Handful of Interesting Stats
Comments
-
Ossai, etcMikeDamone said:
So could be a lot better if they had the best players from the last 20 years? Chinsightful.animate said:We could be sooooo much better.
Imagine this team with:
mason foster and Donald Butler
Plus a Dante Pettis type, John Ross type and two Reggie Williams as your receivers
A dangerous kick and punt returner in Pettis
Our secondary unit, matured with less mistakes and more physicality and sure tackling.
Plus our defensive line at the vita vea, tank Johnson plus talent level.
We wouldn't have to worry about Peterman fucking things up because he'd relax in the sidelines ... Jerk himself off and realize that talent is taking care of shit themselves.
And finally an alpha mentality ... Because all that fucking talent knows it. -
I’ve been dooging it up for 18+ hoursMikeDamone said:Can’t we ignore all the problems and doog it up over the win?
-
With *REDACTED*, is his reaction slow or he slow? Maybe it’s abundance?animate said:Just watch the tape. Having no linebacking at all is fucking this team big-time, not even talking about the receivers.
Our front line is doing a good job but everytime I see Wellington get engulfed by one offensive blocker and can't seem to fight off and shed the block and disengage I want to stab myself.
Everytime I see Manu read and react to a play seconds later than bbk and be literally 5-8 feet away from where he should be drives me nuts.
Because our linebackers create such a liability in the middle of the field it makes it even more difficult for our secondary because they can't be doing their job plus the linebackers job.
I see him as too slow physically to get to where he needs to be to make the play. -
Didn’t Ngata get
What the Fck happened to Ngata moving to the middle? Seems like he would have been the perfect SAM, with Bowman and Tryon at Buck and WILSwaye said:
The piss poor LBers and barely serviceable WRers are the story of this season. We will either be able to work around those glaring holes in the roster, or not. DO it, and we are PAC12 Champs, don't do it and we are in the Depends Shit Yourself Bowel.animate said:Just watch the tape. Having no linebacking at all is fucking this team big-time, not even talking about the receivers.
Our front line is doing a good job but everytime I see Wellington get engulfed by one offensive blocker and can't seem to fight off and shed the block and disengage I want to stab myself.
Everytime I see Manu read and react to a play seconds later than bbk and be literally 5-8 feet away from where he should be drives me nuts.
Because our linebackers create such a liability in the middle of the field it makes it even more difficult for our secondary because they can't be doing their job plus the linebackers job.
One great receiver (just one) and one San Quentin nail driver at LBer (just one) and this entire team is different. -
No idea. Give me John Ross and BBK and this team wins the Rose Bowl. That's all we are missing. FMLNeGgaPlEaSe said:Didn’t Ngata get
What the Fck happened to Ngata moving to the middle? Seems like he would have been the perfect SAM, with Bowman and Tryon at Buck and WILSwaye said:
The piss poor LBers and barely serviceable WRers are the story of this season. We will either be able to work around those glaring holes in the roster, or not. DO it, and we are PAC12 Champs, don't do it and we are in the Depends Shit Yourself Bowel.animate said:Just watch the tape. Having no linebacking at all is fucking this team big-time, not even talking about the receivers.
Our front line is doing a good job but everytime I see Wellington get engulfed by one offensive blocker and can't seem to fight off and shed the block and disengage I want to stab myself.
Everytime I see Manu read and react to a play seconds later than bbk and be literally 5-8 feet away from where he should be drives me nuts.
Because our linebackers create such a liability in the middle of the field it makes it even more difficult for our secondary because they can't be doing their job plus the linebackers job.
One great receiver (just one) and one San Quentin nail driver at LBer (just one) and this entire team is different. -
1.) USC didn't destroy Utah's defense. USC/Fink destroyed FS Whittingham, who refused to back out of press man coverage after the fifth time Fink lobbed an arm punt to a triple covered receiver. I kept waiting for an interception, but it took until late in the game. You want to talk about moral victories/defeats for outgaining an opponent, Utah outgained USC 457 to 381 and won the turnover battle 2:1. USC's offense looked horrible all game, Fink wishes he has Browning's arm, and yet they kept getting lucky on lobs over and over again.
2.) USC beat Utah in spite of the statistical deficiencies for the same reason USC was so boom-or-bust against UW: They have freak skill position athletes who are bound to make a big play from time to time on their own and freak D-line/linebackers (Gaoteote)/edge (Jackson) players who can occasionally blow up a play on their own and create a momentum swing. What they lack is both scheme and discipline necessary to be consistent and glaring holes elsewhere in their lineup (QB, DB, OL is not great) that causes them to trade big positive plays for big negative plays. They're such a weird team. If I had to sum it up, it's, "What if Randy Moss, Doug Baldwin, Vita Vea, and Bobby Wagner played at Oregon State?"
3.) Aiding in the boom-or-bust nature of USC's offense in this game were the obvious personnel issues on the UW side. Anybody dooging over the defensive performance right now needs to understand that Fink has a historically bad arm at this level, and he's not very athletic to boot. His numbers against Utah were a mirage, and anybody watching that game knows it. The Husky defense have not faced a quarterback with so limiting arm talent, and they will not face another. And this advantage was compounded by their staff's dogged refusal to just keep running right at the UW 3 and 4 man fronts that were getting gashed. The linebackers are a problem, and I'm surprised at the extent. If before the season somebody was to show me the film of this game and tell me that either 13 or 30 was walk-on Ulofoshio, my response would be, "Bummer; I thought he was going to be better than that."
These are the starting linebackers, though, and it's a huge liability. Lake/Kwiatkowski are scheming their asses off to hide the fact that this is a linebacker-free defense (lot of A-gap blitzes that accomplish nothing but occupy a blocker and simplify gap responsibilities), but occasionally those guys are going to be relied upon to diagnose quickly, fill the proper gap before blocking leverage can be established, possibly shed said block, and make the tackle. This is where 60, 12, and 35 happen. They will continue to happen, as there is no "this year" fix to this problem. Utah will break off at least as many big runs, ditto Oregon.
4.) A lot of the problem against the run yesterday was the amount of manpower dedicated to conservatively stopping the passing game, as USC's scheme dictated. When it's 5-on-5 up front, all 5 have to at least stalemate, and the linebackers WILL have to shed a block or collapse a running lane. Utah, on the other hand, cockily stayed in their base defense and attacked the LOS. They gave up negative rushing yards until late in the 4th quarter, but it cost them dearly down the field. I'll take UW's compromise there--difference between win and loss. On the flip side, if you're asking a linebacker to have that big of a responsibility in the run game, things like that 4th down conversion are just going to happen, as the linebackers are going to be slower to drop into their zones (or not asked to at all). Those down on Molden for allowing that catch are crazy. You're asking a corner playing face-up on Amon-Ra St. Brown (inside and outside responsibility) to stop a slant for less than five yards? There are zero slot corners in the country who can do that. Winning that battle had to involve either hoping for a bad throw, bringing a safety up and risking a gamble over the top, or dropping a linebacker and conceding a first down run (almost certainly). It was a very conservative defensive call on 4th down, and it didn't pay off in the end, as I believe 'SC scored on that drive anyway. -
I noticed that was different since EWU and I was wondering what they were trying to accomplish by sending a LB in those blitzes but nothing pairing it with anything exotic upfront.1to392831weretaken said:1.) USC didn't destroy Utah's defense. USC/Fink destroyed FS Whittingham, who refused to back out of press man coverage after the fifth time Fink lobbed an arm punt to a triple covered receiver. I kept waiting for an interception, but it took until late in the game. You want to talk about moral victories/defeats for outgaining an opponent, Utah outgained USC 457 to 381 and won the turnover battle 2:1. USC's offense looked horrible all game, Fink wishes he has Browning's arm, and yet they kept getting lucky on lobs over and over again.
2.) USC beat Utah in spite of the statistical deficiencies for the same reason USC was so boom-or-bust against UW: They have freak skill position athletes who are bound to make a big play from time to time on their own and freak D-line/linebackers (Gaoteote)/edge (Jackson) players who can occasionally blow up a play on their own and create a momentum swing. What they lack is both scheme and discipline necessary to be consistent and glaring holes elsewhere in their lineup (QB, DB, OL is not great) that causes them to trade big positive plays for big negative plays. They're such a weird team. If I had to sum it up, it's, "What if Randy Moss, Doug Baldwin, Vita Vea, and Bobby Wagner played at Oregon State?"
3.) Aiding in the boom-or-bust nature of USC's offense in this game were the obvious personnel issues on the UW side. Anybody dooging over the defensive performance right now needs to understand that Fink has a historically bad arm at this level, and he's not very athletic to boot. His numbers against Utah were a mirage, and anybody watching that game knows it. The Husky defense have not faced a quarterback with so limiting arm talent, and they will not face another. And this advantage was compounded by their staff's dogged refusal to just keep running right at the UW 3 and 4 man fronts that were getting gashed. The linebackers are a problem, and I'm surprised at the extent. If before the season somebody was to show me the film of this game and tell me that either 13 or 30 was walk-on Ulofoshio, my response would be, "Bummer; I thought he was going to be better than that."
These are the starting linebackers, though, and it's a huge liability. Lake/Kwiatkowski are scheming their asses off to hide the fact that this is a linebacker-free defense (lot of A-gap blitzes that accomplish nothing but occupy a blocker and simplify gap responsibilities), but occasionally those guys are going to be relied upon to diagnose quickly, fill the proper gap before blocking leverage can be established, possibly shed said block, and make the tackle. This is where 60, 12, and 35 happen. They will continue to happen, as there is no "this year" fix to this problem. Utah will break off at least as many big runs, ditto Oregon.
4.) A lot of the problem against the run yesterday was the amount of manpower dedicated to conservatively stopping the passing game, as USC's scheme dictated. When it's 5-on-5 up front, all 5 have to at least stalemate, and the linebackers WILL have to shed a block or collapse a running lane. Utah, on the other hand, cockily stayed in their base defense and attacked the LOS. They gave up negative rushing yards until late in the 4th quarter, but it cost them dearly down the field. I'll take UW's compromise there--difference between win and loss. On the flip side, if you're asking a linebacker to have that big of a responsibility in the run game, things like that 4th down conversion are just going to happen, as the linebackers are going to be slower to drop into their zones (or not asked to at all). Those down on Molden for allowing that catch are crazy. You're asking a corner playing face-up on Amon-Ra St. Brown (inside and outside responsibility) to stop a slant for less than five yards? There are zero slot corners in the country who can do that. Winning that battle had to involve either hoping for a bad throw, bringing a safety up and risking a gamble over the top, or dropping a linebacker and conceding a first down run (almost certainly). It was a very conservative defensive call on 4th down, and it didn't pay off in the end, as I believe 'SC scored on that drive anyway.
This makes sense because it's probably better for our LBs to play aggressor and run to a point rather than wait, try to diagnose, and be late running to the point of attack. -
What is the current stat where we hold the record for straight games of XX amount of points scored or less by a defense? Aren't we the all-time holder now?
-
The defense is averaging 17.2 pts per game against rn. That's right in line with where it's been for four years. Only offenses left to play are Oregon and Wazzu.
Say what you want about how "different" the defense is from past years but the results are going to be similar to what we expect out of a Lake/Kawasaki Defense.
-
1to392831weretaken said:
1.) USC didn't destroy Utah's defense. USC/Fink destroyed FS Whittingham, who refused to back out of press man coverage after the fifth time Fink lobbed an arm punt to a triple covered receiver. I kept waiting for an interception, but it took until late in the game. You want to talk about moral victories/defeats for outgaining an opponent, Utah outgained USC 457 to 381 and won the turnover battle 2:1. USC's offense looked horrible all game, Fink wishes he has Browning's arm, and yet they kept getting lucky on lobs over and over again.
2.) USC beat Utah in spite of the statistical deficiencies for the same reason USC was so boom-or-bust against UW: They have freak skill position athletes who are bound to make a big play from time to time on their own and freak D-line/linebackers (Gaoteote)/edge (Jackson) players who can occasionally blow up a play on their own and create a momentum swing. What they lack is both scheme and discipline necessary to be consistent and glaring holes elsewhere in their lineup (QB, DB, OL is not great) that causes them to trade big positive plays for big negative plays. They're such a weird team. If I had to sum it up, it's, "What if Randy Moss, Doug Baldwin, Vita Vea, and Bobby Wagner played at Oregon State?"
3.) Aiding in the boom-or-bust nature of USC's offense in this game were the obvious personnel issues on the UW side. Anybody dooging over the defensive performance right now needs to understand that Fink has a historically bad arm at this level, and he's not very athletic to boot. His numbers against Utah were a mirage, and anybody watching that game knows it. The Husky defense have not faced a quarterback with so limiting arm talent, and they will not face another. And this advantage was compounded by their staff's dogged refusal to just keep running right at the UW 3 and 4 man fronts that were getting gashed. The linebackers are a problem, and I'm surprised at the extent. If before the season somebody was to show me the film of this game and tell me that either 13 or 30 was walk-on Ulofoshio, my response would be, "Bummer; I thought he was going to be better than that."
These are the starting linebackers, though, and it's a huge liability. Lake/Kwiatkowski are scheming their asses off to hide the fact that this is a linebacker-free defense (lot of A-gap blitzes that accomplish nothing but occupy a blocker and simplify gap responsibilities), but occasionally those guys are going to be relied upon to diagnose quickly, fill the proper gap before blocking leverage can be established, possibly shed said block, and make the tackle. This is where 60, 12, and 35 happen. They will continue to happen, as there is no "this year" fix to this problem. Utah will break off at least as many big runs, ditto Oregon.
4.) A lot of the problem against the run yesterday was the amount of manpower dedicated to conservatively stopping the passing game, as USC's scheme dictated. When it's 5-on-5 up front, all 5 have to at least stalemate, and the linebackers WILL have to shed a block or collapse a running lane. Utah, on the other hand, cockily stayed in their base defense and attacked the LOS. They gave up negative rushing yards until late in the 4th quarter, but it cost them dearly down the field. I'll take UW's compromise there--difference between win and loss. On the flip side, if you're asking a linebacker to have that big of a responsibility in the run game, things like that 4th down conversion are just going to happen, as the linebackers are going to be slower to drop into their zones (or not asked to at all). Those down on Molden for allowing that catch are crazy. You're asking a corner playing face-up on Amon-Ra St. Brown (inside and outside responsibility) to stop a slant for less than five yards? There are zero slot corners in the country who can do that. Winning that battle had to involve either hoping for a bad throw, bringing a safety up and risking a gamble over the top, or dropping a linebacker and conceding a first down run (almost certainly). It was a very conservative defensive call on 4th down, and it didn't pay off in the end, as I believe 'SC scored on that drive anyway.
My apologies if the phrase “USC destroyed Utah” triggered you.
Nothing in your breakdown is incorrect. It’s actually spot on, and I always appreciate your knowledge. I am not naive enough to believe USC has good coaching that makes smart decisions. I also know that Matt Fink has an arm punt on his right shoulder that even Browning laughs at. And I understand exactly what Utah was doing wrong last week. I am not arguing any of that.
But the second part of my phrase was “with deep bombs”, which was correct. My point, was that despite USC’s coaching deficiencies, they let their supreme athletes make plays against Utah. And Utah never adjusted.
Washington didn’t make that mistake.
Again, against UW:
3 passes over 10 yards: a 12, a 19, and a 44 yard busted coverage. The rest of the passing attack was held to just 94 yards on 16 completions.
3 runs over 10 yards: a 60, a 12, and a 35. The rest of the rushing attack was held to 110 yards on 30 carries.
USC had 3 long drives: 79 yards, 65 yards, 74 yards. A total of 218 yards.
The other 9 drives: 33, -4, -3, 30, 39, 6, 5, -3, 29.
2 touchdowns, 6 punts, 3 interceptions, 1 downs.
Against Utah and their stout defensive line and defensive backs:
11 passes over 10 yards: a 12, a 15, a 29, a 25, a 12, a 31, a 39, a 10, a 77, a 12, and a 42, The rest of the passing attack was held to 64 yards on 10 completions.
1 run of 10 yards. The rest of the rushing attack was held to 3 yards on 21 carries.
USC had 4 long drives: 81 yards, 74 yards, 90 yards, and 64 yards. A total of 218 yards.
The other 6 drives: 6, 38, 9, 1, -4, 24, and 8 yards to run out clock and end the game.
4 touchdowns, 4 punts, 2 turnovers.
My main point of the thread and poast was not to champion the UW defense as being elite or dominant or without major deficiencies. It was to highlight that despite all the fucktarded shit we have seen from them, the numbers are in line with what we’ve seen the last few years in points allowed. The takeaways have improved from the start of the season.
And most importantly, was to show that despite his vaunted secondary that he believes in above all else, Jimmy wasn’t stubborn or fucktarded to go 1 on 1 all game with the freaks USC has at offense. Even with a shit QB with a shit arm, that is a win for USC. Utah played press man on man and shut down the run.
Jimmy gave an Air RAID offense room to run and took away the elite WR chance to win the game on their own. Except for 3 big runs, the plan worked. USC averaged 3 yards per carry and their offense was contained.
Jimmy refused to give up the big jump balls that favor USC’s WR group. Take out a blown coverage on two True Freshman and USC has no passing attack and threw 3 picks.
