Next:
Iowa State @  Utah
FOX

Utah #4 Rushing Defense

Welcome Cyclones Fans! Forums Utah Utes Sports Football Utah #4 Rushing Defense

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #72371
      PlainsUte
      Participant

      Total defense #24.

      See rankings here:

      NCAA Team Rushing Defense

    • #72372
      2
      mokus
      Participant

      87 YPG after 6 games? That is nuts.

      • #72376
        1 2
        UteThunder
        Participant

        It helps that Washington State and Weber State were two of the six. Wazzu didn’t even try to run on us, and Weber is just not on our level.

        Still very impressive, but I expect that number to go up a little each week.

        • #72379
          3
          ironman1315
          Participant

          Stanford rushed for 42 and Zona for 72. It probably won’t break 100 by the end of the year unless one or two teams just dump truck us on the ground.

          • #72386
            1 2
            UteThunder
            Participant

            Stanford was also without their Heisman candidate RB and Arizona is just a bad team this year. Both of those teams also fell behind big and had to go to the pass a lot more.

            I expect most of the remaining teams on our schedule to put up slightly better numbers unless they too are missing their best RB or are an awful team or fall behind by a large margin.

            • #72389
              2
              Chidojuan
              Participant

              Love hasn’t been great all season though. Maybe he makes the game closer, and maybe he doesn’t. Making teams one dimensional should be a credit to the defense. The quicker they give up on the run, the better for us. I don’t see any of the South teams putting up better numbers. USC, CU and ASU are all pretty one dimensional right now. I don’t know what UCLA can do. Kelly’s offense is rush first, but they have a pretty squishy OL. Oregon is the only remaining team that is a true running threat.

              • #72399
                1 1
                EagleMountainUte
                Participant

                Love would have certainly helped Stanford establish the rush and take less pressure off of Costello. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. 

                • #72402
                  1
                  ironman1315
                  Participant

                  But would that account for the 3 score deficit?

                  • #72406
                    1
                    EagleMountainUte
                    Participant

                    Idk Love is a very good player. Utah had two 7 point swings in that game. Really it may have been worst because Stanford keeps going to Love instead of passing. Love changes Furds scheme tho. 

                • #72407
                  Chidojuan
                  Participant

                  I disagree to the tone of SDSU.  Totally shut him down.  Costello actually had better yardage passing against us, we just didn’t allow them to finish drives.

                  • #72408
                    2
                    EagleMountainUte
                    Participant

                    How much did it change Utah’s scheme against Wazzu when Leki Fotu sat?  Suddenly the pass rush started getting home in the second half a lot more. 

                    • #72411
                      Chidojuan
                      Participant

                      Granted, and again, I’m not saying he doesn’t make a difference, but we don’t know what that would be.  I still think we could have made them one dimensional with Love playing, but we’ll never know.  I’m glad we got out with a win.

        • #72384
          3
          PlainsUte
          Participant

          Last week Arid-zona had just 72 yds.  So average is actually coming down.

          USC is more of a threat in the air, we’ll see how that goes.  Versus the Bluffs they had just 62 yards rushing.  That would help bring down the average.

    • #72460
      rbmw263
      Participant

      We are 7th in defense imo (yards per play)

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.