Football Discussion: How Good will the Defense be?
Link: http://bit.ly/1juesxr (I promise no citrus).
First, Stanford shouldn't have 4 guys on there. With UW seems that they got it right.
Statistically we had roughly the 20th best defense last season. How good will it be this season? Could it be top 10? Will we not be a top 10 defense because we lack a big time safety? Will the front 7 be really good?
Comments
-
Why shouldn't Stanford have 4 guys on there?
-
The only name I recognize from Stanford was Anderson ... so not sure how much of the Stanford guys are there because of what they've accomplished versus the recognition/respect that Stanford has.
I would think that the UW defense has a chance to be the best in the conference. Our front seven should be very strong for sure.
I don't think we'll be talking about the defense costing us games this year. -
There are a lot of good players. Strengths are the starting front 7, the pass rush, and overall speed on due to a very fast group of linebackers. The weaknesses are a lack of a proven 300 pound guy to spell Shelton and breaking in new starters at safety and one corner spot. The lack of depth at DB and at DT are the big concerns.
I think the veteran linebackers and pass rush will hold it all together. College defenses never have the luxury of proven starters or depth at every position. Three positions of concern is really not bad at all. The DBs have been the best coached unit over the past couple of years and the guys moving into starting roles should be OK.
Not perfect but very good. I'll say between 10-20, a touch better than last year. -
It will depend how the new secondary steps up. Peters is a monster obviously but the rest or it doesn't have too much experience. I feel good though and it has a good chance to be one of the best if not the best defense in the Pac.
Either way it will be interesting. -
-
IF UW doesnt have the best defense in the conference this year something went seriously wrong.
This team is going at least 11-2, and it's going to be the defense leading the way. It's a fucking stacked D. Kikaha, Shelton, Peters, and Thompson are all potential 1st rounders
I am definitely sipping the purple drank this offseason. Fuck koolaid -
This.PostGameOrangeSlices said:IF UW doesnt have the best defense in the conference this year something went seriously wrong.
This team is going at least 11-2, and it's going to be the defense leading the way. It's a fucking stacked D. Kikaha, Shelton, Peters, and Thompson are all potential 1st rounders
I am definitely sipping the purple drank this offseason. Fuck koolaid -
PostGameOrangeSlices said:
IF UW doesnt have the best defense in the conference this year something went seriously wrong.
This team is going at least 11-2, and it's going to be the defense leading the way. It's a fucking stacked D. Kikaha, Shelton, Peters, and Thompson are all potential 1st rounders
I am definitely sipping the purple drank this offseason. Fuck koolaid
I want that purple stuff
-
secondary is young
-
Lebron.
-
N***a, what the fuck is juice?PostGameOrangeSlices said:IF UW doesnt have the best defense in the conference this year something went seriously wrong.
This team is going at least 11-2, and it's going to be the defense leading the way. It's a fucking stacked D. Kikaha, Shelton, Peters, and Thompson are all potential 1st rounders
I am definitely sipping the purple drank this offseason. Fuck koolaid
-
Preseason watch lists are for fags.
-
If we are going to bash preseason watch lists when we're in the off season, then I am OUT.
-
Wake me on September 27thTierbsHsotBoobs said:Preseason
watch lists areis for fags. -
Your defense will be just good enough to hold Oregon to under 70 points.
-
PUMP MY GAS, DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OZONE said:Your defense will be just good enough to hold Oregon to under 70 points.
-
Twelve in a row. Again.allpurpleallgold said:
PUMP MY GAS, DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OZONE said:Your defense will be just good enough to hold Oregon to under 70 points.
-
I'm high on our defense, but best defense in the conference is pretty optimistic. Yards per play, red zone efficiency, and turnovers is all that really matters. Last year in yards per play, we were 28th in the country and 5th in the conference. The order before us was Oregon (7), Stanford (10), USC (18), and UCLA (22). In points allowed we were also 5th. Obviously the rankings are important, but Oregon's #7 didn't mean shit. They were soft up front and got destroyed by Stanford and Arizona.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-game
It's big that we have the front 7 and Peters all returning. I think we have some very good players. But let's not forget last year either. Even though we finished right at the top for sacks, there were games the pass rush was practically non existent. The heat from the edge was there, but we don't have a DT that is a threat to get sacks. We got destroyed up front against Oregon, ASU, and UCLA.
I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it. I see the same 5 teams being pretty good on defense, and playing at roughly the same level. I can't really decipher who is best. Each has some question marks and key players to replace. Oregon lost it's secondary except for Epke- whatever. Stanford lost Murphy, Gardner, and Skov. UCLA lost Barr, Marsh, and Zumwalt. USC has Sark as their head coach, lost a few key guys, and have shitty depth. USC doesn't have to play UW or Oregon though. That will really help their defensive numbers. We have issues in the secondary. I don't see a dominant defense in the Pac 12. I guess it's there for the taking, but other teams can make just as good of case as UW can.
I'm all in on 11-2 or 10-3. I think a top 3 offense and defense gets the job done. I think the offense will be more explosive than the pundits think. I see a balanced team that isn't the best offensively or defensively, but is more than good enough. -
Good post.RoadDawg55 said:I'm high on our defense, but best defense in the conference is pretty optimistic. Yards per play, red zone efficiency, and turnovers is all that really matters. Last year in yards per play, we were 28th in the country and 5th in the conference. The order before us was Oregon (7), Stanford (10), USC (18), and UCLA (22). In points allowed we were also 5th. Obviously the rankings are important, but Oregon's #7 didn't mean shit. They were soft up front and got destroyed by Stanford and Arizona.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-game
It's big that we have the front 7 and Peters all returning. I think we have some very good players. But let's not forget last year either. Even though we finished right at the top for sacks, there were games the pass rush was practically non existent. The heat from the edge was there, but we don't have a DT that is a threat to get sacks. We got destroyed up front against Oregon, ASU, and UCLA.
I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it. I see the same 5 teams being pretty good on defense, and playing at roughly the same level. I can't really decipher who is best. Each has some question marks and key players to replace. Oregon lost it's secondary except for Epke- whatever. Stanford lost Murphy, Gardner, and Skov. UCLA lost Barr, Marsh, and Zumwalt. USC has Sark as their head coach, lost a few key guys, and have shitty depth. USC doesn't have to play UW or Oregon though. That will really help their defensive numbers. We have issues in the secondary. I don't see a dominant defense in the Pac 12. I guess it's there for the taking, but other teams can make just as good of case as UW can.
I'm all in on 11-2 or 10-3. I think a top 3 offense and defense gets the job done. I think the offense will be more explosive than the pundits think. I see a balanced team that isn't the best offensively or defensively, but is more than good enough. -
I can't stand Sark, but the best decision he ever made was bringing in Justin Wilcox. Wilcox knew what he was doing, and turned around our defense in a short amount of time. Did he make us elite? No. Were there blowouts? Yes. But nobody can argue that we didn't improve...significantly.RoadDawg55 said:I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it.
I have no idea how good the defense will be under Peterman, maybe better, but I'm not ready to assume a jump. No doogin' it up. Need to see it.
And I agree that the lack of depth on the interior DL is a problem. Pray for a healthy season from Danny Shelton.
-
Very good post. We're also placing a ton of hope in Ki'Kaha's surgically repaired ligaments. If he busts an ACL this defense could easily fall to average. I am not a believer in LIttleton at all, and with Shirley gone there's no proven depth on the edge. Perhaps Farria or Mathis makes the leap but you can't assume those things.RoadDawg55 said:I'm high on our defense, but best defense in the conference is pretty optimistic. Yards per play, red zone efficiency, and turnovers is all that really matters. Last year in yards per play, we were 28th in the country and 5th in the conference. The order before us was Oregon (7), Stanford (10), USC (18), and UCLA (22). In points allowed we were also 5th. Obviously the rankings are important, but Oregon's #7 didn't mean shit. They were soft up front and got destroyed by Stanford and Arizona.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-game
It's big that we have the front 7 and Peters all returning. I think we have some very good players. But let's not forget last year either. Even though we finished right at the top for sacks, there were games the pass rush was practically non existent. The heat from the edge was there, but we don't have a DT that is a threat to get sacks. We got destroyed up front against Oregon, ASU, and UCLA.
I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it. I see the same 5 teams being pretty good on defense, and playing at roughly the same level. I can't really decipher who is best. Each has some question marks and key players to replace. Oregon lost it's secondary except for Epke- whatever. Stanford lost Murphy, Gardner, and Skov. UCLA lost Barr, Marsh, and Zumwalt. USC has Sark as their head coach, lost a few key guys, and have shitty depth. USC doesn't have to play UW or Oregon though. That will really help their defensive numbers. We have issues in the secondary. I don't see a dominant defense in the Pac 12. I guess it's there for the taking, but other teams can make just as good of case as UW can.
I'm all in on 11-2 or 10-3. I think a top 3 offense and defense gets the job done. I think the offense will be more explosive than the pundits think. I see a balanced team that isn't the best offensively or defensively, but is more than good enough.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury.
-
I agree that as Shelton and Kikaha go, so does our defense. I do think we have good talent falling in behind them though, but it is untested (Qualls, Mathis, Farria) as you point out. Almost every team has a top contributor or two, that if injured, will fuck them up badly. We are no different.dnc said:
Very good post. We're also placing a ton of hope in Ki'Kaha's surgically repaired ligaments. If he busts an ACL this defense could easily fall to average. I am not a believer in LIttleton at all, and with Shirley gone there's no proven depth on the edge. Perhaps Farria or Mathis makes the leap but you can't assume those things.RoadDawg55 said:I'm high on our defense, but best defense in the conference is pretty optimistic. Yards per play, red zone efficiency, and turnovers is all that really matters. Last year in yards per play, we were 28th in the country and 5th in the conference. The order before us was Oregon (7), Stanford (10), USC (18), and UCLA (22). In points allowed we were also 5th. Obviously the rankings are important, but Oregon's #7 didn't mean shit. They were soft up front and got destroyed by Stanford and Arizona.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-game
It's big that we have the front 7 and Peters all returning. I think we have some very good players. But let's not forget last year either. Even though we finished right at the top for sacks, there were games the pass rush was practically non existent. The heat from the edge was there, but we don't have a DT that is a threat to get sacks. We got destroyed up front against Oregon, ASU, and UCLA.
I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it. I see the same 5 teams being pretty good on defense, and playing at roughly the same level. I can't really decipher who is best. Each has some question marks and key players to replace. Oregon lost it's secondary except for Epke- whatever. Stanford lost Murphy, Gardner, and Skov. UCLA lost Barr, Marsh, and Zumwalt. USC has Sark as their head coach, lost a few key guys, and have shitty depth. USC doesn't have to play UW or Oregon though. That will really help their defensive numbers. We have issues in the secondary. I don't see a dominant defense in the Pac 12. I guess it's there for the taking, but other teams can make just as good of case as UW can.
I'm all in on 11-2 or 10-3. I think a top 3 offense and defense gets the job done. I think the offense will be more explosive than the pundits think. I see a balanced team that isn't the best offensively or defensively, but is more than good enough.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury. -
12 in a row again, implies there was a first 12 in a row which there wasn't. You are a fucking idiot.OZONE said:
Twelve in a row. Again.allpurpleallgold said:
PUMP MY GAS, DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OZONE said:Your defense will be just good enough to hold Oregon to under 70 points.
#grammarsuperiorityguy
-
This is certainly true. I just have a little less faith in a guy like Kikaha who has a history of injuries than someone like Shelton who's basically been a rock since he got here. Obviously Shelton could get hurt, but I don't expect him to. With Kikaha if he tears something it won't be a surprise.Swaye said:
I agree that as Shelton and Kikaha go, so does our defense. I do think we have good talent falling in behind them though, but it is untested (Qualls, Mathis, Farria) as you point out. Almost every team has a top contributor or two, that if injured, will fuck them up badly. We are no different.dnc said:
Very good post. We're also placing a ton of hope in Ki'Kaha's surgically repaired ligaments. If he busts an ACL this defense could easily fall to average. I am not a believer in LIttleton at all, and with Shirley gone there's no proven depth on the edge. Perhaps Farria or Mathis makes the leap but you can't assume those things.RoadDawg55 said:I'm high on our defense, but best defense in the conference is pretty optimistic. Yards per play, red zone efficiency, and turnovers is all that really matters. Last year in yards per play, we were 28th in the country and 5th in the conference. The order before us was Oregon (7), Stanford (10), USC (18), and UCLA (22). In points allowed we were also 5th. Obviously the rankings are important, but Oregon's #7 didn't mean shit. They were soft up front and got destroyed by Stanford and Arizona.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-game
It's big that we have the front 7 and Peters all returning. I think we have some very good players. But let's not forget last year either. Even though we finished right at the top for sacks, there were games the pass rush was practically non existent. The heat from the edge was there, but we don't have a DT that is a threat to get sacks. We got destroyed up front against Oregon, ASU, and UCLA.
I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it. I see the same 5 teams being pretty good on defense, and playing at roughly the same level. I can't really decipher who is best. Each has some question marks and key players to replace. Oregon lost it's secondary except for Epke- whatever. Stanford lost Murphy, Gardner, and Skov. UCLA lost Barr, Marsh, and Zumwalt. USC has Sark as their head coach, lost a few key guys, and have shitty depth. USC doesn't have to play UW or Oregon though. That will really help their defensive numbers. We have issues in the secondary. I don't see a dominant defense in the Pac 12. I guess it's there for the taking, but other teams can make just as good of case as UW can.
I'm all in on 11-2 or 10-3. I think a top 3 offense and defense gets the job done. I think the offense will be more explosive than the pundits think. I see a balanced team that isn't the best offensively or defensively, but is more than good enough.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury.
-
I worry about the defense against passing teams. I think our safeties are going to get exposed at times and possibly be a revolving door of injuries with as small as those guys are. I expect shoulder injuries and stingers to be a normal occurrence.
That is the only thing I don't like about the defense though. Should be in the upper half of the conference. -
Beat Washington! Nothing else matters!OZONE said:Your defense will be just good enough to hold Oregon to under 70 points.
-
But if he does, he can get the Cooper Memorial Knee Award AND there won't be a dry eye in the house! Abundance!dnc said:
This is certainly true. I just have a little less faith in a guy like Kikaha who has a history of injuries than someone like Shelton who's basically been a rock since he got here. Obviously Shelton could get hurt, but I don't expect him to. With Kikaha if he tears something it won't be a surprise.Swaye said:
I agree that as Shelton and Kikaha go, so does our defense. I do think we have good talent falling in behind them though, but it is untested (Qualls, Mathis, Farria) as you point out. Almost every team has a top contributor or two, that if injured, will fuck them up badly. We are no different.dnc said:
Very good post. We're also placing a ton of hope in Ki'Kaha's surgically repaired ligaments. If he busts an ACL this defense could easily fall to average. I am not a believer in LIttleton at all, and with Shirley gone there's no proven depth on the edge. Perhaps Farria or Mathis makes the leap but you can't assume those things.RoadDawg55 said:I'm high on our defense, but best defense in the conference is pretty optimistic. Yards per play, red zone efficiency, and turnovers is all that really matters. Last year in yards per play, we were 28th in the country and 5th in the conference. The order before us was Oregon (7), Stanford (10), USC (18), and UCLA (22). In points allowed we were also 5th. Obviously the rankings are important, but Oregon's #7 didn't mean shit. They were soft up front and got destroyed by Stanford and Arizona.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-game
It's big that we have the front 7 and Peters all returning. I think we have some very good players. But let's not forget last year either. Even though we finished right at the top for sacks, there were games the pass rush was practically non existent. The heat from the edge was there, but we don't have a DT that is a threat to get sacks. We got destroyed up front against Oregon, ASU, and UCLA.
I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it. I see the same 5 teams being pretty good on defense, and playing at roughly the same level. I can't really decipher who is best. Each has some question marks and key players to replace. Oregon lost it's secondary except for Epke- whatever. Stanford lost Murphy, Gardner, and Skov. UCLA lost Barr, Marsh, and Zumwalt. USC has Sark as their head coach, lost a few key guys, and have shitty depth. USC doesn't have to play UW or Oregon though. That will really help their defensive numbers. We have issues in the secondary. I don't see a dominant defense in the Pac 12. I guess it's there for the taking, but other teams can make just as good of case as UW can.
I'm all in on 11-2 or 10-3. I think a top 3 offense and defense gets the job done. I think the offense will be more explosive than the pundits think. I see a balanced team that isn't the best offensively or defensively, but is more than good enough.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury. -
If the pass rush can stay effective, it will go a long way to keeping the pressure off those young safeties.AtomicDawg said:I worry about the defense against passing teams. I think our safeties are going to get exposed at times and possibly be a revolving door of injuries with as small as those guys are. I expect shoulder injuries and stingers to be a normal occurrence.
That is the only thing I don't like about the defense though. Should be in the upper half of the conference. -
The first half of last season, I always wondered why Littleton started. It seemed like he never did anything. He did terrible as a freshman too. However, I did think he came on the 2nd half of the year. His numbers were actually pretty good. He's small though and missed a lot of tackles. I don't think he's great, but I think he has some ability.dnc said:
Very good post. We're also placing a ton of hope in Ki'Kaha's surgically repaired ligaments. If he busts an ACL this defense could easily fall to average. I am not a believer in LIttleton at all, and with Shirley gone there's no proven depth on the edge. Perhaps Farria or Mathis makes the leap but you can't assume those things.RoadDawg55 said:I'm high on our defense, but best defense in the conference is pretty optimistic. Yards per play, red zone efficiency, and turnovers is all that really matters. Last year in yards per play, we were 28th in the country and 5th in the conference. The order before us was Oregon (7), Stanford (10), USC (18), and UCLA (22). In points allowed we were also 5th. Obviously the rankings are important, but Oregon's #7 didn't mean shit. They were soft up front and got destroyed by Stanford and Arizona.
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-game
It's big that we have the front 7 and Peters all returning. I think we have some very good players. But let's not forget last year either. Even though we finished right at the top for sacks, there were games the pass rush was practically non existent. The heat from the edge was there, but we don't have a DT that is a threat to get sacks. We got destroyed up front against Oregon, ASU, and UCLA.
I think we improve in both, but I don't see a jump to first. I can see how it's possible though, but I will believe it when I see it. I see the same 5 teams being pretty good on defense, and playing at roughly the same level. I can't really decipher who is best. Each has some question marks and key players to replace. Oregon lost it's secondary except for Epke- whatever. Stanford lost Murphy, Gardner, and Skov. UCLA lost Barr, Marsh, and Zumwalt. USC has Sark as their head coach, lost a few key guys, and have shitty depth. USC doesn't have to play UW or Oregon though. That will really help their defensive numbers. We have issues in the secondary. I don't see a dominant defense in the Pac 12. I guess it's there for the taking, but other teams can make just as good of case as UW can.
I'm all in on 11-2 or 10-3. I think a top 3 offense and defense gets the job done. I think the offense will be more explosive than the pundits think. I see a balanced team that isn't the best offensively or defensively, but is more than good enough.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury.
I think Littleton was out all Spring though. That DE/OLB spot will be interesting to watch. I think it's the only starting spot in the front 7 up for grabs. With the new staff, maybe we run more of a traditional 4-3 with Mathis, Farria, or Andrew Hudson there. Maybe Berria or another young LB forces their way on the field. -
Not very.
HTH.
