Hogville Info
• 9,551,513 Posts
• 390,390 Topics
• 22,087 Hogvillians
THE RULES (Read 'em!)
Quick Links
Pick'Ems:Football      Basketball      Baseball
Sister Sites:Gridiron HistoryFearless Friday
Listen NOW:Game ON 103.3 
  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M  (Read 3132 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lakecityhog

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +71/-44
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 769
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net

I think that some may have some misconceptions about the Morris offense.

          SMU 2017
RUSHING
Yards Gained   2649   
Attempts      486   

PASSING
Att-Comp-Int        487-283-13   
Avg. Per Attempt   7.85   
Avg. Per Game     294.08   
Touchdowns         35   
Total   Yards         3823

TIME OF POSSESSION
Avg. Per Game   29:33

Everyone points to him being a Malzahn disciple and thinks that we will not hold onto the ball very much , but that is not what the HUNH is all about. Malzhan discussed this more than once, on the first series of any drive HUNH teams should run at a more normal pace UNTIL they get a 1st down. Once a 1st down is achieved then shift into the hyper-drive mode.

If you don't get a 1st down then you have used basically the same amount of time as any "normal" team, providing the same amount of defensive rest as a "normal" team. If you look at the stats above, taken directly from the SMU Athletics stats page, you can see that their TOP is pretty darned good. Maybe not what a guy like BB or Miles would like to have, but almost dead even with the opponent.

Plus you can see that for the season the number of rushing plays is basically identical to the number of passes thrown. Now, I do understand that this number does include sacks so there is a slight difference.(31 Sacks)

Chavis should have every opportunity to get his D off the field, ample time to make adjustments and just as much rest time as the opponent. IF Morris is able to install his scheme and be as successful as he was at SMU the offense won't be the problem if we have defensive issues!

(As an aside)Whaley, Hammonds, Hayden and Williams should be absolutely thrilled with the prospect of running against a defense that cannot afford to stack the box every down!
Logged

WaltonCollege

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +80/-496
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2018, 06:51:10 pm »

This is true but to play devils advocate he had a better pool of talent at ATM
Logged

Sponsored Ad



Hogville encourages you to do business with the following...

Hogindasticks

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +79/-383
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
  • Can't wait to get Cookin!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2018, 06:55:11 pm »

Only problem with this is that I see is that the faster you go, also the more the defense can be put back on the field quicker.
Logged

PorkSoda

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +3299/-4072
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 42,673
  • O_o
    • It's a Jeep thing...
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2018, 06:55:40 pm »

seems like people think you need to run the ball to give defenses a rest.  that isn't really true.  the play clock is the same whether the game clock is running or not.  secondly, if you want your defense to rest, then you need first downs.  whether you get those running or passing is again irrelevant.  TOP only counts game clock.  not actual time.  it seems obvious, but also seems like that point is often overlooked in this discussion.
Logged

PorkSoda

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +3299/-4072
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 42,673
  • O_o
    • It's a Jeep thing...
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2018, 06:57:46 pm »

Only problem with this is that I see is that the faster you go, also the more the defense can be put back on the field quicker.
no the faster you go 3 n out, the defense gets back on the field quicker.  as long as you are getting first downs, the defense is resting.  the HUNH is designed to keep the opposing defense from substituting and thus wearing out the opposing defense.  to pull it off,  you have to be able to run a variety of plays and formations from the same personnel group.
Logged

lakecityhog

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +71/-44
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 769
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2018, 07:04:09 pm »

That is why they don't normally speed up the action until they get a 1st down.

Yes, it matters because if you snap the ball with 29 seconds on the clock and then run another play at that same speed and then another you can actually run 3 plays in a minute or a maybe even less. But, if you run a play, huddle for 10 seconds, run another 10 seconds and so on you can actually stretch a 3 and out to well over 2 minutes before you even run the punt play.

The plus side of the HUNH is twofold, you tire the defense if you manage to get 2 or 3 first downs in a row and you also stress the defense by not allowing situational substitutions. As long as the O doesn't substitute the D can't without risking a penalty or a blown assignment.
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +9398/-9315
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,296
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2018, 07:08:10 pm »

I think that some may have some misconceptions about the Morris offense.

          SMU 2017
RUSHING
Yards Gained   2649   
Attempts      486   

PASSING
Att-Comp-Int        487-283-13   
Avg. Per Attempt   7.85   
Avg. Per Game     294.08   
Touchdowns         35   
Total   Yards         3823

TIME OF POSSESSION
Avg. Per Game   29:33

Everyone points to him being a Malzahn disciple and thinks that we will not hold onto the ball very much , but that is not what the HUNH is all about. Malzhan discussed this more than once, on the first series of any drive HUNH teams should run at a more normal pace UNTIL they get a 1st down. Once a 1st down is achieved then shift into the hyper-drive mode.

If you don't get a 1st down then you have used basically the same amount of time as any "normal" team, providing the same amount of defensive rest as a "normal" team. If you look at the stats above, taken directly from the SMU Athletics stats page, you can see that their TOP is pretty darned good. Maybe not what a guy like BB or Miles would like to have, but almost dead even with the opponent.

Plus you can see that for the season the number of rushing plays is basically identical to the number of passes thrown. Now, I do understand that this number does include sacks so there is a slight difference.(31 Sacks)

Chavis should have every opportunity to get his D off the field, ample time to make adjustments and just as much rest time as the opponent. IF Morris is able to install his scheme and be as successful as he was at SMU the offense won't be the problem if we have defensive issues!

(As an aside)Whaley, Hammonds, Hayden and Williams should be absolutely thrilled with the prospect of running against a defense that cannot afford to stack the box every down!

I just posted this in another thread.

2017 SMU Offense
5.7 Off Plays/Drive, 36.2 Yds/Drive, 6.4 Yds/Play, 2:14 P/Drive, 13.2 Drives/Gm (no garbage time drives...kneeling at end of half or at end of game).

In comparison to what Chavis' defense had to deal with at A&M with their offense:

2017 A&M Offense
5.2 Off Plays/Drive, 28.7 Yds/Drive, 5.5 Yds/Play, 2:04 P/Drive, 14.2 Drives/Gm (same as above, no garbage time drives included).

I don't expect Chavis to work miracles with our defense but I am pretty sure that he will scheme to create pressure up front on opposing offenses. He and Morris share the same opinion about the need for speed and athleticism on both sides of the ball. If the Secondary can improve (and we have some talent back there) they are going to get more help next season than last by a front 7 that dials up more pressure.

The key for the offense to be able to help the defense will be sustaining drives, regardless of the amount of time that it takes them to snap the ball between plays.

It will be interesting to see the team that they put on the field next August.
Logged

PorkSoda

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +3299/-4072
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 42,673
  • O_o
    • It's a Jeep thing...
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2018, 07:17:05 pm »

That is why they don't normally speed up the action until they get a 1st down.

Yes, it matters because if you snap the ball with 29 seconds on the clock and then run another play at that same speed and then another you can actually run 3 plays in a minute or a maybe even less. But, if you run a play, huddle for 10 seconds, run another 10 seconds and so on you can actually stretch a 3 and out to well over 2 minutes before you even run the punt play.

The plus side of the HUNH is twofold, you tire the defense if you manage to get 2 or 3 first downs in a row and you also stress the defense by not allowing situational substitutions. As long as the O doesn't substitute the D can't without risking a penalty or a blown assignment.
true, but my point is that going conservative and running it up the middle 3 times neither runs much clock nor gives much rest for your defense.  if you want to do that, you gotta get first downs.  to get first downs you have to keep the defense on their heels with creative/aggressive play calling.
Logged

HogHomer

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Karma: +151/-230
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,680
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2018, 07:18:50 pm »

I just posted this in another thread.

2017 SMU Offense
5.7 Off Plays/Drive, 36.2 Yds/Drive, 6.4 Yds/Play, 2:14 P/Drive, 13.2 Drives/Gm (no garbage time drives...kneeling at end of half or at end of game).

In comparison to what Chavis' defense had to deal with at A&M with their offense:

2017 A&M Offense
5.2 Off Plays/Drive, 28.7 Yds/Drive, 5.5 Yds/Play, 2:04 P/Drive, 14.2 Drives/Gm (same as above, no garbage time drives included).

I don't expect Chavis to work miracles with our defense but I am pretty sure that he will scheme to create pressure up front on opposing offenses. He and Morris share the same opinion about the need for speed and athleticism on both sides of the ball. If the Secondary can improve (and we have some talent back there) they are going to get more help next season than last by a front 7 that dials up more pressure.

The key for the offense to be able to help the defense will be sustaining drives, regardless of the amount of time that it takes them to snap the ball between plays.

It will be interesting to see the team that they put on the field next August.
When was the last time Arkansas had a coach committed to pressure defense. I know what's said and what's done are two different thing but I believe that is this staffs philosophy. I'm excited at the prospect of an exciting opportunistic defense over a strictly bend don't break defense.
Logged

King Kong

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +523/-430
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,258
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2018, 07:20:43 pm »

Aggie are going to Aggie. Thatís why
Logged

Kevin

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +4630/-4466
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21,442
  • Trust in the Lord with all your heart
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2018, 07:22:23 pm »

Maybe a big difference will be Morris will run a more discipline program than sumlin did
Logged

jgphillips3

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +1500/-1041
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10,992
  • Life is too short for bad beer.
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2018, 07:28:38 pm »

Maybe a big difference will be Morris will run a more discipline program than sumlin did

This is exactly why I think Chavis will have more Tennessee like results here than A&M type results.  Iím going with his Tennessee time rather than talent rich LSU because their recruiting is more or less like ours (especially the paucity of high level in State recruits) or at least much more so than LSU was. 
Logged

Hogwild

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +175/-264
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2,969
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2018, 07:33:00 pm »

I hope he is more successful than at A&M, because they weren't that successful.  We need to get a defense like he had at his other 2 SEC stops.

Quote
2017

Total defense: 408.5 yards/game (No. 78 nationally, No. 9 SEC)


2016

Total defense: 441.8 yards/game (No. 90 nationally, No. 10 SEC)
Logged

DeltaBoy

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +12137/-13155
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 68,403
  • I'm Un-Reconstructed. Sic semper tyrannis
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2018, 07:33:43 pm »

This is true but to play devils advocate he had a better pool of talent at ATM

Texas has better talent every year yet has not won much since Colt McCoy and Radio.
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +9398/-9315
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,296
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2018, 07:39:22 pm »

When was the last time Arkansas had a coach committed to pressure defense. I know what's said and what's done are two different thing but I believe that is this staffs philosophy. I'm excited at the prospect of an exciting opportunistic defense over a strictly bend don't break defense.

I agree. You probably don't hire this guy and tell him that he can't build and scheme for an aggressive front 7.

2017   A&M   Team Sacks-#2      TFL-#34
2016   A&M   Team Sacks-#14      TFL-#4
2015   A&M   Team Sacks-#26      TFL-#3
2014   LSU   Team Sacks-#102      TFL-#64
2013   LSU   Team Sacks-#59      TFL-#94
2012   LSU   Team Sacks-#19      TFL-#22
2011   LSU   Team Sacks-#14      TFL-#11
2010   LSU   Team Sacks-#17      TFL-#22
2009   LSU   Team Sacks-#87      TFL-#41
Logged

Hogindasticks

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +79/-383
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
  • Can't wait to get Cookin!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2018, 07:42:47 pm »

seems like people think you need to run the ball to give defenses a rest.  that isn't really true.  the play clock is the same whether the game clock is running or not.  secondly, if you want your defense to rest, then you need first downs.  whether you get those running or passing is again irrelevant.  TOP only counts game clock.  not actual time.  it seems obvious, but also seems like that point is often overlooked in this discussion.

Clock stops on incomplete passes.
Logged

Pig in the Pokey

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +1676/-4662
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 21,169
  • Roastin da bomb in Fayettenam.
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2018, 07:46:10 pm »

This is true but to play devils advocate he had a better pool of talent at ATM
WOE IS ME!! How on Earth did ARKANSAS EVER GET THAT 41-30 ALL TIME SERIES LEAD i WONDER!
Logged

King Kong

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +523/-430
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,258
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2018, 07:51:27 pm »

When was the last time Arkansas had a coach committed to pressure defense. I know what's said and what's done are two different thing but I believe that is this staffs philosophy. I'm excited at the prospect of an exciting opportunistic defense over a strictly bend don't break defense.

Agreed. Iím tried of that Bend AND Break Defense we has see the last 3 years
Logged

Jek Tono Porkins

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +1667/-3314
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 11,666
  • Defense Wins Championships
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2018, 07:55:21 pm »

His first season at A&M was stellar. With the exception of Bama, all the losses were pretty much the offense's fault. Besides Bama, the team scored 3, 10, and 7 points in their conference losses and 21 in the bowl game. The next few seasons not so much but I wonder if he just didn't say "Screw it, this joint is a dumpster fire."

I expect immediate improvement seeing as how he is still one of the premier d-coordinators in the game. But this staff doesn't strike me as an obvious dumpster fire just yet. I'm in wait and see mode.
Logged

PorkSoda

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +3299/-4072
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 42,673
  • O_o
    • It's a Jeep thing...
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2018, 08:35:38 pm »

Clock stops on incomplete passes.
time doesn't stop though. that is the point.

if you want to keep your offense on the field and your defense resting, you gotta get first downs.  that is the primary factor, IMO.

running a few seconds off the play clock is nice and all, but getting a first down is the goal first and foremost.  if you do that, the clock will take care of itself.
Logged

pigbacon

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +217/-172
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1,462
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2018, 08:48:08 pm »

I agree. You probably don't hire this guy and tell him that he can't build and scheme for an aggressive front 7.

2017   A&M   Team Sacks-#2              TFL-#34
2016   A&M   Team Sacks-#14      TFL-#4
2015   A&M   Team Sacks-#26      TFL-#3
2014   LSU   Team Sacks-#102      TFL-#64
2013   LSU   Team Sacks-#59      TFL-#94
2012   LSU   Team Sacks-#19      TFL-#22
2011   LSU   Team Sacks-#14      TFL-#11
2010   LSU   Team Sacks-#17      TFL-#22
2009   LSU   Team Sacks-#87      TFL-#41

Not sure if it means anything, but wanted to see how front 7 pressure correlates to interceptions. Then I expanded on fumbles...the numbers on fumbles had a larger delta between UA/A&M than the interceptions. Maybe that speaks to the physicality of Chavis defenses, or maybe it doesnít mean anything. I did, however, anticipate seeing a wider margin of INTís.

This could be greatly expanded upon, but I just wanted to catch a glimpse to see what shows.


Interceptions
2017   A&M   - 10 ARK - 8
2016   A&M   - 12 ARK - 9
2015   A&M   - 11 ARK - 11

Forced Fumbles
2017   A&M   - 18 ARK - 12
2016   A&M   - 15 ARK - 14
2015   A&M   - 18 ARK - 8
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +9398/-9315
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,296
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2018, 08:54:23 pm »

Not sure if it means anything, but wanted to see how front 7 pressure correlates to interceptions. Then I expanded on fumbles...the numbers on fumbles had a larger delta between UA/A&M than the interceptions. Maybe that speaks to the physicality of Chavis defenses, or maybe it doesnít mean anything. I did, however, anticipate seeing a wider margin of INTís.

This could be greatly expanded upon, but I just wanted to catch a glimpse to see what shows.


Interceptions
2017   A&M   - 10 ARK - 8
2016   A&M   - 12 ARK - 9
2015   A&M   - 11 ARK - 11

Forced Fumbles
2017   A&M   - 18 ARK - 12
2016   A&M   - 15 ARK - 14
2015   A&M   - 18 ARK - 8

Those are good points.
Logged

RockyMtnHog

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +109/-115
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 692
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2018, 09:14:13 pm »

I just hope that we beat the snot out of Colorado State.  That game is my first Razorback game in person in over 40 years.  Living in Colorado, we do not get to see the Hogs in person very often.
Logged

Hoggish1

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +2051/-2538
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 20,596
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2018, 09:35:52 pm »

This is true but to play devils advocate he had a better pool of talent at ATM

No, that's just a mirage.  Think about those overtime failures and you can easily say the teams were pretty much even in talent.
Logged

redeye

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +1564/-1133
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,085
  • Go Hogs Go!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2018, 09:39:20 pm »

This is true but to play devils advocate he had a better pool of talent at ATM

So would any other DC we could have hired.

If you look at the stats above, taken directly from the SMU Athletics stats page, you can see that their TOP is pretty darned good. Maybe not what a guy like BB or Miles would like to have, but almost dead even with the opponent.

IIRC, his TOP was better in his first 2 years at SMU and they actually held the ball for more time than their opponents.  At Clemson, it started out bad when he first arrived, but was great in the year he left and has been ever since.  I have a feeling that Morris respects TOP, even while running the HUNH.
Logged

FtWorthAg15

  • Walk-On
  • *
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2018, 09:42:14 pm »

Just wanted to drop in as an Ag and give a few thoughts on Chavis. Mostly because I really appreciate feedback from other fanbases when we take their coaches. I skimmed this thread and some others but I will admit I haven't read it all so I may re-tread some ground by mistake.

Basically, I would have been fine keeping Chavis under Jimbo. I'm convinced that most of our issues were systemic to Sumlin not a Chavis problem.

That said, Chavis has his pros and cons. I will start with the pros:

1. A&M immediately tackled better; especially in space. This scheme gives spread teams that want to throw the ball fits. Spread schemes like Malzahn's or Mullen's which are predicated on running the ball don't have as much issue with the scheme but it can be effective against those too.

2. Sacks and Fumbles, lots of them. This is a pressure scheme that works to force the offense to make mistakes. And there is a huge emphasis on stripping the ball. It pays off. Interceptions will come but those have more to do with QBs making bad decisions and, by and large in the SEC West, coaches tend to keep QBs on a short leash so not many INTs are thrown period.

3. Young guys can play early. Chavis can get more complex if he has upperclassmen, especially in the back end. However, he really doesn't have a complicated scheme. He plays a lot of press man at corner. And he blitzes his DBs a lot.

Cons:

1. DEs are going to rush up field on passing downs. That is going to open up running lanes. Its not a super gap-sound approach and it puts a ton of pressure on the LBs to position themselves well to close things up. Same applies for the interior guys when Chavis runs twists to create pressure.

2. Base defense is essentially Nickel. Lots of speed but you give up size. It can create problems against teams like LSU.

3. He is always the aggressor. Sometimes he will gamble when its not worth the risk. There is little benefit to a big sack when you are up by 17 midway thru the 4th. But Chavis will still blitz and leave a freshman CB in man coverage with no safety help and give up a TD in that spot.

The biggest problem A&M has had the last 2 years has been staying on the field offensively. In 2016, A&M ran more plays on defense than anyone in the SEC. And A&M really hasn't outclassed Arkansas talent wise on the defensive side of the football other than a few elite talents (Garrett, Hall, Watts). Most of the talent disparity has shown up on the offensive side of the ball, at least IMO.
Logged

redeye

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +1564/-1133
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,085
  • Go Hogs Go!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2018, 09:55:39 pm »

Just wanted to drop in as an Ag and give a few thoughts on Chavis. Mostly because I really appreciate feedback from other fanbases when we take their coaches. I skimmed this thread and some others but I will admit I haven't read it all so I may re-tread some ground by mistake.

Thanks for the input!

The only questions I have are if we have the linebackers and the depth for the more complex schemes.
Logged

bennyl08

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +1601/-3895
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,685
  • Ever since the war I've had a drinking problem
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2018, 09:57:30 pm »

1. TOP used to be a good proxy for defensive rest, but in today's game doesn't always tell the story. For example, let's say you have a game with a HUNH team and a pro-style team that wants to run the clock. The game ends with the HUNH team having the ball for 20 minutes while the pro-style has the ball for 40 minutes. It is very possible the HUNH defense only had to defend say 56 plays (averaging 43 seconds from snap to snap with a say 5 seconds for the play and running the play clock to 38/40 seconds). In contrast, the pro-style defense could be defending for 80 plays in that same game with 5 seconds for the play, and 15 seconds to line up and run the next play.

In a game of 50/50 possession, under those same scenarios, 15 seconds snap to snap for the hurry up and 43 for the pro-style, that leads to 120 defensive plays for the pro style defense and only 42 for the HUNH because while both defenses are on the field for the same amount of time, one defense is having to constantly get ready for the next play while the other is getting nearly 40 seconds of rest b/w each play.

2. Musk, where'd you get those stats??? That is some super useful stuff there man. Well done. Soda brings up some good points about needing first downs and the difference b/w real time and game time. However, your stats suggest, by my interpretation, that Chavis will face the same struggles here as he did at aTm as the differences in the numbers you post seem negligible to me. A key factor here is the average time of the offensive drive. Doesn't matter if you get 8 first downs per drive, if you are only taking 2 minutes per drive, then the defense is going to be back out on the field. Further, with the HUNH, game time converges on real time. 2 minutes of game time under a HUNH may only take 4 min of real time while under a pro-style may take 8 minutes of real time.

3. I was curious about the run vs pass splits. Not sure where OP got his stats, but in general, college football includes sacks as running plays. When you look at the box score, qb sacks are listed as run plays in contrast to the NFL where only qb carries that aren't sacks are included. Secondly, going back through his history, he typically favors the run over the pass.

2017: 37.5 pass attempts per game, 37.4 rush attempts
2016: 38.0-39.8
2015: 30.5-41.9

2014: 34.7-41.5
2013: 37.9-41.8
2012: 36.5-45.2
2011: 37.5-37.9 (the only other year where it is quite close to even)

2010: 36.1-41.3

For those saying he's a pass only guy, the stats don't bear that out. Heck, his first year as a HC was nearly a 12 play per game differential favoring the run.

As the OP mentioned, you do need to factor sacks as called pass plays which this analysis does not. But, heck, even if he's giving up 3 sacks per game, that's still favoring the run more often than the pass. Further, when you factor in RPO's, the play call is simultaneously a run and a pass play to be determined in situ. Schroedingers play if you will (for those who read the NFL forum, yes, I'm repurposing my joke about the catch rule in the NFL being schroedinger's rule... sue me).
Logged

rtr

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-180
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,292
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2018, 10:17:31 pm »

Just wanted to drop in as an Ag and give a few thoughts on Chavis. Mostly because I really appreciate feedback from other fanbases when we take their coaches. I skimmed this thread and some others but I will admit I haven't read it all so I may re-tread some ground by mistake.

Basically, I would have been fine keeping Chavis under Jimbo. I'm convinced that most of our issues were systemic to Sumlin not a Chavis problem.

That said, Chavis has his pros and cons. I will start with the pros:

1. A&M immediately tackled better; especially in space. This scheme gives spread teams that want to throw the ball fits. Spread schemes like Malzahn's or Mullen's which are predicated on running the ball don't have as much issue with the scheme but it can be effective against those too.

2. Sacks and Fumbles, lots of them. This is a pressure scheme that works to force the offense to make mistakes. And there is a huge emphasis on stripping the ball. It pays off. Interceptions will come but those have more to do with QBs making bad decisions and, by and large in the SEC West, coaches tend to keep QBs on a short leash so not many INTs are thrown period.

3. Young guys can play early. Chavis can get more complex if he has upperclassmen, especially in the back end. However, he really doesn't have a complicated scheme. He plays a lot of press man at corner. And he blitzes his DBs a lot.

Cons:

1. DEs are going to rush up field on passing downs. That is going to open up running lanes. Its not a super gap-sound approach and it puts a ton of pressure on the LBs to position themselves well to close things up. Same applies for the interior guys when Chavis runs twists to create pressure.

2. Base defense is essentially Nickel. Lots of speed but you give up size. It can create problems against teams like LSU.

3. He is always the aggressor. Sometimes he will gamble when its not worth the risk. There is little benefit to a big sack when you are up by 17 midway thru the 4th. But Chavis will still blitz and leave a freshman CB in man coverage with no safety help and give up a TD in that spot.

The biggest problem A&M has had the last 2 years has been staying on the field offensively. In 2016, A&M ran more plays on defense than anyone in the SEC. And A&M really hasn't outclassed Arkansas talent wise on the defensive side of the football other than a few elite talents (Garrett, Hall, Watts). Most of the talent disparity has shown up on the offensive side of the ball, at least IMO.
Appreciate the input.  May the best team win in Jerry's World.
Logged

bennyl08

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +1601/-3895
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,685
  • Ever since the war I've had a drinking problem
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2018, 10:18:45 pm »

The biggest problem A&M has had the last 2 years has been staying on the field offensively. In 2016, A&M ran more plays on defense than anyone in the SEC. And A&M really hasn't outclassed Arkansas talent wise on the defensive side of the football other than a few elite talents (Garrett, Hall, Watts). Most of the talent disparity has shown up on the offensive side of the ball, at least IMO.

Good stuff and appreciate the post. Deleted all but the last bit for room purposes and as I'm only responding to the last bit (other than appreciation for the rest).

I was surprised when crunching the numbers that, at least in the eyes of the NFL, Arkansas has had more NFL talent overall than the aggies.

From 07-16, Arkansas had 37 total draft picks to the aggies 25. In looking at the last 5 years (12-16) it is 22-16 in Arkansas favor. That was all starting from a year ago though. Looking from 08-17, the total changes to 36-30 still in Arkansas' favor and 21-17 which is still in Arkansas favor. Albeit slightly less so.

The big difference in terms of total numbers has been high round draft picks. Arkansas has been deep with talent but lacking the elite players. Aggies have been relatively shallow in talent, but the talent they do have, have been elite.

Don't think I've broken it down in terms of offense-defense though, so I'll do that now and since I'm not using old data, this will just be for the past decade and 5 years (i.e. not from 07-16 and 12-16 but the actual last decade and 5 years of data).

For Arkansas, 27-8-1 in terms of offense-defense-special teams for the past decade. 18-11-1 in terms of offense-defense-special teams. So, at least in the decadal sense, we've had more offensive talent than you by 9 picks while you guys have us beat by 3 picks in terms of defensive players. Looking at just the past 5 years, we are 13-7-1 while the aggies are 11-6. So, we still have had more overall offensive and defensive talent than you guys over the past 5 years in the eyes of the NFL, but you are closer to us in defense than offense.

Again though, despite Arkansas having more talent overall, most of our talent has been later rounds while the aggies fewer NFL talented players have been more in the higher rounds.
Logged

OneTuskOverTheLineô

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +2304/-2203
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 13,678
  • One tusk over the line sweet Jesus...
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2018, 11:05:31 pm »

no the faster you go 3 n out, the defense gets back on the field quicker.  as long as you are getting first downs, the defense is resting.  the HUNH is designed to keep the opposing defense from substituting and thus wearing out the opposing defense.  to pull it off,  you have to be able to run a variety of plays and formations from the same personnel group.

 What he said above, plus run your first 3 downs on each possession at the same rate as everyone else. You speed up AFTER the 1st first down...
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +9398/-9315
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,296
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2018, 06:07:21 am »

1. TOP used to be a good proxy for defensive rest, but in today's game doesn't always tell the story. For example, let's say you have a game with a HUNH team and a pro-style team that wants to run the clock. The game ends with the HUNH team having the ball for 20 minutes while the pro-style has the ball for 40 minutes. It is very possible the HUNH defense only had to defend say 56 plays (averaging 43 seconds from snap to snap with a say 5 seconds for the play and running the play clock to 38/40 seconds). In contrast, the pro-style defense could be defending for 80 plays in that same game with 5 seconds for the play, and 15 seconds to line up and run the next play.

In a game of 50/50 possession, under those same scenarios, 15 seconds snap to snap for the hurry up and 43 for the pro-style, that leads to 120 defensive plays for the pro style defense and only 42 for the HUNH because while both defenses are on the field for the same amount of time, one defense is having to constantly get ready for the next play while the other is getting nearly 40 seconds of rest b/w each play.

2. Musk, where'd you get those stats??? That is some super useful stuff there man. Well done. Soda brings up some good points about needing first downs and the difference b/w real time and game time. However, your stats suggest, by my interpretation, that Chavis will face the same struggles here as he did at aTm as the differences in the numbers you post seem negligible to me. A key factor here is the average time of the offensive drive. Doesn't matter if you get 8 first downs per drive, if you are only taking 2 minutes per drive, then the defense is going to be back out on the field. Further, with the HUNH, game time converges on real time. 2 minutes of game time under a HUNH may only take 4 min of real time while under a pro-style may take 8 minutes of real time.


Looking at Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, UCF, Clemson, Wisconsin, Auburn and Oklahoma (all double digit win teams) it seems that at least one thing that they all had in common was that the net difference in yards gained p/play on offense to that allowed on defense was at least +1.5 yds. To me this might be a bigger factor than TOP or whether you run a HUNH/Spread or Pro Style of offense. However you get there, if you want to win a lot of games, make sure the net difference in yards p/play is 1.5 yards or more.

As an example, look at Oklahoma's defense this year. They gave up an average of 5.8 yds/play. A&M's defense gave up 5.6 yds/play. The difference was that Oklahoma's offense averaged 8.3 yds/play while A&M's averaged 5.5 yds/play so that put their net yards/play difference at +2.5 (Okla) to -1.0 (A&M). A more dynamic offense can take a lot of pressure off of a defense that doesn't have to be top 25 to help contribute to wins. Oklahoma's defense ranked #67 in total defense at the time that I put this information together.
Logged

HoggyCat

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +369/-884
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3,570
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2018, 06:59:01 am »

no the faster you go 3 n out, the defense gets back on the field quicker.  as long as you are getting first downs, the defense is resting.  the HUNH is designed to keep the opposing defense from substituting and thus wearing out the opposing defense.  to pull it off,  you have to be able to run a variety of plays and formations from the same personnel group.

Another misconception about the HUNH is going deep.....  the whole premise of hurrying up is keeping everything within 10-15 yards so you can get lined up quicker.  If youíre throwing 20+ yards downfield, the line & qb have to catch up. And in the event of an incompletion, which is more likely with downfield passes, the clock stops and time is taken for the downfield players to get back to the LOS.
Logged

Mike Irwin

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +6444/-559
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,277
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2018, 04:29:03 pm »

Maybe a big difference will be Morris will run a more discipline program than sumlin did
Excellent point. By all accounts the lockerroom under Sumlin was a disaster. Too much complaining. Players breaking off into groups and taking sides aginst each other. Hard to coach in a situation like that.
Logged

FutureMan

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Karma: +38/-67
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 269
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2018, 04:35:43 pm »

Just wanted to drop in as an Ag and give a few thoughts on Chavis. Mostly because I really appreciate feedback from other fanbases when we take their coaches. I skimmed this thread and some others but I will admit I haven't read it all so I may re-tread some ground by mistake.

Basically, I would have been fine keeping Chavis under Jimbo. I'm convinced that most of our issues were systemic to Sumlin not a Chavis problem.

That said, Chavis has his pros and cons. I will start with the pros:

1. A&M immediately tackled better; especially in space. This scheme gives spread teams that want to throw the ball fits. Spread schemes like Malzahn's or Mullen's which are predicated on running the ball don't have as much issue with the scheme but it can be effective against those too.

2. Sacks and Fumbles, lots of them. This is a pressure scheme that works to force the offense to make mistakes. And there is a huge emphasis on stripping the ball. It pays off. Interceptions will come but those have more to do with QBs making bad decisions and, by and large in the SEC West, coaches tend to keep QBs on a short leash so not many INTs are thrown period.

3. Young guys can play early. Chavis can get more complex if he has upperclassmen, especially in the back end. However, he really doesn't have a complicated scheme. He plays a lot of press man at corner. And he blitzes his DBs a lot.

Cons:

1. DEs are going to rush up field on passing downs. That is going to open up running lanes. Its not a super gap-sound approach and it puts a ton of pressure on the LBs to position themselves well to close things up. Same applies for the interior guys when Chavis runs twists to create pressure.

2. Base defense is essentially Nickel. Lots of speed but you give up size. It can create problems against teams like LSU.

3. He is always the aggressor. Sometimes he will gamble when its not worth the risk. There is little benefit to a big sack when you are up by 17 midway thru the 4th. But Chavis will still blitz and leave a freshman CB in man coverage with no safety help and give up a TD in that spot.

The biggest problem A&M has had the last 2 years has been staying on the field offensively. In 2016, A&M ran more plays on defense than anyone in the SEC. And A&M really hasn't outclassed Arkansas talent wise on the defensive side of the football other than a few elite talents (Garrett, Hall, Watts). Most of the talent disparity has shown up on the offensive side of the ball, at least IMO.

Some good notes.  Thanks for posting.
Logged

Hog Fan...DOH!

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +422/-391
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,084
  • Your site for Razorback news.
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2018, 05:39:02 pm »

Good stuff and appreciate the post. Deleted all but the last bit for room purposes and as I'm only responding to the last bit (other than appreciation for the rest).

I was surprised when crunching the numbers that, at least in the eyes of the NFL, Arkansas has had more NFL talent overall than the aggies.

From 07-16, Arkansas had 37 total draft picks to the aggies 25. In looking at the last 5 years (12-16) it is 22-16 in Arkansas favor. That was all starting from a year ago though. Looking from 08-17, the total changes to 36-30 still in Arkansas' favor and 21-17 which is still in Arkansas favor. Albeit slightly less so.

The big difference in terms of total numbers has been high round draft picks. Arkansas has been deep with talent but lacking the elite players. Aggies have been relatively shallow in talent, but the talent they do have, have been elite.

Don't think I've broken it down in terms of offense-defense though, so I'll do that now and since I'm not using old data, this will just be for the past decade and 5 years (i.e. not from 07-16 and 12-16 but the actual last decade and 5 years of data).

For Arkansas, 27-8-1 in terms of offense-defense-special teams for the past decade. 18-11-1 in terms of offense-defense-special teams. So, at least in the decadal sense, we've had more offensive talent than you by 9 picks while you guys have us beat by 3 picks in terms of defensive players. Looking at just the past 5 years, we are 13-7-1 while the aggies are 11-6. So, we still have had more overall offensive and defensive talent than you guys over the past 5 years in the eyes of the NFL, but you are closer to us in defense than offense.

Again though, despite Arkansas having more talent overall, most of our talent has been later rounds while the aggies fewer NFL talented players have been more in the higher rounds.

It's almost unconscionable that CBB lost 5 in a row.  It's also unconscionable that there's no such thing as a "draft" ranking-- wouldn't it be a more useful indication of program "talent" to see what's leaving vs. what's coming in? 
Logged

Hoggish1

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +2051/-2538
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 20,596
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2018, 06:03:54 pm »

Agreed. Iím tried of that Bend AND Break Defense we has see the last 3 years

With our "bend but don't break" philosopxhxy, sweet sure gave up a lot of long Tds. I to am ready for an attacking D!
Logged

bennyl08

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +1601/-3895
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,685
  • Ever since the war I've had a drinking problem
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2018, 06:39:48 pm »

It's almost unconscionable that CBB lost 5 in a row.  It's also unconscionable that there's no such thing as a "draft" ranking-- wouldn't it be a more useful indication of program "talent" to see what's leaving vs. what's coming in?

That largely goes to his poor game day coaching and a major reason he had to go.

However, the two teams have largely been neck and neck since the Petrino years. We've played them 9 years in a row now. Of those 9 games, 7 of them have been within 7 points in the 4th quarter and 3 of the last 4 have gone into overtime. The only two games where the teams weren't very close were the first year we played them and whooped them and in 2012 under smiley where they whooped us. Even when winning under Petrino, the games were still one possession games in the fourth quarter save for 2009. The biggest difference has been coaching.

As for talent and a "draft" ranking, it isn't as straightforward as it may look. If one team had 3 first round draft picks and no other players drafted, and another team has 5 players drafted, but none in the top 3 rounds, which team is more talented? You can try a weighted system where a first round pick is worth more than a 7th and that will be a bit more accurate, but still doesn't tell the whole story. I mean, a LB group of Ellis, Nelson, and Franklin would be a heckuva LB group but none were drafted, though all made NFL teams. Compare that to a group of Say Rassner, Lake, and Mitchell and that's a way worse LB group. Though just looking at draft picks, those two would be equivalent. However, there isn't a super easy way to compare udfa signings and particularly those that at least made practice squads.
Logged

TennesseeVol

  • Walk-On
  • *
  • Karma: +2/-19
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2018, 07:31:05 pm »

I couldn't believe Third and Chavis landed a DC job higher than Pee Wee Football. Do you mean he will do better than A&M at giving games away? We threw a revolt to get rid of his infamously soft mustang defense. I think the fans here at Tennessee, LSU and A&M would riot if any of these schools rehired him.

Really feel sorry for you. NO LEAD is large enough that he can't give the game away. You will see.
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +9398/-9315
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,296
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2018, 07:34:40 pm »

I couldn't believe Third and Chavis landed a DC job higher than Pee Wee Football. Do you mean he will do better than A&M at giving games away? We threw a revolt to get rid of his infamously soft mustang defense. I think the fans here at Tennessee, LSU and A&M would riot if any of these schools rehired him.

Really feel sorry for you. NO LEAD is large enough that he can't give the game away. You will see.

That is really a butt-hurt kind of statement that is devoid of facts and chock full of opinion. The man isn't perfect, but he has been pretty good at producing aggressive front 7's.
Logged

Hogindasticks

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +79/-383
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
  • Can't wait to get Cookin!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2018, 07:43:32 pm »

I think all the OKies are upset cause we fixin to take all their recruits...lol
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +9398/-9315
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,296
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2018, 08:26:34 pm »

I think all the OKies are upset cause we fixin to take all their recruits...lol

That's a silly statement. Based on what? Idle chatter? Hopefully we will make inroads in Oklahoma but the prime focus will be Texas.
Logged

Hogindasticks

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Karma: +79/-383
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
  • Can't wait to get Cookin!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2018, 08:36:56 pm »

That's a silly statement. Based on what? Idle chatter? Hopefully we will make inroads in Oklahoma but the prime focus will be Texas.

Good Luck!   SEC SEC SEC!
Logged

oldhawg

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +381/-260
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,075
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2018, 08:52:44 pm »

I couldn't believe Third and Chavis landed a DC job higher than Pee Wee Football. Do you mean he will do better than A&M at giving games away? We threw a revolt to get rid of his infamously soft mustang defense. I think the fans here at Tennessee, LSU and A&M would riot if any of these schools rehired him.

Really feel sorry for you. NO LEAD is large enough that he can't give the game away. You will see.

And yet Tennessee kept him employed as a coach for twenty years (thirteen years as DC).  If what you say is true, then I'm not concerned about any more hires Tennessee makes.
Logged

pigtrino

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Karma: +16/-59
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 224
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2018, 10:20:59 pm »

Maybe a big difference will be Morris will run a more discipline program than sumlin did

The psychology of team and culture is way undervalued.  Easy explanation for a P5 team slipping by, or even losing to, a poor G5/FCS team. How can great talent look really poor?

 This book references great studies on the topic: https://www.peakperformancebook.net
Logged

opineonswine

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +1439/-1771
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,752
  • Go Hogs!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2018, 10:25:43 pm »

I couldn't believe Third and Chavis landed a DC job higher than Pee Wee Football. Do you mean he will do better than A&M at giving games away? We threw a revolt to get rid of his infamously soft mustang defense. I think the fans here at Tennessee, LSU and A&M would riot if any of these schools rehired him.

Really feel sorry for you. NO LEAD is large enough that he can't give the game away. You will see.

wahhhh....from a team worse than Arkansas. 
Logged

ballz2thewall

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +139/-416
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2,431
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2018, 09:09:44 am »

this is the result of some homework i did several years ago. clemson and auburn were among the test subjects. the analysis from that was applied to analyze bama v. ohio state. it's relevant to this convo, somewhat. forgive the repost/repeat.

______________________________________________


Here's a writeup i did after the 2014 season, specifically focusing on the 2015 sugar bowl [bama/osu] as a case study. it's sorta relevant to this discussion. this was an email to a pal, and i may have posted it on HV. can't recall.

______________________________________________


Finer points regarding defense and stamina.

Time of possession is huge in football.  Here, the focus is on defense. 

The defensive front is the most physically demanding part of the game. This is where stamina is first noticed.  The concept of seconds-in-effort is extremely important. 

I have an old friend that is a D1 DC.  Heís coached DC in the SEC and elsewhere.  I got this comparison from him years ago.  Heís not my closest friend, but we do visit on occasion. I see him on holidays and hunting trips. We always talk shop.  He was a salty head-hunter in high school and college; too small for big time though. Hereís some of what he explained it to me years ago.  Iíve refined it with other studying, etc.

Compare to a known physical effort:  Overhead press with walking lunges. This is a fair representation to what the DL does each play on an average. Press 1/2max and walk 5 lunges. To simplify, convert the 5 lunges into 5 seconds.  Each second is a 1/2max overhead press and single lunge step.

Trainers know what this means.  The amount of weight in the press influences how many lunges one can do.  The number of lunges influences how much weight can be pressed. 

Each second-in-effort mounts up.  Two efforts of 6 seconds is much more demanding than two of 4.

IT IS ONLY SECONDS.  Yes; but it is under extreme effort.

Consider last nights Sugar Bowl and a few stats.  Itís not the entire picture but it is illustrative.  Again, this is focusing on defense.

Bama had 5 scoring drives that averaged 1:46
OSU had 6 scoring drives that averaged 2:54.

in scoring drives alone the difference is telling. Bamaís defense had more than double the seconds in effort than OSU.

Bamaís total scoring time was 8:50 to OSU's  17:24.
So, for scoring time-of-possession, Bama played two games to OSUís one.

Non scoring time of possession was:
Bama 19:51
OSU 13:55

Bama averaged 1:475 per drive.
OSU averaged 2:06 per drive.

Per quarter time of possession and offensive scores are:
   Bama         OSU
1   6:11      14      8:49      6
2   5:12      7      9:48      14
3   7:36      7      7:24      7   7 interception return
4   9:21      7      5:39      8

1. Bama scored quick with 14 points, but very little clock time in the first quarter.  OSU score half as much but kept Bamaís defense on the field for 218 more seconds of effort.
2. Points to OSU 2:1. Bama defense has 276 more seconds-in-effort.
3. Dead heat on time, but OSU has points.
4. Bama wins the time, but OSU scores.

Some reasonable conclusions are possible.

The first half was good to Bamaís offense, but itís defense was pushed with extra effort because of the clock time in OSUís favor.  The scores were one point apart, so basically even.

At the end of the half, OSUís defense is more rested than Bama.  It should therefore play closer to itís maximum than Bama.  The last two quarters bear this out with the clock time and the score.

At the end of the first half the score was even, but Bamaís defense had 494 more seconds-in-effort than OSU.  494 more walking overhead press lunges.

In the first half OSUís offense allowed its defense rest.  The defense paid it back by allowing OSUís offense to match scores with Bama in the second half.  It gave a bonus with an interception return for a score.

OSU better manipulated the game with itís offensive balance and clock control, thereby allowing itís defense to keep Bamaís offense in check, just enough to win the game.

Hidden conclusion.  OSU won the game in the first half, despite trailing by one point.  It withered Bamaís defense while preserving itís own. 494 seconds of extreme effort worth.

General conclusion.  A team must consider itís offenses influence on the stamina of its defense.  Scoring fast at the start of the game can be deadly to oneís team when competing against similar competition. IF A PROLIFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT SCORE, itís defense will not win the game

_______________________________________________

{{a follow up email to the same pal}}}
Ö
i've been doing some study, and sort of use auburn as a control team.

here's some telling info

in 2008, before gus,  offense rank 112  defense 15
in 2009, gus comes, offense rank 20, defense 73.

virtually all other teams that run prolific scoring offenses show the same pattern.
Ö
Logged

LZH

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +3218/-3910
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 20,964
  • Tight but Loose
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2018, 09:36:01 am »

this is the result of some homework i did several years ago. clemson and auburn were among the test subjects. the analysis from that was applied to analyze bama v. ohio state. it's relevant to this convo, somewhat. forgive the repost/repeat.

______________________________________________


Here's a writeup i did after the 2014 season, specifically focusing on the 2015 sugar bowl [bama/osu] as a case study. it's sorta relevant to this discussion. this was an email to a pal, and i may have posted it on HV. can't recall.

______________________________________________


Finer points regarding defense and stamina.

Time of possession is huge in football.  Here, the focus is on defense. 

The defensive front is the most physically demanding part of the game. This is where stamina is first noticed.  The concept of seconds-in-effort is extremely important. 

I have an old friend that is a D1 DC.  Heís coached DC in the SEC and elsewhere.  I got this comparison from him years ago.  Heís not my closest friend, but we do visit on occasion. I see him on holidays and hunting trips. We always talk shop.  He was a salty head-hunter in high school and college; too small for big time though. Hereís some of what he explained it to me years ago.  Iíve refined it with other studying, etc.

Compare to a known physical effort:  Overhead press with walking lunges. This is a fair representation to what the DL does each play on an average. Press 1/2max and walk 5 lunges. To simplify, convert the 5 lunges into 5 seconds.  Each second is a 1/2max overhead press and single lunge step.

Trainers know what this means.  The amount of weight in the press influences how many lunges one can do.  The number of lunges influences how much weight can be pressed. 

Each second-in-effort mounts up.  Two efforts of 6 seconds is much more demanding than two of 4.

IT IS ONLY SECONDS.  Yes; but it is under extreme effort.

Consider last nights Sugar Bowl and a few stats.  Itís not the entire picture but it is illustrative.  Again, this is focusing on defense.

Bama had 5 scoring drives that averaged 1:46
OSU had 6 scoring drives that averaged 2:54.

in scoring drives alone the difference is telling. Bamaís defense had more than double the seconds in effort than OSU.

Bamaís total scoring time was 8:50 to OSU's  17:24.
So, for scoring time-of-possession, Bama played two games to OSUís one.

Non scoring time of possession was:
Bama 19:51
OSU 13:55

Bama averaged 1:475 per drive.
OSU averaged 2:06 per drive.

Per quarter time of possession and offensive scores are:
   Bama         OSU
1   6:11      14      8:49      6
2   5:12      7      9:48      14
3   7:36      7      7:24      7   7 interception return
4   9:21      7      5:39      8

1. Bama scored quick with 14 points, but very little clock time in the first quarter.  OSU score half as much but kept Bamaís defense on the field for 218 more seconds of effort.
2. Points to OSU 2:1. Bama defense has 276 more seconds-in-effort.
3. Dead heat on time, but OSU has points.
4. Bama wins the time, but OSU scores.

Some reasonable conclusions are possible.

The first half was good to Bamaís offense, but itís defense was pushed with extra effort because of the clock time in OSUís favor.  The scores were one point apart, so basically even.

At the end of the half, OSUís defense is more rested than Bama.  It should therefore play closer to itís maximum than Bama.  The last two quarters bear this out with the clock time and the score.

At the end of the first half the score was even, but Bamaís defense had 494 more seconds-in-effort than OSU.  494 more walking overhead press lunges.

In the first half OSUís offense allowed its defense rest.  The defense paid it back by allowing OSUís offense to match scores with Bama in the second half.  It gave a bonus with an interception return for a score.

OSU better manipulated the game with itís offensive balance and clock control, thereby allowing itís defense to keep Bamaís offense in check, just enough to win the game.

Hidden conclusion.  OSU won the game in the first half, despite trailing by one point.  It withered Bamaís defense while preserving itís own. 494 seconds of extreme effort worth.

General conclusion.  A team must consider itís offenses influence on the stamina of its defense.  Scoring fast at the start of the game can be deadly to oneís team when competing against similar competition. IF A PROLIFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT SCORE, itís defense will not win the game

_______________________________________________

{{a follow up email to the same pal}}}
Ö
i've been doing some study, and sort of use auburn as a control team.

here's some telling info

in 2008, before gus,  offense rank 112  defense 15
in 2009, gus comes, offense rank 20, defense 73.

virtually all other teams that run prolific scoring offenses show the same pattern.
Ö

Excellent stuff. +1
Logged

GuvHog

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Karma: +4888/-9613
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 46,943
  • Proud Hog Supporter!!!
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2018, 09:41:15 am »

I think that some may have some misconceptions about the Morris offense.

          SMU 2017
RUSHING
Yards Gained   2649   
Attempts      486   

PASSING
Att-Comp-Int        487-283-13   
Avg. Per Attempt   7.85   
Avg. Per Game     294.08   
Touchdowns         35   
Total   Yards         3823

TIME OF POSSESSION
Avg. Per Game   29:33

Everyone points to him being a Malzahn disciple and thinks that we will not hold onto the ball very much , but that is not what the HUNH is all about. Malzhan discussed this more than once, on the first series of any drive HUNH teams should run at a more normal pace UNTIL they get a 1st down. Once a 1st down is achieved then shift into the hyper-drive mode.

If you don't get a 1st down then you have used basically the same amount of time as any "normal" team, providing the same amount of defensive rest as a "normal" team. If you look at the stats above, taken directly from the SMU Athletics stats page, you can see that their TOP is pretty darned good. Maybe not what a guy like BB or Miles would like to have, but almost dead even with the opponent.

Plus you can see that for the season the number of rushing plays is basically identical to the number of passes thrown. Now, I do understand that this number does include sacks so there is a slight difference.(31 Sacks)

Chavis should have every opportunity to get his D off the field, ample time to make adjustments and just as much rest time as the opponent. IF Morris is able to install his scheme and be as successful as he was at SMU the offense won't be the problem if we have defensive issues!

(As an aside)Whaley, Hammonds, Hayden and Williams should be absolutely thrilled with the prospect of running against a defense that cannot afford to stack the box every down!

I've watched a lot of videos of SMU's offense since Morris was hired as head Hog. While SMU did run the no huddle Spread, they really didn't hurry up unless it was late in the game and they were behind. They never seemed to go into Hyper-mode, as you call it, unless they were behind late in the game.
Logged

The NewEra

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Karma: +636/-442
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3,455
  • New Era
Re: Why I think Chavis can be MORE successful here than at Texas A&M
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2018, 09:42:45 am »

I couldn't believe Third and Chavis landed a DC job higher than Pee Wee Football. Do you mean he will do better than A&M at giving games away? We threw a revolt to get rid of his infamously soft mustang defense. I think the fans here at Tennessee, LSU and A&M would riot if any of these schools rehired him.

Really feel sorry for you. NO LEAD is large enough that he can't give the game away. You will see.

Based on Tennessee's decision to fire Fulmer and their subsequent stellar hiring decisions since that time, I would think doing just the opposite of what you suggest would be a good omen for the Arkansas program.  I feel even better than I already did with the decision to hire Chavis and I felt great about it before reading this post.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

KARK
KWNA
Fox 16 Arkansas