enCYCLONEpedia A football fallacy

[TedKumsher]

Apologies -- I keep typing stuff as I think of it instead of formulating a concise discussion.

I think the way this data is presented does not account for:

*IF* a drive makes it to 16 plays, the points per possession are very good. But 99.2% of the time a drive doesn't make it that far. Credit should somehow be given to bend-don't-break for stopping 99.2% of drives before it gets that far.

 

[khaal53]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

I think I mentioned earlier that perhaps number of plays isn't necessarily the best method but it is straight forward and I'd bet there is a pretty solid correlation with giving up yards. Perhaps it could be re-done by looking at field position or yards given up and I may do that when I get a chance.

While separating defenses stylistically would surely help hugely I certainly don't know of an efficient way to complete that task.

One glaring issue that has come up and would need to reach a consensus is how each of us defines "bend but don't break" as far as what it looks like and the like. In the past I have done a calculation of yards allowed per point. That would separate teams out that give up the most yards to fewest points but it would grab a bunch of others as well.

I think it is a fun topic and as was mentioned, ciphering out football stats is complex with how everything is interconnected. It is all tied together and related. Each aspect is affected by more than one other aspect and in turn affects more than one other aspect. It makes it fun.

 

[cyclones500]

Another element of the subset of 'yards available' percentage that accounts for field position: sometimes a bend-don't-break may work well for reducing number of points scored, but could fail in long term in balance of field position.

If opponent takes possession on its own 5, for example, you hope to keep them pinned deep and force a punt that can get you possession near mid field or so. But bending-D maybe won't stop offense until maybe the 40. Sure they didn't give up any points, but may have squandered field position.

 

[FDWxMan]

One glaring issue that has come up and would need to reach a consensus is how each of us defines "bend but don't break" as far as what it looks like and the like.

This is key.

To me, it seems any defense that doesn't blitz >70% of the time (basically blitz like it's a video game) is labeled "bend but don't break" by announcers and fans.

I think it's a lazy label for something I'm not sure even really exists.

 

[TedKumsher]

This is key.

To me, it seems any defense that doesn't blitz >70% of the time (basically blitz like it's a video game) is labeled "bend but don't break" by announcers and fans.

I think it's a lazy label for something I'm not sure even really exists.

How 'bout conservative defense? Rare blitzes, big cushion on wide receivers, deep (ish) safety. Not focused on creating turnovers.

 

[CyCloned]

I think the bend don't break defense is more of a defense that will give up short gain plays in an effort to extend the length of the drive, just hoping that the offense will eventually make a couple mistakes. Basically, on defense, teams have to give up something. Teams that blitz all the time are gambling that they will get a big play and cause a TO, or a 3rd and long. Teams that lay back and conservatively defend the field are counting on the offense not being able to consistently make the "easy" plays, or that they will get impatient and try to get more.

The reason that the bend don't break defense has worked for Wally in the past is that the defense was good enough at run defense to force teams to throw, and the chances of something going wrong on a passing play are higher than a running play. The last couple years the run defense has been pretty suspect, and ISU has been breaking way more than bending.

 

[CYcoFan]

I called in to the "Call In Show" today because this post is worthless.

The research is great. But there is no accounting for ranks of defenses and seperating them. No accounting for the style of defenses and seperating them. This post tries to define a "Bend But Don't Break" but then asks how we define it. What? How misguided is that? No conclusion at all.

Go back and look at how much difference there was between yards gained and points scored by KSU when ISU was in Zone vs Man to Man.

Also to the OP. For me, You must be able to classify what the Seattle Seahawks D is before you tell me anything about or come to conclusions on Defense. Their Hybrid will blow your mind and shoots tons of holes in your philosophy.

Edit - I shouldn't have said philosophy I should have said theory

 

[TedKumsher]

This is key.

To me, it seems any defense that doesn't blitz >70% of the time (basically blitz like it's a video game) is labeled "bend but don't break" by announcers and fans.

I think it's a lazy label for something I'm not sure even really exists.

Are there teams that blitz more than 70% of the time? Are there teams that blitz more than 25% of the time? Maybe I don't know what a blitz is.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

I don't have an issue with the frequency of our blitzes, but how ineffective we are at them. Definitely not a strength under Wally and Rhoads.

 

[khaal53]

I called in to the "Call In Show" today because this post is worthless.

The research is great. But there is no accounting for ranks of defenses and seperating them. No accounting for the style of defenses and seperating them. This post tries to define a "Bend But Don't Break" but then asks how we define it. What? How misguided is that? No conclusion at all.

Go back and look at how much difference there was between yards gained and points scored by KSU when ISU was in Zone vs Man to Man.

Also to the OP. For me, You must be able to classify what the Seattle Seahawks D is before you tell me anything about or come to conclusions on Defense. Their Hybrid will blow your mind and shoots tons of holes in your philosophy.

Edit - I shouldn't have said philosophy I should have said theory

Thanks!

Here's the deal (and this was addressed earlier) about separating out stylistic differences of defenses. It's essentially impossible. You could do it in theory by team but what about separating out the schemes that change over the course of a game, or hell, even a single drive?

It isn't perfect, that much has been admitted. I even said that there may be a better way to do it with either yards gained or field position benchmarks and noted the yards per point calculation that I track and that I could attempt to wrangle that in as well.

If the "bend but don't break" concept is indeed one that coaches actually employ as I defined (trade the big plays for short chunks of yards in order to get stops, force turnovers, or field goals as the field shrinks. In part because the more plays run means that the offense will eventually make a mistake) then it is done from a much broader spectrum than a defense playing zone or man, you know?

Aside from that, your "eyeball" analysis from Saturday included ten possessions for the Cyclone defense. Mine included 145,000.

Hopefully you got on the air on Saturday and gave me some sweet pub?

 

[swarthmoreCY]

I called in to the "Call In Show" today because this post is worthless.

The research is great. But there is no accounting for ranks of defenses and seperating them. No accounting for the style of defenses and seperating them. This post tries to define a "Bend But Don't Break" but then asks how we define it. What? How misguided is that? No conclusion at all.

Go back and look at how much difference there was between yards gained and points scored by KSU when ISU was in Zone vs Man to Man.

Also to the OP. For me, You must be able to classify what the Seattle Seahawks D is before you tell me anything about or come to conclusions on Defense. Their Hybrid will blow your mind and shoots tons of holes in your philosophy.

Edit - I shouldn't have said philosophy I should have said theory

So you were the fool.