ESPN's ACC blog hates our defense
- Thread starter bigsands
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,048
- Location
- Marietta, GA
... so that means scheme improves the lack of talent??? Very strange math.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
I'm not bothered by it. Our defense wasn't good, and we lost 7 reg starters.
That being said, the writer id'd Law as a CB, so it's not like they were looking any deeper than roster, min, and performance last year. Any suggestion that it reflects reporting from spring camps is off target it seems.
That being said, the writer id'd Law as a CB, so it's not like they were looking any deeper than roster, min, and performance last year. Any suggestion that it reflects reporting from spring camps is off target it seems.
ChasonBaller
on Pastner Polo watch
- Messages
- 3,534
Well everyone hates ESPN so I guess its fine
augustabuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,412
It wouldn't be the first time they were completely wrong in their "analysis" of Tech.
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,078
Doesn't look like they paid much attention to spring, but you can't blame them.
What they miss - and they aren't alone - is the interaction between O and D in our scheme of play. Why did the D have trouble last year? Because we weren't holding on to the ball and scoring dang near every drive like we did in 2014. When our O is rolling, the D isn't on the field much and when it is, especially late, the opposition is behind, knows it won't get too many more drives (and, hence, opportunities to score), and starts taking risks. And we have a year like 2014 where the turnover ration was strongly in our favor. And the D looks pretty good.
Well, I doubt that'll happen in 2016 - though I do expect good improvement - and ESPN has a positive aversion to any football analysis that is more complex then "This Team Stronger! Will Smash!" Still, I think we'll do better then this prediction.
What they miss - and they aren't alone - is the interaction between O and D in our scheme of play. Why did the D have trouble last year? Because we weren't holding on to the ball and scoring dang near every drive like we did in 2014. When our O is rolling, the D isn't on the field much and when it is, especially late, the opposition is behind, knows it won't get too many more drives (and, hence, opportunities to score), and starts taking risks. And we have a year like 2014 where the turnover ration was strongly in our favor. And the D looks pretty good.
Well, I doubt that'll happen in 2016 - though I do expect good improvement - and ESPN has a positive aversion to any football analysis that is more complex then "This Team Stronger! Will Smash!" Still, I think we'll do better then this prediction.
iceeater1969
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 9,582
Its not how good you are.
Its how fast you get better.
Coach has brought in larger recruits so of whom will PLAY.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
Nice theory, but our D was worse in 2014. It looked better to those who use per game or per season stats because they only had to defend 10 drives a game on ave vs pwr 5 opp. (for teams playing more than 2)
How much better was the best D, CU, that year? They defended 36 more drives than we and gave up 10 fewer TDs and 4 fewer FGs.
takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,078
Which pretty much admits my point, doesn't it? Hold on to the ball and things begin to look better for any D, including ours. Also, this post doesn't address the turnover ratio. I'll bow to you in terms of analysis, but that's what I always look to first in evaluating Ds.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
I read your post as asking a question about our struggles on D in 2015 and responding that our O wasn't as strong as 2014.
I responded that our D struggled more in 2014 than 2015.
So, no, I don't think it admits your point.
dressedcheeseside
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 14,212
Even if you are defending fewer drive, if they score on most of them you still lose games. We need a good D regardless of the O.
- Messages
- 10,053
- Location
- Williamsburg Virginia
+1. Couple that with a small fan base, dismal record last season and 65th ranked recruiting class (Scout for 2016).
The entertainment industry (Disney / ESPN / papers / blogs) is going to spend their time on other teams and give others their love.
IIWII.
- Messages
- 2,856
What was the D points scored against per possession 2014 vs 2015?
iceeater1969
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 9,582
Biggest difference I saw was (after first two pasties) 15 defense compared to 14 defense did not seem to have signature stops or interceptions. Nothing in 15 compared to the 14 Clemson where defense was the difference. In 14 there were pick 6 and key hustle tackles t goal line that WERE DEFINING MOMENTS
In 16 hope we see some flashes of things to come
In 16 hope we see some flashes of things to come
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,024
LOL, now I don't know where the number I was remembering when typing my last couple posts came from. When I was typing them, I was sure that I had recently seen a 2014 ranking for our D much lower than 2015s.
Sorry everybody, especially @takethepoints
They were actually quite similar. 2014, 2.46 and 2015, 2.47.
- Messages
- 2,856
Both years had the same points scored against with a lot less forced turn overs in 2015.
Although, you would think the defense number of minutes on the field would directly impact scored against numbers.
Although, you would think the defense number of minutes on the field would directly impact scored against numbers.
Just curious. Do we have lets say what a top 30 D would be or even top 40 in the same stat? It seems a field goal a posession is pretty bad right?