in turnover margin, #1 in interceptions and #6 in fumble recoveries. Also #4 in opponent punt returns. I think most on this board are mistaking giving up yards on defense for bad play. We aren't trying to give up zero yards. We want the ball carrier or pass to go into a space surrounded by the defense. Have this happen enough times throughout the game and turnovers will happen. The goal is to create turnovers and MSU is the best in all of college football right now at that.
MSU is #1 in the Nation...
- Thread starter DAWG61
- Start date
You sure about that? iamsopauljonesmade was just saying how terribly run our defense is. This can't be accurate.
And is and Pony you're a fan of mine. I appreciate it. I signed my autograph on your girlfriend's cheek.
Here's another way to look at it.
At the end of the day, the defense's job is to keep the other team from scoring. Some teams do it by limiting yards, some do it by simply limited points.
When an opponent has the ball, there are essentially five things that can happen for a defense:
A punt
A missed FG
Turnover on Downs
A Takeaway
Offense Scores
Against Jackson State, they had 11 possessions. 6 ended in punts (54.5%), with 1 3 and out. 3 ended in a takeaway (27.2%), and 2 ended in an opponent score (9% TD, 9% FG)
If you apply a defensive efficiency formula to the above numbers (similar to passing efficiency for a QB), you could do something like this.
Ends in Punts or TOD *1 + 1.5*3 and Outs + 3* Takeaways - 1.5 * FG - 2 *TD, you'd get a defensive efficiency that looks like this:
54.5+(9*1.5)+(3*27.2)-(1.5*9)-(2*9)= 118.1
Against Auburn, which is our best defensive effort, Auburn had 13 drives. 6 ended in punts (46.1), with 3 3 and outs) 5 ended in takeaways (38.5), 1 ended in FG, and 1 ended in TD (special teams counts as a drive in this formula)
46.1+ (23*1.5)+ (3*38.5) - (7.6*1.5) - (7.6*2) = 169.5 Outstanding
Lets take a look at Alabama shutting down Western Kentucky using this as a formula.
WKU had 10 drives. 6 ended in punts (60%), with no 3 and outs, 4 ended in takeaways (40%). No scores. A dominating defensive performance.
60.0 + (3 *40) = 180.0.
At the end of the day, the defense's job is to keep the other team from scoring. Some teams do it by limiting yards, some do it by simply limited points.
When an opponent has the ball, there are essentially five things that can happen for a defense:
A punt
A missed FG
Turnover on Downs
A Takeaway
Offense Scores
Against Jackson State, they had 11 possessions. 6 ended in punts (54.5%), with 1 3 and out. 3 ended in a takeaway (27.2%), and 2 ended in an opponent score (9% TD, 9% FG)
If you apply a defensive efficiency formula to the above numbers (similar to passing efficiency for a QB), you could do something like this.
Ends in Punts or TOD *1 + 1.5*3 and Outs + 3* Takeaways - 1.5 * FG - 2 *TD, you'd get a defensive efficiency that looks like this:
54.5+(9*1.5)+(3*27.2)-(1.5*9)-(2*9)= 118.1
Against Auburn, which is our best defensive effort, Auburn had 13 drives. 6 ended in punts (46.1), with 3 3 and outs) 5 ended in takeaways (38.5), 1 ended in FG, and 1 ended in TD (special teams counts as a drive in this formula)
46.1+ (23*1.5)+ (3*38.5) - (7.6*1.5) - (7.6*2) = 169.5 Outstanding
Lets take a look at Alabama shutting down Western Kentucky using this as a formula.
WKU had 10 drives. 6 ended in punts (60%), with no 3 and outs, 4 ended in takeaways (40%). No scores. A dominating defensive performance.
60.0 + (3 *40) = 180.0.
I like the formula idea, but in my opinion a TOD is a takeaway. The other team gives the ball up at the spot where they finished their possession. Plus, the offense was given an additional chance to get 10 yards, so the defense should be rewarded more for it as opposed to a punt. Just an idea!
Thanks!!! I will cherish it forever!!!! I will never touch said cheek myself again, not after the king dick of all football rhetoric signed it!!!!!
An argument has long been over when absurd insults are made. However, whenever you want to stop simply trolling, I will be here to discount you.
An argument has long been over when absurd insults are made. However, whenever you want to stop simply trolling, I will be here to discount you.
I get aggravated watching the Zone especially when they play against the spread. They nickel and dime you to death and rack up a bunch of yards but to the credit of our defense they have counter that by not allowing a lot of points and creating a lot of turn overs. This is the two things we should concentrate on is points scored on and turn overs. One more thing that aggravates me and I know in the long run it will be good is playing the second team. Hell the other guys are keeping their first team out there trying to win and we put in all our second teamers and the other team starts to rack up yards and score a few points.<o
></o>
></o>I realize what we are trying to do on defense but damn it is frustrating sometimes watching the other team dink and dunk and hold the ball for what seems like forever until we finally force a turnover or a field goal.
As long as it works I'm good with it though. Tyler Bray worries me however.
As long as it works I'm good with it though. Tyler Bray worries me however.
This is the same thing I said but just toned down a little and you all throw fits when I said it. SMH
Wait, I see what you are doing.......you are trying to imitate Coach34 but
without any real football knowledge at all. That is NOT what you have said. You said our defense (players & coach) are OVERATED (your word). That is the same thing as saying they suck. They do not. We gave up 574 yds to Troy and won the game. So?
Don't try to justify what you say by piggy-backing somebody else. And your insults to those who counter you are just stupid. Make your point and leave that jr high stuff alone.
The banhammer cometh.....
without any real football knowledge at all. That is NOT what you have said. You said our defense (players & coach) are OVERATED (your word). That is the same thing as saying they suck. They do not. We gave up 574 yds to Troy and won the game. So?
Don't try to justify what you say by piggy-backing somebody else. And your insults to those who counter you are just stupid. Make your point and leave that jr high stuff alone.
The banhammer cometh.....
One advantage to the zone, i.e., forcing them to dink and dunk is that it forces an offense to go on longer, sustained drives; thus creating more opportunities for turnovers. I'm not sure we're "hiding" anything as much as we're just making sure the other offense gets as few big plays as possible. We aren't really blitzing at all and just making teams be consistent (and most college offenses aren't). Against a more polished offense, we'll have to be more creative and aggressive instead of letting it come to us. But for our recent opponents, this gives us the best chance to win.
If Morgan Newton is quarterbacking Kentucky when we face them, this strategy of sitting back might result in a record for interceptions. He is 17ing awful.
If Morgan Newton is quarterbacking Kentucky when we face them, this strategy of sitting back might result in a record for interceptions. He is 17ing awful.
The hell it is. What I said is not remotely similar to your moronic rambling.
Our coaches know what they are doing and it works. I just said it gets frustrating at times watching other teams have long clock eating drives but as long as they end in turnovers or missed field goals I am fine with it. The bottom line is keeping the other team from scoring and giving your team a chance to win and Wilson has done a great job of that.
We did not blitz very much. We loaded up on the run, played contain on Frazier, and made him beat us with his arm (which of course he couldn't). I highly doubt we employ the same strategy against UT.
However, the more plays you have to run in a drive, the higher the chance you screw something up (turnover, negative play, etc.) and have to punt or settle for three. I'd rather see Bray try to 5 yard hitch us to death than see us come with a heavy blitz, not get there, and they hit a 60 yard TD. Make them execute perfectly and consistently to beat you instead of taking a chance and getting burned.