These quotes amaze me about our offense...
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
Here are some stats for you from 2007:
Top 10 offenses:
1. Tulsa - 108th in defense, 10-4 record
2. Texas Tech - 45th in defense, 9-4 record
3. Hawaii - 34th in defense, 12-1 record
4. Houston - 46th in defense, 8-5 record
5. Missouri - 59th in defense, 12-2 record
6. Louisville - 84th in defense, 6-6 record
7. Oklahoma State - 101st in defense, 7-6 record
8. Kansas - 12th in defense, 12-1 record
9. Nebraska - 112th in defense, 5-7 record
10. Oregon - 60th in defense, 9-4 record
Top 10 defenses:
1. Ohio State - 62nd in offense, 11-2 record
2. USC - 29th in offense, 11-2 record
3. LSU - 26th in offense, 12-2 record
4. Virginia Tech - 100th in offense, 11-4 record
5. Pittsburgh - 108th in offense, 5-7 record
6. Auburn - 98th in offense, 9-4 record
7. West Virginia - 15th in offense, 11-2 record
8. Oregon State - 78th in offense, 9-4 record
9. Clemson - 52nd in offense, 9-4 record
10. BYU - 25th in offense, 11-2
As you can see, having a great defense doesn't guarantee a great season. Neither does having a great offense. To have a really successful season, you have to be pretty good in both. There are only a handful of exception for teams that had success while sucking at one or the other. Tulsa, Louisville, Oregon, and Missouri all managed to have decent to pretty good seasons with good offenses and mediocre to bad defenses. Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Auburn, Oregon State, and Clemson all managed to have pretty good seasons with great defense and weak offense. Pittsburgh and Nebraska prove that being great and one side of the ball and very bad on the other can still get you a losing season.
I'll also use our team from the early 90s as an example that good defense does not necessarily equal wins. We had the No. 1 defense in the country, and we went 5-6 because our offense sucked.
Top 10 offenses:
1. Tulsa - 108th in defense, 10-4 record
2. Texas Tech - 45th in defense, 9-4 record
3. Hawaii - 34th in defense, 12-1 record
4. Houston - 46th in defense, 8-5 record
5. Missouri - 59th in defense, 12-2 record
6. Louisville - 84th in defense, 6-6 record
7. Oklahoma State - 101st in defense, 7-6 record
8. Kansas - 12th in defense, 12-1 record
9. Nebraska - 112th in defense, 5-7 record
10. Oregon - 60th in defense, 9-4 record
Top 10 defenses:
1. Ohio State - 62nd in offense, 11-2 record
2. USC - 29th in offense, 11-2 record
3. LSU - 26th in offense, 12-2 record
4. Virginia Tech - 100th in offense, 11-4 record
5. Pittsburgh - 108th in offense, 5-7 record
6. Auburn - 98th in offense, 9-4 record
7. West Virginia - 15th in offense, 11-2 record
8. Oregon State - 78th in offense, 9-4 record
9. Clemson - 52nd in offense, 9-4 record
10. BYU - 25th in offense, 11-2
As you can see, having a great defense doesn't guarantee a great season. Neither does having a great offense. To have a really successful season, you have to be pretty good in both. There are only a handful of exception for teams that had success while sucking at one or the other. Tulsa, Louisville, Oregon, and Missouri all managed to have decent to pretty good seasons with good offenses and mediocre to bad defenses. Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Auburn, Oregon State, and Clemson all managed to have pretty good seasons with great defense and weak offense. Pittsburgh and Nebraska prove that being great and one side of the ball and very bad on the other can still get you a losing season.
I'll also use our team from the early 90s as an example that good defense does not necessarily equal wins. We had the No. 1 defense in the country, and we went 5-6 because our offense sucked.
Stansfield said:
</p>
As has been shown many times, the best teams do at least one thing really well and do the other thing at least pretty good. You aren't going to simply survive on great defense with zero offense.
The old school "defense wins championships" BS is no better than the "the best defense is a good offense". You have to do well at both. You can have decent seasons by being good at one and not at the other, but you're not going to win many championships unless you can do both at least to an extent.
bogus stats over here to prove this point again, they were proven to be false, and you were bitchslapped back to hell, yet here we are making the same argument a few days later. Just can't get enough punishment can you?
The top 20 offensive teams had a combined record of 176-83. The top 20 defensive teams had a combined record of 188-73.
On average, that's a record of 8.8-4.2 for the top 20 offenses and an average of 9.4-3.7 for the top 20 defenses.
So the difference between having a great offense versus having a great defense for last year alone was roughly half a game in the win-loss column, not that much. And I'd bet that there have been years where the top offenses put together better records than the top defenses.
By the way, Vanderbilt went 5-7 last year with the 103rd ranked offense and the 16th ranked defense. MSU was 7-5 (regular season) with the 113th ranked offense and the 21st ranked defense. It's reasonable to suggest that sucking really bad on offense but being really good on defense will get you to around 6-6 most of the time in the SEC. The same can be said for sucking really bad on defense but being really good on offense. See Toledo, Nebraska, and Louisville.
On average, that's a record of 8.8-4.2 for the top 20 offenses and an average of 9.4-3.7 for the top 20 defenses.
So the difference between having a great offense versus having a great defense for last year alone was roughly half a game in the win-loss column, not that much. And I'd bet that there have been years where the top offenses put together better records than the top defenses.
By the way, Vanderbilt went 5-7 last year with the 103rd ranked offense and the 16th ranked defense. MSU was 7-5 (regular season) with the 113th ranked offense and the 21st ranked defense. It's reasonable to suggest that sucking really bad on offense but being really good on defense will get you to around 6-6 most of the time in the SEC. The same can be said for sucking really bad on defense but being really good on offense. See Toledo, Nebraska, and Louisville.
before have I responded to this argument because it can't be won. Some minds are made up and won't be changed. I will respond with my own opinion, although it is unpopular. I love our offense! I love our defense! And I think they compliment each other very well. The object is to win games; that's it. It doesn't matter how. I don't care if we finish dead last in offense if we win games; really who would complain if we won all 12 games with a score of 3 - 0? Not me. Here are my reasons:
Up the middle and out for three quarters wears on defenses. Hitting Dixon, Ducre, and Elliot over and over again has to take a toll and allows for easier yards in the fourth. As long as they don't fumble we'll be in good shape. the defensive compliment to this is that our defense has the ability to hold teams scoring down which gives us a chance in the fourth quarter.
Our offense eats up clock like nobody's business and gives the opponent fewer opportunities to score. This combined with our defense can keep the score down and gives us a better chance to win in the fourth quarter. Few people remember how close the TN game was in the fourth quarter, we gave ourself a chance and couldn't convert. But it was a chance nobody on earth gave us before kickoff.
When you throw the ball three things can happen, two of which are bad; an incompletion or an interception (LSU 2007). What has anyone else seen about this team that would convince me that this team needs to be flinging the football around the field? Me either; and don't bring up recruiting. We only have one team, this team. I take my chances on the defense winning games over an offense losing games. At least i'll sleep better.
This offense will not put up a bunch of yards, period. It's not supposed to, and doesn't have to when you have a dominant defense. Take Gard-Webb for example. We got up early then let the defense handle it. Instead of trying to pad the stats or run up the score we did the smart thing; hold on to the ball and run time off the clock. If your ahead by one point there is no sense in doing something stupid to win by 20. The margin of victory is not placed beside the W.
Now, are we there yet? No, but we are a lot closer than we were. We were better at the end of last year than we were at the beginning though. The argument about defensive touchdowns is irrelevant because you can't determine if it was caused by a stupid throw, pressure from our defensive line, or a great break by the corner. You would also have to take away every defensive touchdown against us since they would be counted as luck also. The whole top offenses argument is moot as well, because it doesn't take into account the defenses the yards came against. It's a ridiculous argument to begin with; did the offense make a big play, or did the defense give up a big play? The importance of an offense or defense is determined by which one you have and which one you don't. When you have one that is more dominant than the other you play to that strength. Ours is the defense and our philosophy is, as it should be "Our defense can win us games if we don't let our offense lose them."
As I said before, I know mine is not a popular opinion, but I will be there every chance I get to cheer for my Bulldogs; THESE BULLDOGS! And just like Christmas morning I will ask for and hope for what I want, but be appreciative of anything I get. Wins are all that matter, and if that means a 2 - 0 victory over LA TECH on a last second safety I say "WRAP THIS ONE IN MAROON AND WHITE"
Sorry for the length of this post.
Up the middle and out for three quarters wears on defenses. Hitting Dixon, Ducre, and Elliot over and over again has to take a toll and allows for easier yards in the fourth. As long as they don't fumble we'll be in good shape. the defensive compliment to this is that our defense has the ability to hold teams scoring down which gives us a chance in the fourth quarter.
Our offense eats up clock like nobody's business and gives the opponent fewer opportunities to score. This combined with our defense can keep the score down and gives us a better chance to win in the fourth quarter. Few people remember how close the TN game was in the fourth quarter, we gave ourself a chance and couldn't convert. But it was a chance nobody on earth gave us before kickoff.
When you throw the ball three things can happen, two of which are bad; an incompletion or an interception (LSU 2007). What has anyone else seen about this team that would convince me that this team needs to be flinging the football around the field? Me either; and don't bring up recruiting. We only have one team, this team. I take my chances on the defense winning games over an offense losing games. At least i'll sleep better.
This offense will not put up a bunch of yards, period. It's not supposed to, and doesn't have to when you have a dominant defense. Take Gard-Webb for example. We got up early then let the defense handle it. Instead of trying to pad the stats or run up the score we did the smart thing; hold on to the ball and run time off the clock. If your ahead by one point there is no sense in doing something stupid to win by 20. The margin of victory is not placed beside the W.
Now, are we there yet? No, but we are a lot closer than we were. We were better at the end of last year than we were at the beginning though. The argument about defensive touchdowns is irrelevant because you can't determine if it was caused by a stupid throw, pressure from our defensive line, or a great break by the corner. You would also have to take away every defensive touchdown against us since they would be counted as luck also. The whole top offenses argument is moot as well, because it doesn't take into account the defenses the yards came against. It's a ridiculous argument to begin with; did the offense make a big play, or did the defense give up a big play? The importance of an offense or defense is determined by which one you have and which one you don't. When you have one that is more dominant than the other you play to that strength. Ours is the defense and our philosophy is, as it should be "Our defense can win us games if we don't let our offense lose them."
As I said before, I know mine is not a popular opinion, but I will be there every chance I get to cheer for my Bulldogs; THESE BULLDOGS! And just like Christmas morning I will ask for and hope for what I want, but be appreciative of anything I get. Wins are all that matter, and if that means a 2 - 0 victory over LA TECH on a last second safety I say "WRAP THIS ONE IN MAROON AND WHITE"
Sorry for the length of this post.
"The object is to win games; that's it. It doesn't matter how. I don't care if we finish dead last in offense if we win games; "
How many games did we win in 2004, 2005, and 2006 when we were finishing dead last in offense? Just because a freak occurance happens once, doesnt make it the norm
How many games did we win in 2004, 2005, and 2006 when we were finishing dead last in offense? Just because a freak occurance happens once, doesnt make it the norm
Coach34 said:
</p>
1976? I'm guessing you had plaid pants and an Afro.
Plus, I figure that if I've never shot a gun before, I'm going to bring a really big one to the showdown.
Coach34 said:
What if we have a bad offense and still win 7-8 games again this year? Are you going to spend the rest of the year telling us there is no way it will happen 3 years in a row? </p>
Coach34 said:
</p>But what if we do? Will you spend the rest of the year saying that it was all luck and there is no way we can do it 3 years in a row?
I think you'll win 6 this year at a minimum because of the schedule, even if your offense sucks. However, I do think you'll have a hard time putting together consistent winning seasons if you get outscored like you did last year. And I'm guessing that's Coach's point. Your defense was pretty good last year, which helps you win games, but you'll need to improve on offense in order to be able to keep winning. If you're getting outscored on average, it's tough to win consistently.
I agree, and I know the offense has to get better. The team has improved each year and hopefully that will continue
I'm won't argue 2004, 2005, and 2006 because it doesn't matter. There were different players, new coaches, learning new schemes, etc. These were called "rebuilding years" and we were told that this was a process and would take time.
Up the middle and punt is not a good offense. It can be an effective offense with a good defense though. Throwing six interceptions against LSU wasn't very effective either. If the defense is good enough to keep us in games, this offense won't lose games; but does wear on opposing defenses and chews up the clock. We ranked fifth in the league in time of possesion and outscored our opponents 149-128 in the fouth quarter. The up the middle and punt offense was also only outgained by an average of 34.6 yards per game; MSU 297.2, opponents 331.8.
As for the defense being "worn out," we were fifth in total defense and first in red zone defense. There is a misconception that our running game forces the defense to be on the field too much, but that's not necessarily true. This offense actuallys allows the defense more time to rest and recoup than a FL, KY, or even USC.
We were only outscored by a total of 22 points last year, total. I am optomistic that we can win with this offense and this defense. I also believe that most people who argue against don't like it because it's not fun for them to watch more than anything. I happen to like defense. BTW, I thought the Liberty Bowl was great!
Up the middle and punt is not a good offense. It can be an effective offense with a good defense though. Throwing six interceptions against LSU wasn't very effective either. If the defense is good enough to keep us in games, this offense won't lose games; but does wear on opposing defenses and chews up the clock. We ranked fifth in the league in time of possesion and outscored our opponents 149-128 in the fouth quarter. The up the middle and punt offense was also only outgained by an average of 34.6 yards per game; MSU 297.2, opponents 331.8.
As for the defense being "worn out," we were fifth in total defense and first in red zone defense. There is a misconception that our running game forces the defense to be on the field too much, but that's not necessarily true. This offense actuallys allows the defense more time to rest and recoup than a FL, KY, or even USC.
We were only outscored by a total of 22 points last year, total. I am optomistic that we can win with this offense and this defense. I also believe that most people who argue against don't like it because it's not fun for them to watch more than anything. I happen to like defense. BTW, I thought the Liberty Bowl was great!
Stansfield said:
That's what gets me, as has been pointed out before. This offense doesn't resemble the WCO to me. I realize that the real WCO it is hard to learn but we seem to be stuck on the same 3 or 4 pages we were on in '04. As soon as we do something different that works, we tear that page out of the play book and never use it again.
</p>