Can you really have a highly efficient offense and a good defense?

[ZERO]

And should we really be worried about Texas A&M and Auburn going forward? I was looking at aTm's first year under Sumlin, when he had Manziel, and although they were known for their potent offense, they managed to finish 11-2 and #5 while giving up 30 points or greater only twice the entire season - once in a victory against the eventual national champ, and another in a weird victory against LA. Tech. Both of their losses were actually defensive battles against a 20-24 season opener loss to Florida, and another 19-24 nail biter against LSU.

The following year, their opponents scored 30 points eight times in 13 games, and last year the opponents scored 30 points six times. But if you'll remember, they've had ridiculous defensive attrition since then. I suspect this will eventually level out, and they're recruiting at as good a pace as ever.

I'm bringing this up because TAMU has four defensive commitments for '16, and they're all 4*. On top of that, they now have LSU's long-time DC, and we all know LSU's claim to fame has been their defense. Likewise, Auburn hired Will Muschamp for DC, a man who is a defensive mastermind. What is honestly the chances of these teams making a turnaround and being consistently good on defense while maintaining their offensive prowess? We often hear that an offense that produces too efficiently just leaves your defense on the field too long, and they wear down at an accelerated pace. A&M showed they could do it in 2012 with a DC nowhere near as good as Chavis, but was that just a fluke?

I also know that this is only barely Arkansas related, and if it needs to be moved to SEC Sports, so be it. I only posted it here because jbcarol has 91,000 posts and all of them are updates in the SEC Sports section, so I was just afraid it would be lost and overlooked like all of the other topics I've started in that forum.

[HF#1]

You can if you have playmakers on the outside with a solid running game and QB.

[ZERO]

You can if you have playmakers on the outside with a solid running game and QB.

I just feel like Sumlin is going to have the QB situation covered as long as he's at A&M. He really has a great passing game in all aspects. I kind of feel like we missed a good chance last year, because I don't think their QB situation is going to be that unstable very often.

[Paul]

if you define 'highly efficient" as those offenses that score in less than 3 min game clock time on average, then i wouldn't think the two would be compatible.  I'd like to see some stats on that though.

[sowmonella]

1969 Hogs 32 PPG  8 Points allowed pg
1977 Hogs 32 PPG  8 Points allowed pg

1986 OU  42.3 ppg  6.8 points allowed.

[jgphillips3]

Basic answer, yes.  If you meant can you have an explosive offense and dominant defense, it's tough.  Not impossible, but tough. 

[31to6]

if you define 'highly efficient" as those offenses that score in less than 3 min game clock time on average, then i wouldn't think the two would be compatible.  I'd like to see some stats on that though.

Yes, it depends on the definition of efficient.

Arkansas efficient = points / drive
aTm/Auburn efficient = points / minute

To my way of thinking, the high-powered offenses in terms of points/minute can have good defenses, but they run the risk of putting their defense in a bad situation because their offenses are high risk/high reward. When they work, look out. When they don't work, you can have 2-3 3-and-outs in a row and watch your opponent own an entire quarter.

The Arkansas-style efficient faces other risks, the main of which being that if they cannot move the ball the opponent can become even more aggressive on offense and put them in a hole they can't dig out of. Also, the Arkansas-style efficiency relies on keeping pace and then pulling ahead late in the game--which requires depth in the trenches that we have not had enough of in CBB's first seasons.

[carolinahogger]

Teams with finesse offenses tend to have finesse defenses, more adept at hesitating and reading instead of busting heads.  Those defenses can have problems with smashmouth offenses.

Teams with power offenses tend to have smashmouth defenses.  A smashmouth defense with strong talent is the highest form of defense.

This is one of the benefits of our style of offense.  Our defense has to play tough and physical because they go against tough and physical in practice every day.  Late last season we started to reap the defensive dividends of Bielema's tough offensive style.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

And should we really be worried about Texas A&M and Auburn going forward? I was looking at aTm's first year under Sumlin, when he had Manziel, and although they were known for their potent offense, they managed to finish 11-2 and #5 while giving up 30 points or greater only twice the entire season - once in a victory against the eventual national champ, and another in a weird victory against LA. Tech. Both of their losses were actually defensive battles against a 20-24 season opener loss to Florida, and another 19-24 nail biter against LSU.

The following year, their opponents scored 30 points eight times in 13 games, and last year the opponents scored 30 points six times. But if you'll remember, they've had ridiculous defensive attrition since then. I suspect this will eventually level out, and they're recruiting at as good a pace as ever.

I'm bringing this up because TAMU has four defensive commitments for '16, and they're all 4*. On top of that, they now have LSU's long-time DC, and we all know LSU's claim to fame has been their defense. Likewise, Auburn hired Will Muschamp for DC, a man who is a defensive mastermind. What is honestly the chances of these teams making a turnaround and being consistently good on defense while maintaining their offensive prowess? We often hear that an offense that produces too efficiently just leaves your defense on the field too long, and they wear down at an accelerated pace. A&M showed they could do it in 2012 with a DC nowhere near as good as Chavis, but was that just a fluke?

I also know that this is only barely Arkansas related, and if it needs to be moved to SEC Sports, so be it. I only posted it here because jbcarol has 91,000 posts and all of them are updates in the SEC Sports section, so I was just afraid it would be lost and overlooked like all of the other topics I've started in that forum.

I think that there a lot of ways to define having an efficient offense and a good defense and they are not limited to points scored and points allowed, though that tends to be the final measuring stick for most people.

[ZERO]

if you define 'highly efficient" as those offenses that score in less than 3 min game clock time on average, then i wouldn't think the two would be compatible.  I'd like to see some stats on that though.

I should have specified that I was in fact talking about the uptempo types of offense that Sumlin and Malzahn run. I'd also like to see some stats, maybe from people highly versed in the X's and O's. My first inclination is "no," but I also wonder if this is just something I believe because I hear all these armchair coaches parroting it on places like this.

All I know is that Sumlin had a potent defense during his best year with his best offense, and he's now stockpiling defensive talent after the mass exodus he's had over the past couple of years, and I'm wondering if the aTm fans' optimism in Chavis is at all warranted.

[Josh Goforth]

Just caught this article today which addresses Texas Techs struggles with this concept of quick strike offense and how to keep your defense off the field. http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/5/29/8681715/texas-tech-red-raiders-and-the-eternal-struggle-defense-air-raid-Kliff-Kingsbury-Pete-Robertson

One trait that many of the defensive coordinators opposite those high scoring offenses have established is not giving up a big play, or playing soft coverage, trying to cause turnovers when they do run or throw short and tightening down in the red zone to force field goals. An extra possession here or there for an Oregon, Auburn, Ttech, Wash St, etc that is giving to their offense off a turnover can be huge 42-35 kid of game.

[JansterZ71]

I wouldn't call Auburn an up tempo offense.  Maybe in years past but last year they weren't. I also wouldn't call the leading rushing team in the SEC the past 3 years (Auburn) a finesse team.

[robs4516]

I'm of the opinion that a "fast break" offensive team can have a decent, or better, defense if they have enough talent and depth (and coaching). Auburn and aTm both fit in that category, or will soon.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I wouldn't call Auburn an up tempo offense.  Maybe in years past but last year they weren't. I also wouldn't call the leading rushing team in the SEC the past 3 years (Auburn) a finesse team.

You are right about the up tempo, to a degree. Offensive plays per game.

1-Miss St       77.0 p/gm
2-Tennessee  75.2 p/gm
3-S. Carolina  72.8 p/gm
4-Alabama     72.7 p/gm
5-Auburn       72.2 p/gm

But then there is the number of plays ran per seconds.

Miss St           1:23.1
Tenn              1:24.2
Ole Miss         1:24.4
Auburn           1:25.2

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I should have specified that I was in fact talking about the uptempo types of offense that Sumlin and Malzahn run. I'd also like to see some stats, maybe from people highly versed in the X's and O's. My first inclination is "no," but I also wonder if this is just something I believe because I hear all these armchair coaches parroting it on places like this.

All I know is that Sumlin had a potent defense during his best year with his best offense, and he's now stockpiling defensive talent after the mass exodus he's had over the past couple of years, and I'm wondering if the aTm fans' optimism in Chavis is at all warranted.

Here's some Offensive stats, I'll post the Defensive stats later today.

        Pts/Play   Plays/Gm   3rd Down   Drives/Gm     RZ/Gm   RZ %/Drives   Avg RZ Pts     RZ Ratio/Drives
                     
GEO     0.61         67.5           49.7          12.1            5.2          43.0%           5.4                    1: 2.3
ALA     0.51         72.7           51.5          12.5            4.6          36.8%           5.5                     1: 2.7
AUB     0.49         72.2           52.5          12.0            4.5          37.5%           5.2                     1: 2.7
A&M     0.49         71.9           40.8          12.8            3.8          29.7%           5.4                     1: 3.4
MSU     0.48         77.1           46.4          13.5            4.7          34.8%           5.3                     1: 2.9
ARK     0.45         70.5           47.1          12.0            4.3          35.8%           5.5                     1: 2.8
SCA     0.45         72.8           43.4          12.2            4.0          32.8%           5.2                     1: 3.1
FLA     0.43         70.1           36.5          13.8            3.7          26.8%           5.0                     1: 3.7
KTY     0.41         70.8           33.9          13.3            3.3          24.8%           4.8                     1: 4.0
MIS     0.41         69.5           39.3          13.3            3.2          24.1%           5.4                     1: 4.2
MIZ     0.41         68.1           42.9          12.9            3.2          24.8%           5.0                     1: 4.0
LSU     0.40         69.0           39.9          12.8            3.6          28.1%           5.1                     1: 3.6
TEN     0.38         75.1           38.9          13.7            4.2          30.7%           5.0                     1: 3.3
VAN     0.28         61.7           30.3          12.8            2.2          17.2%           5.2                     1: 5.8

[bphi11ips]

I always thought Reggie Herring was full of it when he groused about Mal-a-zon's HUNH and how that would affect his defense.  Muschamp asked, while he was HC at Florida, why any highly recruited defensive player would want to play for a team running uptempo.  And now he's DC at Auburn.

I suppose there's more to Herring's point than I initially gave him credit for.  A few 3 and outs run together can wear out a defense.  Even scoring quickly puts the defense back on the field without giving them a chance to catch their breath.  At the end of the day, it's all about the team with the most good players on both sides of the ball.

[NaturalStateReb]

Ole Miss had a pretty good offense last season and a very solid defense.  I think you can do it, but it's not easy. 

I think it may have more to do with recruiting focus as anything else.

[wholehog92]

I'm of the opinion that a "fast break" offensive team can have a decent, or better, defense if they have enough talent and depth (and coaching). Auburn and aTm both fit in that category, or will soon.

You would be right if it weren't for that 85 man roster limitation.

[Hawgzinbowlz]

Yes.  " WOO PIG "

[EastexHawg]

I think that there a lot of ways to define having an efficient offense and a good defense and they are not limited to points scored and points allowed, though that tends to be the final measuring stick for most people.

Bingo.  There is a difference between having a great defense and having great defensive stats.  Defensive stats can be produced by a slow down, grind it out offense that eats clock, shortens the game, and decreases the number of plays.  For instance, if a ball control team only averages 8 possessions per game and their defense gives up a TD once every 2.5 possessions, their scoring defense average will be somewhere in the 22-24 range.

Pair the same defense with an up-tempo team that averages 12 possessions per game, maintain the same ratio of one TD surrendered for every 2.5 possessions, and now all of a sudden they are giving up 33-36 points per game.

The defense that is giving up 23 points per game isn't really any better than the one giving up 34 points per game...their stats are just better.

On the other hand, how many more points can your own offense score if you have 50% more possessions?

The object of the game is to have more points on the scoreboard than the opponent when the game is over.  That's it.  A high scoring win counts just as much as a low scoring victory. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Edit: Here are the offensive and defensive stats for comparison.

Here's some Offensive stats, I'll post the Defensive stats later today.

Check out the RZ Ratio to Total Drives. Regardless of the number of drives that a team generates or has to defend, that is a telling statistic, among some others.

Offense
        Pts/Play   Plays/Gm   3rd Down   Drives/Gm     RZ/Gm   RZ %/Drives   Avg RZ Pts     RZ Ratio/Drives
                     
GEO     0.61         67.5           49.7          12.1            5.2          43.0%           5.4                    1: 2.3
ALA     0.51         72.7           51.5          12.5            4.6          36.8%           5.5                     1: 2.7
AUB     0.49         72.2           52.5          12.0            4.5          37.5%           5.2                     1: 2.7
A&M     0.49         71.9           40.8          12.8            3.8          29.7%           5.4                     1: 3.4
MSU     0.48         77.1           46.4          13.5            4.7          34.8%           5.3                     1: 2.9
ARK     0.45         70.5           47.1          12.0            4.3          35.8%           5.5                     1: 2.8
SCA     0.45         72.8           43.4          12.2            4.0          32.8%           5.2                     1: 3.1
FLA     0.43         70.1           36.5          13.8            3.7          26.8%           5.0                     1: 3.7
KTY     0.41         70.8           33.9          13.3            3.3          24.8%           4.8                     1: 4.0
MIS     0.41         69.5           39.3          13.3            3.2          24.1%           5.4                     1: 4.2
MIZ     0.41         68.1           42.9          12.9            3.2          24.8%           5.0                     1: 4.0
LSU     0.40         69.0           39.9          12.8            3.6          28.1%           5.1                     1: 3.6
TEN     0.38         75.1           38.9          13.7            4.2          30.7%           5.0                     1: 3.3
VAN     0.28         61.7           30.3          12.8            2.2          17.2%           5.2                     1: 5.8

Defense
           Pts/Play    Plays/Gm    3rd Down    Drives/Gm     RZ/Gm     RZ%/Drives    Avg RZ Pts     RZ Ratio/Drives

GEO      0.30            69.6           39.5            12.5            3.1             24.8%             5.6               1: 4.0
ALA       0.27            67.5           37.8            12.9            3.1             24.0%             4.4               1: 4.2
AUB      0.38            70.3           36.0            12.7            4.2             33.1%             5.3                1: 3.0
A&M      0.37            76.3           40.2            12.9            3.3             25.6%             4.9                1: 3.9
MSU      0.29            75.2           35.1            13.8            3.4             24.6%             5.0                1: 4.1
ARK      0.30             63.2           39.6            12.2            2.5             20.5%             5.6                1: 4.9
SCA      0.44             69.5           42.0            12.1            4.6             38.0%             5.0                1: 2.6
FLA       0.29             72.4           38.8            13.8            3.1             22.5%             4.9                1: 4.5
KTY       0.42             74.0           43.9            13.5            3.7             27.4%             5.2                1: 3.6
MIS       0.23             70.4           33.0            13.5            2.6             19.3%             4.7                1: 5.2
MIZ       0.29             71.8           37.0            12.6            2.7             21.4%             5.2                1: 4.7
LSU       0.27             65.0           36.0            13.0            2.5             19.2%             4.9                1: 5.2
TEN       0.35             68.6           34.4            14.2            2.6             18.3%             5.2                1: 5.5
VAN       0.47             70.3           42.2            12.1            4.3             35.5%             5.1                1: 2.8

[thirrdegreetusker]

When Gus was OC at Tulsa, the Golden Hurricanes were the only defense in D-1 that had over 1000 snaps AGAINST them. They had a decent record, maybe won their conference, went to a bowl game.

But, no matter how you look at it, there is NO advantage to having more plays run AGAINST you than any team in the nation.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

When Gus was OC at Tulsa, the Golden Hurricanes were the only defense in D-1 that had over 1000 snaps AGAINST them. They had a decent record, maybe won their conference, went to a bowl game.

But, no matter how you look at it, there is NO advantage to having more plays run AGAINST you than any team in the nation.

To that point, look above at that chart. No one in the SEC last year had a bigger spread on average between plays ran to plays allowed, than Arkansas. 70.5 to 63.2 for a difference of 7.3 plays per game.

[Paul]

To that point, look above at that chart. No one in the SEC last year had a bigger spread on average between plays ran to plays allowed, than Arkansas. 70.5 to 63.2 for a difference of 7.3 plays per game.

i also think ratio of game clock time defenses/offenses are on the field would factor into the equation 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

  i also think ratio of game clock time defenses/offenses are on the field would factor into the equation 

It would and I have those numbers but there is just so much that you can put on a spreadsheet on Hogville.

The average offensive drive in the SEC for last year was 5.5 plays. The average defensive drive was 5.4 plays.

[bphi11ips]

To that point, look above at that chart. No one in the SEC last year had a bigger spread on average between plays ran to plays allowed, than Arkansas. 70.5 to 63.2 for a difference of 7.3 plays per game.

Interesting stats.  Thanks for posting.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Interesting stats.  Thanks for posting.

You can see why experts, when projecting Ole Miss (as an example) look at things like this and wonder if they are going to find an effective leader for their offense. When your offense only gets in the opponents RZ 1 time for every 4.2 drives, you have a problem. Their defense performed well limiting teams (on average) to a conference leading (and in a tie with LSU) 1 RZ entry for every 5.2 drives.

Arkansas on the other hand entered their opponents RZ 1 time out of every 2.8 drives and the defense limited opponents to 1 RZ entry out of every 4.9 drives. That's a nice difference of the two ratios.

Edit: Tennessee actually lead the conference last year allowing 1 RZ entry for every 5.5 offensive drives. Ole Miss and LSU tied for #2 in the conference.

[31to6]

To that point, look above at that chart. No one in the SEC last year had a bigger spread on average between plays ran to plays allowed, than Arkansas. 70.5 to 63.2 for a difference of 7.3 plays per game.

Tempo can generate more offensive plays per game, but sustaining drives is important as well.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Tempo can generate more offensive plays per game, but sustaining drives is important as well.

That's one reason why I plugged in that stat about the number of RZ entries compared to the number of offensive drives and the same for the defense.

[bphi11ips]

You can see why experts, when projecting Ole Miss (as an example) look at things like this and wonder if they are going to find an effective leader for their offense. When your offense only gets in the opponents RZ 1 time for every 4.2 drives, you have a problem. Their defense performed well limiting teams (on average) to a conference leading (and in a tie with LSU) 1 RZ entry for every 5.2 drives.

Arkansas on the other hand entered their opponents RZ 1 time out of every 2.8 drives and the defense limited opponents to 1 RZ entry out of every 4.9 drives. That's a nice difference of the two ratios.

Underscores why Bielema's philosophy is sound and why Arkansas is getting some love during preseason.

[jm]

Most teams can't have it both ways. The talent just is not available and they have to decide if they are going to put their best athletes on offense or defense.

[wholehog92]

To that point, look above at that chart. No one in the SEC last year had a bigger spread on average between plays ran to plays allowed, than Arkansas. 70.5 to 63.2 for a difference of 7.3 plays per game.

Most of that statistic is because we didn't have much in the way of explosiveness.  Our drives were methodical and took a lot of plays.  That plays out in our redzone efficiency.  We are hard to completely stop, but pretty easy to slow down.  So long as we don't get penalties or negative plays putting us behind the chains, we do very well regardless of where we are on the field.

The spread guys, especially vertical, do better between the 20s and are far more likely to score before they ever get in the red zone than we are.

[bennyl08]

Yeah, it just all goes back to how you define efficient.

If you want a high flying, fast paced offense, the ideal complimentary defense is going to focus on turnovers rather than yards or points. It doesn't matter what you give up, your offense is going to get points. The defense's goal is to get the ball back to the offense as fast as possible so they can score again. The offense puts up points quickly putting pressure on the opposing offense and maybe they force a few passes and make some mistakes.

[JansterZ71]

For the most part dominant defenses winning championships are a thing of the past.  You will have one here and there but for the most part they are done with.  Last years playoffs Alabama had the best D but even they couldn't handle the good offenses they faced. 

[EastexHawg]

For the most part dominant defenses winning championships are a thing of the past.  You will have one here and there but for the most part they are done with.  Last years playoffs Alabama had the best D but even they couldn't handle the good offenses they faced. 

As in many aspects of life, it's the difference between being an innovator and a follower.  Followers often times find themselves trying to duplicate a model which is already outdated by the time they "perfect" it.

Bill Walsh was an innovator.  Tom Landry was an innovator.  Of course being extremely intelligent doesn't hurt, either.

Note:  This is a comment on life/sports in general, not an indictment of any certain person or strategy.

[robs4516]

You would be right if it weren't for that 85 man roster limitation.

So you allot 22 for offense and put the rest on defense. I don't see the problem.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Yeah, it just all goes back to how you define efficient.

If you want a high flying, fast paced offense, the ideal complimentary defense is going to focus on turnovers rather than yards or points. It doesn't matter what you give up, your offense is going to get points. The defense's goal is to get the ball back to the offense as fast as possible so they can score again. The offense puts up points quickly putting pressure on the opposing offense and maybe they force a few passes and make some mistakes.

The only problem with that is that the high flying, HUNH, sling it all over the field teams that possess the defenses of which you speak, usually wind up getting stopped at some point or another and then that weak, bend but don't break defense usually finds themselves being overwhelmed. It probably happens more often than we know.

The difference as I see it is that when a methodical, ball control type of team with a stronger defense gets stopped by an opposing defense, their stronger defense can keep the game closer, still giving them an opportunity to win.

The ideal situation for a faster paced, spread type offensive unit is to have a stronger, tougher, "power" style of defense to lock out the opponents offense, when they get stopped. I can't remember seeing a HUNH team with one those defenses and I am not sure that from a philosophical/emphasis standpoint that they can coexist, but I suppose it is possible. We may have a chance to see if it is possible in the next couple of years with the addition of Muschamp at Auburn and Chavis at A&M.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Most of that statistic is because we didn't have much in the way of explosiveness.  Our drives were methodical and took a lot of plays.  That plays out in our redzone efficiency.  We are hard to completely stop, but pretty easy to slow down.  So long as we don't get penalties or negative plays putting us behind the chains, we do very well regardless of where we are on the field.

The spread guys, especially vertical, do better between the 20s and are far more likely to score before they ever get in the red zone than we are.

Then direct your attention to the RZ penetrations (ratio) to the number of drives (far right). That's an equalizer in terms of offensive and defensive efficiency regardless of offensive scheme/philosophy.

[wholehog92]

Then direct your attention to the RZ penetrations (ratio) to the number of drives (far right). That's an equalizer in terms of offensive and defensive efficiency regardless of offensive scheme/philosophy.

What does that have to do with the number of plays differential I was responding to?

  I acknowledged our prowess in the red zone those numbers indicate.  Without going to check the stats, I would say Mizzou scored more points than we did, yet more of our drives went into the Red zone and we scored more often when we got there.

The poster noting it depends on how you define efficiency is spot on.  For us, it has to be points per possession.  We cannot settle for field goals.  We have to take advantage of our size and push the defense out of the back of the end zone and we have to avoid penalties/sacks that put us behind the chains. 

Maybe I'm just missing the point, but I don't see any revelation here.

The numbers seem to show what we know.  We lack explosiveness, we're methodical, we're tough to stop in short yardage small field situations.  More accurately I would say we were those things.  Who knows what Enos will do.  My guess is a similar philosophy because coach B would set philosophy, but a different execution may provide some explosiveness or at least an element of surprise and diversity.

[bennyl08]

The only problem with that is that the high flying, HUNH, sling it all over the field teams that possess the defenses of which you speak, usually wind up getting stopped at some point or another and then that weak, bend but don't break defense usually finds themselves being overwhelmed. It probably happens more often than we know.

The difference as I see it is that when a methodical, ball control type of team with a stronger defense gets stopped by an opposing defense, their stronger defense can keep the game closer, still giving them an opportunity to win.

The ideal situation for a faster paced, spread type offensive unit is to have a stronger, tougher, "power" style of defense to lock out the opponents offense, when they get stopped. I can't remember seeing a HUNH team with one those defenses and I am not sure that from a philosophical/emphasis standpoint that they can coexist, but I suppose it is possible. We may have a chance to see if it is possible in the next couple of years with the addition of Muschamp at Auburn and Chavis at A&M.

Let me rephrase, the ideal "realistic" defense ideal to strive for IF you go with the high flying offense is the opportunistic defense.

With finite resources, it is very tough to field a powerful defense along with a quick strike offense due to limited time in practice, short offensive drives for better or for worse, etc... Of course, if that team goes up against a power team that is better than them, bad things can happen. If the offense is getting stopped, then the power team offense isn't the ideal one to try and get turnovers from, making the defense useless and giving up long sustained drives further hurting the spread offense by keeping them cold.

However, same thing can be true of a power team vs a spread if the spread is better than the power. If the power defense isn't able to contain the spread offense consistently, then the power offense isn't built to play catch up. They will be forced to pass more and with lower percentage throws, going away from the run and allowing the spread defense to simply rush the passer essentially every down and be very aggressive in the secondary.

It all boils down to who has the better team. IMO, it is easier to build a good team with a high flying offense than with a power team, but it is easier to have a great power team than a great spread team.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

What does that have to do with the number of plays differential I was responding to?

  I acknowledged our prowess in the red zone those numbers indicate.  Without going to check the stats, I would say Mizzou scored more points than we did, yet more of our drives went into the Red zone and we scored more often when we got there.

The poster noting it depends on how you define efficiency is spot on.  For us, it has to be points per possession.  We cannot settle for field goals.  We have to take advantage of our size and push the defense out of the back of the end zone and we have to avoid penalties/sacks that put us behind the chains. 

Maybe I'm just missing the point, but I don't see any revelation here.

The numbers seem to show what we know.  We lack explosiveness, we're methodical, we're tough to stop in short yardage small field situations.  More accurately I would say we were those things.  Who knows what Enos will do.  My guess is a similar philosophy because coach B would set philosophy, but a different execution may provide some explosiveness or at least an element of surprise and diversity.

Geez, I wasn't questioning your point of view, just pointing out that the RZ entries (includes all scores) to the overall number of offensive and defensive drives is a common thread by which all teams (methodical or explosive/HUNH/spread, etc) can be measured. It is an indicator of the frequency of scoring with regard to offensive and defensive opportunities on the field.

I agree that if we intend to be a steady, grind it out type of offense, that we need to score more TD's when we are in the RZ as opposed to FG's, as we may have fewer opportunities by virtue of fewer drives than those who play at a higher pace. But it doesn't matter if you average 14, 15 or 16 drives per game, if you are only scoring on 3 or 4 of those and your defense is allowing the opponent to have a better ratio of scores to drives.

Just having conversation Wholehog, that's all.

[Theolesnort]

And should we really be worried about Texas A&M and Auburn going forward? I was looking at aTm's first year under Sumlin, when he had Manziel, and although they were known for their potent offense, they managed to finish 11-2 and #5 while giving up 30 points or greater only twice the entire season - once in a victory against the eventual national champ, and another in a weird victory against LA. Tech. Both of their losses were actually defensive battles against a 20-24 season opener loss to Florida, and another 19-24 nail biter against LSU.

The following year, their opponents scored 30 points eight times in 13 games, and last year the opponents scored 30 points six times. But if you'll remember, they've had ridiculous defensive attrition since then. I suspect this will eventually level out, and they're recruiting at as good a pace as ever.

I'm bringing this up because TAMU has four defensive commitments for '16, and they're all 4*. On top of that, they now have LSU's long-time DC, and we all know LSU's claim to fame has been their defense. Likewise, Auburn hired Will Muschamp for DC, a man who is a defensive mastermind. What is honestly the chances of these teams making a turnaround and being consistently good on defense while maintaining their offensive prowess? We often hear that an offense that produces too efficiently just leaves your defense on the field too long, and they wear down at an accelerated pace. A&M showed they could do it in 2012 with a DC nowhere near as good as Chavis, but was that just a fluke?

I also know that this is only barely Arkansas related, and if it needs to be moved to SEC Sports, so be it. I only posted it here because jbcarol has 91,000 posts and all of them are updates in the SEC Sports section, so I was just afraid it would be lost and overlooked like all of the other topics I've started in that forum.

Basically I will use Texas A&M as an example. Sumlin is a offensive coach kind of like Petrino. Sumlin recruits a lot of skilled players at wide out, QB and running back and since it is offense he prefers, he also spends scholies on offensive linemen. He spends to many on the wide outs but because they are so important to his offense working well he will continue doing so. Just like Petrino he has his team tilted toward the offense when it comes to the number of scholies they give. How will Chavis react to all this? Well for one thing he just might have to use wide outs that are down the playing list and move them to d back for depth if he wants depth there. I do think he will not be happy there when he sees the hand writing on the wall and realizes he will not have it near as well as he had it at LSU in the quality and # of players he is used to. Hey the man is good at what he does and he will fashion a good defense but unless Sumlin relents on some scholies and that will affect the quality of his offense them Chavis is stuck trying to stay fresh playing behind a offense that scores quickly or doesn't stay on the field long enough to give his guys a rest when they don't have much depth. Unless Chavis recruits well with his reduced #'s without making many misses I say he has a problem and will wish he was back at LSU.

[Hoggish1]

Teams with finesse offenses tend to have finesse defenses, more adept at hesitating and reading instead of busting heads.  Those defenses can have problems with smashmouth offenses.

Teams with power offenses tend to have smashmouth defenses.  A smashmouth defense with strong talent is the highest form of defense.

This is one of the benefits of our style of offense.  Our defense has to play tough and physical because they go against tough and physical in practice every day.  Late last season we started to reap the defensive dividends of Bielema's tough offensive style.

Agèed.

And that,s why it will be more than a little interest to see how Chaves and M'Cup do with their new teams.

Both have been effective when they had the smash mouth type O's to work against in practice (Tubbs & Less). Have either ever been D coordinators with teams running HUNH systems?

[Paul]

It would and I have those numbers but there is just so much that you can put on a spreadsheet on Hogville.

The average offensive drive in the SEC for last year was 5.5 plays. The average defensive drive was 5.4 plays.

Thanks for putting in the work!

[wholehog92]

Geez, I wasn't questioning your point of view, just pointing out that the RZ entries (includes all scores) to the overall number of offensive and defensive drives is a common thread by which all teams (methodical or explosive/HUNH/spread, etc) can be measured. It is an indicator of the frequency of scoring with regard to offensive and defensive opportunities on the field.

I agree that if we intend to be a steady, grind it out type of offense, that we need to score more TD's when we are in the RZ as opposed to FG's, as we may have fewer opportunities by virtue of fewer drives than those who play at a higher pace. But it doesn't matter if you average 14, 15 or 16 drives per game, if you are only scoring on 3 or 4 of those and your defense is allowing the opponent to have a better ratio of scores to drives.

Just having conversation Wholehog, that's all.

Not sure what the geez is about if you want to have a conversation.

I was just trying to understand what your point was.  I'll bow out of the thread as I'm causing trouble I don't understand.

[Southern Hogspitality]

Yes the 2004 USC Trojans had both.  PS/G 38.2 (6th of 120) & PA/G 13.0 (3rd of 120)

[tusksincolorado]

1969 Hogs 32 PPG  8 Points allowed pg
1977 Hogs 32 PPG  8 Points allowed pg

1986 OU  42.3 ppg  6.8 points allowed.

1977 was a GREAT YEAR! My FROSH year in Fayettenam, and the Hawgs were #3 in Football (Orange Bowl) and #3 in Basketball (Boot, Sidney, and MARVIN)! And of course, Track was KING!

[Pig in the Pokey]

Ole Miss had a pretty good offense last season and a very solid defense.  I think you can do it, but it's not easy. 

I think it may have more to do with recruiting focus as anything else.

if your offense is HUNH, then it is more imperitive to have DEFENSIVE DEPTH than offensive.