What kind of improvement can we expect from the defense?

[duckfan22]

I have always liked the more aggressive defenses. The key will be Hoke has to have players in position to make plays.
The linebackers cant get crossed up because they will be the 2nd wall of defense. I am sure there will be different looks
by the defense and we may actually see a few corner blitzes. We just cant allow the qbs to stand back there with all day
to throw. There are to many good qbs that will eat us alive if we do.
When im watching the games with a friend of mine i yell more at the defense especially on 3rd down then when the
ducks are on offense. I expect the ducks to move the ball with all the weapons my concerns last year or so have been
on the D.

[OregonFan4Life]

I understand the focus on stats, and I'm no defensive guru, but for me, it's simple. I don't want to see guys on defense standing with their arms up at each other wondering why they were all running something different on almost every other play. I honestly feel like if it wasn't for Buckner being a man possessed, the defense would've sadly been way worse, and that's hard to imagine. I don't think scheme was the issue for DP, I just think he was horrible at coaching the players and organizing the defensive playbook, and it was just disastrous to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OregonFan4Life]

I just saw a notification on Bleacher Report that Brady Hoke is not pleased with the defense after the final day of fall camp and he said "We have a long ways to go", interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kimber45]

I just saw a notification on Bleacher Report that Brady Hoke is not pleased with the defense after the final day of fall camp and he said "We have a long ways to go", interesting.

247 has a couple of threads talking about Coach Hoke's post scrimmage commentary. I agree with the majority over there that it's both refreshing and a positive development to hear more straight talk and less coach speak.

The defense might need a few less 'atta boys' and a few more Red Foreman boots in the arse until they are performing at a level that's acceptable to the coaching staff. Which naturally requires actually playing some games on the field so as a fan it will be very fun to see how the defense comes out of the gate.

[Greenblood]

A Moseley tweet about Hoke's post-scrimmage displeasure suggested that part of that is probably just Hoke's personality.

[UofDuck]

What good coach is ever satisfied with where his team is at in preparation? A 50% improvement in 3 and outs. If we can get our D off the field, we will see improvements everywhere, including our offense. We will start wearing teams down again and 4th quarters will turn into routes like the old days.

[rsbgduck]

Forgive me but I'm going off pure memories here. Attacking Defenses are the only thing I like about the SEC. If you look back on the Bama's, Florida, FSU and even Nebraska teams that were great they all had upfield attacking D's with aggressive D-ends and LB play (yes and great talent too). Most comments so fare have talked about 3ed down conversions last year and even previous years, and some have talked about giving up the big 3ed down plays because of aggressive play. With the Ducks O I'm not as concerned about that as long as it doesn't become habit, then we would be no better than last year. Risk and reward, if we give up 2-3 big plays by being more aggressive I'm ok with it as long as it produces more turnovers and 3 and outs which is the goal behind an aggressive D. All those teams I mentioned before gave up quiet a few big plays throughout there respective championship teams but each one also had offensive teams that could either score quickly or (Nebraska/Bama) could confidently drive down the field and at the same time wear the D down and by the 4th quarter it looked like they were playing a HS team. Did they lose some games, sure no scheme is perfect what I'm saying is in those few games were its close or a shootout I'm ok with the risk vs the reward especially with our O. It beats the hell out of watching the other teams O march down the field at the same time wearing our D out and eating up clock IMO. A win is a win and a loss is a loss doesn't mater to me if its one point or 3 TD's as long as the team was going forward and not on its heals like all of last year. Minus TOP if we are not in the top 50 in defensive "statistics" I will be disappointed. Our new DC has a great track record of having good aggressive defenses so far, my only fear is that he has a couple good years and then moves on. People like to point out the problems in Michigan, none of which were because of the D and Oregon has the O part of that covered. If we're able to hold teams to mid 20's (not average all teams) on the scoreboard its gona be a great year, I know in my dreams but I truly believe we have the talent to do it.

GO DUCKS!!!

[GoDucksIn09]

If we hold teams to 20-25 points then teams will be scared to play Oregon again. We would have a team that averages 35-40 points a game and a defense that does not give up that many points. They would be hoping their defense can stop our offense and not to many teams have been able to do that.

[buckmarkduck]

If we hold teams to 20-25 points then teams will be scared to play Oregon again. We would have a team that averages 35-40 points a game and a defense that does not give up that many points. They would be hoping their defense can stop our offense and not to many teams have been able to do that.

I don't think we've avg less than 40 a game for a long time.

[UOducksTK1]

Forgive me but I'm going off pure memories here. Attacking Defenses are the only thing I like about the SEC. If you look back on the Bama's, Florida, FSU and even Nebraska teams that were great they all had upfield attacking D's with aggressive D-ends and LB play (yes and great talent too). Most comments so fare have talked about 3ed down conversions last year and even previous years, and some have talked about giving up the big 3ed down plays because of aggressive play. With the Ducks O I'm not as concerned about that as long as it doesn't become habit, then we would be no better than last year. Risk and reward, if we give up 2-3 big plays by being more aggressive I'm ok with it as long as it produces more turnovers and 3 and outs which is the goal behind an aggressive D. All those teams I mentioned before gave up quiet a few big plays throughout there respective championship teams but each one also had offensive teams that could either score quickly or (Nebraska/Bama) could confidently drive down the field and at the same time wear the D down and by the 4th quarter it looked like they were playing a HS team. Did they lose some games, sure no scheme is perfect what I'm saying is in those few games were its close or a shootout I'm ok with the risk vs the reward especially with our O. It beats the hell out of watching the other teams O march down the field at the same time wearing our D out and eating up clock IMO. A win is a win and a loss is a loss doesn't mater to me if its one point or 3 TD's as long as the team was going forward and not on its heals like all of last year. Minus TOP if we are not in the top 50 in defensive "statistics" I will be disappointed. Our new DC has a great track record of having good aggressive defenses so far, my only fear is that he has a couple good years and then moves on. People like to point out the problems in Michigan, none of which were because of the D and Oregon has the O part of that covered. If we're able to hold teams to mid 20's (not average all teams) on the scoreboard its gona be a great year, I know in my dreams but I truly believe we have the talent to do it.

GO DUCKS!!!

Not to ignore the rest of your post, but talent is a huge part of it. Oregon's talent on offense is generally some of the best in the country. But Oregon's LB/DL group compared to the SEC teams', it's not even close. Especially at LB this year.

Sure Scheme/Coaching matters, but talent trumps.