What kind of improvement can we expect from the defense?

[DAT_man_again]

So statistically, we were one of the worst defensive teams in the nation last year.. We were 117th in the country, allowing 37.5 points per game. Being that the defense literally couldn't be much worse, and the fact that we have a new scheme and defensive coordinator, the only logical assumption is that there will be some sort of improvement. How much? That's the real question.

I'm guessing we go from allowing 37.5 points a game to perhaps 28.5. Some games we will allow 13-20 points but I'm guessing there will be a few games where we give up point totals in the mid 30s. If we can match the high scoring offense that VA and company did last season (totally possible) this is going to translate to a lot of wins. Especially considering the fact that we had a terrible 3rd down defense last season and still scored over 40 a game. Imagine if we get better on 3rd down on defense. This translates to even more possessions and scores for the offense.

What kind of improvement does everyone else see?

[GoDucksIn09]

I think as long as Oregon continues to be a really good offensive team that if we ever get a scary defense teams will be scared to play us. I am not saying they have to hold teams to 20 points but if they did... Oregon would be hard to beat.

[buckmarkduck]

I not as concerned with statistics. What I want to see is UO get back to the basics, tackling, communication and aggression and flying to the ball! I've talked to multiple people who say last year there was a lot of times the DL was running one D, the LB thought it was something else and the he DB had a totally different call. That crap can't continue, and frankly a HS coach can get his players all on the same page. It's not difficult.

Tackling the last 2 years, hell even 3-4 years has been way down, and the last two years it's just been maybe the worst tackling team in the country. If Hoke gets these kids to buy in, fly to the ball and play fundamentally sound football, we will be just fine on D. The talent is there, it just needs a good leader.

[Kimber45]

There are many different metrics to gauge defensive performance. While scoring defense is a good one I'm more inclined towards yards per play as the best general measure to compare styles of play across conferences.

A good example of scoring defense is the '11 natty game where Auburn put 550 yards on us but only scored 22 points. Bend but don't break at its finest.

Yards per play, I think, gives the best measure of the overall defense. In a mostly pass happy, spread oriented conference where teams making 80+ plays per game is not uncommon, having a sense for how many yards the defense will give up on average, per play, is a pretty good measuring stick.

Total defense is a poor overall metric to evaluate a defense, particularly for a team like Oregon. Against lesser competition we are often up by three scores in the fourth and clearing the benches to get players experience.

Last year, however, our defense was total crap as reflected in the 117th place ranking in total defense.

Why I'm admittedly optimistic this year on Oregon's defense:

1. Success in athletics becomes exponentially more mental than reliant on mere athletic ability as the level of the athletics increases. Yes, that sounds stupid as I type it but let me explain. College football is not the pinnacle of athletic sport. Not even close. College football is comprised of talented, athletic young men who are in their late teens and early twenties (mid twenties if they're Mormon, I suppose). Oregon has a good coaching staff and a tremendously good strength and conditioning program. Oregon's defense did not play like s*** (s h i t) last year because of either a lack of talent or physical conditioning. We played like crap because the defensive scheme was so poorly executed by the coaches that we actually reverted to a plain, base defense around four games into the year. Nobody knew what the frick they were doing on the field, particularly the back seven. Fixing these issues is more simple than it seems. Re-learning how to tackle is a good start. Just understanding that football is a fundamentally physical contest is another. Oregon has to get tougher on defense. Coach Hoke's picture might not appear as part of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on college defenses but he says all the right things and has a resume to back up that he has a good grasp of the defensive game.

2. We literally can't be worse next year.

My gut says that we'll be 38th in YPP next year. My heart says 30th. Agree with OP that getting scoring defense down to the mid-high 20s is very achievable.

[vegasdom]

I already miss the hail mary prevent D.

[StevensTechU]

The defense has top 30-40 talent.
The Pac-12 is full of high powered, diverse offenses.
There will be a lot of new faces that may need time to gel.
They'll see the field more than most defenses.
The offense should put pressure on opposing teams to score quickly.

I'd say a top 50 defense is reasonable.

[duckfan22]

Improvement for me will be the 3rd and longs. Man we were horrible there. We need to make
the other QB uncomfortable. To many 3rd and 8 or 9 and we give up 15. If Oregon can improve
say into the 30's or 40's nationally then we have a great shot at winning a really good Pac12.
If we are no better then last year then it will be a long year.

[BTJ201]

Improvement for me will be the 3rd and longs. Man we were horrible there. We need to make
the other QB uncomfortable. To many 3rd and 8 or 9 and we give up 15. If Oregon can improve
say into the 30's or 40's nationally then we have a great shot at winning a really good Pac12.
If we are no better then last year then it will be a long year.

AMEN!!!! I Agree 100 percent. That might be the most frustrating thing to watch.

[StevensTechU]

Improvement for me will be the 3rd and longs. Man we were horrible there. We need to make
the other QB uncomfortable. To many 3rd and 8 or 9 and we give up 15. If Oregon can improve
say into the 30's or 40's nationally then we have a great shot at winning a really good Pac12.
If we are no better then last year then it will be a long year.

AND PLEASE NO MORE WHEEL ROUTES FOR 40 YARDS

[lukeyrid13]

I feel fairly comfortable about our secondary, which is odd considering we were in the bottom 5 against the pass last year. Springs, amadi, Robison, Daniels, Williams, lovette etc should all be improved. Neal and home have said that we simplified it a lot so the guys are just playing, not talking the whole time.

LB play will be better than last year I think. Moi, swain, hotchkins, dye, Mattingly, ragin etc should be average at least. The d line , especially DT I think is going to lack depth. I'm afraid of our line getting best up and worn down by an offensive line like Stanford has had the last few years.

[Greenblood]

I'm curious as to "how" the Duck D will tend to give up the yards they do give up. Naturally we hope they limit explosion plays. But given the inexperience of the front 7, the "new" defense, and the frequent references by the players/coaches of the DL now being to "attack" and "get upfield," it almost seems like a recipe for an irritating number of explosion plays, especially via "deception" plays like traps. Hopefully such plays will be more than made up by a great many more TFL's than we've seen from the D lately.

But I agree that it makes sense that the D will be better, in part because they probably couldn't be a whole lot worse. But I think they could be clearly better and still give up more big plays than we'd want to see.

[duckfan22]

I'm curious as to "how" the Duck D will tend to give up the yards they do give up. Naturally we hope they limit explosion plays. But given the inexperience of the front 7, the "new" defense, and the frequent references by the players/coaches of the DL now being to "attack" and "get upfield," it almost seems like a recipe for an irritating number of explosion plays, especially via "deception" plays like traps. Hopefully such plays will be more than made up by a great many more TOL's than we've seen from the D lately.

But I agree that it makes sense that the D will be better, in part because they probably couldn't be a whole lot worse. But I think they could be clearly better and still give up more big plays than we'd want to see.

good points...I hope and pray that we get better linebacker play.. That will help i hope keep explosion plays to a min. Another
improovement also has to be tackaling in open space.. Last year i believe they forgot how to do that.

[DuckMastaFunk]

I'm curious as to "how" the Duck D will tend to give up the yards they do give up. Naturally we hope they limit explosion plays. But given the inexperience of the front 7, the "new" defense, and the frequent references by the players/coaches of the DL now being to "attack" and "get upfield," it almost seems like a recipe for an irritating number of explosion plays, especially via "deception" plays like traps. Hopefully such plays will be more than made up by a great many more TFL's than we've seen from the D lately.

But I agree that it makes sense that the D will be better, in part because they probably couldn't be a whole lot worse. But I think they could be clearly better and still give up more big plays than we'd want to see.

I feel the opposite. I want to see three and outs which rarely happens with conservative play calling. I'm okay getting beat long occasionally if it means that we're also getting a fair amount of negative plays. What kills me is first down after first down after first down. To me, the occasional 40 or 50 yard gain is better than 4-5 first downs in a row.

Stanford should be worried about explosion plays because it takes them so long to score. We shouldn't be so concerned.

[Kimber45]

I'm curious as to "how" the Duck D will tend to give up the yards they do give up. Naturally we hope they limit explosion plays. But given the inexperience of the front 7, the "new" defense, and the frequent references by the players/coaches of the DL now being to "attack" and "get upfield," it almost seems like a recipe for an irritating number of explosion plays, especially via "deception" plays like traps. Hopefully such plays will be more than made up by a great many more TFL's than we've seen from the D lately.

But I agree that it makes sense that the D will be better, in part because they probably couldn't be a whole lot worse. But I think they could be clearly better and still give up more big plays than we'd want to see.

That's a great question and I've been wondering about it myself.

I think with the D line moving upfield more there will a tendency for more sacks and TFLs. On the other hand, I think you give up more long runs between the tackles, as well as being more susceptible to draw plays, QB runs, and shallow crossing routes because more running lanes develop.

[pezsez1]

My take:

Yeah, we'll see more explosion plays overall. I wouldn't waste too much energy comparing this year vs. last year... but if you compare the next three years with the previous three years, I think you'll just see an overall trend of more explosion plays happening. That's just the risk/reward of a more aggressive defense. As Kimber pointed out, we'll also get more sacks and TFL, so hopefully it all pencils out.

Ultimately, what really matters is that we have a scheme and we run it well. Do that, and you have an identity.

Nick Aliotti ran an excellent bend-but-don't-break defensive scheme that limited big plays but gave up third downs, with the silver lining of snagging more turnovers for the offense. With the right personnel, Oregon's D excelled under him and helped fuel some very good teams.

Now, Brady Hoke is coming in with a new, more-aggressive scheme. We'll give up big plays and may not snag as many turnovers, but we'll ideally limit third downs to give the ball back to the offense. If we execute well, then our D will be at least as successful as NA's was when executed well.

Really, it seems like a shell game. We'll do better in some ways and worse in others. I think what matters most is that our players can execute the scheme better than they could last season. Not all players and coaches are equal in different schemes, so hopefully Hoke is a better fit for this team and against this generation of competition.

I'm optimistic. I feel like over the past two seasons, in games when Pellum (or Neal, depending on what happened behind the scenes) turned the dogs loose (like the first MSU game, or against Stanford last year), our defense actually did quite well in attack mode. If this season is more of that -- and better -- then I think we'll all be happier next offseason.