PDA

View Full Version : next year's defense



jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
5/23/2006, 02:45 PM
as i was reading this husker post - http://65.98.70.3/vbbs/showthread.php?t=39287 - i started thinking of some specific issues with OU's defense last year.

yes, this is common knowledge stuff

1 - his analysis should take into account overall offensive rank to index the defensive stats. if you play kansas without playing ttech, you are going to have an absurd difference compared with someone who didn't play kansas but did play ttech.

2 - the defense is penalized for poor ST play - especially against aTm. aTm had over 200 yards in ST gain that went into their 490 total yards

3 - TFLs were up 20 over 1 less game from the year before (119 vs 99). sacks were up 8 over the year before (47 vs 39) however our overall defensive performance is similar in 2004 and 2005. the key point is that on average teams rush for less than a 100 yards a game and throw for a little over 200.

offensively, the 2 biggest standout issues about last year was the increase in sacks and TFLs. we went from 9 sacks to 24 and from 99 TFLs to 119 TFLs in one less game.

oumartin
5/23/2006, 04:29 PM
so, what are you saying? are we winning the freakin' title this year or what?

BASSooner
5/23/2006, 04:33 PM
I think he is saying that OUr defense is going to be impenetrable next year

NormanPride
5/23/2006, 04:42 PM
Really? I translated that as "I need scissors! 61!"... What am I doing wrong?

toast
5/23/2006, 05:05 PM
as i was reading this husker post - http://65.98.70.3/vbbs/showthread.php?t=39287 - i started thinking of some specific issues with OU's defense last year.


3 - TFLs were up 20 over 1 less game from the year before (119 vs 99). sacks were up 8 over the year before (47 vs 39) however our overall defensive performance is similar in 2004 and 2005. the key point is that on average teams rush for less than a 100 yards a game and throw for a little over 200.

offensively, the 2 biggest standout issues about last year was the increase in sacks and TFLs. we went from 9 sacks to 24 and from 99 TFLs to 119 TFLs in one less game.

Dusty had 18 TFLs and the next interior lineman was Remi with 6. Do we have a DL (excluding ends) on campus that is capable of the number of TFLs as Dusty?

BlondeSoonerGirl
5/23/2006, 05:25 PM
Dusty had 18 TFLs and the next interior lineman was Remi with 6. Do we have a DL (excluding ends) on campus that is capable of the number of TFLs as Dusty?

YEAH!

Do we?

TheGodfather889
5/23/2006, 05:46 PM
The defense should be really good. OU will be able to rush the passer alot this year with Larry Birdine,C.J. Ah You,Calvin Thibodeaux,John Williams and Alonzo Dotson so there's alot of depth at defensive end. At defensive tackle I don't have any reason to believe that Corey Bennett,Carl Pendleton and Steven Coleman are impact players so hopefully with Gerald Mccoy coming in hopefully he will be that special freshman Tommie Harris was. Secondary should be better with Reggie Smith moving to cornerback. I see a Jim Thorpe award in his future.

snp
5/23/2006, 07:52 PM
Arbitrarily assinging points is cool.

PDXsooner
5/24/2006, 12:53 AM
i'll tell you what, i'll give that guy credit for attempting to corral the statistics and make something of it. it was interesting, nonetheless. numbers in college football aren't necessarily as telling as numbers in baseball. but i think statistics in college football are pretty telling.

special teams can throw stats off, and a couple of big-play breakdowns in a few games can make your d look worse than it is.

i still think in college football you can pretty much just watch a team and tell if it's good. i always say about the sec - "they just look good"...

RedstickSooner
5/24/2006, 12:43 PM
At defensive tackle I don't have any reason to believe that Corey Bennett,Carl Pendleton and Steven Coleman are impact players so hopefully with Gerald Mccoy coming in hopefully he will be that special freshman Tommie Harris was.

Don't write off Demarcus Granger, or has he gotten hurt / booted from the team / quit for personal reasons? (I don't check every day during the offseason, so figured I'd better make sure I hadn't missed anything with him).

snp
5/24/2006, 12:45 PM
Granger lost a bunch of weight and is healthy for next season.

No worries, mate.

NormanPride
5/24/2006, 12:52 PM
Bennett may be a bit light, but he's a beast.

melbitoast
5/24/2006, 01:56 PM
I think if our offense is able to stay on the field a bit more than last year, our defense is going to be sick. They would have been pretty darn good last year if they had been able to get a little more rest. If Reggie goes off a little earlier than expected, what out for a Triple Crown here fellas!! Thorpe, Butkus, and Lombardi?!?!? Maybe even a Nagurski to top it off? And a Heisman for Peterson? Good lord, watch out.

SoonersEnFuego
5/24/2006, 06:00 PM
YEAH!

Do we?

You carck me up!
I love you soonergirl.:twinkies:

BASSooner
5/24/2006, 06:14 PM
I think if our offense is able to stay on the field a bit more than last year, our defense is going to be sick. They would have been pretty darn good last year if they had been able to get a little more rest. If Reggie goes off a little earlier than expected, what out for a Triple Crown here fellas!! Thorpe, Butkus, and Lombardi?!?!? Maybe even a Nagurski to top it off? And a Heisman for Peterson? Good lord, watch out.
who cares about winning trophies, its the games we're looking to win. I like what you think though. spek

sooner94
5/24/2006, 07:03 PM
Granger lost a bunch of weight and is healthy for next season.

No worries, mate.

I thought Granger had a blood clot that kept him from practicing when he got on campus last year, so they redshirted him. I think his weight got pretty high because he wasn't able to work out.

When he was able to practice later in the season, I hear that the coaches liked what they saw, but decided not to take the red shirt off.

Don't write this kid off. With the medical issue behind him, he should be a stud.

meoveryouxinfinity
5/24/2006, 07:44 PM
Who do you think will make more outstanding defensive plays?: Reggie Smith or Rufus Alexander?

melbitoast
5/24/2006, 07:55 PM
Tough call here. Rufus is more for sacks and forcing fumbles while Reggie will be bigger for INTs and kick returns. I'd have to give the edge to Rufus simply b/c of experience. Reggie will be a force no doubt, but he's bound to get burned at least once before he learns.

melbitoast
5/24/2006, 07:56 PM
who cares about winning trophies, its the games we're looking to win. I like what you think though. spek

With those kinds of accolades/trophies coming in, the wins will be already be there. But I do agree, I'll take a NC over a Triple Crown anyday.