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.
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.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But if he does, he can get the Cooper Memorial Knee Award AND there won't be a dry eye in the house! Abundance!
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.
If the pass rush can stay effective, it will go a long way to keeping the pressure off those young safeties.
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.
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.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury.
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.
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.
Totally forgot we got Hudson back. That makes me feel a little better about the depth.
Shelton, Kikaha, Thompson, and Peters will need enormous season's to be considered first round picks. All very solid, Peters to me has the best shot at being a first round pick.
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 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.
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.
The best thing to to happen to the defense is that Wilcox and current D coordinator worked together at BSU and incorporate similar systems. Reducing learning curve.
Shelton, Kikaha, Thompson, and Peters will need enormous season's to be considered first round picks. All very solid, Peters to me has the best shot at being a first round pick.
Agreed on all. Honestly Peters and Thompson are the only ones I can see being a first rounder ever, and that's really just based on TBS hype for Thompson. Shelton and Kikaha are not first round type DL's.
Shelton is probably a mid rounder. He's one dimensional...basically a plug in the center of the line. Ta'amu or however the fuck you spell it was similar but more disruptive than Shelton and the knock on him (as I remember it) was that he was one dimensional. I think their draft positions will be similar.
Kikaha is probably a draft pick but I wouldn't venture to predict him any higher than round 4-5.
Thompson and Peters both have a shot as others have said. They need good seasons and impressive combines (no shit). I think they both have that in them.
Shelton, Kikaha, Thompson, and Peters will need enormous season's to be considered first round picks. All very solid, Peters to me has the best shot at being a first round pick.
Agreed on all. Honestly Peters and Thompson are the only ones I can see being a first rounder ever, and that's really just based on TBS hype for Thompson. Shelton and Kikaha are not first round type DL's.
Kikaha had comparable numbers to the DEs that got drafted in the first round last draft
Shelton, Kikaha, Thompson, and Peters will need enormous season's to be considered first round picks. All very solid, Peters to me has the best shot at being a first round pick.
Agreed on all. Honestly Peters and Thompson are the only ones I can see being a first rounder ever, and that's really just based on TBS hype for Thompson. Shelton and Kikaha are not first round type DL's.
Kikaha had comparable numbers to the DEs that got drafted in the first round last draft
Jackson Jeffcoat was a 5 star recruit, had 13 sacks last year, and was Big 12 defensive player of the year. He went undrafted. Kikaha has torn his ACL twice and is somewhat small for a 4-3 DE. There's more that goes into drafting than their stats.
Comments
Expecting first in the conference is too optimistic, but I do expect this to be a top 3 defense, baring injury.
#grammarsuperiorityguy
That is the only thing I don't like about the defense though. Should be in the upper half of the conference.
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.
HTH.
Qualls? Kelly? Beirra? Beuller?
Kikaha is probably a draft pick but I wouldn't venture to predict him any higher than round 4-5.
Thompson and Peters both have a shot as others have said. They need good seasons and impressive combines (no shit). I think they both have that in them.