Defense

[Petro-Sooner]

Who else is concerned that we give up a LOT of passing yards due to the zone D? Simply picking us apart. Catch it where they aren't there and its a nice gain. The whole crowd around us were asking why we were running it. And its not just this game. I'm just an average fan but I know what to do against our D.

EDIT. Mark May just put South Florida number one in his poll and Lou put Kansas at number 2. BWWHAHAHAHAHHAHA

[goingoneight]

Very much concerned. We are good at the pursuit and a solid tackling defense... but damn, you give up this and that and all of a sudden you're backed up to your goal line. My opinion is the blame is falling on OUr slow pass rush. Those big guns have got to step up their game speed-wise.

[Curly Bill]

You're right, and very much beating a dead horse.

[IronSooner]

Are you serious? Our pass rush is the best part of our defense. In the secondary we usually let them catch it, then limit YAC and try to keep them in front of the 1st-down line.

We're gonna give up tons of yards to MU. We'll give up even more to Tech. But you score football games based on touchdowns and field goals, not yards. Yeah it ****es me off too, but I'd rather win ugly than not at all. And as long as we play Cover-2 nearly exclusively, we'll have some ugly wins.

[mightysooner]

Definitely tired of that weak azz zone D we play. Just got back from the game and in watching it....it looks like our secondary has been coached to stand in their zone and wait for the WR to catch the ball....and then focus on making the tackle. We sat there all night watching our DB's just stand there and wait for their WR's to catch the ball instead of closing and trying to disrupt. Very frustrating to watch...

[Texas Golfer]

I don't like the zone D. Graham Harrell will rip us apart.

[BillyBall]

For the type of spread that Missery plays, I like how we played... If we dont turn the ball over, we blow them out.

[BornandBred]

Even I'm tired of talking about the bad defense. But, yes. In our Dscheme we give up yards in return for not giving up the homerun. It's a tradeoff that our coaches have made. IMHO, I think it's because they're affraid that if they go to man coverage our DB's will get burned. I've seen the man coverage a few times this year, and we seemed to perform well. But it was usually against a running situation.

As bad as we looked, I felt we did a pretty good job. And against a spread offense like MU's, I'm happy to give up yards if we restrict TDs. I'll be saying the same thing against TTech, a win is a win is a win. Keep 'em coming, and I'll be happy.

[medstudent24]

We might be able to eek out of the Big 12 with a conference championship with this porous defense, but no way in hell is our defense good enough to stay competitive in the BCS national championship game. If we somehow made it that far, we'd get waxed by 20 points.

You need a championship level defense to win that game, and thats something that OU is not even close to this year.

[mdklatt]

On the bright side, we didn't give up any big plays in the secondary. But then again, Mizzou was moving through us like a Sonic breakfast burrito so they didn't need any big plays. How many friggin' 3rd and forevers did they convert? Chase Daniel is a slippery little bastard.

[medstudent24]

On the bright side, we didn't give up any big plays in the secondary.

What are you talking about? I saw multiple 30+ yard passes against the defense today.

[mdklatt]

And against a spread offense like MU's, I'm happy to give up yards if we restrict TDs.

We didn't do the greatest job of that, either. Hoping for turnovers is not a sustainable defensive strategy. Prevent defenses prevent punts.

[aurorasooner]

One promising thing I saw tonight was Reggie Smith almost jumping that rout for a pick tonight over on the east sideline. I haven't seen anyone actually be close enough to jump a route in front of the opposing receiver for a pick this year (but I may be wrong). It also seemed we were close to the Missouri receivers to limit the YAC, but still not close enough for the break-up or oski. It seems like all our picks come off tipped balls. His roll back pick was good, but imo lucky because Daniel's just didn't see him.

[DocNice]

Who else is concerned that we give up a LOT of passing yards due to the zone D? Simply picking us apart. Catch it where they aren't there and its a nice gain. The whole crowd around us were asking why we were running it. And its not just this game. I'm just an average fan but I know what to do against our D.


Seriously dude, you have no idea how good you defense played tonight. Mizzou is a REALLY good offense, and you did quite well. Many of our scores came off of turnovers. I've seen Mizzou against some decent defenses this year, and you were by FAR the best.

Every catch was in tight traffic, needing a really hard throw and catch to complete the pass. And every receiver was tackled shortly after the catch. You did a great job of tackling in the open field. Lastly, how many times did Daniel have all day and couldn't find anyone. That never happens to him. You were blanketing our receivers, and you mixed it up enough that we couldn't predict what you'd do.

[mdklatt]

What are you talking about? I saw multiple 30+ yard passes against the defense today.

If by "multiple" you mean "a couple", then maybe. It seemed to me that most of their long plays were after short passes. When we play oSu we'll really see how good we are at defending the home run plays.

[Petro-Sooner]

I noticed in the third when we were down I believe that we did adjust and go man up. We stopped them. Just frustrating. Vent over.

[Texas Golfer]

Seriously dude, you have no idea how good you defense played tonight. Mizzou is a REALLY good offense, and you did quite well. Many of our scores came off of turnovers. I've seen Mizzou against some decent defenses this year, and you were by FAR the best.

Thank you.

[BornandBred]

We didn't do the greatest job of that, either. Hoping for turnovers is not a sustainable defensive strategy. Prevent defenses prevent punts.
I think what the coaches are playing for against an O like MU's is that our athletes are better than theirs and we'll make a big play, ie takeaway, sack, etc. It seems to be like a game long prevent, almost, I agree. I means we're waiting on the O to make a mistake/misstep and we'll capitalize. I think we play attack against a more standard style O, and this cover 2/keep everything underneath against the spread. I'm not in love with it, but it is what it is.

[msteudem]

I liked the D in the first half and at the beginning of the 4th qtr. Mainly because our scheme was more aggresive. DBs closer to the los and we were rushing at least 4. I never understood why we were rushing 3 down lineman. Made no sense when we were so successful getting pressure in the first half. We finally started doing it again at the beginning of the 4th qtr which contributed to CL getting the fumble recovery for the TD. We have to play to win not to play to not lose IMO.

[goingoneight]

Are you serious? Our pass rush is the best part of our defense. In the secondary we usually let them catch it, then limit YAC and try to keep them in front of the 1st-down line.

We're gonna give up tons of yards to MU. We'll give up even more to Tech. But you score football games based on touchdowns and field goals, not yards. Yeah it ****es me off too, but I'd rather win ugly than not at all. And as long as we play Cover-2 nearly exclusively, we'll have some ugly wins.

It's dangerously inconsistent. It is not always the best part of OUr defense when Chase Daniel consistently has four to seven seconds in the pocket. We give up catches because he has five wide on every down... they're going to get open with that kind of time. There is talent and big-play capability on the DL, but inconsistency is of concern.

[aurorasooner]

Seriously dude, you have no idea how good you defense played tonight. Mizzou is a REALLY good offense, and you did quite well. Many of our scores came off of turnovers. I've seen Mizzou against some decent defenses this year, and you were by FAR the best. Totally agree. I thought they all played well tonight especially taking away the long ball, stopping the run (including Daniels), rushing the QB, and especially gang tackling. Only saw 1 deep ball from Missouri and that was a blown coverage that luckily Daniels missed. Nice PU of the outside blitz by Missouri of rolling that guard out with the QB. That Missouri O is every bit as hard to defend as the tech offense, imo. also a good adjustment by Missouri to limit Kelly in the 2nd half. If we're going to run trips wide, I think we need to see more production from MJ and need to get him into the game like JI and MK. If we can't get any more production from MJ, (than 1 catch every couple of games) I'd rather see us run 2 wide with 2 backs and motion DM out of the backfield when we need trips wide.

[Rogue]

More aggressive tonight and held MU to 57 rushing yards. I liked it compared to the past couple of weeks.

[adoniijahsooner]

If you take away that last garbage drive at the end of the game, then chase only passed for about 270 or so. The defense did well imo. except for the end of both halfs.

[Curly Bill]

If you take away that last garbage drive at the end of the game, then chase only passed for about 270 or so. The defense did well imo. except for the end of both halfs.

The end of both halfs often have a telling impact on the outcome of the game.

[SoonerBBall]

You guys f*cking kill me. Does someone have to explain this every week?

Welcome to the new century of college football where teams with mediocre talent can still play ball thanks to the spread. The spread offense was built to pick apart defenses 5-10 yards at a time while going deep when possible. Our defense is all about stopping the run, stopping long gains, minimizing YAC on all catches, and making the other team pay in blood and flesh whenever they make a mistake. We've played this defense pretty much since Bob got here. Now, someone please mention Mike Stoops so I can reach through the Internet and give you the pimp hand.

Our D was screwed early on by our offense and later by our special teams. They still played well, scored on a fumble recovery, forced 3 interceptions, came up with plenty of sacks, and basically made Chase Daniels look anything but extrodinary. Did they play perfect? No. Get used to it and pay attention to the damn game next time.

[tulsaoilerfan]

I thought the Defense played really well except for the series right before the half and the one in the 3rd; i totally discount that one at the end because the game was over at that point

[LittleWingSooner]

If you look at the empty yards that Mizzou got and the yards and points we gave them after turnovers. They had 14 points off turnovers. Their last TD and their FG at the end of the first half was against prevent. The TD in the 3rd quarter was when we decided not to put pressure on them. And they still had a tough time moving it in most of those drives anyway.

Missouri was held about 150-200 yards under their normal yardage output. This is a very good Missouri team they will probably have a shot to win every game they play the rest of the year. They should win the North unless Kansas beats them.

[tulsaoilerfan]

You guys f*cking kill me. Does someone have to explain this every week?

Welcome to the new century of college football where teams with mediocre talent can still play ball thanks to the spread. The spread offense was built to pick apart defenses 5-10 yards at a time while going deep when possible. Our defense is all about stopping the run, stopping long gains, minimizing YAC on all catches, and making the other team pay in blood and flesh whenever they make a mistake. We've played this defense pretty much since Bob got here. Now, someone please mention Mike Stoops so I can reach through the Internet and give you the pimp hand.

Our D was screwed early on by our offense and later by our special teams. They still played well, scored on a fumble recovery, forced 3 interceptions, came up with plenty of sacks, and basically made Chase Daniels look anything but extrodinary. Did they play perfect? No. Get used to it and pay attention to the damn game next time.
I totally agree and i've said the same thing many times, but sometimes i get a little frustrated with our defensive philosophy

[piusbovis]

So how did that LSU D play today? The d had me frustrated today but give them some credit, they made some clutch plays, especially in the fourth quarter and got it done. I feel like we performed better than I was expecting coming into this game, especially since almost their entire offense are seniors and juniors.

[101sooner]

I didn't mind the prevent on the last drive. We were up by 15 points and we made them use all but 12 seconds off the clock and burn both their remaining time-outs to score. That was a solid strategy.

[Redgiant2]

You guys f*cking kill me. Does someone have to explain this every week?

Welcome to the new century of college football where teams with mediocre talent can still play ball thanks to the spread. The spread offense was built to pick apart defenses 5-10 yards at a time while going deep when possible. Our defense is all about stopping the run, stopping long gains, minimizing YAC on all catches, and making the other team pay in blood and flesh whenever they make a mistake. We've played this defense pretty much since Bob got here. Now, someone please mention Mike Stoops so I can reach through the Internet and give you the pimp hand.

Our D was screwed early on by our offense and later by our special teams. They still played well, scored on a fumble recovery, forced 3 interceptions, came up with plenty of sacks, and basically made Chase Daniels look anything but extrodinary. Did they play perfect? No. Get used to it and pay attention to the damn game next time.

You know what ****ing kills me? People that hear things on a tv show and then decide to hop on here and act like they're teaching somebody something. That's what ****ing kills me.

And while the defensive philosophy might be the same the defensive playbook is nothing close to what Mike Stoops ran. Now if you're done with the melodramatic talk of blood and flesh please feel free to reach through the internet so I can grab that stick of bologna you try to call an arm and pull the rest of you out and treat you like Austin English on a Texas quarterback.

That said the defense played far more aggressive than they have in a VERY long time and it paid dividends. It was surprising and I'm sure Mizzou was completely unprepared for what they saw. Some of the same mistakes were made, yes. But for once they were ****ing physical, they got after the QB with their speed. Points to the D for that and it made all the difference in the world. And while English may not ever win the Ronnie Lott Award for hitting that guy is EVERYWHERE! He runs his *** off to the ball and by God the rest of them are starting to take notice.

[soonersn2007]

I think OU did its best job of disguising their D, moving during the pre-snap and confusing Daniels a little bit tonite.
There is a artistic style of DBs walking/creeping/backing up to the line during the snap count. They were moving in concert back in forth on both sides and not letting on who was gonna blitz.

[David Earl]

Redgiant2, noobs should talk a little nicer. Just sayin'....

[TripleOption14]

Are you serious? Our pass rush is the best part of our defense. In the secondary we usually let them catch it, then limit YAC and try to keep them in front of the 1st-down line.


If you think the OU D limits YAC yds. you are sadly mistaken!! Thats one of the things they don't do.

[ruf/nekdad]

If MO had not been given the gift of two very short fields would you still be sniffling about how bad the defense is? Having never played the game, I can only imagine that it would be a demoralizing and exhausting thing even once. Against a very good offense, and under the circumstances I think they played well.
JMHO

[fadada1]

there were some moments of brilliance... and some moments of complete breakdown. There are times when our tackling looks like they came out of the womb hitting tackling dummies... and times when it looks like one of us is out there.

i think, overall, our defensive schemes were sound last night. we were more aggressive than the previous 6 games, imo. if i had to speak for most of us, i think there are some glaring inconsistencies that make us, as fans, frustrated. i hope they make the coaches and players frustrated as well. missouri is/was an EXCELLENT team. we just can't make those mistakes down the stretch of this season.

i think we play well against isu, and get a much needed week off to make some adjustments for the last few games.

[mustangsooner]

Seriously dude, you have no idea how good you defense played tonight. Mizzou is a REALLY good offense, and you did quite well. Many of our scores came off of turnovers. I've seen Mizzou against some decent defenses this year, and you were by FAR the best.

Every catch was in tight traffic, needing a really hard throw and catch to complete the pass. And every receiver was tackled shortly after the catch. You did a great job of tackling in the open field. Lastly, how many times did Daniel have all day and couldn't find anyone. That never happens to him. You were blanketing our receivers, and you mixed it up enough that we couldn't predict what you'd do.

I think the Pass D was good tonight. Chase Daniel is a great QB and threaded the needle on alot of passes. He played great and I think our defense played great also.

[colleyvillesooner]

What are you talking about? I saw multiple 30+ yard passes against the defense today.

I count two. Nice try.

Our D was good enough to win and hold this REALLY good defense to 24 points until the garbage drive, and 14 of those 24, they started in out in our territory due to turnovers. What should have been a 17 point win over Mizzou will look a LOT better as the weeks go by.

Everyone relax and take a deep breath. For those that think we would get torched in a NC game with this D, I give you the Ohio State Offense. If OU was fortunate enough to win our games and shore up our deficiencies, I would love our chances against tOSU.

[TexasEx4OU]

It was kind of a tale of two Ds. I thought our first half D was the best we've played this season. Four down on the line and mixing up the blitz package very well. Daniel never seemed comfortable.

Then we go up 23-10 and into a defensive shell. Three down linemen, dropping eight, no pressure on Daniel. He gets into a rhythm. I spent the entire 3rd Qtr thinking two things: 1) Didn't Daniel spend the 48 hours after the Nebbish game telling the press that a three-man front won't work against Mizzou?", and 2) This is starting to look like a CU redux.

Thankfully, Curtis Lofton and the O-line took over in the fourth, and we win going away. Nevertheless, the 3rd was frustrating to watch, particularly after the stellar first half. JMHO.

[SoonerBBall]

You know what ****ing kills me? People that hear things on a tv show and then decide to hop on here and act like they're teaching somebody something. That's what ****ing kills me.

And while the defensive philosophy might be the same the defensive playbook is nothing close to what Mike Stoops ran. Now if you're done with the melodramatic talk of blood and flesh please feel free to reach through the internet so I can grab that stick of bologna you try to call an arm and pull the rest of you out and treat you like Austin English on a Texas quarterback.

That said the defense played far more aggressive than they have in a VERY long time and it paid dividends. It was surprising and I'm sure Mizzou was completely unprepared for what they saw. Some of the same mistakes were made, yes. But for once they were ****ing physical, they got after the QB with their speed. Points to the D for that and it made all the difference in the world. And while English may not ever win the Ronnie Lott Award for hitting that guy is EVERYWHERE! He runs his *** off to the ball and by God the rest of them are starting to take notice.
First off, QQ.

Now that that is over with, welcome to the board, noob. You obviusly haven't been here long enough to realize I was giving a recap of what has been debated over and over on this board not even just this year, but every year since Mike Stoops left. Which part of what I wrote is untrue about our defense? Oh, that is right, nothing. Rocky + Derek + Roy = Mike Stoops looks like a genius, almost regardless of what scheme we run. For further proof of this, please see A&M and OSU 2002.

The funniest part of all of this is that we agree that the D played well yesterday.


P.S.

...so I can grab that stick of bologna you try to call an arm and pull the rest of you out... Are you hitting on me, noob? Sorry, I don't swing your way.

[aero]

The D played another very good game. English, Lofton, McCoy, Davis. Really give the whole D props. As for the schemes, I'm still perplexed. It's almost as if BV feels the need to show different looks no matter if what they are doing is working or not. For the most part, we contained mizzou very well with 4 down linemen and an occasional outside blitz. (Let me stop here and say I believe Mizzou does indeed have a good team and potent offense and believe the rest of the season will bear this out). No great secret. Pressure the qb and good things happen for the D. Huge difference when we went to 3 down lineman and effectively abandoned the blitz. Daniels had time to pick his nose, wait for an open man, and make the throw. Worse thing that can happen to the offense is the throw under and still pick up 8-10 yards. Do that 4 or 5 times and guess what, the offense gets confidences and rhythm, while the D gets on its heels and tired. Next thing the run starts to open up. Now we did give Mizzou a short field twice but we was trying to give it away until they went back to 4 down and blitzing mid 4th quarter or so and look what happened. It looked like the first half again. Daniels sacked, or pressured, fumble, int., etc. Then we go back to that sorry azzed prevent and look how easy Mizzou scored at the end. Forget whether he got in or not. They took it down field fairly quickly and easily.

[cheezyq]

I think the defense did a great job. I've been the first to criticize the Vulnerables D, but I think they did fantastic. They stepped up on 3rd downs most of the time, and created turnovers. They put pressure on Chase with only 4 rushers (an occasional blitzer, but usually dropping back a DL to confuse the QB). The DBs covered so well, CD had to be precisely on target with the majority of his passes. We showed great energy. If not for 2 turnovers on our side of the field and a garbage time TD in a prevent (not really a TD, but that's covered in another thread, I'm sure) the D essentially could have held MU to only 10 points.

In my book, that's impressive.

[birddog]

awaiting redgiant3....

[birddog]

our d did about what you'd expect them to do. missouri moved the ball on us because they have a really good offense. look at the numbers. teams these days are willing to bypass a running game and throw 50+ pssses a game. that's just how it goes.

as far as the soft zone, i sure don't like it and would like us to jam the receivers at the line every once in a while. but i don't coach there.

we're ranked pretty high and people around the country seem to respect our team more than some of you yahoos on this board.

i sat next to a jackass 50 year old last night that pouted like a 4 year old kid whenever missouri gained 3 yards. i don't understand why people go to the games if they hate being there.

[Egeo]

its the same defense we've been running for years...
i dont prefer the mostly zone defense either but if its good enough for bob its probably good enough for me

*its not like were playing like nebraska here

[usmc-sooner]

I think the D, is awesome. Who gives a rat's but about 400 yards? It's the altitude, the offense, the humidity, the parity in college football right??

can someone else make an excuse?

because every year all I ask is for a defense that gives up 31 points and 400 yards at home.

Can any of "I thought our D played OK" guys give me some sunshine on our special teams play?

[DocNice]

our d did about what you'd expect them to do. missouri moved the ball on us because they have a really good offense. look at the numbers. teams these days are willing to bypass a running game and throw 50+ pssses a game. that's just how it goes.

as far as the soft zone, i sure don't like it and would like us to jam the receivers at the line every once in a while. but i don't coach there.

we're ranked pretty high and people around the country seem to respect our team more than some of you yahoos on this board.

i sat next to a jackass 50 year old last night that pouted like a 4 year old kid whenever missouri gained 3 yards. i don't understand why people go to the games if they hate being there.

It's fascinating that your fans are complaining about this win. I suppose in a way, it's like Nebraska fans complaining about us whipping them. Opposing teams just aren't used to Mizzou being so good. Stop complaining. Mizzou is good and you beat them, by a lot!

It's funny because we're dealing with the same thing with our fans. Anyone else would think Pinkel is doing a good job. I mean, Mizzou is actually fun to watch again, and relevant to boot. But some are complaining because they want BCS bowls and national championships and waiting is too hard. I mean, KSU beat Texas, so Prince is obviously a better coach. And here you guys are, at least some of you, complaining that your defense let a really good offense actually score some points.

What's funnier is that you'd think they would remember that the dominating style of high risk high reward defense you used to play in those great defenses in the early 2000s also got you in trouble. Against most teams, even good ones, it resulted in suffocating defense, with negative yardage as much as positive yardage. But against a team with enough talent, it got you burned big time. Against KSU in that year when you lost the NC, OU clearly overpursued and played much too aggressively, allowing KSU to capitalize, instead of letting their players come to your superior talent. Against Mizzou, playing too aggressively all the time would definitely get you burned. We have players all over the field that will be playing on Sunday. You just can't expect to shut that attack down, no matter how good your defense.

On the throwing 50 times a game, that has quite a bit to do with the fact that nobody can run on your defense. Mizzou averages 200 rush yards a game. Well, not anymore.

[Crucifax Autumn]

And most importantly....

HA-HA...We beat the booger eater!

[David Earl]

I think the D, is awesome. Who gives a rat's but about 400 yards? It's the altitude, the offense, the humidity, the parity in college football right??

can someone else make an excuse?

because every year all I ask is for a defense that gives up 31 points and 400 yards at home.

Can any of "I thought our D played OK" guys give me some sunshine on our special teams play?

First, I don't care if our defense gave up 4000 yards. I'm concerned about points, and the D gave up 17 to a very good offense. The OU offense gave up an additional 14.

Second, other than kick returns, our special teams are bad and everybody including Stoops knows it.

[aero]

IMO, DE, the D gave up 10 points, the O donated an additional 14, and the coaching staff pitched in the final 7. Even at 31 points, the D played a very good game. I would not be surprised to see Mizzou in the B12 title game. They do have a good team. And yes, everyone can see we need work on special teams. The prevent defense only worked because we had too many points and not enough time for them to come back - but barely. That last drive looked like Oregon all over again. The worse thing to happen to an offense running against that prevent is they chunk it underneath and gain 10 -15 yards, step out of bounds and keep moving it til they score. It also opens up the possibility to break one to the house on a missed assignment or tackle so it doesn't always eat time. It worked (that's some people's definition) THIS time because our backs kept everything in front of them and made tackles but more because of the short clock and point lead. But that's not on the D, that's on the coaches philosophy. And its just not us. How many times have we seen other teams do the same exact thing with a prevent D? But EVERY team does not do it.

[David Earl]

Aero, I have avoided the prevent D discussion till now, but I tend to agree with you.

First, I don't like the prevent D.

Second, I recognize it can concede a score but cost valuable time; in that sense some feel it has a place because if there's not enough time left and two or three scores are needed, conceding one slow score guarantees victory. If you run your base defense and happen to get burned, that breathes life into the opponent.

Third, I still don't like the prevent D. Dance with the base D that brung ya.

[TXBOOMER]

You have got to play a zone D (nickel, dime etc.) against a spread offense. If you think not, you know zero about football and need to STFU. Our problem is we do not press the coverage near enough. Stoops philosophy is keep throwing it and our superior athletes will eventually make a play and get a turnover. It works most of the time. I agree that when we play a more traditional offense it would be nice to see a 4-3 out there. But, that is not Bob's philosophy.

[usmc-sooner]

First, I don't care if our defense gave up 4000 yards. I'm concerned about points, and the D gave up 17 to a very good offense. The OU offense gave up an additional 14.

Second, other than kick returns, our special teams are bad and everybody including Stoops knows it.

not trying to be a smart *** but the D gave up 31, the closest the offense came to helping them score was the JI fumble, but that is part of football. That being said I don't remember fumbling it in FG position. You can't tell me that giving up 400 yards doesn't contribute to 31 points.

I'll give the D this they came up with the plays when they had to and put up 6 or our 41.

But I don't understand why people feel so threatened to make excuses like it was the offense's fault the defense gives up a lot of yards through the air. Is it the defense's fault when the offense doesn't make first and 10's? We gave up 400 to Tulsa, and it was O.K. because it was Tulsa and they have a good offense. I don't see how we can throw it on our offense on that one. Against CU we made Hawkins look like Joe Montana, and it was the offense's fault or the altitude. Against Texas we gave up too many yards down the middle, which led to a closer game than it had to be. Then I hear well it's a rivalry game, or how Texas has a great offense or how for 15 minutes we held them to something, Then we give up a butt load of yards and points at home to Mizzu, and it's not the defenses fault it's the offense.
It is what it is, they are not real good at stopping the pass. It's either we don't have the talent that we think at D or they aren't prepared to handle these offenses that pass. To me it seems like we have talent. McCoy and Granger were both top 3 recruits at their position, Smith and Walker were ranked very high. Lofton and Reynolds both highly ranked. I don't have the answers, and I'm not trying to act like I do, I'm just a fan but I'd like to see our pass defense shored up.
I'm not the only one that thinks this. Nobody who sits around me at the game likes the way our D has been playing. We have one of the biggest sunshine pumpers in the world and even he was complaining.

yeah yeah I know I complain about everything. :D

[David Earl]

USMC-Sooner,

I agree the defense played poorly against CU, and probably Tulsa as well. I even agree there were a couple of bad series against MU. I wouldn't mind seeing more jam-at-the-line coverage. I wouldn't mind seeing a little more man coverage on the corners. However, I think realistically the defense played much better against MU than in earlier games this season.

I'll plead guilty to being a glass half full type of guy, so I prolly pump a little sunshine. But I'm sticking to my guns that the D played much better against Mizzou. If the D that played in Colorado had showed up Saturday we would have lost. Bad.

[usmc-sooner]

USMC-Sooner,

I agree the defense played poorly against CU, and probably Tulsa as well. I even agree there were a couple of bad series against MU. I wouldn't mind seeing more jam-at-the-line coverage. I wouldn't mind seeing a little more man coverage on the corners. However, I think realistically the defense played much better against MU than in earlier games this season.

I'll plead guilty to being a glass half full type of guy, so I prolly pump a little sunshine. But I'm sticking to my guns that the D played much better against Mizzou. If the D that played in Colorado had showed up Saturday we would have lost. Bad.

I don't really disagree with any of that. I'd like to see them jam some of those spread routes where the QB takes a 3 step drop and throws. Not really enough to time to get pressure but perhaps we could throw off the timing if we did jam them. I'm not to worried about ISU, A&M, Baylor, or OSU although they'll be playing us like it's their Superbowl. I'm kinda worried about Tech not so much losing, more like how we defend them.
I'm also sure that some of our D's problem are just because we are the game on every team's schedule, and we're getting everyone's A game. Knocking us off we do wonders for any coach out there.

[OULenexaman]

spin it anyway you want.....bottom line is OUr 2ndDairy keeps getting milked. Only once has the bucket spilled over to far....

[Petro-Sooner]

I'll be interested to see how much man we use on Tech.

[Theskipster]

It was kind of a tale of two Ds. I thought our first half D was the best we've played this season. Four down on the line and mixing up the blitz package very well. Daniel never seemed comfortable.

Then we go up 23-10 and into a defensive shell. Three down linemen, dropping eight, no pressure on Daniel. He gets into a rhythm. I spent the entire 3rd Qtr thinking two things: 1) Didn't Daniel spend the 48 hours after the Nebbish game telling the press that a three-man front won't work against Mizzou?", and 2) This is starting to look like a CU redux.

Thankfully, Curtis Lofton and the O-line took over in the fourth, and we win going away. Nevertheless, the 3rd was frustrating to watch, particularly after the stellar first half. JMHO.

Everyone complaining about last week's defense needs to read this and then read it again until they understand it.

The defense you saw against Missouri was not the same defense that was played against Colorado.

Daniel was not comfortable for most of the game and this is thanks to the defensive scheme we ran.

I can't believe that we had coverage sacks (against 5 wr sets and a VERY good passing offense) with no blitz and people are complaining about the dbs playing extremely soft. And how many times did we force Chase out of the pocket because he just couldn't find anyone open downfield?

Mizzou got hot only after we went into the soft defense that people complain about in the last series of the second quarter and again in the 3rd quarter. Thank god Brent saw it was a problem and got more aggressive again.

Be very happy that Venables realized he was making a mistake and fixed it. Both before the game and during the game.

[85sooners]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b358/paul--moore/dead-horse-fast2.gif

[SoonerBOI]

I like LSU defense and their secondary. It seems all the DBs are crowding the WR all the time. If we have that sort of pressure, boy we are tough to beat. Just my opinion...Boomer!

[LittleWingSooner]

LSU's defense have given up a total of 67 points in their last 2 games. Granted one of those games was in triple overtime. But it's not like the LSU defense is near as great as everyone thought. LSU's D was benefiting from playing no passing teams. Even North Texas has a better passing attack than most of LSU's opponents before Florida.

[Petro-Sooner]

You guys make it sound like there is absolutly no way we can win a game if we don't play soft on the recievers. Man.....

[Octavian]

We didn't lose in Boulder because of the defense. Turnovers and poor offensive management in crucial times killed us.


The D forced turnovers when we needed them in Dallas and stuffed Texas in the 4th.


We would've mudholed Missouri if not for our own turnovers. The D forced 4 turnovers (and scored) to secure the W. Give Mizzou some credit too...they've got a top-notch quarterback that executes an unorthodox scheme very well.


But Venables is...once again...fielding an excellent defense. Hell, we're #4 in both polls and are on track for our 3rd Big XII title in the 4 years since Mike has been gone.


The defense isn't dominant like '00 or '01....but it's good enough to get us to the big show and win it all in '07. We just need a little luck.

[David Earl]

I don't really disagree with any of that. I'd like to see them jam some of those spread routes where the QB takes a 3 step drop and throws. Not really enough to time to get pressure but perhaps we could throw off the timing if we did jam them. I'm not to worried about ISU, A&M, Baylor, or OSU although they'll be playing us like it's their Superbowl. I'm kinda worried about Tech not so much losing, more like how we defend them.
I'm also sure that some of our D's problem are just because we are the game on every team's schedule, and we're getting everyone's A game. Knocking us off we do wonders for any coach out there.

First, I've really enjoyed the discussion here. Differing perspectives are an opportunity for us all to learn.

Second, while I'd like to see some jamming at the line it does hold the risk of being burned deep. Remember that time Greenbay had a rookie CB jamming Rice for San Fran in a playoff game? Shut Rice down. So the strategy certainly has its place, but can be overused.

Third, we all should be concerned about Tech. GH is a gunslinger with a TD to INT ratio of about 86 billion to one or something. Their Crabtree is the real deal and their D is better since Leach fired his buddy.

[SoonerBBall]

I'll be interested to see how much man we use on Tech.

Have you watched any of our games since 1999?

The correct answer to that question is...



None.

Or at least so very little that the fans will complain regardless of whether we win or not.

[Petro-Sooner]

Well BBall get ready for another thread on it.

[birddog]

WE SUCK!!!! WE'RE ONLY NUMBER FOUR!!!!

with this defense, the most significant stats are takeaways and points.

scoring defense- 18 pts. a game.
takeaways- +6.

[Petro-Sooner]

I only started this thread based on stopping the pass. Good grief people!!! If its ok to give up 5 to 10 yards a pass then whats the point of us going on the field? Why not try to stop that? Isn't that the point of a defense? Guess not..... I'm not saying we SUCK. All I'm asking is why not stop the pass period. I don't think its asking to much. You guys should really look into a coaching career. You guys know it all and such. I'm just the average joe asking why we don't do it. If we were giving up tons of yards from the run then everyone would complain about stopping the run.

[SoonerBBall]

I only started this thread based on stopping the pass. Good grief people!!! If its ok to give up 5 to 10 yards a pass then whats the point of us going on the field? Why not try to stop that? Isn't that the point of a defense? Guess not..... I'm not saying we SUCK. All I'm asking is why not stop the pass period. I don't think its asking to much. You guys should really look into a coaching career. You guys know it all and such. I'm just the average joe asking why we don't do it. If we were giving up tons of yards from the run then everyone would complain about stopping the run.

WE should look for coaching jobs?? I feel much more comfortable letting the fact that Bob and Brent have used the exact same defensive philosophy every season for 8 years speak to the fact that they know a little something about what a defense is for. I also found it much easier on the heart to learn and accept that it is a good philosophy. What is Bob's record? That's right.

You say "All I'm asking is why not stop the pass period", as if it is simple. If it was as simple as just stopping the pass period, don't you think we'd do it? Don't you think every team would do it? A lot of the posters here have completely lost perspective on winning. Do we have to hold every team we play to 0 points, win the Big XII, win the NC, and finish 1st in every defensive category before you are satisfied?

[wishbonesooner]

We gave up those drives at the end of both halves. Most of the game the D was pretty solid. I still don't feel comfortable with the game on the line and our D needing a stop. Oregon, Boise St. even OSU put together drives on us late in games last year. This is now, but this old man can't take the drama like I used to.

[CatfishSooner]

Do we have to hold every team we play to 0 points, win the Big XII, win the NC, and finish 1st in every defensive category before you are satisfied?


YES! ;)

[SoonerBBall]

We gave up those drives at the end of both halves. Most of the game the D was pretty solid. I still don't feel comfortable with the game on the line and our D needing a stop. Oregon, Boise St. even OSU put together drives on us late in games last year. This is now, but this old man can't take the drama like I used to.

= prevent defense that gave up a big play in each of those games. See David Earl's earlier posts in this thread for more info.

I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying that after watching us go prevent over the last 8 years, you shouldn't be suprised.

[Crucifax Autumn]

We didn't lose in Boulder because of the defense. Turnovers and poor offensive management in crucial times killed us.


The D forced turnovers when we needed them in Dallas and stuffed Texas in the 4th.


We would've mudholed Missouri if not for our own turnovers. The D forced 4 turnovers (and scored) to secure the W. Give Mizzou some credit too...they've got a top-notch quarterback that executes an unorthodox scheme very well.


But Venables is...once again...fielding an excellent defense. Hell, we're #4 in both polls and are on track for our 3rd Big XII title in the 4 years since Mike has been gone.


The defense isn't dominant like '00 or '01....but it's good enough to get us to the big show and win it all in '07. We just need a little luck.

This is the smartest post in this thread so far.

[David Earl]

I only started this thread based on stopping the pass. Good grief people!!! If its ok to give up 5 to 10 yards a pass then whats the point of us going on the field? Why not try to stop that? Isn't that the point of a defense? Guess not..... I'm not saying we SUCK. All I'm asking is why not stop the pass period. I don't think its asking to much. You guys should really look into a coaching career. You guys know it all and such. I'm just the average joe asking why we don't do it. If we were giving up tons of yards from the run then everyone would complain about stopping the run.

Petro, I can remember back in Switzer's day he would talk about defending against teams running an early variation of the spread. He said he'd let them pass all they want between the 20's then stop them.

These moder spread offenses make it virtually impossible to completely stop the pass. By keeping WR's in front of them defenses concede the short passes between the 20's. Once an offense gets to the redzone they don't have as much room to spread the field so we don't have to concede those short passes down there. Think of how many times Tech has flung the ball all over the field on us but only scored about half their season average.

I know it's frustrating to see a team get first downs on our D. I want every play to be a loss of yardage! But it's just not reality. Reality is that complex offenses are going to get their yards. Defenses will occasionally shut them down, but more often do well to just limit points.

[aero]

I think ALL of my post's have been pretty clear that I think we have another good Stoops D and they have played, for most of the time this year, pretty good if not real good defense. Anybody watch the NYG/ATL game last nite? C'mon...........3 people? O.K. Well, anyway.......... even though the falcons succ and it was Joey Harrington, the Giants D played like I would like to see us play. I didn't watch the entire game but I didn't see NY ever in a prevent. They had good pressure from the front 4 and they seemed to have a good mixture of blitz packages and they never let JH feel comfortable. I love our defense but there are too many good passing teams/schemes nowadays that no matter how good your secondary is, without constant pressure and the thought of pressure, eventually they'll get caught.

[cheezyq]

I think some of us here are confusing the performance v. Colorado with the performance v. MizzOU. Giving up tons of yards to one of the best offenses in the cOUntry (MizzOU) is to be expected. Holding them down the way we did was a good thing. When they completed passes, it was primarily because the booger eater was being very precise with his throws. The receivers were covered very well and were usually tackled immediately if they caught the ball. That's a solid defensive effort. Turnovers were the main reason they scored the amount of points that they did.

The Colorado game was a pathetic effort...yes, even on defense. It's the offense's job to score points and not turn the ball over. Keeping the defense off the field is a bonus, but the defense needs to get it's own damn self off the field when the offense is failing. They have to step it up. They didn't in Colorado, for whatever reason. Receivers were wide open. Runners weren't being tackled. It was a bad game overall.

I think OUr defense against MizzOU was very good, and I can only hope that we see that kind of effort the rest of the year.

[ruf/nekdad]

Petro, I can remember back in Switzer's day he would talk about defending against teams running an early variation of the spread. He said he'd let them pass all they want between the 20's then stop them.

These moder spread offenses make it virtually impossible to completely stop the pass. By keeping WR's in front of them defenses concede the short passes between the 20's. Once an offense gets to the redzone they don't have as much room to spread the field so we don't have to concede those short passes down there. Think of how many times Tech has flung the ball all over the field on us but only scored about half their season average.

I know it's frustrating to see a team get first downs on our D. I want every play to be a loss of yardage! But it's just not reality. Reality is that complex offenses are going to get their yards. Defenses will occasionally shut them down, but more often do well to just limit points.

Exzaklerlerly. Its why you get the big bucks eh D.E.? The spread offense is fo shizzle.

[aero]

I think some of us here are confusing the performance v. Colorado with the performance v. MizzOU. Giving up tons of yards to one of the best offenses in the cOUntry (MizzOU) is to be expected. Holding them down the way we did was a good thing. When they completed passes, it was primarily because the booger eater was being very precise with his throws. The receivers were covered very well and were usually tackled immediately if they caught the ball. That's a solid defensive effort. Turnovers were the main reason they scored the amount of points that they did.

The Colorado game was a pathetic effort...yes, even on defense. It's the offense's job to score points and not turn the ball over. Keeping the defense off the field is a bonus, but the defense needs to get it's own damn self off the field when the offense is failing. They have to step it up. They didn't in Colorado, for whatever reason. Receivers were wide open. Runners weren't being tackled. It was a bad game overall.

I think OUr defense against MizzOU was very good, and I can only hope that we see that kind of effort the rest of the year.
You're kidding, right? The D played a pretty good game at CO. Here's some of OUr offensive, and I mean offensive, stats from that game. 1/9 on third down conversion, 21:06 t.o.p.to 38:54 for CO, 3 t/o's, 46 plays to 82 plays for CO. The D hardly left the field that day. And we still should have one. Don't try hanging that game on the D. No way.

[cheezyq]

You're kidding, right? The D played a pretty good game at CO. Here's some of OUr offensive, and I mean offensive, stats from that game. 1/9 on third down conversion, 21:06 t.o.p.to 38:54 for CO, 3 t/o's, 46 plays to 82 plays for CO. The D hardly left the field that day. And we still should have one. Don't try hanging that game on the D. No way.


It was a bad game overall.

The CU game wasn't entirely the fault of a bad defense, and I wasn't implying that at all. But you can't say that the defense performed well, either. For example, Arkansas lost to Auburn in a game where neither offense did well. In Auburn's case, the defense stepped up. In the CU game, our defense did not...and CU is a bad offensive team.

We could go around like this all day. If our offense sustains drives, our defense stays off the field. But, if our defense gets themselves off the field, they give the offense more opportunities. In the end, its up to each unit to take care of their business.

The offense didn't miss tackles and allow long runs, did they? The offense didn't blow a coverage and allow a wide-open touchdown, did they? The offense didn't muff a punt, did they?

The CU game was a complete breakdown in all three phases, and the defense doesn't get off the hook just because they were on the field longer than the offense.

[aero]

We could go around like this all day. If our offense sustains drives, our defense stays off the field. But, if our defense gets themselves off the field, they give the offense more opportunities. In the end, its up to each unit to take care of their business.

The offense didn't miss tackles and allow long runs, did they? The offense didn't blow a coverage and allow a wide-open touchdown, did they? The offense didn't muff a punt, did they?

The CU game was a complete breakdown in all three phases, and the defense doesn't get off the hook just because they were on the field longer than the offense.
First off, if you don't realize it wears you down more defending then you've probably never actually played football, not that you necessarily would have to understand that. Second, did you notice those stats. You wouldn't have to have watched the game to figure out the D was on the field all day. How about 18 minutes longer than CO's D. In thin air. Go play catch with somebody and have them throw fastballs at you. You're chances of missing one are going to go up the more they throw at you.
The D did not break down. We still could have won. If we score 10 points less than our average we still win. Ridiculous to say breakdown in D.

[cheezyq]

First off, if you don't realize it wears you down more defending then you've probably never actually played football, not that you necessarily would have to understand that. Second, did you notice those stats. You wouldn't have to have watched the game to figure out the D was on the field all day. How about 18 minutes longer than CO's D. In thin air.
The D did not break down. We still could have won. If we score 10 points less than our average we still win. Ridiculous to say breakdown in D.

No offense, but this is really tiring. I'm not into listing credentials, but I've played football from the peewee days through being a starter on a good high school team. I've played defense and offense and special teams, all in the same game. Those days are long gone, to be sure, and I'm not an expert. But it's not like I'm new to the concept of being on the field a lot and being tired.

The defense DID break down. Missing tackles and blowing assignments (last CU TD where the receiver blows by Marcus Walker) is the very definition of breaking down. Marcus wasn't tired on that play, he simply misread the play and let the receiver blow by, as he moved up to cover the run. But again, even if you're tired, the best way to get off the field is to make your tackles and stay true to your assignments and hold on 3rd down. You can't rely on the offense to bail you out. And if you do, that's the definition of bad defense. It's your job on defense to make stops, not worry about how ineffective the offense has been.

And if the defensive players WERE tired, why didn't we substitute for fresh legs? We have enough depth, don't you think? If Stoops noticed that they were tired, don't you think he would have called a timeout or substituted to compensate for it?

Regardless of all that, the defense was significantly better against Mizzou, which is a clearly better offense than Colorado. They made stops on 3rd down, created pressure without tons of blitzing, and forced MU into mistakes...all things they didn't do at CU, or in the first half against Texas for that matter. The defense appears to have improved, which is a GOOD thing. :)

[usmc-sooner]

we gave up more yards and points to MU at home. I don't see how that's better. Although I'm happy with the win.

[JiuJitsuSooner]

Missouri's a Well Coached and Sound Football Team, but I felt we played in a GREAT WAY

[aero]

No offense, but this is really tiring. No offense taken. You are entitled to your opinion just as much as I
The defense DID break down. Missing tackles and blowing assignments (last CU TD where the receiver blows by Marcus Walker) is the very definition of breaking down. They are also signs of fatigue Marcus wasn't tired on that play, How do you know how tired or not any of the players werehe simply misread the play and let the receiver blow by, as he moved up to cover the run. But again, even if you're tired, the best way to get off the field is to make your tackles and stay true to your assignments and hold on 3rd down. You can't rely on the offense to bail you out. And if you do, that's the definition of bad defense. It's your job on defense to make stops, not worry about how ineffective the offense has been.

And if the defensive players WERE tired, why didn't we substitute for fresh legs? We have enough depth, don't you think? O.K. who would you have put in there? Late in the game. Cold off the bench. Names? If Stoops noticed that they were tired, don't you think he would have called a timeout or substituted to compensate for it?He's going to call timeouts to compensate for an 18 minute difference in time of possession? :confused:

Regardless of all that, the defense was significantly better against Mizzou, which is a clearly better offense than Colorado. Here's the stats: OU - 10/14 on 3rd down conversion, 29:33 t.o.p. OU to 30:27 for MU (even), 4 t/o's MU vs. 2 t/o's OU, 67 plays OU vs. 79 plays MU. Very different stats. They made stops on 3rd down, created pressure without tons of blitzing, and forced MU into mistakes...all things they didn't do at CU, or in the first half against Texas for that matter. The defense appears to have improved, which is a GOOD thing. :)
No offense. Just different opinions.

[birddog]

First off, if you don't realize it wears you down more defending then you've probably never actually played football, not that you necessarily would have to understand that. Second, did you notice those stats. You wouldn't have to have watched the game to figure out the D was on the field all day. How about 18 minutes longer than CO's D. In thin air. Go play catch with somebody and have them throw fastballs at you. You're chances of missing one are going to go up the more they throw at you.
The D did not break down. We still could have won. If we score 10 points less than our average we still win. Ridiculous to say breakdown in D.

aero, i agree with you. our d could have played better but when the other team has twice as many snaps as you, you're d will break eventually.

i can't find a way to blame the d for that loss.

and btw, it's good to see you around here alot more.

[SoonerBBall]

stuff

Our offense failed us, plain and simple, at CU. Did you forget that 14 of our points came from very short fields caused by turnovers that our D forced? The D played well enough for us to win at CU. Period. The offense, and more specifically our TEs and WRs, were just awful that day and dropped at least 1st down catches in the second half alone. Special teams also sucked quite a bit, but our O sucked worse.

[usmc-sooner]

Missouri's a Well Coached and Sound Football Team, but I felt we played in a GREAT WAY

Gary Pinkel and well coached are two things that haven't gone together much in the past.

[aero]

Thanks, birddog. I'm always lurking. This place it way too entertaining to stay away. :D

[madillsoonerfan5353]

For the type of spread that Missery plays, I like how we played... If we dont turn the ball over, we blow them out.


I agree, if we don't give them a short field twice we win by 30 easy! In the first half when we rush 4 or more we got great pressure on booger boy, and in the 3rd we just rushed 3 most of the time with almost no pressure! All in all I was very inpressed with OUr D! Booger boy is a good QB!

[Petro-Sooner]

5 pages........very nice.

[MextheBulldog]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b358/paul--moore/dead-horse-fast2.gif

:rolleyes:

I remember a certain 2000 national championship team that struggled on defense
at times.

[Redgiant2]

Redgiant2, noobs should talk a little nicer. Just sayin'....


Oh yeah sorry, I forgot about the whole I've got 3,881 posts so I'm better than anyone else elitist bull**** attitude in this place.

[SoonerBBall]

Oh yeah sorry, I forgot about the whole I've got 3,881 posts so I'm better than anyone else elitist bull**** attitude in this place.

Cry more? Or maybe you'd like to post more inane rants that go nowhere? Post count has nothing to do with it. I'm barely over 1,000 and I've been here for going on 10 years. You're a n00b not just in time spent here, but also in posting style as well. Go troll somewhere else and keep your damn the man, faux-rebellious attitude to yourself.


N00b.