Texas Football By The Numbers
by Peter Bean on Nov 12, 2008 4:29 PM CST
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintThis week I'm foregoing the usual list of random numbers for a holistic look at the defense. Let's start with the basics: Texas' overall defensive numbers in 2007 and 2008.
| Plays/Gm | Yds/Gm | Yds/Play | Points/Gm | Points/Play | |
| 2007 | 72.5 | 371 | 5.1 | 25.3 | .340 |
| 2008 | 65.2 | 353 | 5.4 | 20.7 | .317 |
| '08 Delta | -10% | -5% | +5% | -18% | -7% |
Even before comparing the offenses each defense faced, we can see Texas under Will Muschamp has ceded a bit more yardage while cutting down on points allowed. But take a look after the jump at the drastic difference in offensive competency of Texas' opponents between 2007 and '08.
| 2007 | Yds/Play | Pts/Play | 2008 | Yds/Play | Pts/Play | |
| Ark St | 5.4 | .34 | FAU | 5.7 | .32 | |
| TCU | 4.9 | .33 | UTEP | 5.8 | .50 | |
| UCF | 5.7 | .49 | Rice | 6.4 | .56 | |
| Rice | 5.3 | .42 | Arkansas | 5.3 | .30 | |
| K State | 5.8 | .49 | Colorado | 4.5 | .27 | |
| Oklahoma | 6.4 | .61 | Oklahoma | 7.0 | .66 | |
| Iowa St | 4.4 | .24 | Missouri | 7.3 | .64 | |
| Baylor | 4.9 | .25 | Okla St. | 7.2 | .62 | |
| Nebraska | 6.3 | .45 | Texas Tech | 7.5 | .63 | |
| Okla St. | 6.5 | .46 | Baylor | 5.8 | .42 | |
| Texas Tech | 6.8 | .53 | ||||
| A&M | 5.4 | .38 | ||||
| Arizona St | 5.3 | .43 | ||||
| Averages | 5.6 | .42 | Averages | 6.3 | .50 |
Texas' 2008 opponents-to-date are averaging a full 13 and 19 percent more yards and points per play, respectively. Though this data isn't perfectly controlled, it comports with what our eyeballs tell us is the case: this year's opposing offenses have been significantly more explosive than last year's.
Taking that into account, it's especially impressive that Muschamp's defense hasn't given much ground in terms of yardage allowed while the scoring defense has actually improved. All this, with two freshmen starting at safety. Not half bad, sir. Not half bad.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
to be fair...
last year we demoted our defensive coordinator because the job wasn’t getting done. we are giving up more yards now than we did last year. that really should be a red flag, especially after texas tech. IMO, it’s our offense that has really helped us. We’ve been able to hang points on the best of them. That’s impressive. I’m no Greg Davis fan, as in previous posts of mine, you can see, but he’s been the real impressive coordinator this year so far. (Yes, he’s had his mishaps) I think Muschamp is a GREAT coordinator and can and will do some really great things, but honestly I am not really attributing our W-L record to him this year.
If I sound like a hater, I’m not. I love my team and what they’ve done this year is amazing. But anyone who has really paid close attention to these games, can see that our DB’s are still getting lit up just as they were last year, and the year before that. Feel free to disagree with me. I’m probably in the minority here on BON.
Agree for the most part
I’m not sure why we would use last years terrible defense as a barometer for anything. I’m still in wait and see mode as far as Muschamp’s affect on our defense. IMO his biggest contribution this year has been his attitude and work ethic and the way they seem to have permeated the whole team.
Also, keep in mind that while he is breaking in all those youngsters at safety, he had the advantage of working with a better and deeper set of DE’s, plus a competent set of LB’s compared to last year.
Reply
“we are giving up more yards now than we did last year. that really should be a red flag, especially after texas tech.”
This is why I bothered charting out the vast superiority of the opposing offenses we’ve faced this year. Does that just not count in your book?
anyone who has really paid close attention to these games, can see that our DB’s are still getting lit up just as they were last year, and the year before that.
Our DBs have had their share of struggles, but again, it’s just crazy—in my opinion—not to take account the degree of difficulty they’re facing. We’re talking about arguably the greatest passing conference in the history of college football. Look at that four-game stretch: Oklahoma, Missouri, OSU, and Tech.
There have been some painful big play mistakes (55-yard TD to Wright against Baylor, the Gresham TD against OU, the Crabtree game winner in Lubbock), but on the whole, your take seems to me highly uncharitable. Especially given the personnel’s experience coming into the season.
Given the challenge facing Will Muschamp that I laid out this summer (which may have even underestimated how good the opposing offenses have turned out), I think the returns have to be considered excellent.
As to your point about the offense: I agree. I think it’s a big reason for the overall improvement. But I can’t agree with your pessimistic take on the D.
--PB--
PB, what if you substituted 2005 USC in those four games?
Take the Rose Bowl performance. My point is that Muschamp’s defense could have done nearly as well in many respects. Not superior, but manageable.
Those four games are going to be remembered a long time.
And today more than ever I get the feeling Tech not only has the greatest team in their history, but maybe one of the top 5 offenses ever.
I had a vision and in it Tech demolished OU. If the Sooners had Reynolds, they may have had a chance; now, they don’t.
Tech’s D has been the most prepared for every adversary in this backstretch run that I’ve seen in a long time. Texas’ accomplishment in the second half will be given great credit, but, damn, that ain’t gonna help OU at all.
OU may not be able to stop Tech
But unless OU lays a giant egg like Texas did in the first half or OSU did, there’s no way Tech is slowing down the Sooner attack. Some even argue that OU has a more prolific offense than Texas Tech.
It’s not going to be a game of stops. Tech may win, but if they do, their defense will have several black eyes delivered by Bradford and Co.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 12, 2008 8:43 PM CST up reply actions
If Tech can stop OSU's running game, they can stop OU's.
OU may hamper Tech offensively, but that’s all. I think Tech will blast them.
That's not OU's strength
Plus this game is in Norman. OU passes the ball just as well as Tech does, and that’s their main attack.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 12, 2008 11:26 PM CST up reply actions
OU runs 54% of the time, passes 46%.
The passing game produces more of OU yardage – 3, 553 yard or 65% of the 5,498 total yards to date. Running accounts for only 1,943 yards, 35% of total yardage, but 30 of the Sooner’s 69 TDs.
OU’s running is a critical part of their game. Texas held them to 48 yards on 26 rushes (39) (while OU passed 41 times (61) for 387 yards) and that was the defensive key of the second half. Their pass action became less effective as a result and cut down the long gainers. OU runs a lot of quick hitters, much like Tech. But I don’t think recognition is going to be a big problem.
I don’t think there’s much of an athlete edge at all, first teams anyway. I think Leach sees this for what it is: the chance of a coaching lifetime. With an extra week for rest and calculation, this should be very interesting. At least for a while.
OU also has been scoring 50+ points in a half recently
That leads to running the ball in the second half.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 13, 2008 8:26 AM CST up reply actions
It's not about necessarily about scoring.
It’s about having the capability of manipulating the defense and forcing it to play tighter, to occupy less of the field and leave more holes for passing.
A team can’t really play the accordion if they can’t run well enough. The defense can then start manipulating the offense by what it controls. Advantage D.
Great defenses
In the end you either are a great defense or you are not. Right now we are decidedly in the NOT column. Great defenses do not give up the kinds of yards we do and do not just chalk up giving up 30+ points a game to playing a good offense. Great defenses still manage to limit those offenses, like USC and LSU did to OU in the MNC games.
Muschamp can give us all those cute quotes about stats being for losers, but in reality all of those passing yards we’d given up were a true indication that we were a poor pass defense and extremely vulnerable to a team like Tech. And with the game on the line, those historical stats were a true indicator of what would happen on the last drive of that game.
Are we getting better? In some areas yes, but overall it is hard to say. Giving up more points this year than last against OU and Baylor, and giving up over 100 more yards to Tech this year sure don’t feel like a big improvement.
One more time
We’re facing some of the best offenses I’ve ever seen. That any college football defense has ever seen. MU, OU, Tech are all in the highest offensive peaks I can imagine.
Bottom line: This Texas defense is not “elite.” But it’s been—all things considered—a success.
On that I’ll hold my ground.
--PB--
You and I will have to agree to disagree.
I’m not a pessimist. I’m a realist. Part of being a fan is knowing where your team is weak, and we’re weak on defense right now.
If not for our own offense, we would be saying how the Will Muschamp project has been a failure, especially given last year’s stats. When you replied earlier to me, you also forgot to mention the second half of Missouri, which was one just as bad as the first half against Tech. (Meaning some of the worst defense I’ve seen in 10 years)
The one thing I was expecting to see from Muschamp this year was player improvement and development. Gideon and Thomas will be studs. But Deon Beasley? Ryan Palmer? These players have experience, and have probably regressed under our him, and that is the most disappointing thing for me this year.
Truly, we are winning this year, in spite of our defense. The Tech team that played us this year probably doesn’t win that game with Aaron Ross, Cedric Griffin, or Tarrell Brown covering Crabtree. Griffin and Brown were not spectacular players, but they did develop and that is what I am bothered by with our defense.
I don’t know how having the 116th ranked pass defense can be considered a success? Are we a little too in love with our D coordinator? We pay him a lot of money to stop these “best offenses” you’ve ever seen, and unfortunately we really haven’t this year. I think it’ll change though. I like what he has to offer our school, but I’m not going to pretend like I don’t see what’s happening out there.
I reject this
“In the end you either are a great defense or you are not.”
Way too simplistic. What about a “good” defense? A “decent” defense? A “passable” defense?
Nobody is saying this Texas defense, with its young secondary, is super-elite. However, considering the youth in many areas and the prolific offenses we’re facing, Muschamp has done well with what he has. That’s all anyone is saying.
You could actuall make a great argument that it was the offense that truly blew the game against Tech, not the defense. The defense gave up that last score, but if the offense did not come out completely brain-dead in the first half, it would never have gone down to that. As our offense was acting absolutely retarded, our defense held to keep the score from getting out of hand.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 12, 2008 10:59 PM CST up reply actions
You are right, that is too simplistic
But we are the University of Texas, our defenses should be great. Anything less is NOS.
Also, everyone keeps bringing up the youth on defense. At safety I 100% agree. However, at CB we have a 5th year senior, a true Junior, a 3rd year Soph. and a true Soph. That is about as good as it is ever going to get in college football. Keep in mind too that the 2-deep at LB and DL includes 5 Seniors (2 with All-American potential) and 4 Juniors (at least 3 with All-Conference potential).
Are any defenses in the big 12 what you would consider great? #nt#whills
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 13, 2008 9:59 AM CST up reply actions
nope!
actually this conference is piss poor in defense. ESPECIALLY against the pass… here look at these stats. Colorado has the best ranked pass defense in the conference and they’re ranked #73.
- Colorado
- Texas A&M
- Nebraska
- Oklahoma
- Kansas State
- Texas Tech
- Baylor
- Missouri
- Texas
- Oklahoma State
- Iowa State
- Kansas
That’s alarming for us, and especially as a conference. I don’t buy the argument that since everyone sucks, we should suck too. Where are our expectations??? 110th against the pass? We gotta do better.
To put things another way, winless Washington St. which let USC hang 69 on them, is ranked 33rd in pass defense.
The Huskies, with a lame duck coach, is ranked 87th, which would make them the second best pass defense in the Big 12.
Once again, we’ve got to do better.
So you dont think that the offenses in the conference have any effect on it?
Or all just all the coaches, and all the players in the big 12 bad?
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 13, 2008 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
no i'm positive they do actually.
But 110th is bad. It means we aren’t stopping anybody. Historically these great offensive teams, dont win championships. At least from what I’ve seen.
I don’t really understand your train of thought though? Is it ok for us be 110th because we play in a conference with good offenses. We were in the hundreds last year too. As well as the year before that. (Stephen McGee threw over 400 yards.) I mean, we have just abandoned defense, which is why we have lost 6 games the last two years. This is a trend that really does not bode well for us moving forward.
Don’t get me wrong. I think we’ll get better. I really do. But come on, numbers don’t lie. Neither do the losses against Kansas State (twice), OU, a&m (twice), and tech.
Your sarcasm wasn’t uncalled for.
Im suggesting that the statistics are only useful to a point
I seriously doubt there are 109 teams better at defending the pass than we are. I also seriously doubt that Colorado has the best passing D in the big 12, however the statistics that you provide suggest that both of these things are true.
Without common opponents, the national rankings are only really useful for trends. Everyone knows that the big 12 is a pass happy league, your assumption is that its because the big 12 defenses are terrible against the pass, and I would argue that while they may not be spectacular against the pass, its as much a result of efficient offenses as it is poor defenses, as suggested by the grouping of the big 12 passing D’s more or less together at the bottom of the national rankings.
It would be one thing if say, OU was ranked in the top 25 in pass D, and the rest of the big 12 was at 70+, but that is not the case. Every team is down here with us. Every single one. So are all our defenses across the board littered with nonathletic talent and poor coaching? I don’t think they are.
I do think, there are several highly efficient offenses in the big 12, with more returning starting quarterbacks than any other conference leading those offenses. Not to mention the top level of play that we are seeing from the likes of Michael Irvin Crabtree, Jeremy Maclin, and Jordan Shipley.
Lastly yards mean very little. If you want some numbers that give a better indicator of the pass D, look at passing defense efficiency. But even that is worthless without consideration for the context and opponents.
If you do look at passing efficiency, you see a spread throughout the 119 FBS teams, and you see that Texas ranks near the middle of the pack. While I would argue these numbers are again skewed based on the competition, it certainly should make much more sense that this gives a closer picture of reality than saying that 109 defenses are playing better passing D than Texas.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 13, 2008 11:13 AM CST up reply actions
Last note, Texas is basically tied for 3rd in the conference in passing efficiency D
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 13, 2008 11:14 AM CST up reply actions
i agree with you,
there probably aren’t 109 teams better at defending the pass. But for the last 3 years, we’ve done a really bad job at it ourselves.
I just think we need to really do better on that side of the ball. Teams aren’t going to stop throwing on us until we prove we can stop it.
My biggest beef though is just the player development. I’d personally like to forget the numbers. I’m not HornBrain so I can’t go tit for tat with numbers. But when I see our DB’s out there (Beasley and Palmer) looking as if they should be playing for UT-Tyler, I get really worried. You don’t have to have these gaudy numbers, but please don’t get burned so often. Like i said, I think this will improve. But the numbers are only serving to back up my point about needing to improve what we allow teams to do.
Before conference began
So you dont think that the offenses in the conference have any effect on it?
We were ranked in the 80’s or 90’s before conference play began.
For reference, USC didn’t throw a pass for an entire half while defenestrating Washington St , so don’t turn around and claim that Washington State has a quality pass defense compared to the Big 12.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 13, 2008 10:58 AM CST up reply actions
thats not my point
my point is that they have a pass defense ranked about 77 slots higher than ours. and thats with the USC loss. i don’t think they have the same quality. 110 and 33 are very different. There’s other schools I can throw up there too, if you really want me to. They are just one example. I can use plenty others. Actually, I can use 109 others.
Tennessee is ranked 7th.
Clemson is 10th
We aren’t the only conference who plays good offense.
Rank means nothing without context!
You have no idea what you’re talking about. None whatsoever. You’re ignoring everyone else’s points.
You say: “110th is bad!”
Someone else says: “Here’s why that 110th ranking is misleading.”
You respond: “That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying 110th is bad.”
Someone else: “I understand that. But we are not the 110th worst pass defense in the country for these following reasons.”
You respond: “Right. But what you don’t understand is that I’m saying 110th is bad.”
Someone else: [Shoots themselves in the head]
i'm pretty sure
that conversation never happened. what makes you think i know nothing. because i have a different opinion than you. feel free to disagree with me, don’t be insulting.
You're right. I doubt anyone on BON shot themselves in the head because of you. Congrats.
Look, it’s one thing to have a different opinion on . It’s quite another to have an opinion that is rooted in ignorance of what statistics mean. One could make an argument that pure raw statistics do matter more than rate statistics. If such an argument were well-constructed I would accept that argument as a different opinion, argue against it, and move on.
But you’re not offering a differing opinion. You’re offering a number: 110 (which for the record is incorrect). And you’re saying that this number means we’re bad. It does not. It means that we give up a lot of passing yards per game relative to other teams in division 1 college football. That does not mean we are bad. In fact, in some passing categories (that I outlined below) we are equal to teams that are in the top 10 in the nation in passing defense. That would lead one to believe that there are factors beyond how “good” a pass defense is that leads to its pass defense ranking.
But you are ignoring this information. This is why you are not “differing in opinion” with me. You are not arguing anything.
Have you read anything else that i've written though?
Or are you only focused on the numbers. Truthfully, I could care less about them. How about the need to just improve? Have you been watching the games this year? I think we have a bad defense against the pass. We get burned constantly. Opponents are just launching the ball down the field until we prove we can stop them, which we haven’t done very much of this season. We are winning in spite of our defensive lapses which is great. Because in the end, i’m confident…
It’ll improve.
I don't think you're getting this.
Say it with me now, CONTEXT. Numbers mean nothing without CONTEXT. The very fact that Texas is #109 in pass defense and Washington State is ranked #33 while being widely regarded as the worst team in division 1 football is evidence that pure, raw numbers don’t mean a whole lot.
Do you really think that if Washington State and Texas played the exact same teams under the exact same conditions that Washington would be allowing 80 fewer passing yards per game than Texas? If you do, then I’ll just stop now and give up hope. But if you have any sense of reason, you know that’s incorrect. You have to put things in CONTEXT.
You can’t just look at yards per game, you have to look at pass yards per attempt and pass yards per completion. Texas gives up 12.08 yards per completion, which is exactly .19 yards (or just a little more than half a freaking foot) more per play than the #2 pass defense in the country. Texas has a better completion percentage allowed than the number 8 pass defense team in the country.
Only 4 teams in the entire nation have had more passes thrown against them than Texas: Kansas, Oklahoma State, Missouri and Oregon. Not surprisingly, 4 of the 5 teams with the most passes thrown against them are in the Big 12. And also not surprisingly, none of those teams is above #97 in total pass defense. It’s not because they’re terrible defenses; it’s because teams throw on them constantly for whatever reason. In the Big 12, it’s because all the best teams are passing teams. CONTEXT!!!!
I was waiting for this to happen.
Bravo sir, I admire your dependability.
And to Saveadre I offer this. An easy way to find context (i.e. We see a lot of passes, and hence yards, because we’re typically leading by two touchdowns or more.)
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 13, 2008 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
i do agree that context is important.
i just think we need to improve, which i think that we will.
i think the reason we're thrown against so much
is because we are easily beaten by the pass, and the “trick play.” (Kansas St., Nebraska 2006)
I don’t disagree with you though on the fact that we just play in a conference where passing is dominant. But we have to do better against it.
Say this with me… WE MUST IMPROVE!!!!!
thats my only point to all this… WE MUST IMPROVE!
With all due respect
The thought that we must improve is not what people have a problem with. Everyone knows we have a mostly young defense that still makes silly mistakes and that we need to contine to improve. What people disagreed with is your assertion that our passing defense, and defense in general, was bad and that we were winning IN SPITE of our defense because our offense was so grand.
Truly, we are winning this year, in spite of our defense.
There it is. And it’s a wrong statement for the reasons outlined above by BiC, billyzane, and others, as well as the argument I made that we can very easily blame the Tech loss much more on the offense coming out completely flat than our defense, who often caused that Tech offense to go three and out or settle for field goals.
Against Oklahoma? We got torched through the air at times, but OU scored only 35 points that game (you may notice they are scoring a lot lately). OSU only posted 24 on us, and our defense saved the day by holding OSU to a field goal on one Colt turnover and then forcing a turnover on downs on his next. Against Tech, our defense definitely made their mistakes but they did play well enough to keep us in the game while our offense spent an entire freakin’ half getting out of bed.
Nobody is going to brag about our passing defense ranking. Nor are we going to flip out just because we’re down that low. When we understand context and other things like yards per completion, completion %, etc., then we get a better understanding of where our defense is.
Our offense has been much better than we hoped before the season started, but by no means are they winning games by themselves. They are getting plenty of help from our young and talented defense.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 13, 2008 2:17 PM CST up reply actions
Furthermore...
While I also would have liked to see better defense against Mizzou in the 2nd half, those were basically all garbage yards and points. Game was over at halftime, and everyone knew it. I’m not excusing the often lazy play that half, but it’s hard to blame them after playing a nearly perfect half and completly shutting down that prolific Tiger offense.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 13, 2008 2:20 PM CST up reply actions
Point taken...
Thanks for laying out your argument instead of starting it off with “You know nothing…”
Hey, I figured I was in the minority on this issue. I just wanted to point out something that I thought was painfully obvious. I didn’t want to sugarcoat things and give a lot of slaps on the back to defensive efforts that often times look so uninspired out there. And it will get better, i really believe that.
And giving up “only 35” to OU is the problem. Thats the improvelment I want us to see. I want us to be better than that (We all do), especially when Bradford went Elway on us the way he did.
I still think we have won in spite of our defense this season. (Three words: McCoy, Shipley, Cosby)
OU is scoring 51.4 points per game (57.8 ppg since playing us)
They have a very good offense, led by an extremely efficient returning starting QB.
Only two teams held them to only score 35, us and #2 overall ranked D TCU.
Seeing that we held OU to its lowest point total all year, Id say that was a pretty decent job our Defense did.
We have played the #2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 26 scoring offenses in the country, and still lead the big 12 in scoring defense. EVERY team can improve, this one is no different. I do however, think they deserve some credit for playing pretty darn well overall this year and helping, not hindering, us to a 9-1 record.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 13, 2008 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
No post about the three hoops signees?
I have a feeling one is in the works!
In Mack Brown We Trust!
Will Muschamp was....
my #1 choice for replacement of Akina at DC. I’m still a big fan. However, development in the secondary had better occur this off-season. Since 2005, we’ve produced good individual players. However, the unit hasn’t played well.
Texas Tech’s Offensive Production:
Season – Total yards, 1st Downs
2008 – 581, 31
2007 – 466, 26
2006 – 506, 27
2005 – 468, 29
2004 – 386, 20
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
Or, as Camus might put it
Does the realization of the absolute absurdity of opposing offenses require suicide?
No, it requires boom.
I’m with you, PB. Given the youth of our DBs and the unbelievable firepower of the offenses we face on a weekly basis, the defense has more than held its own.
by Longhorn in Canada on Nov 12, 2008 6:16 PM CST reply actions
Sorry, but I couldn't resist
after reading the thread where BONers debate whether Albert Camus was for or against a playoff. I’m still trying to figure out exactly how Trigger got into that debate. One thing is for sure. People who don’t read BON are missing something.
by Longhorn in Canada on Nov 12, 2008 6:25 PM CST reply actions
Muschamp's Brilliance Not Measured in Stats
I was initially very skeptical of Will – but now am a devoted follower. Here is why:
1. First of all, as per his famous quote, Will realizes “statistics are for losers”. I completely agree. The unbelievable offensive system, QBs, and coaching in the Big 12 renders most stats useless. What Will realizes is what is important are big plays. Sacks, intercepts, fumbles, defensive TDs. Will pressures the offense – period. Akina and Chizik did not. Their style is passe and inadequate in the face of today’s Big 12.
2. What stat measures energy and enthusiasm? In most years, I perceive Texas as a team with more talent than their performance indicates. Not this year. I see a team with a bunch of freshman selling out every play. This year’s team is playing up to every ounce of their ability.
3. His defensive style helped the offense. More looks, more pressure = more learning for Colt McCoy.
IMHO – bump this guy’s pay up to Head Coach of Run of the Mill University (read Iowa State) – and get him on board for next year.
The key to stopping Tech is third down.
The problems with that are:
1. Getting them to third down, which requires tight coverage, some pressure and sure tackling…no YAC.
2. Great pressure and sure tackling on third down.
3. Doing it again if they go for it on fourth down.
OSU could never stop them on third down. And they could never get their own offense out of first gear. FIAL.
Muschamp laid out the strategy and adjustments in the second half. A more mature and experienced Texas team would have won the game. A lesser team would have lost by several TDs more. It’s a multi-dimensional chess match and if you can’t coach like that, you have no chance against this year’s version at Tech. Muschamp can and did operate at that level, which is the highest recommendation I can give.
I find it a......
……bit humorous that when Will Muschamp was producing Top-10 defenses, which would be every season prior to arriving at Texas, he was all about stats. All over his bio, feature articles and quotes.
Suddenly, with the nation’s #37 scoring defense and #109 passing defense at Texas, we read the famous “statistics are for losers” quote. Somehow, I’m thinking those stats (means of measuring oneself against the competition) are still important to Will.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
Completely agree
Many people are totally misconstruing that Muschamp quote to provide authoritative satisfaction for their neo-luddite and anti-intellectual tendencies. He meant that great statistics don’t mean a damn thing if you’re not winning games. There’s no moral victory in statistics. He very much does care about statistics as a way to measure how well a team is performing in certain areas that can lead to victory and there have been plenty of articles written to that effect.
He was misquoted
He actually said statistics WITHOUT CONTEXT are for losers.
by Horncasting on Nov 13, 2008 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Muschamp...
Has been a success in my book. He has done a great job with what he inherited. Let’s see what he does with a year under his belt. I hope he stays so we can find out.
Additionally, Akina is great with the DB’s and last year showed how much his lack of presence there with those guys meant to us. It killed us as far as passing defense. This year he has the young safeties and those kids are playing up to their potential as freshmen in every way, and I credit Akina for that. Last year set us back IMO with Akina being not focused on developing the DBs and the upperclassmen are showing that by not being where they should be this year. However, there is a work in progress going on here from being the good defense that we are now to being the great one I suspect we will be next year, if the DLine can be good again. I credit Muschamp at the DC spot for that and Akina being back with the DBs for that. Hopefully Oscar Giles can coach his kids up too after our wonderful seniors leave us.
PB, you made your points well and I am in total agreement, the offensive firepower we have faced has been awesome this year and we have handled it about as well as we could have. I credit both Muschamp and Akina with the DBs again for that. Last year’s defense would have melted (more than they did in ’07) against the teams we have played this year.
As far as the Tech game went… the defense got the stops that were necessary for us to win the game and the offense did not take advantage of them in the 1st half when we needed it. The defense certainly got the stops also in the 2nd half and by then I think it was too late. Holding Tech to 38 points would have been more than enough to win the game with them last year… it was the offensive lack of production in the 1st half that cost us the game IMHO.
1 Peter 2:17
Stats for losers
While we gave up a crap load of yards to Tech, it should be noted that points wise, our defense was outstanding if you ask me. They scored 39, with 9 of them coming from a safety and a INT return for a TD. In the 2nd half, we didn’t give up an offensive TD till the very end. Muschamp’s 2nd half adjustments are still in effect.
Hopefully we can just get off to a better start against KU.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 13, 2008 12:09 PM CST reply actions
The stat we should be looking at
is pass yards given up per attempt. It better quantifies how much yardage we are giving up in pass defense regarless of how much/little someone throws against an opponent. With that in mind we are still way below average in a tie for 71st. We give up 7.0 yards per attempt. Note that we give up 7 yards per attempt not completion. That is not good no matter what kind of offenses you are facing. I will say that the only reason we can see improvement is the fact that our defense continues to stiffen as teams move deep into our territory. Earlier someone was talking about Washington and Washington St. having good pass defenses. Well in this catagory they rank 117 and 97 respectively. That seems about right for teams of their record.
yeah, i think you're right.
I honestly don’t really care so much about the numbers. It’s the overall improvement that I’m looking for. some of our players just don’t seem to be getting better. (thomas and gideon excluded) but this will change. for the record, were just to show that we arent even giving up the same yards they do. the fact that we are anywhere near the same category as UW in something is irritating enough. don’t get me wrong, they arent even worth speaking about.
Perhaps you are placing a bit too much emphasis on the secondary.
Several players have improved significantly (Roy Miller, Kindle, Orakpo to name a few). Several players just now reaching their full potential, and in the case of players like Miller, have already exceeded their perceived ceilings. Kindle, and Orakpo have created a pass rush that has been missing from UT football for over a decade. These are improvements.
I understand that you’re frustrated that our veteran CBs haven’t improved along with the other veterans, but sometimes players just don’t reach their potential. And perhaps, given the inherent limitations of Palmer and Beasley (both physically and eligibility wise), a more concerted effort was made to develop the Browns, Williams, and our safeties. After all, Muschamp, Akina and company only have so many hours per week to spend with the players.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 13, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions
I think the frustration comes from 3 years of this level of pass defense
Despite a ton of individual talent.
The fact that we aren’t seeing the improvement in the secondary despite the improved play by the DL and LB’s is what makes it that much more frustrating.
i think you are 100% right
honestly, i never really looked at it from that standpoint. thats a really good way to look at everything. It’s just frustrating to watch some weeks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
