Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Buffs Defense May Become The Unsung Hero

The CU defensive stat that pops is Red Zone Defense. They are ranked 5th, with three teams only playing 4 games. Certainly, the D is giving up yards and first downs, but they are also getting key stops and/or turnovers at great times. I would like more sacks and tfl, however CU has mainly played dual threat QBs and kNU was a throw away on sacks given that game was out of hand so early. I think the sacks will come depending on the opponent. With the quick strike O and/or 3&outs, the D has been pretty darn good through 5 games. I think it will stay good/more than adequate, if CU keeps the Time of Possession from getting totally skewed.

Props to SS's for playing his best road game. I think he and Shurmer are getting on the same page. I did not see SS's pressing, which could be due to finally playing ahead. I was impressed with it being a road game and he seemed relaxed out there. Except for the 1st series, the O finally took the pressure off the D.
 
Darth Snow said:
Updated #s after four games:
Points per game: 72d at 23.5 per game. Getting worse, but yea special teams blah blah blah. I saw one other site that had us at 50th at 22.5 or something per game. No, I'm not going to do an unskewed polls analysis thing. That screams desperation.

YPG: 79th, +9 (359 per game)
YPP: 4.9 (50th)

Sacks: 108th. Still not getting to the passer, but at least we are tied with CSU!
Tackles for loss: 49th.

SP+: 81st (+5 woooo) - fun aside, special teams is 118th!

Here's a new one: turnovers gained: 4, for 73d overall.

Fun other things:
Red zone defense: 23d;
3d down defense: 55th

Again, this is good enough to win with a good offense, but we are a long way from good. Stats link
Click to expand...

Five Games in:

Points per game: 23 - 65th. Slight improvement which is OK assuming UCF's offense isn't buoyed by playing dog **** defenses.


YPG: 88th - 379.6. Getting worse.
YPP: 5.5 - good for 89th. Getting worse. yup, analytics hate that.
(New) Defensive Team Passing Efficiency: 88th. yet another sign as to why we are hated by computers.

Sacks: 60th at 2 per game. What a jump. Thanks UCF.
Tackles for Loss: 17th, way better (12 tackles for loss in one game helps a bit!)

SP+: 77th - small gain, and our ST even got up to 114th!

Turnovers Gained: 16th (9) - We've had good fumble luck here (5, and the highest # recovered is 6), but we are still tied for 32d with 4 INTs, so it's not just luck.
Red Zone Defense: 5th (.619) - helped by a some fumbles, one of which wasn't even forced (thanks CSU), but hey, you don't get that high by luck alone.
3d Down Defense: 51st (.347) - This is a bit of a mirage though. We are giving up 71% of 4th downs, tied with bama for 114th in the country.

Getting to the point in the year where you are what the numbers say you are. Which is a mediocre defense that comes up with turnovers and red zone stops while also being a little lucky.
 
Darth Snow said:
Five Games in:

Points per game: 23 - 65th. Slight improvement which is OK assuming UCF's offense isn't buoyed by playing dog **** defenses.


YPG: 88th - 379.6. Getting worse.
YPP: 5.5 - good for 89th. Getting worse. yup, analytics hate that.
(New) Defensive Team Passing Efficiency: 88th. yet another sign as to why we are hated by computers.

Sacks: 60th at 2 per game. What a jump. Thanks UCF.
Tackles for Loss: 17th, way better (12 tackles for loss in one game helps a bit!)

SP+: 77th - small gain, and our ST even got up to 114th!

Turnovers Gained: 16th (9) - We've had good fumble luck here (5, and the highest # recovered is 6), but we are still tied for 32d with 4 INTs, so it's not just luck.
Red Zone Defense: 5th (.619) - helped by a some fumbles, one of which wasn't even forced (thanks CSU), but hey, you don't get that high by luck alone.
3d Down Defense: 51st (.347) - This is a bit of a mirage though. We are giving up 71% of 4th downs, tied with bama for 114th in the country.

Getting to the point in the year where you are what the numbers say you are. Which is a mediocre defense that comes up with turnovers and red zone stops while also being a little lucky.
Click to expand...
The turnover luck will run out as it always does.

The hopes and dreams of the foolish will be crushed in yet another 5-7 season

We know how this ends when we rely on luck
 
Darth Snow said:
Five Games in:

Points per game: 23 - 65th. Slight improvement which is OK assuming UCF's offense isn't buoyed by playing dog **** defenses.


YPG: 88th - 379.6. Getting worse.
YPP: 5.5 - good for 89th. Getting worse. yup, analytics hate that.
(New) Defensive Team Passing Efficiency: 88th. yet another sign as to why we are hated by computers.

Sacks: 60th at 2 per game. What a jump. Thanks UCF.
Tackles for Loss: 17th, way better (12 tackles for loss in one game helps a bit!)

SP+: 77th - small gain, and our ST even got up to 114th!

Turnovers Gained: 16th (9) - We've had good fumble luck here (5, and the highest # recovered is 6), but we are still tied for 32d with 4 INTs, so it's not just luck.
Red Zone Defense: 5th (.619) - helped by a some fumbles, one of which wasn't even forced (thanks CSU), but hey, you don't get that high by luck alone.
3d Down Defense: 51st (.347) - This is a bit of a mirage though. We are giving up 71% of 4th downs, tied with bama for 114th in the country.

Getting to the point in the year where you are what the numbers say you are. Which is a mediocre defense that comes up with turnovers and red zone stops while also being a little lucky.
Click to expand...
FPI has the defense ranked 42nd in efficiency & the offense 35th...not a mediocre defense.
 
Corey Trevorson said:
FPI has the defense ranked 42nd in efficiency & the offense 35th...not a mediocre defense.
Click to expand...
So if we decide to use the most favorable outlier advanced statistical system and ignore all other evidence and all other metrics, our defense barely sneaks into the top 1/3 of programs nationwide on defense, and probably is squarely in the middle of power 4 defenses. But totally not mediocre!
 
Last edited:
I don't think we are at the point in the season where you are what the numbers say you are....yet.

We had a lot of new faces to start the season. New starters in many places.
New DC and new defensive system.

We are using more creative pressure schemes and we have found where we can be versatile.
We have perhaps as good of coverage DBs as there is in CFB, we can put them on an island.
Livingston has shown he can adjust. Our Defensive ratings are much better after halftime.

Adjustments? Yes, mind blowing.
For that reason, I expect we will continue to adjust thru the season as well and I really expect this D to continue to move up in the ratings.

We can be stout against the run and we have shut-down corners. We can do so much more with that.
Our main vulnerability has been the QB getting loose and gouging us with his legs.
We can fix that. Much easier than fixing "we can't hold up at the point of attack".
 
Darth Snow said:
So if we decide to use the most favorable outlier advanced statistical system and ignore all other evidence, our defense barely sneaks into the top 1/3 of programs nationwide on defense, and probably is squarely in the middle of power 4 defenses. But totally not mediocre!
Click to expand...
You accuse me of using outliers yet SP+ is the outlier here...FPI is 28th, Sagarin 32nd, Massey 44th, TeamRankings 46th, PFF 33rd ranked D grade.

Seems to me one isn't like the other...
 
Last edited:
buffaholic said:
I don't think we are at the point in the season where you are what the numbers say you are....yet.

We had a lot of new faces to start the season. New starters in many places.
New DC and new defensive system.

We are using more creative pressure schemes and we have found where we can be versatile.
We have perhaps as good of coverage DBs as there is in CFB, we can put them on an island.
Livingston has shown he can adjust. Our Defensive ratings are much better after halftime.

Adjustments? Yes, mind blowing.
For that reason, I expect we will continue to adjust thru the season as well and I really expect this D to continue to move up in the ratings.

We can be stout against the run and we have shut-down corners. We can do so much more with that.
Our main vulnerability has been the QB getting loose and gouging us with his legs.
We can fix that. Much easier than fixing "we can't hold up at the point of attack".
Click to expand...
That's the hope. And there are good arguments for us to keep improving. First time DC learning on the job. Brand new scheme for him and the players. Guys getting health or stepping up. Would be nice if Livingston could get the defense to show up in the same way in the first half more often.
 
The issue with Livingston so far has been his defense not being great countering the early game plan of their opponents. Once the game settles in and the offensive play calling becomes more reactive to the game the defensive looks far better. Outside of Nebraska in the first half the defense is doing enough to allow the possibility for a win which is far more than one can say for any defense since around 2016.
 
Last edited:
Corey Trevorson said:
You accuse me of using outliers yet SP+ is the outlier here...FPI is 28th, Sagarin 32nd, Massey 44th, TeamRankings 46th.

Seems to me one isn't like the other...
Click to expand...
First off, I stated you were ignoring all the information and cherry picking an outlier, which you were. It was a true accusation.

Second, I didn't cherry pick SP+, I picked it in the beginning because it's a solid predictive model. Just so happens it doesn't think our defense is good. No sense jumping horses mid stream in order to massage the numbers to get a result that makes me happy. Nice to see it could be an outlier in one direction, but it's just one data point.

Wait, did you just say the FPI has us 28th? I thought our D was 42d? Time to investigate.

My friend, you also are making mistakes left and right and have destroyed your own credibility. This is a defensive tracking thread. Yet you are now citing overall team ratings as support for a non-mediocre defense Yup, you just got egg on your face. Let's break down the ratings you just cited:

  • FPI: Yup, 42d ranked defense with 5 or so non- P4 teams in front of us. Mediocre+ at best.
  • Sagarin: From what I can tell, Sagarin doesn't even HAVE defensive ratings. Got more info?
  • Massey: has our defense 70th. Not even top half. :LOL:
  • TeamRankings (unfamiliar with them, but whatever): does not break out defensive ratings publicly that I can see. Got more info?. Interesting that overall it does have us as the 17th best 2d half team in the nation (89th first half)

From what I can tell, you are bad at this and all you have done is find more information suggesting I'm right. It's OK to not get in your feels about where our defense is because it's still way better than last year!
 
Darth Snow said:
First off, I stated you were ignoring all the information and cherry picking an outlier, which you were. It was a true accusation.

Second, I didn't cherry pick SP+, I picked it in the beginning because it's a solid predictive model. Just so happens it doesn't think our defense is good. No sense jumping horses mid stream in order to massage the numbers to get a result that makes me happy. Nice to see it could be an outlier in one direction, but it's just one data point.

Wait, did you just say the FPI has us 28th? I thought our D was 42d? Time to investigate.

My friend, you also are making mistakes left and right and have destroyed your own credibility. This is a defensive tracking thread. Yet you are now citing overall team ratings as support for a non-mediocre defense Yup, you just got egg on your face. Let's break down the ratings you just cited:

  • FPI: Yup, 42d ranked defense with 5 or so non- P4 teams in front of us. Mediocre+ at best.
  • Sagarin: From what I can tell, Sagarin doesn't even HAVE defensive ratings. Got more info?
  • Massey: has our defense 70th. Not even top half. :LOL:
  • TeamRankings (unfamiliar with them, but whatever): does not break out defensive ratings publicly that I can see. Got more info?. Interesting that overall it does have us as the 17th best 2d half team in the nation (89th first half)

From what I can tell, you are bad at this and all you have done is find more information suggesting I'm right. It's OK to not get in your feels about where our defense is because it's still way better than last year!
Click to expand...
The "outlier" I chose isn't an outlier, it's extremely comparable with the other rankings I showed, none of which are arbitrary or unknown locations.

Overall FPI is 28th, defense is 42nd - this in response to your comment about being 77th in SP+.

You've posted time and time again about how the offense has been bad or stalled out or whatever so clearly it's not the offensive efficiency pushing those rankings up.

You continue to cite a good source in SP+ but don't seem to grasp it's heavily influenced by pre-season rankings, of which the rankings hate the lack of production that was returning for better or worse.
 
Corey Trevorson said:
The "outlier" I chose isn't an outlier, it's extremely comparable with the other rankings I showed, none of which are arbitrary or unknown locations.

Overall FPI is 28th, defense is 42nd - this in response to your comment about being 77th in SP+.

You've posted time and time again about how the offense has been bad or stalled out or whatever so clearly it's not the offensive efficiency pushing those rankings up.

You continue to cite a good source in SP+ but don't seem to grasp it's heavily influenced by pre-season rankings, of which the rankings hate the lack of production that was returning for better or worse.
Click to expand...
Please show me the Sagarin and Teamranking defensive rankings. Also, I'd like an in depth math analysis of how 42=70
 
Darth Snow said:
First off, I stated you were ignoring all the information and cherry picking an outlier, which you were. It was a true accusation.

Second, I didn't cherry pick SP+, I picked it in the beginning because it's a solid predictive model. Just so happens it doesn't think our defense is good. No sense jumping horses mid stream in order to massage the numbers to get a result that makes me happy. Nice to see it could be an outlier in one direction, but it's just one data point.

Wait, did you just say the FPI has us 28th? I thought our D was 42d? Time to investigate.

My friend, you also are making mistakes left and right and have destroyed your own credibility. This is a defensive tracking thread. Yet you are now citing overall team ratings as support for a non-mediocre defense Yup, you just got egg on your face. Let's break down the ratings you just cited:

  • FPI: Yup, 42d ranked defense with 5 or so non- P4 teams in front of us. Mediocre+ at best.
  • Sagarin: From what I can tell, Sagarin doesn't even HAVE defensive ratings. Got more info?
  • Massey: has our defense 70th. Not even top half. :LOL:
  • TeamRankings (unfamiliar with them, but whatever): does not break out defensive ratings publicly that I can see. Got more info?. Interesting that overall it does have us as the 17th best 2d half team in the nation (89th first half)

From what I can tell, you are bad at this and all you have done is find more information suggesting I'm right. It's OK to not get in your feels about where our defense is because it's still way better than last year!
Click to expand...
Is it SP+ that has heavy historical rating? Feel like those advanced stats put lots of weighting into the prior year and/or roster movement. Those tend to lag current results…. Good, because this is a fluke and we don’t want to suddenly think we’re good

We’re ****ed regardless, but might be why
 
LesGrossman said:
Is it SP+ that has heavy historical rating? Feel like those advanced stats put lots of weighting into the prior year and/or roster movement.

We’re ****ed regardless, but might be why
Click to expand...
Every week the historical weighting in SP+ gets decreased, I believe around week 6 it's all in season performance. Give or take a bit. So by now SP+ mostly hates our D because of what our D has put in the field.

The problem is really how poorly we are doing in defensive efficiency and YPP. Add in some unsustainable fumble luck and that leads to a bad rating.
 
Darth Snow said:
Please show me the Sagarin and Teamranking defensive rankings. Also, I'd like an in depth math analysis of how 42=70
Click to expand...
Again I cited overall team efficiency rankings in response to your SP+ overall statement being 77th.

The offense hasn't been lights out so we know the offense isn't driving the rankings up & neither have the special teams....deductive reasoning.

You refuse to acknowledge that SP+ is heavily driven by prior year rankings still but this all matches your act here of being a miserable fan. Back on ignore you go for the next few weeks until the KSU game thread.
 
Corey Trevorson said:
Again I cited overall team efficiency rankings in response to your SP+ overall statement being 77th.

The offense hasn't been lights out so we know the offense isn't driving the rankings up & neither have the special teams....deductive reasoning.

You refuse to acknowledge that SP+ is heavily driven by prior year rankings still but this all matches your act here of being a miserable fan. Back on ignore you go for the next few weeks until the KSU game thread.
Click to expand...
So when I called the defense mediocre, and you said it wasn't, it totally made sense to you to argue about something neither of us was talking about. But now you say I'm right about the defense due to deductive reasoning. And you are mad at me. I win again!
 
Darth Snow said:
So when I called the defense mediocre, and you said it wasn't, it totally made sense to you to argue about something neither of us was talking about. But now you say I'm right about the defense due to deductive reasoning. And you are mad at me. I win again!
Click to expand...

Trevorson and you going at it with Grossman throwing stuff is a clown show. Darth from your overall comments, it seems that u hate Prime (this year's CU team) want us to lose, as the great prophet predicting another losing season. I guess you sort of wish CU would roll back the clock to the Wing-T/Veer/Wishbone offense running that ball 35 times, with 40 mins offensive time of possession, such that the defense is statistically great . . . given the opposing offense runs limited plays?? If an O cuts down the time of possession (i.e. Iowa), I guess the is dominant? However, do you score enough to win?

If you look at CU's D based upon each quarter, the D has played many good/great quarters compared to a few bad ones. Then you throw in a DC 5 games into the season with a bunch of new guys and it is impressive, not depressive. @buffaholic makes a very good comment boding well for CU's defense going forward. He mentions CU has played so many guys . . . both starters and reserves, aka transfers appear to have talent. A bunch of guys getting experience playing next to one another does help. Hopefully, they get past injuries and early coordination issues and the D only improves, with the O scoring more than enough points each game.

Yards, points, 1st downs, and pass/run efficiency are one defensive metric, but it really comes down to making key stops and keeping the team in each game. CU's D has done that. The progress is obvious, even if the "stats" do not necessarily show it. Anytime a team is doing D install, there will be blown assignments, coverages, etc... There have been but this year's D plays much more physical than year's past. Which D position group is deficient compared to the last 2 seasons?

Explain how is the D supposed to be statistically great given the high octane CU O? When our O hits we score, however the result is many short drives--whether they be a few plays & out, or a few plays then a TD/FG. Obviously, there will be yards and points given any D is on the field for prolonged periods. CU is not really running an O conductive to controlling time of possession and seeking to limit the # of plays, correct? However, the O is not really built that way, but has been more balanced the past 2 games. Is your expectation 44-6, 35-10, 16-3 each game?

In some games, the O has to out score teams (NDSU, Baylor) or may really outscore teams (UCF) and then statistically they are what they are. CSU was a lower scoring game with some better stats. kNU is the real stat outlier because of the O's pick 6, shanked punt then the fluke TD that could have been an INT. Statistically speaking the 2nd half of kNU is probably one of CU D's better halves, however wasn't that was due to kNU salting out the clock? The worst D was probably the 1st half v. NDSU and we are along ways past that. The D that really didn't matter that much was 3rd/4th Q v. UCF when they gave up tons of yards but only 7 points . . .

Is the sky really falling? What is your perfect equation? With what coach? What O and what D?
 
Last edited:
GRM said:
Trevorson and you going at it with Grossman throwing stuff is a clown show. Darth from your overall comments, it seems that u hate Prime (this year's CU team) want us to lose, as the great prophet predicting another losing season. I guess you sort of wish CU would roll back the clock to the Wing-T/Veer/Wishbone offense running that ball 35 times, with 40 mins offensive time of possession, such that the defense is statistically great . . . given the opposing offense runs limited plays?? If an O cuts down the time of possession (i.e. Iowa), I guess the is dominant? However, do you score enough to win?

If you look at CU's D based upon each quarter, the D has played many good/great quarters compared to a few bad ones. Then you throw in a DC 5 games into the season with a bunch of new guys and it is impressive, not depressive. @buffaholic makes a very good comment boding well for CU's defense going forward. He mentions CU has played so many guys . . . both starters and reserves, aka transfers appear to have talent. A bunch of guys getting experience playing next to one another does help. Hopefully, they get past injuries and early coordination issues and the D only improves, with the O scoring more than enough points each game.

Yards, points, 1st downs, and pass/run efficiency are one defensive metric, but it really comes down to making key stops and keeping the team in each game. CU's D has done that. The progress is obvious, even if the "stats" do not necessarily show it. Anytime a team is doing D install, there will be blown assignments, coverages, etc... There have been but this year's D plays much more physical than year's past. Which D position group is deficient compared to the last 2 seasons?

Explain how is the D supposed to be statistically great given the high octane CU O? When our O hits we score, however the result is many short drives--whether they be a few plays & out, or a few plays then a TD/FG. Obviously, there will be yards and points given any D is on the field for prolonged periods. CU is not really running an O conductive to controlling time of possession and seeking to limit the # of plays, correct? However, the O is not really built that way, however has been more balanced the past 2 games. Is your expectation 44-6, 35-10, 16-3 each game?

In some games, the O has to out score teams (NDSU, Baylor) or may really outscore teams (UCF) and then statistically they are what they are. CSU was a lower scoring game with some better stats. kNU is the real stat outlier because of the O's pick 6, shanked punt then the fluke TD that could have been an INT. Statistically speaking the 2nd half of kNU is probably one of CU D's better halves, however wasn't that was due to kNU salting out the clock? The worst D was probably the 1st half v. NDSU and we are along ways past that. The D that really didn't matter that much was 3rd/4th Q v. UCF when they gave up tons of yards but only 7 points . . .

Is the sky really falling? What is your perfect equation? With what coach? What O and what D?
Click to expand...
Penguin Read GIF by Pudgy Penguins
 
GRM said:
Trevorson and you going at it with Grossman throwing stuff is a clown show. Darth from your overall comments, it seems that u hate Prime (this year's CU team) want us to lose, as the great prophet predicting another losing season. I guess you sort of wish CU would roll back the clock to the Wing-T/Veer/Wishbone offense running that ball 35 times, with 40 mins offensive time of possession, such that the defense is statistically great . . . given the opposing offense runs limited plays?? If an O cuts down the time of possession (i.e. Iowa), I guess the is dominant? However, do you score enough to win?

If you look at CU's D based upon each quarter, the D has played many good/great quarters compared to a few bad ones. Then you throw in a DC 5 games into the season with a bunch of new guys and it is impressive, not depressive. @buffaholic makes a very good comment boding well for CU's defense going forward. He mentions CU has played so many guys . . . both starters and reserves, aka transfers appear to have talent. A bunch of guys getting experience playing next to one another does help. Hopefully, they get past injuries and early coordination issues and the D only improves, with the O scoring more than enough points each game.

Yards, points, 1st downs, and pass/run efficiency are one defensive metric, but it really comes down to making key stops and keeping the team in each game. CU's D has done that. The progress is obvious, even if the "stats" do not necessarily show it. Anytime a team is doing D install, there will be blown assignments, coverages, etc... There have been but this year's D plays much more physical than year's past. Which D position group is deficient compared to the last 2 seasons?

Explain how is the D supposed to be statistically great given the high octane CU O? When our O hits we score, however the result is many short drives--whether they be a few plays & out, or a few plays then a TD/FG. Obviously, there will be yards and points given any D is on the field for prolonged periods. CU is not really running an O conductive to controlling time of possession and seeking to limit the # of plays, correct? However, the O is not really built that way, however has been more balanced the past 2 games. Is your expectation 44-6, 35-10, 16-3 each game?

In some games, the O has to out score teams (NDSU, Baylor) or may really outscore teams (UCF) and then statistically they are what they are. CSU was a lower scoring game with some better stats. kNU is the real stat outlier because of the O's pick 6, shanked punt then the fluke TD that could have been an INT. Statistically speaking the 2nd half of kNU is probably one of CU D's better halves, however wasn't that was due to kNU salting out the clock? The worst D was probably the 1st half v. NDSU and we are along ways past that. The D that really didn't matter that much was 3rd/4th Q v. UCF when they gave up tons of yards but only 7 points . . .

Is the sky really falling? What is your perfect equation? With what coach? What O and what D?
Click to expand...
Newbie Hello GIF by Disney Channel
 
buffaholic said:
We do if we want to run the table though. I honestly think that would be possible. A great D and a great QB equals victory in this conference.

We are not a great D, but I think we could be in two weeks.
Click to expand...

I don't know that we can be a great defense, but I think the jump to good is still possible. That and special teams exiting dumpster fire territory could go a long way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top