Of course you won't look at them because they prove you 100% wrong. If you had watched any of IU's recent games, you'd know they were in them because of the offense and out of them because of the defense. A reasonably competitive defense and they win several of them. It's not a Big Ten ready D. Burying your head in the sand and ignoring what is obvious to everyone won't change that
You can blame Defense all you want....
- Thread starter 82IUGraduate
- Start date
I'm sorry, I missed where you changed it from "competitive" defense to "Big Ten ready D". Which one do you want me to argue? Just want to make sure I know which one is which before I say our defense did stop the other team's offense at times and they did not score on us for every possession. Maybe I can find some proof.
I am just guessing, but I think the cutoff for "the offense did their job" is probably 35 points. If you can score 35, that should be enough to win most games if you have a decent defense. On offense, you score 35, you can look at the defense and say, "you just had to hold them to roughly a TD per quarter and we win", I don't think that is too much to ask. The fact that IU has quite a few games over the years where they have to "outscore" the other team, lays the misfortunes at the feet of the defense.
No they don't....If you look purely at yards, there is no way you can compare a team like IU that plays up tempo vs. a team like Navy that plays keep away. The more posessions, the more opportunities for yards.
IU is always going to give up a lot of yards because of the style of offense they play. When you look only at numbers, you miss a lot.
I agree that the more possessions you have the more opportunity for yards, but I think it is also fair to say (and more accurate) that we give up more yards because of our style of defensive play. We currently rank #120 in total defense, right behind 0-10 UCF. IU is currently the worst pass defense in FBS and #119 out of 128 in red zone defense. That is where the problem is.
Offensively, we rank 30th, right behind ND. I do find it hard to believe you are trying to say the defense is bad, because the offense is good. When you only look through rose, err, crimson colored glasses, you miss a lot.
Not necessarily. We could play the same style of defense and give up fewer yards if offensively we play a posession game...only giving up 10 posessions a game. If our style of defense only gave up 15 yards per possession and teams average 10 possentions, we average giving up 150 per game...pretty good, right?
Now in a high tempo offense like what we play, if we give up 20 possessions a game (whether we score quicklyn turn the ball overn etc...), teams would average 300 yards per game. That doesnt look as good, even though we average the same number of yards per possession.
Now, with the different styles of offenses being played, we have to look at averages per possession just to get a more accurate comparison as opposed to totals.
I have heard Wilson say that we do have various packages where we can control the tempo of the game. When IU crossed the 50 yard line in the Michigan game with roughly 3+ minutes left, I would've really love to see us go to a huddle-up offense. At certain points in the game, just like Rutgers game, we need to have a very slow-down offense that chews clock and gives an opportunity to huddle and get people organized and focused.
I understand that our offense is an up-tempo style. However a truly great offense should be able to press the pedal and then ease up on the throttle when the game calls for it.
I understand that our offense is an up-tempo style. However a truly great offense should be able to press the pedal and then ease up on the throttle when the game calls for it.
Unless IU is changing conferences, having a Big Ten ready defense would seem essential if they are to compete in the Big Ten. I understand why you keep avoiding the truth, but it doesn't make your argument any more viable.
I didn't compare them to Navy, I compared them (and their results) to the Big Ten opponents whom they've played (and lost to, with their current conference record at 0-6). Had the defense been able to play at a competitive level, several of those losses would have been wins.
This isn't a difficult concept unless, of course, people are more interested in deflecting than they are in confronting reality. IU's defense isn't Big Ten ready, and it basically hasn't been since KW became the head coach. I certainly hope that changes at some point, but denying this rather obvious reality seems to be an exercise in futility. A conference record of 6-32, with high performing offenses for most of that period, confirms that the proverbial elephant in the room really is an elephant after all.
As an aside, I ran into an old friend after the Michigan game who happens to be a member of their radio team. While complimentary of IU's offense, he openly wondered how UM hadn't scored 70. We had a laugh over his line, but he's a recognized football guy who was pretty harsh about what he saw.
Agreed. I thought at the time I hope we go to a huddle. I knew if we left them more than a few seconds we were in trouble.
So you refuse to look at it from the other side is what you are saying and then you accuse him of doing the same. The truth lies in the middle. Looking just at yards given up standpoint, teams like us are going to be lower on the list. Baylor, TCU, TT, all give up a bunch of yards. Are we where we need to be? No. Are we a lot better than we were 2 years ago? Yes. I am not going to look it up but we generally get stops half the time this year. 2 years ago we didn't stop anybody at all. We held UM to 3 points for 29:55 of the second half. If they had held them out on that last play of regulation we would be talking about how great of a defensive effort it was. As for you last line, I don't buy that at all. The reason that UM did not put up 70 is because we did not allow them to. Just as you are always quick to point out, the scoreboard doesn't lie.
I'm not refusing anything but merely adhering to the facts. IU has the 120th ranked defense in the country, and they're 0-6 in the Big Ten. The difference between wins and losses has been a matter of defensive results, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. And, while you believe they're "better", there's little statistical evidence to support that view. Unfortunately, platitudes and hope don't replace hard evidence, which is why you keep coming up with arguments that simply deny the obvious.
I am not denying any of that, but to say that there is no statistical evidence to support the other view is wrong. There is plenty that has been pointed out to you that you refuse to acknowledge because it would put a damper on your tired rhetoric. Yes we are 0-6 in the B1G. Yes we are 120th in yards given up. Those are not the only metrics out there. They are however the only ones that support your argument.
The only tired rhetoric is your denial that what has happened really hasn't happened and that the failures of the defense are some kind of cruel mirage. In spite of what you want to believe, the truth stares you in the face, even as you desperately cover your eyes.
If you arent looking at possession based stats, then your numbers are going to be skewed...it is an equalizer for all teams as opposed to total stats.
Thats ok when you have an agenda
Thats ok when you have an agenda
I don't know: It seemed to work pretty well for the men's basketball program in the 1970s and 1980s.
My only "agenda" is to view IU football and the results objectively. That doesn't seem to be the case with quite a few here.
Similar threads
