Tribune Ash article

[Cat Grad]

Defense will get better when obviously needed changes are made. Coaching change at DC, defensive scheme changed, player personnel changed and improved all around the defense. Whatever happened to "DEFENSIVE" pride? Changes, not excuses or proclimations by Ash will do it.

In defense (see what I did there) of Ash, recall the rule changes that have been effected just in the timeframe Ash has been at MSU. The first year of the targeting rule, a writer--see how careful I was by not using accurate adjectives--labeled some of the Cats as dirty players and called Rob Ash coached teams dirty.

In all honesty, do you think as a safety you could have played every down as this year's team was asked to do? The limits of scholarships at the 1-AA level forces a coach to decide whether to load up with athletes on the offense or defensive side and they were snake bit with injuries, attrition and inexperience this year. You played with both McCollum and Kollar. What would this year's defense had been with some long, tall lineman like Kollar out there? What about Vickery and Brandon?

http://www.bigskyconf.com/sports/2008/6 ... onfFB.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Helcat72]

Defense will get better when obviously needed changes are made. Coaching change at DC, defensive scheme changed, player personnel changed and improved all around the defense. Whatever happened to "DEFENSIVE" pride? Changes, not excuses or proclimations by Ash will do it.

In defense (see what I did there) of Ash, recall the rule changes that have been effected just in the timeframe Ash has been at MSU. The first year of the targeting rule, a writer--see how careful I was by not using accurate adjectives--labeled some of the Cats as dirty players and called Rob Ash coached teams dirty.

In all honesty, do you think as a safety you could have played every down as this year's team was asked to do? The limits of scholarships at the 1-AA level forces a coach to decide whether to load up with athletes on the offense or defensive side and they were snake bit with injuries, attrition and inexperience this year. You played with both McCollum and Kollar. What would this year's defense had been with some long, tall lineman like Kollar out there? What about Vickery and Brandon?

http://www.bigskyconf.com/sports/2008/6 ... onfFB.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kollar wasn't long or tall....just quick strong and fast.

[Cat Grad]

Defense will get better when obviously needed changes are made. Coaching change at DC, defensive scheme changed, player personnel changed and improved all around the defense. Whatever happened to "DEFENSIVE" pride? Changes, not excuses or proclimations by Ash will do it.

In defense (see what I did there) of Ash, recall the rule changes that have been effected just in the timeframe Ash has been at MSU. The first year of the targeting rule, a writer--see how careful I was by not using accurate adjectives--labeled some of the Cats as dirty players and called Rob Ash coached teams dirty.

In all honesty, do you think as a safety you could have played every down as this year's team was asked to do? The limits of scholarships at the 1-AA level forces a coach to decide whether to load up with athletes on the offense or defensive side and they were snake bit with injuries, attrition and inexperience this year. You played with both McCollum and Kollar. What would this year's defense had been with some long, tall lineman like Kollar out there? What about Vickery and Brandon?

http://www.bigskyconf.com/sports/2008/6 ... onfFB.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kollar wasn't long or tall....just quick strong and fast.

6'3" and 255. During that era, I'd say he was. Suppose we'll just have to disagree. Isn't that what appears to have become of this site?

[CelticCat]

Defense will get better when obviously needed changes are made. Coaching change at DC, defensive scheme changed, player personnel changed and improved all around the defense. Whatever happened to "DEFENSIVE" pride? Changes, not excuses or proclimations by Ash will do it.

In defense (see what I did there) of Ash, recall the rule changes that have been effected just in the timeframe Ash has been at MSU. The first year of the targeting rule, a writer--see how careful I was by not using accurate adjectives--labeled some of the Cats as dirty players and called Rob Ash coached teams dirty.

In all honesty, do you think as a safety you could have played every down as this year's team was asked to do? The limits of scholarships at the 1-AA level forces a coach to decide whether to load up with athletes on the offense or defensive side and they were snake bit with injuries, attrition and inexperience this year. You played with both McCollum and Kollar. What would this year's defense had been with some long, tall lineman like Kollar out there? What about Vickery and Brandon?

http://www.bigskyconf.com/sports/2008/6 ... onfFB.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kollar wasn't long or tall....just quick strong and fast.

6'3" and 255. During that era, I'd say he was. Suppose we'll just have to disagree. Isn't that what appears to have become of this site?

No, and that's a fact.

[Cat Grad]

Defense will get better when obviously needed changes are made. Coaching change at DC, defensive scheme changed, player personnel changed and improved all around the defense. Whatever happened to "DEFENSIVE" pride? Changes, not excuses or proclimations by Ash will do it.

In defense (see what I did there) of Ash, recall the rule changes that have been effected just in the timeframe Ash has been at MSU. The first year of the targeting rule, a writer--see how careful I was by not using accurate adjectives--labeled some of the Cats as dirty players and called Rob Ash coached teams dirty.

In all honesty, do you think as a safety you could have played every down as this year's team was asked to do? The limits of scholarships at the 1-AA level forces a coach to decide whether to load up with athletes on the offense or defensive side and they were snake bit with injuries, attrition and inexperience this year. You played with both McCollum and Kollar. What would this year's defense had been with some long, tall lineman like Kollar out there? What about Vickery and Brandon?

http://www.bigskyconf.com/sports/2008/6 ... onfFB.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kollar wasn't long or tall....just quick strong and fast.

6'3" and 255. During that era, I'd say he was. Suppose we'll just have to disagree. Isn't that what appears to have become of this site?

No, and that's a fact.

When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you! Also, thank you for sending Jaxson Schweikert to Columbia Falls. He has made a tremendous difference in the lives of a lot of kids here.

[77matcat]

It's not a situation where we're going to lead the league in defense anymore, as long as we play this type of offense.

Well with this type of thinking I have no confidence the defense will be any better. Ash already has a built in excuse for next year. Marshall has the best job in football highest paid assistant on the staff and no worries about accountability what a joke

He also said bluntly that the defense needs to get better. I honestly believe he'll make the right moves here, and with a little luck from the injury Gods for once, we will better on D, as we have been several times under Ash. All that being said, do some of you really not understand the concept of WHY our defensive numbers were expected to going to look worse, did look worse, and will continue to look worse once we made the decision to commit 100% to run the offense we're running? I am not happy with the defense obviously but just trying to be realistic with my expectations.

Atac

Please stop with the offense mskes our defense suffer. The only time that might have some impact is if you are playing prevent all the time and are ok with leaving the D on the field. In this case you shoot yourself in the foot.

Otherwise grow a pair get aggressive and get a 3 and out. Hey.......then would we be making the offense look bad because we put them back on the field????

Type of Offense makes defense look bad..... Craziest statement I've ever heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not my opinion.... it's fact. LTCF explains it clearly above. That being said, I am in no way using this an excuse to justify poor defensive performance. I saw some things in our defense in 2014 that were uncharacteristic of Ash led teams IMO, and not all of that can be attributed to the true first year of committing to and running this offense 100%. Many posters have explained how the primary flaw was lacking that one all american pass rusher that we've had the luxury of having for several years. That's certainly part of it but there are other issues (that I saw from my arm chair view) that need to get cleaned up. I for one DO have confidence in this staff to get it done. Yes, I do think out defense will be better in 2015. I won a bottle of whiskey this year off of posters that disagreed with me that our offense was going to be better in 2014 than 2013.... I'd be more than happy to place the same wager on our defense being better in 2015 than 2014, total points or total D - your choice. All that being said, we just aren't going to run this offense and score 50 points a game and expect to limit all our Big Sky opponents and any upper echelon FCS teams to 10 points. Not going to happen.

A fast, good offense that scores frequently makes the defense play poorly.

Opinion not fact. And a poor justification of a poor defense's performance.

The proof of the fallacy of this statement is simple. A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point.

As I said. A mediocre or poor defense will probably be affected, but you didn't state that qualifier. Your statement was in essence all defenses are affected by the up tempo spread offense.

Can't be fact if not true for all. Not true for good/great defenses, therefor opinion and or excuse for poor defense.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catatac]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

[WalkOn79]

We make 3 more stops per game and we roll through the Big Sky. Until the 7 TO's, that is:)

All I'm saying is we just need to be better than average on D to win this league. Now to win it all.... That's another question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[77matcat]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

Hahahahaha

Doesn't have to be three and out every defensive series. Just doesn't have to play let um down the field and into the end zone every series. Let's say they are between 3 and out every series and the average amount a defense is on the field (if they are on the field the ave. we can't say they are more tired than half the BS, right).

Ok, off to the salt mine. Thanks for helping me start the day with a laugh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77matcat]

Don't mean to be snarky. We probably won't get to a point were we agree. Hope you have a great Christmas!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BLACKnBLUEnGOLD]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

The funny thing is that even if there was a team that did get a three-and-out on every possession, an up-tempo offense would still force them to play more possessions. Probably not enough that they would actually affect their play...but they would be more sore and tired after the game.

Now, even if we assume that playing more doesn't affect a defense's ability to play defense, real defenses get scored on, even the good ones. Every so many possessions, they give up a score. Now, if the defense has to play more possessions in a game, and they give up points at the same rate, they will actually give up more points per game even if they are just as good a defense.

That isn't to say that the up-tempo offense is an excuse for Marshall's defense. It's not. Running Oregon's offense might turn a great defense (talent-wise) into a very good defense (ppg-wise), or an average defense into a slightly below-average defense. It's not going to turn a reasonably talented defense into a total ******. Nor is it an excuse for Marshall's previous defenses, which ranged in talent between good and great, but never managed to put together a full season of results that reflected the talent. And I would say that this team's defense was at least average in terms of talent. They had two first-team all-conference players (out of twelve) and five total all-conference players (out of thirty-seven). They had two third-team All-Americans. Most teams don't have two All-Americans. The good ones usually do...but that's my point. This was a good team playing terrible defense, not a terrible collection of defensive players. A decent defensive coach, even facing the difficulty of alternating with Cramsey's offense, should have been able to get average results out of that group.

[catgrad05]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

Our defense had many three and outs this year they where called tds. Marshall thought that his players needed a break so he schemed up a plan to get them off the feild quickly

[WalkOn79]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

Our defense had many three and outs this year they where called tds. Marshall thought that his players needed a break so he schemed up a plan to get them off the feild quickly

[saintcat40]

That isn't to say that the up-tempo offense is an excuse for Marshall's defense. It's not. Running Oregon's offense might turn a great defense (talent-wise) into a very good defense (ppg-wise), or an average defense into a slightly below-average defense. It's not going to turn a reasonably talented defense into a total ******. Nor is it an excuse for Marshall's previous defenses, which ranged in talent between good and great, but never managed to put together a full season of results that reflected the talent. And I would say that this team's defense was at least average in terms of talent. They had two first-team all-conference players (out of twelve) and five total all-conference players (out of thirty-seven). They had two third-team All-Americans. Most teams don't have two All-Americans. The good ones usually do...but that's my point. This was a good team playing terrible defense, not a terrible collection of defensive players. A decent defensive coach, even facing the difficulty of alternating with Cramsey's offense, should have been able to get average results out of that group.

Post of the year in reference to our defense. This is exactly what I have been thinking, but could never quite get it into words. Thanks BnBnG for this explanation. This is why I am convinced we cannot be great with our current DC on board.

[catatac]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

The funny thing is that even if there was a team that did get a three-and-out on every possession, an up-tempo offense would still force them to play more possessions. Probably not enough that they would actually affect their play...but they would be more sore and tired after the game.

Now, even if we assume that playing more doesn't affect a defense's ability to play defense, real defenses get scored on, even the good ones. Every so many possessions, they give up a score. Now, if the defense has to play more possessions in a game, and they give up points at the same rate, they will actually give up more points per game even if they are just as good a defense.

That isn't to say that the up-tempo offense is an excuse for Marshall's defense. It's not. Running Oregon's offense might turn a great defense (talent-wise) into a very good defense (ppg-wise), or an average defense into a slightly below-average defense. It's not going to turn a reasonably talented defense into a total ******. Nor is it an excuse for Marshall's previous defenses, which ranged in talent between good and great, but never managed to put together a full season of results that reflected the talent. And I would say that this team's defense was at least average in terms of talent. They had two first-team all-conference players (out of twelve) and five total all-conference players (out of thirty-seven). They had two third-team All-Americans. Most teams don't have two All-Americans. The good ones usually do...but that's my point. This was a good team playing terrible defense, not a terrible collection of defensive players. A decent defensive coach, even facing the difficulty of alternating with Cramsey's offense, should have been able to get average results out of that group.

Thank you, this post is spot on. I was just trying to explain to 77 and others that perhaps didn't grasp the concept... that we KNEW there would be a tradeoff with our defense when we made the commitment to run the offense we run. As I've stated several times, this is not an excuse for hoe our defense played and they certainly been to get better and that starts with the DC.

Final thoughts on this in case it's still not cleat to anyone what we're talking about here. When a team makes the decision to change from running 50 plays per game to 80 plays per game, you are agreeing to give the opponent more offensive snaps. With more offensive snaps comes more points. It has nothing to do with how many points we score, although that is obviously the goal of making this change to our offense (every snap will end one of four ways. Points for the other team, giving them the ball back, points for us, or something else...gaining, losing, or staying even in yardage.) Most offensive plays result in forward progress, and eventually putting points on the board. So if you don't grasp the concept that by deciding to run 80 plays per game versus 50, you are automatically going to give the opponent more offensive snaps, which is going to lead to more points almost all the time... I don't know what to tell you.

[91catAlum]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

The funny thing is that even if there was a team that did get a three-and-out on every possession, an up-tempo offense would still force them to play more possessions. Probably not enough that they would actually affect their play...but they would be more sore and tired after the game.

Now, even if we assume that playing more doesn't affect a defense's ability to play defense, real defenses get scored on, even the good ones. Every so many possessions, they give up a score. Now, if the defense has to play more possessions in a game, and they give up points at the same rate, they will actually give up more points per game even if they are just as good a defense.

That isn't to say that the up-tempo offense is an excuse for Marshall's defense. It's not. Running Oregon's offense might turn a great defense (talent-wise) into a very good defense (ppg-wise), or an average defense into a slightly below-average defense. It's not going to turn a reasonably talented defense into a total ******. Nor is it an excuse for Marshall's previous defenses, which ranged in talent between good and great, but never managed to put together a full season of results that reflected the talent. And I would say that this team's defense was at least average in terms of talent. They had two first-team all-conference players (out of twelve) and five total all-conference players (out of thirty-seven). They had two third-team All-Americans. Most teams don't have two All-Americans. The good ones usually do...but that's my point. This was a good team playing terrible defense, not a terrible collection of defensive players. A decent defensive coach, even facing the difficulty of alternating with Cramsey's offense, should have been able to get average results out of that group.

Thank you, this post is spot on. I was just trying to explain to 77 and others that perhaps didn't grasp the concept... that we KNEW there would be a tradeoff with our defense when we made the commitment to run the offense we run. As I've stated several times, this is not an excuse for hoe our defense played and they certainly been to get better and that starts with the DC.

Final thoughts on this in case it's still not cleat to anyone what we're talking about here. When a team makes the decision to change from running 50 plays per game to 80 plays per game, you are agreeing to give the opponent more offensive snaps. With more offensive snaps comes more points. It has nothing to do with how many points we score, although that is obviously the goal of making this change to our offense (every snap will end one of four ways. Points for the other team, giving them the ball back, points for us, or something else...gaining, losing, or staying even in yardage.) Most offensive plays result in forward progress, and eventually putting points on the board. So if you don't grasp the concept that by deciding to run 80 plays per game versus 50, you are automatically going to give the opponent more offensive snaps, which is going to lead to more points almost all the time... I don't know what to tell you.

Not sure what you mean by "we knew there would be a tradeoff."
Let's say increasing our offensive plays from 50 up to 80 results in our offense scoring 10 more points per game. So we're also supposed to "know" that our opponents plays will increase the same amount and thus our opponents will also score 10 more points per game? What's the point of that? Where is the advantage for us?

[John K]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

The funny thing is that even if there was a team that did get a three-and-out on every possession, an up-tempo offense would still force them to play more possessions. Probably not enough that they would actually affect their play...but they would be more sore and tired after the game.

Now, even if we assume that playing more doesn't affect a defense's ability to play defense, real defenses get scored on, even the good ones. Every so many possessions, they give up a score. Now, if the defense has to play more possessions in a game, and they give up points at the same rate, they will actually give up more points per game even if they are just as good a defense.

That isn't to say that the up-tempo offense is an excuse for Marshall's defense. It's not. Running Oregon's offense might turn a great defense (talent-wise) into a very good defense (ppg-wise), or an average defense into a slightly below-average defense. It's not going to turn a reasonably talented defense into a total ******. Nor is it an excuse for Marshall's previous defenses, which ranged in talent between good and great, but never managed to put together a full season of results that reflected the talent. And I would say that this team's defense was at least average in terms of talent. They had two first-team all-conference players (out of twelve) and five total all-conference players (out of thirty-seven). They had two third-team All-Americans. Most teams don't have two All-Americans. The good ones usually do...but that's my point. This was a good team playing terrible defense, not a terrible collection of defensive players. A decent defensive coach, even facing the difficulty of alternating with Cramsey's offense, should have been able to get average results out of that group.

Thank you, this post is spot on. I was just trying to explain to 77 and others that perhaps didn't grasp the concept... that we KNEW there would be a tradeoff with our defense when we made the commitment to run the offense we run. As I've stated several times, this is not an excuse for hoe our defense played and they certainly been to get better and that starts with the DC.

Final thoughts on this in case it's still not cleat to anyone what we're talking about here. When a team makes the decision to change from running 50 plays per game to 80 plays per game, you are agreeing to give the opponent more offensive snaps. With more offensive snaps comes more points. It has nothing to do with how many points we score, although that is obviously the goal of making this change to our offense (every snap will end one of four ways. Points for the other team, giving them the ball back, points for us, or something else...gaining, losing, or staying even in yardage.) Most offensive plays result in forward progress, and eventually putting points on the board. So if you don't grasp the concept that by deciding to run 80 plays per game versus 50, you are automatically going to give the opponent more offensive snaps, which is going to lead to more points almost all the time... I don't know what to tell you.

Not sure what you mean by "we knew there would be a tradeoff."
Let's say increasing our offensive plays from 50 up to 80 results in our offense scoring 10 more points per game. So we're also supposed to "know" that our opponents plays will increase the same amount and thus our opponents will also score 10 more points per game? What's the point of that? Where is the advantage for us?

That's not exactly the way it works. I believe he's only saying that our average PPG allowed are likely to increase somewhat, simply because our faster paced offense is going to allow them more plays/possessions per game. If we had a very good defense, that might lead to just a very minimal increase in our average points/yards allowed per game. But since we obviously didn't have a very good defense, then it probably led to a more significant increase in PPG/YPG allowed. It's not necessarily going to correlate one to one to the increase in our offensive PPG though. The degree to which the faster offensive pace impacts our defensive stats is dependent upon how good or bad our defense is, not how much the faster pace helps our offense. Although in our case this past season, when our defense wasn't very good, you're probably right in saying that the faster pace hurt our defensive stats almost as much as it helped our offensive stats. Therefore the net gain to us probably wasn't all that great, since our defense was so bad. The better our defense, the greater our net advantage will be, from creating more plays/possessions for both teams. I'm not sure that I worded that very well, but it makes sense to me.

[91catAlum]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

The funny thing is that even if there was a team that did get a three-and-out on every possession, an up-tempo offense would still force them to play more possessions. Probably not enough that they would actually affect their play...but they would be more sore and tired after the game.

Now, even if we assume that playing more doesn't affect a defense's ability to play defense, real defenses get scored on, even the good ones. Every so many possessions, they give up a score. Now, if the defense has to play more possessions in a game, and they give up points at the same rate, they will actually give up more points per game even if they are just as good a defense.

That isn't to say that the up-tempo offense is an excuse for Marshall's defense. It's not. Running Oregon's offense might turn a great defense (talent-wise) into a very good defense (ppg-wise), or an average defense into a slightly below-average defense. It's not going to turn a reasonably talented defense into a total ******. Nor is it an excuse for Marshall's previous defenses, which ranged in talent between good and great, but never managed to put together a full season of results that reflected the talent. And I would say that this team's defense was at least average in terms of talent. They had two first-team all-conference players (out of twelve) and five total all-conference players (out of thirty-seven). They had two third-team All-Americans. Most teams don't have two All-Americans. The good ones usually do...but that's my point. This was a good team playing terrible defense, not a terrible collection of defensive players. A decent defensive coach, even facing the difficulty of alternating with Cramsey's offense, should have been able to get average results out of that group.

Thank you, this post is spot on. I was just trying to explain to 77 and others that perhaps didn't grasp the concept... that we KNEW there would be a tradeoff with our defense when we made the commitment to run the offense we run. As I've stated several times, this is not an excuse for hoe our defense played and they certainly been to get better and that starts with the DC.

Final thoughts on this in case it's still not cleat to anyone what we're talking about here. When a team makes the decision to change from running 50 plays per game to 80 plays per game, you are agreeing to give the opponent more offensive snaps. With more offensive snaps comes more points. It has nothing to do with how many points we score, although that is obviously the goal of making this change to our offense (every snap will end one of four ways. Points for the other team, giving them the ball back, points for us, or something else...gaining, losing, or staying even in yardage.) Most offensive plays result in forward progress, and eventually putting points on the board. So if you don't grasp the concept that by deciding to run 80 plays per game versus 50, you are automatically going to give the opponent more offensive snaps, which is going to lead to more points almost all the time... I don't know what to tell you.

Not sure what you mean by "we knew there would be a tradeoff."
Let's say increasing our offensive plays from 50 up to 80 results in our offense scoring 10 more points per game. So we're also supposed to "know" that our opponents plays will increase the same amount and thus our opponents will also score 10 more points per game? What's the point of that? Where is the advantage for us?

That's not exactly the way it works. I believe he's only saying that our average PPG allowed are likely to increase somewhat, simply because our faster paced offense is going to allow them more plays/possessions per game. If we had a very good defense, that might lead to just a very minimal increase in our average points/yards allowed per game. But since we obviously didn't have a very good defense, then it probably led to a more significant increase in PPG/YPG allowed. It's not necessarily going to correlate one to one to the increase in our offensive PPG though. The degree to which the faster offensive pace impacts our defensive stats is dependent upon how good or bad our defense is, not how much the faster pace helps our offense. Although in our case this past season, when our defense wasn't very good, you're probably right in saying that the faster pace hurt our defensive stats almost as much as it helped our offensive stats. I'm not sure that I worded that very well, but it makes sense to me.

That's kinda what I'm getting at. We don't "know" and accept that there will be an equal tradeoff. The hope is that we score more points on offense but still hold the other team down with our defense despite the faster pace and more possessions. Otherwise there is no advantage to it, and it makes zero sense to excuse the higher number of points allowed by saying that it's just our style.
Hopefully I'm explaining that right, as well - it makes sense to me!

[John K]

"A good/great defense goes 3 and out and doesn't get tired. Please address this statement and prove it wrong if you care to reply. Speaking past or around is evading the point."

Uh, ok... I'll address this statement. It's completely false, and I don't need to prove anything. Why don't you show me a defense that goes three and out every possession, and never ever gets tired. I'll wait for the examples.

The funny thing is that even if there was a team that did get a three-and-out on every possession, an up-tempo offense would still force them to play more possessions. Probably not enough that they would actually affect their play...but they would be more sore and tired after the game.

Now, even if we assume that playing more doesn't affect a defense's ability to play defense, real defenses get scored on, even the good ones. Every so many possessions, they give up a score. Now, if the defense has to play more possessions in a game, and they give up points at the same rate, they will actually give up more points per game even if they are just as good a defense.

That isn't to say that the up-tempo offense is an excuse for Marshall's defense. It's not. Running Oregon's offense might turn a great defense (talent-wise) into a very good defense (ppg-wise), or an average defense into a slightly below-average defense. It's not going to turn a reasonably talented defense into a total ******. Nor is it an excuse for Marshall's previous defenses, which ranged in talent between good and great, but never managed to put together a full season of results that reflected the talent. And I would say that this team's defense was at least average in terms of talent. They had two first-team all-conference players (out of twelve) and five total all-conference players (out of thirty-seven). They had two third-team All-Americans. Most teams don't have two All-Americans. The good ones usually do...but that's my point. This was a good team playing terrible defense, not a terrible collection of defensive players. A decent defensive coach, even facing the difficulty of alternating with Cramsey's offense, should have been able to get average results out of that group.

Thank you, this post is spot on. I was just trying to explain to 77 and others that perhaps didn't grasp the concept... that we KNEW there would be a tradeoff with our defense when we made the commitment to run the offense we run. As I've stated several times, this is not an excuse for hoe our defense played and they certainly been to get better and that starts with the DC.

Final thoughts on this in case it's still not cleat to anyone what we're talking about here. When a team makes the decision to change from running 50 plays per game to 80 plays per game, you are agreeing to give the opponent more offensive snaps. With more offensive snaps comes more points. It has nothing to do with how many points we score, although that is obviously the goal of making this change to our offense (every snap will end one of four ways. Points for the other team, giving them the ball back, points for us, or something else...gaining, losing, or staying even in yardage.) Most offensive plays result in forward progress, and eventually putting points on the board. So if you don't grasp the concept that by deciding to run 80 plays per game versus 50, you are automatically going to give the opponent more offensive snaps, which is going to lead to more points almost all the time... I don't know what to tell you.

Not sure what you mean by "we knew there would be a tradeoff."
Let's say increasing our offensive plays from 50 up to 80 results in our offense scoring 10 more points per game. So we're also supposed to "know" that our opponents plays will increase the same amount and thus our opponents will also score 10 more points per game? What's the point of that? Where is the advantage for us?

That's not exactly the way it works. I believe he's only saying that our average PPG allowed are likely to increase somewhat, simply because our faster paced offense is going to allow them more plays/possessions per game. If we had a very good defense, that might lead to just a very minimal increase in our average points/yards allowed per game. But since we obviously didn't have a very good defense, then it probably led to a more significant increase in PPG/YPG allowed. It's not necessarily going to correlate one to one to the increase in our offensive PPG though. The degree to which the faster offensive pace impacts our defensive stats is dependent upon how good or bad our defense is, not how much the faster pace helps our offense. Although in our case this past season, when our defense wasn't very good, you're probably right in saying that the faster pace hurt our defensive stats almost as much as it helped our offensive stats. I'm not sure that I worded that very well, but it makes sense to me.

That's kinda what I'm getting at. We don't "know" and accept that there will be an equal tradeoff. The hope is that we score more points on offense but still hold the other team down with our defense despite the faster pace and more possessions. Otherwise there is no advantage to it, and it makes zero sense to excuse the higher number of points allowed by saying that it's just our style.
Hopefully I'm explaining that right, as well - it makes sense to me!

I think we're essentially saying the same thing. The bottom line is that a team isn't going to gain much overall by playing faster on offense, if their defense is as bad as ours was last season. The fast pace generates additional plays and possessions for both teams, and if a team has a great offense, and at least an average or better defense, that should result in a substantial net gain for that team. But if a team's defense is almost as bad as their offense is good, then they're not really going to gain much from playing faster on offense.

[catatac]

Yes, yes and yes. I think we are all agreeing on this. When a team makes the decision to move from 50 plays per game to 80 (obviously I'm just throwing hypothetical #'s out there), you do so knowing that you're going to give the opponent the ball more often, therefore most likely allowing them to score more points than they would if you only ran 50 plays per game. The goal is that it will be worth it because the gap between the points we used to score when running 50 plays versus what we score whel we run 80 plays will be wider than the gap between what your opponents score when we run 50 plays per game versus what they score when we run 80 plays per game. Bottom line, we all agree our D needs to get better. But as Ash states, we probably aren't going to see the defensive stats look as good as they did for us a few years ago (see my post in another thread showing that in 2011 we held opponents to 22 points per game versus the Griz at 20 points per game) when running this offense.