Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

An encouraging SEC Defense Overlooked Fact

Started by MuskogeeHogFan, May 21, 2017, 01:37:01 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MuskogeeHogFan

May 21, 2017, 01:37:01 pm Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 02:39:07 pm by MuskogeeHogFan
Since 2003, the times that an SEC Defense has averaged allowing more than 400 yards P/Gm for a season:

24 times those teams have allowed fewer yards the next season. The season average of over 400 yards allowed P/Gm was 430.2. On average, the next season they reduced the yards allowed by 57.3 yards taking them down to an average of 372.8 yards P/Gm. An improvement of 13.3%.

During that same time period, on only 5 occasions did teams that allowed more than 400 yards P/GM in the previous season, allow more yardage P/Gm the next season. Their averages over 400 yards in the previous season were 422.4 yards P/Gm and on average they allowed 16.8 more yards for an average of 439.2 yards P/Gm. A decrease of 4.0%.

So, about 83% of the time from the 2003-2016 seasons, teams who allowed more than 400 total yards per game in a previous season improved by 57.3 yards P/Gm the following season.

Now don't ask me about how many of those changed defenses and how that might have had an effect on the reduction in yards allowed, because I don't know. I am confident however that with a new DC in Paul Rhoads (despite the switch to a 3-4 some of the time) that I think we are due for a downturn in total yards allowed compared to last year and based on this research, I think our chances are pretty good.
Go Hogs Go!

hawginbigd1

Interesting stats, probably speaks to a focus the following season on a specific area by those staffs and teams, which I think you see from us also. I have said it multiple times, the change suits our personnel and the primary schemes we will face. DL I feel will be comparable or possibly better than last year. LB will be noticeably better, because we are playing better players. CB/NB possibly better, Collins was pretty salty in coverage, but terrible in run support. Tolliver I believe is better on the outside than in the slot and is measurably better in run support than Collins. Safety is the huge question mark, we have been below average there since Turner/Gaines, and it hasn't been a strength since cotton bowl team with Tramain Thomas. We will be better, how much better depends on the 2 safety positions excluding an injury bug.

 

Bacons Rebellion


daBoar

Quote from: MuskogeeHogFan on May 21, 2017, 01:37:01 pm

24 times those teams have allowed fewer yards the next season. ... the next season they reduced the yards allowed by 57.3 yards taking them down to an average of 372.8 yards P/Gm.
What I believe is being ignored by the data discussed above is that we've not only reacted to the yardage negatives (by changing coordinators), but we've been beset by losses to key senior personnel. So, while we're changing defenses (a theoretical "good", we're doing it with less experienced (or no SEC-experienced) personnel.  I'd be much more confident if we were returning 9 starters like last season, as a hedge to the "way of play" and leadership changes.  Plus, I believe it's critically important to note that a three year starter at LB is gone. 

I'll add that I want to believe, but I'm seeing very little to believe in. 

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: daBoar on May 21, 2017, 02:46:07 pm
What I believe is being ignored by the data discussed above is that we've not only reacted to the yardage negatives (by changing coordinators), but we've been beset by losses to key senior personnel. So, while we're changing defenses (a theoretical "good", we're doing it with less experienced (or no SEC-experienced) personnel.  I'd be much more confident if we were returning 9 starters like last season, as a hedge to the "way of play" and leadership changes.  Plus, I believe it's critically important to note that a three year starter at LB is gone. 

I'll add that I want to believe, but I'm seeing very little to believe in. 

I think what you are overlooking is returning experience, not just starters. We rotate a lot of personnel that play a lot of snaps even if they aren't listed as "starters". We have about 14 players with a lot of experience returning on defense. Brooks Ellis might have been better suited for the 3-4 than the 4-3, but that ship has sailed.
Go Hogs Go!

hawginbigd1

Sometimes you have addition by subtraction!

OS2 (SW) Razor Back

The Giants win the penent!!!!!The Giants win the penent!!!
Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth.
I can't believe what I just saw!!!!
Down goes Frazier!!!! Down goes Frazier!!!
Do you believe in miricles?!?!?!

bennyl08

Quote from: daBoar on May 21, 2017, 02:46:07 pm
What I believe is being ignored by the data discussed above is that we've not only reacted to the yardage negatives (by changing coordinators), but we've been beset by losses to key senior personnel. So, while we're changing defenses (a theoretical "good", we're doing it with less experienced (or no SEC-experienced) personnel.  I'd be much more confident if we were returning 9 starters like last season, as a hedge to the "way of play" and leadership changes.  Plus, I believe it's critically important to note that a three year starter at LB is gone. 

I'll add that I want to believe, but I'm seeing very little to believe in.

2/3 or our starting DL will have been starters/significant players last year (Agim and either Jackson/Capps). At LB, 3/4 of our players fit that category (Ramsey, Harris, Greenlaw). In the secondary, everybody is a returning starter. In all, 3 (Agim, Jackson, Capps) of the 6 (Guidry, Marshall, Taylor) in our 2-deep on the DL are experienced players and no true freshmen are projected in the two deep. At LB, 4 total players have extensive experience (Harris, Eugene, Ramsey, Greenlaw) with only 1 true freshmen projected to be in the rotation, with that being Fisher. In the secondary, we have 6 starters returning to fill 4-5 spots with Toliver, Pulley, Richardson, Ramirez, Coley, and Liddell. We have no need to have true freshmen filling in any of the rest with players such as Tutt, Micah Smith, Dalton, and Miller giving us 10 total; however, there's a good chance IMO that Brown, Curl, Calloway, and Curtis all end up playing because they are simply that good.

Of the 11 positions on defense. Only two of those positions will be played by inexperienced personnel, and if we cut a LB out for a nickelback, then it drops down to 10/11 positions filled with players with significant playing experience. Only 1 true freshmen slots into the two deep right now out of necessity for the most part. The only other true freshmen likely to get playing time will be due to having Agim level talent in the secondary where we return ample experience to allow newcomers to redshirt if needed.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

Mike_e

Cutting back the chunk plays will be (and I think that we will both through scheme and bat crazed want to that CPR will instill) immensely helpful.  Not only are they hard on your momentum but the ones that get the other team out of third and really longs keep our offense off the field.

I have said numerous times here that the only really important stat is scoring per drive.  OK, duh, you need to score more points than the other team but you only get so many opportunities -drives- and each one is precious.  Stopping an extra two of their scoring  drives means that they score a minimum of 6 points less.

Last year we averaged what, about two points per game less than our opponents?

How much different would the season have been if we had held the other teams to an average of 4 less points per game than us?  Or 14 had those scoring drives both been touchdowns.
The best "one thing" for a happy life?
Just be the best person that you can manage.  Right Now!

daBoar

Quote from: bennyl08 on May 21, 2017, 04:52:54 pm
2/3 or our starting DL will have been starters/significant players last year (Agim and either Jackson/Capps).
#s 14, 19, and 21.  That's how Agim, Capps, and Jackson fared in tackles last year for the team.  Capps tied with Ryder Lucas while Jackson tied with Reid Miller.  Interestingly, Jackson had one more tackle than Hollister.  My point is the Hogs lost a lot from the perspective of "contribution" and real experience.

bennyl08

Quote from: daBoar on May 21, 2017, 05:49:33 pm
#s 14, 19, and 21.  That's how Agim, Capps, and Jackson fared in tackles last year for the team.  Capps tied with Ryder Lucas while Jackson tied with Reid Miller.  Interestingly, Jackson had one more tackle than Hollister.  My point is the Hogs lost a lot from the perspective of "contribution" and real experience.

Taiwan Johnson ranked 13th in tackles despite starting every single game at DT. A tackle, ironically, doesn't typically make a lot of tackles. Instead, they eat up blocks so that others can make tackles. You have two ends of that spectrum. You have the Philons who are quicker and get penetration, making tackles. And you have the Mount Cody's who are less active. In Cody's 2 seasons at Bama, he tallied 52 total tackles with only 19 solo. In the 2 seasons that Philon played here, he tallied 92 total tackles and 46 solo.

Bijhon and Capps are a lot closer to Terrance Cody than Darius Philon.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

Tusks


I'm still watching the replay and still can't find even a finger nail touch on Auburns first play from scrimmage. 
sometimes it's a good and some times it's a schit

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: tusked on May 21, 2017, 07:19:04 pm
I'm still watching the replay and still can't find even a finger nail touch on Auburns first play from scrimmage. 

Are you going to be happy if they allow 375 yards p/gm next season?
Go Hogs Go!

 

lakecityhog

I'm not as worried about yds/game as I am chunk plays(agreeing with Mike-e) and yes I know that chunk plays relate directly to yards /game.

If we can quit giving up the 40+ yard TD plays we will be so much better off as a team. Making teams earn every yard and pay dearly for those yards can translate into lower scores for the opposition. If our defense can trim 1 TD per game I think that our record takes a HUGE step forward.

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: lakecityhog on May 21, 2017, 09:02:50 pm
I'm not as worried about yds/game as I am chunk plays(agreeing with Mike-e) and yes I know that chunk plays relate directly to yards /game.

If we can quit giving up the 40+ yard TD plays we will be so much better off as a team. Making teams earn every yard and pay dearly for those yards can translate into lower scores for the opposition. If our defense can trim 1 TD per game I think that our record takes a HUGE step forward.

We allowed 27 big plays LY that were of 40 yards or more. It is certainly vital to the success of our defense that we limit the big plays allowed and if we can do that, I believe you will see a vastly improved YPG average.
Go Hogs Go!

bennyl08

Quote from: lakecityhog on May 21, 2017, 09:02:50 pm
I'm not as worried about yds/game as I am chunk plays(agreeing with Mike-e) and yes I know that chunk plays relate directly to yards /game.

If we can quit giving up the 40+ yard TD plays we will be so much better off as a team. Making teams earn every yard and pay dearly for those yards can translate into lower scores for the opposition. If our defense can trim 1 TD per game I think that our record takes a HUGE step forward.

I'm more concerned with impact plays. Tackles for loss, sacks, interceptions, fumbles. Chunk plays are going to happen. Remove plays of 30+ yards and every defense looks stellar.

However, focusing on limiting chunk plays relies on reacting to the offense. Scheming to get a tfl or sack while preparing the players to get turnovers is something that the defense can actually control. Get some penetration, and you throw off the timing of the play, and thus less likely for it to work the way the offense wants. Get a TFL and you put the offense off schedule and limit the playcalling they have, thus not allowing them to do what they want. Create some turnovers and you truncate their drive no matter how well they were moving the ball at the time.

That, IMO, is the best way to cut down on chunk plays. Playing aggressive. Press the receivers at the LoS. That throws them off their routes, adding another second for the pass rush to get to the qb. It exposes you to the deep ball, but even when wide open, a qb can often miss that throw, and even more so when he's under pressure. However, aggression requires speed.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

MuskogeeHogFan

Quote from: bennyl08 on May 21, 2017, 09:20:59 pm
I'm more concerned with impact plays. Tackles for loss, sacks, interceptions, fumbles. Chunk plays are going to happen. Remove plays of 30+ yards and every defense looks stellar.

However, focusing on limiting chunk plays relies on reacting to the offense. Scheming to get a tfl or sack while preparing the players to get turnovers is something that the defense can actually control. Get some penetration, and you throw off the timing of the play, and thus less likely for it to work the way the offense wants. Get a TFL and you put the offense off schedule and limit the playcalling they have, thus not allowing them to do what they want. Create some turnovers and you truncate their drive no matter how well they were moving the ball at the time.

That, IMO, is the best way to cut down on chunk plays. Playing aggressive. Press the receivers at the LoS. That throws them off their routes, adding another second for the pass rush to get to the qb. It exposes you to the deep ball, but even when wide open, a qb can often miss that throw, and even more so when he's under pressure. However, aggression requires speed.

Creating more negative plays certainly plays a role in the reduction of yards allowed on defense. Sometimes being more aggressive can create opportunities for big plays for an opposing offense, but I think that happens more often when a team doesn't play with controlled aggressiveness and loses their focus on remaining disciplined in their individual assignments.

The 3-4 is supposed to be a defense where we can apply more unpredictable pressure up front which of course, should help our Secondary. Hopefully, it will also provide a better run defense. The less predictable nature of the 3-4 should assist in helping to create more opportunities for TFL and Sacks as well. In order to insure that we take advantage of those opportunities we need to tackle very well and continuously swarm the ball. I think a combination of all of the above will help us reach the goals of limiting big plays and creating more negative plays which in turn, should reduce the number of total yards allowed to an opposing offense. It all has to work hand-in-hand.
Go Hogs Go!

MuskogeeHogFan

And you know, we weren't the only SEC team who had a problem with their total defensive yards last year. Take a look at the average total defensive yards given up p/gm last year for each SEC team.

ALA   261.8
ARK   426.6
AUB   361.9
FLA   293.0
GEO   327.5
KEN   434.2
LSU   314.4
OlM   461.3
MSU   459.1
MIZ   479.7
USC   411.9
TEN   449.2
A&M   441.8
VAN   408.2
Go Hogs Go!

lefty08

Quote from: daBoar on May 21, 2017, 05:49:33 pm
#s 14, 19, and 21.  That's how Agim, Capps, and Jackson fared in tackles last year for the team.  Capps tied with Ryder Lucas while Jackson tied with Reid Miller.  Interestingly, Jackson had one more tackle than Hollister.  My point is the Hogs lost a lot from the perspective of "contribution" and real experience.

You don't judge defensive linemen by tackles........
Re: So far the UC press conference is hilarious   Reply
Losing gracefully isn't taught in second-tier programs. See Arkansas, Cincinnati, et al.
3/21 8:11 PM | IP: Logged

Al Boarland

My biggest concern is that offenses will be even more explosive this season with improved QB play in the SEC.

The Kig

Quote from: bennyl08 on May 21, 2017, 09:20:59 pm
I'm more concerned with impact plays. Tackles for loss, sacks, interceptions, fumbles... Scheming....  Playing aggressive... However, aggression requires speed.

Agreed...except the speed part.  I get what you're saying, but proper scheming can mask the speed differential.   Last season as an example, we lacked speed and CRS mistakenly decided not to scheme aggressively and it cost him his job.  If you bring one more than they can block, the QB might be able to get it to a receiver, throw it away (also a big play), take a sack or throw an INT.  Offensive mistakes happen due to blown assignments, your guy just beating their guy, or when the defense forces the action.  Giving the QB all day to throw gave opposing teams time to find the mismatch that we had in speed.  Run blitzes would have been a gamble depending on which side, but there would have been less edges to seal and the impact of an RB getting past the LBs into the secondary certainly (many huge plays given up last year) would be less likely or the same. 

I think we will be considerably more aggressive this year AND we will run a better overall scheme for both our personnel and the teams we face.
Poker Porker

bennyl08

Quote from: The Kig on May 22, 2017, 10:13:53 am
Agreed...except the speed part.  I get what you're saying, but proper scheming can mask the speed differential.   Last season as an example, we lacked speed and CRS mistakenly decided not to scheme aggressively and it cost him his job.  If you bring one more than they can block, the QB might be able to get it to a receiver, throw it away (also a big play), take a sack or throw an INT.  Offensive mistakes happen due to blown assignments, your guy just beating their guy, or when the defense forces the action.  Giving the QB all day to throw gave opposing teams time to find the mismatch that we had in speed.  Run blitzes would have been a gamble depending on which side, but there would have been less edges to seal and the impact of an RB getting past the LBs into the secondary certainly (many huge plays given up last year) would be less likely or the same. 

I think we will be considerably more aggressive this year AND we will run a better overall scheme for both our personnel and the teams we face.

My speed part was mostly about covering mistakes from the aggression. You try and pressure the qb and it ends up being a run play, you no longer have gap control and will have have some speed to try and run back and tackle the RB. Press the receiver and get beat deep, you'll need speed to prevent the td.
Quote from: PorkSoda on May 05, 2016, 09:24:05 pm
damn I thought it was only a color, didn't realize it was named after a liqueur. leave it to benny to make me research the history of chartreuse

The Kig

Quote from: bennyl08 on May 22, 2017, 01:00:32 pm
My speed part was mostly about covering mistakes from the aggression. You try and pressure the qb and it ends up being a run play, you no longer have gap control and will have have some speed to try and run back and tackle the RB. Press the receiver and get beat deep, you'll need speed to prevent the td.

Ah, ok... then agree completely. 

Mine was mostly a function of masking speed deficiencies (like having a MLB chasing a slot receiver) with pressure, which likely would have given the QB less time to pick up on the wide open player. 
Poker Porker

Paul