offense or defense?

[UND92,96]

A few numbers:

offense

3.0 yards per rush;

has yet to exceed 300 yards in a game;

has had just nine drives of 30 or more yards.

defense

41 ppg;

507 ypg;

just one sack.

Obviously the SFA game heavily skews the defensive numbers, but they are what they are. I don't have any answers as far as exactly what's wrong. It's been a struggle for several years now.

I'm afraid the offense will likely continue to struggle this year, but should get better when the offensive line gets bigger and more talented next year (hopefully). Also, the receiving corps should be deeper and faster next year.

[BigGame]

The offense did actually look a little better at times during the SFA game. A lot of that was just throwing down field a little more. The offensive lines isn't great when it comes to run blocking but seems OK when pass blocking. The RB's haven't helped out the run game much either. I think UND would have been able to sustain drives better if Landry was so completely off at certain times in the game. Consistancy will help at least give the defense a chance to rest for a few minutes, which didn't happen much against SFA.

Defensively most seem to be placing the blame on the secondary which is warrented to a certain extent but the entire defensive display related to tackling was just terrible against SFA. If UND does a better job in this area the SFA offense would have been shut down most of the time on Saturday. Even when blitzing the pass rush is poor, so we see teams pass all over the place and think it's the secondary but I don't feel the deserve all that much of the blame right now.

[Matt]

The offense did actually look a little better at times during the SFA game. A lot of that was just throwing down field a little more. The offensive lines isn't great when it comes to run blocking but seems OK when pass blocking. The RB's haven't helped out the run game much either. I think UND would have been able to sustain drives better if Landry was so completely off at certain times in the game. Consistancy will help at least give the defense a chance to rest for a few minutes, which didn't happen much against SFA.

Defensively most seem to be placing the blame on the secondary which is warrented to a certain extent but the entire defensive display related to tackling was just terrible against SFA. If UND does a better job in this area the SFA offense would have been shut down most of the time on Saturday. Even when blitzing the pass rush is poor, so we see teams pass all over the place and think it's the secondary but I don't feel the deserve all that much of the blame right now.

Shut down? There's 60+ on the board! That is historically bad! That SFA team is flat out better. There are no 'if and buts' in a butt kickin' like that. Maybe better fundamentals makes SFA grind out longer drives and take more time, but the outcome can't be in doubt. The defense was not shutting down that SFA offense no matter what they did.

[BigGame]

Shut down? There's 60+ on the board! That is historically bad! That SFA team is flat out better. There are no 'if and buts' in a butt kickin' like that. Maybe better fundamentals makes SFA grind out longer drives and take more time, but the outcome can't be in doubt. The defense was not shutting down that SFA offense no matter what they did.

What I was getting at is that UND had guys in position to make the play and stop them well short of getting first downs on most drives during the game. Much of the game UND would hit the guy and then let him slip off to gain another 15 yards or more. Tackling better would have killed a bunch of SFA drives, especially because about 80% of the offense they run is a 2 yard pass and try to get a big run after the catch. But when 3,4, and 5 guys miss the tackle or let the WR or RB slip the tackle and bust off big plays it makes a huge difference. Good solid tackling would have likely cut the SFA score almost in half, but like I said it was as bad as I have seen in a long time, maybe the worst tackling I have ever seen.

SFA was the better team and clearly more talented, but UND was flat bad and it would have made a big difference in the points SFA put up. I actually watched the game, can you say the same?

[Matt]

What I was getting at is that UND had guys in position to make the play and stop them well short of getting first downs on most drives during the game. Much of the game UND would hit the guy and then let him slip off to gain another 15 yards or more. Tackling better would have killed a bunch of SFA drives, especially because about 80% of the offense they run is a 2 yard pass and try to get a big run after the catch. But when 3,4, and 5 guys miss the tackle or let the WR or RB slip the tackle and bust off big plays it makes a huge difference. Good solid tackling would have likely cut the SFA score almost in half, but like I said it was as bad as I have seen in a long time, maybe the worst tackling I have ever seen.

SFA was the better team and clearly more talented, but UND was flat bad and it would have made a big difference in the points SFA put up. I actually watched the game, can you say the same?

No one needs to have actually viewed the defense giving up that many points to figure out they needed a lot more than better tackling to "shut down" the SFA offense. Moreover, sometimes the opposition is just that much better than you that even when you are put in a position to make a play on the ball carrier, he makes you break down fundamentally. Do we fault the Sioux defense for lack of execution of fundamentals, or do we credit the opposition for just beating the defense on a man vs man basis? What I'm getting at here is the defense simply needs better players from future recruiting classes when the transition is over to be able to run with athletes like that. I think the SFA O coordinator did a good job of creating those matchups.

[BigGame]

No one needs to have actually viewed the defense giving up that many points to figure out they needed a lot more than better tackling to "shut down" the SFA offense. Moreover, sometimes the opposition is just that much better than you that even when you are put in a position to make a play on the ball carrier, he makes you break down fundamentally. Do we fault the Sioux defense for lack of execution of fundamentals, or do we credit the opposition for just beating the defense on a man vs man basis? What I'm getting at here is the defense simply needs better players from future recruiting classes when the transition is over to be able to run with athletes like that. I think the SFA O coordinator did a good job of creating those matchups.

Sure they need to get better, but SFA wasn't more talented than Texas Tech or IMO Northwestern Louisiana. Unless you actually see the game (in person is much better than TV) your really don't know but you go ahead and keep on thinking you do and I will keep my opinion.

[TechFirst]

We're having the same kind of turmoil here. Our forums are all over the map trying to decide where the problem(s) is/are. I, for one, am really bummed out over the Houston loss. They are a good team, but we are better. Our coach made some bone-headed calls, one of which cost us the game. And it looks like the team itself is going through some finger-pointing. You may have seen where one of our captains (the one with the crazy face paint) was suspended for some undisclosed team violation. Rumor has it that he called out Coach Leach for calling that QB sneak on 4th and goal (which you guys stuffed several times) instead of the power running which had worked all night.

Recruiting is the key to getting better, for sure. Especially when you run across a good spread offense like SFA where speed will kill you and open-field tackles are a key. We lived on that for several years because most teams had not faced our type of offense very much. I think you know what I mean. SFA was obviously clicking on all cylinders unlike us when we played. Our rookie QB is still not up to speed.

Our last 4 nationally televised games have all been losses. That can't be good for recruiting. We still have 4 more ranked teams to play this year. It could get ugly, so don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

OTOH, sometimes you learn more from a loss. I'll try to keep my head up if y'all do the same. At least we have two patsies to play next before we go to Nebraska.

[Smoggy]

We're having the same kind of turmoil here. Our forums are all over the map trying to decide where the problem(s) is/are. I, for one, am really bummed out over the Houston loss. They are a good team, but we are better. Our coach made some bone-headed calls, one of which cost us the game. And it looks like the team itself is going through some finger-pointing. You may have seen where one of our captains (the one with the crazy face paint) was suspended for some undisclosed team violation. Rumor has it that he called out Coach Leach for calling that QB sneak on 4th and goal (which you guys stuffed several times) instead of the power running which had worked all night.

Recruiting is the key to getting better, for sure. Especially when you run across a good spread offense like SFA where speed will kill you and open-field tackles are a key. We lived on that for several years because most teams had not faced our type of offense very much. I think you know what I mean. SFA was obviously clicking on all cylinders unlike us when we played. Our rookie QB is still not up to speed.

Our last 4 nationally televised games have all been losses. That can't be good for recruiting. We still have 4 more ranked teams to play this year. It could get ugly, so don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

OTOH, sometimes you learn more from a loss. I'll try to keep my head up if y'all do the same. At least we have two patsies to play next before we go to Nebraska.

Saw that Brandon was suspended on College Football Live and was going to ask you what happened. They said it was indefinitely as well.

[TechFirst]

Nobody knows for sure about the suspension other than he 'broke team rules'. There have been lots of rumors but the most persistent is that he called out the coach about the bad play calls that cost the game. I'd do the same if I had the chance. That's the unfortunate tradition for Leach teams - at least once a year (except last year) we have a bad loss, a game we could easily have won except for some boneheads calls or plays. UH was our bad loss this year, so maybe it's out of our system.

[UND92,96]

To answer my own question, I guess the correct answer was both. For this week at least, I'm actually more impressed with the offense, for the simple fact that the defense was supposed to be the strong point of the team, and the offense was supposed to be a bit down--and the offense was pretty weak through three weeks.

It will be interesting to see if the offense can sustain or even improve its performance, or whether Saturday's performance was in large part a result of USD's tendency to really struggle on the road to stop anybody. Had the offense done most of its damage through the air, I may have been more skeptical, since USD's pass defense, at least on the road, is bad nearly every year. However, USD is generally decent against the run, so Sutton's huge day may be a sign that the line has really started to turn the corner.