HOT COUGAR ACTION: Did Mike Leach Find His Defensive Coordinator?
by Mark Sandritter on Jan 3, 2012 6:01 AM PST
in 2011 WSU Football News
Email
PrintIf you were online late last night, you might have caught the rumors speculating Mike Leach found his defensive coordinator. Bob Condotta from the Seattle Times tweeted rumors from the Fiesta Bowl indicating Oklahoma's assistant head coach/assistant defensive coordinator/defensive ends coach Bobby Jack Wright could be headed to WSU as defensive coordinator.
Times columnist Steve Kelley doesn't Tweet, so it's left for me to pass along rumor he heard at Fiesta Bowl - Oklahoma's Bobby Jack Wright could be the new Def. Coord. at Wash. State. That would clear up a space for Mike Stoops to take his place at Oklahoma.
Then Brian followed it up with a tweet of his own.
Steve Kelley heard Bobby Jack Wright could be the WSU DC. FWIW, that's the name I'm hearing as well.
Wright has been around the coaching landscape for a long time including 25 years as an assistant at either Oklahoma or Texas. He has experience coaching both defensive ends and the secondary. Wright has a lot of ties to the state of Texas and is known as a very good recruiter.
Cougars | Live chat with WSU football coach Mike Leach | Seattle Times Newspaper
Mike Leach was named the new Washington State University football coach on Nov. 30 after he signed a five-year contract.
Conference Power Rankings: Pac-12 - College Basketball Nation Blog - ESPN
7. Washington State: The Cougars had been getting by on offensive efficiency for much of the season, and that trend seems likely to continue going forward. It needs to, anyway. Bone's team simply doesn't defend all that well, and it paid dearly for it in that 92-75 home loss to Oregon. Wazzu's next three games are all on the road, and while the first two opponents (Utah and Colorado) don't strike fear into anyone's heart, a slip-up in either game ahead of Jan. 15's trip to Washington could be make-or-break, at least in terms of perception.
Perkins Named Pac-12 Player of the Week - The Washington State University Official Athletic Site
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. - Washington State University's Jazmine Perkins has been named Bank of the West Pac-12 Conference Women's Basketball Player of the Week for the week of Dec. 26-Jan. 1, Commissioner Larry Scott announced today.
A different kind of love - ESPN
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. -- We remember the sweet swing, the leaping catches in center field, the towering home runs, but none of it defined the prodigious baseball career of Ken Griffey Jr. more than his smile.
163 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Anyone named Bobby Jack Wright better be a good recruiter in Texas.
CougCenter OG since 9/2/2008 | @THESoCalCoug
You have to love his experience and recruiting ties
When this rumor first popped up a few days ago I was disappointed, because of his age. I was hoping for someone young and up-and-coming. But those guys just end up leaving for HC jobs once they have some success right? I’m guessing BJW isn’t looking to job-hop at this point in his career.
The plusses are that Leach knows him from their one year together at OU, so it’s not an unknown commodity, he has faced lots of high-powered spread offenses, and he’s known as an outstanding recruiter with ties to the Big-12 hotbed.
I’m on board.
I was thinking the same thing about a young, hotshot DC
But, if things worked out they’d be gone for a bigger job. I’m not convinced we can consistently recruit well outside of WA/CA, but obviously with Leach and some of his coaches we’re going to try anyways. Also, seeing how well Adrienn Klemm had been doing pulling guys out of CA its not impossible to do such things.
Does Oklahoma blitz, and do it often? I like blitzes, please no prevent D for half the game!
I don't think he would be the guy if he didn't
Leach has been very outspoken about his desire to run a high-risk, high-reward, attacking defense. He has studied Rex Ryan’s D’s specifically during his time away from the sideline.
I have no doubt that a similar philosophy was required of any prospective coordinator candidate.
Not sure I'm excited, but fits the mold
At 61 he’s not looking for a head coaching job somewhere unless it’s a job he recently interviewed for like Texas State so there shouldn’t be much concern for him looking for employment elsewhere. I think he knew the writing was on the wall once Mike Stoops lost his job so he’s been looking elsewhere.
About the main thing to be excited with BJW is the fact he’s an awesome recruiter in talent rich Texas and hope he can create some type of pipeline. Oklahoma hasn’t exactly been known for their defense so I’m reluctant to be very excited for the possibility of the hire.
Now someone like Tommy Spangler or someone who has been known recently for their defense will make me excited.
OU hasn't been known for their defense because they have such a prolific offense.
Their defense has been good in a conference full of offensive talent.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 3, 2012 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
A prolific offense doesn
Just because they have a prolific offense, doesn’t diminish what the defense can do. For example in 2003 OU had the best offense in the country averaging 45 points a game while also having the 3rd best defense in the country.
I wasn't saying it diminishing what the defense does.
You said that “OU hasn’t recently been known for their defense.” I proposed that is because their offense has been so good, when people talk about OU they talk about that.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
Oklahoma's defensive F/+ ranking for the past 5 seasons
2011: 11th
2010: 6th
2009: 3rd
2008: 21st
2007: 16th
Hire this man now
Writer: CougCenter Twitterer: @Grady_WSU
by Grady Clapp on Jan 3, 2012 12:22 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Those are certainly good numbers
But I was always under the impression that Venables was the real driving force behind OU’s defense.
Streamin' and Threadin' and Shellin | @shellin1
by Shellin on Jan 3, 2012 12:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Here you go!
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus2011
It’s explained at the top. The best thing you can do is read up a little on both FEI and S&P+ — both are opponent-adjusted metrics, although they value certain things differently. It’s why I like F/+. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses, and combining them is an excellent compromise.
But OU hasn't been known recently for their defense
Since 2005 OU hasn’t been the same OU people think about when it comes to defense. Only once since ’05 have they had a top 10 defense. OU used to be known for their defenses, especially back in 2003 and 2004 when they had both a high-powered offense and a top ten defense. The highest defensive player drafted since 2004 has been a 2nd round pick (twice). I use points scored as the means of determining best defenses.
I can see a really good defense maybe giving up an extra 10 points to a highly explosive offense, but a really good defense shouldn’t allow more than 30 points to a high-scoring offense as they did in their 3 losses with the worst being 44 points to OSU.
Did you read the comment I left right after Craig's?
Points scored is a really, really bad way of measuring the strength of a defense, by the way. It’s completely contextual. You’re much better off using an opponent-adjusted metric such as F/+ if you want any kind of reliable analysis.
I have seen the analysis before
Looking at your FootballOutsiders analysis (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feidef2011) for 2011 with teams in the top 20 in this analysis including Oklahoma State, Oregon, Stanford, Penn State, and others gave a ton of points in their bowl games. It doesn’t matter that Oklahoma St was was number in the FEI rankings, they still gave up 38 points to Stanford. That’s not a good defense no matter what rankings are used.
Points scored is still a reliable factor in determining a good defense. Yes there are variables that alter the factor, but a defense that gives up less than 2 TD’s a game is going to be great regardless of any other variables.
Usually if you give up 3 TD’s or less a game you are going bowling. Nearly every single team in the top 30 in defense went to a bowl game (UCF and Miami being the only two who didn’t).
Completely contextual? You lost me here. Contextual might relate to a certain philosophy and you may have meant it’s a complete philosophy ? Or you might have meant its relating to something? Or thinking along the lines of context you might have meant it relates to a fact?
Some points of context that have to be taken into account with points scored:
1. How good is the offense you are playing?
2. At what pace does that offense play?
3. At what pace does your own offense play?
4. Does the game go into overtime?
5. Is your own offense having a good day?
6. Were there any TDs scored on special teams?
7. What sort of field position was the opposing offense given?
8. What sort of field position was your own offense given (impacts how long they possess the ball)?
9. Did the opposing defense score?
10. Did the opposing defense get any turnovers?
11. Was the game close or a blowout?
There are probably more, but that is a pretty big list.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
OK I understand the context
Several of the defenses in the top 10, using the aforementioned points of context as reference, failed miserably in their bowl games. Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma State, and others gave up a ton of points on defense that was clearly attributed to the play of the defenses, not their offenses or the scoring speed of the offenses. They couldn’t make plays when necessary.
That whole scoring speed myth is clearly that a myth. If that were true, then teams like USC, Oklahoma, and others wouldn’t have done exceptionally well as top, quick scoring teams. I loved watching USC’s quick scoring offense to 10 minutes less of time of possession despite winning by 36.That USC team was second overall in points scored defense for the season despite having a quick scoring offense.
Yes the whole scoring speed thing hurts a defense that would struggle regardless of the the scoring speed. More than anything, an offense that puts pressure on the opposing offense to try to keep up, usually helps out the defense. If a defense is good, it’s going to be good regardless of the offense. I want a Palouse Posse type defense again and it’s possible at WSU.
And I'd say you're flat wrong if you think Stanford, Oregon and Oklahoma State failed miserably.
For example, Wisconsin is as good at offense as LSU and Alabama are at defense. Yet, you’re not sitting here saying the Alabama and LSU offenses failed miserably in the first game, are you?
Defenses, not their teams
I didn’t say they failed as a team. I said their defenses failed them miserably.
I was referring to their defenses.
Given your bias toward ascribing credit/blame to the defense, I’d venture to say you’re going to be a pretty miserable fan for at least the next five years.
There's a difference
I understand the level of where WSU is and where they aspire to be. I’ll be happy if we go to a bowl game right now.
Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma St, and others who gave up more than 30 points on defense, not special teams, failed miserably as a defensive unit in their bowl games especially when these are defenses who are supposedly top 20 in the FEI rankings.
So, back to my LSU/Alabama point
F/+ says LSU has the No. 2 offense, Alabama No. 10. Yet, they combined for 15 points even with an overtime period.
Did the offenses fail or defenses succeed?
"Completely contextual? You lost me here."
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Team A is beating Team B 56-0. It’s late in the 3rd quarter and at this point in the game, all of the starters are out. Strictly back ups and 3rd stringers playing.
The 2s and 3s give up 3 TDs and a FG. The final score is 56-24. Does that make their defense bad? Context is important. Teams like Stanford and Oregon didn’t care that we were scoring on them in the 4th quarter because the game was already out of hand.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
You can say whatever you want about points scored
It is not a reliable indicator for actual quality of defense. You saying it does not make it so.
For example, do you think Oklahoma State giving up a bunch of points in the Fiesta Bowl is because it’s just not good? Or might have had just a little to do with the fact that it was facing the No. 4 offense (by F/+, of course)? Or that Oregon’s performance might have had to do with facing the No. 1 offense?
Just maybe? This is what I mean by context. Consider that both of these schools did not have the benefit of playing in a conference with a bunch of horrible offenses (hello there, SEC).
Instead of just dismissing FEI or S&P+ because it doesn’t jive with your conception of defense, why not read up on them a little and see how they measure teams, and then deconstruct that?
Because it doesn't jive?
I have my arguments, you have yours. We agree to disagree. Points scored by defenses isn’t just used by me. Other people and analysts use this as an indicator of good defense.
Yes the FEI takes into account other variables, but to dismiss the fact I haven’t looked into it doesn’t really jive with why I would comment against it. I have looked into it. I do believe and will always believe points scored is a reliable indicator of a good defense as others will.
I’m not wrong, neither are you, Kyle, or anyone else commenting on these posts. We all have our point of view.
Honestly, I don't agree to disagree.
Just because other people use points scored doesn’t make it a good metric. Once upon a time, perfectly intelligent people thought wins was a good way to determine if a pitcher had a good season in major league baseball. All but the most curmudgeonly writers have abandoned it as worth anything.
Points allowed isn’t quite on the level of wins as a terrible statistic. But it’s close if you don’t account for the other variables, which you are failing to do.
And if you’ve looked at FEI, explain to me what its weakness is related to points scored. I’m genuinely interested.
OK Professore Jeff
“I’m genuinely interesting in having you explain weakness related to points scored.” Now it seems like you are insulting my intelligence saying “perfectly intelligent people once believe…” I disagree with you and that’s it. I’m not going to say you are an idiot for your beliefs and I’m not going to say write an essay on my beliefs.
I don’t believe in the FEI and am not going to spend forever writing why. I’ve laid out my beliefs. We disagree.
You have laid no beliefs.
Other than your belief in points scored. I’m really not letting this go.
And the “perfectly intelligent people” was not a shot at you. It was to say that a lot of smart people thought wins was a good metric. Many of those same people have changed their mind with an examination of new statistical evidence.
You don’t have to write an essay. Just tell me what you don’t like about it.
I believe points scored is a valuable metric
Why do I defend this? You obviously think I’m wrong and aren’t going to let it go.
If Oklahoma State is tops in the FEI rankings, why did they give up 38 points to Oregon? Was that an anomaly?
No, that’s a sign of a defense which obviously was’t the number one defense in the country.
Alabama gave up 21 points to Georgia Southern, an FCS team who only scored 7 on North Dakota State.
North Dakota State defense > Alabama defense.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
You have not offered one word on why you don't like FEI
Other than a team ranked highly by FEI didn’t hold the other team’s offense to fewer points than you thought it should allow. This is not analysis. This is avoidance.
He thinks he is Italian.
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 10:02 PM PST up reply actions
Just an FYI
using points scored as the means of determining best defenses is a terrible way to do that.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 7:56 PM PST up reply actions
Another thing that bothers me
“Only once since ’05 have they had a top 10 defense.”
So what? Is your defense automatically horrible if it’s not Top 10? Do you know how many teams there are in the NCAA? How many teams have both a Top 10 offense and Top 10 defense?
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
Bothers you?
Did you even read the comment? The only reason it was stated was because I said Oklahoma wasn’t known recently for their defense.
The 2004 teams before were better
I’ve paid attention to their teams. I watch OU football on Saturdays. Their defense hasn’t been as good as the teams they had in 2004 and before. Between 2001 and 2005 they spit out NFL draft picks on defense, now they are few and are between. Coincidence?
And how are you judging whether they were "better"?
Sounds like you’re judging it on draft picks, which is a reasonable proxy, I suppose, but hardly definitive.
Did you watch those defenses?
In 2003 and 2004 they averaged 14.8 and 13.8 points a game (despite getting smacked down by USC in 2004).
Prior to 2005 they had a slew of studs that came from the defense. Draft picks are only an indicator of talent. They haven’t been as talented since then.
Talent, as measured by draft picks, is something -- but it's not everything
There are 11 guys out there, right? Isn’t it better to look at a metric that attempts to quantify all of them?
And no, points allowed, independent of an opponent adjustment, does not do that. Sorry.
So you're saying they're "not known for defense" anymore
because they no longer have one of the best defenses in the nation? As Nusser pointed out, their defenses were still pretty darn good, they just weren’t as elite as in 03-04. You’re kind of obsessed with defense.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
OU used to be known for defense
When you think OU now you don’t think of the defensive studs which used to be on this team. They are still a good defense, but not a great defense like they used to be. That’s the whole point. They switched from a defensive minded team to a team focused more on offense and doing good enough on D.
I’m sorry that it bothered you.
So your whole point was
if they’re not an elite defensive team, screw them?
I don’t understand what we’re even arguing. The original statement was Oklahoma isn’t known for defense. Craig pointed out the reason was because their offense was so good. Then you went on one of your usual DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS tirade and I think we all got a little bit off track.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 9:08 PM PST up reply actions
My point? Did you even read the first comment?
Calm down man. The whole comment was stated as they aren’t known for their superior defense anymore.
Now you are taking the comment further than it was ever supposed to be. I never went on my defenses win championships charade here.
This was all about Kyle going off topic. I never said OU doesn’t have a good defense, I never said having a good defense isn’t a bad thing. I just said OU wasn’t known for their defense anymore. I never said screw OU. I just said the obvious, that they aren’t known for their defenses like they used to be.
Is there a problem with stating the obvious here or am I going to get called out for this one too?
I took this thread off topic?
Um, I thoroughly disagree.
The whole point you were making was that Oklahoma is no longer thought of as an elite defense. This is true. I agree with you on this. But what does that have to do with anything? Because they’re not elite anymore doesn’t make them not really good or even above average. Several people have pointed out that the reason you don’t think of them as defense first is because their offense has become so prolific. Then you started going off about Top 10 defenses for some reason, and why points scored is a good metric (it’s not). Then when pressed to explain your side, you refused, saying “let’s agree to disagree.” I have no idea what the hell the point of all of this was.
Is Oklahoma known for their tremendous, super elite defenses? Not really, no. But does that make them a bad defensive team? No. Is this really worth debating? Any time anyone says anything about defense, you take it as a personal attack and how you feel football should be played. Just breathe, man. No one is attacking you personally. There’s also no right way to win. Teams with poor offenses and great defenses win. Teams with great offenses and poor defenses win.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 9:23 PM PST up reply actions
You assumed I believe ....
I never stated OU isn’t a good defense. You assumed I believed that. You took what I said and ran with it.
My whole point was and has been they aren’t the same elite defense. That’s it. I didn’t say they don’t have good defense now or since. Just not the defenses they were known for.
The point was OU used to be known for their elite defenses and haven’t in years past. The whole discussion revolved around Bobby Jack Wright and OU’s defense of recent memory and how they haven’t been elite. That’s it.
I’m out now. It’s 11:30 and I’ve got to go to bed. Have a good one and we can disagree another day!
So
your whole point was:
Oklahoma’s defense is no longer elite, but they’re still pretty good.
Ok. Got it.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 9:40 PM PST up reply actions
Except that when a defense ranks in the top 10 in F/+, I think it should be considered elite
And again, we’re back to square one.
Their defense couldn't be all that bad since 2004
as OU has had 4 Big-12 titles, and 4 BCS bowl appearances as a result, including a NCG appearance. The also won at least 11 games 4 times and had 8 wins the other two years.
Also, that 2004 OU defense is the same one that gave up 55 points to USC in the NCG that year, since you want to look at points allowed. I guess they failed miserably despite going 12-0 the rest of the year.
Their defense failed them miserably in the NCG
Giving up 55 points in any game is miserable failure for that game.
Would that not be a good argument against using points allowed
because based on that one game, you would essentially need to dismiss OU’s entire season because of how their defense played, unless you’re willing to acknowledge the higher quality of the opponent compared to the other teams they played that year.
Higher quality of opponent, no doubt
USC in 2004 was one of the best college teams to ever play. They were complete in every fashion, offense, defense, special teams, and their depth chart was phenomenal.
OU’s defense was mentioned because despite having a high scoring offense during the regular season they gave up the 5th least points.
You seem to be missing the point of the "high scoring offense" part.
We are talking about offenses who play at a high pace. Oregon and Oklahoma State go no huddle the entire game and snap the ball within 10-15 seconds of the previous play. Because they do this it creates more possessions for both sides. More possessions impacts how many points are scored.
USC in 2004 and OU in 2004, while being high-scoring, were still huddling up most plays and taking most of the time off of the play clock. This means there were less possessions overall in the games they played.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
So, what you're saying ...
is context should be considered?
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
In the NCG
USC held the ball 25 minutes, OU 35 minutes, despite USC scoring 36 more points. USC gave up 19 points.
I was
Craig insinuated time of possession or more possessions makes a huge difference in point scored against a team. USC had the ball 25 minutes of that NCG and scored 36 more points.
USC’s longest drive in that game was 8 plays:
6 plays, 75 yards, TD
1 play, 6 yards, TD
6 players, 89 yards, TD
3 plays, 10 yards, TD
4 plays, 79 yards, TD
8 plays, 85 yards, TD
So USC wasn’t huddling up trying to increase their time of possession, they were trying to keep scoring, yet their defense still only gave up 19 points.
So obviously time of possession had very little effect on this defensive performance by USC.
You still don't get it.
I’m not saying time of possession affects the performance of the defense. I’m saying it affects the number of points scored.
If USC was playing like Oregon for that game, those drives would have been the same amount of plays, but taken less time, and they would have had more possessions as well as Oklahoma.
Don’t you think if USC had one more possession they might have scored more? Same for Oklahoma? OU scored on their second-to-last possession. If they had more time on their last one, they might have scored another garbage TD.
I really don’t see how can argue that more possessions doesn’t give the offense the opportunity to score more points.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
I could also argue that you're undervaluing USC's defense using points scored.
Oklahoma got a safety that game, which would count against USC’s defense if you were to use points scored as the way of evaluating them.
Additionally, OU scored a meaningless TD at the end. Do you think USC’s defense was playing their best up 55-12? FEI and S&P would have not even bothered with drives like that, as the game is already out of hand and philosophy and personnel differ greatly during those times.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
I still don't get it
this is your comment:
“USC in 2004 and OU in 2004, while being high-scoring, were still huddling up most plays and taking most of the time off of the play clock. This means there were less possessions overall in the games they played.”
I don’t get this? Oklahoma and USC were high scoring quick offenses which forced their defenses to be on the field more than their offense. Oklahoma averaged over 40 points a game that year. Show me a team who averages over 40 points a game and is huddling up and taking time off of the clock. It’s not possible in a 60 minute game.
Explain how USC was huddling up and running time off of the clock in that NCG. They were a quick scoring offense.
According to your theory, USC should’ve allowed more than 19 points based on possessions. They allowed 10 points to Oklahoma in the 1st half and 9 points in the 4th quarter.
What it comes down to is defense. It doesn’t matter how great your offense is, what matters is can your defense stop the opposing offense. USC did it to OU in that NCG. OU averaged over 40 points a game, but got manhandled by a better team in USC. They scored at will and stopped OU when they needed to.
It's not about "quick scoring" in terms of numbers of plays.
It is about the tempo in which Oregon and Oklahoma State run their offense. They make take the same amount of plays as USC did to score, but they will take less time doing, meaning there will be more time for possessions throughout the game. More possessions will impact the score.
I really don’t see how you can’t understand this. USC wasn’t running the no huddle like Oregon and Oklahoma State do. They were huddling. It takes more time between plays. How is that a tough concept?
I never said that teams SHOULD allow more points based on possessions, I merely said that more possessions equals more chances for the offense to score. Even a great defense will give up more points over the course of more possessions. Again…how is that a tough concept?
I never argued that USC’s defense didn’t play well that game, in fact I pointed out that your metric undervalued them.
You saying “What it comes down to is defense. It doesn’t matter how great your offense is, what matters is can your defense stop the opposing offense” has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, which centers around the value of using points scored to determine the success of a defense.
We’ve told you many, many times that there are so many things that impact a score that are out of the defense’s control, and that is why it is unreliable and there are better things out there that remove the “context” aspect. You answer with things like “They scored at will and stopped OU when they needed to.” Which has nothing to do with anything.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
Take a look at two bowl games
2004 USC vs OU
2012 Stanford vs OSU
Let’s take a look at the total plays for each team
USC had 35 pass attempts, and 28 rushing attempts (63 total plays)
OU had 36 passes, 40 rushes (76 total plays)
Stanford had 31 passes, and 50 attempts (81 total plays)
OSU had 42 passes, and 15 attempts (57 total plays).
There wasn’t that much difference between the two games, yet one defense was able to only allow 19 points against Oklahoma? USC’s defense was far and away better than Oklahoma’s that year and definitely better than this year’s Oklahoma State, Oregon or Stanford’s defense.
OU had just as many if not more plays than either Stanford or Oregon but could only put up 19 on USC? They had more possessions. They had 13 more plays.
Again: possessions, not plays.
And still…when were we comparing USC’s 2004 defense to other defenses? We were debating the the usefulness of “points scored” in evaluating defenses.
The fact that you keep going away from that suggests you have nothing to bring to the table in that debate.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 4, 2012 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
Also, you are wrong about the possessions.
Stanford: 14
Oklahoma: 12
As I said before, we aren’t debating how USC’s defense compares to Oklahoma State’s, I have no idea where you got that from.
“yet on defense was able to allow 19 points against Oklahoma?” actually they allowed 17, since the offense gave up a safety. The metric fails you again.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 4, 2012 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
What?
I’m not going away from it. You keep stating that possessions/plays make a diference.
The 2004 USC team wouldn’t have allowed 38 points to Stanford, Oregon, or any other team regardless of possessions.
It’s like you believe Oregon’s defense is actually good because of their high powered offense and FEI number. If they were good, they wouldn’t have given up 38 points to Wisconsin. Or Oklahoma State’s number one FEI ranked defense wouldn’t have given up 38 points to Stanford.
Points scored has and will always be a factor. Is it the only factor? Absolutely not, but points scored is an important factor that’s not outdated as plenty of you guys believe.
"The 2004 USC team wouldn’t have allowed 38 points to Stanford, Oregon, or any other team regardless of possessions."
You don’t know this. I don’t recall anyone predicting that 2004 Oklahoma defense would give up 55 to USC, either.
If a team has 10 possessions, the most they can score is 80 points.
If a team has 12 possessions, the most they can score is 96 points.
Possessions obviously impact how many points a team can score. How is that even a point of contention?
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 4, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
Saying "it all comes down to defense" is wrong.
What it all comes down to is scoring more points than your opponent. How you accomplish that is completely and totally irrelevant.
And before you tell me that great teams have great defenses, the reality is that great teams have both — as Wisconsin, Oregon, Oklahoma State, LSU and Alabama do.
LSU and Alabama’s defenses are a bit better than their offenses. Wisconsin, Oregon and OSU’s offenses are a bit better than their defenses. But they each have one elite unit and one very good unit, and that’s what makes them the best in football.
Your bias toward ascribing blame/credit to the defense is a circular argument and just isn’t founded in any kind of reality.
Agreed
I should’ve tempered the statement because a great defense can only do so much.
We can agree to disagree on philosophy about defenses win championships vs offenses winning them. We can talk until we are blue in the face and will continue to disagree on this point.
I will always believe a great defense and an OK offense are better than an OK defense and an awesome offense. But either way, at the day all that matters is if your team scored more than the other team.
But ...
“Your bias toward ascribing blame/credit to the defense is a circular argument and just isn’t founded in any kind of reality.”
There is reality here. When a defense like Oklahoma State gives up 38 points to Oregon, they can’t be considered a good defense. USC gave up 19 points to Oklahoma in the 2004 NCG yet Oklahoma had more plays than either Oregon or Stanford in this year’s Fiesta Bowl.
Oregon, Stanford, Wisconsin and other defenses failed them this year. Especially when their offenses gave them more than enough poins to win the game.
If you ascribe to that theory of not placing any blame on a defnese that allows 38 points, then it’s plain wrong and not in reality.
So did Alabama's offense fail in its first game against LSU?
I’ve asked this question once before, and your refusal to engage the questions that expose the flaws in your line of reasoning is disheartening.
I’ll go ahead and put the words in your mouth since you won’t do it yourself: You’d call that great defense. You’re assigning credit based on your bias.
However, after watching that game, all I could think of is, “This is the best those two teams could do at quarterback? Goodness, those offenses are horrible.” I’m assigning blame based on my bias that tends to give credit to the offense.
But the larger point we’ve been saying all along is this: Why does there have to be any blame ascribed at all? Both sides of the ball are important, and both have equal influence over the outcome of a game. Yet you continually place more importance on one side of the ball. THAT is your biggest flaw.
“There is reality here. When a defense like Oklahoma State gives up 38 points to Oregon, they can’t be considered a good defense.”
It actually was Wisconsin that gave it up. And by the way, THIS. Remember, you are the one who’s in love with that 04 Oklahoma defense.
So was it a great defense or bad defense?
Or a good defense that had a hard time stopping some really good offenses?
How could Alabama's defense fail
You asked the question and I felt like the LSU vs Alabama game was a great game and neither defense failed their teams so I ignored it. Both defenses were awesome in that game.
I’m not in love with that 2004 OU defense . I never said this. I used a high scoring offense like OU to show that you can have a high scoring offense that puts up over 40 points a game and a top defense.
For some reason, people believe that if an offense scores fast, their defense hurts because of it. Well why did USC do so well against OU in 2004? OU ran more plays than Stanford or Oklahoma State yet couldn’t score against a great defense.
BTW we are both wrong on the 38 points. Oklahoma State gave up 38 points to Stanford (that was my original intention).
You can’t explain why a great defense like the 2004 USC team shut down OU despite OU having the ball more.
The only reason blame is assigned is because you can’t call Oklahoma State’s 2011 defense a top ranked defense when they allow 38 points to a high scoring offense. If that were the case, then the 2004 USC defense should’ve allowed 30 + points to OU’s top notch offense. But they didn’t. They stepped up and stopped OU.
And if you watched the games, you could clearly see that the defenses (not the special teams) were the ones giving up the TD’s. That’s easy to place blame there. If special teams TD’s played a factor then I wouldn’t say that the full blame is on the defense.
He asked you if Alabama's offense failed.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 4, 2012 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
We can explain why USC's defense team shut down USC.
Because they were good. No one has debated that.
Although, they did give up 28 points to a 4-7 Stanford team, so they must not be “great” either.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 4, 2012 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
Over a whole season
Did they beat the Stanford team? Yes. Who cares about the one game they up 28 points.
USC was a great defense. Oregon, OSU, Stanford, and a slew of others who had high FEI rankings this year showed their defenses weren’t good defenses. Their defenses failed them when it mattered most.
"Who cares about the one game they up 28 points"
Who cares about the one game they gave up 38 points, then?
This is officially done.
Really
By the way, they gave up those 28 points in the 1st half and shut them down in the 2nd half.
Compare this to a team that goes to a bowl game and gives up 38 points in the Rose Bowl. That called failure for a defense that’s top 10 in your FEI ranks.
Now we are officially done.
So points given up in the second half are the only ones that count?
Well then, Oklahoma only gave up 17 to Stanford then!
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 4, 2012 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
So OSU gives up 38 points to an Andrew Luck led Stanford offense.
And they are automatically disqualified from being “great.” USC gives up 28 points to a bad Stanford team and you say “Who cares about the one game.” These are your words.
I was being sarcastic when I used the USC-Stanford score, because it is ridiculous to point out one result and say “hey this defense isn’t great.”
Which you do only when it fits into your argument apparently. That’s quite convenient.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 4, 2012 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
Funny thing about that 04 Oklahoma defense
The Sooners played four ranked teams. Here’s how the defense did:
(5) Texas: 0 points
(20) Oklahoma State: 35 points
(22) Texas A&M: 35 points
(1) USC: 55 points
This is why context is so important. Yes, they were awesome against Texas. But they built that low season average by holding some offenses that were already bad (Oregon, Kansas, Nebraska, Baylor, Colorado) to next to nothing.
So, does that make their defense awesome? Or were they a failure because they allowed 35 or more points to three ranked opponents — just three points less than Oregon allowed yesterday to Wisconsin?
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 3, 2012 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Very few and never to exceed 10
How many HOT COUGAR ACTION: Monday Morning Trivia points do I get?
It is not the size of the gift that demonstrate support…it’s the action of joining.
by woolybugger on Jan 3, 2012 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I've been living and breathing Big 12 football for 35 years ...
and there is a misnomer with defensive stats in the Big 12 for about the last ten years. Case in point: OSU this year. Statistically they were ranked 107th which looks awful, but they were evenly matched with Stanford last night. I think for the most part (particularly UT, OU, OSU, and KSU) the Big 12 defenses are better against opponents outside the Big 12 than advertised … sans Baylor and Tech.
OU has had a fine defense since Stoops arrived. BJW has coached some beasts while at UT and OU. He is well thought of, his players gave him a Gatorade bath and the end of the Insight Bowl, and word is he can flat out recruit and coach.
A change of scenery during the twilight of his career with full control of the defense may be just what the doctor ordered for both BJW and WSU.
BTW: Leach and Stoops remain close to this day.
by Arizona Raider on Jan 3, 2012 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
I agree with not being particularly excited
But looking at his resume he is known for defensive pass efficiency. I think we could expect to see an improvement on pass defense if he turns out to be the DC/ secondary coach.
There are a lot of people who still can get a head coach job above 60.
Just ask Martin Schottenheimer
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
Why are we so concerned with a coordinator leaving?
I guess I sort of get the angst over the head coach, but don’t you guys realize that assistants shuffle all the time?
New conflicting report says he is not the DC
A tweet from Chris Level of Red Raider Sport
@ChrisLevel
Just a heads up, Wright won’t be the DC at Washington State, I can 100% confirm that.
So, not sure what to make of either report now.
https://twitter.com/#!/ChrisLevel/status/154233721619361792
You have to use the link button for Twitter stuff.
Just pasting the link doesn’t work, something about Twitter SBN doesn’t like.
Interesting...
It is the 3rd of January, would we just hire our DC already. Or has our new DC not played his bowl game yet?
CougCenter OG since 9/2/2008 | @THESoCalCoug
Well that was fun
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Jan 3, 2012 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe it's a good thing Steve Kelley doesn't tweet.
by gbob on Jan 3, 2012 9:30 AM PST up reply actions 6 recs
This post is going green
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Jan 3, 2012 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
.....
I think Mark got that one up.
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Mark's links?
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Jan 3, 2012 12:37 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
I'm sorry you don't appreciate Canada Business Weekly like the rest of us do.
Also, I’m now officially not adding you to the GIF of the Leach bandwagon. Take that!
by Mark Sandritter on Jan 3, 2012 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well then
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Jan 3, 2012 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
At first I thought that was Taco
and I thought I missed an episode of the League.
by Mark Sandritter on Jan 3, 2012 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
Nope
Just Ziggy being Ziggy.
Really I was just looking for any excuse possible to use that gif once I found it.
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Jan 3, 2012 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
...
"/>
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
....
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
Should we be worried?
This is really unusual. Look at all the coaches who are taking new jobs, but stayed through their current teams bowl games. If our guy is still coaching, why all the secrecy? Is it possible Leach IS having trouble hiring someone? If so, why? And if not, why keep it so quiet?
I’m really confused by all of this. Anxious. Just want to know who our guy is. And… um…. I’m guessing the recruits do too!
PS: Could it possibly be a guy in the NFL? Maybe we’ve been barking up the wrong tree.
Wait, did you use the sarcasm font there?
Because it seems like we have gotten some nice commitments from defensive players, which is what led me to believe there was someone in place giving input.
Just frustrated by the delay I guess.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Half of the six known commitments have been defensive players. Little known fact: Recruits actually care much more about their position coach than their coordinator. That’s who recruits them, and that’s who they’re going to spend the vast majority of their time with.
Want to know how we lost Bishop Sankey? It’s more than just UW calling. His main recruiter was Steve Broussard. That’s where the relationship was. Want to know how we got Connor Halliday? His main recruiter was Todd Sturdy. BUT!, you say, HE WAS THE OC! Except he also was the QB coach.
This is where I point out that the players who committed have no position coach
Or, at least, that we know of. No LB coach, no secondary/DC. Soooo….
by Brian Floyd on Jan 3, 2012 9:57 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Maybe they were promised spots on offense?
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Jan 3, 2012 9:58 AM PST up reply actions
On the subject of recruiting
I just came across this post over the UW SBN site, thought it was pretty interesting. If WA kids are not feeling the love for Sark, it seems like a great opportunity for Leach:
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2012/1/1/2674120/the-local-recruiting-disconnect#comments
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Jan 3, 2012 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Leach is an attorney by training!
He keeps his mouth shut…
1. Doesn’t speculate deals in facts!
2. He won’t disclose injuries during the
Season either.
Get use to it!
That may be an advantage in some cases.
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
I would not expect a NFL guy.
I looked into this and the only guy I found with any ties to Leach is Lions defensive line coach Kris Kocurek. This is his first season as the dline coach in Detroit.
by Mark Sandritter on Jan 3, 2012 10:24 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Just a name to throw out there
I swear while reading Leach’s book I saw a comment from a Detroit Lions DB coach with some connections or loyalties to Leach. Now I can’t find it, or anyone on that staff who has played for or coached with him in the past. But, someone like Tim Walton might make sense. Young DB coach for the Lions given a lot of credit for their #14 ranking against the pass this year. Huge improvement for that unit. He was DC for one year at Memphis before bolting for the NFL, and the Tigers saw a huge improvement in their defensive rankings during his one year there.
Just a thought. Maybe a guy like this is on Leach’s rader, a guy on an NFL staff still in the playoffs.
You are talking about Daron Roberts.
He is the special teams coordinator for WVU now. Leach was kind of a mentor and inspiration to him, as he was also a law graduate.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
Glad to know no matter who we get we won't have to defend against Chris Polk anymore.
Thanks for jumping to the NFL.
Seems like Leach said in an interview
the staff would be announced after the begining of the year. That implied to me that he knows who was going to come aboard. That might be an incorrect assumption, but I’m sure he’s going to make a decision that fits his philosophy. Given his track record, I’m not going to second guess what’s going on too much right now.
The Dread Pirate Leach cares not for your timelines!
#CougHarmonyOnTwitter #teamnopants
by TiltingRight on Jan 3, 2012 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
some think Wright leaving is clearing space
for the Stoops bro’s return to OU.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Jan 3, 2012 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah I saw that part
But since the BJW to WSU thing was “debunked”, didn’t know if he was still indeed leaving OU.
Just wondering what the likelihood of Stoops at WSU was. Did he work w/ Leach in the past?
perhaps I misunderstood
I thought the DC aspect was debunked, not the guy coming into Pullman.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Jan 3, 2012 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
I think Jack Wright was a DC for Texas wasn't he?
The mixture of titles and the fact that OU fansites didn’t know he held the asst. coach/asst. Dc titles outside of his DE cach gig indicate to me that this guy is a ‘texas specialist recruiter’ and coach. The multi titles and recruiting aspect make him a defensive expert— wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t the DC but is still hired as a hyphen coach…since Hoffman Ellis is gone, this is okay w/ me.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
Live Chat is on
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 12:03 PM PST reply actions
Seattle times
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
Looks like Leach has DC people lined up.
If My Life Is Great, Why Am I Not Happy?
by well you win some and lose others on Jan 3, 2012 12:17 PM PST reply actions
MY TWO CENTS --
For what its worth …
You should be looking at Marty English — Wyoming DC …
"we did a lot of things well, but there are several areas that need improving, our idea of moving forward is to do things that make you improve" - Jason Garrett
He's not the Wyoming DC.
He got demoted to LBs Coach after Dave Christensen hired former Cougs LBs Coach Chris Tormey as DC.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jan 3, 2012 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
AFCA Conference
Coach said in the Live Chat the announcement probably after next week’s Football Coaches Conference in San Antonio. A check of the Conference agenda on line finds a session on the last day on defense conducted by … Tommy Spangler … Maybe Mr. Spangler wanted to honor that commitment and for whatever reason didn’t want any announcement made which was agreed to. Just one other possibility.
For folks who are actually still following this thread
Thanks for letting us to do this. We at CougCenter pride ourselves on encouraging and facilitating a higher level of discourse, and see educating fans on different perspectives for analysis as part of our mission.
Unfortunately, there comes a point where it’s clear that a person isn’t really even trying to engage in a CougCenter-type discussion. When an argument is completely eviscerated and the person still refuses to learn something new or back down from the thoroughly disproved fallacies in their own arguments, it’s time to shut it down. Sometimes, that’s in the form of putting the person in the penalty box for a while; sometimes it’s in the form of closing the comments. I’m choosing the latter, because I don’t think there’s any more to be gained from any more discussion here.
Post closed. Although you can feel free to read it again for your own personal entertainment. I probably will.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
