Fan expectations for OU's defense might be way off base. Venables performance A+.

[SoonerSpock]

Read the attached link. It provide and documents a very different perspective for evaluating defenses of teams that run the hurry up no huddle offenses.

http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/1/19/2718750/hurry-up-defense-part-1

I don't think that OU's defense was on par with typical Bob Stoops or Brent Venables defenses of the past. There can be no question that 2011's defense was sub par for the Sooners. I think his point is the hurry up no huddle offenses put additional pressure on the defenses of those fast paced offenses. This pressure results in these defenses give up more points than do the defenses of more traditional ball control offenses. Further the additional possessions provided opponents of the hurry up also distorts total defense numbers to the point of making them relatively invalid when comparing defenses of teams with different offensive styles.

Net, net OU's defense that allowed 22/26p/g for the season/conference definitely needs to be better than it was in 2011 but our means of using traditional statistics to compare defense success needs to be altered. The two primary statistics become points allowed with turnover margin being the single most important underlying stat because of its impact on the number possessions of each team instead of the traditional total defense (yards allowed) stat. For certain a team running a hurry up offense is probable to allow approximately 5 more points per game at a minimum in addition to allowing more yards to the spread offenses they see.

Run a ball control offense and allowing 14p/g is outstanding. Run a HUNHO and 20p/g is equally outstanding. The 6 point differential is primarily attributable to the additional possessions the opponents get and the decreased time between possessions not allowing the defense to rest or to make needed adjustments.

The same statistical implication also exist for the NFL. The three top scoring offenses New Orleans (#1), New England (#2) and Green Bay (#3) also were among the worst teams in the league in total defense ranking #24th, 31st and 32nd respectively.

[cleller]

Interesting that the other two teams in that top three beat us this year.

[LVSOONER15]

Up, that 600yds in 4 games is not A+ material.

[Neath a Western Sky]

Thanks to the follow up posters for providing just a few of the possible correctives--many others of which have been shared infinitum on this site--to the ridiculous notion that Venables' coordinator performance has been A+.

[kevpks]

Texas had a top 10 defense despite having a terrible offense that couldn't sustain drives. It can be done in this league. In the Baylor and Tech games in particular we got torched because guys were out of position in the secondary. Whether those errors are on the players or coaches, I'm not sure, but those problems are correctable and I'm hopeful a fresh defensive staff and a few new JUCO contributors can get it done. I appreciate everything Brent did and there is a reason he is one of the highest paid coordinators, but this defense can be better than what we've seen the past few years.

[ObiKaTony]

I guess arguments like this don't matter anymore, Venebels is gone. Thank God...

[SoonerMom2]

If Venables defense this past year was A+ then I expect Mike Stoops' defense to be A+++ -- how can people write such nonsense? Looks at our defensive recruiting for 2012 and you see very little Venerables has done but now that Mike is back and Venables was on the way out and now gone, we are in on a lot more kids on defense. The defensive guys we had were mostly Shipp and Bobby Jack Wright. Guess the media doesn't think we can think for ourselves.

[Jacie]

Reading that article makes me think the Hurry Up Offense isn't such a good thing anymore and maybe OUr team would fare better if we hired an OC that coached the wishbone . . .

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

i think the big differentiator here is that they are using AVERAGE scoring defense as an indicator vs AVERAGE offensive plays. They then show 2 graphs that have decent correlation and they attempt to prove causation. As others have pointed out, the problem is when you look at the standard deviation off of our average scoring defense (or yards allowed or whatever). If we gave up 24/game with little deviation, we'd probably have been 13-0. However, the wild scoring swings that we experienced blows the use of average out of the water. Personally, I feel that the reason our scoring average was so low compared with yards given up is because of our punter. Even bad defenses will make stops if the other team has to go 90 yards all night.

As for turnover argument, it is a little spurious. If you have 11 possessions a game and have 1 turnover, it is only 9% of your possessions. If you have 7 possessions a game and have 1 turnover, it is much more catastrophic.

So what I take from his arguments:

1. If you run the hurry up, you are going to have an erratic defense. There are myriad reasons for this, but #1 is that you are going to expose your defensive players to way too much film for the opposition. Heck, based on his numbers, your defensive personnel will have TWICE as much film as a team running a traditional offense. That is a huge advantage when you are trying to pick up flaws in someone's game.

2. The hurry up can somewhat cover traditional defensive deficiencies. Basically, if your defense is going to suck, why not gamble all the time with it to dial up a turnover?

3. Clemson's standards for what constitutes a "good" defense is different than ours.

[lexred]

I have not been a fan of Venables, but this next year will either prove many of us right or wrong. It always seemed that the OU D was soft and players way out of position time after time. Even the best Ds get torched once in awhile, but not time after time. I also think we have gotten too much like the TT teams under Leach. The "hurry up" can be hurry up and score or hurry up and punt so the D is back on the field quickly. I all fairness the loss of Whaley and then Ryan Broyles made the O ineffective. It is sad that given the tradition of OU running backs we were relying on a walk on ( good though he was) and could not consistantly run the ball after he went down. Finch is a very good back, but cannot run inside or carry the ball a lot of times. Without Broyles Landry went from very good to........

[MamaMia]

Last time I checked, not being able to defend against the pass on a consistent is a huge defensive problem. Until we can do that, there's no A grade in our defensive performance.

[101sooner]

"1. If you run the hurry up, you are going to have an erratic defense. There are myriad reasons for this, but #1 is that you are going to expose your defensive players to way too much film for the opposition. Heck, based on his numbers, your defensive personnel will have TWICE as much film as a team running a traditional offense. That is a huge advantage when you are trying to pick up flaws in someone's game."


Come again?

[Doged]

How does the "you give the opponent more chances to score" point compare with the "you give yourself more chances to score" point? Defensive scores aside, you have to run an offensive play to score, so it makes perfect sense to run as many offensive plays as possible, right?

[OkieThunderLion]

Up, that 600yds in 4 games is not A+ material.
One 600 yard game, Baylor. Tech got close, at 572.

[SoonerSpock]

Texas had a top 10 defense despite having a terrible offense that couldn't sustain drives. It can be done in this league. In the Baylor and Tech games in particular we got torched because guys were out of position in the secondary. Whether those errors are on the players or coaches, I'm not sure, but those problems are correctable and I'm hopeful a fresh defensive staff and a few new JUCO contributors can get it done. I appreciate everything Brent did and there is a reason he is one of the highest paid coordinators, but this defense can be better than what we've seen the past few years.

No question that th3 2011 was not up to OU's standards in critical games but it was very similar to that of 2010 (22.1 p/g vs 21.8 p/g). Total defense was also similar will OU allowing 15 more y/g than 2010. In 2009 our defense was much more successful allowing 104 fewer yards and 7.6 fewer points per game.

Your perception that Texas was a top ten defense classically illustrates the point I am attempting to make. Texas' offensive style of running the ball, controlling the clock and shortening the game is valid for their scheme because by running the ball and shortening the game they reduce the number of possessions for their opponents and thus their opportunities to score. However for the 13 game season OU actually led the conference in scoring defense (22.1 vs 22.2 p/g). The one statistic that determines who wins the game. No team ever lost a game for allowing too many yards.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewContent.dbml?CONTENT_ID=160247&DB_OEM_ID=10410#conf.wt2

It is well documented that teams that run the ball score fewer points and allow fewer points than teams that run hurry up no huddle offenses (HUNHO). They control the other teams defense by maintaining possession of the football and shortening game. HUNHO teams that score 50% of the time on drives last less than 2:30 minutes conversely provide more scoring opportunities to their opponents and thus allow more points. By in large you cannot have one without the other.

Just as getting down 3 touchdowns is a death sentence for a primarily running team a three touchdown lead on a HUNHO based team is far from safe as we see those comebacks virtually every week.

For HUNHO teams yardage allowed (total defense) is of little importance unlike it is running teams. With HUNHO teams making their emphasis on offense turnover margin becomes a more key statistic. Being +2 on turnovers allows a team 2 additional possessions and deprives their opponent of 2 possessions. That 4 possession swing a game with high scoring offenses is easily worth 14 points a delta sufficient to determine the out come of the game.

Take the pukes this year they had a turnover margin of +21 (+1.62/g). Texas was a zero and OU a -2 (0.15/g). The primary reason the pukes won in Stoolwater this year was their being a +4 on turnovers. Had we been a +1 instead of a -4 we would have most likely won again this year. Ditto Baylor -3 turnovers and Texas Tech -2 turnovers. Conversely we beat Texas like a drum because we were a +4 turnovers.

There is no question that the biggest difference in the 2010 and the 2011 Sooners was being a +14 in turnovers in 2010 and a -2 in 2011. I suspect 2012 with Mike Stoops running the defense will continue to see the OU defense be outstanding on multiple possessions only to be followed by mental bust that result in easy TD's for our opponents. Further is we continue to lose the turnover battle against quality opponents we will continue to lose games we should have won.

If you look at the Sooners statistically both offensively and defensively for the last 5 years you will observe that the best scoring offensive team (2008) which averaged 51.1p/g and was good enough defensively to play for the BCS Championship was also the team that allowed the most points per game at 24.5p/g. For the Sooners it is virtually linear that the teams that score the most points are going to be the teams that have the highest turnover margin while they give up the most points.

Year------Scoring Off-------Scoring Def-------Total Off--------Total Def----TOM

2007--------42.3-----------------20.3----------------448.9------------338.4----- +8
2008--------51.1-----------------24.5----------------547.9------------367.7--- +23
2009--------31.1-----------------14.5----------------423.8------------272.6--- +14
2010--------37.2-----------------21.8----------------481.4------------361.9---- +0
2011--------39.5-----------------22.1----------------512.3------------376.2----- -2

Conversely the worst scoring Sooner team (2009) which scored only 31.1p/g also allowed the fewest at 14.5p/g. Again consistent with the hypothesis that HUNHO offensives put undue stress on their defensive teammates. With HUNHO teams it becomes obvious that not giving your defense time to rest and make adjustments works to their detriment on the scoreboard.

Finally, despite all the problems Venables defense had this season I best I can determine the Sooners were the #1 scoring defense among teams with HUNHO offenses.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2011&rpt=IA_teamscordef&site=org&div=IA&dest=O

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

"1. If you run the hurry up, you are going to have an erratic defense. There are myriad reasons for this, but #1 is that you are going to expose your defensive players to way too much film for the opposition. Heck, based on his numbers, your defensive personnel will have TWICE as much film as a team running a traditional offense. That is a huge advantage when you are trying to pick up flaws in someone's game."


Come again?

No player is perfect, they all have things that they are strong at and weak at. However, for the most part, the only people who know those strengths and weaknesses are our coaching staff who understandebly aren't going to mention them to an opposing team. That means that opponents have to scout to figure them out and the only legal way of doing that is by game film. So if Player X has 12 plays and Player Y has 84 plays which one do you think is going to give a more complete picture of his strengths and weaknesses?

Once they show a weakness in their game on film, then coaches can work it into their gameplan. A perfect example is the Baylor game. Harris had shown a tendency to bite earlier in the year so they took advantage of it.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Last time I checked, not being able to defend against the pass on a consistent is a huge defensive problem. Until we can do that, there's no A grade in our defensive performance.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you here (the clemson dude may). As a matter of a fact, this was the major reason for the crazy extremes of opposing scores.

[MamaMia]

How does the "you give the opponent more chances to score" point compare with the "you give yourself more chances to score" point? Defensive scores aside, you have to run an offensive play to score, so it makes perfect sense to run as many offensive plays as possible, right?Setting aside the matter of controlling the clock, its not the quantity pf offensive plays that matter, its the quality.

[StoopTroup]

Every game until we played Tech had our Offense and Defense playing like a Team that was good enough to put away any Team we faced. That actually included Tech even when they came to Norman this year. We could have and should have won that Game. Same with the Baylor Game.

oSu....I'm sure we play differently in that game if we'd won Tech and Baylor and went into the stoolwater game undefeated.

I'll just say that everything many folks continue to focus on is a general Claim that Venable Defensive Scheme was awful. It didn't work well with a hurry up offense, He's never had a decent Defense since Mike Stoops left, We can't defend against the pass, We couldn't stop the run, We show them to much film on us, We were soft on D and out of position many times, Our Hurry up Offense failed after we lost Ryan and Dom, Travis Being out the first few games really hurt our D even though we won those tough games, Wort being hurt during the Tech Game killed us, Snelly was the key to all our injuries...we need to replace him. Fire Martinez! Fire Venables! Hire Mike!

I will say this....much of that is correct in my mind. Much of it is over exaggerated and although it didn't help....one thing wasn't the sole reason we lost 3 games. It was a mixture of little things. Like we have heard Stoops say over the years....you can't have turnovers and expect to win the game. You have to execute to be able to win the game.

I'll even throw in you have to put yourself into a position to win so that refereeing doesn't make the difference in whether you win or lose.

You sometimes need a little luck and things to go your way.

Injuries can hurt. Momentum is important.

Fans can affect the outcome.

Now that this Season is over....I now realize that we ended up in the Insight Bowl against Iowa not because of Venables. It was because of Him, Bob, Willie, Jay, Josh, Bobby Jack....all the staff. it was because of offense....defense, RBs, INTs, WRs, TEs Linemen, Not blitzing well, No pressure on the oppositions QB, Blowing coverage.

It was a general lack of focus this year. We even see that in that players left our Team at years end. Some complaining about many different things others claiming the complainers were to blame. Our Team lost focus. What were those things? Injuries. Frustration, execution, finger pointing, suspensions....

I hate threads like this that come on strong to toss out a grade. The grade was obvious. It wasn't an "A" or a "B" or even an "F".....

It was a 9-3 Regular Season, we were 6-3 in our Conference and we won our Bowl game making us 10-3 overall for 2010-2011.

Conference Points for were 351 and against were 240
Season Points for were 514 and against were 271

The 271 points overall for the Season gave us the lowest amount of points scored on our Team when comparing Big XII Teams. fexas was 2nd with 289. We beat fexas *** again this year. We had good stats and bad this year. Plenty of stuff to complain about and even some things to be proud of too.

I'm hoping these latest Coaching Changes will have us in the hunt next year however I give us less chance than we had this year due to changing out both our Offensive and Defensive Coordinators in the last year. I know some folks welcome the change and some felt we had become predictable and ineffective...I felt we were just about to have a defense that was a Top 5 and that new recruits with our experienced players would have us playing even better next year. If we are able to improve our running game and replace Ryan Broyles with two Ryan Broyles and two Jermaine Greshams next year.....I think we end up with a QB that reminds us of the Bradford Days again.

I pray we are all right and all wrong about the things we argue about and that somehow we see improvement on both sides of the ball due to the new changes, new attitudes, healed injuries and Sooner Magic that we all love to see.

[DCsooner22]

Setting season/team grades aside and thinking back over Stoops's tenure - this was really the first season I can remember that the team got worse as the year went on, which I think is atypical for a Stoops football team... even in the years where we weren't that good.

I realize this is partly due to injury (Whaley, Broyles, et al.), but it also seemed there was something else going on.

Thoughts?

[lexred]

Setting season/team grades aside and thinking back over Stoops's tenure - this was really the first season I can remember that the team got worse as the year went on, which I think is atypical for a Stoops football team... even in the years where we weren't that good.

I realize this is partly due to injury (Whaley, Broyles, et al.), but it also seemed there was something else going on.

Thoughts?

Although I agree with your post, I don't have the foggiest idea on what was actually wrong, but something (s) was.Losing Whaley hurt, but when Broyles went down the O tanked. Broyles was/is an incredible talent, but when losing one player on O , except perhaps the QB, causes that big a problem it raises questions. Of course the injuries to the other wideouts were part of the problem. The OSwho game was one of the worst performances ever by an OU team. OSU was very good on O, not so good on D, but our kids just got frustrated and quit, almost unheard of by an OU team.

Toward the end of the season it seemed that the playcalling really got suspect. Even Bob Stoops acted bewildered after the OSU game. Although Josh Heuple has already been granted "Sainthood" by many OU fans, truth be known that coaching wise he is green as a gord. He also seems deeply rooted in the Mike Leach "sling it around" philosophy, but good O minds have to evolve over time as the game and player talent changes. Perhaps Josh will grow into the job, but sometimes growing pains are truly painful. JMHO

[jk the sooner fan]

Every game until we played Tech had our Offense and Defense playing like a Team that was good enough to put away any Team we faced. That actually included Tech even when they came to Norman this year. We could have and should have won that Game. Same with the Baylor Game.

oSu....I'm sure we play differently in that game if we'd won Tech and Baylor and went into the stoolwater game undefeated.

I'll just say that everything many folks continue to focus on is a general Claim that Venable Defensive Scheme was awful. It didn't work well with a hurry up offense, He's never had a decent Defense since Mike Stoops left, We can't defend against the pass, We couldn't stop the run, We show them to much film on us, We were soft on D and out of position many times, Our Hurry up Offense failed after we lost Ryan and Dom, Travis Being out the first few games really hurt our D even though we won those tough games, Wort being hurt during the Tech Game killed us, Snelly was the key to all our injuries...we need to replace him. Fire Martinez! Fire Venables! Hire Mike!

I will say this....much of that is correct in my mind. Much of it is over exaggerated and although it didn't help....one thing wasn't the sole reason we lost 3 games. It was a mixture of little things. Like we have heard Stoops say over the years....you can't have turnovers and expect to win the game. You have to execute to be able to win the game.

I'll even throw in you have to put yourself into a position to win so that refereeing doesn't make the difference in whether you win or lose.

You sometimes need a little luck and things to go your way.

Injuries can hurt. Momentum is important.

Fans can affect the outcome.

Now that this Season is over....I now realize that we ended up in the Insight Bowl against Iowa not because of Venables. It was because of Him, Bob, Willie, Jay, Josh, Bobby Jack....all the staff. it was because of offense....defense, RBs, INTs, WRs, TEs Linemen, Not blitzing well, No pressure on the oppositions QB, Blowing coverage.

It was a general lack of focus this year. We even see that in that players left our Team at years end. Some complaining about many different things others claiming the complainers were to blame. Our Team lost focus. What were those things? Injuries. Frustration, execution, finger pointing, suspensions....

I hate threads like this that come on strong to toss out a grade. The grade was obvious. It wasn't an "A" or a "B" or even an "F".....

It was a 9-3 Regular Season, we were 6-3 in our Conference and we won our Bowl game making us 10-3 overall for 2010-2011.

Conference Points for were 351 and against were 240
Season Points for were 514 and against were 271

The 271 points overall for the Season gave us the lowest amount of points scored on our Team when comparing Big XII Teams. fexas was 2nd with 289. We beat fexas *** again this year. We had good stats and bad this year. Plenty of stuff to complain about and even some things to be proud of too.

I'm hoping these latest Coaching Changes will have us in the hunt next year however I give us less chance than we had this year due to changing out both our Offensive and Defensive Coordinators in the last year. I know some folks welcome the change and some felt we had become predictable and ineffective...I felt we were just about to have a defense that was a Top 5 and that new recruits with our experienced players would have us playing even better next year. If we are able to improve our running game and replace Ryan Broyles with two Ryan Broyles and two Jermaine Greshams next year.....I think we end up with a QB that reminds us of the Bradford Days again.

I pray we are all right and all wrong about the things we argue about and that somehow we see improvement on both sides of the ball due to the new changes, new attitudes, healed injuries and Sooner Magic that we all love to see.

just curious - do you have actual conversations like this or do you just have trouble writing.......because


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-G0bkl8MQ

[SoonerSpock]

just curious - do you have actual conversations like this or do you just have trouble writing.......because


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-G0bkl8MQ

Perhaps you have a comprehension issue.

[jk the sooner fan]

yes, i'm sure its just me

[C&CDean]

yes, i'm sure its just me

well....yeah?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Setting aside the matter of controlling the clock, its not the quantity pf offensive plays that matter, its the quality.

Quantity has a Quality all of its own.

And further expanding this thought. I feel that our current offense is very reminiscent of the Billy Tubbs days. Billy Tubbs was always of the opinion that if you out-athleted the competition then more possessions would allow you to exert that difference. As such his D was more focused on turnovers than solid defense. Now who does that sound like? Pokey State.

We are kind of a mixed bag. We out-athlete people on offense, but we don't out-athlete people on defense. So we are trying to play traditional D with a fast break offense. It just hasn't worked.

Think about being an opposing OC against OU. You KNOW you are going to get 60-80 plays in that game. You can pull out plays that you would never use against a traditional offense where you might only get 40-50 plays. This is because against an LSU and a 'bama every play has to count.

[SoonerOX]

Interesting read. I think this article compelled me to question the hurry up offense rather than BV's defense. I can't speak for all of the defensive busts, which are usually a reflection of the coaching, but the fact that the hurry up offense places the defense at a disadvantage is an eye opener. I always knew that the hurry up offense had the tendency to leave the defense on the field longer, but this is just ridiculous.

[PLaw]

If anything, then the data show that you probably aren't going to win a national championship with a tricked up, finesse offense that goes at the speed of light.

TOP, my friends, is still important and the best defense is, in fact, an offense that keeps the opponents O on the bench.

BOOMER

[jk the sooner fan]

well....yeah?


I pray we are all right and all wrong about the things we argue about and that somehow we see improvement on both sides of the ball due to the new changes, new attitudes, healed injuries and Sooner Magic that we all love to see.

if you comprehended this - you're just a better man than i...or just crazy

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If anything, then the data show that you probably aren't going to win a national championship with a tricked up, finesse offense that goes at the speed of light.

TOP, my friends, is still important and the best defense is, in fact, an offense that keeps the opponents O on the bench.

BOOMER

This isn't accurate at all. There are quite a few national champions over the last 2 decades that played a finesse offense and won the big one (we were one of them).

[SoonerSpock]

Setting season/team grades aside and thinking back over Stoops's tenure - this was really the first season I can remember that the team got worse as the year went on, which I think is atypical for a Stoops football team... even in the years where we weren't that good.

I realize this is partly due to injury (Whaley, Broyles, et al.), but it also seemed there was something else going on.

Thoughts?

ABSOLUTELY!!!

[Prodigal]

If Venables defense this past year was A+ then I expect Mike Stoops' defense to be A+++ -- how can people write such nonsense? Looks at our defensive recruiting for 2012 and you see very little Venerables has done but now that Mike is back and Venables was on the way out and now gone, we are in on a lot more kids on defense. The defensive guys we had were mostly Shipp and Bobby Jack Wright. Guess the media doesn't think we can think for ourselves.

You can think for yourself, but probably not very well. IMO this is one of the dumbest posts I have read in a long time.

[rekamrettuB]

What I have a hard time seeing is this; what happened between games 6 and 7 (was Tech 7?) Did the other coaches start exploiting OU's weaknesses more? Did OU do anything about those weaknesses? This defense was pretty darn good the 1st half of the season and then with one play in the Tech game they became bad.

[8timechamps]

Setting season/team grades aside and thinking back over Stoops's tenure - this was really the first season I can remember that the team got worse as the year went on, which I think is atypical for a Stoops football team... even in the years where we weren't that good.

I realize this is partly due to injury (Whaley, Broyles, et al.), but it also seemed there was something else going on.

Thoughts?

If I had to pick one thing that I think caused the biggest issues with the defense, it'd be the overall scheme. I think whatever BV had drawn up was just too much for our young players to handle. At one point (the later point of the season), HCBS even said in a press conference that they were going to simplify things on defense (not in those exact words).

I keep going back to a recent interview with Derrick Strait, where he talks about defenses playing better when they're put in good positions (situations) and don't have to think, just play. Now, think about how many times you saw our defense trying to get calls and make adjustments just before (or in many cases at the time) the ball was snapped...

That's my viewpoint anyway.

[MamaMia]

You can think for yourself, but probably not very well. IMO this is one of the dumbest posts I have read in a long time.Nobody gives a flying flip what you think is a dumb post. WTF is wrong with you? SoonerMom2 has never been anything but polite. If you don't agree with her assessment, how about pulling your head out of your *** long enough to agree to disagree in a more polite and intellectual way, or just STFU? Have some manners for Gods sake.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If I had to pick one thing that I think caused the biggest issues with the defense, it'd be the overall scheme. I think whatever BV had drawn up was just too much for our young players to handle. At one point (the later point of the season), HCBS even said in a press conference that they were going to simplify things on defense (not in those exact words).

I keep going back to a recent interview with Derrick Strait, where he talks about defenses playing better when they're put in good positions (situations) and don't have to think, just play. Now, think about how many times you saw our defense trying to get calls and make adjustments just before (or in many cases at the time) the ball was snapped...

That's my viewpoint anyway.

So here is the thing. We ran a full zone when Strait was here. The defense didn't get "complicated" until Venables started adding man under responsibiilties to it. When our guys started running man, their lack of out-athleting the opposing team became glaringly obvious. And, IMO, man to man is much much more complicated to teach than zone because its all on the individual. If either a) kept more dbs on campus or b) we had more practice time then I could see it.

[oudanny]

Interesting read and discussion. I think yards allowed per play is a better indication of the defensive performance. It isn't dependent upon the number of plays in a game. I don't have the time to dig ours up but I think it would be revealing.

[SoonerMom2]

Why didn't Venerables recruit many defensive players this year? Since he left Bob and Mike Stoops as well as Jackie Shipp have been out recruiting defense. This whole situation doesn't fit with all the talk of Venerables is this great recruiter but to have so few recruited and have Mike pick it up hitting the ground running. I too read the Straight article and he said that Mike Stoops would simplify the Venables defense for them. Don't think Martinez could do that. Our linebacking has also fallen off and that is directly on Venables. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced he wanted Mike Stoops back so he could leave and he wanted out from the Stoops shadow. I heard this morning that someone reported that Venables called Clemson. If that is true, then it puts a whole different spin on things.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Look at the amount of scholarships tied up on the offensive side..How many defensive guys is he supposed to recruit?

[PLaw]

This isn't accurate at all. There are quite a few national champions over the last 2 decades that played a finesse offense and won the big one (we were one of them).

Agreed, we we're slightly finesse in our ground game, but we stretched the field with our passing attack. Moreover, we only ran 75 plays to 69 by FSU and we controlled the clock 36:33 to 23:27.

It's a lot harder for the opponent to score when they don't have the ball.

BOOMER

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Agreed, we we're slightly finesse in our ground game, but we stretched the field with our passing attack. Moreover, we only ran 75 plays to 69 by FSU and we controlled the clock 36:33 to 23:27.

It's a lot harder for the opponent to score when they don't have the ball.

BOOMER

FSU was a little more finessey than we were, also we really didn't have a choice. Josh's arm was hurt and we couldn't really put up the offensive output that we had earlier in the season.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Why didn't Venerables recruit many defensive players this year? Since he left Bob and Mike Stoops as well as Jackie Shipp have been out recruiting defense. This whole situation doesn't fit with all the talk of Venerables is this great recruiter but to have so few recruited and have Mike pick it up hitting the ground running. I too read the Straight article and he said that Mike Stoops would simplify the Venables defense for them. Don't think Martinez could do that. Our linebacking has also fallen off and that is directly on Venables. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced he wanted Mike Stoops back so he could leave and he wanted out from the Stoops shadow. I heard this morning that someone reported that Venables called Clemson. If that is true, then it puts a whole different spin on things.

Almost all of your assumptions are flawed yet you come up with a very likely conclusion. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.