look you have to look at a body of work for all statistics. Its like saying because an QB is in the top 3, they must have top 3 O. Of course not. Same with individual stats. You also can't compare team to team and draw a conclusion about D styles that work more. Some work better for certain personel then others, and some schools have way better players.
the facts remain, our defense, most recently under roof...tend to be stuck in the 60s, 70s, 80s, in stats. In general. That is where they reside. Could there be a stat anomaly where they are higher sure, in the 40s, sure. Could there be one on the low in the 90s, 100s, sure. They avg out.
but generally, just look at the work on the field. The stats just validate it. The work on the field is not good IMO. Bad 3rd down work. Bad at pressure. Struggle in power zone plays. Struggle in the flats continually; we leave the flats so open. Partially due to too aggressive LB flow and undisciplined work; which for me is back at the coaching of the position and the scheme putting you in the right spots.
When you watch the best DC's, much like the best OC's, they have their bread and butter and philosophy they stick to; and most of their calls are off this.
- Bud foster is his man scheme; you know what you are getting
- Gary Patterson has a complex 2 half field zone, that rocks. I freaking love it.
- When tenuta was here, he had a 3deep zone dog scheme that really too advantage of other teams blocking schemes
- Rex Ryan, has his 3-4 with bear fronts; high pressure complex pre snap mixes
- Wade Philips has his 3-4 2/3deep with a ton of zone dogs etc
What is roofs? I just can't describe what his method is. And other times, what he does is so basic, so like junior basic, its no wonder they get shredded.
But I will say looking at this list...in general; based on what I see on film watching the games
Venables aggressive
Foster aggressive
Tenuta (stat from tenuta before howell) aggressive
Grantham aggressive
The top 4 SEC D's minus maybe Bama which is balanced are aggressive styles, heavy pressure packages and blitzes
Big Ten...I don't know them as much; But Iowa is not generally an aggressive D by scheme. mich St is.
Ariz St is very scheme aggressive, Stanford is not.
Baylor Ok TCU all very scheme aggressive.
Just looking at the list most of the top teams; actually really all but Bama are generally considered scheme aggressive. Now, there are some at the bottom that are scheme aggressive too.
So all this means is scheme aggressive doesn't equal 3rd down success....but generally the best teams use an aggressive style and more than the other styles....it seems to be better.
