Cal's Offense vs Everyone Else On Their Schedule So Far

[UOducksTK1]

How many times did that awesome defense force Cal to kick a FG in the RZ? 0 times.

The Cal offense went into the RZ 6 times and 6 times they came away with a TD. If you want to make an argument that this is an average defense, you better explain why there weren't any FG attempts or turnovers inside the RZ.

Very frustrating^

We've generally had a solid red zone defense, so seeing a stat like that is definitely not fun.

[Cedar Tree]

Don Pellum does blitz occasionally, but there are many instances where he'll rush 3 drop 8 on third and long.

Now if DP brings the house 3rd and 11 in an upcoming game and our opponent ends up throwing a 50 yard TD pass because there was an uncovered receiver(s), I don't want to hear NO complaining from anyone.

[dthomas=ddixon]

Cal only ran 9 less plays against UW and NWestern yet their defenses allowed HUNDREDS yards less than the Duck's D. Do we not have the ability to field a defense as good as those teams?

The rushing defense stats are particularly glaring. UW and NW allowed 1.9 and 2.5 yards per rush play. Ducks: 5.1.

But we played better on D than a bunch of other average teams so we're all good! Let's just hope we don't have to play anyone who has a good offense and defense!

[Tray Dub]

How many times did that awesome defense force Cal to kick a FG in the RZ? 0 times.

The Cal offense went into the RZ 6 times and 6 times they came away with a TD. If you want to make an argument that this is an average defense, you better explain why there weren't any FG attempts or turnovers inside the RZ.

You're cherrypicking the statistics. You pick the worst areas of the D's performance and use them to characterize the whole performance.

How is that cherry-picking the stats when 8 games in it is obviously a glaring deficiency of our defense. 85% of RZ trips by our opponents result in a TD. That's a season long trend, not a 1-game nit-pick.

To say this can't be an average defense because it's been weak in the redzone is picking its worst area and using it to judge everything else. The D holistically is average. In the red zone it's weak.

By the way, look at this website, which uses some sabermetrics to evaluate team defenses. Oregon comes out looking pretty good, actually. Surprisingly good. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

[Duck07]

By the way, look at this website, which uses some sabermetrics to evaluate team defenses. Oregon comes out looking pretty good, actually. Surprisingly good. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

Well now that we've put some new lipstick on this pig, you're right, we don't have a below-average defense, we have a great defense! I'll readjust my expectations accordingly.

[pezsez1]

Let's just hope we don't have to play anyone who has a good offense and defense!

When I looked Saturday morning, Michigan State has like the no. 8 defense and the no. 12 offense. Not sure we're going to face another team so good on both sides of the ball, even when we're in the playoffs.

[pezsez1]

By the way, look at this website, which uses some sabermetrics to evaluate team defenses. Oregon comes out looking pretty good, actually. Surprisingly good. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

Very nice find. I love that they don't even consider "garbage time" stats in their assessments, which keeps the focus on the portions of each game that actually matter. For example, some people on this board love using the fourth quarter of UCLA as evidence that our defense sucks, yet they selectively ignore the other three quarters when the game actually mattered.

From that site, here is how the Pac-12's defenses would rank:

Stanford
Oregon
Utah
Arizona State
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Washington
Washington State
Oregon State
Colorado
Cal

If I were making this list, I'd probably flip Oregon and Utah, but otherwise that looks pretty solid from a big-picture perspective.

It's so hard to gauge defenses in this conference just by looking at box scores and standalone stats. The offenses in the Pac-12 are just too damn good. I think our defenses are pretty stout, too... just ask Michigan State... but our spread-out, high-flying offenses make our defenses look worse than they are, just like playing an extra conference game harms our overall win/loss records.

Fortunately, most of the teams I expect in the playoff play more "power football" like MSU and less wide-open like Cal/WSU. It's those wide-open teams that have given our D the most trouble (also Cal is a top-20 offense and WSU is a top-10 offense). Against more balanced offenses, our D has been pretty good.

[Tray Dub]

By the way, look at this website, which uses some sabermetrics to evaluate team defenses. Oregon comes out looking pretty good, actually. Surprisingly good. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

Well now that we've put some new lipstick on this pig, you're right, we don't have a below-average defense, we have a great defense! I'll readjust my expectations accordingly.

I provided some evidence for my opinion, f*** me right?

[Duck07]

By the way, look at this website, which uses some sabermetrics to evaluate team defenses. Oregon comes out looking pretty good, actually. Surprisingly good. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

Well now that we've put some new lipstick on this pig, you're right, we don't have a below-average defense, we have a great defense! I'll readjust my expectations accordingly.

I provided some evidence for my opinion, f*** me right?

If you think those algorithms make us the #26 Defense in the nation than you should really be arguing just how great this defense really is. In fact, you might want to start taking us all to task for how we've graded our defense/NA.

According to them here are our rankings as far as they go back.
2013 - #25
2012 - #2
2011 - #12
2010 - #3
2009 - #16
2008 - #21
2007 - #22
2006 - #48
2005 - #16

Now does it make since why I'd liken those rankings to putting lipstick on a pig?

[pezsez1]

According to them here are our rankings as far as they go back.
2013 - #25
2012 - #2
2011 - #12
2010 - #3
2009 - #16
2008 - #21
2007 - #22
2006 - #48
2005 - #16

Now does it make since why I'd liken those rankings to putting lipstick on a pig?

Actually, those rankings look pretty good, too. Obviously, they're not spot-on, but they indicate a level of defensive efficiency/success that isn't gleaned from looking at standalone stats such as total yards.

Oregon's defense has been very effective for most of the past decade. Go back and look at the results from some of those seasons, and try to remember the games as they actually played out. Our defense has always been a different animal; it's the reason why NA was able to coach here for so long and never really get owned by anyone.

[UOducksTK1]

Basic stats + watching any Ducks game is enough for anyone to realize our defense is under-performing. I'd argue half the defensive coordinators in the country could get more out of our defense than we are right now.

With that being said, I think we've seen some improvements the last 3 games. Sure statistically the Cal game wasn't too hot, but they are a team with a great offense.

[pezsez1]

Basic stats + watching any Ducks game is enough for anyone to realize our defense is under-performing. I'd argue half the defensive coordinators in the country could get more out of our defense than we are right now.

I think the perception of our defense would be entirely different had we not had such horrible O-line issues.

With the offense at full strength, our D was great for the MSU game. After that, when the O couldn't stay on the field, the D struggled... and is anyone really surprised by that? You put any defense on the field long enough, and eventually cracks are going to start to show. That's why people still value stats such as time of possession.

We have looked better over the past three games though... and, not surprisingly, those improvements have coincided with the offense getting its groove back.

Another thing to consider is our LB corp. Everyone here seems to agree it's pretty bad. Who's to say that other DCs wouldn't do worse trying to cover the weaknesses of this unit?

EDIT: One more factor to consider: Arik Armstead. He was HUGE in the UW game; he was also HUGE in the Arizona game. Remember, AZ barely moved the ball in the first half, but as soon as he went down with injury, AZ ran through his side of the line again and again and again. Cal and UCLA also got big yardage on the ground with Armstead out (although total yardage wasn't much of a factor defensively in either of those two games, with the D getting plenty of stops/turnovers for easy wins).

[UOducksTK1]

Basic stats + watching any Ducks game is enough for anyone to realize our defense is under-performing. I'd argue half the defensive coordinators in the country could get more out of our defense than we are right now.

I think the perception of our defense would be entirely different had we not had such horrible O-line issues.

With the offense at full strength, our D was great for the MSU game. After that, when the O couldn't stay on the field, the D struggled... and is anyone really surprised by that? You put any defense on the field long enough, and eventually cracks are going to start to show. That's why people still value stats such as time of possession.

We have looked better over the past three games though... and, not surprisingly, those improvements have coincided with the offense getting its groove back.

Another thing to consider is our LB corp. Everyone here seems to agree it's pretty bad. Who's to say that other DCs wouldn't do worse trying to cover the weaknesses of this unit?

EDIT: One more factor to consider: Arik Armstead. He was HUGE in the UW game; he was also HUGE in the Arizona game. Remember, AZ barely moved the ball in the first half, but as soon as he went down with injury, AZ ran through his side of the line again and again and again. Cal and UCLA also got big yardage on the ground with Armstead out (although total yardage wasn't much of a factor defensively in either of those two games, with the D getting plenty of stops/turnovers for easy wins).

I get where you're trying to go with the OL argument, but I think the coaches have just adjusted a little better. I do agree that some heat comes off DP and the defense when our OL is healthy, since we will be putting up 45+ points against most teams in the country. But I still don't buy that argument.

Part of our LB problem was the coaches not evaluating talent. If Walker plays all game instead of Malone, do we beat Arizona? Might be a stretch, but little things like that in a close game could be the difference.

For me personally, I think DP just isn't the best fit at defensive coordinator, and I don't think he'll ever be more than average. Sure, Pac-12 offenses are better, but why do we give up more yards than any other team in the Pac-12? (Ok not last, but 11th in YPG and 11th in Rushing YPG) Colorado and Cal might have worse defenses then us statistically, but you get the point. And while stats don't prove everything, it correlates pretty accurately to what I've observed throughout the year. AT BEST, we have like the 7th-8th best defense in the Pac-12. Fairly sad, considering the amount of talent we have.

[duckfan96]

Could some coaches get more out of Oregons defensive players...Im sure they could. That being said...when does it go from the coaches fault to the players fault. The LB's have been in position to make plays....they miss tackle after tackle. IMO that aint on the coach, that's on the player. Wrap up and make the fn tackle. Once again JMO not trying to start a big arguments amongst Duck fans.

[Tray Dub]

By the way, look at this website, which uses some sabermetrics to evaluate team defenses. Oregon comes out looking pretty good, actually. Surprisingly good. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

Well now that we've put some new lipstick on this pig, you're right, we don't have a below-average defense, we have a great defense! I'll readjust my expectations accordingly.

I provided some evidence for my opinion, f*** me right?

If you think those algorithms make us the #26 Defense in the nation than you should really be arguing just how great this defense really is. In fact, you might want to start taking us all to task for how we've graded our defense/NA.

According to them here are our rankings as far as they go back.
2013 - #25
2012 - #2
2011 - #12
2010 - #3
2009 - #16
2008 - #21
2007 - #22
2006 - #48
2005 - #16

Now does it make since why I'd liken those rankings to putting lipstick on a pig?

Giving the people here a link doesn't mean I'm endorsing it as gospel. And those rankings don't even seem that off. Maybe '12 and '10 are a little much, but mostly I think this site seems legit and its statistics are worth looking at. Maybe you should try reconsidering your judgment of the defense?