www.rantsports.com/ncaa-footba...utm_source=t.co

Oddly enough, Gio tweeted a link to this article.

It bothers me to no end when folks use measurables like ypg or ppg to compare UNC's defense to the rest of the college football world. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a meaningless stat, but given that the fast paced offense produces about 15-20 more plays per game and therefore roughly two more possessions for both the offense and the defense, it seems a stat like yards per play or points per possession would be much more valuable. On the surface, I think statements like this make the defense seem a lot worse than it really was:

"North Carolina was 56th in the nation last season in total defense, giving up nearly 390 yards per game. If that is to improve in 2013, the Tar Heels will need to know which of the three men with the defensive leader titles is actually calling the shots."

The way I look at it is 390 yards per game translates to roughly 40 yards per possession. A defense that gives us 320 yards per game but in two fewer possessions, has about the same defensive efficiency. Don't misunderstand me. The largest area for improvement is the defense--by FAR. But you can't just look at ypg or ppg as what determines goodness in the defense when you run a fast-paced offense like we do.

As for the multiple titles who suggest some sort of leadership over the defense, if you follow college football at all, you know that this is a common thing where HC's attach these titles to make the assistant coaching spot be more attractive. I would think schools with multiple coaches who are "co-DC" than those who aren't. It IS odd that UNC has three coaches, but I think what may be occuring is that Disch has been demoted from that role even though his "co-DC" title may have stuck. My belief is that Koenning will be calling the plays next year and that Koenning, Disch, and West will be collaborating for game planning.

I have asked this question several times via several different venues and no one answers.

Who is calling the Defensive Plays on GameDay?
Thats all I want to know :)

I agree with C&C. I think it will be Koenning this year. I'm not sure that was the case last year.

Seems I remember last year that Koenning called the plays for the line and Disch called them for the backfield? Or something like that.

Well, that would explain 68 points.

That just isn't possible in a modern defense where you have DLs with pass responsibilities and DBs with run force/contain.

---------------------------------------------
--- paintitcarolinablue wrote:

Seems I remember last year that Koenning called the plays for the line and Disch called them for the backfield? Or something like that.

---------------------------------------------

LOL, if thats true Fedora should be fired ASAP.
No way that happened.

---------------------------------------------
--- paintitcarolinablue wrote:

Seems I remember last year that Koenning called the plays for the line and Disch called them for the backfield? Or something like that.

---------------------------------------------

I'm sure Fedora knows who is in charge of the defense, so I'm not particularly concerned about the situation.

Kudos to C&C with the insight on measurables. If they stick, you'd be the football version of Dean Smith. I like it.

I thought Fedora was trying to disguise who was doing the calling so the opposing offense couldn't figure things out. He's tricky like that.

Koenning

Vic is the one who is running the defense. He is the Asst. Head Coach for Defense and he had lots of input on who he wanted as the new asst. coaches. If Vic and Disch were splitting the calls last year between DL and DBs it wont happen this year with Vic now coaching in the secondary.

We can debate stats all day. It was easy for anyone to see it was a bad bad bad defense. With the schedule we had no excuse for the numbers put up when you consider 3 games were against really really bad teams.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:

It bothers me to no end when folks use measurables like ypg or ppg to compare UNC's defense to the rest of the college football world. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a meaningless stat, but given that the fast paced offense produces about 15-20 more plays per game and therefore roughly two more possessions for both the offense and the defense, it seems a stat like yards per play or points per possession would be much more valuable. On the surface, I think statements like this make the defense seem a lot worse than it really was:

"North Carolina was 56th in the nation last season in total defense, giving up nearly 390 yards per game. If that is to improve in 2013, the Tar Heels will need to know which of the three men with the defensive leader titles is actually calling the shots."

The way I look at it is 390 yards per game translates to roughly 40 yards per possession. A defense that gives us 320 yards per game but in two fewer possessions, has about the same defensive efficiency. Don't misunderstand me. The largest area for improvement is the defense--by FAR. But you can't just look at ypg or ppg as what determines goodness in the defense when you run a fast-paced offense like we do.

As for the multiple titles who suggest some sort of leadership over the defense, if you follow college football at all, you know that this is a common thing where HC's attach these titles to make the assistant coaching spot be more attractive. I would think schools with multiple coaches who are "co-DC" than those who aren't. It IS odd that UNC has three coaches, but I think what may be occuring is that Disch has been demoted from that role even though his "co-DC" title may have stuck. My belief is that Koenning will be calling the plays next year and that Koenning, Disch, and West will be collaborating for game planning.

---------------------------------------------

Definitely understand what you are saying but for me ypg and ppg are still the measuring stick. Just because you are give guys more possession, you still have to get stops and far too many times UNC couldn't get critical stops when it counted. How many 3rd and extremely longs did UNC give up? The 3rd and 12s, 15s, 18s, etc that we seemed to give up with easy are reflected in those total and that 56 ranking.

Not sure what your point is, we can debate anything all day, but thankfully, none of us HAVE to do so. I have cleaned up my post and left the ONLY statement I made that was close to qualifying how good our defense was last year. We are probably more in agreement than disagreement about the quality of the defense in 2012.

However, this casual use of ppg and ypg as if there is nothing else to consider bugs me. All of these statistics are useful in determining HOW bad it is/was compared to other defenses in the past and current seasons. Comparing ppg or ypg only is not the correct measure.

And we play weak opponents every season. Maybe not three every season, but certainly one or two. FWIW, who was the third? Elon, Idaho, and who?

---------------------------------------------
--- jrobe wrote:

We can debate stats all day. It was easy for anyone to see it was a bad bad bad defense. With the schedule we had no excuse for the numbers put up when you consider 3 games were against really really bad teams.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. The largest area for improvement is the defense--by FAR. But you can't just look at ypg or ppg as what determines goodness in the defense when you run a fast-paced offense like we do.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Maryland would be the third. You know, the team that had LB playing QB and went up and down the field on us!
---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:

Not sure what your point is, we can debate anything all day, but thankfully, none of us HAVE to do so. I have cleaned up my post and left the ONLY statement I made that was close to qualifying how good our defense was last year. We are probably more in agreement than disagreement about the quality of the defense in 2012.

However, this casual use of ppg and ypg as if there is nothing else to consider bugs me. All of these statistics are useful in determining HOW bad it is/was compared to other defenses in the past and current seasons. Comparing ppg or ypg only is not the correct measure.

And we play weak opponents every season. Maybe not three every season, but certainly one or two. FWIW, who was the third? Elon, Idaho, and who?

---------------------------------------------
--- jrobe wrote:

We can debate stats all day. It was easy for anyone to see it was a bad bad bad defense. With the schedule we had no excuse for the numbers put up when you consider 3 games were against really really bad teams.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:

Don't misunderstand me. The largest area for improvement is the defense--by FAR. But you can't just look at ypg or ppg as what determines goodness in the defense when you run a fast-paced offense like we do.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I pray we are not having this discussion next year this time when we are trying to recruit some of the best defensive high school players in NC and the country.

As opposed to just praying every time the D hits the field.

---------------------------------------------
--- AlreadyHome wrote:

I pray we are not having this discussion next year this time when we are trying to recruit some of the best defensive high school players in NC and the country.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:


Maryland would be the third. You know, the team that had LB playing QB and went up and down the field on us!

---------------------------------------------

Maryland may have been the third team that jrobe was referring to, but the Terps DID score 38 on us whereas Elon and Idaho laid goose eggs. If the point was that there were three teams that helped us skew the stats, the Maryland game actually made the defensive ppg look worse than what they ultimately became. Maryland had played Clemson and FSU in back to back weeks prior to our game and probably had a bit of an easier time against our d than either of Clemson's and FSU's. That QB was starting his 4th straight game and had actually had more TD's than INT's up to that point (against some pretty good defenses), so let's not totally disregard him as being an Antwan Black type. I DO think that the Maryland game was the third weakest on the schedule just above Wake and UVa (bc they were both on the road) and the ECU game (because they give us a better effort typically than the normal non-BCS FBS opponent. We probably should have won by another touchdown or so against the Terps (maybe 42-28?), but it wasn't grossly out of the norm for UNC or for any league opponent to win a close one against Maryland.

The difference bewteen Idaho and Elon with Maryland was very big. I would say we had two very easy games (Elon and Idaho) and three moderately easy games (Maryland, ECU, UVa).

"confusion could set in".

I could care less about a fan on bleacherreport 2.0 being confused because we got creative with their titles so everyone got paid (Vic and Disch) and got to keep whatever title bump from a previous job (West). West has worked with both guys before at Illinois. Worked with VicK at Clemson too. VicK and Disch are pretty tight, otherwise they would not have been helping each other with game planning when they were at different schools. Vic was interim at Illinois and Disch was finishing up at USM.

The hilarious part of this "confusion" is that once in the room together titles go out the window and stripes are checked at the door. Our defensive game plans don't come down to the assistants from on high. Its a team effort, for praise and blame. And this is more or less how modern coaching works, not just here.

Sorry you're confused, but our defensive issues last year had nothing to do with too many titles or confusing roles. Thats fan fiction written after the fact.

---------------------------------------------
--- Jheiser3 wrote:

The hilarious part of this "confusion" is that once in the room together titles go out the window and stripes are checked at the door.

---------------------------------------------

It's hilarious that you actually think that. If you don't think Assistant Football Coaches have Egos then you've never, ever played the game. They bring those egos with them wherever they go.

I doubt there will be confusion, as I'm sure Fed, like any good leader, will have roles clearly communicated to each coach. But to say that "titles", "stripes" and ego are checked at the door is just flat out wrong.

I never said it was ego free. Don't make silly *** up, teach.

Do you really believe that giving Ron West the co-DC title so he could keep the bump he got from ASU last year creates friction or confusion?


---------------------------------------------
--- thesillyteacher wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Jheiser3 wrote:

The hilarious part of this "confusion" is that once in the room together titles go out the window and stripes are checked at the door.

---------------------------------------------

It's hilarious that you actually think that. If you don't think Assistant Football Coaches have Egos then you've never, ever played the game. They bring those egos with them wherever they go.

I doubt there will be confusion, as I'm sure Fed, like any good leader, will have roles clearly communicated to each coach. But to say that "titles", "stripes" and ego are checked at the door is just flat out wrong.

---------------------------------------------