I want to offer a thought, on a subject I’ve never heard discussed.
For years, the conventional wisdom on offense in football has focused on the average: On average, how well does this team move the ball? Are they able to consistently win at the line of scrimmage, move ball downfield, dominate time of possession, and score.?
It’s not a flawed method, by any means. But in the last decade, a number of people, led perhaps by Bill Bellichick, have focused their attention on two metrics: great plays—“explosive” plays that gain big yards—and horrible plays, which are turnovers. Win that battles—make more big plays and suffer fewer bad ones—and, these students of what they call "Toxic Differential" say, the wins follow.
If this is true, then the same must be true of defenses: preventing big plays and forcing turnovers are the keys to a winning defense.
And if this is true, perhaps we should view our defense in this second light. Our tendency has been to fear we may have some holes: too few proven DLs and some worry at safety.
But what if we focus on the big play potential of this defense instead?
That potential looks unprecedented to me—that is, if we look only at the number of guys capable of a big play all by themselves: Whitfield has it, as we saw against UCLA on his breathtaking catch; Kalamabayi has it, and I’ve seen it from Noor Davis—how did he get to that int? We have more spectacular pure athletes on this defense—add in Alfieri, Terrence Alexander, and Solomon Thomas—than I could name on an all Stanford defense of 2000-2010. And I'm not yet including Holder and Meeks,
Then I think of three Pac-12 defenders who made huge plays all by themselves: Shaq Thompson for the Huskies, Sua Cravens for SC. and Ekpre-Olumu—before he began saving himself fot the NFL draft—for Oregon. And I then of the bright shining year for Ed Reynolds, and his interceptions that may have won that UCLA game.
Our past two defenses have been exceptional, but largely because they were excellent man by man and play for play, and—we may decide one day—superbly coached. But last year’s team didn’t turn teams over: we ranked 111th in the nation in fumbles forced, and 81st in opponent’s interception percentage. We had only 68 yards in interception returns; only Cal, Colorado, and Washington State had fewer. We didn’t return any of those picks for touchdowns; Washington, Utah, ASU, and UCLA combined for 13. (Not incidentally, we totaled seven pick-sixes in our previous two seasons,)
So---and thanks to everyone who has come this far—perhaps we won’t be as solid defensively this year, without Parry stuffing up the middle and Anderson coming off the edge. And it’s near certain we won’t ranked 7th nationally in sacks per opponent’s pass attempt, as we did last year. But if we are merely average at forcing turnovers, we will have a more explosive defense.
And if this apparent bumper crop of play makers make the plays of which they appear so capable, this years’s defense may net out to be as good—at least in doing what a defense must do to win games—as last year’s,
And if Scarlett or Thomas, or both, can generate a big pass rush, might this year’s defense actually be better, assuming the value of forcing turnovers?
For years, the conventional wisdom on offense in football has focused on the average: On average, how well does this team move the ball? Are they able to consistently win at the line of scrimmage, move ball downfield, dominate time of possession, and score.?
It’s not a flawed method, by any means. But in the last decade, a number of people, led perhaps by Bill Bellichick, have focused their attention on two metrics: great plays—“explosive” plays that gain big yards—and horrible plays, which are turnovers. Win that battles—make more big plays and suffer fewer bad ones—and, these students of what they call "Toxic Differential" say, the wins follow.
If this is true, then the same must be true of defenses: preventing big plays and forcing turnovers are the keys to a winning defense.
And if this is true, perhaps we should view our defense in this second light. Our tendency has been to fear we may have some holes: too few proven DLs and some worry at safety.
But what if we focus on the big play potential of this defense instead?
That potential looks unprecedented to me—that is, if we look only at the number of guys capable of a big play all by themselves: Whitfield has it, as we saw against UCLA on his breathtaking catch; Kalamabayi has it, and I’ve seen it from Noor Davis—how did he get to that int? We have more spectacular pure athletes on this defense—add in Alfieri, Terrence Alexander, and Solomon Thomas—than I could name on an all Stanford defense of 2000-2010. And I'm not yet including Holder and Meeks,
Then I think of three Pac-12 defenders who made huge plays all by themselves: Shaq Thompson for the Huskies, Sua Cravens for SC. and Ekpre-Olumu—before he began saving himself fot the NFL draft—for Oregon. And I then of the bright shining year for Ed Reynolds, and his interceptions that may have won that UCLA game.
Our past two defenses have been exceptional, but largely because they were excellent man by man and play for play, and—we may decide one day—superbly coached. But last year’s team didn’t turn teams over: we ranked 111th in the nation in fumbles forced, and 81st in opponent’s interception percentage. We had only 68 yards in interception returns; only Cal, Colorado, and Washington State had fewer. We didn’t return any of those picks for touchdowns; Washington, Utah, ASU, and UCLA combined for 13. (Not incidentally, we totaled seven pick-sixes in our previous two seasons,)
So---and thanks to everyone who has come this far—perhaps we won’t be as solid defensively this year, without Parry stuffing up the middle and Anderson coming off the edge. And it’s near certain we won’t ranked 7th nationally in sacks per opponent’s pass attempt, as we did last year. But if we are merely average at forcing turnovers, we will have a more explosive defense.
And if this apparent bumper crop of play makers make the plays of which they appear so capable, this years’s defense may net out to be as good—at least in doing what a defense must do to win games—as last year’s,
And if Scarlett or Thomas, or both, can generate a big pass rush, might this year’s defense actually be better, assuming the value of forcing turnovers?
