Mavric

Here's one more set of stats for you that I didn't think about until I was most of the way done with post #174. Really, the best measure is Yards per Play. That takes out the variables that the defense has no control over - mainly how much your own offense possesses the ball and how quickly your opponents run plays. We are currently #86 in the country at 5.9 yards per play. In 2014, we were #49 at 5.2. Removing the Wisconsin game would make it 5.0 yards per play which would be about #30 in the country. Wanna guess at 2013? We were #19 in the country, allowing 4.9 yards per play. So, like I said, the complaints about how bad our defense has been over the last few years are greatly exaggerated by a few bad games. And they were terrible. But, overall, we were actually pretty decent. Nowhere near 2009 great. But MUCH better than most give us credit for. And considering how much ballyhoo there was over a simpler scheme and a more attacking defense, I can't see how this can be anything close to understandable.

Agree with this. To many, it seemed like it was happening a lot. But it was basically one game per year. Which is still too much. But I wouldn't call it regularly. But I'm not going to agree here. We were #48 in yards allowed last year. We were #40 the year before that. We're currently #107. I don't think that can simply be attributed to transition and loss of one guy who played about 2/3 of the time. Especially with all the talk about how it was really Bo's scheme that was too complicated and wouldn't get the best athletes on the field and this new scheme was going to be so much simpler and allow everyone to just play.

Here's what Riley had to say about looking for the ball. Honestly, I've never been one who makes a big deal of looking for the ball. As Riley hints at, your just as likely to lose your coverage as you are to find the ball. So stick with the coverage and try to bat the ball when the receiver reaches for it. At least in how we're playing it. I'd rather not have so many guys running with our backs to the QB but that's apparently how Banker wants it. LJS

Yes...I would feel uncomfortable. That's like a girl turning you down then asking to go as the third wheel on your next date instead of going out on Saturday night with her new boyfriend. But that's only if you're not still trying to get back with her, to use your analogy. Although "going out with friends" would be a more appropriate analogy than "next date".

Named Auburn, Michigan, North Carolina State, USC and Wake Forest as his favorites in August.

Player: Elysee Mbem-Bosse Hometown: Ellenwood, Georgia School: Cedar Grove Position: Linebacker Height: 6-3 Weight: 232 40 time: Offers: Alabama, Auburn, Cincinnati, Duke, Florida, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Florida, Syracuse, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, Wisconsin Visits: Twitter Rivals: #173 Overall; #7 ILB; 247: #31 ILB; Scout: #15 ILB; ESPN: #11 ILB; Hudl

Doesn't seem to have taken any visits since he was here.....

Not sure why this won't embed.

I think there's some revisionist history in here. When you say last year's defense "regularly fell apart", what is your definition of "regularly" and which games would you say that happened? Last year we were #48 in the country in total yards given up per game at 373. That was about #33 out of 67 Power 5 teams (including BYU and Notre Dame). That's not great but not terrible either. It's almost exactly average. But a lot of damage was done in one game. In the 11 games we played against teams not named Wisconsin (ESPN apparently doesn't include bowl games in their stats), we gave up 350 yards per game. That would have been good enough to be #30 in the country and #24 in the Power 5+. That's pretty decent. Doesn't negate what happened against Wisconsin but shows that we were actually pretty decent the rest of the time. There have also been a lot of comments about people always being able to run all over us. These comments are basically focusing on Wisconsin and ignoring the rest of the games. Against non-Wisconsin opponents last year, we gave up 3.8 yards per rushing attempt. That would have been good enough for #33 in the country. In 2013 - when we didn't play Wisconsin - we finished #32 in the country in yards allowed per attempt at the same 3.8 number. Those aren't great numbers but they're not that bad. And I would bet they're better than most would guess. Again, I'm not discounting what Wisconsin did, just speaking to the idea that we were always bad against the run and regularly fell apart on defense. So far this year we are #107 in the country in total defense at 444 yards per game. That's 70 yards per game worse than last year's total. We are allowing 3.3 yards per rushing attempt so that is a little better but we've also played a lot of teams that don't try to run it much. Before the Wisconsin game we were only giving up 3.0 ypc so it already went up 0.3 just facing one opponent that is decent at running the ball. In general, most would agree that you need to stop the run first. But I don't think many answering that question would think we'd go from #27 in yards per game allowed passing (196) to #128 (348). We haven't just traded stopping the run for stopping the pass. We've traded moderately better run defense for abysmal pass defense. So no I don't think that's a good trade.

Awesome stats that you drew up. Across the whole of the game though, we just awful on first down in general. That was really the case against Illinois also, regardless of whether it's a nitpick of "play calling/play selection." Agree with this. I'll try to do the run-down of first down plays tonight or tomorrow.

10 yards is a stretch but 6-7 yards and backpedaling. When the QB has time to stare you down, double-clutch and still complete a sideways pass all the way across the field, that's terrible coverage. When you're running cover two and your Secondary can't cover, what do you do? Throw to the TE. Guy had four catches coming into Saturday's game. He gets six and a touch. The way the secondary is playing, it's like you could throw quarters coverage out there. Wouldn't matter. This is our quarters coverage. Not Cover 2. I hope you're laughing at the simple mistake you made by saying it was a Cover 2 coverage.

10 yards is a stretch but 6-7 yards and backpedaling. When the QB has time to stare you down, double-clutch and still complete a sideways pass all the way across the field, that's terrible coverage. When you're running cover two and your Secondary can't cover, what do you do? Throw to the TE. Guy had four catches coming into Saturday's game. He gets six and a touch. The way the secondary is playing, it's like you could throw quarters coverage out there. Wouldn't matter. This is our quarters coverage. Not Cover 2.