Interesting stat

[LuCane]

I wonder what the percentage is for Diaz specifically when his team wins the sack margin battle.

I'd be interested in seeing a stat of opponent's yards per play against Diaz's defense when his group sacked the QB below their average (or maybe 2 a game). Off the top of my head, some of the games I watched from his defense last year were tough. Then again, he had Miss State talent going against TAMU Oline, etc.

I watched the Arkansas game last season, and I have watched the Texas A & M, Ole Miss and Alabama games since he has been hired. His best edge rusher was Jefferson, and he's 280 pounds. They couldn't get much pressure with the front 4 last season. He will have a better dline here. All you really need to know about Mississippi State last season is they had 30 sacks, and Miami had 26.

No doubt. Like I said, when the guys were outmanned, it looked bad. In the TAMU and Ole Miss games (because forget the Bama game), their front looked like they'd literally run into a wall. Even when Manny sent 5 and dropped to 3 x 3, it was like watching a 170 pound guy run full speed at a sumo wrestler.
[MENTION=37]CanesAreAble[/MENTION], because of those situations, playing 3 by 3 (over/under) in the back often looks like swiss cheese. Even variations of it would get incredibly stretched. Disproportionate pressure on the middle of his D when the fronts don't arrive.

 

[Deleted member 14110]

It is turnovers that matter the most in this sort of statistical area.

 

[Deleted member 14110]

In this area, turnover ration is the most critical and consistent factor.

Assuming equally matched teams, forcing just one turnover more than the opposition boosts a team’s chances of victory 19 percent (50 to 69 percent). With a turnover margin of plus-2, a team’s chances of victory rise to 84 percent, and at plus-3 or above, they are virtually secured at 93 percent

The turnover battle: crucial, yet unpredictable - Stats Driven - Boston sports statistics blog

 

[rsa coral gables]

so, we have to win the sack and turnover battle and we'll win most of our games?

 

[plantcity3]

Are screens gonna be our Achilles heel?

Not as long as we have baby barrow/shaq pursuing....

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Novacane32000]

Big plays and the ability to stop big plays are right up there with the most important stats.

Yards per play. The best O teams have the highest YPP and the best D teams have the best YPP against.

Big plays win games. Give me 3 plays of +40 in a game (zero for the opponent) and you can win the sack battle and I'll let you have +1 in turnovers.

 

[90scane]

In this area, turnover ration is the most critical and consistent factor.

Assuming equally matched teams, forcing just one turnover more than the opposition boosts a team’s chances of victory 19 percent (50 to 69 percent). With a turnover margin of plus-2, a team’s chances of victory rise to 84 percent, and at plus-3 or above, they are virtually secured at 93 percent

The turnover battle: crucial, yet unpredictable - Stats Driven - Boston sports statistics blog

Nfl, yes
Fbs, heck no! Turn over margin was only 37% correct for w/l

 

[Plzwork4]

This makes it even harder to understand why Golden didn't put emphasis on his D-Linemen getting in the backfield.

Because Golden and D'Onofrio believed in the low risk, "bend, don't break" approach to defense - quite literally it was sit back, wait for the play, react and then make a tackle. Their only objective was to "never give up big plays" - a quote we heard many times from both of them. As it turns out, we didn't give up big plays - we gave up big drives that went 12-14 plays and took 8 minutes off the clock. Defense gets tired/frustrated and the crowd goes quiet.

It's hard for me to get flustered, but watching teams like Louisville, Cincinnati, Duke and GT march up-and-down the field on us at will with 5 yard plays was infuriating - they knew the conservative system we ran and used it against us.

+1000

This actually speaks in favor of Diaz's approach. He's trying to win 1st down, potentially with negative offensive plays, and decrease conversion rates. He's not always successful because he really depends on the DL creating havoc. When his guys are outmanned, I watched some cringe-worthy gaps in his back zones. However, I prefer the approach of focusing on conversion rates.

Over the past 5 years, watching opponents comfortably convert 3rd downs was brutal. Multiple times I stormed out of my seat or wherever I was watching the game because I simply couldn't understand the approach. On the flipside, our offense couldn't convert 3rd downs. We were watching football in ****.

LOL...my blood pressure rose to near danger levels while reading your post. Dead ******* serious.

 

[Calinative]

so, we have to win the sack and turnover battle and we'll win most of our games?

Easier Said than done, but statistically if you dominate at those two aspects, you win.

 

[Pixelated bukake]

This makes it even harder to understand why Golden didn't put emphasis on his D-Linemen getting in the backfield.

Because Golden and D'Onofrio believed in the low risk, "bend, don't break" approach to defense - quite literally it was sit back, wait for the play, react and then make a tackle. Their only objective was to "never give up big plays" - a quote we heard many times from both of them. As it turns out, we didn't give up big plays - we gave up big drives that went 12-14 plays and took 8 minutes off the clock. Defense gets tired/frustrated and the crowd goes quiet.

It's hard for me to get flustered, but watching teams like Louisville, Cincinnati, Duke and GT march up-and-down the field on us at will with 5 yard plays was infuriating - they knew the conservative system we ran and used it against us.

+1000

This actually speaks in favor of Diaz's approach. He's trying to win 1st down, potentially with negative offensive plays, and decrease conversion rates. He's not always successful because he really depends on the DL creating havoc. When his guys are outmanned, I watched some cringe-worthy gaps in his back zones. However, I prefer the approach of focusing on conversion rates.

Over the past 5 years, watching opponents comfortably convert 3rd downs was brutal. Multiple times I stormed out of my seat or wherever I was watching the game because I simply couldn't understand the approach. On the flipside, our offense couldn't convert 3rd downs. We were watching football in ****.

This killed me as well. When the Canes were dominant, when the opponent had a 3rd and 5 or more, you felt they might have a 20% chance of converting (guesstimate). We would get so much pressure up front that, even if we didn't get to the QB, he was harried enough where there was no chance of going through his progressions. And our back 7 would cover well enough so that chances of an open receiver past the sticks was remote. When you play passively as we did the last few years, there is no urgency on the part of the QB, and he can go through his progressions. And even the best DB's can only cover for so long. Hope to see a return to shorter offensive drives by the opposition.