Skyline Sports Article on Semore and the Defense

[HelenaHandBasket]

Okay, I was wrong. I had assumed you were supporting Trump.

75, I am sure you will report this troll post.

 

[Fushiznitz]

When I become a moderator, you will be heading south in a hurry. Ha.

You're a stats guy, right? You should do a poll on whether you should take the moderator job. And since you authored it, there is no way it gets locked or moved for not being relevant to the forum. Win, win.

Okay, let's do a poll. Every signed up egrizzer who doesn't vote in the poll will be assumed to support me as a moderator. Silent majority. I could clean this place up in a hurry. I am sure hundreds, if not thousands, of posters would come back.

Sounds good, Erdogan.

 

[daGrizJ]

Let me see. I forgot. What was the title of this thread about, again?

 

[BWahlberg]

A Ty Gregorak-run defense has faced Cal Poly three times, 2013/14/15. Here's the results:

2013: 21-14 win, 308 rush / 95 pass / 403 total / 2 turnovers forced / 5.1 yards per play / 36:33 TOP
2014: 21-41 loss, 421 rush / 107 pass / 528 total / 0 turnovers forced / 6.4 yards per play / 34:34 TOP
2015: 19-20 loss, 330 rush / 56 pass / 386 total / 1 turnover forced / 4.3 yards per play / 35:38 TOP

That averages to:

Average score Montana 20.33 to Poly 25

Average 353 rush / 86 pass / 439 total / 1 turnover forced / 5.27 yards per play / 33:35 TOP

------------

Technically it's probably not fair to compare Semore's 1 game to Gregorak's 3 - as a stand alone or as an average, but it'll be interesting to see how it goes. Also 2013 and 2015 for Gregorak's defense was at home, while 2014 was in Cal Poly.

 

[Bear Axed]

A Ty Gregorak-run defense has faced Cal Poly three times, 2013/14/15. Here's the results:

2013: 21-14 win, 308 rush / 95 pass / 403 total / 2 turnovers forced / 5.1 yards per play / 36:33 TOP
2014: 21-41 loss, 421 rush / 107 pass / 528 total / 0 turnovers forced / 6.4 yards per play / 34:34 TOP
2015: 19-20 loss, 330 rush / 56 pass / 386 total / 1 turnover forced / 4.3 yards per play / 35:38 TOP

That averages to:

Average score Montana 20.33 to Poly 25

Average 353 rush / 86 pass / 439 total / 1 turnover forced / 5.27 yards per play / 33:35 TOP

------------

Technically it's probably not fair to compare Semore's 1 game to Gregorak's 3 - as a stand alone or as an average, but it'll be interesting to see how it goes. Also 2013 and 2015 for Gregorak's defense was at home, while 2014 was in Cal Poly.

Will that be in your Report.......
That we are all impatiently waiting for...... :thumb:

 

[brewskis]

Selected conference defensive stats so far. Obviously, very early.

SCORING DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 5 3 5 0 0 0 44 14.7
2. Montana 2 6 1 6 0 0 0 45 22.5
3. Southern Utah 2 6 2 5 0 0 0 47 23.5
4. Cal Poly 3 10 3 8 0 0 0 77 25.7
5. NAU 3 9 6 7 1 0 0 81 27.0

TOTAL DEFENSE

1. Montana 2 226 378 140 604 4.3 5 302.0
2. Cal Poly 3 370 581 168 951 5.7 10 317.0
3. Montana State 3 388 607 198 995 5.0 5 331.7
4. North Dakota 3 338 701 222 1039 4.7 10 346.3
5. NAU 3 502 728 211 1230 5.8 9 410.0

PASS DEFENSE EFFIC.

1. Montana State 3 54 102 7 52.9 607 2 95.7
2. Weber State 3 50 94 1 53.2 406 5 104.9
3. Montana 2 29 63 1 46.0 378 3 109.0
4. Idaho State 3 58 105 3 55.2 762 4 123.1
5. North Dakota 3 56 102 5 54.9 701 7 125.5

INTERCEPTIONS

1. Montana State 3 7 31 0 4.4
2. North Dakota 3 5 127 3 25.4
3. UC Davis 3 4 17 0 4.2
4. Idaho State 3 3 56 0 18.7
5. NAU 3 2 18 0 9.0

OPP 3RD-DN CONVERT

1. Montana 2 8 32 25.0
Montana State 3 10 40 25.0
3. Sacramento State 3 14 43 32.6
4. North Dakota 3 16 48 33.3
5. Idaho State 3 19 52 36.5

TURNOVER MARGIN

1. Montana State 3 5 7 12 0 1 1 +11 3.67
2. UC Davis 3 4 4 8 1 2 3 +5 1.67
3. NAU 3 3 2 5 1 0 1 +4 1.33
4. North Dakota 3 2 5 7 3 1 4 +3 1.00
5. Southern Utah 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 +1 0.50

RED ZONE DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 3-6 50.0 2 2-0 1-1 0 2 1 0
2. Montana 2 4-7 57.1 3 2-1 1-2 0 0 2 0
3. North Dakota 3 7-9 77.8 5 3-2 2-4 0 0 0 0
Southern Utah 2 7-9 77.8 5 2-3 2-3 0 0 0 1
5. Idaho State 3 11-14 78.6 9 6-3 2-3 0 0 2 0

With no regard to strength of schedule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PlayerRep]

Selected conference defensive stats so far. Obviously, very early.

SCORING DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 5 3 5 0 0 0 44 14.7
2. Montana 2 6 1 6 0 0 0 45 22.5
3. Southern Utah 2 6 2 5 0 0 0 47 23.5
4. Cal Poly 3 10 3 8 0 0 0 77 25.7
5. NAU 3 9 6 7 1 0 0 81 27.0

TOTAL DEFENSE

1. Montana 2 226 378 140 604 4.3 5 302.0
2. Cal Poly 3 370 581 168 951 5.7 10 317.0
3. Montana State 3 388 607 198 995 5.0 5 331.7
4. North Dakota 3 338 701 222 1039 4.7 10 346.3
5. NAU 3 502 728 211 1230 5.8 9 410.0

PASS DEFENSE EFFIC.

1. Montana State 3 54 102 7 52.9 607 2 95.7
2. Weber State 3 50 94 1 53.2 406 5 104.9
3. Montana 2 29 63 1 46.0 378 3 109.0
4. Idaho State 3 58 105 3 55.2 762 4 123.1
5. North Dakota 3 56 102 5 54.9 701 7 125.5

INTERCEPTIONS

1. Montana State 3 7 31 0 4.4
2. North Dakota 3 5 127 3 25.4
3. UC Davis 3 4 17 0 4.2
4. Idaho State 3 3 56 0 18.7
5. NAU 3 2 18 0 9.0

OPP 3RD-DN CONVERT

1. Montana 2 8 32 25.0
Montana State 3 10 40 25.0
3. Sacramento State 3 14 43 32.6
4. North Dakota 3 16 48 33.3
5. Idaho State 3 19 52 36.5

TURNOVER MARGIN

1. Montana State 3 5 7 12 0 1 1 +11 3.67
2. UC Davis 3 4 4 8 1 2 3 +5 1.67
3. NAU 3 3 2 5 1 0 1 +4 1.33
4. North Dakota 3 2 5 7 3 1 4 +3 1.00
5. Southern Utah 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 +1 0.50

RED ZONE DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 3-6 50.0 2 2-0 1-1 0 2 1 0
2. Montana 2 4-7 57.1 3 2-1 1-2 0 0 2 0
3. North Dakota 3 7-9 77.8 5 3-2 2-4 0 0 0 0
Southern Utah 2 7-9 77.8 5 2-3 2-3 0 0 0 1
5. Idaho State 3 11-14 78.6 9 6-3 2-3 0 0 2 0

With no regard to strength of schedule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk to the conference, NCAA and every keeper of football stats. No strength of schedule factored in. Man, just when I think some of you can't say anything dumber, you prove me wrong.

 

[brewskis]

Selected conference defensive stats so far. Obviously, very early.

SCORING DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 5 3 5 0 0 0 44 14.7
2. Montana 2 6 1 6 0 0 0 45 22.5
3. Southern Utah 2 6 2 5 0 0 0 47 23.5
4. Cal Poly 3 10 3 8 0 0 0 77 25.7
5. NAU 3 9 6 7 1 0 0 81 27.0

TOTAL DEFENSE

1. Montana 2 226 378 140 604 4.3 5 302.0
2. Cal Poly 3 370 581 168 951 5.7 10 317.0
3. Montana State 3 388 607 198 995 5.0 5 331.7
4. North Dakota 3 338 701 222 1039 4.7 10 346.3
5. NAU 3 502 728 211 1230 5.8 9 410.0

PASS DEFENSE EFFIC.

1. Montana State 3 54 102 7 52.9 607 2 95.7
2. Weber State 3 50 94 1 53.2 406 5 104.9
3. Montana 2 29 63 1 46.0 378 3 109.0
4. Idaho State 3 58 105 3 55.2 762 4 123.1
5. North Dakota 3 56 102 5 54.9 701 7 125.5

INTERCEPTIONS

1. Montana State 3 7 31 0 4.4
2. North Dakota 3 5 127 3 25.4
3. UC Davis 3 4 17 0 4.2
4. Idaho State 3 3 56 0 18.7
5. NAU 3 2 18 0 9.0

OPP 3RD-DN CONVERT

1. Montana 2 8 32 25.0
Montana State 3 10 40 25.0
3. Sacramento State 3 14 43 32.6
4. North Dakota 3 16 48 33.3
5. Idaho State 3 19 52 36.5

TURNOVER MARGIN

1. Montana State 3 5 7 12 0 1 1 +11 3.67
2. UC Davis 3 4 4 8 1 2 3 +5 1.67
3. NAU 3 3 2 5 1 0 1 +4 1.33
4. North Dakota 3 2 5 7 3 1 4 +3 1.00
5. Southern Utah 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 +1 0.50

RED ZONE DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 3-6 50.0 2 2-0 1-1 0 2 1 0
2. Montana 2 4-7 57.1 3 2-1 1-2 0 0 2 0
3. North Dakota 3 7-9 77.8 5 3-2 2-4 0 0 0 0
Southern Utah 2 7-9 77.8 5 2-3 2-3 0 0 0 1
5. Idaho State 3 11-14 78.6 9 6-3 2-3 0 0 2 0

With no regard to strength of schedule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk to the conference, NCAA and every keeper of football stats. No strength of schedule factored in. Man, just when I think some of you can't say anything dumber, you prove me wrong.

I was simply adding that in, no need to get defensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brewskis]

PR is sort of a jumpy little guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PlayerRep]

Selected conference defensive stats so far. Obviously, very early.

SCORING DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 5 3 5 0 0 0 44 14.7
2. Montana 2 6 1 6 0 0 0 45 22.5
3. Southern Utah 2 6 2 5 0 0 0 47 23.5
4. Cal Poly 3 10 3 8 0 0 0 77 25.7
5. NAU 3 9 6 7 1 0 0 81 27.0

TOTAL DEFENSE

1. Montana 2 226 378 140 604 4.3 5 302.0
2. Cal Poly 3 370 581 168 951 5.7 10 317.0
3. Montana State 3 388 607 198 995 5.0 5 331.7
4. North Dakota 3 338 701 222 1039 4.7 10 346.3
5. NAU 3 502 728 211 1230 5.8 9 410.0

PASS DEFENSE EFFIC.

1. Montana State 3 54 102 7 52.9 607 2 95.7
2. Weber State 3 50 94 1 53.2 406 5 104.9
3. Montana 2 29 63 1 46.0 378 3 109.0
4. Idaho State 3 58 105 3 55.2 762 4 123.1
5. North Dakota 3 56 102 5 54.9 701 7 125.5

INTERCEPTIONS

1. Montana State 3 7 31 0 4.4
2. North Dakota 3 5 127 3 25.4
3. UC Davis 3 4 17 0 4.2
4. Idaho State 3 3 56 0 18.7
5. NAU 3 2 18 0 9.0

OPP 3RD-DN CONVERT

1. Montana 2 8 32 25.0
Montana State 3 10 40 25.0
3. Sacramento State 3 14 43 32.6
4. North Dakota 3 16 48 33.3
5. Idaho State 3 19 52 36.5

TURNOVER MARGIN

1. Montana State 3 5 7 12 0 1 1 +11 3.67
2. UC Davis 3 4 4 8 1 2 3 +5 1.67
3. NAU 3 3 2 5 1 0 1 +4 1.33
4. North Dakota 3 2 5 7 3 1 4 +3 1.00
5. Southern Utah 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 +1 0.50

RED ZONE DEFENSE

1. Montana State 3 3-6 50.0 2 2-0 1-1 0 2 1 0
2. Montana 2 4-7 57.1 3 2-1 1-2 0 0 2 0
3. North Dakota 3 7-9 77.8 5 3-2 2-4 0 0 0 0
Southern Utah 2 7-9 77.8 5 2-3 2-3 0 0 0 1
5. Idaho State 3 11-14 78.6 9 6-3 2-3 0 0 2 0

With no regard to strength of schedule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk to the conference, NCAA and every keeper of football stats. No strength of schedule factored in. Man, just when I think some of you can't say anything dumber, you prove me wrong.

I was simply adding that in, no need to get defensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one got defensive or jumpy except you and your sidekick.

 

[brewskis]

With no regard to strength of schedule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk to the conference, NCAA and every keeper of football stats. No strength of schedule factored in. Man, just when I think some of you can't say anything dumber, you prove me wrong.

I was simply adding that in, no need to get defensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one got defensive or jumpy except you and your sidekick.

Salty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UMGriz75]

Great. Then he turns around and says other teams had "an answer" when all those other teams gave up MORE points than the Griz did. So the "answer" is to have your offense score more points, particularly when your defense holds the other team to the fewest points they scored ALL YEAR. He uses MSU's win as proof that they had "an answer", but their team gave up more points. It's really not that complicated. In one set of posts he's praising the defense, then in the same thread he maligns it...

I have never maligned the Montana defense in the Cal Poly game last year. I have no idea where that comes from. I have always pointed to the fact that it was outstanding against that particular team.

CP had a 3-5 conference record last year. They didn't lose five times just because they put up more points than they did against Montana. They lost because the other teams outplayed them by a combination of keeping CP's vaunted offense in check and by scoring more points. It's not only not complicated, that's the essence of football strategy. 101.

The game against MSU was significant "in context" because it wasn't just that Cats scored 45 points -- a dam sight more than we did -- they also kept Cal Poly to just one more touchdown than UM allowed. The worst defense in the conference kept Cal to just one more touchdown than one of the best defenses in the conference. How did that happen? North Dakota kept CP to just 21 points. The same ND defense that we scored 43 points on, one of our season high offensive efforts.

Hell, Sac State kept CP to 36 points, in the ballpark of the 35 and 37 point losses CP suffered at PSU and SUU, the same range that CP scored in its non-conference losses against Arizona State and UNI.

The CP version of "Triple Option" put up lots of yards, but that didn't translate into a winning season. That has to be because "other" teams had "an" answer to the Triple Option. It is just weird to try and argue that five out of eight teams beat CP because they didn't have "an" answer. They clearly did.