2014 Philosophy - By the Numbers

LuCane

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
16,202
Lot of repeating posts/threads these days. Think i've personally beat the "philosophy" horse actually into the ground. But, thought to show some numbers. I found stuff that didn't really surprise me, but sure as **** reminded me of how bad I feel about our state of affairs.

The style of play (offense focused):

We are 126th out of 128 teams in plays per game. We're actually DOWN a couple plays than what we did last year, as we sit at 62.2 plays/game. We run 17% more plays at home than we do away. Of course, we played Arky State and FAMU at home.

How this is relevant:

Some teams try to control the game by time of possession (TOP). They're intent on grinding it out and winning close, hard-fought games. An example is Stanford. While they're 116th our of 128 teams, they're also 3rd in total defense. By comparison, Miami is currently 38th (despite playing a lesser part of their schedule). Another example is Wisconsin, who is 100th out of 128th in plays per game, yet 8th overall in total defense.

For an ACC comparison, Pitt is 88th in plays per game, yet 11th in total defense. On the flip side of this style is Virginia, who is 25th in plays per game, but also 10th overall in total defense.

One cause for the above (defense focused):

We are 112th of 128 teams in opponent's time of possession. Everyone knows where I stand on this: we prefer death by 1000 stable, surefire cuts. Proof? We are 15th (!) out of 128 teams in opponent's yards per play.

How is this relevant: Basically, we prefer to give up a consistent 5 yards.

Getting other teams off the field:

We are 101 out of 128 teams in opponent 3rd down conversions per game. We essentially give teams 7 chances to continue their drives per game. For comparison, top 10 teams in this category give up half as much. From a percentage standpoint, we are 87th out of 128 teams.

How is this relevant: our early down strategy is broken and we are paralyzed by fear of the big play.

Is there a big surprise here?

No. Most know we're in bad shape. But, the numbers really provide clarity as to how we decide to go about our business: with unusual amounts of fear.
 
Advertisement
Lot of repeating posts/threads these days. Think i've personally beat the "philosophy" horse actually into the ground. But, thought to show some numbers. I found stuff that didn't really surprise me, but sure as **** reminded me of how bad I feel about our state of affairs.

The style of play (offense focused):

We are 126th out of 128 teams in plays per game. We're actually DOWN a couple plays than what we did last year, as we sit at 62.2 plays/game. We run 17% more plays at home than we do away. Of course, we played Arky State and FAMU at home.

How this is relevant:

Some teams try to control the game by time of possession (TOP). They're intent on grinding it out and winning close, hard-fought games. An example is Stanford. While they're 116th our of 128 teams, they're also 3rd in total defense. By comparison, Miami is currently 38th (despite playing a lesser part of their schedule). Another example is Wisconsin, who is 100th out of 128th in plays per game, yet 8th overall in total defense.

For an ACC comparison, Pitt is 88th in plays per game, yet 11th in total defense. On the flip side of this style is Virginia, who is 25th in plays per game, but also 10th overall in total defense.

One cause for the above (defense focused):

We are 112th of 128 teams in opponent's time of possession. Everyone knows where I stand on this: we prefer death by 1000 stable, surefire cuts. Proof? We are 15th (!) out of 128 teams in opponent's yards per play.

How is this relevant: Basically, we prefer to give up a consistent 5 yards.

Getting other teams off the field:

We are 101 out of 128 teams in opponent 3rd down conversions per game. We essentially give teams 7 chances to continue their drives per game. For comparison, top 10 teams in this category give up half as much. From a percentage standpoint, we are 87th out of 128 teams.

How is this relevant: our early down strategy is broken and we are paralyzed by fear of the big play.

Is there a big surprise here?

No. Most know we're in bad shape. But, the numbers really provide clarity as to how we decide to go about our business: with unusual amounts of fear.

Strong post. Confirms what we already know with hard data.

One of my biggest complaints about Fat Al is the guy absolutely coaches scared. The team takes on the personality of the coach. Being conservative is not always fatal but being scared is impossible to overcome. It takes away aggressiveness and instincts while causing to react and think too much. Again, it takes away all the natural advantages of our kids. These kids grow up playing aggressive, press defense then come her and do the exact opposite. Square peg meet round hole.

Goldie still thinks, acts and coaches like he has MAC athletes. It is destroying our program and crippling the ability to lock down S FLA recruiting. He is doing the very thing he cannot afford to do -- giving kids a reason to go to other schools. I do not blame any defensive recruit for going else where, I would do the exact same thing.
 
One cause for the above (defense focused):

We are 112th of 128 teams in opponent's time of possession. Everyone knows where I stand on this: we prefer death by 1000 stable, surefire cuts. Proof? We are 15th (!) out of 128 teams in opponent's yards per play.

How is this relevant: Basically, we prefer to give up a consistent 5 yards.
Its fine to be this way if you are a well coached highly disciplined team like Duke. Um is neither. UM cannot afford to wait for the other team to make a mistake because UM's poorly coached undisciplined team is just as likely to make the mistake first and more often. From what I could tell Duke played GT on defense very close to how we played them but Duke got the win because the they were more mistake free than GT. The reason we beat GT the last last 2 year is because our offensive fire power covered our flaws. With a true freshman Qb this year we didn't have that. Golden's 1st year we beat them on defense because we didn't play this mismatched(to personnel) scheme as much. Playing this scheme with this personnel and this poor coaching staff, its 50/50 if you win against bad teams and a definite loss against good teams.
 
Last edited:
Lu, stop making sense with actual stats. We're trending up, there's nothing wrong with our defense.
 
Advertisement
LuCane
We are 101 out of 128 teams in opponent 3rd down conversions per game. We essentially give teams 7 chances to continue their drives per game. For comparison, top 10 teams in this category give up half as much. From a percentage standpoint, we are 87th out of 128 teams.



..And this is because of that Soft Shoulder ******* mentality of bend don't break philosophy... i.e Nebraska and GT.
..Afraid to call an Attacking - aggressive scheme - letting the offense dictate how they want to beat us...
.. Read and React bull**** doesn't work with bad tackling
...Leaving teams in 3rd and 3 or less yards... all ******* Day!!!!!!...

I'm so Sick of this defensive mentality is god**** gonna give me a heart attack....

I'll be honest.. Golden doesn't bother me as much as D'nofrio..

Knowing him through some circles from just a headnod and overhearing him ... He's a smug - socially inept *******.
His abilty to Relate to people is just... Rather ******* Terrible...

Ask any of his players from St. Peters College (one who posts on here) or at Rutgers.... They couldn't stand him.
Ask Greg Schiano who probably wouldn't even take the guys phone call on how he left that staff..

Bottom line - Mark needs to go.... along with Jethro and Williams... no matter how we finish...

If Golden has the be the by product of this.. so be it... Thanks for getting us through the Cloud but now its time to win... pick up your check and the front desk

Bye, Felicia..

JC
 
Lu, you are obviously looking at this the wrong way, Dorito says we are improved on D, just have to pick the right stat. :dejection:

I really hate these coaches
 
We are 112th of 128 teams in opponent's time of possession. Everyone knows where I stand on this: we prefer death by 1000 stable, surefire cuts. Proof? We are 15th (!) out of 128 teams in opponent's yards per play.

How is this relevant: Basically, we prefer to give up a consistent 5 yards.

Agree with most of what you said, but the fact that we are 15th in opponents yards per play is not in and of itself indicative of what you are claiming. Plenty of attacking teams with lots of TFL that average low yards per play. I mean, would you rather we average MORE yards per play on defense?

I think the stat you are looking for is variance in opponents' yards per play. As far as I know nobody tracks that stat, but would be very interesting to see. Guess is there would be very low variance in the case of our defense (arguably a bad thing).
 
We are 112th of 128 teams in opponent's time of possession. Everyone knows where I stand on this: we prefer death by 1000 stable, surefire cuts. Proof? We are 15th (!) out of 128 teams in opponent's yards per play.

How is this relevant: Basically, we prefer to give up a consistent 5 yards.

Agree with most of what you said, but the fact that we are 15th in opponents yards per play is not in and of itself indicative of what you are claiming. Plenty of attacking teams with lots of TFL that average low yards per play. I mean, would you rather we average MORE yards per play on defense?

I think the stat you are looking for is variance in opponents' yards per play. As far as I know nobody tracks that stat, but would be very interesting to see. Guess is there would be very low variance in the case of our defense (arguably a bad thing).

I think you misread the statement. Yes, it is indicative of what I claim when you combine it with the immediately preceding statistic (as in, the sentence before). You can't be low in yards/play and also be 112th of 128th in opponent TOP without essentially conceding yards.

Of course I don't want more yards per play. But, I'd be happier with more yards per play if we could balance it better with getting off the field. It speaks to a conscious decision between aggressive and conservative (concession) styles.
 
I think I should make a few more Philosophy threads just to be sure we're all on the same page... Maybe something about Nietzsche next time? Or Kant? As in...we Kant get off the field on 3rd down?
 
We are 112th of 128 teams in opponent's time of possession. Everyone knows where I stand on this: we prefer death by 1000 stable, surefire cuts. Proof? We are 15th (!) out of 128 teams in opponent's yards per play.

How is this relevant: Basically, we prefer to give up a consistent 5 yards.

Agree with most of what you said, but the fact that we are 15th in opponents yards per play is not in and of itself indicative of what you are claiming. Plenty of attacking teams with lots of TFL that average low yards per play. I mean, would you rather we average MORE yards per play on defense?

I think the stat you are looking for is variance in opponents' yards per play. As far as I know nobody tracks that stat, but would be very interesting to see. Guess is there would be very low variance in the case of our defense (arguably a bad thing).

I think you misread the statement. Yes, it is indicative of what I claim when you combine it with the immediately preceding statistic (as in, the sentence before). You can't be low in yards/play and also be 112th of 128th in opponent TOP without essentially conceding yards.

Of course I don't want more yards per play. But, I'd be happier with more yards per play if we could balance it better with getting off the field. It speaks to a conscious decision between aggressive and conservative (concession) styles.

It's actually a fallacy. I bet you anything No'D and Al think they are smarter than everyone and point to these irrelevant statistics to make their points, but yards per play doesn't really matter as long as it's within reasonable ranges. The variance per play (as mentioned above) is the true issue.

Imagine two scenarios, a team that consistently gives up 4-5 yards per play versus a team that alternates 3 and outs with 80yd touchdowns ever other possession. The team that gives up 4-5 yards consistently will give up twice as many points over the same number of possessions yet still have a better yards per play average versus the team that alternates 3 and outs with 80yd touchdowns. Obviously this is an oversimplification but I am pretty sure this is what our dumbass coaches miss.

We really need some money ball type analysis that could calculate the best way to measure defensive efficiency based yards per play while taking into account first downs allowed, starting field position, etc.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
I think I should make a few more Philosophy threads just to be sure we're all on the same page... Maybe something about Nietzsche next time? Or Kant? As in...we Kant get off the field on 3rd down?

God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best. - Voltaire
 
I don't really understand the relevance of the offensive part. We're 4th in the country in yards per play. It's not like we're Stanford and Wisconsin and running it 40/50 times a game. Also what is Miami 38th in on defense?
 
Back
Top