This years defense better than last years?

I have explained my position multiple times, which is similar to spiff's and yet I keep getting condescending answers (using his thesaurus(anyone see the friends episode where Joey uses one to write a recommendation and look smarter)) in order to make my opinion look ridiculous. I never said that the stats posted in the article were conclusive making this years defense better than last years, I have posted multiple times that they are not conclusive. I can't help it that some of us on this board can't handle being "called out". I also don't post opinions making conclusive statements without reading the original opinion article.

Was that really me that was mentioned on the previous page? I'm not a stats guy. Just logic. Eyeballs say this year D is not as good as last year but it is better than expected and started out handicapped with the lost CBs.



Stats are skewed due to GFGH. Decrease of yards per play is a big plus. the one disappointment is when we give up a short field on turnover, the D has rolled over and gave TDs. Twice in UVA game leading to our loss.

scott715 wrote:
Was that really me that was mentioned on the previous page? I'm not a stats guy. Just logic. Eyeballs say this year D is not as good as last year but it is better than expected and started out handicapped with the lost CBs.



Stats are skewed due to GFGH. Decrease of yards per play is a big plus. the one disappointment is when we give up a short field on turnover, the D has rolled over and gave TDs. Twice in UVA game leading to our loss.

Scott



It is true that they give up a lot of TDs after turnovers, but that happened a bit last year as well. I agree that it seemed to happen less often in 2012.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougarbib wrote:

Was that really me that was mentioned on the previous page? I'm not a stats guy. Just logic. Eyeballs say this year D is not as good as last year but it is better than expected and started out handicapped with the lost CBs.



Stats are skewed due to GFGH. Decrease of yards per play is a big plus. the one disappointment is when we give up a short field on turnover, the D has rolled over and gave TDs. Twice in UVA game leading to our loss.

Scott



It is true that they give up a lot of TDs after turnovers, but that happened a bit last year as well. I agree that it seemed to happen less often in 2012.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

My armchair QB analysis is that last years defense was much stingier in the red zone than this years, but this years defense is harder to drive the field on which is supported by the stats in the article I quoted. Overall, I think last years D was better, which is supported by their higher national ranking last year.

frdbtr wrote:
I have explained my position multiple times, which is similar to spiff's and yet I keep getting condescending answers (using his thesaurus(anyone see the friends episode where Joey uses one to write a recommendation and look smarter)) in order to make my opinion look ridiculous. I never said that the stats posted in the article were conclusive making this years defense better than last years, I have posted multiple times that they are not conclusive. I can't help it that some of us on this board can't handle being "called out". I also don't post opinions making conclusive statements without reading the original opinion article.

Hey butter ball, let me spell this out for you. I had in fact read the article and the stats presented were so pathetically lean and non-significant in comparison to "the stats"-- again, not that this cornball, bush league writer was presenting, but " the stats" that any serious reader would expect ( like ppg, ypg, red zone, third down %, PER defense,etc.). You hung your contention on the ill-conceived conclusion that I hadn't read the article when in fact I had. You also hung your ill conceived assertion that this years D was better than last years D on a flimsy article written by some dude who picked out a barely relevant stat that even he himself showed was only 50% accurate. No one is coming to your defense of your support for this article. It missed the mark. And you bought into it. Nice try. I'm done with this innane discussion. You liked the article and I thought it was bunk.it presented one category of stats out of a possible 10+ other more salient stats and you drew some conclusion that its " harder to drive the whole field on"-- ya because we hear that descriptor all the time by analysts. :roll:

Another Stat. Points allowed related.



BYU has rarely given up more than 21 points lately. Rarely.



The 2012 defense gave up 24 to Utah and a ton to OSU. So they failed to meet Bronco's oft repeated objective twice in 12 regular season games - or once every 6 games. They did hold SDSU to under 21, so, including the bowl game, failed twice in 13 games.



The 2013 defense has failed - ZERO times in 6 games.



The opponents have been a little tougher in 2013 - but the D is keeping them out of the endzone pretty well. I have not compared whether points scored off turnovers vs the common opponent - Utah fully exonerates 2012 D vs Utah - but it might.



But 2012 defense laid an egg vs Oregon State.



This is just one stat.



I feel that the early 2012 defense was not better than the 2013 defense. Toss up. But the 2012 defense after Ziggy was discovered and eventually exploited fully, was better. It remains to be seen if the 2013 defense will improve like 2012 did.

SpiffCoug wrote:
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.

Red zone defense through six games:

2013: 9 of 15 for 60 yards 6 TDs 1 INT 212.27 PER, 26 rushes for 71 yards 2 TDs

2012: 5 of 7 for 30 yards 1 TD 0 INTs 154.57 PER, 12 rushes for 18 yards 2 TDs



3rd Down defense through six games:

2013: 31 of 71 for 277 yards 4 TDs 1 INT 92.21 PER, 42 rushes for 130 yards 1 TD

2012: 26 of 58 for 240 yards 0 TDs 2 INTs 72.69 PER, 30 rushes for 61 yards 0 TDs



Turnover defense through six games:

2013: following BYU's 11 turnovers, the defense has given up 28 points

2012: following BYU's 11 turnovers, the defense gave up 17 points

Cougs_Rule wrote:

I have explained my position multiple times, which is similar to spiff's and yet I keep getting condescending answers (using his thesaurus(anyone see the friends episode where Joey uses one to write a recommendation and look smarter)) in order to make my opinion look ridiculous. I never said that the stats posted in the article were conclusive making this years defense better than last years, I have posted multiple times that they are not conclusive. I can't help it that some of us on this board can't handle being "called out". I also don't post opinions making conclusive statements without reading the original opinion article.

Hey butter ball, let me spell this out for you. I had in fact read the article and the stats presented were so pathetically lean and non-significant in comparison to "the stats"-- again, not that this cornball, bush league writer was presenting, but " the stats" that any serious reader would expect ( like ppg, ypg, red zone, third down %, PER defense,etc.). You hung your contention on the ill-conceived conclusion that I hadn't read the article when in fact I had. You also hung your ill conceived assertion that this years D was better than last years D on a flimsy article written by some dude who picked out a barely relevant stat that even he himself showed was only 50% accurate. No one is coming to your defense of your support for this article. It missed the mark. And you bought into it. Nice try. I'm done with this innane discussion. You liked the article and I thought it was bunk.it presented one category of stats out of a possible 10+ other more salient stats and you drew some conclusion that its " harder to drive the whole field on"-- ya because we hear that descriptor all the time by analysts. :roll:

No one is coming to my defense because there is nothing to defend. I didn't EVER say that this years defense was conclusively better than last years defense. I only said that there were stats that said it was because you said that stats PROVE that last years defense was better than this years. Like you posted in another of your very bitter posts about me and the article that stats can be "damned lies". In this case the stats show something interesting, that this years defense in some categories is actually performing better than last years. It doesn't prove that this years defense as a whole is better than last years. I didn't think it was a poorly written article. You are the only one who seems offended that it was written. You are the only one who keeps calling me stupid for reading and posting it.

Hard to compare the two years. Last year RN was giving fumbles and pick 6s. this year we are not.

scott715 wrote:
Hard to compare the two years. Last year RN was giving fumbles and pick 6s. this year we are not.

We gave a pick 6 and 2 picks vs Houston, and a kick off return to the house, and a safety that will make the casual observer think D was horrible today.

Cougarbib wrote:

Hard to compare the two years. Last year RN was giving fumbles and pick 6s. this year we are not.

We gave a pick 6 and 2 picks vs Houston, and a kick off return to the house, and a safety that will make the casual observer think D was horrible today.

I think the D's worst game this year (Houston) was pretty similar to its worst game last year (Oregon St). That game also had some pick 6s.

Total defense: 366.0 ypg (37th); 4.76 yds/play (18th).



OOPS. There goes the centerpiece of your theory.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Total defense: 366.0 ypg (37th); 4.76 yds/play (18th).



OOPS. There goes the centerpiece of your theory.

:roll:

What's the matter? Hard to look reality in the eye?

Man, the bickering on this topic has gotten absurd.