How in the world is Clemson's defense (and all NCAA teams really) so bad?

Here's basically how football positions are ranked in order of importance:

1) Quarterback

2) Offensive and defensive linemen

3) Everyone else

More talent is generally allocated to offense because the most important player is generally on offense.

Those pro teams are crazzzy not to hire rojo. He is a well known expert at everything he has ever tried: naps, TV watching, dubyaing.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Alabama has one good offensive player. He catches passes from a fat QB with a broken leg. They are still a popular team.

Three of the top five Heisman trophy candidates are Alabama offensive skill players. None of the finalists are defensive players.

It's the top 4, but in any case the fat QB with the bad leg isn't a good just because the receiver who gives him easy targets is good.

Put him in Trevor Lawrence's position under a relentless pass rush and his leg would have been broken the rest of the way.

Easy, game is designed for Offense, a lot more rules and chances for penalties on the Defense side.

The targeting in the OSU/Clemson game was a legitimate call, following the targeting protocol, but actually a safe/fair tackle. Most of the force came from the LBs shoulder pads, but where the QB spun into the tackle, his helmet became part of it.

Dr Yuengling wrote:

You realize that most of these guys enter college with defined positions, right? This isn’t 7 year old soccer, the coach can’t say “hey Trevor, Travis, we’re getting killed on D, why don’t you guys get in and rush the passer”

They do. But it's very common for players to be switched to different positions in college and it's also very common for them not to be.

It used to be that "offense sells tickets and defense wins games" but I just saw a quote from some high profile coach, it might have been Urban Meyer but I'm not sure, saying that's no longer the case. Offenses win games now and defenses are supposed to make an occasional stop or get a take away. There was a time when coaches did in fact usually put their best athletes on defense even if it meant switching from their primary high school positions but now generally the reverse is true and the best athletes go on offense.

Rules have changed to increase scoring but I think there are three other big factors. One is the quarterback who can both run and pass. Defenses did not need to worry about the classic drop back passer taking off and running if no receivers were open. Defenses had sort of an 11 on 10 coverage because they didn't need to worry about the quarterback running but now you see lots of third and long conversions made when a quarterback takes off and runs.

Another factor is the size and skill of receivers and possibly the gloves they wear that have so much grip. Defensive backs are usually short and receivers have gotten taller. They routinely make "jump ball" catches that the DBs can't reach. "Impossible" catches from twenty years ago happen regularly now.

The third thing I see is that guys can no longer tackle very well. I believe that's largely due to changes in the rules and attitudes that govern what you do in practice. There are far fewer full contact practices where tacking happens. In games that translates to missed tackles and lots more "Yard After Contact."

The better athletes play offense. Defense are the ones who can't be a star on offense. Kind of like distance runners, they are failed athletes in other sports.

new lambo for Christmas wrote:

The better athletes play offense. Defense are the ones who can't be a star on offense. Kind of like distance runners, they are failed athletes in other sports.

This is not true.

So we have cheater gloves in football?

Your observations are correct. There should be enough former D-1 guys on let'srun who were in athletic dorms with Am. football players who should know that college football, at least D-1 Am. football teams stack talent on offense while neglecting defense. It is not easy to ignore potential offensive talent for Am. college football coaches. Looking back, it is a wonder that college football coaches were able to get Carl Eller, Paul Krause, Alan Page, Deion Sanders and Lawence Taylor to play defense in college.

Runner10287 wrote:

Ok so we get the dad getting soccer advice from someone solely because he’s English. Yep I just any random Indian for deep dives into cricket.

You also say the ADs should just tell the coach to put the best athletes on defense and boom instant elite defense!

New year. Same RoJoke. If nothing else during a pandemic at least we have Robert to tool it up on a consistent basis.

But he's really good at spelling! Oh yeah, and math!

A track guy trying to figure out American football using a soccer reference. Ha.

Why do teams give up 50+ ppg on defense? Easily. It comes down to a few things...A combination of coaching, bad scheming, lack of fundamentals and sometimes you're just simply over-matched on that specific day. Maybe it's one of those things. Maybe it's all of them.

A few things to consider:

One of the key differences is that, like a poster above me said, the QBs have become more agile and "dual threat" over the last probably 25 years.

Another reason is the introduction of the "RPO"...really more of a widespread usage than an introduction...and the spread offense. Take that dual threat QB and add an elite or even good RB and good luck game planning against it. It's hard. It's really hard.

Think about this..on literally every single play, you'll have a 3 or 4 wideout set, a dual threat Qb and that pretty damn good RB. As soon as the ball is snapped, you have 4 WRs in their route and you have no idea if the ball is going to the RB or not. If it does, you have to stop him . If it doesn't, now you as a defensive player have to account for those WRs and the possibility of that QB taking off and running or passing. These are Split second decisions by the defensive players based on what coaching they receive but they still have to remember all that in the heat of the moment..on every play of this type. Like I said, its damn tough.

You also act like teams like these elite teams like Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama, etc are giving up 50+ ppg "every other week". They aren't. Sure you have the Big 12 teams that seemingly have every game like that, but by and large the elite teams aren't giving up 50 ppg more than once or twice a season...if at all.

R. Johnson happened to be correct on this thread. Maybe the spelling errors and youth soccer example are chum in the water for feeding sharks. No one is proving him wrong. Am I the only one on here that took Advanced Physical Conditioning as summer courses in college with D-1 Am., football players? When one is actually around D-1 Am. football players, there is no doubt teams are stacked in talent on offense at the expense of team defense.

Poster, do you believe Run Pass Option is new in college football? See Francis Tarkenton. See Roger Staubach. See Jamelle Holieway. Guys get recruited to play offense, maybe second, third or fourth string, the bleeding gets so bad on defense, a second or third or fourth string tailback ends up starting at cornerback or safety college football team. College second, third or fourth string 6'2" plus split end or 6'2" plus tight end get converted to defensive end.

If college football teams did not and do not stack talent on offense, we would not have a long list of college quarterbacks who end up playing free safety in N.F.L.

Runner10287 wrote:

So we have cheater gloves in football?

Yes and they have been around for a while. They are big reason why so many one handed catches get made these days.

new lambo for Christmas wrote:

The better athletes play offense. Defense are the ones who can't be a star on offense. Kind of like distance runners, they are failed athletes in other sports.

Given that it is almost impossible to be a star OL men, it does explain why the D line is more talented;)

College football is all about finding some mismatch (i.e. your NFL star against their average DI player) and exploiting it. If you have 1 NFL receiver and they have 1 NFL corner, you set it up so your NFL guy is agains the DI guy instead and dominated. The fact that their NFL level corner is shutting down your DI receiver doesn't matter.

Very difficult to defend a team like Ohio State especially indoors when weather is no factor. You have to defend sideline to sideline and the deep ball as they have several deep threats and a QB who throws the deep ball very well. Factor is a lethal run game and you are having to pick your poison (creep up they beat you deep / play the deep ball they run it down your throat) the only chance defenses have is they have to dominate the line of scrimmage and generate a pass rush with their front 4

Tarkenton and Staubach stand out because they were exceptions There were a very small number of NFL quarterbacks who ran in that era. And when they ran it was almost always improvised, i.e., because they couldn't find a receiver. There was nothing like today's run pass option then.

I think you missed when I said "Another reason is the introduction of the "RPO"...really more of a widespread usage than an introduction...and the spread offense". Combining the two is only recent.

You used Jamelle Holieway as an example of the RPO???? Geezus, that guy could barely throw the ball to save his life. I just looked up his stats, because I don't remember him throwing the ball much at all, and sure enough, his stats back this up....47 career games, 2339 passing yards..that is literally less than 50 yards passing PER GAME. That's not RPO. That is RO...Run Only. Run Option. Whatever you want to call it...lol. At least Tommy Frazier and Tony Rice threw the ball, albeit not much more.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Three of the top five Heisman trophy candidates are Alabama offensive skill players. None of the finalists are defensive players.

It's the top 4, but in any case the fat QB with the bad leg isn't a good just because the receiver who gives him easy targets is good.

Put him in Trevor Lawrence's position under a relentless pass rush and his leg would have been broken the rest of the way.

Two of the top four and three of the top five.

advanced statistics prove you're better off overinvesting in offense if you want to win. HS coaches figured this out first, then colleges. pros are just starting to get there- a big reason why the offensive numbers in the NFL exploded this year. there has always been more room for improvement on the offensive side; now the coaching and the pedigree of the best players is finally catching up.

the good athletes on offense have become so good, they're very hard to stop 11-on-11. defenses are forced to keep 5-7 back in coverage on every down, because if they didn't, the TDs would come even faster. and because they have to do this, the number of chunk 10-20 yard runs has exploded also.

regarding tackling, coaches will tell you that guys don't wrap up like they should because it puts the shoulder joint at greater risk of separation. if you just throw your shulder at the guy's hip with your arms down, your injury risk decreases, even though it's less effective. coaches hate it, but they put up with it, because they don't want to lose guys.

anyway, the teams that score more win more, so there you are. i realize 56-45 is not what us old-timers want to see every week, but it's mainly due to better coaching and better players. defense has been doing all it can do for a long time.