A Different Look at Defensive Performance

I've been thinking over the last few weeks about why we as fans see the defense as so much worse than it was before while many of the stats are similar and some can argue that the defense is not much worse than it was under Bronco Mendenhall. That got me thinking about how although we may be giving up a similar number of points per game our whole team identity has changed.



Giving up 24 points a game is an acceptable defense when you're offense is scoring 40+ for example, but when your philosophy is to control the clock and limit the number of drives to 5 or 6 per team, giving up 24 points is actually not very good.



With that in mind, I've gone back and compiled stats through Bronco Mendenhall's first year and this is what I've found.



In the Mountain West, Bronco's teams averaged 32.32 points per game, and gave up an average of 20.4 points per game. That means the defense gave up 63.1% of the offense's score to the opposing team.



In Bronco's independent era, his teams averaged 31.94 points per game and gave up an average of 16.95 points per game. That means the defense gave up 53.1% of the offenses score to the opposing team.



Overall Bronco: Offense scored, 32.14. Defensive gave up, 18.83. Percentage: 58.6%.



Kalani's teams up through Utah State: Offense averages, 22.91. Defensive gives up, 22.60. Percentage: 98.6%.



And those numbers are getting worse. 2017 was Offense 17.08, defense, 24.69, for 144.6%. 2018 so far has offense 21.17, defense, 24.67, percentage: 116.6%.



The last 2 years alone: Offense 18.37, defense, 24.68, percentage: 134.4%



To reiterate:

Bronco's defenses gave up 58.6% of their offensive scoring to the opposing team.



Kalani's defenses give up 98.6% and rising (134.4% in 2017/18 seasons) of their offensive scoring to the opposing team.

Good analysis. That really paints a picture with a stark difference.



When you consider the comparison between the past two weeks alone, I think it shows something worthy of note: inconsistency.



Bronco's method was to work on something in a systemic way. His ultimate goal was the consistency of results at a high level. He was very good at working towards that goal and since he had a direct impact on the defense, it showed up in a good way statistically.



So how does this year's BYU team go from allowing USU to score 42 points in one week, to holding Hawaii down to 20, only 3 in the first half? Personally I think it has a lot to do with how Kafusi was used. His presence in the pass rush was noticeable this game where it was not so evident against USU.



That the character of the defense could change drastically across two weeks makes me think Kalani may be more like a Gary Crowton of the defense--willing to change things up unsystematically. Zach was a lot more fun to watch than Tanner, and the rushing game was surprisingly more productive--possibly because Wilson kept the defense honest, but that had no effect on the defensive performance, which was quite good this week, and astoundingly poor last week.



Unless Sitake gets to some level of consistency in his approach, I think the kind of statistics you have highlighted are going to be slow to change.

Yzzazz wrote:



So how does this year's BYU team go from allowing USU to score 42 points in one week, to holding Hawaii down to 20, only 3 in the first half? Personally I think it has a lot to do with how Kafusi was used. His presence in the pass rush was noticeable this game where it was not so evident against USU.

Perhaps the example is even more start than that. The defense gave up 3 points in the first half against Hawaii. Then they turned around and gave up 21 in the 2nd half. The defense was not able to adjust to Hawaii's adjustment. I don't think (remember) Kaufusi was used differently in the 2nd half ... but maybe he should have been. OR, the discipline is missing and the defense is not assignment sound ... maybe meaning that too much is left up to Kaufusi to do, and if he can't do it, the it's a crap shoot of who will do it and when. I don't know ...



The initial analysis by Hawk is compelling. Yzz's comments I think add to it.