Our worst scoring D's

[BanditVol]

2012   34 ppg
2007   27 ppg
1988   26 ppg


I was surprised at two things....one that we are currently seven points worse than the next crappy D, and also that the second worst was in 2007.

Of course, as the rules have changed over the years, scoring has increased.  That has an effect, but scoring has been high since about 1970 or so, and I'm not sure it matters that much what happened when they wore leather helmets.  OTOH, the soft part of the schedule is coming up, and it's possible that the number will improve dramatically...possibly even enough to not be THE worst anymore.

Heck, if I were the coaches, I might try to use that as motivation.

[murfvol]

Wow. That's awful. One thing that might skew this year's numbers in comparisons is teams know they have to score a lot to beat us. Kentucky has a higher ranked D than us, but coaches know if you score 30 you're safe. That's not the case with UT this year. I'm convinced UGA would have score 35 and called it a day if out offense was inept.

That's not to say this year's numbers are skewed, just that it makes a comparison more difficult since some other years everyone knew we couldn't score 25. Opponents were more conservative on offense.

[BanditVol]

Wow. That's awful. One thing that might skew this year's numbers in comparisons is teams know they have to score a lot to beat us. Kentucky has a higher ranked D than us, but coaches know if you score 30 you're safe. That's not the case with UT this year. I'm convinced UGA would have score 35 and called it a day if out offense was inept.

That's not to say this year's numbers are skewed, just that it makes a comparison more difficult since some other years everyone knew we couldn't score 25. Opponents were more conservative on offense.

Great point murf...I thought about that making a difference last year, when we couldn't score to save our lives.   The fact that other teams didn't need to score as much probably made last year look better than it was, though I would take last year's D over this one in a heartbeat.

[BanditVol]

Another thought that occured to me....we made the SECCG in the year we had the second worst scoring D in our history.

So if Wilcox was still the DC, and we were merely tied for second....or even better....

Sigh.

[murfvol]

It's funny you brought this up Bandit because a friend and I were discussing it last night. We wouldn't have to have Randy Shannon. The 60th best DC in the country would probably have given us two more wins. If that's the case things are looking better.

[BanditVol]

It's funny you brought this up Bandit because a friend and I were discussing it last night. We wouldn't have to have Randy Shannon. The 60th best DC in the country would probably have given us two more wins. If that's the case things are looking better.

Yep.  You want to make the case that Sunseri is just having growing pains and it will get better with time, and frankly that's probably true...if for no other reason than it can literally not get worse!

But when you start from such a low base...

But I will say this.  We do get into the softer part of the schedule and it's possible that they might actually be around the 2nd worst.  By the numbers, they would have to hold teams to  14 ppg or less for the last 4 games and the bowl (assuming there is one).  Given the weak slate, I suppose that might be possible, but is it likely?

Another thing is that believe it or not, Saban did poorly in his first year, and Suneri is implementing "Saban's D".  So if even SABAN struggled in 2007, I would be inclined to give Sunseri another year, factoring in that there is a painful adjustment for one year.

So the worst two things you can point to with Saban are that he gave up 41 points to no. 5 LSU late in the year, and that he surrendered 21 to La-Monroe in a HOMECOMING LOSS.   

Heck, when that happened I was gleeful.   Because it looked like bammer had just wasted millions on another loser.  What all the tahd fans said was that Saban's D took awhile  to implement, but also and mostly that it was the "Shula players" that were causing most of the problems.  At the end of the year, Saban "ran oft" a number of Shula players.

I just laughed at them and looked forward to the tahd sucking for another 3-4 years while Saban got paid way too much.  Well was *I* wrong. Badly wrong.  So I have figured, there must be something to the "need time to implement" but particularly to "needing the right players", especially players that learn the system from the begining and have nothing to "unlearn".

So the thought is...what would a Sunseri D look like with another year and mostly "his" playewrs in there?  It made HUGE difference for bammer.

But even then, looking at HOW BAD our D is, I really don't know if it's fixable or not.  FWIW, Saban's D in 2007 surrendered 22 ppg.  Factoring in that Sunser is not Saban and allowing for a lower talent level than 2007 bammer still probably can't explain a 12 ppg difference, I don'[ think.

FWIW, the new players that SUnseri has inserted seem to be playing well.  If we were averaging, say 25 ppg, not only do we probably win a game or two, but I could actually be an optimist with Sunser as our DC.

As it stands, it's difficult for ANYTHING to justify the defensive performance to date.  It is still possible to make a dent in the number and make it more like 2007 though.....

[BanditVol]

LOL, that was very long.  Reader's Digest version...even SABAN did rather poorly his first year, and the story was that he needed time and his own players.  

That could give some hope for Sunseri, but we are so far below where Saban was in 2007 that it likely destroys the hope, even factoring in a lower talent level and allowing that Sunseri, while he may be better than he has shown,  is "not Saban".

And a final note is that as the season winds down, the numbers are highly likely to improve, but we would have to hold the last 5 teams we play (assuming a bowl) to under 14 ppg to not be "the worst".  Which actually makes the rest of the season more interesting to me.