• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

WF -3.5 Over Army -- Predictions?

Wakeforest22890 said:
If we give up 30 points a game the rest of the year we finish 50th based on last year. It'll be close to 40th-50th I would imagine.
Click to expand...

Which is good, but still renders your praise as hyperbole. It's not like that would be miles better than the average Wake defense. Better, yes, but not by that much
 
wsc8521s said:
Which is good, but still renders your praise as hyperbole. It's not like that would be miles better than the average Wake defense. Better, yes, but not by that much
Click to expand...

Wake's average defense is somewhere in the 70-90 category. I would bet a considerable amount of money that Wake doesn't have 10 teams in the past 50 years to finish in the top 40 in scoring or total defense. I could be wrong, and can try to check it out, but I don't think I am (about the historical stats at least).
 
I think comparing your current team to past Wake Forest teams is a pretty valid comparison. But sure let's just compare all our units to fucking Alabama. Yeah we're bad compared to Alabama. Are you guys happy now? You guys just love to wallow in your filth and talk about how shitty it smells.

Yes our rush defense has been better and I think we will struggle against the run at times, but compared to a lot of our previous teams (who have also been bad) this defense is pretty damn good.
 
Last edited:
But hey if I'm wrong at the end of the year I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. I guess we'll see.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think comparing your current team to past Wake Forest teams is a pretty valid comparison. But sure let's just compare all our units to fucking Alabama. Yeah we're bad compared to Alabama. Are you guys happy now? You guys just love to wallow in your filth and talk about how shitty it smells.

Yes our rush defense has been better and I think we will struggle against the run at times, but compared to a lot of our previous teams (who have also been bad) this defense is pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

Whatever it takes

s_w15_11021184.jpg
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Wake's average defense is somewhere in the 70-90 category. I would bet a considerable amount of money that Wake doesn't have 10 teams in the past 50 years to finish in the top 40 in scoring or total defense. I could be wrong, and can try to check it out, but I don't think I am (about the historical stats at least).
Click to expand...

Probably correct. One note: The WF team that went to the Aloha bowl under Jim Caldwell (with Fred Robbins anchoring the DL) had a very strong defense. IIRC, pretty sure they were a top 20 (maybe even top 10) in scoring defense and total defense.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You guys just love to wallow in your filth and talk about how shitty it smells.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's what YOU'RE doing. You are essentially telling us almost every defense Wake has had over the years has been horrible, which is not the case.

I'll add - I would take a defense that is ranked a little lower but forces a TON of turnovers (a la a lot of Hood's defenses that ranked in the 70s) over what we currently have. There's a lot that goes into being a strong defense besides just yards against (and we'll see where this unit winds up in that anyway)
 
Last edited:
wsc8521s said:
Actually, that's what YOU'RE doing. You are essentially telling us almost every defense Wake has had over the years has been horrible, which is not the case.

I'll add - I would take a defense that is ranked a little lower but forces a TON of turnovers (a la a lot of Hood's defenses that ranked in the 70s) over what we currently have. There's a lot that goes into being a strong defense besides just yards against (and we'll see where this unit winds up in that anyway)
Click to expand...

I agree that there's a lot more to a strong defense than just yards against, but I think scoring defense (with some adjustments for how terrible the offense is) is a pretty good barometer over a season of how good a defense is.

Also my intial statement was "this is one of the most talented defenses Wake has ever had" and I was using statistics to compare across years. People wanted to then compare us to other teams on the same year which isn't a problem, it just didn't have anything to do with my comment that this is one of the most talented defenses we've ever had.

I think turnovers CAN be a good metric, but a lot of turnovers are luck. There's basically no correlation between forced fumbles, fumble recoveries, and a good defense (fumbles are mostly just luck, right place right time) and while interceptions are typically more likely to be caused by the defense, some turnovers aren't forced at all, they're just lucky.

Look at last year's team - not really a good defense yet, still had some growing to do, yet still led the ACC in turnover margin. A lot of this was the offense didn't turn it over much, but we did force a large number of turnovers last year.
 
It wasn't luck under Hood. We forced a ton of turnovers year after year after year. It was a philosophy. In his seven years we averaged 26.6 turnovers forced. In the last four years we've only averaged 19.

Not to mention the amount of times we scored defensive TDs under Hood from '01-07. We haven't had very many the last couple years.

With an offense like we've got that needs all the help we can get, a ball-hawking D that can take it to the house is incredibly important
 
PhDeac said:
Numbers, which player on this defense would start for the 2006-08 teams in a 4-3?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. I think the current D compares pretty well on a position-by-position basis, but clearly lacks the star power (Curry, Phonz, Thompson, Arnoux, Vaughn) of the Fresh Deacs. DL for the current team is stronger, LB's significantly weaker, which makes it all the more baffling that we're in a 3-4.

2006:
Thompson over Andrews
Whitlock over Stukes
KJ over Swanson
Noel over Patterson
Marshall over P. Ghee

2007:
Thompson over A. Davis
Whitlock over Stukes
Jackson/Olson over McClinic
KJ over B. Ghee
Marshall over Patterson

2008:
Thompson over M. Robinson
Redding over A. Davis/Wilber
Whitlock over Russell
J. Jackson/Olson over McClinic
Marshall over Patterson
 
wsc8521s said:
It wasn't luck under Hood. We forced a ton of turnovers year after year after year. It was a philosophy. In his seven years we averaged 26.6 turnovers forced. In the last four years we've only averaged 19.

Not to mention the amount of times we scored defensive TDs under Hood from '01-07. We haven't had very many the last couple years.

With an offense like we've got that needs all the help we can get, a ball-hawking D that can take it to the house is incredibly important
Click to expand...

Yeah I was just pointing out that statistically speaking turnovers are luck-based. It's one of the larger reasons why Phil
Steele breaks down teams with large turnover margins (both high and low) and looks for them to make big jumps or falls from the previous year's record. There are some teams which stress turnovers and ball hawk, but generally speaking turnovers are somewhat dependent on luck.
 
Key word: somewhat. I'd say Grobe's staff has stressed a stout turnover ratio as much as any in the country during his tenure, which is why we've only twice had a negative ratio (-2 in '05, -4 in '09)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top