Oops. meant Pam, not Pat.
Hmmm, successful against the stronger teams? I'm not usually a numbers guy, but in this case it proves my point:
27 - Franklin
34 - Heidelberg
34 - John Carroll
20 - W&J (and that's a stretch putting them in this category)
21 - Wittenberg
59 - Wesley
40 - NCC
52 - UWW
No, they weren't successful defensively against any of the good teams they played. Closest thing to a typical Mount defensive performance was against Witt, but I think we over estimated Witt based on the numbers of starters they returned. That was a solid team, but they lacked speed and play making ability.
I'll again reiterate my opinion that the defensive secondary was only slightly worse than previous Mount teams, but was torched because of ZERO pass rush from the D-line. Mount has rarely had true shut down corners. What they've been blessed with typically is a very athletic secondary that can cover a lot of ground playing behind a dominant D-line that gets after the QB. Where their D-line has struggled typically is against the power running games, not rushing the passer. They've almost always excelled at rushing the passer, sometimes to the detriment of the overall defensive performance. Much like the Indy defenses where built around the Peyton Manning offense.
I'm not going to say everyone pushed Mount around like UWW, but Mount never dominated the line of scrimmage defensively all season. Even against the dregs like Mucky and Etta. They were better along the D-line than most of the teams they saw this season, but not better than everyone except the truly elite like UWW/UST/MHB/etc like they've been over the last decade. They weren't close to being the best D-line in the conference, that would go to JCU. I'd put H'Berg's D-line above Mount's too. And the lesser OAC and early round playoff teams were a lot closer to Mount than we're used to seeing.