-
Jeff Drummond
- 5 stars Rating: 91
960 votes total - Jeff Drummond
- (16232)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
WLGenerals54048
- 5 stars Rating: 84
38 votes total - (265)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Jeff Drummond
- 5 stars Rating: 91
960 votes total - Jeff Drummond
- (16232)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Jeff Drummond
- 5 stars Rating: 91
960 votes total - Jeff Drummond
- (16232)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
TheProfessor
- 5 stars Rating: 84
294 votes total - (4079)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
TheProfessor said...
I believe that points per possession provides a better basis for comparison, team to team, year to year. In the case of UK's defensive efficiency in 2010 and through 6 games of 2011, adjusted for schedule strength, here are the values:
2010, full season: 2.128 points per possession 2011, 6 games: 1.801 points per possession
Therefore, in my opinion, this defense has improved over last season's defense. However, last year's defensive efficiency was very poor, and only Ole Miss posted a worse defensive efficiency for the season at 2.132 ppp.
However, the offensive efficiency comparison is very disappointing. Last year's offense was very efficiency, 3.129 points per possession. That offensive efficiency is among the best in college football in most years. Last year, only Alabama (4.067 ppp), Auburn (4.566 ppp), and Arkansas (3.593 ppp) posted significantly higher offensive efficiencies than UK.
This year's offensive efficiency has dropped to only 1.140 ppp, which is dead last in the SEC and lower than all four of UK's 2011 non-conference opponents.
These numbers quantify what we have all been seeing, and do so better than total points, total yards, or points per game.
-
Chris Fisher
- 5 stars Rating: 94
2903 votes total - (16725)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
offline
- 5 stars Rating: 92
14 votes total - Jonathon Lee
- (163)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Jeff Drummond said...
That wasn't really the intent. I thought they played hard for the most part and did some nice things for about 2 1/2 quarters, given the offense was putting them on the field every four downs.
But there's no way to sugarcoat 639 yards.
This post was edited by alphacat93 on 10/10/2011 at 9:12 AM
-
alphacat93 said...
I think the D has played well the last two weeks, but they wear down and break in the 3rd quarter. Without the offense helping by sustaining drives and scoring points, it will continue to be the script each week. They've been on the field far too long this season. And, some of it is their fault as well. They continue to struggle with 3rd and long situations. They must make more stops in those situations. They're also giving up more big plays as the season progresses. Over the next two weeks, they need to address both issues as well as the secondary's lack of coverage skills. The next four opponents do not possess potent offensive attacks or the level of talent we've seen the last three weeks. UK's D should do quite well against all of them. Now, if only the O can help them out.
Jeff Drummond
- 5 stars Rating: 91
960 votes total - Jeff Drummond
- (16232)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
zcats said...
The thought is that defense requires more effort since the offense knows where they are going and on the lines the OL is in a sort of controlled retreat on pass plays whereas the DL is trying to read what is going on and fight through what the offense is running. Knowing the snap is also an advantage.
Jeff Drummond
- 5 stars Rating: 91
960 votes total - Jeff Drummond
- (16232)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars










for JDrum guys.


The Good, The Bad & The Ugly