Page 1 of 1
Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:49 am
by kalm
Fair and honest article. Like Baldwin pointed out, we won the NC with defense.
Does Big Sky have a defense problem?
By Tom Miller on Jul 25, 2015 at 10:40 p.m.
PARK CITY, Utah -- Mike Kramer has been a part of the Big Sky Conference since 1972. He played at Idaho and coached at Eastern Washington, Montana State and now Idaho State.
The 57-year-old Kramer is the closest thing to a league historian and one of the more outspoken coaches in the FCS.
So clearly, he has a pretty good grasp on trends in the Big Sky.
At the Big Sky Conference football kickoff event last week, Kramer was asked about the league’s reputation for soft defenses.
“Until we get better on defense, it’s going to be a fun place to play, but it won’t be great in December,” Kramer said.
Big Sky coaches ran the gamut of opinions when it came to questions about defense. Some thought it was a misconception. Some blamed the high-powered offenses.
Did Kramer think it was fair?
“Well deserved,” he said.
The Big Sky has a reputation for games turning into offensive shootouts. League supporters focus on the good offense and detractors point out the defense.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/ ... se-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:52 am
by Bison Fan in NW MN
Where was that EWU defense in 11, 12,13,14?
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:56 am
by kalm
Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:Where was that EWU defense in 11, 12,13,14?
That was my point.
NDSU fans...winning with grace since 2011.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:56 am
by clenz
Isn't this exactly what others outside the conference have said the last 5 years or so, especially regarding EWU and MSU?
Offense will look pretty against other BSC teams but not so much against a defense that's actually competent
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:07 am
by kalm
clenz wrote:Isn't this exactly what others outside the conference have said the last 5 years or so, especially regarding EWU and MSU?
Offense will look pretty against other BSC teams but not so much against a defense that's actually competent
Perhaps for the lesser BSC offenses, but MSU scored 43 against UCA and 40 against SDSU last year. We scored 52 against UW, 56 against SHSU, and 46 against ISUr last year.
I think it's more that BSC defenses make other offenses look good.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:54 am
by Mvemjsunpx
clenz wrote:Isn't this exactly what others outside the conference have said the last 5 years or so
I'm pretty sure that's what people have said about the Big Sky for the past 30 years.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:58 am
by AZGrizFan
Big Sky defensive schemes don't work well in December/January....
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:33 am
by clenz
kalm wrote:clenz wrote:Isn't this exactly what others outside the conference have said the last 5 years or so, especially regarding EWU and MSU?
Offense will look pretty against other BSC teams but not so much against a defense that's actually competent
Perhaps for the lesser BSC offenses, but MSU scored 43 against UCA and 40 against SDSU last year. We scored 52 against UW, 56 against SHSU, and 46 against ISUr last year.
I think it's more that BSC defenses make other offenses look good.
And for every point those offenses scored their defense gave up like 1.4 to 1.6
It doesn't work to spend so much time, money, and effort on recruiting all of these offensive weapons while ignoring recruiting and developing defensive talent.
It sounds cool to say "we scored 56"....not as cool when you add "but we have up 59"
It's like a college basketball team bragging about scoring 94.....but giving up 103
MVFC teams might only score 20 or 30 against other MVFC teams but show in OOC games they can score just as easily as anyone else. The MVFC defenses right now are just that good
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:44 am
by Bison Fan in NW MN
kalm wrote:Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:Where was that EWU defense in 11, 12,13,14?
That was my point.
NDSU fans...winning with grace since 2011.
Your usual redundant comeback....
Your own coaches in the conference said they need to get better and referenced NDSU and defense.
A pretty damn good Ill State team put up 27 points on the Bison in the NC game. EWU gave up 59 to that same Redbird team. Now don't you think having a little better defense might have changed the outcome of that game? Especially when EWU scored 46.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:22 pm
by clenz
That same ISU offense scored less than that in 2 UNI games
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:22 pm
by kalm
Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:kalm wrote:
That was my point.
NDSU fans...winning with grace since 2011.
Your usual redundant comeback....
Your own coaches in the conference said they need to get better and referenced NDSU and defense.
A pretty damn good Ill State team put up 27 points on the Bison in the NC game. EWU gave up 59 to that same Redbird team. Now don't you think having a little better defense might have changed the outcome of that game? Especially when EWU scored 46.
Jesus fucking Christ you're thick sometimes. Who the fuck do you think posted the article and the Baldwin quote?
Did you think I was running away from the BSC defensive liability?
Take a deep breath and let your rings wash all the Bill Fette hate away.
You'll be ok.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:09 pm
by SDHornet
May as well titled this thread "Tooth Fairy", or "Big Foot", both of those fall more in line with "Big Sky Defenses" regardless of the spin we'll see spewed on here.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:25 pm
by kalm
clenz wrote:kalm wrote:
Perhaps for the lesser BSC offenses, but MSU scored 43 against UCA and 40 against SDSU last year. We scored 52 against UW, 56 against SHSU, and 46 against ISUr last year.
I think it's more that BSC defenses make other offenses look good.
And for every point those offenses scored their defense gave up like 1.4 to 1.6
It doesn't work to spend so much time, money, and effort on recruiting all of these offensive weapons while ignoring recruiting and developing defensive talent.
It sounds cool to say "we scored 56"....not as cool when you add "but we have up 59"
It's like a college basketball team bragging about scoring 94.....but giving up 103
MVFC teams might only score 20 or 30 against other MVFC teams but show in OOC games they can score just as easily as anyone else. The MVFC defenses right now are just that good
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with here. You made the comment that BSC offenses don't look good outside the conference. I pointed out that the better offenses do. The defense is the liability.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:09 am
by Grizalltheway
The only team that matters doesn't.
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:20 am
by clenz
kalm wrote:clenz wrote:
And for every point those offenses scored their defense gave up like 1.4 to 1.6
It doesn't work to spend so much time, money, and effort on recruiting all of these offensive weapons while ignoring recruiting and developing defensive talent.
It sounds cool to say "we scored 56"....not as cool when you add "but we have up 59"
It's like a college basketball team bragging about scoring 94.....but giving up 103
MVFC teams might only score 20 or 30 against other MVFC teams but show in OOC games they can score just as easily as anyone else. The MVFC defenses right now are just that good
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with here. You made the comment that BSC offenses don't look good outside the conference. I pointed out that the better offenses do. The defense is the liability.
Those gaudy numbers don't look as impressive when MVFC teams, which get told all year long don't have explosive offenses because the average MVFC game score is like 24-13, all of a sudden throw 45-60 points up on Big Sky teams...on the road
When everyone can do it the numbers start lose some meaning - like NFL QB's throwing for 3000 or 3500 yards. It used to be 1 or 2 per year. Now fans want to benched if you aren't hitting that as a minimum.
Same on passing attempts - not all that long ago 450 was an extreme number of passes this past year 24 QBs hit at least 400 and 8 of them did it in less than 16 games
Not long ago those were video game numbers. Now their standard and seem less impressive as you have guys like Bortles, Orton, Dalton, etc... hitting those numbers
Re: Big Sky Defenses
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:53 pm
by AZGrizFan
clenz wrote:
Those gaudy numbers don't look as impressive when MVFC teams, which get told all year long don't have explosive offenses because the average MVFC game score is like 24-13, all of a sudden throw 45-60 points up on Big Sky teams...on the road
Not sure where you're going with this. The average MFVC score last year was 26-26. And that's a no-shitter.
ISU gave up an average of 23.4 to MFVC teams. They gave up 46 to EWU. We all EXPECTED EWU to give up a ton of points. Did ISU expect to give up 46? SDSU gave up an average of 30.6 to conference teams but gave up 40 to MSU. Montana State gave up an average of 31.8, but gave up 47 to SDSU. so a difference of 5 points, basically.
And bragging about putting up 46 on UNC is pretty weak. Sure, SDSU put 44 on Cal Poly, but NDSU only put 24 on lowly WEBER and SDSU only 26 on SUU and USD 28 on NAU, then NDSU 22 on UM.
So, outside of the EWU/ISU SDSU/MSU playoff track meets, there was exactly ONE regular season game last year where a MFVC team "threw up 45 points on Big Sky teams...on the road". And that was against powerhouse UNC by your 3rd best team in the conference and the only team to beat NDSU last year.
Weak sauce.