Telling Defensive Statistics

Moseley put up some very interesting defensive statistics. Namely, Oregon has played more defensive snaps that any other team in the country. Despite that, they somehow rank 75th in overall defense and are giving up only 27 points per game. The real killer this year however, is red zone defense. Oregon is giving up scores over 93% of the time, with TDs on 60% of red zone drives. Last year, those numbers were 69 and 40, respectively.

So, there is good and bad to take from these numbers. However, the defense cannot be on the field for that many snaps against OSU, or the Ducks won't stand a chance.

7 months ago jtlight Comment 45 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very interesting. Between turnovers (T-8th in losses in Pac-10), a no huddle offense, and giving up 39.5% of their 3rd downs (7th in Pac-10).

We definitely need to control the clock better and minimize mistakes vs. OSU. Need to keep their offense off the field.

It's spelled "S-h-u-t-a-b-r-i-c-k".

by JShufelt on Nov 18, 2008 9:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I would agree with you 100 %

except for the unfortunate reality that conservative play has been Oregon’s achilles heel this year. Our Offense looked phenomenal on Saturday until they started playing control the clock ball.

I heart taxes.

by everett on Nov 18, 2008 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think they just made mistakes...

Masoli fumbled a football, Dickson slipped down on what should have been a first down throw. There were just a lot of mistakes. I don’t think it had a lot to do with playing ball control.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 19, 2008 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good luck with that!

The problem with controlling the clock is that your offense can’t complete passes to prevent the clock from stopping and your pass defense just plain sucks.

It’s not a very meaningful statistic (except in the 4th quarter when you have the lead), but OSU is like 5th in the NCAA in time of possession this year. I blame it on Quizz. That guy just likes to run the ball.

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 18, 2008 9:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Some Stats

Through Oregon’s 11 games and Oregon State’s 10 games

Number of Plays Oregon’s Defense has been on the field is 864
Number of Plays Oregon State’s Defense has been on the field is 611
Oregon’s defense has given up 4,133 yards.
Oregon State’s defense has given up 2,889 yards.
Oregon’s defense allows 4.78 yards per play.
Oregon State’s defense allows 4.73 yards per play.
So the Beavers have the better defense — by 1.8 inches per play in one fewer game

Since you won’t even give credit to Masoli’s game on Saturday passing the ball, I won’t even bother bringing it up.

--Dominic

Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.

by dvieira on Nov 18, 2008 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fun. You read the Oregonian

Masoli throwing for more than 200 yards against a team that gave up 28 points to WSU and lost to New Mexico is not exactly a big deal.

Yes, it is his most recent performance, but for now, it’s a fluke. How many first downs did he convert in the 2nd half?

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 18, 2008 11:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oops forgot to reply to you here. You do know that Arizona is 3rd in the conference in passing defense right? Ahead of….Oregon State?

--Dominic

Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.

by dvieira on Nov 19, 2008 12:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

not one performance.

its actually the second time he was pac-10 player of the week.

I heart taxes.

by everett on Nov 19, 2008 7:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

he had 147 yards passing the other time.

He’ll be a good quarterback someday. For now, he has three times as many games with under 50 yards passing as he does over 175 yards.

It’s nice to see him complete some passes against a team with a pulse though. I would be excited by this recent dramatic improvement if he was my quarterback.

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 19, 2008 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Am I in the twilight zone?

It's spelled "S-h-u-t-U-p-A-n-d-D-a-n-c-e".

by JShufelt on Nov 19, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A QB doesn't have to throw for 400 yards.

It’s not the amount of passing yards last Saturday that’s impressing us… it’s how well he ran the game. Dennis Dixon last year, while the frontrunner for the Heisman, did not throw for all that many yards. It’s how he managed the game, led the team, made plays on his feet, kept the ball moving on offense… it’s our style of QB. I’ll take it over 400 yards and a loss (see: Lyle, Stanford 08 game.)

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 19, 2008 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dixon had spectacular passing stats.

Lyle, Stanford game: 3 individual turnovers resulting in 9 points—game lost by 8.

It wasn’t the 400 yards. Thanks for stopping by the booth.

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 19, 2008 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Turnovers

And you can’t see how trying to throw for 400 yards could result in turnovers?

I like the yellow helmets!

by MarineCorpsDuck on Nov 20, 2008 7:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh.

Beat me to that one. Whoops.

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 20, 2008 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When you throw the ball enough to put 400 yards up...

…you throw the ball enough to throw 3 picks.

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 20, 2008 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Listen CV.

What I’m trying to say is that we expect different production from our QBs than you do to yours. We are perfectly content with our QBs throwing for under 200 yards. Dennis Dixon threw for 196 yards in arguably his (well, the team’s) best game of the season last year, save for the Michigan game which you argue apparently doesn’t count.

Masoli was doing fine for our offense and expectations up until last Saturday, when he did an excellent job of running our sort of spread-option offense. The Beavers do not run our offense, so your argument that Masoli is somehow unimpressive seems apples to oranges to me.

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 20, 2008 8:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

I sort of with CV on this one. I mean…he’s being so reasonable…

It’s nice to see him complete some passes against a team with a pulse though. I would be excited by this recent dramatic improvement if he was my quarterback.

This isn’t the CV I’ve come to know and….sort of tolerate?

Anyway, Masoli has been very unimpressive in many of his games. He was terrible against UCLA and Cal. He was decent against ASU and WSU. He showed flashes against Stanford, and played a great game against Arizona.

While QB production/success varies by team, it doesn’t vary that much. It has to do with what you do with the attempts that you are given. Masoli has only been above average in 2 games this season: WSU and Arizona. For a lot of the season, Masoli has not been doing fine. He has been up and down, and pulled it together last game.

While I disagree with the use of the yardage statistic, there are many out there that prove Masoli has not had a great season. Also, the lack of yardage by Masoli have been indicative that he had either 1) a terrible game, or 2) didn’t do anything special with the passing game.

As far as OSU needing different production out of the QB, I disagree as well. They need an efficient QB. In fact, OSU has lost 3 of the 4 games where Moevao attempted over 30 passes, and the win was against Hawaii.

Now, this doesn’t mean I don’t like Masoli. I think he’s growing and is the best option at QB we have right now. But lets be honest about what he’s done this season.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 20, 2008 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He fits our offense.

He’s making it work. We are winning games. Masoli didn’t have a good game at Cal, but nobody had a good game at Cal. SC was his first start, it was in the Coliseum, and really nobody expected to win this game did we?

I’m just saying, the past 2 games I think he has found his rhythm. He has been impressive the past 2 weeks, I just think that should be acknowledged.

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 20, 2008 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It was aknowledged...

as much as CV will ever acknowledge that any Duck has done a good job.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 20, 2008 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sounded rather sarcastic to me.

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 20, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's possible...

Though it would be like the least funny sarcasm in the history of man.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 20, 2008 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And that would be un-CV-like because...?

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 20, 2008 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ZING!

It's spelled "S-h-u-t-U-p-A-n-d-D-a-n-c-e".

by JShufelt on Nov 20, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're a flamer everywhere!

Why am I not surprise to see your stupid Rodent a** here? You are pathological and sad, and you are dead wrong about Oregon not completing passes. What was it that Masoli did last week? Oh yeah, threw for 298 yards, two scores and no picks. Get stuffed Rodent.

by duckman2nine on Nov 21, 2008 11:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Friend, meet CV3000

Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn Shufelt?

by qrsouther on Nov 22, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fun

Oregon, as a team, only converted 3 first downs in the second half, none of them directly related to Masoli. Two were by Jeremiah Johnson and 1 was the touchdown by Blount. Masoli was 3 for 5 passing in the second half.

In the first half, Oregon had 15 first down conversions, 12 of them directly related to Masoli either by passing or by running

I don’t see your point. Masoli not completing passes had nothing to do with Arizona coming back in the second half. Arizona made some good defensive stops early in the second half, caused some quick turnarounds for the defense and put together long drives. It is really clear in the box score…if you would actually look. Also look at the big plays that Oregon hit. Special teams gave great field position and big hits in the running game and passing game in the first half led to the quick turnaround for the D (44, 65 and 66 yards respectively)

You may be right. It might be a fluke, but it also might be a QB finally finding his rhythm in the offense.

--Dominic

Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.

by dvieira on Nov 19, 2008 12:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

team needs to play chess instead of checkers

Masoli not completing passes had nothing to do with Arizona coming back in the second half. Arizona made some good defensive stops early in the second half

3 for 5 is fine, but the team converted only 3 first downs in the 2nd half, which is the main reason that Arizona had any opportunity to make it close. If they could have had even one sustained drive, it could have prevented 1-2 possessions by Zona’s offense and the defense might not have been so sluggish—rather unlikely.

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 19, 2008 2:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

While we didn’t really have any sustained drives, we couldn’t get their offense off the field.

It's spelled "S-h-u-t-s-a-n-d-s-c-o-r-e-s"".

by JShufelt on Nov 19, 2008 8:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One and the same.

Once you realize this you will be closer to football enlightenment.

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 19, 2008 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No it’s two sides of the same coin, Confucius.

It's spelled "S-h-u-t-U-p-A-n-d-D-a-n-c-e".

by JShufelt on Nov 19, 2008 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

Our offense had a couple 3 and outs. Our D got on the field and put up with some Arizona drives of great clock drainage. Our offense was going around 8 or 9 real-time minutes without starting a drive.

Our defense was tired, but I don’t think that was as much of the offense’s doing, as the defenses tendency to only show up on 1st and 2nd down, then evidently blitz 7 on 3rd downs while leaving Gronkowski wide-the-fuck-open.

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 19, 2008 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

d'oh.

Drink more Duff Beer!

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 19, 2008 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Snatch the victory from my jaws of defeat!

Roses are Orange.

by CV3000 on Nov 19, 2008 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

F*ck you Shufelt you're gonna spend the night... OUT-SIDE!

by qrsouther on Nov 19, 2008 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is to lose when you were assured to win.
To snatch victory from the jaws of defeat would be to win when you were assured to lose.

Either way… I agree with your punctuation.

“?”

It's spelled "S-h-u-t-U-p-A-n-d-D-a-n-c-e".

by JShufelt on Nov 20, 2008 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs