Football Discussion: How Good will the Defense be?
Comments
-
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.
