My friend and colleague over at SB Nation's outstanding Penn State blog Black Shoe Diaries has submitted his Week 10 draft Blog Poll ballot, ranking Penn State #1, followed by Texas Tech, Alabama, Florida, Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. As Blog Poll voters are strongly encouraged to do, BSD provides the reasoning behind the balloting. First, his disregard for the Big 12:
I have to put Texas Tech in the #2 spot based on their win over Texas. But honestly, I'm not as impressed with the Big XII as the rest of the country is. Sure, they have some great quarterbacks and great offenses, but their defenses are terrible. I watched the Texas-TT game last night and by the third quarter you could tell whoever got the ball last was going to win. I saw missed tackles, poor pursuit angles, and just overall poor defense. I can't see Texas Tech going undefeated.
Billyzane has already addressed another version of the "no Big 12 defense" line or argumentation, but even if I were merely of the opinion that the great offenses and playmakers in the Big 12 make the defenses look worse than they are, it's not facially invalid to point out that the conference's defenses fail to shut down the high-flying offenses they see on a weekly basis.
Where I struggle with BSD's reasoning, however, is with his explanation for Penn State at #1.
Penn State in my opinion has been the most solid team in all three phases of the game. The defense has been stellar. Only Illinois scored more than 17 points on them. You can say, "Yeah big deal. Who have they played?" Perhaps a fair point, but look at teams like Oklahoma who have given up 26 points to Cincinnati, 35 points to Kansas State, and 28 points to Nebraska. Or Florida who have given up 31 points to Mississippi. Or even Texas Tech who gave up 24 points to Eastern Washington, 19 points to Nevada, 28 points to Kansas State, and 25 points to Texas A&M. At some point every team comes out flat and needs their defense to pull out a win. Penn State has a defense that can do that. Everyone thinks they are a boring low scoring team, but they forget that before we went to Columbus we were hanging 45 points on everyone. Put them in the Big XII and I honestly believe they would score 50 points per game. That's why they get my #1 vote.
To sum the argument, then:
The problem is that BSD isn't consistently applying the principle which animates his Big 12 skepticism. The truth is that (1) Penn State's defense has done a good job beating up a slate of weak offenses, and (2) if we control for quality, we get a significantly different picture than we would just looking at raw numbers. Consider the season stats, excluding non-Division 1 teams:
| Season | Natl | Season | Natl | Vs PSU | Vs PSU | |||
| Opponent | Yds/Play | Rank | Pts/Gm | Rank | Yds/Play | Delta | Points | Delta |
| Oregon St | 6.0 | 26 | 34.6 | 22 | 4.7 | -22% | 14 | -60% |
| Syracuse | 4.9 | 90 | 17.7 | 112 | 2.7 | -45% | 13 | -27% |
| Temple | 4.2 | 114 | 16.8 | 116 | 2.3 | -45% | 3 | -82% |
| Illinois | 6.5 | 16 | 37.8 | 26 | 5.6 | -14% | 24 | -37% |
| Purdue | 5.0 | 84 | 20.3 | 93 | 4.0 | -20% | 6 | -70% |
| Wisconsin | 5.4 | 62 | 24.3 | 68 | 4.7 | -13% | 7 | -71% |
| Michigan | 4.5 | 106 | 18.9 | 102 | 4.3 | -4% | 17 | -10% |
| Ohio State | 5.1 | 79 | 24.6 | 67 | 4.9 | -4% | 6 | -76% |
| Season | Natl | Season | Natl | Vs TX | Vs TX | |||
| Opponent | Yds/Play | Rank | Pts/Gm | Rank | Yds/Play | Delta | Points | Delta |
| FAU | 5.5 | 57 | 18.1 | 109 | 4.7 | -15% | 10 | -45% |
| UTEP | 5.5 | 57 | 31.4 | 36 | 5.9 | +7% | 13 | -59% |
| Rice | 6.1 | 22 | 40.1 | 10 | 4.4 | -28% | 10 | -82% |
| Arkansas | 5.3 | 67 | 19.1 | 98 | 3.5 | -34% | 10 | -75% |
| Colorado | 4.2 | 114 | 18.6 | 105 | 4.0 | -5% | 14 | -25% |
| Oklahoma | 6.8 | 4 | 48.3 | 2 | 6.5 | -4% | 35 | -28% |
| Missouri | 7.5 | 2 | 47.4 | 4 | 5.8 | -23% | 31 | -35% |
| Oklahoma St |
7.0 | 5 | 43.6 | 6 | 6.5 | -7% | 24 | -45% |
| Texas Tech |
7.5 | 2 | 48.0 | 3 | 7.1 | -5% | 39 | -19% |
| Season | Natl | Season | Natl | Vs TTU | Vs TTU | |||
| Opponent | Yds/Play | Rank | Pts/Gm | Rank | Yds/Play | Delta | Points | Delta |
| Nevada | 6.8 | 7 | 37.9 | 15 | 6.0 | -12% | 19 | -50% |
| SMU | 5.8 | 36 | 23.1 | 78 | 4.6 | -21% | 7 | -70% |
| Kansas St | 6.1 | 22 | 38.5 | 13 | 4.4 | -28% | 28 | -27% |
| Nebraska | 6.4 | 18 | 33.1 | 29 | 5.9 | -8% | 31 | -6% |
| Texas A&M | 5.6 | 51 | 27.3 | 50 | 4.9 | -13% | 25 | -8% |
| Kansas | 6.0 | 26 | 32.3 | 32 | 5.3 | -12% | 21 | -15% |
| Texas | 6.7 | 10 | 45.6 | 5 | 6.0 | -10% | 33 | -28% |
That's a lot of data, but with it the idea that the defenses of Texas and Texas Tech have been limping along is indefensible. Rather, though the Longhorns and Red Raiders have faced vastly superior offenses than has Penn State, they are consistently holding those offenses well below their normal averages, just as is Penn State.
The difference between the average opposing offenses is stark enough that any fan's attempt to note the Nittany Lions' defensive excellence should be met with a shrug. How much value is there in shutting down a schedule featuring the offenses of Syracuse, Temple, Michigan, and the like?
| Points/Game | Yards/Play | |
| PSU Avg Opp | 24.4 | 5.2 |
| Texas Avg Opp | 34.9 | 6.2 |
| Tech Avg Opp | 33.9 | 6.2 |
In the final analysis, has Penn State performed very well against a weak schedule? Without question. Do they have a better defense than Texas and/or Texas Tech? The Nittany Lions have performed so well against their schedule that they very well might, but it's simply disingenuous to summarily wave off the Longhorns and Red Raiders as Black Shoe Diaries has, when:
Given the same schedule, would Penn State's defense outperform that of Texas or Texas Tech? Who knows? All we know for sure is that Illinois--the cream of the crop on Penn State's schedule--managed 24 points and 5.6 yards per play, down from their season averages, but comparable to Texas and Texas Tech's performances against highly-ranked offenses.
Though there may be a plausible case to be made for ranking Penn State #1, Black Shoe Diaries stated justification for his rankings disappoints. It's a cynically dismissive take on the top Big 12 teams' defenses, supported by anecdotal stereotyping instead of analysis--as casual and unfair a treatment of the Big 12 as would be my ranking Penn State #5 for the sole reason that "You know, I'm not so sold on the Big 10 because their offenses suck." There's more to Penn State than that, and there's more to Oklahoma State, Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech than Black Shoe Diaries' balloting would have you believe.
Ranking Penn State #1, or Texas #6, is not outside the realm of reason. But a stronger case has to be made than that which BSD offers.
1 recs | 30 comments
I concur.
Skin Patrol - November 2, 2008
Wow...
That’s one hell of an argument you put together supporting the fact that this guy’s reasoning is a bit skewed. Like you said, it is probably possible to justify Penn State as #1 and Texas as #6 but his methodology in coming to this conclusion is definitely flawed.
Top Jimmy - November 2, 2008
After looking at his poll...
I think a better question is: how does he possibly justify dropping Georgia only 3 spots after getting destroyed against Florida on a neutral field yet he drops Texas 5 spots after losing on the road to Tech in the waning seconds?
Is this because he’s employing the argument that the SEC is so strong that they naturally beat up on each other and an occasional loss like this is to be expected and, therefore, excused?
Top Jimmy - November 2, 2008
Well there's a kid on my floor that's a PSU fan (I'm at UMD)...
and he’s in absolute disbelief that Tech jumped PSU. Well I’m gonna give him shit for the rest of the season so that’s gonna be fun. I have utmost confidence that 1 or 2 more teams can potentially jump PSU in a couple weeks. I told someone that I thought Tech would only beat Texas if everything goes wrong against Texas and everything goes right for Tech and that happened AND we almost beat them. I’m dumbfounded the human voters dropped us so far.
clra2 - November 2, 2008
I'm somewhat dumbstruck by this gem
PSU would be 17 points per game better in the Big 12 than the Big 10? Big 12 defenses are alleged to be – across the board – inferior to Temple, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan, tOSU (certainly many are), and Oregon State?
Heavens, nothing like credibility annihilating homerism.
learned hand - November 2, 2008
Lawyers in love. nt
whills - November 3, 2008
Sometimes you beat me with experience whills
I was born about the same time that song was recorded. Good song. Better video.
learned hand - November 3, 2008
Lost in the red scare days, with the start of media consolidation
The song was more prescient than most thought at the time, reflecting earlier musical structures (sha-la-las and falsettos, etc.) and the new open door through which ran new monsters we are still contending with today….heh, no politics, eh.
But what I was alluding to was when PB really nails an analysis, the lawyers on the board jump right in and have a lot of fun. I enjoy that. Both that PB has such great clarity and the appreciation and take-offs that ensue.
Me, I was never been that rational and logical; could be, came out of science, math, stat, etc. but went to art and became much more intuitive, which I used on my really smart lawyer friend to get where he was logically going before they got there. Really would piss him off to have someone critically comment on his conclusion before he made it. Phi Beta Kappa’s need that ever so often.I guess it’s the Bugs Bunny in me, eh, doc.
whills - November 3, 2008
Those black shoes have a shine job
Excellent work, PB. You’re just so clear and direct in your argument.
Let’s see what kind of defense he really has.
whills - November 3, 2008
Well Done, But a Few Objections
Just dropping by from BSD and your analysis is well supported and reasoned. But I should point what you’ve proven and what you haven’t proven.
What you have shown is that relative to their conference peers PSU, UT and TT have performed better defensively. That does not, however, show the relative defensive quality of the teams in question. If, for example, the Big 12 as a whole has many below average defensive teams, then Texas is simply performing better than a mediocre defense. If, for example, the Big 10 as a whole has many below average offensive teams, then Penn State is simply padding its stats against soft competition.
The main objection I have is that you are comparing several teams’ performances against samples that are nearly uncorrelated. You’ve also removed one of PSU’s and two of Tech’s games from the sample you’re discussing. I can understand why you’d exclude Coastal Carolina, but you can’t throw away data points you don’t like because the strengths of the teams are incomparable. Your best option here would be to systematically exclude the one or two weakest non-conference games for each team. That would eliminate any question that you’re cherry-picking data to suit your thesis.
At any rate, the rankings on BSD are homer rankings. So I agree that what you’re saying is more reasoned than homer rationalizations. But I don’t think the statistics actually prove much in terms of relative quality of defenses.
gcdyersb - November 3, 2008
Thanks for the feedback
A few follow up thoughts:
1) On excluded teams: I didn’t remove teams that fail to support the point I’m making; I removed teams that don’t play Division 1 football. For Texas: none. For Penn State: Coast Carolina. For Tech: Eastern Washington and UMass. Why remove them? First, what the defenses do against such poor competition tells us nothing, and second, those teams’ other opponents aren’t in Division 1, which takes poorly correlated to a whole new level. In any case, there’s no cherry picking here.
2) On what the above shows – You contend that “What [I’ve] shows is that relative to their conference peers PSU, UT, and TT have performed better defensively.” I get what you’re saying, but that’s the most narrow interpretation possible of the above, which, first of all, charts conference and non-conference games and, second of all, provides enough context to support the few conclusions that I draw. You’re right that, at least in theory, there’s little correlation in the data sets above, but that’s a hardline skeptical view: It’s more likely than not that an Illinois offense with those numbers at this point in the season is similar enough to other teams with those numbers that the basic point stands.
I do agree with you that to really compare these defenses we’d have to go beyond what is presented above, but I’d suggest that (1) for the points I am making the data set is sufficient, and (2) if we did strengthen the numbers by looking at opponents’ opponents and the like, there’d be little to no change in the delta scores. The statistical certainty would still be a little shaky, given the lack of common opponents, but again this post was really meant to disprove something said at Black Shoe Diaries, rather than definitively show one defense is better than the other.
And that’s really the big poing: The contention that the Big 12’s best teams suck at defense is based on watching them grapple with what are—in my view—exceptional offenses, the likes of which Penn State hasn’t sniffed this year. And even if all I did was show that Texas and Texas Tech have performed better than their conference peers in dealing with these offensive juggernauts, I’d contend that’s relevant to what Mike’s saying.
Or, in conclusion, to boil it down to its essence: BSD asserts elsewhere in his ballot reasoning that if Penn State played in the Big 12, its offense is strong enough to roll up big points on a regular basis. I think highly enough of Penn State’s offense to believe that may be true, but I’d contend we have just as much reason to believe that—even if Penn State’s offense succeeded in that regard—it’d be winning 49-28 games like everyone else. Penn State’s defense good? You bet: holding almost any of these Big 12 offenses to 28 is a freaking challenge. But only then might BSD give up this lazy argument that the Big 12’s high offensive numbers are the product of a defensive wasteland. No: the offenses are just too good. And if I won’t argue that the Big 12’s defenses conference-wide are on par with the Big 10’s I can say without question that the Big 10 offenses are a joke compared to the 2008 Big 12.
All of which is to say: If BSD is allowed to say that Texas and Texas Tech’s defenses suck because they play in a conference that this year features a slew of amazing offenses, than the rest of the world should be able to say “Penn State’s offense sucks” because they play in a conference that features Ohio State—a strong defensive team that held them to 13 points.
It’s all bullshit arguing. BSD is welcome to be pro-Penn State. But if the public assertion is “The Big 12 is full of horrid defenses” instead of “great offenses,” I’m gonna call it for what it is—stupid.
Peter Bean - November 3, 2008
Well, the one thing that is pretty clear is that the Big 10 has a mix of teams. Some have good offenses, some have good defenses. Most teams are good at one thing or the other. Penn State is good at both, with Iowa and Illinois being the only other semi-balanced teams in the league (MSU surprisingly is average on both sides of the ball).
The Big 12 in incredibly offense-heavy. When I look at the rankings there, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma and Ok State are just on the edge of being semi-balanced if you allow top 10 offense, top 60 defense to qualify. I get the feeling it’s one of those “it take two to tango” situations. Great offenses are complemented by less than stellar defending. And nearly every team plays the same style designed to maximize possessions and plays run in the game. It takes a confluence of circumstances to get such crazy numbers unless this is the most freakishly stacked conference in history by a wide margin. My gut estimate favors a confluence of more ordinary circumstances (great offense, mediocre defense, most teams trying to out up 45 every game) over the extraordinary (several historically good offenses beating down great defenses)
gcdyersb - November 3, 2008
Now, Some Other Stats
First, the only head to head comparison between the conferences was UM’s 52-42 win over Illinois. Both teams basically slightly exceeded their offensive averages while giving up significantly more points than average. But this is about what you’d expect in a matchup of two high powered offenses with suspect defenses. And furthermore, one game does not provide a sample of any real statistical significance.
I’m not one to make generalizations since they’re counterproductive. OSU and OU choking in the past does not predict future choking on the part of the Big 10 or Big 12. But there are significant chunks of evidence to suggest that defense in the Big 12 is less than spectacular. The highest ranked defense in the league, TT’s, is ranked 54th nationally. But this could still be a byproduct of Tech facing elite offenses, so that’s not really a complete argument.
What concerns me more is that the median QB in the league is completing 69.5% of his passes and has a rating of 154. The second WORST QB in the Big 12 is completing either 60.3% or 58.9% of his passes depending on whether you go by QB rating or completion %. The top 8 QBs in the Big 12 have a higher rating than the best QB in the Big 10. The top 5 QBs in the Big 12 have a higher rating than SEC leader Tim Tebow. Even the 3rd worst rated starting QB in the Big 12 would hypothetically trail only Tim Tebow in the SEC.
QB ratings in the Big 12 are simply astronomically high this year. And I have trouble believing that the Big 12 is really 8-10 QBs deep in NFL caliber talent. To put it another way, it seems far more likely that several Big 12 teams have diabolically bad defenses and no truly great defense has distinguished itself than for nearly every QB in the league to be outrageously good. The odds favor several instances of terrible defending dragging down the whole league over universal quarterbacking awesomeness. So it’s not impossible all the QBs are great, but it’s more likely the average defense in the Big 12 is sub-standard. The last time I saw QB number like this, it was 2006 and the league was the WAC.
gcdyersb - November 3, 2008
Its not that all the QBs are NFL Caliber
Its that the schemes and players around round them sum up to highly efficient and explosive offenses that you don’t find in the big 10, or the SEC.
Seriously, watch the Dez Bryant highlights from last week, or the Michael Crabtree catches. Check out Iglesias or Johnson at OU, Maclin at Mizzou. Pettigrew and Gresham. The receiving threats have been coming to the Big 12 for a while, and they are all here now. Combine that with the evolution of Leach’s spread, and the elements that other teams have incorporated.
Then add in that we have 6 returning starters at QB in the league, more than the Big 10 and SEC. And yes, I do think these QBs are comparatively good. The top 6 in the big 12 would give most every starting QB a run for their money in College Football.
Point is, no its not all about the opposing defense. Probably some of it is, but its definitely not the only ingredient in this bombastic stew that we are witnessing.
BoddickerIsClutch - November 3, 2008
I absolutely agree the top teams all have multiple star players. But there is surprisingly little statistical drop-off from the top 3 or 4 QBs and top 3 or 4 offenses to the middle of the pack in the Big 12. So you shouldn’t neglect to mention Joe Ganz, Nate Swift, Josh Freeman and Brandon Banks. Then there’s Reesing and Briscoe at Kansas. It just looks a little suspicious to me.
gcdyersb - November 3, 2008
If Penn State plays any of the top 5 teams in the Big 12… they lose by 21. A lot of this is mental masturbation and statistical self-gratification. I can’t believe anyone even considers Penn State better than a one loss OU or a one loss UT.
I think I just threw up in my mouth.
antiswarm - November 3, 2008
Chicken or the egg?
doesn’t the argument, at least at some point, lead us to question whether all of the offenses are just that good or the defenses might just be bad?
I’m not saying I know the answer, however, it is clear that the Big XII is putting up an awful lot of points this year but it is unclear whether the offenses are truly absurd or if they are being helped by the sub-par defenses. We may not know until the end of the year when we get some more quality OOC opponents for each team. But for now, aren’t we just left wondering?
GLORYOFOLDSTATE - November 3, 2008
Fair enough, PB
But you haven’t changed my vote, and I think I’ll be vindicated when Tech and Alabama lose in the next few weeks. Throw around all the statistics you want, but I know what I saw on Saturday night. Blown coverages. Poor tackling. Poor pursuit angles. Dropped picks. Poor fundamentals. Same as I saw from both teams in your game against Oklahoma. The only person that can play any defense and stop these Big XII teams from scoring is the time keeper. Give me a hard fought fundamentally sound 14-10 game over a 55-49 shootout any day.
Good luck on the rest of your season. Maybe things will work out and we’ll meet in Miami where we can settle this on the field.
BSD - November 3, 2008
Thanks
G’luck to you, too.
Peter Bean - November 3, 2008
or what I saw
8 drives and only 1 touchdown that’s not good football, 5 for 12 third attempts not top ten caliber, what I saw was bad offense, poorly executed with no consistency, unimaginative offensive scheme and ill suited to mediocre talent. I had to change channels and just to watch a game where the teams knew what a forward pass is.
Xerxes - November 3, 2008
Alabama will probably lose when they face a real offense
and Tech will most likely lose because, well, they’re Tech.
This doesn’t change the fact that Penn State hasn’t played anyone good this season (Ohio State, blowout victim of USC is your best win? Please.), and won’t play anyone good for the remainder of the regular season.
I don’t see a single Big Televen team that can stop Oklahoma State, and that is the third best team in the Big 12 South right now.
You’re going to scream vindication b/c Tech will most likely lose to an Okie State team Penn State wouldn’t be ablew to stay within three TDS of.
And I say this as someone who LIKES Penn State, and has been a fan for years. Your logic for ranking Penn State so high and downgrading the Big 12 is laughable, though. You are in complete denial of the mediocrity that is the Big Ten Conference.
Beergut - November 3, 2008
Nothing is sadder than blog beef, unless it's with Black Heart Gold Pants
Those guys are the aged porterhouse of blog beef.
But, you realize that the argument “your entire conference has poor fundamentals on one of the three aspects of the game” is utterly pathetic when speaking of programs with the resources of Texas and Oklahoma (and to significant extent Tech, OSU, Mizzou, Kansas, Nebraska and A&M), right? That’s a hairs breadth away from saying that the Big 10 – top to bottom – is blessed with better coaches and/or players than the Big 12.
learned hand - November 3, 2008
I watched the replay of Penn State-Ohio State last night
It was a snoozefest.
You call it fundamentally sound defense, I call it inept offense.
Penn State would have 3-4 losses, minimum, in the Big 12 this season.
Your claim that Big 12 offenses are being overrated b/c of poor defenses in the conference ignore the fact that Big Televen and even SEC defenses are overrated b/c of slow, low-scoring offenses.
Quite frankly, the Big Televen and SEC are filled with schools that employ boring, simple-to-defend offensive schemes. Turn on a Big Ten or SEC game, and you’ll be most likely to see a TE, FB, and TB on the field on offense. You’ll see teams running 21 personnel almost exclusively. Turn on a Big 12 game, you’ll see 10 or 11 personnel almost exclusively. Why does this matter? More athletes on the field for the defense to stop. You can match-up LBs on a FB and TE, meaning you have fewer athletes on the field to stretch the defense in the Big 10 or SEC. In the Big 12, you pretty much only see 21 personnel in jumbo packages, when they’re going for short yardage. Otherwise, you see 4 WRs-1 RB almost exclusively, which means your defense has to be able to stop 5 athletes on every offensive play. In the Big Ten/SEC, you only have to worry about 2 WRs and maybe the TB in the passing game. The level of piss-poor defensive play in the Big 10 was proven last season, when Illinois was able to take a mediocre passing QB with some mobility, one stellar TB, and one terrific WR, and run roughshod over Big Ten defenses all season.
Simply put, it is easier to play defense in the Big 10 or SEC simply b/c you don’t have to worry about covering every inch of the field on defense. You can just sit there and play football in a phone booth.
The problem is, people like BSD simply can’t look at the two conferences and see the difference.
Beergut - November 3, 2008
Damn, I have to agree, beergut. It's cog diz.
/The level of reactive judgment and athleticism needed to match up with the Big 12 offenses is extraordinary. Tech doesn’t even do conventional run blocking most of the time; the OL is backing up and screening and the RB hits the LB area so quickly they can barely react. Most every play from OSU can be a play-action pass and the whole field has to be defended. Same with OU and Texas to some degree. (Not to mention that in the future, Baylor, A&M, Kansas, Mizzou will be sharpening and refining their attacks. This isn’t going away anytime soon.)
Big 10/11 teams rarely force you to defend the whole field all the time, much less for four quarters.
It would be a relief to play a straight up offense.
whills - November 3, 2008
Wrong
There’s no question that there are some Big 10 teams that just try to pound you on the ground. Wisconsin and Ohio State come to mind. But most Big 10 teams run some version of a spread offense now. Of those teams, well, Michigan and Purdue have been pretty inconsistent (except when going head to head), but the spread is nothing new in the Big 10. Purdue ran the spread back when the Big 12 was being dominated by the triple option. Purdue has rarely had the athletes to execute at a high level, however.
What you’re also missing is that no matter what offensive scheme you run, you still need to win the battle at the line of scrimmage. The spread is designed to neutralize big, slow defenders, but a defensive line getting penetration and closing down throwing lanes will disrupt a spread offense. It is difficult to shut down a well-executed spread offense completely because it floods the field with receivers and there are lots of short routes to hit. But a top notch D-line will win enough battles to make a spread less novel.
As for the Big 10 not always running the spread, part of it is a tactical choice. If you have a team built to run the ball as must B10 school do, you will want to use the clock against your opponent when you get a multiple possession lead. A major tactical flaw in many spread offenses is an inability to work the clock. Spread teams typically score very quickly, or punt very quickly. Most of the time it is beneficial to put up lots of points. BUT it is not to you advantage with a lead late in the game to “extend” the game by creating more possessions with short drives.
The Texas Tech-Nebraska game and to a lesser extent the Texas Tech-Texas game come to mind here. Ohio State tried to run out the clock against PSU with a 3 point lead and 10 minutes left. That was clearly too conservative. But the other extreme of always being in quick score mode leaves you unprepared to defend a lead in close games. It’s a mistake to not have that tactical option available (as long as you deploy it intelligently).
gcdyersb - November 3, 2008
actually
Beergut - November 3, 2008
Seriously, dude
So basically we agree here, you just want to paraphrase what I said differently. Good enough.
I’m not advocating an aggressive D-line, actually. The last thing you want to do is send the D-line into edge-rush mode. The huge gaps between linemen help to neutralize edge rushing. What I’m talking about is disciplined play that closes down the pocket. Getting to the QB is secondary. What’s important is clogging the throwing lanes that are created by wide gaps in the line. Those lanes are the bread and butter for the Reesings of the world.
What world do you live in where a team gets a 35 point lead every game? In the real world, having tactics suited to the situation are beneficial. 35 point lead requires no in-game strategy, other than putting in your 2nd string.
gcdyersb - November 4, 2008
actually, we disagree
One of the reasons the spread is so popular is because it can de-emphasize the importance of the battles at the LOS.
Beergut - November 4, 2008
compared to just a few games ago...
I am amazed that Tech’s defense is even being compared to the likes of UT and Penn State. They have done a great job of just putting the people in position to make a play and letting the players do their thing.
and the talent difference on the offensive side is ridiculous. I might even take Baylor’s Robert Griffin over Clark. The pick he threw at the end of the game to lose against Mizzou was his FIRST of the year. and he’s got three seasons left.
kevinkinsler - November 3, 2008
Elite Offenses
Looking at TT’s schedule I simply don’t see any “elite offenses” outside of Texas. That may change in the coming weeks but thus far not so much.
JIMPSU - November 7, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Burnt Orange Nation to post a comment.