re: Disspelling the offense caused the defense to be bad thought.

quote:

---

AUmember

---

So our offense being ranked 112 out of 119 had nothing to do with it? Defense was in the top 30 I believe.

If I have to blame someone, I am going to blame the offense. Stats don't lie.

Here's some numbers that I found interesting. Last year's opponents, number offensive possessions they had, and how many scores their offense generated (TDs and FGs):

Opp. Poss. Scores

Wash. 11 -- 5
Vandy 12 -- 1
ULL 10 -- 1
MSU 16 -- 4
UGA 11 -- 2
Florida 9 -- 3
Auburn 13 -- 2
Tulane 11 -- 0
Bama 12 -- 5
LT 12 -- 4
UM 11 -- 6
Arky 14 -- 6
PSU 14 -- 5

Total 156 -- 44

Our defense gave up a score (any kind of score) on 28.2% of out opponents' possessions. Even if you make the false assumtion that every opponent ended each half with a useless possession (effectively taking away two possessions per game), they still totaled 44 scores in 130 possessions. That is still just 33.8%, barely one out of three and far from the "almost EVERY possession" and "greatly improved chance" suggested by some. And against the top teams (Bama, Florida, Georgia, Penn State), we still managed to hold them scoreless on over half their possessions. Only Ole Miss managed to put points of any kind on the board on over half their possessions.

But what I found particularly interesting looking this up was the sheer number of possessions. Our opponents averaged 12 possessions per game. I haven't found a recent stat on average number of possessions in college football, but one website listed the average as about 12 back in 2006 before the game-shortening clock changes took place. Presumably, that would reduce the number, but I feel it is safe to say the average is no more than 12 now.

So, if our defense really is prone to giving up an extraordinary number of long "bend but don't break" drives, then the total number of possessions in a game should be significantly lower than 12. The difference would logically be made up in our offense not sustaining long drives. Someone earlier suggested the explaination that Crowton's offense tends toward the "quick score or 3 and out" model. That would be a reasonable explaination, with the understanding that last year's offensive woes generate significantly higher ratio of "3 and out" to "quick score" than is desirable.

I am not saying (though I'm sure some pathetic negatiger ranter will insist that I am) that giving up 44 scores in 156 drives is a good or even great achievement for a defense. I am offering it only as refutation of the notion that the "bend but don't break" style of our defense allowed teams to drive into scoring position on "almost EVERY possession"

Because the defensive strategy changes somewhat when you have your back to the end zone. I suspect that after a year in the system the defense will be allowed to attack just a little more and will be, in 2010, more like we would all like to see. I also agree that third down efficiency is a key, if somewhat overlooked, way to see if you are having problems with your team that the score may not adequately reflect.

So now not only am I worried about the offense, I'm concerned about the defense.



FML.

quote:

---

I think it was the opposite, that the poor offense made the defense look worse than it was. If we had held the ball longer, we could have probably cut down on the other teams' number of possessions and their scoring to some extent.

---

That is what I believe the data shows, as well. Also, that is how I remember my impression as I watched the season. I felt that the defense had improved (though was by no means "great" or "dominant"), but the offense had stagnated significantly which put even more pressure on our defense. As I've commented elsewhere, I believe the biggest culprit in our offensive stagnation was an overemphasis during the offseason on not throwing picks (which seemed to leave Jefferson too gunshy about throwing the ball at all).

quote:

---

I don't care if you don't agree, but the facts are the facts.

---

Right, and the facts say that LSU's offense gained 5.13 yards per play, putting them #89 in the nation. LSU's defense allowed 4.68 yards per play, putting them at #15 in the nation. If the defense was so porous, gave up so many big plays and was so bad at forcing 3 and outs, how in the hell did they manage to attain such a low yards per play average? On top of that, with the offense forcing the defense to play so much (and yes the defense did face many many plays per game), how did they also end up #11 in scoring defense? You say the defense was porous, but the stats don't reflect it.

quote:

---

If the defense was so porous, gave up so many big plays and was so bad at forcing 3 and outs, how in the hell did they manage to attain such a low yards per play average?

---

Run for 1 yard on 1st down + run for 1 yard on 2nd down + pass for 10 yards on 3rd down = 4 yards per play = 1st down.

You could practically write the script for opponents' possessions before they started.

We were good at forcing teams into 3rd and long, but we could not stop them on 3rd down worth a crap. That kept the average low, but did not stop anybody.

quote:

---

Our opponents averaged 12 possessions per game. I haven't found a recent stat on average number of possessions in college football, but one website listed the average as about 12 back in 2006 before the game-shortening clock changes took place. Presumably, that would reduce the number, but I feel it is safe to say the average is no more than 12 now.

---

Those clock changes were reversed after one year. The big ones were starting the clock after kickoffs and changes of possession. The number of possessions per game has probably gone back up since then.

quote:

---

Except in the fourth quarter of close games. It was almost a certainty that the other team would score in those situations last year. Eight times in nine tries we gave up the score, with the one stop being at the one-inch line vs. Mississippi Stat

---

Yet you totally ignore the fact that the LSU defense was one of the best in the nation at keeping others off the scoreboard. There were weaknesses in Chavis first year, but with an offense that is laying piles of shite on the field, the LSU defense held its own.

The shitty LSU offense was in a position to win every single game because of the defense.

quote:

---

Run for 1 yard on 1st down + run for 1 yard on 2nd down + pass for 10 yards on 3rd down = 4 yards per play = 1st down.

You could practically write the script for opponents' possessions before they started.

We were good at forcing teams into 3rd and long, but we could not stop them on 3rd down worth a crap. That kept the average low, but did not stop anybody.

---

Oh? The defense managed a respectable #38 ranking in 3rd down efficiency, much better than the offense's #71 rank.

The defense ranks better than the offense in every category, yet you people still manage to blame the offensive ineffectiveness on the defense?

Here's how I see it. Over the course of a season, there should have been approximately the same number of offensive and defensive possessions. End of half clock management and onside kicks are really the only 2 things that can lean the possessions one way or the other, but I can't see them being more than 5% different. This being the case, the defense did a better job of keeping points off the board than the offense did of putting them up during their possessions. That's all there is to it.