2013 trash/ a hot mess
2014 rebuilding starts
2015 trending up
2016 ???

http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=Chart-26-schools-have-improved-scoring-defense-for-2-straight-years

That's a great stat that we are third best in last two years in points allowed. 45 to 30 is great. Now let's drop it to 24.

24ppg would be really nice

Ncsf;842672453 said:

---

That's a great stat that we are third best in last two years in points allowed. 45 to 30 is great. Now let's drop it to 24.

---

Agree, and not to be a Debbie Downer, but it does help that we started with a far worse scoring defense than any other team on that list. Hell, our ending place of "only" 30.7 points per game in 2015 is still higher than where Pitt (the bottom team on the list) *started in 2013 (27 ppg.)

Progress is progress

Just a sign of how bad things had gotten the holes were deep

Who did the other defenses face teams,schedule, talent-depth

going4roses;842672450 said:

---

http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=Chart-26-schools-have-improved-scoring-defense-for-2-straight-years

---

On that list, every year we have the highest points allowed of every team listed

Calcoholic;842672467 said:

---

Agree, and not to be a Debbie Downer, but it does help that we started with a far worse scoring defense than any other team on that list. Hell, our ending place of "only" 30.7 points per game in 2015 is still higher than where Pitt (the bottom team on the list) *started in 2013 (27 ppg.)

---

Listen Debbie ! I'm happy with the progress. I also am not sure that's the best way to judge our defense though. Much like the Warriors, we have many more opportunities with quick drives and play plenty of teams that are similar. Would love to hear what some would think is the most accurate measure of defense.

dajo9;842672479 said:

---

On that list, every year we have the highest points allowed of every team listed

---

Pac 12 is really competitive.

we have gone from historically horrid on D to just below average. If we can be an average to slightly above average D in the PAC that's progress and that's where we need to be to help compensate for the QB change. It's doable. Not saying they need to become the #1 D in the PAC. just get into the average range which is about 27 year in year out in the PAC that'll be a difference maker for us

Ncsf;842672482 said:

---

Listen Debbie ! I'm happy with the progress. I also am not sure that's the best way to judge our defense though. Much like the Warriors, we have many more opportunities with quick drives and play plenty of teams that are similar. Would love to hear what some would think is the most accurate measure of defense.

---

There's gotta be some points-per-possession and yards-per-possession metric, right?

6.1 yards per play. 10th in the conference
5898 yds given up total. I think 9th--but OSU only played 12 games. give them 13 and we go up one
453 yds/game 8th

scoring D was 8th

IN CONFERENCE PLAY ONLY

6.18 yds/play. 9th but very little spread between 7-10 (6.1-6.29)

According to the NCAA, in team defense, Cal is ranked #108 out of 127 in the FBS. Basically Cal is still a bottom feeder. One "plus" on this is Arizona, ASU, Oregon and OSU are ranked below Cal...and all except for Oregon did worse than Cal. By comparison, Furd finished at #43. USC and UCLA finished at #65 and #67.

Basically this says the P12 beat each other up as usual.

Any way, if Cal wants to compete for the conference title, has to improve on D and year to year improvement means little because the start point was so dismal. Cal has improved on D, no doubt, but it hasn't made any significant gains and I thinks that's why Cal didn't beat any of the "good" P12 teams this season, or last, or the year before.

Given Goff is gone, the improvement on D will have to be greater to compete for a title...or the new QB and offense turn out to be better. (doubtful)

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22

moonpod;842672528 said:

---

we have gone from historically horrid on D to just below average. If we can be an average to slightly above average D in the PAC that's progress and that's where we need to be to help compensate for the QB change. It's doable. Not saying they need to become the #1 D in the PAC. just get into the average range which is about 27 year in year out in the PAC that'll be a difference maker for us

---

Why in year 4 under a head coach and year 3 under the DC would our goal be "slightly above average". And, I don't think that necessarily compensates for the QB change given that we had a very good QB (but that is a big variable at this point). But if all it did was compensate, doesn't that leave us again with a losing record in the conference? Shouldn't we be expecting to break through in year 4?

This has been a consistent meme among Cal fans since early in the Tedford regime - that we only need an average D. This isn't the NFL where the salary cap sometimes requires you to rob Peter to pay Paul. Having a good offense doesn't preclude a good defense, and most very good teams have both. Both defense and offense should be striving to be top 20, and THAT is what will be a difference maker.

I don't care how bad a defense WAS, you've had almost an entire recruiting cycle to build a new defense. What we were 3 years ago is irrelevant.

What matters is performance in conference. And in conference Cal is 8th in the PAC on D by all parameters more or less. The start point as noted was historically bad. If they can get another small bump in D performance they can be an average PAC D (one field goal less a game). If you throw out Washington (they were WAY better than everyone else last year) the separation between the top Ds in the PAC and the middle rung isn't THAT much. In terms of being a top PAC D? They need to cut one TD out a game. That's it. One TD less a game and the D is as good as any in the PAC save the fuskies. For reference last year Cal improved by 10 points a game

The O may not take that much of a slide back IF the OL improvement seen at the end of the year with the demise of VS is real. If it is then we can run the ball better and utilize safer passes with players that are better at YAC then we've had recently and not take a terrible drop off. The reality is that Goff got pounded as our starter and did amazing things given his lack of pass pro. A lesser QB with better protection can produce at a reasonable level. OTOH if the pass pro is miserable again and we can't run the ball well.....

rush the passer and the stats might get better. we are not going to beat sc, ucla, or furd without playing d. kaufman questionable so far.

calgo430;842672684 said:

---

rush the passer and the stats might get better. we are not going to beat sc, ucla, or furd without playing d. kaufman questionable so far.

---

I disagree. Our defense was so deficient in talent that the only D we could run was a bend but don't break. Follow the history or our DC and you would know his defense has a propensity to blitz. In order to bring guys, you have to have speed and cover ability. If you can't do that, you are toast.

I think we are going to see a much more aggressive defense this year. He has a more mobile front and much more speed!

calgo430;842672684 said:

---

rush the passer and the stats might get better. we are not going to beat sc, ucla, or furd without playing d. kaufman questionable so far.

---

Which DC could have produced an 'unquestionable' D considering the huge talent (and bodies) gap that we've had?
Bodies seems to have been resolved, now technique and ready depth is being addressed.
Kaufman's reputation was his ability to get bad D's to become good (or better).
Seems to me, FWIW, that he's done and doing that.

Calgo did you play ? Or coach ball?

Just asking

a more fair criticism would perhaps be that the talent deficit wasn't rectified very quickly. It was clear after the 2013 season that we had major issues in our defensive talent/depth. It's taken now realistically 3 seasons to fix that, granted the 2013/14 recruiting season was lost to Buh--and even now no one is gonna confuse our D with Washington's. I am optimistic however that we will at least cut out the 3 pts/game to bring the D to "average" PAC levels.

beelzebear;842672544 said:

---

According to the NCAA, in team defense, Cal is ranked #108 out of 127 in the FBS. Basically Cal is still a bottom feeder. One "plus" on this is Arizona, ASU, Oregon and OSU are ranked below Cal...and all except for Oregon did worse than Cal. By comparison, Furd finished at #43. USC and UCLA finished at #65 and #67.

Basically this says the P12 beat each other up as usual.

Any way, if Cal wants to compete for the conference title, has to improve on D and year to year improvement means little because the start point was so dismal. Cal has improved on D, no doubt, but it hasn't made any significant gains and I thinks that's why Cal didn't beat any of the "good" P12 teams this season, or last, or the year before.

Given Goff is gone, the improvement on D will have to be greater to compete for a title...or the new QB and offense turn out to be better. (doubtful)

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22

---

Yes - hard to find a positive trend line in 0-12.

Lol

Things started going south in Utah of course. The D there recovered 3 TOs and held Utah to 30 at home. The Cal offense struggled with 24... It did so again the next few weeks: 24, 21 and 28 points (Southern Cal, UCLA and Oregon). Some would call that stretch of Utah, Southern Cal, UCLA and Oregon pretty good teams. A few games later, against Stanford, we managed 22 points. Of note, that was the worst Stanford D in a few years, the worst SC D in quite a few years, UCLA and Oregon as well. The Ducks actually had the worst pass D in the nation prior to our game with them, yet we complete 45% of our passes with the best QB in the game. The offense was very much contributory to our stretch of poor results.

Upon season's end I'd much rather our OC be gone than our DC. Hallelujah.

Point of fact we receded offensively last year

moonpod;842672764 said:

---

Point of fact we receded offensively last year

---

taking that into account, along with a (seemingly) improved OL, i think it may just offset having a new QB so that our overall production may not be too much lower.

especially if our Defense continues to get better, having 8-9 points less a game (~30 ppg) should still be competitive. (from 2013 to 2014, our ppg shot up by 15.3 points) i don't think we will see anything that extreme, but anticipate having more close games/losses.

one thing that would help the d is sustaining longer drives, and that starts with a solid oline and improved running attack. Its no coincidence that ball control teams like Furd lead the conference on defense. Means defense on the field less. The Pac has a lot of quick scoring big time offenses, so conference defenses will tend to rate worse when compared to other conference defenses.

wifeisafurd;842672785 said:

---

one thing that would help the d is sustaining longer drives, and that starts with a solid oline and improved running attack. Its no coincidence that ball control teams like Furd lead the conference on defense. Means defense on the field less. The Pac has a lot of quick scoring big time offenses, so conference defenses will tend to rate worse when compared to other conference defenses.

---

but would you want to have a spread team slow down its offense against a pro-style Furd team? wouldn't you want to play to your advantage? granted, their longer time of possession means less for you, and places more pressure on you to convert every time.

i'm okay with a middling "defense" in the total score sense of the word if we can be opportunistic, and generate more possessions for our strength. however, regardless of strategy and style of play, i agree strong OL (and DL) is key.

SmellinRoses;842672749 said:

---

Yes - hard to find a positive trend line in 0-12.

---

Going 0-5 against winning U$C, UCLA, Oregon, Utah and Furd isn't a good direction. Still can't beat a decent winning program.

beelzebear;842672794 said:

---

Going 0-5 against winning U$C, UCLA, Oregon, Utah and Furd isn't a good direction. Still can't beat a decent winning program.

---

haven't for a while .... maybe this year, or not.
BTW ... we're now a decent winning program, not great, just decent but that's a step up.

Still can't beat top teams (Yet)

For what we spend on coaches/cost of living plus gpa ok constraints along with a talent deficit... Wanting more is fine nothing wrong with that but expecting it is __________

We fell behind ... In class and on the field no quick fixes on the cheap .

Ncsf;842672693 said:

---

I disagree. Our defense was so deficient in talent that the only D we could run was a bend but don't break. Follow the history or our DC and you would know his defense has a propensity to blitz. In order to bring guys, you have to have speed and cover ability. If you can't do that, you are toast.

I think we are going to see a much more aggressive defense this year. He has a more mobile front and much more speed!

---

Who are the guys with speed who will be breaking into the defensive rotation?

beelzebear;842672794 said:

---

Going 0-5 against winning U$C, UCLA, Oregon, Utah and Furd isn't a good direction. Still can't beat a decent winning program.

---

Well. He hadn't beaten a program that finished with a winning record before last year either. But last year he beat several. Look he isn't gonna get fired this year no matter what So you may as well hope that the vector really is up. I totally agree. The 0 fer against the top programs in the PAC isn't good. And that's the next big step he needs to take competitively. But it was 0 fer against winning programs period before last year. And in fact against his "MO" he won last year basically with a better D. The O regressed. So maybe the "book" on Sonny isn't written yet. I mean absolutely 2016 could be shades of 2013 and then he will most likely be gone after 2017. But maybe the OL improvement at the end of last year is real and the D makes another incremental improvement establishing that the "foundation" of the program has been restored and that it becomes more reasonable to have very high expectations for 2017 and 2018.

2017 we should be in playoffs.

Big C_Cal;842672819 said:

---

Who are the guys with speed who will be breaking into the defensive rotation?

---

Lawrence Taylor Jr.

moonpod;842672833 said:

---

Well. He hadn't beaten a program that finished with a winning record before last year either. But last year he beat several. Look he isn't gonna get fired this year no matter what So you may as well hope that the vector really is up. I totally agree. The 0 fer against the top programs in the PAC isn't good. And that's the next big step he needs to take competitively. But it was 0 fer against winning programs period before last year. And in fact against his "MO" he won last year basically with a better D. The O regressed. So maybe the "book" on Sonny isn't written yet. I mean absolutely 2016 could be shades of 2013 and then he will most likely be gone after 2017. But maybe the OL improvement at the end of last year is real and the D makes another incremental improvement establishing that the "foundation" of the program has been restored and that it becomes more reasonable to have very high expectations for 2017 and 2018.

---

Okay fair enough...perhaps the book isn't written yet...but the first few chapters were very uneven and a lot of that was on him. Anyway, imagine Cal last year without Goff...even if the offense declined. Also I'm still a bit miffed on his looking for another job and that baloney. Yes Cal had a winning season but only won games it should have. We'll see about the '17 and '18.