Football. LA Tech transformed under incoming Holtz regime - latechsports.com

A new article has been posted on www.latechsports.com:

In a season of dramatic transition for Louisiana Tech, the one thing the Bulldogs don't want to change is the win total. Skip Holtz takes over for former coach Sonny Dykes, who left for California after leading Louisiana Tech to a school-record-tying nine wins at the FBS level. The Bulldogs also joined a new league -- Conference USA -- after the dissolution of the Western Athletic Conference. Louisiana Tech returns only three starters on offense and four on defense, but regardless of the personnel, Holtz will operate differently than Dykes.

More...

Discuss it here.

Way to try to lower expectations. Slower offense won't be like last year which was fun to watch, run more, won't score over 40, probably will finish .500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANODESSEY

Way to try to lower expectations. Slower offense won't be like last year which was fun to watch, run more, won't score over 40, probably will finish .500.

---

No kidding. What a great article to post while we're trying to increase season ticket sales.<sarcasm>

It's like that scene in Spiderman 2 where he's trying to stop the runaway train. T-Mac is Spiderman, the train is our admin, and Doc Oc is DR.

Hey guys no worries though! It was these same philosophies that made him successful at South Florida. I had really thought we were going to be ok on offense once Peterson was picked as the OC.

Is it unprecedented for a university to send out a letter to its fans saying that our product will result in a sub .500 year? I think we all know we have a lot of challenges facing this team, but we have a really bad schedule.

I'd like to know who's idea it was to post this article.

It's an Associated Press article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

It's an Associated Press article.

---

Does that mean we have to post it on our website? A school's job, from Grambling to Alabama, is to tell its fans "Hell yea, 12-0 this year!" not "eh. we could be worse." Right? Leave ".500" to the pundits whether its true or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

It's an Associated Press article.

---

I think BTB wrote it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANODESSEY

Way to try to lower expectations. Slower offense won't be like last year which was fun to watch, run more, won't score over 40, probably will finish .500.

---

Oh no! We suck again!!

Are you guys mad because you heard the truth?! We all know our running backs are very good. We all know how gut wrenching it was last year to watch the other teams move almost at will against our defense. So, if we slow down some and run the ball down our opponent's throat and win, is that worth whining about? And while we run, our QB should become more comfortable with throwing and have a better chance at completion because we can run. Last years defense did get tired because they were on the field a lot. If we find we can't run, I expect our QB will be throwing the ball a lot. The truth - it hurts sometimes.

Good luck with those low expectations, I think we are going to win at least 8 and could win them all... very seriously.

That article outlined exactly the criticism I have read about Holtz from previous schools. I am disappointed. I was under the impression he committed to running a fast paced offense.

I truly don't think our offense was the cause of our defense being so bad... I think it was scheme. Sure, our D was tired...we don't need to mess with the O, just improve the D and we will be fine....this article has me worried

We have had a very balanced offense the past couple years. Running the ball is not a problem. Being too conservative and finishing at .500 is. If we are only looking to score in the 20's, then I believe we will be losing games. Mr. Holtz was brought here to win football games, and that is what I expect.
This article has really put me in a bad mood. Was it written by anybody connected with our program? Is there any validity to it?

This was an Associated Press article from yesterday without a byline.
http://collegefootball.ap.org/articl...g-holtz-regime

I have no idea why ElAyTechSports.com ran the article. BTB picked it up, too.

Holtz's only 2 quotes in the article basically said Tech needs to mix in a little defense. The offense last year got us a 3rd place finish in the WAC, but it was the defense in 2011 that won the WAC championship. I would personally rather see the 2011 version of Tech football than the 2012 version. It drove me nuts last year knowing that if we had to punt or if we had a turnover, we were going to lose. Sonny said he wanted to outscore the other team; Skip is saying he wants to hold the other team to fewer points. A win is a win guys.

Damn depressing!!!! Did the author go to NC State?

I doubt our new OC will deviate from our/his form too much but our strength is the run. If the balls can't be thrown or be caught, then we run resulting in lower scoring. Let's go with our strength this year...maybe this article is a smoke screen???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Docman5

Are you guys mad because you heard the truth?! We all know our running backs are very good. We all know how gut wrenching it was last year to watch the other teams move almost at will against our defense. So, if we slow down some and run the ball down our opponent's throat and win, is that worth whining about? And while we run, our QB should become more comfortable with throwing and have a better chance at completion because we can run. Last years defense did get tired because they were on the field a lot. If we find we can't run, I expect our QB will be throwing the ball a lot. The truth - it hurts sometimes.

---

Come on now. Don't tell me you've fallen victim of the "tired defense" adage. Our defense did all of the same conditioning as the offense all summer last year and they went against us (the #1 offense in the country) all day in practice. And EVERY game, we ran more plays than they did at least by 20-30 plays. And still everyone wants to blame our #1 offense for our #120 defense. It doesn't matter what you think the reason for their poor performances was, the truth is that they didnt perform up to the standard that was set during the WAC Chapuinship year when we still ran the fast paced offense. And you can say "well the offense wasn't as good the championship year as it was last year." Exactly. We got better and performed to our highest level like we were supposed to, the defense didn't. Bottom line, expectations of a defensive drop off, coaching error, and whiny selfish players was what made us bad on defense last year, NOT the offense. Hell, Oregon's defense was top 50 last year, they prolly ran pretty close to the same pace as us, and nobody said their offense cost them games. So don't blame putting up points for losses. That's what an offense is supposed to do, it's when you don't score, or can't prevent a score that you lose. Would anybody like to revisit the Dooley days? Fans beg for better offense, we get it, and now everybody wants to go back to Dooley and score 17 a game again and give up 25 and go 4-8. Awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

Come on now. Don't tell me you've fallen victim of the "tired defense" adage. Our defense did all of the same conditioning as the offense all summer last year and they went against us (the #1 offense in the country) all day in practice. And EVERY game, we ran more plays than they did at least by 20-30 plays. And still everyone wants to blame our #1 offense for our #120 defense. It doesn't matter what you think the reason for their poor performances was, the truth is that they didnt perform up to the standard that was set during the WAC Chapuinship year when we still ran the fast paced offense. And you can say "well the offense wasn't as good the championship year as it was last year." Exactly. We got better and performed to our highest level like we were supposed to, the defense didn't. Bottom line, expectations of a defensive drop off, coaching error, and whiny selfish players was what made us bad on defense last year, NOT the offense. Hell, Oregon's defense was top 50 last year, they prolly ran pretty close to the same pace as us, and nobody said their offense cost them games. So don't blame putting up points for losses. That's what an offense is supposed to do, it's when you don't score, or can't prevent a score that you lose. Would anybody like to revisit the Dooley days? Fans beg for better offense, we get it, and now everybody wants to go back to Dooley and score 17 a game again and give up 25 and go 4-8. Awesome.

---

Lol. You WOULD know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

Holtz's only 2 quotes in the article basically said Tech needs to mix in a little defense. The offense last year got us a 3rd place finish in the WAC, but it was the defense in 2011 that won the WAC championship. I would personally rather see the 2011 version of Tech football than the 2012 version. It drove me nuts last year knowing that if we had to punt or if we had a turnover, we were going to lose. Sonny said he wanted to outscore the other team; Skip is saying he wants to hold the other team to fewer points. A win is a win guys.

---

I believe it was the defense that got us 3rd place. We should have won them all. :shocked2:

Probably should have stated it better: the best offense in the nation, without a defense gets you very little.... I can't complain that a coach wants to mix in some defense. Utah St deserved the WAC championship because they had a good offense AND a good defense. The "just outscore them" philosophy didn't work for us. Let's try something else now.

Really? Suicide watch because a coach says he wants to protect the defense?

I'll tell you what i think. Dykes' brand of football was a pain in the ass. Shorter games cause the clock is running and better balance between o & d should not be a cause for concern. Its a team game and focusing only on offense gets u beat by good defensive teams.

I like football but i dont like the clock stoppage that comes with dykes ball. 4+ hrs in a stsdium= pain in my ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LATechBanjo

I think BTB wrote it

---

wrong

Warner - all valid points. Appreciate the analysis; keep it coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

Come on now. Don't tell me you've fallen victim of the "tired defense" adage. Our defense did all of the same conditioning as the offense all summer last year and they went against us (the #1 offense in the country) all day in practice. And EVERY game, we ran more plays than they did at least by 20-30 plays. And still everyone wants to blame our #1 offense for our #120 defense. It doesn't matter what you think the reason for their poor performances was, the truth is that they didnt perform up to the standard that was set during the WAC Chapuinship year when we still ran the fast paced offense. And you can say "well the offense wasn't as good the championship year as it was last year." Exactly. We got better and performed to our highest level like we were supposed to, the defense didn't. Bottom line, expectations of a defensive drop off, coaching error, and whiny selfish players was what made us bad on defense last year, NOT the offense. Hell, Oregon's defense was top 50 last year, they prolly ran pretty close to the same pace as us, and nobody said their offense cost them games. So don't blame putting up points for losses. That's what an offense is supposed to do, it's when you don't score, or can't prevent a score that you lose. Would anybody like to revisit the Dooley days? Fans beg for better offense, we get it, and now everybody wants to go back to Dooley and score 17 a game again and give up 25 and go 4-8. Awesome.

---

Good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

Come on now. Don't tell me you've fallen victim of the "tired defense" adage. Our defense did all of the same conditioning as the offense all summer last year and they went against us (the #1 offense in the country) all day in practice. And EVERY game, we ran more plays than they did at least by 20-30 plays. And still everyone wants to blame our #1 offense for our #120 defense. It doesn't matter what you think the reason for their poor performances was, the truth is that they didnt perform up to the standard that was set during the WAC Chapuinship year when we still ran the fast paced offense. And you can say "well the offense wasn't as good the championship year as it was last year." Exactly. We got better and performed to our highest level like we were supposed to, the defense didn't. Bottom line, expectations of a defensive drop off, coaching error, and whiny selfish players was what made us bad on defense last year, NOT the offense. Hell, Oregon's defense was top 50 last year, they prolly ran pretty close to the same pace as us, and nobody said their offense cost them games. So don't blame putting up points for losses. That's what an offense is supposed to do, it's when you don't score, or can't prevent a score that you lose. Would anybody like to revisit the Dooley days? Fans beg for better offense, we get it, and now everybody wants to go back to Dooley and score 17 a game again and give up 25 and go 4-8. Awesome.

---

Thanks for Posting, the insight is appreciatted!

Whoever said USU deserved the wac championship last year...... No no they didn't. I don't remember but who was the player getting wailed on by the USU player on DJ Bank's kick off return td? WITH THE REF STANDING RIGHT THERE! I won't say there was cheating, but that is the CLOSEST I have ever seen to a fix and we still almost won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabiddawg

Really? Suicide watch because a coach says he wants to protect the defense?

I'll tell you what i think. Dykes' brand of football was a pain in the ass. Shorter games cause the clock is running and better balance between o & d should not be a cause for concern. Its a team game and focusing only on offense gets u beat by good defensive teams.

I like football but i dont like the clock stoppage that comes with dykes ball. 4+ hrs in a stsdium= pain in my ass.

---

Protect the defense? What is this, middle school? This is D-1 football, if you're a player, you show up and play. I get that scheme is a big factor, but you shouldn't be "taken care of" as a college player. Nobody complains ab taking care of an offense when a defense gets a turnover and the offense just finished a 15 play series and has to go right back out there. We're expected to score, defenses should be held to the same standard no matter how "tired" they get. You should have taken better care of your body if you aren't in good enough shape to do whatever is asked of you in a game you want to excel at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANODESSEY

Way to try to lower expectations. Slower offense won't be like last year which was fun to watch, run more, won't score over 40, probably will finish .500.

---

I do not believe that. Last year I posted we would have trouble with UtAh state and San Jose -when we were 9-1. Took heat. We had no defence and both teams were better balanced offensively and solid on D. We have 7-8 teams on schedule in bottom 100 . I have no problem watching Dixon-king- maybe even Hunter. I expect us to play Tulsa in Ruston for the division championship. I have been wrong before but I expect us to be a really solid team. Our offensive coach LEAD nation in passing -- Go Dogs -- 26/28 !!!

I think you will see us continue to put up points this year. 50 a game, no. But if our defense improves at all, 35-38 per game should be enough. We gave up around 35-40 per game last year, right. So if we give up less than that, we should win every game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

Holtz's only 2 quotes in the article basically said Tech needs to mix in a little defense. The offense last year got us a 3rd place finish in the WAC, but it was the defense in 2011 that won the WAC championship. I would personally rather see the 2011 version of Tech football than the 2012 version. It drove me nuts last year knowing that if we had to punt or if we had a turnover, we were going to lose. Sonny said he wanted to outscore the other team; Skip is saying he wants to hold the other team to fewer points. A win is a win guys.

---

should have read yours before posting mine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

Come on now. Don't tell me you've fallen victim of the "tired defense" adage. Our defense did all of the same conditioning as the offense all summer last year and they went against us (the #1 offense in the country) all day in practice. And EVERY game, we ran more plays than they did at least by 20-30 plays. And still everyone wants to blame our #1 offense for our #120 defense. It doesn't matter what you think the reason for their poor performances was, the truth is that they didnt perform up to the standard that was set during the WAC Chapuinship year when we still ran the fast paced offense. And you can say "well the offense wasn't as good the championship year as it was last year." Exactly. We got better and performed to our highest level like we were supposed to, the defense didn't. Bottom line, expectations of a defensive drop off, coaching error, and whiny selfish players was what made us bad on defense last year, NOT the offense. Hell, Oregon's defense was top 50 last year, they prolly ran pretty close to the same pace as us, and nobody said their offense cost them games. So don't blame putting up points for losses. That's what an offense is supposed to do, it's when you don't score, or can't prevent a score that you lose. Would anybody like to revisit the Dooley days? Fans beg for better offense, we get it, and now everybody wants to go back to Dooley and score 17 a game again and give up 25 and go 4-8. Awesome.

---

Exactly! I was thinking the same time while reading the article.

Maybe what has happened here is the author is taking a few things Holtz has said, and placing them in the context of what Holtz has done in the past. Perhaps, Holtz has learned a thing or two about being too conservative in his game approach. I'm hoping.

I have taken the time to watch a football game with a stopwatch and I recorded the amount of time the players actually play. From snap to whistle. The results shocked me. I would love for one of you to do the same. After you get the results you will never blame our defenses problems on the pace of the offense ever again. The bottom line is if the defense wants to get off the field then they should stop someone!! Blaming the offense for poor defense is horseshit and always has been.

I would call a 15 play drive protecting a defence and we arn't known for those types of drives.

I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

Protect the defense? What is this, middle school? This is D-1 football, if you're a player, you show up and play. I get that scheme is a big factor, but you shouldn't be "taken care of" as a college player. Nobody complains ab taking care of an offense when a defense gets a turnover and the offense just finished a 15 play series and has to go right back out there. We're expected to score, defenses should be held to the same standard no matter how "tired" they get. You should have taken better care of your body if you aren't in good enough shape to do whatever is asked of you in a game you want to excel at.

---

My main problem with the article is not the fact that Holtz allegedly plans to change things up. My problem is the assumption that we are going to have a bad season because he's allegedly going to change things up. After watching the scrimmage yesterday, I feel really good about our offense, and once again, am confident that we have more than capable receivers. I'm worried that people are already prepared to jump on the crucify Holtz bandwagon just because of this article. Personally, I'd rather it not have been picked up by our feeds, but it is what it is. We'll be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

Come on now. Don't tell me you've fallen victim of the "tired defense" adage. Our defense did all of the same conditioning as the offense all summer last year and they went against us (the #1 offense in the country) all day in practice. And EVERY game, we ran more plays than they did at least by 20-30 plays. And still everyone wants to blame our #1 offense for our #120 defense. It doesn't matter what you think the reason for their poor performances was, the truth is that they didnt perform up to the standard that was set during the WAC Chapuinship year when we still ran the fast paced offense. And you can say "well the offense wasn't as good the championship year as it was last year." Exactly. We got better and performed to our highest level like we were supposed to, the defense didn't. Bottom line, expectations of a defensive drop off, coaching error, and whiny selfish players was what made us bad on defense last year, NOT the offense. Hell, Oregon's defense was top 50 last year, they prolly ran pretty close to the same pace as us, and nobody said their offense cost them games. So don't blame putting up points for losses. That's what an offense is supposed to do, it's when you don't score, or can't prevent a score that you lose. Would anybody like to revisit the Dooley days? Fans beg for better offense, we get it, and now everybody wants to go back to Dooley and score 17 a game again and give up 25 and go 4-8. Awesome.

---

Dang. He's too sexy and football savvy at the same time. The complete package.

Here is my question.......

What is so bad about a little change? A little defense? A couple of seasons ago, I watched a razorback LB absolutely plant a 215 runner behind the line and thought, "I don't remember the last guy on our whole team that could do that."

A little smash mouth D will help a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

Come on now. Don't tell me you've fallen victim of the "tired defense" adage. Our defense did all of the same conditioning as the offense all summer last year and they went against us (the #1 offense in the country) all day in practice. And EVERY game, we ran more plays than they did at least by 20-30 plays. And still everyone wants to blame our #1 offense for our #120 defense. It doesn't matter what you think the reason for their poor performances was, the truth is that they didnt perform up to the standard that was set during the WAC Chapuinship year when we still ran the fast paced offense. And you can say "well the offense wasn't as good the championship year as it was last year." Exactly. We got better and performed to our highest level like we were supposed to, the defense didn't. Bottom line, expectations of a defensive drop off, coaching error, and whiny selfish players was what made us bad on defense last year, NOT the offense. Hell, Oregon's defense was top 50 last year, they prolly ran pretty close to the same pace as us, and nobody said their offense cost them games. So don't blame putting up points for losses. That's what an offense is supposed to do, it's when you don't score, or can't prevent a score that you lose. Would anybody like to revisit the Dooley days? Fans beg for better offense, we get it, and now everybody wants to go back to Dooley and score 17 a game again and give up 25 and go 4-8. Awesome.

---

Thanks for the insight, and for setting the story straight, SW. A lot of times, we as fans can only speculate based on what we see from the stands. I really appreciate the perspective from "behind the scenes" ---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

Here is my question.......

What is so bad about a little change? A little defense? A couple of seasons ago, I watched a razorback LB absolutely plant a 215 runner behind the line and thought, "I don't remember the last guy on our whole team that could do that."

A little smash mouth D will help a lot.

---

I'm not trying to suggest winning games is possible without a defense AT ALL. A smash mouth, tough, physical, and dominant defense is a must for any team. But you can't blame the pace of an offense for the poor performance of a defense. It just doesn't make any sense. It may make you think you have an explanation as to why we couldn't finish out the season with 2 wins and a WAC championship, but it just isn't the truth. The offense can't change the fact that our defense would be on the field for 10 minutes and then give up a first down on 3rd and 15. That's just football. We did what we were told to do, and that was score points. Whether it took us 1 play, 7 plays, or 20 plays that was our job. And it was their job to stop ppl and give us the ball back to score again, but they weren't able to do that as often as they should have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

I'm not trying to suggest winning games is possible without a defense AT ALL. A smash mouth, tough, physical, and dominant defense is a must for any team. But you can't blame the pace of an offense for the poor performance of a defense. It just doesn't make any sense. It may make you think you have an explanation as to why we couldn't finish out the season with 2 wins and a WAC championship, but it just isn't the truth. The offense can't change the fact that our defense would be on the field for 10 minutes and then give up a first down on 3rd and 15. That's just football. We did what we were told to do, and that was score points. Whether it took us 1 play, 7 plays, or 20 plays that was our job. And it was their job to stop ppl and give us the ball back to score again, but they weren't able to do that as often as they should have.

---

I think we are saying the same thing in a different way. I completely agree that offensive production does not dictate how a defense should perform. We are in a part of the country that should be able to attract coaches and players that can be high performers on both sides of the ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoutThemDawgs

Whoever said USU deserved the wac championship last year...... No no they didn't. I don't remember but who was the player getting wailed on by the USU player on DJ Bank's kick off return td? WITH THE REF STANDING RIGHT THERE! I won't say there was cheating, but that is the CLOSEST I have ever seen to a fix and we still almost won.

---

And...USU did a LOT of holding on our receivers when we were on offence and on our linemen when we were on defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

I have taken the time to watch a football game with a stopwatch and I recorded the amount of time the players actually play. From snap to whistle. The results shocked me. I would love for one of you to do the same. After you get the results you will never blame our defenses problems on the pace of the offense ever again. The bottom line is if the defense wants to get off the field then they should stop someone!! Blaming the offense for poor defense is horseshit and always has been.

---

Great post!!! That says it all!!

After talking with most of the football players during the autograph signing yesterday, I believe they are going to surprise a lot of people. They are all anxious to play some ass kicking football. IMHO....I believe we will go 11 wins, 1 loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 70techgrad

great post!!! That says it all!!

---

ditto!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

I'm not trying to suggest winning games is possible without a defense AT ALL. A smash mouth, tough, physical, and dominant defense is a must for any team. But you can't blame the pace of an offense for the poor performance of a defense. It just doesn't make any sense. It may make you think you have an explanation as to why we couldn't finish out the season with 2 wins and a WAC championship, but it just isn't the truth. The offense can't change the fact that our defense would be on the field for 10 minutes and then give up a first down on 3rd and 15. That's just football. We did what we were told to do, and that was score points. Whether it took us 1 play, 7 plays, or 20 plays that was our job. And it was their job to stop ppl and give us the ball back to score again, but they weren't able to do that as often as they should have.

---

Judging by some of your posts, is it safe to say that there wasn't a great relationship between the offense and the defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Judging by some of your posts, is it safe to say that there wasn't a great relationship between the offense and the defense?

---

I would say the offense would be justified in feeling like they did all the work last season. The only game I can think of where the defense possibly did better than the offense was the NMSU game, and that was a just a crappy game all around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Judging by some of your posts, is it safe to say that there wasn't a great relationship between the offense and the defense?

---

I wouldn't say there was a bad relationship or tension, but nobody could ignore the fact that there was a pretty big difference in the performances on Saturday. As a player I would say that I kind of expected the problems to be fixed through coaching and players deciding to play better and giving more effort. I thought the problem would almost resolve itself because I thought the expectations for the year were clearly understood by everyone and we had leaders on that side of the ball. However, after the Texas State game it kind of became clear that there were some pretty serious problems that weren't going to be fixed in time for us to be defensively dominant against two of the best offenses in the conference. So going into Utah State, I would say we pretty much new we had to score on every possession to stay in it, and after they scored on the first play from scrimmage we knew that was true. But I will say to our defenses credit, they got some key stops in that game that let us come back in time to make it a game. But overall there just weren't enough stops for us to get a lead. Overall, it was more of disappointment from my perspective because of everything that went into the season and the expectations and just not living up to the standard we set for ourselves.

All valid points Warner; you are correct. However, to be fair, there were critical games where our offense showed up extremely "late to the party" too. TX A&M and Utah State were definitely painful starts for us offensively. But on to 2013, with this schedule if we don't win AT LEAST 8 games then we have more issues to fix than on defense. Go Dawgs!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogsWin

All valid points Warner; you are correct. However, to be fair, there were critical games where our offense showed up extremely "late to the party" too. TX A&M and Utah State were definitely painful starts for us offensively. But on to 2013, with this schedule if we don't win AT LEAST 8 games then we have more issues to fix than on defense. Go Dawgs!!!

---

While I agree the offense had a poor 1st quarter, I guess my problem with that line of thought is we scored 57 points!! It really isn't relevant if they scored them all in the first half or all in the 4th quarter. The bottom line is there is no realistic scenario where you can put 57 points on the board, lose, and it not be 99.99-100% on the defense. Are we really asking the offense to score in the 60's or 70's ? Because if you say part of the reason we lost is that the offense didn't score in the first quarter than you are saying that we lost because our offense couldn't score 60 or 70 points against a pretty good SEC defense. This isn't directed all at you DW. There have been lots of people bring up that slow start in the A&M game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

I wouldn't say there was a bad relationship or tension, but nobody could ignore the fact that there was a pretty big difference in the performances on Saturday. As a player I would say that I kind of expected the problems to be fixed through coaching and players deciding to play better and giving more effort. I thought the problem would almost resolve itself because I thought the expectations for the year were clearly understood by everyone and we had leaders on that side of the ball. However, after the Texas State game it kind of became clear that there were some pretty serious problems that weren't going to be fixed in time for us to be defensively dominant against two of the best offenses in the conference. So going into Utah State, I would say we pretty much new we had to score on every possession to stay in it, and after they scored on the first play from scrimmage we knew that was true. But I will say to our defenses credit, they got some key stops in that game that let us come back in time to make it a game. But overall there just weren't enough stops for us to get a lead. Overall, it was more of disappointment from my perspective because of everything that went into the season and the expectations and just not living up to the standard we set for ourselves.

---

See my problem with that is not that YOU felt that way. It's that I think Sonny felt that way too. That it would resolve itself. It never did. Drastic changes needed to be made to salvage the season and hit the goals everyone had for the season. Those changes were never made. It made many Tech fans wonder if he even cared about that side of the ball. Either that or if he wasn't a complete enough head coach to solve those problems. Sonny said after the season that he felt like one of his biggest mistakes was not making a change. I assume he meant at DC. I felt like the decision not to make a change is what cost us a BCS bowl. I'm sure you agree Tech would have made a better representative in the Orange Bowl than NIU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

See my problem with that is not that YOU felt that way. It's that I think Sonny felt that way too. That it would resolve itself. It never did. Drastic changes needed to be made to salvage the season and hit the goals everyone had for the season. Those changes were never made. It made many Tech fans wonder if he even cared about that side of the ball. Either that or if he wasn't a complete enough head coach to solve those problems. Sonny said after the season that he felt like one of his biggest mistakes was not making a change. I assume he meant at DC. I felt like the decision not to make a change is what cost us a BCS bowl. I'm sure you agree Tech would have made a better representative in the Orange Bowl than NIU.

---

Yea, I couldn't agree more. I think that was just part of having a first time HC last year, there were going to be growing pains. I just wish that the problems would have been fully recognized before then. I also don't think the problems were solely with coaching or players, I think it was a combination of both. I think Coach Dykes wanted to trust his coaches to fix what needed fixing without interfering too much, but it just got to where it was too many things to fix in too little time.

Also, in reply to not getting our offense going quickly enough, I agree with that to an extent. If we had shot out of the gate quickly and been up or at least tied by the 2nd quarter would our defense have stayed in the game better? I don't know the answer to that. I do know, that as a player, you should NEVER quit at any point in a football game no matter what happens. There should not have been an excuse of "well we're down by 3+ scores, what's the use of playing defense as hard anymore?" After the Nevada game in championship year, there should have been no doubt that we could come back from any deficit. Did that happen? No, I don't think so, and I'm not saying our defense quit on any part of any game EVER. It's just something I've wondered ever since the end of the season. If there was more that I, or anybody could have done to change things. It just really sucks for us to have been as good as we were and not come out with more than 10 wins, and as a team captain I certainly feel that a lot of that blame rests on my shoulders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

I have taken the time to watch a football game with a stopwatch and I recorded the amount of time the players actually play. From snap to whistle. The results shocked me.

---

You know there's something wrong with you, don't you? :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

It just really sucks for us to have been as good as we were and not come out with more than 10 wins, and as a team captain I certainly feel that a lot of that blame rests on my shoulders.

---

You didn't learn "pass the buck" from being coached by Dykes and Franklin. While they NEVER took the blame for numerous mistakes, they were quick to place blame on players. Thanks for being a great Tech player and a great person.

It's really good to have our ex players like Steve (and others I sometimes don't recognize) interested enough to post here. Thanks, all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

You didn't learn "pass the buck" from being coached by Dykes and Franklin. While they NEVER took the blame for numerous mistakes, they were quick to place blame on players. Thanks for being a great Tech player and a great person.

---

Absolutely THIS! Thanks for everything, SW...you're a great Bulldog!

Welcome to the board SWarner...

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/13..._it_medium.gif

:laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GermDawg

Welcome to the board SWarner...

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/13..._it_medium.gif

:laugh:

---

HAHAHAHA that will always be one of my favorite moments at Tech for sure. Can't wait to show my kids how cool their dad used to be one day!

Can someone post that video again so I can watch it...truly a great one. Thanks Steve for speaking on here and giving some insight and for being a Bulldog. You are great example of younger student athletes to look up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HogDawg

You know there's something wrong with you, don't you? :laugh:

---

Most definitely HD. My wife would confirm that. :o Guilty as charged!! BTW- If you were wondering, there is only about 11-14 minutes of actual playing in a game. Remember this is just from snap to whistle. No huddles, time-outs, halftime, ref's explaining calls, etc... Think about this from an entertainment/commercial standpoint. They turn 11-14 minutes of actual action into a multi-million dollar product. There is really nothing like it. It's marketing genius. But back to our original topic. If the defense is complaining about the offense moving too fast for them to be successful then I suggest they take up golf. Because if you take that 11-14 minutes and remove the offense from it, what you are really saying is Sonny's fast paced offense made it impossible for our defense to play at a high level for 6-8 minutes. Think about that for a second.

When I was in HS, we used to college-style wrestle each other for 1 minute. I would rather run a mile in 6 minutes. Wrestling for a minute is MUCH tougher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

When I was in HS, we used to college-style wrestle each other for 1 minute. I would rather run a mile in 6 minutes. Wrestling for a minute is MUCH tougher.

---

Yeah but an average football play is 4 seconds. What if when you wrestled that one minute it was done in 4 second increments with a halftime, timeouts, a break for the quarter. A break when your partner took his turn (offense/defense) Etc.... But I agree wrestling is extremely tiring. You use almost every muscle in your body in wrestling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Most definitely HD. My wife would confirm that. :o Guilty as charged!! BTW- If you were wondering, there is only about 11-14 minutes of actual playing in a game. Remember this is just from snap to whistle. No huddles, time-outs, halftime, ref's explaining calls, etc... Think about this from an entertainment/commercial standpoint. They turn 11-14 minutes of actual action into a multi-million dollar product. There is really nothing like it. It's marketing genius. But back to our original topic. If the defense is complaining about the offense moving too fast for them to be successful then I suggest they take up golf. Because if you take that 11-14 minutes and remove the offense from it, what you are really saying is Sonny's fast paced offense made it impossible for our defense to play at a high level for 6-8 minutes. Think about that for a second.

---

Not blaming the offense for the lack of defense, but you do know there's more that goes into playing defense than just running after the guys on offense. While there may only be up 10 15 minutes of action, there's more than just action going on. Actually, I think one of the most quoted of Bear Bryants quotes was the fact that he would tell his players that the plays last an everage of 8 seconds with up to 30 seconds of rest in between, so they should be able to give everything they have for every play. I know with how the game has changed, that's not necessarily accurate anymore, but it's the same premise you put forth.
Personally, I agree that a defense blaming a fast paced offense for the lack of success is bogus especially when you look at some of the top SEC teams who rarely score 30 points on each other and their offenses stall many times after only 4 downs and their defenses have to go out and make the plays and they're able to do it. You never hear about how they're hurt by the lack of offense forcing them on the field too often because they get their stops.

I played football and know how exhausting it can be. There were times at the end of a long drive where I was tired, but I kept playing at a high level. That said, I'm just saying, the offense has one job. Score Points. Your offenses strategy shouldn't be to help the defense. It should be to put points on the board using any and all means necessary, including no huddle. I wouldn't feel right as a defensive coach or player if I needed the offense to slow down in order for me to be successful. The other point this time thing should make besides disproving this stupid defense needing help B.S. is showing how critical mistakes and turnovers are. If the game is only 11 minutes long you damn well better protect the ball and limit stupid mistakes because you don't have a lot of time to rectify those mistakes and turn the game around. You are basically asking players to be perfect. That's another reason why having an offensive line like we had last year is so valuable.

Y'all are killing me with this flawed football logic.

List some high octane teams who've had great defenses over the years. You can't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Not blaming the offense for the lack of defense, but you do know there's more that goes into playing defense than just running after the guys on offense. While there may only be up 10 15 minutes of action, there's more than just action going on. Actually, I think one of the most quoted of Bear Bryants quotes was the fact that he would tell his players that the plays last an everage of 8 seconds with up to 30 seconds of rest in between, so they should be able to give everything they have for every play. I know with how the game has changed, that's not necessarily accurate anymore, but it's the same premise you put forth.
Personally, I agree that a defense blaming a fast paced offense for the lack of success is bogus especially when you look at some of the top SEC teams who rarely score 30 points on each other and their offenses stall many times after only 4 downs and their defenses have to go out and make the plays and they're able to do it. You never hear about how they're hurt by the lack of offense forcing them on the field too often because they get their stops.

---

DD I'm still astounded by the $$$$$ produced by just 11 minutes of actual action. Can you think of anything else like it?? Maybe a Mike Tyson fight in the 80's is the only comparison. The difference is at least the fight was scheduled for 12 rounds even though he ended many of them in the first. I can't really think of a sport that or really any form of entertainment where the product is so short but the money is that big. The players/coaches more than earn their money because of all the time they have to spend year round to be ready for those 11 minutes but the NFL itself as a league doesn't have to do much work for the money it rakes in from those massive TV contracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Y'all are killing me with this flawed football logic.

List some high octane teams who've had great defenses over the years. You can't do it.

---

I don't think it's as simple as that. I think the reason that high octane teams have developed is because they haven't had great defenses or the ability to get the players/coaches needed to to have great defenses. I think a big part of it is because they aren't known for having great defenses, so the schools that do have the top defenses use that as a tool to get the better defensive players by showing how much better they will be developed than at the high octane schools. Who knows, another recruiting tool could be that these defensive schools are telling these top defensive recruits that the high octane coaches don't put a priority on defense either, and truth be known, that might actually be the case. It could be that most of these high octane coaches truly believe that all they need is a serviceable defense so that they can outscore their opponent. I'll say this. I think that is about the only good thing that will come out of this play-off system. We'll finally get a chance to see an end of the year high octane offense that is running on all cylinders with a top 50 or so defense go against a top defense with a mediocre offense and it will be a start to giving points to either side of the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

DD I'm still astounded by the $$$$$ produced by just 11 minutes of actual action. Can you think of anything else like it?? Maybe a Mike Tyson fight in the 80's is the only comparison. The difference is at least the fight was scheduled for 12 rounds even though he ended many of them in the first. I can't really think of a sport that or really any form of entertainment where the product is so short but the money is that big. The players/coaches more than earn their money because of all the time they have to spend year round to be ready for those 11 minutes but the NFL itself as a league doesn't have to do much work for the money it rakes in from those massive TV contracts.

---

My only guess would be amateur internet porn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Y'all are killing me with this flawed football logic.

List some high octane teams who've had great defenses over the years. You can't do it.

---

It's not flawed. It's common sense. If you can't play at a high level for what?, 5-6 minutes over a 2 and a half hour period with numerous breaks in between like huddles, halftimes, quarter breaks, official timeouts, then you are out of shape. I'm over 200 pounds and I ran on the treadmill a lot longer than that last night. I'm not talking about not being tired or winded. You can't play football without getting tired. I'm talking about being so tired and winded you can blame the offense for your poor performance. Oh and Oregon was #8 in the nation in Defense Efficiency last year. We were #112.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

It's not flawed. It's common sense. If you can't play at a high level for what?, 5-6 minutes over a 2 and a half hour period with numerous breaks in between like huddles, halftimes, quarter breaks, official timeouts, then you are out of shape. I'm over 200 pounds and I ran on the treadmill a lot longer than that last night. I'm not talking about not being tired or winded. You can't play football without getting tired. I'm talking about being so tired and winded you can blame the offense for your poor performance. Oh and Oregon was #8 in the nation in Defense Efficiency last year. We were #112.

---

Also, A&M ran a no huddle and they were #20 in defensive efficiency. But you said High Octane with a "great defense" and that's not really fair. None of us were asking our defense to be #8 in the nation like Oregon. We were merely asking them to be poor or mediocre instead of the worst in the entire country. A poor-mediocre defense with our offense would have sent us to the Orange Bowl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Y'all are killing me with this flawed football logic.

List some high octane teams who've had great defenses over the years. You can't do it.

---

The total defense statistics will typically be worse, but what matters is how the D performs on a per snap scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Y'all are killing me with this flawed football logic.

List some high octane teams who've had great defenses over the years. You can't do it.

---

It doesn't have to be a great defense. That's the point I've been trying to make.

Oregon - 5th in YPG ; 25th in points against

Oklahoma - 12th in YPG ; 50th in points against

Fresno State - 16th in YPG; 37th in points against

Utah State - 21st YPG; 7th in points against

Florida State - 19th in YPG; 6th in points against

Oklahoma State - 4th in YPG; 64th in points against (still 60 spots better than us almost)

Arkansas State - 23rd in YPG; 43rd in points against

North Carolina - 14th in YPG; 53rd in points against

This is just from this past year. All these teams run up-tempo spread offenses and were still able to play solid defense behind it. It doesn't have to be a world beater Top 10 defense, its just got to be solid enough to keep other teams from scoring every possession.

List some high octane teams who've had great defenses over the years. You can't do it. Go check out Florida during Urban Meyer days. For example, in 2008 they had the #3 total offense, and #5 total defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

It doesn't have to be a great defense. That's the point I've been trying to make.

Oregon - 5th in YPG ; 25th in points against

Oklahoma - 12th in YPG ; 50th in points against

Fresno State - 16th in YPG; 37th in points against

Utah State - 21st YPG; 7th in points against

Florida State - 19th in YPG; 6th in points against

Oklahoma State - 4th in YPG; 64th in points against (still 60 spots better than us almost)

Arkansas State - 23rd in YPG; 43rd in points against

North Carolina - 14th in YPG; 53rd in points against

This is just from this past year. All these teams run up-tempo spread offenses and were still able to play solid defense behind it. It doesn't have to be a world beater Top 10 defense, its just got to be solid enough to keep other teams from scoring every possession.

---

Exactly!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

BTW- If you were wondering, there is only about 11-14 minutes of actual playing in a game.

---

Cut that in half, and you'll have the amount of actual action in a baseball game.

Serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Champ967

Cut that in half, and you'll have the amount of actual action in a baseball game.

Serious.

---

Yeah that's what my son said before he quit. I said you love hitting, fielding, running the bases, and throwing. What's the problem? Dad I hate waiting to hit, waiting to field, waiting to run and waiting to throw. He's right on an individual level but the game is actually going on a lot longer than that just not for each individual player. In football it's like that for everyone. Check this out: http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...NFL-Games.html

BTW if you pay attention to that chart you'll notice CBS shows Cheerleaders the most. Just in case any of you were wondering. LOL.

I was googling times of games and just found this which is where that chart I posted above came from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...055561406.html

I knew from experience '13 would throw Oregon out there. He also loves him some Oklahoma too. Those teams (and the most of the others on the list) have decent defenses because they have their pick of muti star athletes. They still can't come close to winning a NC.

I was thinking more Houston, Texas Tech, OSU, etc.. BTW, most of those have multi star talent too.

Let's not mix the Sunbelt teams in until they start competing on a national level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

I knew from experience '13 would throw Oregon out there. He also loves him some Oklahoma too. Those teams (and the most of the others on the list) have decent defenses because they have their pick of muti star athletes. They still can't come close to winning a NC.

I was thinking more Houston, Texas Tech, OSU, etc.. BTW, most of those have multi star talent too.

Let's not mix the Sunbelt teams in until they start competing on a national level.

---

You moved the cheese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

I knew from experience '13 would throw Oregon out there. He also loves him some Oklahoma too. Those teams (and the most of the others on the list) have decent defenses because they have their pick of muti star athletes. They still can't come close to winning a NC.

I was thinking more Houston, Texas Tech, OSU, etc.. BTW, most of those have multi star talent too.

Let's not mix the Sunbelt teams in until they start competing on a national level.

---

Of course I would bring them up. You said name a High Octane Offense with a good defense. Isn't Oregon exactly that?? Not letting me use them as an example is like saying name an NFL team with a Fleur De Lis on their helmet but you can't pick the Saints. I Hate OU and never bring them up. I wanted no part of their OC's for our HC position. You must be mixing me up with someone else. Have no idea where that came from. Oregon lost the National Championship to Auburn on a last second field goal. (00:00 on the clock) Is zero seconds on the clock close to winning a national championship????? And Oregon should have played for the NC last year. (they would have destroyed ND) A&M ran a no huddle and beat the national champions in their own house and was playing the best football of anyone in the country at the end of last year. The teams you mentioned (Houston, Texas Tech Etc...) Likely will never win an NC no matter what offense they run so what's your point. Texas Tech has never been close to being relevant until they ran Leach's offense and haven't been relevant since he left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Champ967

You moved the cheese.

---

Most definitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Champ967

You moved the cheese.

---

Figured that was coming. '13 knows what I'm talking about. We've both been consistent in our arguments for years.

Many football experts outside of Mr. Warner and BigDog13 agree with me about high powered offenses limiting defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Figured that was coming. '13 knows what I'm talking about. We've both been consistent in our arguments for years.

Many football experts outside of Mr. Warner and BigDog13 agree with me about high powered offenses limiting defense.

---

But doesn't A&M's performance against Bama, OU and the SEC last year and Oregon's entire season totally contradict that theory?? Especially considering that while it's true A&M recruits well they have been incredibly outrecruited by Bama the last 7 years at least?? I haven't looked it up but I am fairly certain they have been out recruited by OU as well. I mean how are you #8 in the nation in defensive efficiency while running one of the fastest paced offenses in history? Or #20 playing in the SEC like A&M?

But let's PRETEND you are correct. Does our offense make you last in the nation?? Keep this in context. Remember the point of this discussion. Our offense wasn't the reason this defense was last in the nation. We didn't need the defense to perform at anywhere close to the level Oregon and A&M did. We needed them to be between poor and mediocre. Anything but dead last or very close to it. If we had the 75th worst defense we'd likely have been in the Orange Bowl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigdog13

but let's pretend you are correct. Does our offense make you last in the nation?? Keep this in context. Remember the point of this discussion. Our offense wasn't the reason this defense was last in the nation. We didn't need the defense to perform at anywhere close to the level oregon and a&m did. We needed them to be between poor and mediocre. Anything but dead last or very close to it. If we had the 75th worst defense we'd likely have been in the orange bowl.

---

truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

But let's PRETEND you are correct. Does our offense make you last in the nation?? Keep this in context. Remember the point of this discussion. Our offense wasn't the reason this defense was last in the nation. We didn't need the defense to perform at anywhere close to the level Oregon and A&M did. We needed them to be between poor and mediocre. Anything but dead last or very close to it. If we had the 75th worst defense we'd likely have been in the Orange Bowl.

---

...and HCSD was responsible for our bad situation. He'll be just as bad at Cal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Figured that was coming. '13 knows what I'm talking about. We've both been consistent in our arguments for years.

Many football experts outside of Mr. Warner and BigDog13 agree with me about high powered offenses limiting defense.

---

WOW, I didn't know that you talk with "Many football experts", Mr. Maddawg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olddog75

WOW, I didn't know that you talk with "Many football experts", Mr. Maddawg.

---

Did I say I talked to them? Stop believing everything you hear from folks like Dykes and get out and read a little.:icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Remember the point of this discussion.

---

You right. It was odd that our official information outlet decided to push an AP story opining how our season might go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

HAHAHAHA that will always be one of my favorite moments at Tech for sure. Can't wait to show my kids how cool their dad used to be one day!

---

Obviously you don't have kids yet--"cool" is not what they'll see! :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Figured that was coming. '13 knows what I'm talking about. We've both been consistent in our arguments for years.

Many football experts outside of Mr. Warner and BigDog13 agree with me about high powered offenses limiting defense.

---

maddawg, is this just a reductio ad absurdum of the argument against fast-paced offenses? surely you can't actually be arguing that side?
you jump in with "all you and your flawed football logic", then you go on to challenge anyone to name a fast-paced offense with a great defense. they do name a few, and one that almost won a national championship, and then you change the rules. and now you up the ante with an appeal to the authority of "football experts"?

dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Did I say I talked to them? Stop believing everything you hear from folks like Dykes and get out and read a little.:icon_wink:

---

My mistake, I just assumed you talked with them, since they agreed with your position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

But let's PRETEND you are correct. Does our offense make you last in the nation?? Keep this in context. Remember the point of this discussion. Our offense wasn't the reason this defense was last in the nation. We didn't need the defense to perform at anywhere close to the level Oregon and A&M did. We needed them to be between poor and mediocre. Anything but dead last or very close to it. If we had the 75th worst defense we'd likely have been in the Orange Bowl.

---

Or we could have been in the Orange Bowl despite having the worst defense in the country if...
- Our offense didn't have 6 turnovers (mostly in the red zone) against Utah State and SJSU
- Or we didn't have kicking game blunders against Texas A&M and Utah State
- Or our offense showed up in the first half against Texas A&M or converted a 2-point conversion or two
- Or you could go on and on...

Our offense and special teams were awesome, but they did make several critical mistakes in our losses. Those were TEAM (coaching, offense, defense, special teams) losses, not just defensive losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg06

Our offense and special teams were awesome, but they did make critical mistakes in our losses. These were TEAM losses, not defensive losses.

---

This really isn't a defensible position. If the offense puts up 40+ points, the loss is on the defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg06

Those were TEAM (coaching, offense, defense, special teams) losses, not just defensive losses.

---

No! They were SD losses! And he should be dragged naked by his toenails through the streets of Ruston whilst being buggered repeatedly by a pack of rabid Pakistani goat-zombies.

And that's what he deserves just for the TAMU game!

[\maddawg]

I'm with you Dawg06, football is a team game and the losses are as a team. And I know we dug some pretty deep holes as an offense every now and then (Tony Franklin had a lot to do with that). But if our defense could have limited alot of those scores to just field goals, we're looking at a 17 or 14 point deficit to come back from rather than a 28 or 30 point deficit. A few more stops could have helped us out alot because usually, once we got going we stayed hot for a while. But our defense did have its moments where they kept us close enough to come back and tie up games, mostly we just couldn't get one more stop or score right at the end of the game to finish the game off. All I'm saying is a few less points to make up each game may have made a big difference. And also if we had gotten a few more takeaways and some more timely turnovers, it would have made a big difference too. We wait until the two biggest games to have all of our turnovers and get no takeaways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

I'm with you Dawg06, football is a team game and the losses are as a team. And I know we dug some pretty deep holes as an offense every now and then (Tony Franklin had a lot to do with that). But if our defense could have limited alot of those scores to just field goals, we're looking at a 17 or 14 point deficit to come back from rather than a 28 or 30 point deficit. A few more stops could have helped us out alot because usually, once we got going we stayed hot for a while. But our defense did have its moments where they kept us close enough to come back and tie up games, mostly we just couldn't get one more stop or score right at the end of the game to finish the game off. All I'm saying is a few less points to make up each game may have made a big difference. And also if we had gotten a few more takeaways and some more timely turnovers, it would have made a big difference too. We wait until the two biggest games to have all of our turnovers and get no takeaways.

---

Dude. Stop it. As said earlier. When an offense scores as much as ours did, regardless of when, there is no reason we should lose. It's all defense. No need to jump on the grenade for the crappy defense we had last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWarner63

I'm not trying to suggest winning games is possible without a defense AT ALL. A smash mouth, tough, physical, and dominant defense is a must for any team. But you can't blame the pace of an offense for the poor performance of a defense. It just doesn't make any sense. It may make you think you have an explanation as to why we couldn't finish out the season with 2 wins and a WAC championship, but it just isn't the truth. The offense can't change the fact that our defense would be on the field for 10 minutes and then give up a first down on 3rd and 15. That's just football. We did what we were told to do, and that was score points. Whether it took us 1 play, 7 plays, or 20 plays that was our job. And it was their job to stop ppl and give us the ball back to score again, but they weren't able to do that as often as they should have.

---

Dykes knew his day in the sun was fading in Ruston .... A-la depart for Cal ... Knowing full well the D would stop fewer peeps this year than last and no QB to run his system to the same perfection. Good move on his part. Better on ours. If he didn't want us, we don't want him. We'll be OK. Hide and watch.