Defense

forevereagle · October 20, 2009

Take those points out of our Total Defense ranking, and our PPG drops by a field goal per game. and we're almost out of the 100s, smack dab next to SMU. Out of the bottom 20 isn't exactly something to hang your hat on... But it's encouraging, given where we're coming from and considering that we've played Alabama and just gone through our worst defensive performance of the year last weekend.

So removing those scores for us drops our ranking. Does the new ranking account for subtracting all of those points for the other 120 teams?

Harry · October 20, 2009

I have no data to support this, but doesn't it seem that when Riley goes out of the game our defense tends to fall apart? I know that happened in the Ohio game and FAU. Perhaps it is because our defense tires as the game goes on.

Censored by Laurie · October 20, 2009

I have no data to support this, but doesn't it seem that when Riley goes out of the game our defense tends to fall apart? I know that happened in the Ohio game and FAU. Perhaps it is because our defense tires as the game goes on.

So you're in the camp believing Riley should be a safety?

TheTastyGreek · October 20, 2009

So removing those scores for us drops our ranking. Does the new ranking account for subtracting all of those points for the other 120 teams?

No, I did not go through game logs for all 119 D-1A teams to find the relevant scoring drives, remove them from their totals, recalculate, and rerank.

I'd wager that we're more affected by those sorts of scoring situations than the average team. Assuming that, it would tend to depress our ranking, even considering that the same situations do happen to other teams, too.

Though, if you'd like to take on that sort of research project to find out precisely whether we'd be 105th or 109th... I'll pat you on the back and give you a +1 when you've posted your findings.

untbowler · October 20, 2009

I have no data to support this, but doesn't it seem that when Riley goes out of the game our defense tends to fall apart? I know that happened in the Ohio game and FAU. Perhaps it is because our defense tires as the game goes on.

Riley was in the whole game for ULL though and the defense held tight after the 1st drive of 2nd Half until the last drive. Seems as if the whole team goes into their shell when the chips are down.

LongJim · October 20, 2009

Perhaps it is because our defense tires as the game goes on.

I would think so. Depth. Depth. Depth. Strength. Strength. Strength. Conditioning, Conditioning. Conditioning.

Unacceptable

Higher expectations

:lol:

I crack myself up sometimes, but man, that was funny then, and it is now.

CaribbeanGreen · October 20, 2009

It's not moot. Dickey's ball-control offense just did not pass. Throwing more than 10 times in a game was airing it for that offense. Line up with those double-TE formations, wait until the play clock got to 5 seconds and then snap.
I am not sure where we tend to snap the ball within the playclock, but we are moving the ball well, and our high ratio of 5 - 7 yard passes compared to running plays slows the clock and allows for more snaps. Thus, more opportunities for yards/stats.
On a side note, watch Houston if you can. There were occassions against Ol Miss where they were snapping the ball with 25 seconds left. Crazy.

Exactly my point. i'm not passing judgment on one offensive philosophy being better than the other, just stating the fact that even with equal ability, a DeLoach defense with this offense is unlikely to post the same numbers as back in the Booger/Kassell/Buckles, etc. days. Again, has zero to do with wins & losses, but even if we run more out of this current set, this offense moves much faster, turns it over more, and D is on the field much, much more.

UNT90 · October 21, 2009

It's not moot. Dickey's ball-control offense just did not pass. Throwing more than 10 times in a game was airing it for that offense. Line up with those double-TE formations, wait until the play clock got to 5 seconds and then snap.
I am not sure where we tend to snap the ball within the playclock, but we are moving the ball well, and our high ratio of 5 - 7 yard passes compared to running plays slows the clock and allows for more snaps. Thus, more opportunities for yards/stats.
On a side note, watch Houston if you can. There were occassions against Ol Miss where they were snapping the ball with 25 seconds left. Crazy.

Funny, I actually paid special attention to the play clock, and we ever snapped the ball with more than 7 seconds left on the play clock, so unless you thnk humans rest better in a circle than a line, the play clock is a moot point. This is not a hurry up offense, just a no huddle, look at the sideline 8 times offense. Many times the play clock was under 2 when the ball was snapped.

Now, please explain the difference in throwing the ball 5 -7 yards as opposed to running the ball for 5 - 7 yards. Same play. You may run out of bounds on either. If you are talking about incompletions, there were only, what, 7 incompletes for UNT the whole game? So, if you add it up, that is 7 (7 x 40 secs divided by 40 secs, right?) possible extra plays per game that the defense may have to face.

Let me guess. The next argument will be that the offense is just scoring too quickly and not letting the defense get enough rest between offensive touchdowns.

Here is a thought. How about a 3 and out. Guess what? You get off the field in 3 plays, you stay fresh, and you give your offense, which scored 40 freaking points, the ball back.

When did a Darrell Dickey offense ever give the defense 40 points to work with. (Yes, I found the underline function)

EDIT: Interesting fact. When we beat Baylor 52-14, the time of possession in that game was split exactly even 30/30. We threw the ball 15 times. In Saturday's game against FAU, we had the ball 27:46, or 4:28 seconds less than FAU. So, in order to run 7 extra plays, they would have had to average less than 40 seconds a play, which is the playclock time allotted.

I'm not Tasty, but just comparing these two games shows me it's the quality of defense that you play, not the quantity, that make a difference.

Keep in mind, the defense is not affected by punts, kickoffs, and field goals, which all take time off the clock (unless you continually kick of out of bounds)

Edited October 21, 2009 by UNT90

Green P1 · October 21, 2009

Couldn't give less of a rip about their ranking, where drives start against them, or how many points shouldn't actually be attributed to them. I want this defense to make a freaking play. Get an interception, force a fumble, hell I'd even settle for a sack or two. Yes this D has improved, but it still has zero ability to make plays. Great, good, average, decent, and serviceable defenses make occasional plays.... we do not.

Just read Vito's post on our defensive ineptitude. I was sitting on the 40 yard line and didn't even realize we were credited with not a single QB hurry. Hell we only had two pass breakups and one of them was by freaking Gilmore on 4th down....... If you're not going to play him at DE how about freaking Safety?

PHSCoach · October 21, 2009

No one is giving Deloach a pass. But let's look at just how bad this defense is doing this year in points per game...I believe last year they gave up an avg of 45 point per game and this year through six games they are giving up 35.5 points per game. The offense last year I believe scored 19.6 points per game and this year are at 25.3 points per game. So just looking at those numbers alone, Deloach in just his second year coaching the defense they are 10 points better and Dodge with the offense is in year three and just now starting to get the offense increasing as there was little increase between years one and two. Throw in the fact that Deloach has already proven he can coach on this level and the jury is still out on Dodge.

Let take the Ball State game out and say we add K State or LSU and look at the points per game. The offense and defense would both look alot different......

UNT90 · October 21, 2009

Let take the Ball State game out and say we add K State or LSU and look at the points per game. The offense and defense would both look alot different......

LSU yes

K State??? Uh...not this year....especially early this year

GoMeanGreen1999 · October 21, 2009

Let take the Ball State game out and say we add K State or LSU and look at the points per game. The offense and defense would both look alot different......

This offense in points per game I don't believe made much of an increase from year one to year two. I believe it was somewhere like 19.5 to 19.8 or close to it. The first year under Mendoza to the first year of DeLoach was virtually the same in points per game avg. I said before the season started if we could get the defense to reduce by just 10 points per game, I would be happy. Yes, if you add a bigger team in there instead of Ball State and or Ohio for that matter, then the numbers would be different. I suspect by the end of the season you will see a minimal decrease in the defense. Right now our defense is ranked #91 in total defense compared to #119 last year. That is up 28 spots so far. Last time DeLoach was here from his first year to his second year his defense increased 29 spots.

FirefightnRick · October 21, 2009

Last time DeLoach was here from his first year to his second year his defense increased 29 spots.

Would forcing the opponent to punt more than you do be an indicator for improvement?

In '07 we punted 68 times to our opponents 55.

In '08 we punted 70 times to our opponents 46 :blink:

This year, we have punted 31 to our opponents 35.(The 17 turnovers may have contributed to this more than I first had thought?)

Of course, nearly every year during the Dickey regime we always punted more than our opponents did. That was due to the conservative nature of Dickey's philosophy? I don't know, this may just be meaningless stats?

On the down side, our punt return numbers are not so good at all. Our opponents have 13 punt returns. We have only 3 for an average of -1 yard.

Rick

Edited October 21, 2009 by FirefightnRick

greenminer · October 21, 2009

When did a Darrell Dickey offense ever give the defense 40 points to work with. (Yes, I found the underline function)

If I implied somehow that you're a moron, I apologize. You seem bitter?

I am not trying to pick a side here: I agree that 44 should be enough to win, but I also think this coach has earned the right to figure this out. I'll stick to that even if I am by myself.

A couple things that might give us a better perspective:

What was the average duration of Dickey's scoring drives compared to now?

We are getting at least 10 offensive snaps more per game than before Dodge (I looked at 2005 and 2006 vs. 2008 and 2009). If you take away this FAU game, 2009 is almost 20 snaps better. Take that for what it is worth. Maybe with all the blowouts in 2008 it loses its validity?

I am with you, I don't have Tasty's statistics here to back me up but it seems like we are getting tons of scoring drives that last less than 2 minutes. We continue our trend of flying between the 20s and then we either punch it in pretty decisively or just fail miserably.

I know and agree we are not hurry up. The passing offense just has a tendency to slow the game down. Good point about Saturday's incompletion count.

Edited October 21, 2009 by greenminer

TheTastyGreek · October 21, 2009

Would forcing the opponent to punt more than you do be an indicator for improvement?

Not in and of itself, because a punt is not the only way to force the opponent to end their drive. You'd need additional context, like giveaway/takeaway information and successfully defended 4th down attempts.

Also, allowing two field goals is at least as good or better, in terms of points allowed, than forcing a punt and allowing a TD. If you give up a TD and an extra point, that's worse than giving up two field goal drives, even though the first situation includes a "success" in terms of a forced punt.

You'd need a metric for points allowed per defensive drive to look at it the way you're proposing.

greenminer · October 21, 2009

Would anyone agree with the suggestion that the defense just fell behind a year because it was largely ignored in the first set of recruits?

UNT90 · October 21, 2009

If I implied somehow that you're a moron, I apologize. You seem bitter?
I am not trying to pick a side here: I agree that 44 should be enough to win, but I also think this coach has earned the right to figure this out. I'll stick to that even if I am by myself.
A couple things that might give us a better perspective:
What was the average duration of Dickey's scoring drives compared to now?
We are getting at least 10 offensive snaps more per game than before Dodge (I looked at 2005 and 2006 vs. 2008 and 2009). If you take away this FAU game, 2009 is almost 20 snaps better. Take that for what it is worth. Maybe with all the blowouts in 2008 it loses its validity?
I am with you, I don't have Tasty's statistics here to back me up but it seems like we are getting tons of scoring drives that last less than 2 minutes. We continue our trend of flying between the 20s and then we either punch it in pretty decisively or just fail miserably.
I know and agree we are not hurry up. The passing offense just has a tendency to slow the game down. Good point about Saturday's incompletion count.

Very bitter, but not at you. The underline comment was directed at myself.

We can crunch the numbers 5000 times over. It all comes down to the fact that we are not a good defensive team. Period. Again.

When do we see improvement? I am happy that we are at least competetive (so far) in games, but this is the third year in a row that we just stink on defense. It doesn't take others this long to see micro steps of improvement.

And I never said to fire Coach Dodge. I think you do what RV will do, evaluate this team at the end of the season. IF we are 2-10, what should he do? I have no idea.

TheTastyGreek · October 21, 2009

Not in and of itself, because a punt is not the only way to force the opponent to end their drive. You'd need additional context, like giveaway/takeaway information and successfully defended 4th down attempts.
Also, allowing two field goals is at least as good or better, in terms of points allowed, than forcing a punt and allowing a TD. If you give up a TD and an extra point, that's worse than giving up two field goal drives, even though the first situation includes a "success" in terms of a forced punt.
You'd need a metric for points allowed per defensive drive to look at it the way you're proposing.

You'd also need to look at yards allowed per drive, or some sort of secondary measure so you could weight the first stat and control a little bit for field position (and the impact offense/special teams can have on defensive efficiency).

Stan R · October 21, 2009

You'd need a metric for points allowed per defensive drive to look at it the way you're proposing.

Under the metric system I'm pretty sure 1 point still counts as 1 point. I was never that good at conversions though.

LongJim · October 21, 2009

Would anyone agree with the suggestion that the defense just fell behind a year because it was largely ignored in the first set of recruits?

Yes, although the word "ignored" probably needs to be expanded upon.

TheTastyGreek · October 21, 2009

Under the metric system I'm pretty sure 1 point still counts as 1 point. I was never that good at conversions though.

I don't get it.

A point is a point, but a defense that allows 100 points on 100 drives has been more effective at slowing or stopping a defense that gives up 100 points on 50 drives.

Rick was asking about a way to compare defensive efficiency between teams that may spend dramatically different amounts of time on the field. Points per drive is one piece of a puzzle that tries to do that.

The meaning isn't that some points are worth more than others, or anything like that... It's that just looking at points as a raw number ignores an important factor in how many points the defense can allow. Take Texas Tech, which has a reputation for throwing the ball a lot, stopping the clock more than a running offense, and scoring quickly. If their defense has to go out on the field 13 times per game while the average NCAA team only defends 12 drives... That doesn't seem like much; only one drive. But over the course of a 12 game season, it's effectively the same as forcing the defense to play a 13th game without counting it.

Even if their defense was exactly as efficient as the average team, it would look worse by comparison because of the nature of how their coach approaches the game.

If this was a joke that I didn't get, though... My apologies.