AZDuck
New Fish
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=128&f=1423&t=13365831
Basically, this guy looks at defense through the lens of the offense - maximizing offensive possessions. I'm not sure I buy the whole thing, but I will say that it is interesting and is worth re-reading and thinking about. That link is as much for me as any of you fucktards.
Something I have noticed is that having watched so much Oregon football over the last 20 or so years, I've kinda cracked the code. For Oregon, everything is predicated on getting two scores up on the opponent, preferably two touchdowns. Our defense does not back the other team into the end zone, but does sell out the pass to stuff otherwise productive running games, and is often more vulnerable to the sidelines than over the middle of the field. This is consistent with "Anatidae in Paradise's" link above.
It's maddening for me because I played defense, and I want to crush the other team into submission, Alabama-style. But that just isn't how Oregon plays. We want to get into a shooting match with the other team, and our defenders are also coached to go for turnovers and forced fumbles. It is not a fluke that Oregon is regularly at the top of the NCAA charts for turnovers (on the plus side). One or two years is an anomaly, but Oregon has been at the top for like 8 years running. That also frustrates me when I see guys trying to put their hat on the football or force fumbles rather than wrapping up and tackling. We give up a shit-ton of yards.
But the fact is, when Oregon goes up two scores, it puts pressure on the other team to make a big play, and as often as not, those big plays turn out to be big plays for the Oregon defense. That's when we ladle three quick TDs on the opposition and just make them look silly.
The way to beat Oregon is to drag out possessions and end each possession with a TD. Keep the game within one score. Utah was executing this very gameplan when two very bad things happened to them in quick succession: (1) their QB who was a credible rushing threat went out of the game with a knee injury, (2) the Kaelin Clay drop-the-ball thing. Even so, Utah played a good disciplined game and clawed their way back into it, being down only by 3 in the second half, before a Utah turnover gifted us a short field and some easy scores that made the final score seem much more lopsided than the game actually was.
Viewed through this lens, it's almost like Oregon is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess. Or something.
It still makes me very uncomfortable because I'm not sure how we adjust when a team is able to get us into the proverbial knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth. Of course, the other way to beat us is to just shut down our offense. That doesn't happen very often.
Anyway, read the poast. It's pretty interesting.
Basically, this guy looks at defense through the lens of the offense - maximizing offensive possessions. I'm not sure I buy the whole thing, but I will say that it is interesting and is worth re-reading and thinking about. That link is as much for me as any of you fucktards.
Something I have noticed is that having watched so much Oregon football over the last 20 or so years, I've kinda cracked the code. For Oregon, everything is predicated on getting two scores up on the opponent, preferably two touchdowns. Our defense does not back the other team into the end zone, but does sell out the pass to stuff otherwise productive running games, and is often more vulnerable to the sidelines than over the middle of the field. This is consistent with "Anatidae in Paradise's" link above.
It's maddening for me because I played defense, and I want to crush the other team into submission, Alabama-style. But that just isn't how Oregon plays. We want to get into a shooting match with the other team, and our defenders are also coached to go for turnovers and forced fumbles. It is not a fluke that Oregon is regularly at the top of the NCAA charts for turnovers (on the plus side). One or two years is an anomaly, but Oregon has been at the top for like 8 years running. That also frustrates me when I see guys trying to put their hat on the football or force fumbles rather than wrapping up and tackling. We give up a shit-ton of yards.
But the fact is, when Oregon goes up two scores, it puts pressure on the other team to make a big play, and as often as not, those big plays turn out to be big plays for the Oregon defense. That's when we ladle three quick TDs on the opposition and just make them look silly.
The way to beat Oregon is to drag out possessions and end each possession with a TD. Keep the game within one score. Utah was executing this very gameplan when two very bad things happened to them in quick succession: (1) their QB who was a credible rushing threat went out of the game with a knee injury, (2) the Kaelin Clay drop-the-ball thing. Even so, Utah played a good disciplined game and clawed their way back into it, being down only by 3 in the second half, before a Utah turnover gifted us a short field and some easy scores that made the final score seem much more lopsided than the game actually was.
Viewed through this lens, it's almost like Oregon is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess. Or something.
It still makes me very uncomfortable because I'm not sure how we adjust when a team is able to get us into the proverbial knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth. Of course, the other way to beat us is to just shut down our offense. That doesn't happen very often.
Anyway, read the poast. It's pretty interesting.
