YR
      UNT_FH_FR_YR
      389,039
    9. 9
      meangreenfaninno
    10. 10
      South Texas Green

WE BELIEVE IN THE MEAN GREEN!

News

Recruiting

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.