So, will the new spread offense be a strong defense?

[gravedigger]

Yea, yea. I get that you have to score points.

But the fact is that defense is now, and always has been, the greatest equalizer of teams that have talent issues. Boise and BYU might have started the trend of scoring with big teams, blow for blow, but in the end, it just doesn't do the trick.

BIG defensive plays do. Give me a big game that you think was won by the high potency offenses and I'll show you a game where the defense found a way to change it.

Auburn gained control of the game last night with it.

Florida State turned the game around with it.

Bama lost it's NC hopes due to a failure of it.

Oregon has always been a bridesmaid, never the bride, because of it.

It's defense folks. Field one and you have a chance even with a marginal offense.

Fail to and you can have the most well oiled machine of an offense and you wont realize your potential.

Auburn, as lucky as they seemed to be this year, might have been average on defense at times. But they had a shot at the crystal due to defense.

I say, in this era of big offensive numbers, it will be the teams that figure a way to field the best defense that rise to the top. Of course the defensive stats for games and a season are going to look completely different. But in the end, it will be that unit, not the offense that wins the big prizes no matter what the sports media uses as highlight video.

THIS is why we must pay Collins big and pay him now. We are still going to lose him eventually. But when he does get bought out from under us we better have the next great DC lined up.

It aint sexy. But when the latest fad in offense is gone, this game will still be won by a team that holds it's ground.

[dawgs]

oregon has had a vastly underrated D during the last 5-6 years. yeah it's not bama good, but it's been statistically better than 2010 auburn good and this year's auburn's D this year pretty much ever since kelly became the HC. auburn had an above avg DL by the end of the year this year after their young guys got some experience and pretty mediocre LBs and DBs even at the end - actually pretty similar to the 2010 auburn D, but that 2010 D had a better DL. auburn needed a fluke non-tackle in 2010 to set up a last second FG or else auburn would be the bridesmaid and never the bride, and oregon held that dominant auburn offense to 22 points. tbh that's splitting hairs between a bride and a bridesmaid. now if you want to bring up baylor or okie st or a&m someone, that's fine because they haven't been able to be thisclose to winning a title.

but yeah, shocker, you need a good D to win big? you don't say. there isn't an offensive minded coach out there that's been anti defense, however for many programs, scoring lots of points is the great equalizer when playing a program that is capable of fielding a good D. these coaches aren't against having their own good D and would prefer to have one than not, but they can only play with what they've got, and it's easier to scheme around middle tier offensive talent to produce upper tier results than it is to scheme around middle tier defensive talent to produce upper tier results. it's kinda like smaller CBB programs recruiting a lot of undersized guys who can shoot lights out. of course they'd love to have the all world athlete like durant or lebron, or they dominant big man down low, but the fact is that it's easier said than done to get those guys, so they focus on what they can get and that's shooters. of course when they run into elite athletes and big men, they run into trouble more often than not, but having a bunch of shooters still gives them the best chance to pull off the W.

[gravedigger]

Hey dumbass. The post wasn't about whether defense is important. That would be like saying scoring more points is important.

The post was contending that offense at the expense of defense is a fad, and one that we can capitalize on. Oregon, among others, have allowed their defense to take enough of a backseat to offense that it has cost them at critical times. Teams that maintain, and God forbid, emphasize defense in an offense age will find themselves being able to get beyond the latest fad when the real games that matter take place. If teams emphasize defense over offense, if ever so slightly, will come out better than if they attempt the opposite. Examples are everywhere.

Who would ever make an argument for 'anti defense'? If you read that in my post you are thick skulled. They neglect defense because fast break offense wins their conference without realizing they will have little success outside of it. Their underrated defense was ranked 35th. Their offense was top 10. Coaches can build better defenses by having better defensive coaching staffs and recruiting that way. Oregon doesn't ever have to 'play with what they have'. They choose to not emphasize it.

We are no CBB program. We are in the sec and can recruit and get the Chris Jones and the Benardrick McKinney's of the world. We can field the defense that can stop the Oregon offense. Our offense doesn't have to score 45 to win. Oregon's does. And that is why they cant get over the hump. They choose that.

My message was addressed to fans who think our qb has to win the Heisman or have a running back and a receiver break 100 yards per game. If you play no defense, sure. But that isn't us. It needn't ever be.

Now run along with your boise state/byu bullshit. It's a fad.

[dawgs]

you are a ****ing moron if you think schools actively choose not to recruit better defensive players and hire good defensive staffs. oregon has ranked in the top 25 in the country in opponent yards per play every year since 2008, and has ranked in the top 10 twice. since 2008, they've ranked in the top 10 in turnovers created 3 times, and in the top 20 2 other times. and they've finished in the top 20 scoring defense 3 of the past 5 years. those are the numbers that matter in football, not total D which is totally skewed by pace of play. (playing hurry up, no huddle offense is not "choosing not to emphasize defense" fyi). finally, do you know that oregon has put more successful defensive players in the NFL than offensive players? patrick chung, haloti ngata, dion jordan, kiko alonso, jarious byrd, spencer paysinger, walter thurmond, tj ward, were all high picks or have been productive NFL starters, along with a lot of guys kicking around on practice squads. that's a lot of NFL talent on D to come out of a school in recent years that doesn't emphasize D. funny you bring up us like we emphasize D, yet even just since mullen took over, oregon has had a consistently better D than us even though they apparently don't emphasize it.

so yeah, oregon isn't bama or lsu or florida, but really outside of bama and lsu and florida, who is? but they've been as good and consistent on D over the span of the last half dozen years as pretty much any other program in the country. but hey, don't let preconceived notions get in the way of looking at the stats.

i don't how you call me "thick skulled" for interpreting your post as meaning those teams are "anti defense" and then 3 lines later say "they choose to not emphasize [defense]". seems like if you aren't choosing to emphasize defense, then it sounds like you are saying they must be anti-defense?

finally, we don't need a heisman winning QB to win big, but we need to put up yards and points at an even greater rate than we do now. that's just a fact. not emphasizing offense is just as stupid as not emphasizing defense.