CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

This years defense better than last years?

by frdbtr · 10/16/2013

Advertisement
C
Cougarbib
To early to say. The D last year got better and better as the season went along - Ziggy was a big part of the reason - but great corner play allowed Bronco to turn up the pressure and they started creating turnovers and scoring.



The same thing is happening to an extent this year - but no Ziggy and soft corner play.



Line backers are better overall. DL is as good - but not deep. DBs good but not as good.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
L
Lawboy
Ziggy was a freak and disruptor that this D lacks. Our D is solid, but the lack of Ziggy and softer boundary corner play is the difference. Not complaining, as both are defenses I'd be happy with every year.
C
Cougs_Rule
Lawboy wrote:
Ziggy was a freak and disruptor that this D lacks. Our D is solid, but the lack of Ziggy and softer boundary corner play is the difference. Not complaining, as both are defenses I'd be happy with every year.


+1. BK is good, but not as disruptive. Of course, ALOT of times the D is a 2-5, so he ends up chewing up blockers. But stats support argument that last years was better.
F
frdbtr
Cougs_Rule wrote:
Ziggy was a freak and disruptor that this D lacks. Our D is solid, but the lack of Ziggy and softer boundary corner play is the difference. Not complaining, as both are defenses I'd be happy with every year.


+1. BK is good, but not as disruptive. Of course, ALOT of times the D is a 2-5, so he ends up chewing up blockers. But stats support argument that last years was better.


Really, did you read the posted article? Stats actually show that this years is better.
Advertisement
M
Mars
Cougs_Rule wrote:
Stats support argument that last years was better.

True. Many posting on the article point this out.
J
jonnylingo
frdbtr wrote:
Lawboy wrote:
Ziggy was a freak and disruptor that this D lacks. Our D is solid, but the lack of Ziggy and softer boundary corner play is the difference. Not complaining, as both are defenses I'd be happy with every year.


+1. BK is good, but not as disruptive. Of course, ALOT of times the D is a 2-5, so he ends up chewing up blockers. But stats support argument that last years was better.


Really, did you read the posted article? Stats actually show that this years is better.


You two bicker like a married couple.
F
frdbtr
While it is true that last years defense was ranked higher in the overall defensive category, BYU's defense this year is defending more plays per game (by 12) than last years. This years defense, however, is allowing 4.1 yards per play, and last years defense allowed 4.5 yards per play. That indicates to me that this years defense is actually making it harder on teams to move the ball than last years.



Having said that, it is a pretty compelling article supporting the strength of this years defense but not conclusive. The only reason I said what I said to cougs rule is because his comment indicated that he had not even read the article before commenting. this whole thread was started to get discussion going about the article itself not people's perceptions of what reality looks like in their own minds.
C
Cougs_Rule
frdbtr wrote:
While it is true that last years defense was ranked higher in the overall defensive category, BYU's defense this year is defending more plays per game (by 12) than last years. This years defense, however, is allowing 4.1 yards per play, and last years defense allowed 4.5 yards per play. That indicates to me that this years defense is actually making it harder on teams to move the ball than last years.



Having said that, it is a pretty compelling article supporting the strength of this years defense but not conclusive. The only reason I said what I said to cougs rule is because his comment indicated that he had not even read the article before commenting. this whole thread was started to get discussion going about the article itself not people's perceptions of what reality looks like in their own minds.


So myopic--your excoriating and the article, I'm not wasting my time to defend/articulate.
F
frdbtr
Cougs_Rule wrote:
While it is true that last years defense was ranked higher in the overall defensive category, BYU's defense this year is defending more plays per game (by 12) than last years. This years defense, however, is allowing 4.1 yards per play, and last years defense allowed 4.5 yards per play. That indicates to me that this years defense is actually making it harder on teams to move the ball than last years.



Having said that, it is a pretty compelling article supporting the strength of this years defense but not conclusive. The only reason I said what I said to cougs rule is because his comment indicated that he had not even read the article before commenting. this whole thread was started to get discussion going about the article itself not people's perceptions of what reality looks like in their own minds.


So myopic--your excoriating and the article, I'm not wasting my time to defend/articulate.


And yet, you still haven't read it. Until you have read the article, you have no valid opinion. But you call me myopic.
Advertisement
C
Cougs_Rule
Inconceivably bumbling. Please reread the stats he provides and tell me what's sophomoric about that analysis. Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers, let alone the bush league sources such as this one?

Hint: "lies, indamnable lies, and statistics".

Need more?

How about: "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth."
F
frdbtr
Cougs_Rule wrote:
Inconceivably bumbling. Please reread the stats he provides and tell me what's sophomoric about that analysis. Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers, let alone the bush league sources such as this one?

Hint: "lies, indamnable lies, and statistics".

Need more?

How about: "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth."


Maybe you should read my original post and tell me where I said I agreed with everything he said. Maybe you should read the post I posted about 2 up from this one and tell me where I said I agreed with everything he said. I posted this article to have an intelligent conversation on whether you thought the writer of the article had a compelling argument. Then you came into the thread and all the intelligence left.
C
Cougs_Rule
Ok, insult and banter aside, can you please add intelligence to the conversation by explicating at least one of about 3 major stats that are seriously missing from his rather constricted review of the stats? Or even at least one serious and rather simple flaw with his stats presented?

The article and OP question certainly seem worthy of discussing but since you drew first blood, man up and answer my questions. Otherwise you are the one who has relegated this discussion to insults alone.
F
frdbtr
I frankly don't see anything wrong with his stats. The stats are just the opinion of one sporting agency. That is why I said his argument was "compelling". Having said that, I don't think this years defense is better than last years. Last year, our defense was really stingy inside the red(blue) zone (with the excepton of the Oregon state game). This year it seems like if a team gets into the red zone, they are going to score a TD. I do feel that this years defense is harder to drive the whole field on than last years (kind of what his stats show).



I posted the article because I thought it was interesting. You can either get petty and insult the article or you can read it with an open mind and make your own decision on whether you buy it or not. Lawboy and bib gave an honest analysis of what they thought. The reason I asked if you read the article is because you didn't mention anything it said other than "stats say that last years defense was better" when in fact this guy introduced stats that said just the opposite. The sad thing is, if we hadn't had the injuries at DB, this years defense very easily could be much better than last years since with the exception of the loss of Ziggy, the entire front 7 is playing better. Our linebackers are playing, as a group, much better than last years. The Dline is very comparable, the safeties are better, we are weaker against the pass because Povey is a liability out there, and Daniels has been beat deep a few times too.
C
Cougs_Rule
frdbtr wrote:
Lawboy wrote:
Ziggy was a freak and disruptor that this D lacks. Our D is solid, but the lack of Ziggy and softer boundary corner play is the difference. Not complaining, as both are defenses I'd be happy with every year.


+1. BK is good, but not as disruptive. Of course, ALOT of times the D is a 2-5, so he ends up chewing up blockers. But stats support argument that last years was better.


Really, did you read the posted article? Stats actually show that this years is better.


Let's try this one more time.



"But stats [ALL D stats, all Real stats, all available stats and not just the few strategically selected (albeit one set/side of his stats support 2012 being better) to support his weak argument] show that last years D was better."



But congratualtions, Your red zone stats are just one--notwithstanding one very big, high ranking stat--that definitely tip the scale toward 2012. Now, keep digging, because this article looks like a sophomore research paper that isolates, at best, 20-25% of the picture from which he drew a conclusion that may or may not be true.

Good research question.

Weak article. Poorly researched. Likely biased by the stats that fit his a priori assumptions; oh and, Prematurely concluded. Sophomoric. Grade of D+.

Look to Scott and Spiff if you want a more robust analysis and a few more clues to derive an answer. And please, for the love of all things holy researched, please do a season-to-date, Year-over-year analysis to try and constrain the covariates and extraneous variables as much as possible.
Advertisement
F
frdbtr
This article seems to offend you, do you have some personal stake in the 2012 defense? Seriously dude, I thought the article was interesting. Not conclusive, just interesting. You don't have to let it piss you off. If Spiff or someone else wants to post stats that make an opposite claim, it would make the thread more interesting but no one seems to want to do that. We just have you, getting all pissed off, that the article exists.
C
Cougs_Rule
frdbtr wrote:
Lawboy wrote:
Ziggy was a freak and disruptor that this D lacks. Our D is solid, but the lack of Ziggy and softer boundary corner play is the difference. Not complaining, as both are defenses I'd be happy with every year.


+1. BK is good, but not as disruptive. Of course, ALOT of times the D is a 2-5, so he ends up chewing up blockers. But stats support argument that last years was better.


Really, did you read the posted article? Stats actually show that this years is better.


Since you need reminding who started this fracas, please read above.

I have a 12year old that occassionally provokes a fight with his older brothers and then has the immaturity to Blame the problem On them. Don't draw first blood with your attitude and then have the temerity to blame it on me.

Some folks in history have claimed, "a bible, a bible, we have a bible, we need no more bible." Some folks have claimed the world was flat. Such constrained views of the world have been accepted as truth since the beginning.

I've stated, yes, the question is interesting. But the stats were rather fractionalizing (for your benefit, thats defined as a small piece of the pie) if not strategically isolating to attempt to prove his point and i find it quite laughable and simpleton. If You find that interesting so be it.

By the way, I heard there is some land for sale in the arctic. Reports from a local, bush-league paper state that there is plenty of ice for cold drinks. And I thought since you were prone to buy "interesting" stuff, you'd be interested. No? How about some Amway products?
S
SpiffCoug
Since I've been mentioned, thought I would weigh in. To a certain extent I think last year's defense is better. We are giving up more points than year, (about a field goal) but while we are defending more plays, bottom line is still more points.



As was mentioned, red zone defense is worse. I'd have to double check, but I think 3rd down defense is as well.



It seems like this year teams are able to find success moving the ball more frequently than last year.



But compared to where I thought the was going to be, with all the injuries and losses from last year's roster I think the defense is better than expected.
S
Stirfry
SpiffCoug wrote:
Since I've been mentioned, thought I would weigh in. To a certain extent I think last year's defense is better. We are giving up more points than year, (about a field goal) but while we are defending more plays, bottom line is still more points.



As was mentioned, red zone defense is worse. I'd have to double check, but I think 3rd down defense is as well.



It seems like this year teams are able to find success moving the ball more frequently than last year.



But compared to where I thought the was going to be, with all the injuries and losses from last year's roster I think the defense is better than expected.


Whats with all the civility Spiff?



I think the only thing I can add to this thread is that I'm pretty sure my dad can beat up all of your dads ;)
C
Cougarbib
This little fracus is all about this little misunderstanding that could have been respectfully cleared up by either party - if so inclined.



Party A posted the article posing a question that seems ridiculous on the surface, but posited some selective stats that gave enough pause, to make one at least question for a second or two whether the entrenched view that there is no comparison whatsoever to be made between D 2012 and D 2013 should be quite so entrenchred.



Party B posted some comments ending with a statement that stats clearly confirm that 2012 is better. It came across in a way that made Party A, and probably others, conclude that Party B had not even read the article since the stats in the article indicated the opposite.



Party A SARCASTICALLY called out Party B for not having read the article - drawing first blood - but giving Party B the opportunity to take the higher road, and just RESPECTFULLY acknowlege whether he did, in fact, actually read it or not, and if he had actually read it, RESPECTFULLY explain that the comment about stats indicating 2012 superiority was referring, perhaps not clearly articulated enough, however, to significant stats ommitted by the article.



The High Road remains un-travelled by A or B -



Who will sieze the opportunity to RESPECTFULLY take it.



If I were a betting man...................



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.