YJMD
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,600
Small but fierce?
Hitting home how aggressive Woody's D must be right now
- Thread starter ilovetheoption
- Start date
Small but fierce?
ilovetheoption
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,803
...dag nabit, now I can't unthink it, lol
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Smaller than average but faster penetrating?
ilovetheoption
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,803
Well, they just have to attack when the other side tries to run
alagold
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,521
- Location
- Huntsville,Al
we can complain about last yrs DEF (for good reason) but oddly it had the Def BEST AVG yds per game in 8 yrs.So its not like we are starting from 130th in US.So for those that think we are going to magically control games with an aggressive DEF,think again.It will be different but maybe not better.
The first time you see a runner split the Def up middle for 40 yds when 2 LBs go to wrong hole , think about that.
- Messages
- 4,806
My thought process on this transition is that I want to see the guys reacting quickly to the play. Too often under CTR it seemed to my untrained eye that we got caught in the no man's land between doing the wrong thing quickly or the right thing loo late.
We can teach and fix bad choices, but I want a team with a bias for action. Force contact as quickly as possible with the ball carrier and bring them to the ground. The rest is ephemeral and beyond my grasp as a guy who's knowledge of schemes is rudimentary at best.
We can teach and fix bad choices, but I want a team with a bias for action. Force contact as quickly as possible with the ball carrier and bring them to the ground. The rest is ephemeral and beyond my grasp as a guy who's knowledge of schemes is rudimentary at best.
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,016
We were tied with 2013 for fewest yards/play allowed for last 9 years, but we were still 57th in that category. Our yds/game is skewed by facing fewer plays on average.
- Messages
- 2,856
It is not hard to understand...
Fewer possessions hides some defense issues and hides some offense positives. Last year we were 69th at 28.2 points per game against. This gets even worse if you look at pure points per possession.
Fewer possessions also means few yards available. Example: would you rather have 17 tries to make yards and TDs or 12. Which do you think would yield more yards and more TDs?
In point against common ACC opponents per possession, I showed only UNC was worse than GT (and UNC was really bad).
GT was good on third down last year and was 11th in the nation on 3rd down defense. I saw this and it felt good! But the issues was GT only had 20% of 1st down conversions on 3rd down. OUCH!
It is hard for me be believe we will go backwards...
Fewer possessions hides some defense issues and hides some offense positives. Last year we were 69th at 28.2 points per game against. This gets even worse if you look at pure points per possession.
Fewer possessions also means few yards available. Example: would you rather have 17 tries to make yards and TDs or 12. Which do you think would yield more yards and more TDs?
In point against common ACC opponents per possession, I showed only UNC was worse than GT (and UNC was really bad).
GT was good on third down last year and was 11th in the nation on 3rd down defense. I saw this and it felt good! But the issues was GT only had 20% of 1st down conversions on 3rd down. OUCH!
It is hard for me be believe we will go backwards...
ibeattetris
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,551
Yards per game also masks average starting field position of the opposing offense. Special teams and turn overs can cause the opposing offense to need less yards per drive to convert points. I believe FEI includes total percent of available yards per drive in their metric (and SP will do total percent of available yards per play).
Edit: I do want to say our desire to go for it on our own 45 (as well as turnovers in general) does put the defense in tough spot s where minimal yards will lead to points. This can lead to us having low yards per game while still giving up large amount of points per drive/play.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
There were some things going on at the line of scrimmage last year which were head scratchers for me.
It has been my contention for some time that we had been lacking real studs in the front four for the last few years. It was also my preseason contention that we were improving in talent and depth along the DL. So I expected improvements while still worrying about some deficiencies.
I thought our Dline would hold up better in short yardage situations and get more tackles for loss and more runs stuffed at the line of scrimmage. I still worried we didn’t have a credible pass rush.
These things kinda played out to be true in many regards but not in some others.
I thought we were fairly well improved in short yardage running situations and held the line much better in 17 than prior years. I think we were pretty good at stuffing a lot of runs for short gains. What didn’t translate as much were TFLs. Partly because we never did develop a decent pass rush from the DEs or by blitzing. But I still thought we could and should have gotten more TFLs regardless because we were stiffer along the line in the run game.
I oddly feel kind of similar this year. I think our interior Dline will be pretty stout, comparative to prior years, and has nice depth to rotate players in. I’m still worried we don’t have a legit pass rush specialist.
I do think this scheme and the DC’s philosophies are a better fit than previously and will get better results. I think our LBs will benefit likewise.
I don’t think the changes are quite as impactful for our secondary. The youth there causes me some concern. That concern is largely offset by our improved size and athleticism in the backfield plus the addition of the field general Wofford transfer we got this year.
Common sense says there should be growing pains. The off-season optimist in me suspects our opponents are in store for a nasty surprise this year.
It has been my contention for some time that we had been lacking real studs in the front four for the last few years. It was also my preseason contention that we were improving in talent and depth along the DL. So I expected improvements while still worrying about some deficiencies.
I thought our Dline would hold up better in short yardage situations and get more tackles for loss and more runs stuffed at the line of scrimmage. I still worried we didn’t have a credible pass rush.
These things kinda played out to be true in many regards but not in some others.
I thought we were fairly well improved in short yardage running situations and held the line much better in 17 than prior years. I think we were pretty good at stuffing a lot of runs for short gains. What didn’t translate as much were TFLs. Partly because we never did develop a decent pass rush from the DEs or by blitzing. But I still thought we could and should have gotten more TFLs regardless because we were stiffer along the line in the run game.
I oddly feel kind of similar this year. I think our interior Dline will be pretty stout, comparative to prior years, and has nice depth to rotate players in. I’m still worried we don’t have a legit pass rush specialist.
I do think this scheme and the DC’s philosophies are a better fit than previously and will get better results. I think our LBs will benefit likewise.
I don’t think the changes are quite as impactful for our secondary. The youth there causes me some concern. That concern is largely offset by our improved size and athleticism in the backfield plus the addition of the field general Wofford transfer we got this year.
Common sense says there should be growing pains. The off-season optimist in me suspects our opponents are in store for a nasty surprise this year.
- Messages
- 4,526
- Location
- Savannah,GA