Opponent Analysis: Washington Defense

[sushihorn 3233]

While this topic hasn’t been ignored, the Huskies’ defense is much less discussed than their offense. Let’s start with a summary: UW has some standout athletes on defense but they are getting it done with teamwork and scheme more than with talent. The overall concept is to create doubt and confusion in the mind of opposing players. A lot of effort goes into disguising multiple aspects of the defense. The base scheme is a 4-2 nickel defense. 

The secondary disguises coverage with heavy (80-90%) reliance on zone. The exact number is hard to pin down because Morrell often employs pattern matching in his zone schemes. The base seems to be Cover 3 with enough Quarters and man to create doubt. Even in cover 3 the corners can play bail technique to alter the pre snap read. There will be holes in the coverage, UW is hoping to delay the read and recognition long enough for the pass rush to get home. The Dabs tend to be big and physical as there is less need for a boundary CB to cover the best WR all over the field. That has helped create INTs and makes them stronger in run support. 

The D-Line plays with 3 down and a stand up rush end most of the time. In pass defense, they almost always rush 4, only rarely bringing an extra man. They are disciplined in their rush lanes but play a lot of games to create free rushers. Lots of stunting and looping to confuse locking assignments. Ditto with fake pressures. Sometimes they insert a LB and zone drop a DL but they bring 5+ less than 10% of the time. The games mean early pass rush is not very effective and the long path to the QB means stunting free runners lead to delayed pressure. The disguised coverage on the back end is designed to help this delayed rush get to the QB. But they only have 19 sacks despite having an NFL quality DE. 

The LBs hold this system together. Inge asks a lot of them but the DL play is designed to keep them clean on most plays. Against the run, the line is supposed to absorb blocks and let the LBs pursue the ball. One of them will have force responsibility and RB coverage to the non-nickel side. They will be challenged to force on outside runs, cover inside short zones and fill against inside runs. A see a lot of swing passes and RPO in their future. 
 

Note: This is just a basic overview to start the conversation. I’m sure some of our more informed posters can help fill in the details. 

[TOR 5548]

 

[sushihorn 3233]

As with any system, the best way to beat it is to wreck key components. There are 2 obvious ways to do that with the UW defense:

1) Buy time for the QB to get a good post-snap read:  Quinn has accelerated his reads so this will come quicker this season  Buy time by moving the pocket, sprint out or bootlegging - especially since Ewers is an effective runner as well as accurate passer on the move. Keep in extra blockers with a delayed release once the LBs get deep into their drops.

or

2) Exploit the holes created by attempts to disguise the pass rush: Run outside zone to wash down any DL slanting to an outside gap and block the man who is taking his initial gap assignment while he’s moving laterally. RPO the LBs when they show early pressure to interior line gaps. Let them have fun running back to their underneath responsibilities on inside breaking short routes. Bring crossers in case the use split coverage. 

[Atticus 3973]

They are going to give our guys a ton of cushion. Worthy could have double digit receptions by the early second half if he's healthy. I think the deep over will be available as long as we can protect as well. 

I want to see how they defend our backs getting split out. I imagine they'll opt for pressure, but I could see a ton of success with the screen game from that.

For as much as they motion as an offense, I found it interesting that they have had a hard time defending it on defense. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Atticus

[Slacks 6819]

So, we've pretty much guaranteed they are going to blitz 50% of the time to break tendencies. 

[troph 24783]

The scheme designed to first cause confusion always worries me, especially in pass pro. But I’m a worrier. 

[gmr548 16576]

Aren’t you the guy that wrote dissertations about the genius of the Tom Herman offense?

[Beau Vine 54211]

4 hours ago, Slacks said:

So, we've pretty much guaranteed they are going to blitz 50% of the time to break tendencies. 

Secondary is so bad we can't afford to blitz.  

[hook me 2092]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Secondary is so bad we can't afford to blitz.  

yeah but don’t you know every team we’ve played this year has run a completely new defense that they haven’t shown on film. Every week it’s something new that they managed to install over the week. One team went straight punt block for the first quarter.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652]

good post   thx 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

6 hours ago, Slacks said:

So, we've pretty much guaranteed they are going to blitz 50% of the time to break tendencies. 

I know, right? We should do the same to them.

This game comes down to strength and speed. Who wants it more?

[South Austin 52463]

We need to send Sweat on several long post patterns.  They'll never see it coming.

[Nivek 16923]

We need to send Sweat on several long post patterns.  They'll never see it coming.

We need some William The Refrigerator Perry plays for Sweat.

I had his GI Joe action figure.

[JBJ 3654]

They'll likely play Quarters against us because they did it enough this year, and it's how they played us last year.  It's a standard Cover 3 Match they run - not a Cover 7 (Rip/Liz) - so the basic elements will stay the same, but now with 2 safeties and one hook.

It's definitely bend-and-keep-bending defense.  They have a low sack rate, low havoc rate, high completion percent allowed. They are bad on third down and bad in the red zone.  They like to keep everything in front and make you stay on the field for as long as possible and wait for you to mess up.  They don't tackle very well for that style, but they have been able to get numbers to the ball to limit damage.

Edited December 19, 2023 by JBJ

[Slacks 6819]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

They'll likely play Quarters against us because they did it enough this year, and it's how they played us last year.  It's a standard Cover 3 Match they run - not a Cover 7 (Rip/Liz) - so the basic elements will stay the same, but now with 2 safeties and one hook.

It's definitely bend-and-keep-bending defense.  They have a low sack rate, low havoc rate, high completion percent allowed. They are bad on third down and bad in the red zone.  They like to keep everything in front and make you stay on the field for as long as possible and wait for you to mess up.  They don't tackle very well for that style, but they have been able to get numbers to the ball to limit damage.

Against us, the numbers say this is the best thing you can do. Our Red Zone conversion rates are terrible. 425 defense might be able to keep us out of the endzone more than we'd like.

[troph 24783]

37 minutes ago, Slacks said:

Against us, the numbers say this is the best thing you can do. Our Red Zone conversion rates are terrible. 425 defense might be able to keep us out of the endzone more than we'd like.

I agree and I also at least perceived improvement the last 2-3 games in red zone efficiency. 

[Slacks 6819]

6 hours ago, troph said:

I agree and I also at least perceived improvement the last 2-3 games in red zone efficiency. 

Improved from bottom 10% against tech and okst... 

I don't expect UW to stop us from scoring. If we execute, we score. But what is the o/u on False Start, Holding, or some other penalty on 3rd and short in the red zone, followed by a FG. 

[troph 24783]

6 hours ago, Slacks said:

Improved from bottom 10% against tech and okst... 

I don't expect UW to stop us from scoring. If we execute, we score. But what is the o/u on False Start, Holding, or some other penalty on 3rd and short in the red zone, followed by a FG. 

I saw new plays not just the sweat gimmick. I’m more hopeful for red zone play calling. 

[alphahydro 334]

Question for the UW fans - 

If you go to https://www.bcftoys.com/2023-gr#washington

They rank each team's performance in every game.

As I understand it, the stats show each team's opponent adjusted performance against every team on their schedule.  I don't know exactly how they compute the numbers, but let's assume it's reasonable.  Even if you don't have 100% faith in the way they calculate the numbers, presumably the calculations are consistent and could help reveal trends over the course of the season. 

The stats are broken down to show offensive performance in the game, defensive performance, etc.  Plus, they calculate how each performance rated against all the other performances in all the other cfb games this year.  For example, by their calculations, Texas' opponent adjusted defensive performance against Tech was better than 96.7% of all the defensive performances this year.  The offense's opponent adjusted performance against Okie State was better than 98.8% of all other adjusted performances.   But the offensive performance against BYU was just average (at 49.9%, it was just about what an average cfb offense would have produced against this year's BYU defense). 

OK fine, so here's my question.  If you take these numbers as reasonable, and you score the percentage/percentile performance as a grade (90-100 = A; 80-89 = B; 70-79 = C, etc), this is how bcftoys ranks UW's defensive performances this year: 

B     boise 
B+   tulsa
A     michigan state
D     cal 
D     arizona 
B     oregon 
D     asu
F      stanford
F      usc 
F      utah
A     oregon state 
D     wazzu 
B     oregon 

Any obvious explanation for this pattern? 

I know there was talk about key injuries this year, at DT and safety.   (For example, Texas' worst offensive performances clearly came during Houston, BYU, KState, TCU, a span that includes Ewers' injury and first game back)

Do injuries explain the pattern of UW's defensive performances over the course of the season? 

Did they underperform against teams with big backs?  QBs that could stretch the field?   Teams with mobile QBs?  Spread teams? something else?  Just curious. 

 

[Dahobbs 17533]

31 minutes ago, alphahydro said:

Question for the UW fans - 

If you go to https://www.bcftoys.com/2023-gr#washington

They rank each team's performance in every game.

As I understand it, the stats show each team's opponent adjusted performance against every team on their schedule.  I don't know exactly how they compute the numbers, but let's assume it's reasonable.  Even if you don't have 100% faith in the way they calculate the numbers, presumably the calculations are consistent and could help reveal trends over the course of the season. 

The stats are broken down to show offensive performance in the game, defensive performance, etc.  Plus, they calculate how each performance rated against all the other performances in all the other cfb games this year.  For example, by their calculations, Texas' opponent adjusted defensive performance against Tech was better than 96.7% of all the defensive performances this year.  The offense's opponent adjusted performance against Okie State was better than 98.8% of all other adjusted performances.   But the offensive performance against BYU was just average (at 49.9%, it was just about what an average cfb offense would have produced against this year's BYU defense). 

OK fine, so here's my question.  If you take these numbers as reasonable, and you score the percentage/percentile performance as a grade (90-100 = A; 80-89 = B; 70-79 = C, etc), this is how bcftoys ranks UW's defensive performances this year: 

B     boise 
B+   tulsa
A     michigan state
D     cal 
D     arizona 
B     oregon 
D     asu
F      stanford
F      usc 
F      utah
A     oregon state 
D     wazzu 
B     oregon 

Any obvious explanation for this pattern? 

I know there was talk about key injuries this year, at DT and safety.   (For example, Texas' worst offensive performances clearly came during Houston, BYU, KState, TCU, a span that includes Ewers' injury and first game back)

Do injuries explain the pattern of UW's defensive performances over the course of the season? 

Did they underperform against teams with big backs?  QBs that could stretch the field?   Teams with mobile QBs?  Spread teams? something else?  Just curious. 

 

How much does that tool hate Arizona State? Washington gave up 7 points to ASU on 341 yards of total offense. How on earth could that be a D grade? 

[Nivek 16923]

Single dose of pimpin?

[alphahydro 334]

51 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How much does that tool hate Arizona State? Washington gave up 7 points to ASU on 341 yards of total offense. How on earth could that be a D grade? 

Lol.  I had the same reaction.  I guess the problem was ASU scored 0 against Fresno State, 3 against Utah, 13 against Oregon etc. 

Also, the tool looks at how many non-garbage-time drives there were (only 9 offensive drives by ASU) and how many yards the defense gave up.  If you let the other team drive down the field, the tool calculates that you are taking away expected points from the offense, and it counts that against the defense.  So ASU had 341 yards on 9 drives, and, when adjusted for ASU's offense, that is about as good as a 65th percentile defense would do against ASU per drive, apparently.  Put another way, per their calculations, if your defense is in the top 35% of college defenses, you would do better than that over the course of 9 drives against the ASU offense.   Oregon's D got a 76% grade against ASU.   (Coincidentally, Oregon's 42 points against ASU rated as the single best offensive performance of the entire season.) 

Again, I'm not vouching for their math, just asking about a UW defense trend that shows up in their data.   But yeah, I had the same reaction as you. 

 

[alphahydro 334]

oh, also, calling it a "D" is just my way of trying to quickly illustrate the pattern of UW's defensive performance over the course of the season. 

You could call a 65th% percentile a B+ or whatever.  I just mapped the percentiles onto the normal school grading system.

FWIW, this is what caught my eye and made me think to look at the stats. 

from:  https://www.uwdawgpound.com/2023/12/7/23987235/film-study-2023-pac-12-championship-uw-washington-huskies-oregon-ducks-deboer-odunze-penix-johnson talking about how getting their safety back has influenced UW's ability to comfortably load the box against the run in certain situations.  Not clear if they will try this against Texas or if it would have made a difference in the games where their defense underperformed--just made me think. 

 

Quote

 

On this play, Oregon has us facing a 3rd & 1, and as I alluded to earlier, this has been a situation where pretty much every Husky fan would just throw up their hands, assume we’d give up the first down on an easy run play, and hope we’d be able to hold them to a longer 3rd down later in the drive rather than just holding them to a stop right here. Well, when we have our secondary at full strength, we can play things a lot more aggressively at all levels. On this play, Oregon lines up in a 2x2 shotgun formation with 11 personnel, and we match with our base 4-2-5 personnel. However, unlike in past weeks, we have the players on the field to force Oregon’s hand. With Turner back in the line up, Coach Inge and Coach Morrell have DB personnel across the board that they trust to play Cover 0 man coverage. Jackson (#25), Turner (#20), and Muhammad (#1) are locked onto the three WRs, and Hampton (#7) and Powell (#3) have the TE (also #3) and RB (#0) in man coverage respectively. What does that do for our run defense? Well, as you might’ve picked up already, we are able to stack the box with eight defenders, five of whom are on the LOS. Against Oregon’s six blockers, we are at a significant advantage against the run.

Not only do we have a pure numbers advantage against the run, but we also have an advantage when it comes to run fit responsibilities. Our two DTs and ZTF are kicked inside to clog the interior gaps and “encourage” Oregon to run outside or to pass, and because we have Hampton and Powell up in the box playing man coverage against the TE and RB, everyone else in the box can flow hard to attack the ball carrier in the backfield without having to second guess their coverage responsibilities. Oregon ends up running a sprint out pass on this play, so the run fit and responsibilities point is seemingly moot, but it is still a key factor in this run play.

As Nix (#10) sprints out to his left, our LBs are able to mirror him down the LOS to close any potential creases for a first down scramble, and Trice is able to play fast on the backside pursuit to put pressure on Nix. There are only so many ways to shut down a mobile QB who is a dangerous passer off script, and most of them include scheming up ways to commit defenders to generating pressure while staying gap sound. In this case, by playing Cover 0 man coverage, we had extra defenders to play contain/spy (the LBs) while the defensive front forced a quick decision or force the sack (Trice & Powell on the sprint out side).

Long story short, we might not have the players up front to line up in conventional fronts to stop the run with even numbers, but its looking like we have the DBs and play calls to force offenses out of the run and still hold up against the pass.

 

 

[alphahydro 334]

sorry, but also, I think that website ignores drives that take place once the game is out of hand). 

So, for example, ASU didn't score against Oregon until it was 42-0, so the website stopped tracking Oregon's D vs ASU's O before ASU scored a single point.   Which kinda makes sense.

If you are just looking at final scores, UW's rating is lower than you would expect in part because UW went the distance against ASU, so all of ASU's drives counted.  ASU was bad (3-9) so perhaps a lot of the points their offense scored against better teams came after the game was in hand.  (Similar to what happened against Oregon).  Which would put downward pressure on the rating of UW's performance. 

Finally, it looks like ASU missed two field goals, and I think those get counted against special teams, not the defense. 

 

[sushihorn 3233]

4 hours ago, alphahydro said:

FWIW, this is what caught my eye and made me think to look at the stats. 

from:  https://www.uwdawgpound.com/2023/12/7/23987235/film-study-2023-pac-12-championship-uw-washington-huskies-oregon-ducks-deboer-odunze-penix-johnson talking about how getting their safety back has influenced UW's ability to comfortably load the box against the run in certain situations.  Not clear if they will try this against Texas or if it would have made a difference in the games where their defense underperformed--just made me think. 

 

 

I hope and pray they load the box trying to stop the run. Press man doesn’t help cover a motion man and cover 0 can be seen pre-snap. While X and AD are the most dangerous receivers, Ewers has great trust in both Whittington and Sanders to convert. 

UW has big, physical DBs. They tend to manhandle receivers in coverage but they are far from ideal cover corners. They do much better in cover 3 zone. They don’t have the quickness to blanket cover our outside guys man to man and cover 0 guarantees big plays if the first man misses the tackle. 

[Slacks 6819]

4 hours ago, alphahydro said:

oh, also, calling it a "D" is just my way of trying to quickly illustrate the pattern of UW's defensive performance over the course of the season. 

You could call a 65th% percentile a B+ or whatever.  I just mapped the percentiles onto the normal school grading system.

FWIW, this is what caught my eye and made me think to look at the stats. 

from:  https://www.uwdawgpound.com/2023/12/7/23987235/film-study-2023-pac-12-championship-uw-washington-huskies-oregon-ducks-deboer-odunze-penix-johnson talking about how getting their safety back has influenced UW's ability to comfortably load the box against the run in certain situations.  Not clear if they will try this against Texas or if it would have made a difference in the games where their defense underperformed--just made me think. 

 

 

Probably better to think in Standard Deviation than grade levels... (or to create grade levels). 

Also, if a Safety missing is the cause for an A becoming a D in the regular season, that's not a championship level defense... Unless the Safety is Ronnie Lot / Troy Polamalu / Ed Reed. 

 

[alphahydro 334]

1 hour ago, sushihorn said:

I hope and pray they load the box trying to stop the run. Press man doesn’t help cover a motion man and cover 0 can be seen pre-snap. While X and AD are the most dangerous receivers, Ewers has great trust in both Whittington and Sanders to convert. 

UW has big, physical DBs. They tend to manhandle receivers in coverage but they are far from ideal cover corners. They do much better in cover 3 zone. They don’t have the quickness to blanket cover our outside guys man to man and cover 0 guarantees big plays if the first man misses the tackle. 

Yeah, that's a great catch (though in fairness I did think that was a great playcall by UW in that particular situation), and your point makes me think about something I'm still trying to work out in my head. 

in conference play, UW's opponent adjusted defensive performances were in the

• 27th, 30th, 33rd, 60th, 64th, 65th, and 66th percentile -
• and then the UW defense played well against Oregon State in a rainy game where the QBs threw for 160 yards each. 
• And they played Oregon well twice. 

At least for the moment, chalk up some of Oregon State's lack of offensive output to rain.

We have a bunch of terrible performances, a game in the rain (against an admittedly good offense), then a couple good games against Oregon.

But let's look closer at the second Oregon game.  (in part because i haven't rewatched the first)

Bo Nix has an absurdly small ADOT (7 yards, 193rd in the country among D1 QBs). 

At least in the second game, maybe I'm oversimplifying, but UW looked like a really, really well coached team that came out trying to take advantage of Nix's small ADOT by playing to keep everything in front of them and funnel it to the middle.  Turns out this is much easier to do on defense when the other team doesn't throw past los.  Anyway, for whatever reason, Oregon failed to adjust to UW's strat.  Or at least Oregon didn't adjust until they were down 20-3.  I don't think Oregon put a single ball 20 yards in the air until they were down 20-3.  (watch the video and tell me I missed one).  And when they finally did (down 20-3), the Oregon WR was wide open and the play went for like 40.  Oregon scored a TD on that drive.  And then Oregon threw downfield a few more times.  Once Oregon started threating downfield, the run game opened up, and Oregon followed the first TD with TD, INT, TD, PUNT, TD.  But it was too late.  By taking so long to adjust to UW's gameplan, Oregon had already spotted four drives to one of the best offenses in the country (and tbh, UO got even more outcoached on the other side of the ball, imo.)

Another way of looking at this, is, if I'm a UW fan, I can tell myself, our defense was spotty in parts of the season, but we had injuries.  And once everyone came back, look, we put in a great performance against UO. 

A more skeptical take is: UW's defense was awful to mediocre in every pac 12 game except Oregon State and the first half of the Oregon game.  And that's mostly because Dan Lanning and his staff aren't exactly sponsored by MENSA and took so long to figure out UW's gameplan.  Once UO started stretching the field, they scored 28 points in their next six possessions, driving 75, 75, 62, and 75 yards. 

Maybe all the P12 CG shows (as it relates to UW's defense) that if UW tries to keep everything in front of them and the other team obliges by staying in front of them, the UW defense looks good.  But when the game opens up, UW doesn't look so good.  

Curious to hear from UW fans.  I'm sure I'm missing something. 

[nbmishoid 949]

Alpha, thx.  I’m back on the Texas offense bandwagon against this D

[alphahydro 334]

1 hour ago, Slacks said:

Also, if a Safety missing is the cause for an A becoming a D in the regular season, that's not a championship level defense... Unless the Safety is Ronnie Lot / Troy Polamalu / Ed Reed. 

 

The argument I've seen UW fans make goes something like-

hey, UW can't recruit like Texas or Alabama.  We have some great players, but once a starter goes down, there is sometimes a huge drop-off to his backup.  After the team lost its 2 best defensive players (a safety and DT) the coaching staff had to cobble together a defense with easily exploitable holes (going from standouts to Jags at DT and safety). 

Additionally, once those injured players got healthy, the UW DC had a lot more options when game planning (hence the quote from the UW blog about being able to play cover zero in the P12 CG with the previously injured safety back on the field).  So, yeah, (the argument goes) those key injuries explain why UW struggled, but hey the team is healthy now, and Texas shouldn't expect the injury-riddled defense that gave up 33 to Stanford, they should expect the fully healthy defense that held Oregon to 31.  And hey, btw, don't forget--Oregon has an even better offense than Texas.  So Texas should expect to score less than 31 while having to defend Penix and 3 future NFL hall of famer WR. 

I was just testing that argument. 

One response might be - yeah, UW's defense is definitely better with everyone back - and it looks like having everyone back allowed UW's DC to stymie a really potent Oregon offense - at least for a bit when UW game planned to focus their resources on defending a small portion of the field and for some strange reason the Oregon OC decided to play only in that same part of the field for the first several drives.  But, yeah, once the game opened up, even with everyone on UW's defense back healthy, the defense didn't fare so well against Oregon.

I guess this relates to my next point

IF Sanders is fully healthy

IF Worthy is fully healthy

AND Ewers has a good game

UW can't play cover zero.  And they can't just try to keep everything in front of them.  If they have to defend the whole field and Ewers is locked in, that's a lot for their personnel. 

On top of that, Texas' offense is more potent than it appears at first glance.

If you take out the games where Ewers was injured, (including TCU, where I think he came back before he was really ready) Ewers had 2 very slow starts vs OU and Iowa State.  In the rest of the conference games + Alabama, Texas' opponent adjusted offensive output percentiles were 92, 89, 93, 75, 99.  And 3 of those 5 games (underlined) were against good defenses - DFEI rankings 9, 23, 37 (UW is 27).  If Texas's offense plays at that level in the Sugar Bowl, it's probably a tough game for UW. 

If on the other hand, Texas follows in Oregon's footsteps and spots UW the first several drives, Texas could be in for long day. 

I'm not worried about the trap that Oregon fell into.  I'm not worried about Sark spotting a half to UW because he doesn't adjust to UW's gameplan.  *knock on wood*

I do think that Ewers needs to come ready to play, and he needs to take what the defense gives him, quickly, from the first snap of the game, whether that's a shot, a check down, or throwing the ball into the fucking stands when we do some stupid shit like try to block trice with our TE.  If Ewers can do that, I think Texas probably just has too many weapons and too good a playcaller for this UW defense to defend, even at full health.  (Again, just my $.02, happy to review something I've missed).

And if Ewers does all that from first snap and he's healthy enough to tuck it and run (and slide) when that's what the defense offers, I think the UW DC is definitely going to run low on solutions to all the problems Texas' offense presents, even with his starting safety and DT healthy.  

On the other hand, Iowa State and OU have similar ranked defenses to UW, and Ewers came out real slow in those games (imo).  Have to avoid that in the Sugar Bowl.   Don't want to spot Penix 4 or 5 drives and then try to play catch up. 

Good news is - Texas ended the season in good form.  So we will see, but, frankly, the more I dig into things, the more I see cause for hope.  FWIW. 

hook em. 

 

 

[alphahydro 334]

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

Alpha, thx.  I’m back on the Texas offense bandwagon against this D

my pleasure. 

strongly recommend you don't place any bets on my analysis, but hey, if we are going to spin our wheels for no reason for the next 11/12 days, we might as well be in a cautiously optimistic mood while we do it, right? 

[nbmishoid 949]

Caution is the only perspective for we horns still with remnants of PTSD.  
 

If our great offense shows up, the one McElroy fawned over, I’d have to like our chances.   Sort of repeating myself ad nauseum 

[alphahydro 334]

6 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Caution is the only perspective for we horns still with remnants of PTSD.  
 

If our great offense shows up, the one McElroy fawned over, I’d have to like our chances.   Sort of repeating myself ad nauseum 

fair enough re caution.   And my view is more like - if there is an expectation among some UW fans that,

against this end-of-season UW defense, even if everyone at Texas is healthy and Ewers has a good game, UW is going to hold Texas to 28-32 points because the UW defense is suddenly so good with everyone back

imo, that expectation is probably too optimistic.  But that doesn't mean that Texas easily goes for 42 if Ewers has a good game.  Texas' advantage on offense isn't ginormous, imo.  Plus, even if Ewers has a good game start to finish, I think UW is really well coached and their staff will do their best to shore up their weaknesses and attack ours.  But if a UW fan is thinking their defense is going to hold Texas to 27 (in a game where Ewers plays reasonably well and Texas gets a decent number of drives), their baseline is different from mine.  Texas scoring below 27, in my mind means some combination of (a) one or more of the key Texas players had a bad game (big drops, bad reads, fumbles), (b) low scoring game due to pace, or (c) bad luck somewhere, Texas comes in overconfident, or something like that.  But yeah, UW defense is still very good and Texas has issues in red zone so 42+ is not the base case and Texas could definitely score 27 or less if key players have a bad game or the ball bounces the wrong way at key moments.  It's just that Texas matches up better here than some of the UW fans think, imo. 

And in any event, Texas still has to worry about the UW offense.  Even if the Texas offense has a pretty decent game, they could get outscored.

My oversimplified view of the game is - assuming everyone is healthy,

Texas O is a bit better than UW D.   (matchup issues aside) 

It's 15th OFEI Texas vs 27th DFEI UW.  But those stats include games where Ewers was injured and UW had key injuries on defense.  When you "adjust" for both teams being healthy, you prolly get a slightly better adjustment for Texas.  And the matchup issues break more Texas' way than UW's.  So I think there's more margin for error on the Texas side.   it's not a huge mismatch, but Texas' staff and players have a decent starting advantage.  IMO, the big risk for Texas, based on past games, is that Ewers has a slow start.  Even assuming Ewers has a decent game start to finish, this is not a massive difference; it's the difference between averaging 30 or 34.5 if you play the game 1,000 times, imo.  And if Ewers has a bad game, it could be 26 or less. *knock on wood*  But there is just a lot for UW's personnel to defend, and I could see things like key plays coming from Ewers' legs or Helm, because there is so much for UW's DC to account for. 

Texas D (7th ranked DFEI) is about as good as UW O (6th ranked OFEI),  (matchup issues aside) 

when UW has the ball, Texas has an advantage at the line, UW has an advantage in the secondary.  But no one really knows how those advantages are going to play out and how big the advantage will end up being.  Part of me thinks that both coaches will gameplan to protect where they are at a disadvantage, and the game will come down to something like Texas' LB play.  Texas LB could make some great plays, they could come up with key stops in the flat, they could turn the ball over, their athleticism could end drives when other lesser teams wouldn't.  Or they could get burned on long, deep crossing routes.  Or both.   But the advantages we see didn't go unnoticed by the coaching staffs.  It's just a matter of how they gameplan and react/adjust to each other's gameplan, imo.  And frankly, with all apologies to Blake Gideon, I think UW's offensive staff prolly has the edge here, though hopefully not as a big of an edge as they had against Oregon. 

If you wanna be optimistic, as announcers like to say, the Texas DBs might get sick of hearing about how they are gonna get burned by Odunze -- and they could actually do something about it. They can spend extra time in the film room, they can be extra motivated and locked in during the game.  On the other hand, there's not a whole lot the UW center can do between now and 1/1.  Lol.  

 

[Crapinon 2253]

15 hours ago, alphahydro said:

Yeah, that's a great catch (though in fairness I did think that was a great playcall by UW in that particular situation), and your point makes me think about something I'm still trying to work out in my head. 

in conference play, UW's opponent adjusted defensive performances were in the

• 27th, 30th, 33rd, 60th, 64th, 65th, and 66th percentile -
• and then the UW defense played well against Oregon State in a rainy game where the QBs threw for 160 yards each. 
• And they played Oregon well twice. 

At least for the moment, chalk up some of Oregon State's lack of offensive output to rain.

We have a bunch of terrible performances, a game in the rain (against an admittedly good offense), then a couple good games against Oregon.

But let's look closer at the second Oregon game.  (in part because i haven't rewatched the first)

Bo Nix has an absurdly small ADOT (7 yards, 193rd in the country among D1 QBs). 

At least in the second game, maybe I'm oversimplifying, but UW looked like a really, really well coached team that came out trying to take advantage of Nix's small ADOT by playing to keep everything in front of them and funnel it to the middle.  Turns out this is much easier to do on defense when the other team doesn't throw past los.  Anyway, for whatever reason, Oregon failed to adjust to UW's strat.  Or at least Oregon didn't adjust until they were down 20-3.  I don't think Oregon put a single ball 20 yards in the air until they were down 20-3.  (watch the video and tell me I missed one).  And when they finally did (down 20-3), the Oregon WR was wide open and the play went for like 40.  Oregon scored a TD on that drive.  And then Oregon threw downfield a few more times.  Once Oregon started threating downfield, the run game opened up, and Oregon followed the first TD with TD, INT, TD, PUNT, TD.  But it was too late.  By taking so long to adjust to UW's gameplan, Oregon had already spotted four drives to one of the best offenses in the country (and tbh, UO got even more outcoached on the other side of the ball, imo.)

Another way of looking at this, is, if I'm a UW fan, I can tell myself, our defense was spotty in parts of the season, but we had injuries.  And once everyone came back, look, we put in a great performance against UO. 

A more skeptical take is: UW's defense was awful to mediocre in every pac 12 game except Oregon State and the first half of the Oregon game.  And that's mostly because Dan Lanning and his staff aren't exactly sponsored by MENSA and took so long to figure out UW's gameplan.  Once UO started stretching the field, they scored 28 points in their next six possessions, driving 75, 75, 62, and 75 yards. 

Maybe all the P12 CG shows (as it relates to UW's defense) that if UW tries to keep everything in front of them and the other team obliges by staying in front of them, the UW defense looks good.  But when the game opens up, UW doesn't look so good.  

Curious to hear from UW fans.  I'm sure I'm missing something. 

Since most of them have gone away and never answer questions directly (except for a couple of decent ones) I'll give you their answer:

Steers and queers

You guys suck

The same loser teams from last year in the worst conference. You're just the best of the worst.

You guys suck

You would be 4th place in the PAC 12

You guys suck

You'll never stop our offense. When you think you're going to stop the run with your fat noseguard we'll pass and when you try to stop the pass, we'll run. It's foolproof.

You guys suck

NO ONE on your team could start for the mighty U DUB. NO ONE

WE named him 7 win Steve for a reason and we as fans, can gameplan around him.

You guys suck.

DeBoer is 10-0 verses top 10 teams. You have no chance and fate is against you.

You guys suck

[Codaxx 5731]

16 hours ago, Crapinon said:

Since most of them have gone away and never answer questions directly (except for a couple of decent ones) I'll give you their answer:

Steers and queers

You guys suck

The same loser teams from last year in the worst conference. You're just the best of the worst.

You guys suck

You would be 4th place in the PAC 12

You guys suck

You'll never stop our offense. When you think you're going to stop the run with your fat noseguard we'll pass and when you try to stop the pass, we'll run. It's foolproof.

You guys suck

NO ONE on your team could start for the mighty U DUB. NO ONE

WE named him 7 win Steve for a reason and we as fans, can gameplan around him.

You guys suck.

DeBoer is 10-0 verses top 10 teams. You have no chance and fate is against you.

You guys suck

Username checks out 

[sushihorn 3233]

I’ve watched a few more UW games while I’ve had time off. Trice at DE looks like their best on the defensive side of the ball. He’s quick and has good size but I was shocked to see how high he was projected in the draft. 

Upon further reflection, Inge and Morrell appear to be limiting Trice’s pass rush by scheme. They seem to be trying to avoid over penetration to keep contain off tackle and they slant him to inside gaps too. They seem to be using Trice to cover weaknesses elsewhere on the DL. 

[alphahydro 334]

Any thoughts on Texas running the ball on UW?  Has Texas' run blocking gotten better coordinated lately?  Or has success/failure been tied to matchup or something else? 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by alphahydro
accidentally attached something

[sushihorn 3233]

1 hour ago, alphahydro said:

Any thoughts on Texas running the ball on UW?  Has Texas' run blocking gotten better coordinated lately?  Or has success/failure been tied to matchup or something else? 

Texas is going to force the Huskies to honor the threat of the run. If THEY play a light box, I expect to see a lot of running plays. Texas can sustain drives running with 11 personnel against 6 men in the box. 

I would love to give them an even front without strength tendencies and then motion to overload one side. Since scheme is their strength, creating confusion about basic things like formation strength can dislocate them more than most defenses.

12 personnel would cause a lot of problems. Both TEs are good pass catchers and solid to strong blockers. That package would force all of their DL and LB to have responsibility for an interior gap. I would not want a DB as my force player on BOTH edges against the run. Nor would I want to be the DB trying to shed a TE block in a narrow alley play after play. The only way to avoid that is to switch out of their nickel base into a 4-3. I’m not even sure if they have a serviceable SAM. 

[chainsaw 9865]

UW hasn't seen anyone with the number of weapons Texas has on offense.

You look at that depth chart, even without Brooks, and you see guy after guy who can make multiple big plays in a single game. Worthy, Baxter, Keilan Robinson, AD Mitchell, JT Sanders, Whitt, even J Blue and Gunnar Helm.

Oregon didn't have multiple guys capable of having a 100+ yard rushing game.

Oregon didn't have four guys capable of leading the team in receiving yards.

This is going to be the fastest and most talent-rich team UW has seen at the skill positions, by far.

 

[alphahydro 334]

20 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

Texas is going to force the Huskies to honor the threat of the run. If THEY play a light box, I expect to see a lot of running plays. Texas can sustain drives running with 11 personnel against 6 men in the box. 

I would love to give them an even front without strength tendencies and then motion to overload one side. Since scheme is their strength, creating confusion about basic things like formation strength can dislocate them more than most defenses.

12 personnel would cause a lot of problems. Both TEs are good pass catchers and solid to strong blockers. That package would force all of their DL and LB to have responsibility for an interior gap. I would not want a DB as my force player on BOTH edges against the run. Nor would I want to be the DB trying to shed a TE block in a narrow alley play after play. The only way to avoid that is to switch out of their nickel base into a 4-3. I’m not even sure if they have a serviceable SAM. 

nice.  good analysis; thanks.   looks like they are 68th in rush defense. 

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-rush-attempt

Can't recall watching a game where the other team wasn't playing from behind and tried to run on UW/play balanced. 

[alphahydro 334]

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

UW hasn't seen anyone with the number of weapons Texas has on offense.

You look at that depth chart, even without Brooks, and you see guy after guy who can make multiple big plays in a single game. Worthy, Baxter, Keilan Robinson, AD Mitchell, JT Sanders, Whitt, even J Blue and Gunnar Helm.

Oregon didn't have multiple guys capable of having a 100+ yard rushing game.

Oregon didn't have four guys capable of leading the team in receiving yards.

This is going to be the fastest and most talent-rich team UW has seen at the skill positions, by far.

 

Obvious counterpoint would be USC, but USC put up 42. 

Oregon obviously has a potent offense this year; I just think they got outschemed/coached by UW. 

[alphahydro 334]

i watched the USC game live, but I don't remember specifics. 

I just checked the box score and Austin Jones of USC went 11 for 127 with a long of 31(!)  Maybe that was when UW was hurting at safety and NT. 

[Atticus 3973]

I was just about to post that. USC definitely has more weapons on offense than we do and they have an excellent scheme as well. We have a better OL though.

If they had anything close to our defense, they would have beat Washington. 

[chainsaw 9865]

2 minutes ago, alphahydro said:

Obvious counterpoint would be USC, but USC put up 42. 

Oregon obviously has a potent offense this year; I just think they got outschemed/coached by UW. 

Oddly enough USC only had 3 games with a 100+ yd rusher, although it was two different guys.

USC has had two different guys crack 114 yards receiving; Texas had four.

Those are talented teams, but Texas is another level

[Navin R. Johnson 705]

I think sark should begin the game with a receiver screen to the right. Then on 2nd down follow that up with a receiver screen to the left. The Huskies won’t know what hit them.

[markstanco 12574]

Are you seriously complaining about play calling on a top 10 offense? You do you.

[alphahydro 334]

I'm working on something. 

Here's the punchline, I think. 

I looked at the performance of the offense and defense for UW and Texas this season, EXCLUDING

• Games where the opposing offense or defense is outside the top 50 (because I don't care how the teams perform against bad teams - though I snuck in Okie State's 51 ranked defense)
• Rivalry games (OU and Wash State)
• Oregon State (weather impacted game with high winds, iirc)

I was just looking for trends. 

If you apply those restrictions, you get about 5 "qualifying" games for each offense and defense (top 50 opposition offense or defense, not including each school's #1 rivalry game and Oregon State). 

If you look at those "qualifying" games, the Texas Defense, UW Defense, and UW offense performed pretty consistently over the course of the season.  You can see a pretty reasonable trend - in general, each unit was less successful against better competition and more successful against easier opposition.  

The Texas offense, however, was not consistent.  There were two versions of the Texas Offense. 

The version of the Texas offense that took the field against Bama and Okie State (defenses #8 and #51) was markedly better than the version that came out against Tech and Iowa State (defenses #22 and #41). (using F+ rankings, which combine FEI ratings and SP+ ratings).

I'll show my work in the next post, but

any theories as to why Texas offense did better against Bama and Okie State than it did against Tech and Iowa State?

If so, how does this relate to upcoming game against UW?

 

 

 

[alphahydro 334]

So here's the data - I looked at opposing offenses and defenses ranked in the top 50 and then took out the rivalry games (oh, and I took out Texas' performance against K-State's defense, because Ewers was injured. looking at the data maybe I didn't take out Oregon State after all.)

Quantifying the Defensive and Offensive Performance in Each Qualifying Game

I got the data from UCFtoys.com.  They break down each drive of every game and attribute a point value to the effort from the offense and defense and that drive.  I think the theory goes like this.  

I think they show that, statistically, if an offense only has to drive 1 yard because the defense recovers a fumble on the opponent's 1 yard line, the average offense's expected point total for that drive is let's say 6.8 points (based on historical data).  And if that same "average" offense has to drive 99 yards on the next drive, the expected point total for that second drive is let's say .35 points  (I just made up those numbers).  So if the defense gives the offense the ball on the 1, the defense should get some credit for the TD scored by the offense.   And if the offense turns the ball over on their own 10, they should get some of the negative points when the opposing offense scores on the defense. 

So the people who made up the formulas looked at all this junk with math and stuff and for each drive they try to assign value to the offense and defense based on which side of the ball is doing its job.  If you go 3 and out, the site counts -2 points to your offense and +2 to the opposing defense, etc.  (By advancing field position, you are reducing the expected points of the opponent, and by not doing so, you are effectively giving the opponent more expected points).  If an offense drives 75 yards and scores it gets ~ 5 points.  etc.  The side then tracks how the offense and defense did over the course of the game.

To give an unusual example we can all understand, even though Iowa lost 0-26 to Michigan, the site tracks that game as being -32 points iowa offense, +13 points iowa defense.  

The site ignores garbage time drives and takes that total point value contributed by offense and defense over the course of the game and divides it by the number of non-garbage-time drives.   You end up with an offensive point value per drive and defensive point value per drive for each game.   (if this doesn't make 100% sense, that's my bad, it's late and i'm tired).

Again, you don't have to agree or disagree with exactly how the site calculates the values, but it's an interesting way of tracking how offenses and defenses do against their competition over the course of the season.  And it captures something like the Iowa defense did a pretty decent job against Michigan.  Again, I'm not vouching for these exact numbers, I'm only using the data to see if there are any trends.

So, what is the data?

I wouldn't get hung up on the exact data, except as it may reveal trends.  But here it is. I took the value the calculated per drive from each game and multiplied it by 10 to get a hypothetical 10 drive performance against the opposing offense or defense. 

UW Offense - value generated over 10 drives

UW Defense - value generated over 10 drives

How do I interpret this Data? 

If your offense goes 3 and out, it loses something like 2 points, according to their calculations (because, by giving the opposing offense a shorter field on their next possession, your offense is increasing the other team's expected point total on their next drive by 2 points [i guess that's not exactly true but that's a quick and easy way to think about it).  If, on the other hand, the offense drives 75 yards and scores, it gets 5 points.  In the games against Oregon, Utah, and Oregon State, UW's offense averaged over 1 point per drive.  So, over 10 drives against a 15-40th ranked defense, you can expect the UW offense to generate about 10/11 points vs the opposing defense.  This doesn't mean UW wins.  If the UW defense gave up 13 "points" over their 10 drives, UW would lose.  (The site also attributes points to special teams, but I'm ignoring them here). 

In fact the UW defense was only helping the offense against opposing offenses outside the top 15.   Against a top 15 offense, you should expect the UW defense to lose ground each drive (against a top offense, the UW defense gives up long drives more than they cause 3 and outs, etc).  Another way to look at it: If (oversimplifying) USC had Oregon State's defense, you would expect USC to win, assuming special teams broke even. 

But you can see that, even though there are some minor outliers, there is a reasonable trend to the data.  And that's probably still the case even, I suppose, if you personally would calculate the values differently.  But i'm not a data scientist or even a numbers person.

What about Texas?

Texas Defense

Texas Offense

So, you can see that everything basically makes reasonably good sense based on what you would expect from the strength ratings, except for the performance of the Texas Offense against top 50(ish) defenses. 

The site shows Texas doing much better against Bama And OK state than against Tech and Iowa State

(and I think that's consistent with the "eyeball test" - Texas offense ghosted almost the first half of Iowa State, scoring 6 points in the half,  and against Tech, Texas was 3-11 on third down, scoring 23 in the first half despite being given 4 short fields by the defense). 

We can argue about how much better or worse Texas was in these four games.  But more curious on if there was anything that you would try to do if you were Washington to try to get a result closer to Tech/Iowa State. 

[Codaxx 5731]

7 hours ago, alphahydro said:

I'm working on something. 

Here's the punchline, I think. 

I looked at the performance of the offense and defense for UW and Texas this season, EXCLUDING

• Games where the opposing offense or defense is outside the top 50 (because I don't care how the teams perform against bad teams - though I snuck in Okie State's 51 ranked defense)
• Rivalry games (OU and Wash State)
• Oregon State (weather impacted game with high winds, iirc)

I was just looking for trends. 

If you apply those restrictions, you get about 5 "qualifying" games for each offense and defense (top 50 opposition offense or defense, not including each school's #1 rivalry game and Oregon State). 

If you look at those "qualifying" games, the Texas Defense, UW Defense, and UW offense performed pretty consistently over the course of the season.  You can see a pretty reasonable trend - in general, each unit was less successful against better competition and more successful against easier opposition.  

The Texas offense, however, was not consistent.  There were two versions of the Texas Offense. 

The version of the Texas offense that took the field against Bama and Okie State (defenses #8 and #51) was markedly better than the version that came out against Tech and Iowa State (defenses #22 and #41). (using F+ rankings, which combine FEI ratings and SP+ ratings).

I'll show my work in the next post, but

any theories as to why Texas offense did better against Bama and Okie State than it did against Tech and Iowa State?

If so, how does this relate to upcoming game against UW?

 

 

 

Texas put up 7.04 yards per play vs Tech. That was the most Tech allowed all season. That is a number Texas only achieved 3 times (Tech, Kansas, and OSU).. They struggled in the red zone, but outside of that the offense was dominant

ISU gave up 5 yards a play on the season. Texas put up 6.04 vs them.. That was the 3rd highest number they yielded all year. ISU gives up 1.85 per drive and Texas put up 2.6 per (excluding the last drive that Texas ran out the clock). I am not sure either was a poor game. 

Washington put up 4.86 yards/play vs a WSU team that averaged giving up 5.67 yards

They put up 5.13 vs OSU, who averaged 5.29 allowed

ASU held them to 4.37 yards vs 4.75

Seems Washington had its struggles also.. 

[alphahydro 334]

Yes, if you watch UW / Washington State, UW looks very beatable, just eyeball test.  I couldn't tell you exactly why the offense struggled in that game.  

And it's not that Texas' offense did poorly against tech or Iowa State, just that they didn't do as well as they did against Alabama or Okie St.

I'm just curious if there is a good reason why. 

My own recollection is that Texas was just uneven against Tech and Iowa State - the offense was out of sorts for a few drives (roughly first half against Iowa State) but performed very well the rest of the game (roughly the second half against Iowa State).  So it's not so much that Texas was better against Oklahoma State, just that they performed well for four quarters against OK state and only for two against Iowa State.  Maybe it was just bad luck, bad initial gameplan, defense brought surprises that Texas staff wasn't expecting and had to adjust to, etc.

That's one answer. 

Another possible answer is - yes, Texas offense was better against OK State and Bama, but it was more marginal than those stats (which overvalue field position) suggest.  You're overthinking this, it's 18-20 year old kids, etc.

I'm just curious if anyone sees other answers that I don't see. Like, possibly: 

• Quinn was healthiest against Bama and OK State, and (a) in the middle games, he was hesitant because he was worried about being hit, and it showed in his indecisiveness, which killed several plays with open receivers or (b) his arm status showed in the middle games--he couldn't hit the deep ball, he couldn't hit the out, etc., so the staff neutered the offense for him (I'm just making this up)
• Tech and Iowa State used xyz strategy, which Texas struggles with due to abc, and UW is definitely going to deploy that strategy - don't expect OK state or Alabama results unless UW commits coaching malpractice. 

Just curious.  Just seeing if anyone saw something I missed. 

I think at the end of the day, if the offense shows up against UW like it did against OK state and Bama, the maths get hard for UW.  If the offense plays well in spots but has dry spells, the door is potentially left open for the huskies.  Just curious if there is something to this pattern of offensive output I'm not seeing. 

 

[sushihorn 3233]

I’m going to take a guess here: Motivation. 

Alabama is the top program in the nation in recent years. The game was played in their house and a victory would give Texas instant credibility. Plus Texas had something to prove after last year’s loss in Austin, Ewers especially. 

OSU was the conference CG. It was a requirement to make the playoff. Even if the opponent wasn’t all that motivating, the situation was. 

ISU doesn’t inspire hate plus they have that funky defense that is different and difficult to prepare for. Tech was a blowout. It didn’t matter that the offense “underperformed” and I net no one even noticed other than the bean counters. The offense that night was much better than it had to be to win the game.