The ND "putdown" has already started.

[deeeznutz]

Can't remove sacks from the equation, sacks are part of the baseline.

True, but taking out sacks to show how they fared against actual called running plays is a valid statistic. And it appears that the UVA running backs had a decent amount of success.

 

[Skeptic]

I think it's cute how he thinks they can just snap their fingers and score 39 points and turn us over twice.

Cute is a good word for it. The guy just wrote the script for winning the NC and going onto win the Super Bowl. Seems to me he never played a lick of football at any level, and probably not even one competitive sport. Writes like it is easy.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

True, but taking out sacks to show how they fared against actual called running plays is a valid statistic. And it appears that the UVA running backs had a decent amount of success.

But then you compare that number to other teams where the sacks are still counted and you get a skewed comparison. Everybody's numbers are gonna be elevated if you take out sacks. You have to remove sacks from the lot or none at all.

 

[deeeznutz]

But then you compare that number to other teams where the sacks are still counted and you get a skewed comparison. Everybody's numbers are gonna be elevated if you take out sacks. You have to remove sacks from the lot or none at all.

OK, but I think if you're trying to ID how a defense handles passes versus runs, it's probably smart to count the sacks with the passes. It doesn't really tell you anything about how they handle a running game. So for this comparison, they gave up 5 yards a pop to the RBs. Good luck winning against us if you let our RBs pick up 5 each carry.

 

[LarryMunson]

I don't think there is bad blood coming from VanGorder. The issue is that VanGorder changed the GSU offense and made some derogatory comments about CPJ's offense. I haven't seen anything that suggests VanGorder cares one way or the other.

An ant has no quarrel with a boot.

 

[Boomergump]

OK, but I think if you're trying to ID how a defense handles passes versus runs, it's probably smart to count the sacks with the passes. It doesn't really tell you anything about how they handle a running game. So for this comparison, they gave up 5 yards a pop to the RBs. Good luck winning against us if you let our RBs pick up 5 each carry.

If we average 5 YPC, it might be a long day for us. If we get 5 yards EVERY carry, we won't be beat (without a bushel of fumbles). Go figure.

 

[AE 87]

But then you compare that number to other teams where the sacks are still counted and you get a skewed comparison. Everybody's numbers are gonna be elevated if you take out sacks. You have to remove sacks from the lot or none at all.

Right. But that's not what he was doing. He was addressing the question of how Notre Dame's D did against UVA's rushing game. When addressing that question, his methodology was sound. Saying it wouldn't be sound if he were doing something else is beside the point.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Right. But that's not what he was doing. He was addressing the question of how Notre Dame's D did against UVA's rushing game. When addressing that question, his methodology was sound. Saying it wouldn't be sound if he were doing something else is beside the point.

nm.

 

[thwgjacket]

Can't remove sacks from the equation, sacks are part of the baseline.

Not really for us. Big difference in JeT scrambling and Matt Johns. But since I "can't" make that comparison I'll just say UVA RB's averaged over 5 yards per carry.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Not really for us. Big difference in JeT scrambling and Matt Johns. But since I "can't" make that comparison I'll just say UVA RB's averaged over 5 yards per carry.

ok.

 

[Boomergump]

Personally, I don't compare much what defenses do against other teams to what they may do against us. I don't see much of a correlation at all. We take most teams totally out of their element and present a totally different set of challenges. For example, if a defense is leading the nation in sacks, it means next to nothing against us. We run 85% of the time and when we do pass, we have the nation's most elusive QB doing it and half the time we are rolling the pocket. It probably won't be a factor in the game. Time and time again we have raped good aggressive run defenses for huge yard totals. Half of that stuff is just a reflection on who they have played and what their offensive strengths and weaknesses were anyway, not ours.

 

[AE 87]

Personally, I don't compare much what defenses do against other teams to what they may do against us. I don't see much of a correlation at all. We take most teams totally out of their element and present a totally different set of challenges. For example, if a defense is leading the nation in sacks, it means next to nothing against us. We run 85% of the time and when we do pass, we have the nation's most elusive QB doing it and half the time we are rolling the pocket. It probably won't be a factor in the game. Time and time again we have raped good aggressive run defenses for huge yard totals. Half of that stuff is just a reflection on who they have played and what their offensive strengths and weaknesses were anyway, not ours.

I agree that I'm not sure that there's always a correlation between run D in general defending us, but I do think that there's a correlation between good D in scoring efficiency and defending us.

 

[deeeznutz]

Personally, I don't compare much what defenses do against other teams to what they may do against us. I don't see much of a correlation at all. We take most teams totally out of their element and present a totally different set of challenges. For example, if a defense is leading the nation in sacks, it means next to nothing against us. We run 85% of the time and when we do pass, we have the nation's most elusive QB doing it and half the time we are rolling the pocket. It probably won't be a factor in the game. Time and time again we have raped good aggressive run defenses for huge yard totals. Half of that stuff is just a reflection on who they have played and what their offensive strengths and weaknesses were anyway, not ours.

I honestly think a team's ability to rush the passer is probably the best indicator of how they will play against us. It tends to give an indication on their DL/LB ability to defeat blocks and penetrate the backfield, which tends to be the best way to slow down our offense. This is why VT's defenses have generally been pretty good against us...they are always looking to disrupt the backfield. If you try to have your LBs sit deep and chase plays sideline to sideline, you're already at a disadvantage because our RBs will be 3-4 yards downfield before you ever get to them.

 

[Boomergump]

I agree generally, in that good defense makes it harder for us to move the ball and score. However, seeing that a team averages only 90 yards rushing allowed per game is hardly a predictor of how they will do against us. I have seen it both ways.