Every defensive strategy has it's strengths and weaknesses. In the Cover-4, the cornerback usually has no deep help from a safety, so you will give up a few long TDs. As a tradeoff, it is very tough to run against, and very tough against short passes, so it rarely gives up long drives, and it gets a lot of three-and-outs.

By contrast, the Cover-2, which Ohio used prior to 2014, gives up a lot of short runs, and a lot of short passes, but it is very tough to throw deep against. The idea of that defense is to go ahead and give up 3-5 yards a play, but to bend and not break. You force the other team to execute 10-15 plays without an error if they want to score. In the process you give up lots of slow, methodical drives, but hopefully not too many points.

Which is better? That depends on the tradeoff. How many three-and-outs do you get, in exchange for how many long passes? Early in the year last year Ohio gave up all-too-many long passes, but they did improve as the year went on. Partly it was personnel changes, and partly it was simply getting better at the new defense. I don't think they will have nearly as many lapses in 2015.


+1 to both OCF and Bobcat Bandit.

Which is kinda my point. It's fine, on one hand, to explain Mr. Basham's decreased pass rush effectiveness last year by pointing to a change in scheme. And it's OK to be fine with that change in scheme by pointing to the improvement in rush defense, so long as it's acknowledged that the change in scheme had negative consequences too. And it's not just that the secondary had to adjust to a new coverage philosophy; they also had to keep their coverages for longer, since there was less of a pass rush.

(Personally, I think the loss of Ty Branz had a bigger impact than we suspected it would in mid 2013. If we can get a good rush end opposite Basham, teams will have to play him more honest, and hopefully that means more sacks/hurries and fewer long passes against the secondary.)

I'm not missing it. I'm not disputing it. Yeah, the rush defense sucked in 2013, especially down the stretch in November when the wheels fell off of seemingly every aspect of the team.

My point is, in 2013 we did better against the pass than we did in 2014, and it's not all sunshine and lollipops just because we did better against the run in 2014 than we did in 2013.

And my further point is, although I agree that the change in scheme is part of that, I think a change in personnel is also part of it. And that due to the number of key personnel pieces along the defensive front we have to replace this year, I am not convinced that 2015's defensive results (against the run in particular) will necessarily pick up where the unit left off in 2014.

Go Bobcats.

What you keep avoiding is the improvement in scoring defense which was the trend at season's end. It is not rush def vs pass def it is the correct balance of the two to produce the best scoring defense. This season, with the losses at DT and added experience in the secondary, the balance will likely change. If the unit remains a top 1-3 scoring defense I will not be concerned about individual sacks or interceptions.

Quote all the the stupid stats that you want.

Then, when you're done convincing yourselves of whatever you want to believe, look at our record and consider the quality of the opposition. (Hint: mediocre, lousy.)

Just look at the last drive by NIU when they beat us at home last year. Wasn't that a critical game--wouldn't we, at least, have gone to a bowl if we'd've beaten them?

They went thru us like butter.

For the millionth time, life is about key moments.

Whoopee--you had a tackle for loss on second and 6 in the 2nd quarter! Meaningless. Who cares if on the key plays you got worked.

Go back and view NIU's last drive against our defense.

The willful blindness here is truly impressive.

I did as well. In fact, after the NIU touchdown Ohio was in the process of answering back, and was going through NIU's defense quite effectively until Landon Smith fumbled. Without that fumble Ohio would have had a first and ten at the NIU 32 with 1:57 left, having already gained 56 yards on 10 plays (including the ten gained by Smith before the fumble). It was certainly an inopportune fumble, but Ohio couldn't have played for the MAC Championship anyway.

I don't think most fans other than Monroe would disagree that Ohio improved as the year went on.

Yes, I watched the game.

Given that the game was at home, I would have expected Ohio to try to use up the clock, and score with very little time left, forcing the game into overtime. Ohio had 6 minutes to kill, and they managed to kill 4 of those in moving 56 yards by mixing in some runs. With 32 yards left, and 1:57 left, if Ohio had scored, it probably would have been with very little time left, which is exactly what they seemed to be trying to do. Because of the fumble the strategy didn't work, but in my opinion it was a sound strategy.

I also believe that there was no advantage for Ohio to score quickly, and in fact a disadvantage. If Ohio had moved the ball quickly, and scored a TD with, say, 2:00 left, that would have left a no-lose opportunity for NIU. NIU could have tried to move for a last second field goal to win, and in no event could lose in regulation.

Here we agree, Monroe. While the two teams played essentially evenly all day, because Ohio fumbled the ball on that final drive, Ohio lost the game, and therefore NIU won and was the better team that day. Yet that also makes my point as well. The Ohio team that lost to NIU only because of a failure to complete their final drive was a much better team than the one that lost by about 20 to teams like Kentucky, CMU, BG, and WMU, all teams that were no better than NIU.