November 11th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^

2005 - NW - 7-5

2008 - UTenn - 5-7

2009 - Houston - 10-4

2002 - Troy State - 4-8

2007 - Tulsa - 10-4

2003 - Texas Tech - 8-5

2001 - Nevada - 3-8

2001 - Idaho - 1-10

2007 - Nebraska - 5-7

2009 - UNC - 8-5


Doesn't look like that tells us much...


November 11th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^

2004 - PSU - 4-7

2010 - East Carolina - 5-4 (so far)

2004 - Hawaii - 8-5

2008 - UTenn - 5-7

2007 - Iowa - 6-6

2003 - Texas Tech - 8-5

2008 - Auburn - 5-7

2009 - Houston - 10-4

2007 - Tulsa - 10-4

2003 - Houton - 7-6

Again, doesn't say much, but more often than not, with a dominant offense and crap defense, you come out with a winning season.


November 11th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^

I thought the last paragraph of that article was very good.

- - -

Dead horse alert ...

It looks like a perfect storm to me, too.  We're all familiar with the stellar Decimated Defense posts.  I'm also a buyer of the idea that there has been mismanagement on that side of the ball and that it's related to the DD.  I don't like seeing GERG get blamed for everything.  It seems clear to me that RichRod is responsible for some of the mess.  I also believe that we're still at the stage where "the cupboard" (rather than Lloyd's staff directly) can be blamed.  That won't be the case a year from now.

His Dudeness

November 11th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^

Our defense is never going to be top 25. Our offensive tempo drives the defense onto the field far more than a pro style offense would. This means if we have an average defense in our world (that of high tempo offense) in the real world our defense is actually quite good. Obviously right now our offense is bad in both worlds, but it will cacth up eventually. I also feel this shouldn't be a recruiting pitfall. You could sell recruits on more time on the field will mean more stats, more opportunities for INTs and TFLs. My theory.

His Dudeness

November 11th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

I doubt it. It is all a numbers game. We are out there 33% more than the average (avg plays possessions per game) defense. That puts us at a 33% negative when dealing with statisical averages. If an opponent scores 3.5 points per possession on average then they are going to have around 33% more possessions against us. It just seems to me that with RR at the helm our defense is under so much more pressure than other defenses that we would be hard pressed to ever be ranked in the top 25 total defenses. Think about it. And if we ever are then that defense is fucking gang busters.

Red is Blue

November 11th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^

Sorry, I don't buy that putting the defense on the field more and the defense giving more points equate to the defense being under more pressure.  Seems a lot less pressure to play on a defense when you know your offense can score and score quickly. 

The defenses that know that they can't allow many points because the offense will never be able to counter are the defenses that are under pressure.

His Dudeness

November 11th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^

I don't think successful defenses look att he score and see a cushion and take pressure off themselves. I think successful defenses want to stop the offense on every possession. Thusly more possessions (attempts to score) would equal more pressure, IME.


November 11th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^

I mean yeah, obviously more possessions=more points, so by pure scoring/yardage, the defense will always be underrated. But looking at yards per play, or other more accurate ratings it wouldn't make a difference.

I don't buy the other argument you make that less time of possession=more pressure.


November 11th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^

I was actually surprised after reading the charts in that I thought Michigan's discrepancy was much more rare than actual.  There appears to have been at least one team almost every year with a big discrepancy.  That makes me feel a lot better, especially since the reasons MIchigan's discrepancy is so great is that the offense is so prolific.

Wolverine Pride

November 11th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^

What strikes me about this list is the number of high profile teams:  Tenn, Iowa, Tx Tech, Neb, Auburn, Penn St, Northwestern.  With the exception of Penn State and Iowa did all these teams end up on the list after a coaching change? 

The records don't tell much for the years on the list, but what about 1 year, 2 years and 3 years after?  I will try to look this up after work to see what the trend may be.  Obviously Auburn, Iowa and Nebraska are doing well.


November 11th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^

What I'd like to see is where these teams ended up the following season. Is it resonable to expect UM to jump to a top 50 finish on defense in 2011?