PDA

View Full Version : Would you trade 28 points for 6 turnovers?


burritos
04-14-2010, 10:13 AM
Hypothetically speaking now that we're going with a more aggressive defensive posture. No more bend don't break. If the new defense gave up 28 points a game, but in turn got 6 turnovers a game, would you be happy with that?

calbb
04-14-2010, 10:20 AM
Hypothetically speaking now that we're going with a more aggressive defensive posture. No more bend don't break. If the new defense gave up 28 points a game, but in turn got 6 turnovers a game, would you be happy with that?

How's a team going to score 28 points and give up 6 turnovers?

Agureghian
04-14-2010, 10:23 AM
how about 14 points a game and 0 turnovers

burritos
04-14-2010, 10:27 AM
How's a team going to score 28 points and give up 6 turnovers?

Picking up and burning the blitz on 4 possessions, and then getting creamed on the rest of the possessions.

burritos
04-14-2010, 10:29 AM
how about 14 points a game and 0 turnovers

That sounds like the preamble of the bdbd philosophy.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 10:35 AM
That sounds like the preamble of the bdbd philosophy.

That assumes that there is no breaking. The stupidity of the "bend but don't break defense" is that what it really was against the better teams was "bend AND break" defense.

LafayetteBear
04-14-2010, 10:42 AM
How's a team going to score 28 points and give up 6 turnovers?

Burritos' original post concerned a defense that gave up 28 points (and created 6 turnovers) per game, NOT a team whose offense scored 28 points a game and whose defense created 6 turnovers a game.

In answer to the original post, I would NOT take that kind of defense unless I had an offense capable of turning most of those six turnovers into points. It would be an exciting defense to watch, however.

Unit2Sucks
04-14-2010, 11:11 AM
Burritos' original post concerned a defense that gave up 28 points (and created 6 turnovers) per game, NOT a team whose offense scored 28 points a game and whose defense created 6 turnovers a game.

In answer to the original post, I would NOT take that kind of defense unless I had an offense capable of turning most of those six turnovers into points. It would be an exciting defense to watch, however.

I think the point was how is the other team going to score 4 touchdowns and turn it over 6 times. 10 possessions a game seems like a lot, unless of course our offense has a whole lot of 3 and outs or quick touchdowns.

Bottom line, I think the defense needs to give up fewer than 21 points a game to be decent. Give us that plus 2 turnovers a game and we should be pretty happy.

LethalFang
04-14-2010, 11:26 AM
Hypothetically speaking now that we're going with a more aggressive defensive posture. No more bend don't break. If the new defense gave up 28 points a game, but in turn got 6 turnovers a game, would you be happy with that?

Almost always, my answer will be yes.
Unless all those 6 turnovers come from the opposing QB throwing at midfield on 3rd and long, and we intercept him at the 1-yard line.

71Bear
04-14-2010, 11:30 AM
If your D gave up 4 TD's and generated 6 TO's, that would require at least 10 possessions by the opponent. If that were to happen, you would have to have one incredibly bad offense (lots of 3 and outs).

No thanks.

CalBearinLA
04-14-2010, 11:42 AM
Hypothetically speaking now that we're going with a more aggressive defensive posture. No more bend don't break. If the new defense gave up 28 points a game, but in turn got 6 turnovers a game, would you be happy with that?

If the score were determined solely by turnovers...6 would be a decent amt....but that means nothing when you can get 6 turnovers and have the offense score 10 points only.

dupdadee
04-14-2010, 11:44 AM
That is one sh!tty defense.

burritos
04-14-2010, 11:47 AM
If your D gave up 4 TD's and generated 6 TO's, that would require at least 10 possessions by the opponent. If that were to happen, you would have to have one incredibly bad offense (lots of 3 and outs).

No thanks.
Or a very fast efficient high risk high reward big play offense. How about alternating 3 and outs with quick scoring possessions.

cal97
04-14-2010, 11:52 AM
I don't think you guys are thinking about this correctly. If we had a really good defense, maybe we'd give up about 17 points per game and cause 2-3 turnovers per game. So basically the question is whether you'd trade 11 points for 3-4 turnovers. I say absolutely. 6 turnovers, which is way higher than anything remotely realistic, is likely to include a pick 6 or two as well.

The big problem with the question is that 6 turnovers per game is absurdly high and there's no way that would ever happen. Might as well ask about an offense that averages 100 points per game.

boredom
04-14-2010, 11:52 AM
If your D gave up 4 TD's and generated 6 TO's, that would require at least 10 possessions by the opponent. If that were to happen, you would have to have one incredibly bad offense (lots of 3 and outs).

No thanks.

You'd likely have more than 10 possessions. And that wouldn't necessarily mean bad offense. The last good offensive game we had was against furd. They got 12 possessions that day. That was without the turnover festival proposed here. With the turnovers, you're probably looking at short fields and quick scores (perhaps even a defensive td or two).

If we get 6 turnovers we really should be able to score more than 28 points.

71Bear
04-14-2010, 11:57 AM
The Cal offense is going to be a grind it out O since there is no one comparable to either Best or DJax this year (also, JT hates TO's - he prefers low risk; medium reward football). With Cal not having a quick strike capability, the opponents are not going to receive a chance to turn the ball over 6 times a game.

RaphaelAglietti
04-14-2010, 12:06 PM
I think the concept is to horde the ball on O to limit the oppositions opportunities to score. The pressure D is to force the opposition to beat you rather than letting them beat you with BDB.

BDB is like a prevent defense and we all know how well those go over.

The two games that really demonstrated how important it is to crush your opponents weer the Minnesota game and the Utah game.

In both Cal got out to 14 points leads. In the Minnesota game the BDB allowe Minn to get back into the game.

Against Utah it was special teams.

Point being is that if you get up 14-0 and the pressure D gets a 3 and out or forces a tournover Cal can get out to a 21-0 lead and psychologically crush the opponent which is what has to happened. Cal has left the door open too many times.

buster99
04-14-2010, 12:23 PM
I don't think you guys are thinking about this correctly. If we had a really good defense, maybe we'd give up about 17 points per game and cause 2-3 turnovers per game. So basically the question is whether you'd trade 11 points for 3-4 turnovers. I say absolutely. 6 turnovers, which is way higher than anything remotely realistic, is likely to include a pick 6 or two as well.

The big problem with the question is that 6 turnovers per game is absurdly high and there's no way that would ever happen. Might as well ask about an offense that averages 100 points per game.

Agree with Cal97, the question posed isn't even remotely possible. Last year's leader had 37 turnovers and that was in 14 games. No one averaged 3 turnovers per game. Six per game average?

UrsaMajor
04-14-2010, 12:31 PM
Right you are, 97. These "would you trade" questions always give me a laugh. "Would you trade having sex with your 5 favorite movie stars/supermodels for a week each if your penis fell off at the end of the 5th week?" How about remotely reasonable comparisons. If the question is--trade a conservative defense for a high risk/high return one, that is an interesting trade-off. In fact, I think an effective bbdb is better than an ineffective hr/hr defense; conversely, an effective hr/hr defense is better than an ineffective bbdb. (Think Lyle Setencich in the good days and then in the bad days). I'm much more impressed with how the defense executes than the specific philosophy.

burritos
04-14-2010, 12:47 PM
Right you are, 97. These "would you trade" questions always give me a laugh. "Would you trade having sex with your 5 favorite movie stars/supermodels for a week each if your penis fell off at the end of the 5th week?" How about remotely reasonable comparisons. If the question is--trade a conservative defense for a high risk/high return one, that is an interesting trade-off. In fact, I think an effective bbdb is better than an ineffective hr/hr defense; conversely, an effective hr/hr defense is better than an ineffective bbdb. (Think Lyle Setencich in the good days and then in the bad days). I'm much more impressed with how the defense executes than the specific philosophy.

How about would you rather have an effective bbdb vs an effective hr/hr defense? Which is easier to achieve?

UrsaMajor
04-14-2010, 12:58 PM
Now that's a really interesting question. I think off the top of my head, I'd prefer the latter, because in addition to keeping opponent's scoring down, you'd presumably get turnovers that would aid your offense. As for which is easier to achieve, I really don't know, although I suspect it depends on the personnel (i.e., an effective hr/hr needs stud athletes in pass rush and coverage positions). Good question, though.

Unit2Sucks
04-14-2010, 01:06 PM
How about would you rather have an effective bbdb vs an effective hr/hr defense? Which is easier to achieve?

What about the third alternative? A defense that is strong against the run, puts pressure on the QB and doesn't allow receivers to run free in the secondary? That's what traditional quality college defenses do. Alabama did it this year, USC does it almost every year, and heck even the losers in Bruin land were able to do it under Dewayne Walker for many years.

I think that's what everyone wants, and it takes 3 things: (i) talent, (ii) good coaching and (iii) execution. Maybe you can say that (iii) is a product of (ii) or both (i) and (ii), but bottom line is you need talent and good coaching.

burritos
04-14-2010, 01:58 PM
What about the third alternative? A defense that is strong against the run, puts pressure on the QB and doesn't allow receivers to run free in the secondary? That's what traditional quality college defenses do. Alabama did it this year, USC does it almost every year, and heck even the losers in Bruin land were able to do it under Dewayne Walker for many years.

I think that's what everyone wants, and it takes 3 things: (i) talent, (ii) good coaching and (iii) execution. Maybe you can say that (iii) is a product of (ii) or both (i) and (ii), but bottom line is you need talent and good coaching.

What if you can't get all those key elements but instead you had a few db's who could really create turnovers in a hr/hr system? Would that palatable? I'd be surprised if the turnover champion in football was necessarily the best team in football year after year.

UrsaMajor
04-14-2010, 02:06 PM
Realistically, even the greatest db's can't create turnovers w/out a pass rush. Most int's are the result of a hurried qb making a mistake; if he has time, he can usually avoid the int, even if he can't complete the pass. It also helps to play against an rb like Joe McKnight who likes to leave the ball on the turf every now and again...

ohsooso
04-14-2010, 02:34 PM
You'd likely have more than 10 possessions. And that wouldn't necessarily mean bad offense. The last good offensive game we had was against furd. They got 12 possessions that day. That was without the turnover festival proposed here. With the turnovers, you're probably looking at short fields and quick scores (perhaps even a defensive td or two).

If we get 6 turnovers we really should be able to score more than 28 points.

Especially considering that at least one and often two of those turnovers will be returned for touchdowns.

By the way, that's a minimum of 10 possessions per game, and EVERY ONE would have to be a turnover. We know that isn't going to happen, so the opposition would need quite a few more possessions than that for this to be realistic. And that just isn't realistic.

burritos
04-14-2010, 03:50 PM
Realistically, even the greatest db's can't create turnovers w/out a pass rush. Most int's are the result of a hurried qb making a mistake; if he has time, he can usually avoid the int, even if he can't complete the pass. It also helps to play against an rb like Joe McKnight who likes to leave the ball on the turf every now and again...
Here's a scenario, imagine having the likes of D. Hughes on one side of the ball ,Deltha O'neal on the other,, and Nmandi A as safety. All once in a lifetime players we had in a span of a decade. Then imagine we have multiple Derrick Hill quality Dlinemen. Good, but doesn't really get to the QB. We stack the box to stuff the run, but are unable to get to the QB. HR/HR. The opposing team will be passing and we'd be getting our fair share of picks, but not every pass is going to be stopped.

UrsaMajor
04-14-2010, 04:15 PM
True, but the problem is you need a set of wild assumptions. More common is the situation we had last year, with a (mostly) lock down corner on one side and a stiff on the other. Decent qb's just throw away from the dangerous side.

LethalFang
04-15-2010, 01:52 AM
This is purely a hypothetical question, but look at it this way: generally speaking, it's usually considered a strong defensive effort if the defense gives up 21 points and forces 2 turnovers. (Of course it also depends on total yardage, i.e., they scored 3 TDs out of how many possessions).
Then, would you give up another touchdown to trade for 4 more turnovers?
I would!

RealBear65
04-15-2010, 01:10 PM
The NCAA D-1A average is 14 possessions/team/game. This average hasn't changed much over the past 50 years except when they changed the game clock start rule in 2006 to start the clock on a change of possession when the ready for play signal was given.

In 2009, D-1A Teams played 1,522 games. Included in these games were 13 games in which one of the teams had 6 takeaways from the other. The record of the teams gaining the 6 takeaways was 11-2. They scored 32.7 ppg in these 13 games and allowed 20.8 ppg. Had the teams gaining the 6 takeaways allowed 28 points to their opponents, then these 13 teams would have had a 8-5 W/L Record (0.615). That record is far from being elite and lower than JT's record at Cal.