Hogville Info
• 9,373,685 Posts
• 385,198 Topics
• 21,574 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: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC  (Read 2423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hog1751

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1,362
  • WPS!!!!
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2005, 04:07:07 pm »

Remove the 736 yards we gave up against USC and the defense is middle of the pack trust me Ive looked at it. Our problems have been bad time management (HDN) Passing (RoJo) Half assed play calling (HDN) Turnovers (Team) Lack of preparedness (Team, defense in particular) and finally calling plays not to lose (HDN). The problems are every where you cant just look at the stats, I wonder what our offense looks like if you remove the 1-aa opponent and Louisiana Directional from the mix?

To be accurate you would need to go through and remove the cupcakes from all the SEC schools' schedules.


That may be true but all Im saying is that the most points weve scored against anyone else is 24 against Vanderbilt, whereas the most points weve given up is 34 against Auburn, all Im trying to say is that the door swings both ways.
Logged

silvertip

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #51 on: November 02, 2005, 04:22:33 pm »

I can remember one time when HDN accepted responsibility for the team's performance. Sort of.

I think it was after the 2000 season when HDN said something very close to this: "No coach in the country, college or pro, could have done a better job coaching this team."

I may have the wrong season. Surely not the exact words. But I know he said it. Anyone else remember that?
Logged

Sponsored Ad



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

JDW

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #52 on: November 02, 2005, 04:25:36 pm »

Quote
The door swings both ways.

TulsaHawg

I think that is pretty much what SultanofSwine was stating. You or I may not like it but it's the truth. Play calling, execution, and time management has not been the best at time.

IMHO the D has stepped up not matter what game you take out or leave in. Yes, we've had some bad games. I say USC and the Auburn second half are probably the worst. The rest we have played on par. I guess you could throw in the Vandy last drive.

Our running game is excellent.

We need a QB who can and will take the team on his shoulders and lead it. Utilize the WR core that seems nonexistent.

Just my thoughts.

Logged

corndo

  • Hogvillian
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1,922
  • What more is there to say?
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2005, 04:34:32 pm »

Those stats are deceiving. Anybody who has been paying attention knows that there are no offensive juggernauts this year in the SEC. Six of our teams our in

the top 20 in total defense in the country however. Matter of fact, the highest ranking team we have in total offense is Auburn in 33rd place! Clearly, the league

is much more defensively oriented this year than offensively.
Logged

Biggus Piggus

  • Escaped Journalist
  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 30,610
  • Hogville: The mosh pit of Razorbackland
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #54 on: November 02, 2005, 05:52:00 pm »

Of the teams we have played this year vs last year:

New Mexico State and Texas => Missouri State and Southern Cal.  NMSU, MSU, a wash. USC > Texas.

Florida => Vanderbilt, quite a bit of a downgrade.
Alabama is much better on offense this year vs. last, the game after they'd lost Croyle for the year.
Auburn's offense isn't nearly as good as last year's, and they still rolled us after a very slow start.
Georgia's offense was about the same, net net.
South Carolina's ought to be better, and they put 35 on us.
Ole Miss = a wash, they were terrible.
Mississippi State = same.
LSU = pretty much similar with last year's.
Logged

TulsaHogFan

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #55 on: November 02, 2005, 06:16:04 pm »

You didn't ask a question but you obviously missed that point. You duck so well a midget couldn't hit your ass but I digress. You might try answering my questions or you can keep lobbing softballs and I will keep hitting them out.

Please feel free to explain how anyone, yourself included, could be blind enough not to see that HDN is not only entirely responsible for this mess of a program but refuses to take responsibility for it?

Sultan, excuse me. Are you still talking to little ol' me after you said, "I am through answering you until yours drop and you take a stab at answering anything I have asked. "

Good god, when did my 8 yr old cousin join the board?
Logged

doubleH

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 808
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #56 on: November 02, 2005, 06:21:32 pm »

You give the rest of us from Tulsa a bad name TulsaHawg. Please stop with your lame posts.
Logged

TulsaHawg

  • Moderator for the Nutt Huggers
  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,496
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #57 on: November 02, 2005, 07:23:10 pm »

Those stats are deceiving. Anybody who has been paying attention knows that there are no offensive juggernauts this year in the SEC. Six of our teams our in

the top 20 in total defense in the country however. Matter of fact, the highest ranking team we have in total offense is Auburn in 33rd place! Clearly, the league

is much more defensively oriented this year than offensively.

Well you know Corndo my man, I posted something yesterday about how the emphasis was on defense in the SEC this year, and guess what?  Would you believe it?  It got "splained" away by the "anti-Nutt" crowd.  I know that must be a shock to you.   8)
Logged

TulsaHawg

  • Moderator for the Nutt Huggers
  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,496
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #58 on: November 02, 2005, 07:24:13 pm »

You give the rest of us from Tulsa a bad name TulsaHawg. Please stop with your lame posts.

Let's see...what to do?..what to do?......

Naaahhhh.... I think I'll keep posting.

Face it Double H, if your self-esteem is derived from a college ports message board, then you probably need help.
:-*

Lighten up Francis.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2005, 07:30:47 pm by TulsaHawg »
Logged

silvertip

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #59 on: November 03, 2005, 10:13:35 pm »

TulsaHawg, I appreciate that you make the effort to use facts (stats) to back up your arguments. You may not agree, but I think the anti-Nutts like myself generally use stats (facts) more than the pro-Nutts do.

Whatever. I can say you must be careful about what the stats mean and alao HOW they are presented on secsports.com. I will use "4th down conversions" as an example. In your original post, you say Hogs are 2nd in SEC 4th down conversions. I'm sure you think that's good. I don't.

The teams are ranked on secsport's scale according to PERCENT of 4th down tries converted. I don't think that is the proper way to evaluate teams based on 4th down attempts.

Instead, look at the NUMBER of 4th down attempts. Hogs have more 4th down attempts than any other SEC team. I think that is an indication of a weak offense. And as I have said before, our numerous 4th down attempts & poor 3rd down conversion rate is due to our lowest-in-the-SEC yards-per-pass-attempt.

Hogs have 16 4th down attempts in 7 games. Auburn has 9 in 8 games. Since these two have played a different # games, you have to calculate "average 4th down attempts per game" in order to compare them.

Hogs average 2.29--4th down attempts per game. Highest (worst) number in the SEC. Auburn averages 1.13--4th down attempts per game---half as many as the Hawgs and 5th best in the SEC. I think this indicates that Auburn has a more efficient offense.

How do we decide which of these two ways of looking at 4th down attempts is the better gauge of a strong offense? I suggest using W-L record as the key. If you rank teams best-to-worst according to each measure, then the ranking that corresponds closest to the W-L records should be the better indicator:

4th down conversion %------------------Average 4th down attempts per game
Team-----Conv %---W-L record-----------Team---Attempts per game---W-L record

1st--LSU--100%-----------6-1---------------1st---LSU----O.71 atts/game---6-1
2nd--ARK--56%-----------2-5----------------2nd--UGA---0.75------------------7-1
3rd--AUB---56%-----------6-2---------------3rd--BAMA--1.00------------------8-0
4th--MSU--50%------------2-6---------------4th--KENT--1.00------------------2-5
5th--VAN---50%-----------4-4---------------5th--AUB----1.13------------------6-2
6th--UGA---50%-----------7-1----------------6th--USC---1.38-------------------5-3
W-L rec, best 6 teams--27-19-------------W-L rec, best 6 teams------34-12

7th--MISS---46%----3-5-------------------------7th--MISS---1.38---------------3-5
8th--FLA-----43%----6-2-------------------------8th--TENN--1.43---------------3-4
9th--BAMA---38%---8-0-------------------------9th--VAN----1.50---------------4-4
10th--KEN----29%---2-5-------------------------10th--MSU---1.50--------------2-6
11th--USC----27%---5-3-------------------------11th--FLA----1.75--------------6-2
12th--TENN--20%---3-4-------------------------12th--ARK---2.29! (sucks)---2-5
W-L rec, worst 6 teams---27-19------------W-L rec, worst 6 teams----20-26

Looking at the best 6 teams & the worst 6 teams according to "4th down conversion percent"---it is remarkable that these two groups have identical 27-19 W-L records. Also, of the top 6 teams in SEC W-L records, 3 are in the "best" group and 3 are in the "worst" group. Therefore, I submit that this 4th down stat has NO correlation to a team's strength.

Now, look at the rankings by the "4th down attempts per game" measure. The "best" six teams have a 34-12 W-L record. The "worst" six teams have         a 20-26 W-L record. Also, of the top-6 SEC teams, 5 appear in the top 6 by this measure. Therefore, I submit that this is a VERY good way to measure a team's strength, using the "4th down attempts per game" stat.

Yes, the 4th down conversion % ranking at secsports.com is accurate "facts."
What those facts MEAN is a different matter.   
Logged

Biggus Piggus

  • Escaped Journalist
  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 30,610
  • Hogville: The mosh pit of Razorbackland
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2005, 05:28:08 am »

This is one of the huge problems, silvertip!  Thank you for bringing this out.  Arkansas by far leads in fourth down attempts, because too many of our drives stall in no man's land, and we have crappy range at placekicking.  We were second in the SEC in frequency of fourth down attempts last year (1.8 per game), so this is not a new problem.  As you know, we attempted fewer field goals than anybody else in the league in 2004.  One big difference is last year we scored 32 TDs (20 run, 12 pass) on 40 times in the red zone (80%).  This year, 16 (10 run, 6 pass) of 28 (57%).

Last year, we got to the red zone 3.6 times a game; this year, 4.0.  Surprising?

Last year, we scored 13 TDs (1.2 per game) from outside the red zone; this year, 7 (1 per game).

This year:

12.6 possessions per game (last year 12)
4.3 punts (last year 4.9) <=last year, punted more and scored more
1.1 fumbles (last year 0.5) <=MUCH worse
1.1 INTs (last year 1.2) <=about the same on less passing
4.0 red zone chances (last year 3.6) <=pretty impressive, fourth best in SEC; too bad we wasted so many
0.7 red zone failures (last year 0.5)
4.2 points per red zone chance (last year 5.8 )
16.8 points scored from red zone per game (last year 20.9)
7.3 points scored from outside red zone per game (last year 8.6)
2.3 fourth down attempts (last year 1.8 )
1.3 fourth down conversions (last year 0.7)
1.6 field goal attempts (last year 0.6)
1.1 field goals (last year 0.4)
3.3 TDs (last year 4.1)
2.3 rushing TDs (last year 2.0) <=higher due to improved tailbacks, despite nothing from QB
0.9 passing TDs (last year 1.7) <=dropoff is here

Last year:

Field goals 3 inside red zone, 1 outside
Run TDs 20 inside red zone, 2 outside
Pass TDs 12 inside red zone, 7 outside

This year:

Field goals 7 inside red zone, 1 outside
Run TDs 10 inside red zone, 6 outside
Pass TDs 6 inside red zone, 0 outside

The biggest change = zero passing TDs from outside the red zone.
Logged

TulsaHawg

  • Moderator for the Nutt Huggers
  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,496
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #61 on: November 04, 2005, 06:36:06 am »

Silver, that is an excellent point regarding the 4th down conversions. 

The other options beside going for it on 4th down would include punting, and FG attempts.  I know BP addressed the FG, but do you have the stats on where we stand in regard to punting attempts?

You are correct to point out that had we been better on 3rd down conversions we would not have had a need for 4th down attempts.

Also, BP I found these stats you presented very interesting:

Last year:

Field goals 3 inside red zone, 1 outside
Run TDs 20 inside red zone, 2 outside
Pass TDs 12 inside red zone, 7 outside

This year:

Field goals 7 inside red zone, 1 outside
Run TDs 10 inside red zone, 6 outside
Pass TDs 6 inside red zone, 0 outside


Are the stats for last year for the entire season, or through a certain number of games? We've kicked twice as many FG's this year; scored twice as many Rushing TD's inside the RZ last year, but 3 times as many from outside the RZ this year.  And the passing TD's, well all agree that has been our nemesis this season.  Funny how this season makes MJ look like a prolific passer huh?
Logged

Hog Bounty Hunter

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2005, 07:09:50 am »

Silver, that is an excellent point regarding the 4th down conversions.

The other options beside going for it on 4th down would include punting, and FG attempts. I know BP addressed the FG, but do you have the stats on where we stand in regard to punting attempts?

You are correct to point out that had we been better on 3rd down conversions we would not have had a need for 4th down attempts.

Also, BP I found these stats you presented very interesting:

Last year:

Field goals 3 inside red zone, 1 outside
Run TDs 20 inside red zone, 2 outside
Pass TDs 12 inside red zone, 7 outside

This year:

Field goals 7 inside red zone, 1 outside
Run TDs 10 inside red zone, 6 outside
Pass TDs 6 inside red zone, 0 outside


Are the stats for last year for the entire season, or through a certain number of games? We've kicked twice as many FG's this year; scored twice as many Rushing TD's inside the RZ last year, but 3 times as many from outside the RZ this year. And the passing TD's, well all agree that has been our nemesis this season. Funny how this season makes MJ look like a prolific passer huh?

Compared to what we have now  MJ was Johnny Unitas.
Logged

hawgbawb

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 13,269
  • Tusk 'em Hogs.
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2005, 07:15:33 am »

One big eye sore on the offensive side is 9th in third down conversions. This is the play that kills or makes the drives. This play is when it's most obvious that we don't have a QB that can come through when the pressure is on. We really need to improve at this point. But the rest of the numbers was about what I expected. We can move the ball and put up points, like we did last year. Just giving up WAY too many.

Precisely.
Logged

Biggus Piggus

  • Escaped Journalist
  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 30,610
  • Hogville: The mosh pit of Razorbackland
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2005, 07:50:28 am »

Are the stats for last year for the entire season, or through a certain number of games? We've kicked twice as many FG's this year; scored twice as many Rushing TD's inside the RZ last year, but 3 times as many from outside the RZ this year. And the passing TD's, well all agree that has been our nemesis this season. Funny how this season makes MJ look like a prolific passer huh?

Last year = whole season, not intended to compare across, no way to do that completely fairly even averaging, because season's not done & schedule's different.  Jones was a fantastic red zone quarterback.  His mistakes usually came outside the redzone, in the middle of the field really (he had a very costly red zone fumble against Texas, and a brain fart heave against South Carolina).  Jones's numbers would have been fine had he not had as many turnovers; they cost us games. 

I put up those stats to show how much more often we have to settle for 3 & how we're getting zero big play passes.
Logged

silvertip

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the Hog's Offensive and Defensive rankings in the SEC
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2005, 11:21:44 am »

Biggus & Tulsa, the "red-zone" stats are just another area that you have to be wary of when looking at secsports.com "rankings." They calculate a "red-zone success %" based on how many total FGs & TDs are scored on total red zone chances. Then they rank teams according to this misleading %.

Obviously, a TD is much more a "success" than a FG. I think the more accurate stat for ranking a tean's red zone success is simply TD %.

Red zone field goals are often a "success" for the defense, esp. after a turnover.
If field goals were to be included in a "success" rating, I think it would be good to perhaps divide the # of FGs by 2, add to the # of TDs & then calculate a "success %."

Another common problem with secsports.com stats is that too many are not calculated on a "per game" basis. They will list total # of sacks or penalties & rank them. This despite, e.g Tenn has played 6 games, several teams have played 7 & several have played 8. Without a per game average, there "rankings" are non-sense. I think this is a simple matter of "mental lazinees" in whoever compiles these stats.

So again, you have to be careful in interpreting secsports.com stats.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
 

KARK
KWNA
Fox 16 Arkansas