Have a defense that statistically sucks in pass defense but creates a ton of turnovers....
OR
A defense that is middle of the conference/nation statistically but doesn't create turnovers all too often.
This is the question it all boils down to. Now before everyone automatically picks the second option, let me submit to you that in CTG's first three years we had exactly the first option and won 28 games with that option. Some may forget that our pass defense was atrocious those years too, but the stats were masked because of the turnovers and the fact that we lost only 11 games over those three years.
Also keep in mind that during the Erickson/Koetter years we routinely had very vanilla defenses that rarely created turnovers but for the most part we were usually somewhere in the middle of the Pac statistics-wise.
Also put aside the "square peg/round hole" arguments about personnel and scheme. Put aside recruiting deficiencies and just pretend we have the personnel to make either scenario work. What would you rather have?
OR
A defense that is middle of the conference/nation statistically but doesn't create turnovers all too often.
This is the question it all boils down to. Now before everyone automatically picks the second option, let me submit to you that in CTG's first three years we had exactly the first option and won 28 games with that option. Some may forget that our pass defense was atrocious those years too, but the stats were masked because of the turnovers and the fact that we lost only 11 games over those three years.
Also keep in mind that during the Erickson/Koetter years we routinely had very vanilla defenses that rarely created turnovers but for the most part we were usually somewhere in the middle of the Pac statistics-wise.
Also put aside the "square peg/round hole" arguments about personnel and scheme. Put aside recruiting deficiencies and just pretend we have the personnel to make either scenario work. What would you rather have?
