CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on October 18, 2021, 01:40:16 AM
-
Just clicking around the college football internets. I was wondering about the average of great run defenses in this newish world of read-option football. Here's some stuff I found:
.
I was just looking at the top few P5 rush defenses, so I set the cutoff at 90 ypg allowed.
At this cutoff, the per-year range varies from zero (2017) to ten (2006).
There are definitely fewer elite rush defense teams recently, as there are 0-2 teams below 90 ypg allowed in each of the past seven years (only 5 in the past 5 years).
The average earlier in the century are 5-6 per year, with individual seasons of 10, 7, and 6.
.
Here's the best of the past 21 years:
ypg allowed: year team
43: 2006 Michigan
59: 2006 Texas
60: 2003 USC
62: 2003 Ohio St
63: 2016 Alabama
66: 2006 Miami
67: 2003 LSU
68: 2007 Boston College
69: 2004 Florida St
70: 2002 Kansas St, 2019 Utah
72: 2009 Texas, 2011 Alabama, 2020 Georgia, 2001 VA Tech
.
I'll stop here and note that 2011 Alabama had the 12th-best rush D of the new century AND probably the best pass defense ever. That's nuts.
.
Another note is TCU. They're among the leaders sprinkled through the years, but weren't P5 yet. However, in 2008, they allowed only 49 ypg rushing, which is special.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/244757120_1942532015920539_9182835545887495489_n.png?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=mSOcWY6WvrEAX8gExz9&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=c19418d365111ef550a32779d80f37c4&oe=61964A3D)
-
What about adding in ypc?
-
03 USC eeks out ahead of 06 UM, 1.8 ypc to 1.9.
-
I see UGA thus far is at 62.3 and Wisconsin is at 64.3,
San Diego is at 61.3, but not P5 of course.
This is the best UGA D I've ever seen, good depth, the secondary is young and the weakest spot.
-
What about adding in ypc?
i'm curious about td's given up as a whole and on a pts/game basis. 2019 uga just missed cut at 74.64 yd/game, but gave up fewer tds than all other teams after 09 (as far back as cfbstats.com goes). several other teams have really low tds as well.
-
I printed out all that data from the NCAA website, at least most of the 90s'.
Any season with single-digit rushing TDs allowed is sick.
-
One way to have a statistically good rush defense is to get ahead quickly in every game and make the opponent try and catch up.
-
and/or have a horrible pass defense
-
and/or have a horrible pass defense
or be 2011 bama. most scores ended up dominant, but there were only 3 games we were up by more than 2 scores at halftime, 2 cupcakes and auburn. 7 were 10 points or less. that bama team literally wore you down until you couldn't compete anymore.
-
03 USC eeks out ahead of 06 UM, 1.8 ypc to 1.9.
Just doing the math here, if 03 USC's opponents were only getting 1.8 ypc and had 60 ypg, they were running about 33 times per game. It just seems insane to me to bash your head against a brick wall 30+ times per game.
06 Michigan's opponents, on the other hand, seem to have figured it out more. They were getting 1.9 ypc and 43 ypg which works out to about 23 rushes per game.
It may be that sacks counting as negative rushes play a role in this.
-
Just doing the math here, if 03 USC's opponents were only getting 1.8 ypc and had 60 ypg, they were running about 33 times per game. It just seems insane to me to bash your head against a brick wall 30+ times per game.
06 Michigan's opponents, on the other hand, seem to have figured it out more. They were getting 1.9 ypc and 43 ypg which works out to about 23 rushes per game.
It may be that sacks counting as negative rushes play a role in this.
Yes, sacks factor in.
BUT to defend the USC opponents.....defenses want to make you one-dimensional. If you stop running the ball, they've done that. So while you certainly have to pick when you run carefully, and even if they shut it down, it does make sense to keep calling running plays as an OC.
Of course, that assumes the game is relavitely close/competitive and that you're able to pass the ball with some sort of utility.
But abandoning the run is what they want you to do....so you shouldn't do it.
-
But abandoning the run is what they want you to do....so you shouldn't do it.
Back in the Joe Tiller Purdue days he'd talk about passing to set up the run, sorta the opposite of the CW at the time.
If a team is forcing you to abandon the run, it should mean that their defense is exploitable through the air. If they then adjust their defense to defend the pass, they should be exploitable on the ground...
...of course that's if they're not just WAY better than you on all levels. Which happens in college football ALL THE DAMN TIME due to significant talent differentials between squads.
I.e. if a team can defend your running and game AND passing game in base, well then you're f^$&@d.
-
Back in the Joe Tiller Purdue days he'd talk about passing to set up the run, sorta the opposite of the CW at the time.
If a team is forcing you to abandon the run, it should mean that their defense is exploitable through the air. If they then adjust their defense to defend the pass, they should be exploitable on the ground...
...of course that's if they're not just WAY better than you on all levels. Which happens in college football ALL THE DAMN TIME due to significant talent differentials between squads.
I.e. if a team can defend your running and game AND passing game in base, well then you're f^$&@d.
This is all true but when you are looking at strengths and weaknesses, those are relative terms. If I'm the OC at Ohio State and we are playing some hopeless MAC school we could probably beat them by passing every down or by running every down but I'd still want to know which they are relatively worse at defending.
Conversely, if I were the OC at the hopeless MAC school playing Ohio State I'm realistically going to lose no matter what I do but I'd still want to know whether I'm like to have more success running or passing.
Yes, sacks factor in.
BUT to defend the USC opponents.....defenses want to make you one-dimensional. If you stop running the ball, they've done that. So while you certainly have to pick when you run carefully, and even if they shut it down, it does make sense to keep calling running plays as an OC.
Of course, that assumes the game is relavitely close/competitive and that you're able to pass the ball with some sort of utility.
But abandoning the run is what they want you to do....so you shouldn't do it.
I agree to an extent, but not completely. It is to your advantage to take with the defense gives you. If they want to stack nine guys in the box every down to force you to pass then ok, PASS!
-
if you can
many college QBs just aren't that good
-
This is all true but when you are looking at strengths and weaknesses, those are relative terms. If I'm the OC at Ohio State and we are playing some hopeless MAC school we could probably beat them by passing every down or by running every down but I'd still want to know which they are relatively worse at defending.
Conversely, if I were the OC at the hopeless MAC school playing Ohio State I'm realistically going to lose no matter what I do but I'd still want to know whether I'm like to have more success running or passing. I agree to an extent, but not completely. It is to your advantage to take with the defense gives you. If they want to stack nine guys in the box every down to force you to pass then ok, PASS!
Agreed, but I'd argue that NEARLY every one of the original defenses that OAM highlighted was at a talent level relative to their typical competition that it was similar to a hopeless MAC school lining up against them, most weeks.
Many of them had strong rush defenses because they also had offenses that put up tons of points and teams were playing catch-up.
My response to OAM was basically the same as yours--if the defense sells out against the run you SHOULD throw the ball, and if it sits in coverage to snuff out your pass game you SHOULD run the ball.
But if the defense is so good that you can't do either, well you're screwed.
I recall that this was one of the issues that Purdue ran into as the B1G started going more spread-heavy and started recruiting to shut down passing offenses. In the 2005-2008 period, late Tiller era with Curtis Painter as QB, Purdue was just absolutely shredding our non-con patsies and middling B1G teams. But every time we got up against a big boy defense, they just walked their DBs up in press man coverage and defended us one on one, and we had no answer. We couldn't run because they weren't selling out against the pass. We couldn't pass because we didn't have the talent to defeat their DBs one on one. So, we took a lot of Ls against those big boy teams.
Most of those defenses on his list are that good, so it becomes a moot point. You're not going to be successful doing anything against them, no matter what you think they are "giving you".
-
This is why I prefer ball control offenses, generally, they enable better defensive performance.
-
Agreed, but I'd argue that NEARLY every one of the original defenses that OAM highlighted was at a talent level relative to their typical competition that it was similar to a hopeless MAC school lining up against them, most weeks.
Many of them had strong rush defenses because they also had offenses that put up tons of points and teams were playing catch-up.
My response to OAM was basically the same as yours--if the defense sells out against the run you SHOULD throw the ball, and if it sits in coverage to snuff out your pass game you SHOULD run the ball.
But if the defense is so good that you can't do either, well you're screwed.
I recall that this was one of the issues that Purdue ran into as the B1G started going more spread-heavy and started recruiting to shut down passing offenses. In the 2005-2008 period, late Tiller era with Curtis Painter as QB, Purdue was just absolutely shredding our non-con patsies and middling B1G teams. But every time we got up against a big boy defense, they just walked their DBs up in press man coverage and defended us one on one, and we had no answer. We couldn't run because they weren't selling out against the pass. We couldn't pass because we didn't have the talent to defeat their DBs one on one. So, we took a lot of Ls against those big boy teams.
Most of those defenses on his list are that good, so it becomes a moot point. You're not going to be successful doing anything against them, no matter what you think they are "giving you".
To kinda buttress your point, according to ESPN, in 2006 Michigan gave up 516 rushing yards on 278 attempts but get this: 187 of those 516 yards (36%) were against one team and came on just 29 attempts (6.4 ypc). If you back those out, the remainder is 329 yards on 249 attempts (1.3 ypc). So yeah, most of their opponents were completely hopeless.
Even the Buckeyes (the team that had 187 yards on 29 attempts) weren't able to consistently rush against them and didn't try all that much. Antonio Pittman and Chris Wells each had a 50+ yard rushing TD in that game but those two runs alone accounted for 108 of tOSU's 187 rushing yards. On the other 27 attempts the Buckeyes managed just 79 yards (2.9 ypc). Those two long TD's accounted for well over half of tOSU's rushing total that night and an astounding 21% of the TOTAL rushing yards given up by Michigan all season.
The Buckeyes' response was to not try to rush all that much. They only had 29 attempts compared to 41 passes and remember that sacks and QB scrambles count as rushes. Troy Smith had four carries for 12 yards and I frankly think that all four were called pass plays so in terms of called plays I think the Buckeyes had 25 runs and 45 passes.
On top of that, Ohio State only trailed from the end of Michigan's first possession until the end of Ohio State's first possession (Michigan got the ball first and both teams scored on their first possession). Then the game was tied until Ohio State scored their second TD with 12:22 to go in the second quarter. For the rest of the game Ohio State was protecting leads of:
- 7 from 42:22-36:01
- 14 from 36:01-32:33
- 7 from 32:33-30:20
- 14 from 30:20-27:12
- 7 from 27:12-23:25
- 4 from 23:25-23:04
- 11 from 23:04-14:41
- 4 from 14:41-5:38
- 11 from 5:38-2:16
- 3 for the rest of the game 3 rushes for 16 yards
Preserving the lead and keeping the clock spinning was at least somewhat of a consideration for the Buckeyes (especially considering that remember this was Tressel) whereas none of Michigan's previous opponents had been in that position.
Still, Michigan's 2006 Rush defense was amazing. Compared to the rest of the league they were:
- Best in ypc by almost a full yard 1.9 for M vs 2.8 for #2 PSU. To get an idea of how big of a difference this is, #2 PSU was closer to #6 IA (3.6) and almost as close to #7 MSU (3.8) as they were to #1 M.
- Best in yards per game by giving less than half of #2. M gave up 43 ypg while #2 PSU gave up 87.8. Once again #2 PSU was about as close to #6/7 IA and MSU as they were to #1 M.
- Best in rush TD's allowed with just five.
In passing they were pretty good but not great even by the standards of just the league that year:
- Statistically tied with PSU and tOSU behind UW in ypa at 5.7. UW was #1 at 4.7.
- 7th in YPG at 211.1.
- 6th in passing TD's allowed with 15.
- 4th in passer rating allowed.
- 1st in sacks but it was close. M had 42, PSU was #2 with 38, tOSU was #3 with 37.
All-in-all, Michigan's pass defense was good but it wasn't all-time great like their rush defense. I still say that unless you are just god awful at passing I'd rather take my chances against Michigan's pretty good 2006 pass defense than against their all-time great 2006 rush defense.
-
Great analysis!
I would say one other thing... If you are the "hopeless" team in that scenario, I would think that the better option is to do your thing, regardless of what the defense is giving you.
If you're Wisconsin in that scenario against 2006 Michigan and they try to load the box, run the damn ball to set up play-action. It might not work, but it's your bread and butter. If you get away from your core competency, you're more likely to end up with turnovers than touchdowns...
If you're Purdue in that scenario against 2006 Michigan and they try to take the pass away to force you into the teeth of their run defense, keep on passing. You know you don't have a rushing attack that can beat their DL, so even if they're dropping 7-8 in coverage every play, you're probably better off trying to throw against it than going off script and suddenly being a running team. Passing gives you a chance because it's your thing.
If you're Ohio State and you're not hopeless, you can start thinking about taking what the defense gives you.
-
Great analysis!
I would say one other thing... If you are the "hopeless" team in that scenario, I would think that the better option is to do your thing, regardless of what the defense is giving you.
If you're Wisconsin in that scenario against 2006 Michigan and they try to load the box, run the damn ball to set up play-action. It might not work, but it's your bread and butter. If you get away from your core competency, you're more likely to end up with turnovers than touchdowns...
If you're Purdue in that scenario against 2006 Michigan and they try to take the pass away to force you into the teeth of their run defense, keep on passing. You know you don't have a rushing attack that can beat their DL, so even if they're dropping 7-8 in coverage every play, you're probably better off trying to throw against it than going off script and suddenly being a running team. Passing gives you a chance because it's your thing.
If you're Ohio State and you're not hopeless, you can start thinking about taking what the defense gives you.
Thank you.
I conditionally agree. I think it depends on how strongly "your thing" is your thing. I mean, if you are an overly-sterotypical Wisconsin team that is phenomenal at rushing and basically clueless at passing or an overly-sterotypical Tiller-era Purdue team that is phenomenal at passing and basically clueless at rushing then you are stuck. You have to do "your thing" no matter what the defense does both because it is your strength and because your weakness is REALLY weak. OTOH, most teams, even most Wisconsin teams and most Tiller-era Purdue teams aren't THAT slanted to one thing or another.
Similarly it depends on how big of a difference there is between the opponent's rushing and passing defenses. If your opponent is a close #1 in the league against the rush and say #3 against the pass well that isn't THAT big of a difference. Both a good but neither is all-time great.
In my view the difference between Michigan's all-time great 2006 rushing defense and their "pretty good" 2006 passing defense was HUMONGOUS. If you are a more typical mediocre team that is mediocre at both passing and rushing then it is just silly to bash your head against the brick wall that is Michigan's all-time great 2006 rushing defense when you would have at least a chance of success against their "pretty good" 2006 passing defense.
-
To kinda buttress your point, according to ESPN, in 2006 Michigan gave up 516 rushing yards on 278 attempts but get this: 187 of those 516 yards (36%) were against one team and came on just 29 attempts (6.4 ypc). If you back those out, the remainder is 329 yards on 249 attempts (1.3 ypc). So yeah, most of their opponents were completely hopeless.
Even the Buckeyes (the team that had 187 yards on 29 attempts) weren't able to consistently rush against them and didn't try all that much. Antonio Pittman and Chris Wells each had a 50+ yard rushing TD in that game but those two runs alone accounted for 108 of tOSU's 187 rushing yards. On the other 27 attempts the Buckeyes managed just 79 yards (2.9 ypc). Those two long TD's accounted for well over half of tOSU's rushing total that night and an astounding 21% of the TOTAL rushing yards given up by Michigan all season.
The Buckeyes' response was to not try to rush all that much. They only had 29 attempts compared to 41 passes and remember that sacks and QB scrambles count as rushes. Troy Smith had four carries for 12 yards and I frankly think that all four were called pass plays so in terms of called plays I think the Buckeyes had 25 runs and 45 passes.
Thank you for the deep dive.
The bold is where you're agreeing with me, though. You can't have long, breakaway rushing TDs if you give up on the run. That's the point.
You call running plays every so often, knowing most will get stonewalled, but also knowing that the only way to get a fluke long gain or TD is by calling running plays.
Anyway, my overall point is to not purposely abandon the run or the pass, as becoming one-dimensional does the defense a massive favor. You're just handing over one of their major goals going into the game.
-
I idly wonder in recent history which P5 CFB contest had the most unbalanced run:pass ratio, to either side. My guess is some teams are very pass happy, maybe 9:1? Teams that are run happy tend to throw passes every so often, I'm thinking GaTech under the former coach, or Army, et al.
I'm guessing around 9:1 either way.
-
Of the 1700-2000 different teams across all eras I've created for Whoa Nellie, none have had a pass-run ratio anywhere near 9:1. A few dozen have had the opposite - running the ball over 90% of the time (option teams, obviously).
Pass-heavy teams tend to top out at around 65-70%.
This is part of why a "balanced" team shouldn't be looked at as a 50/50 ratio of pass to run....its nowhere near the mean or median.
When teams are up 30 points entering the 4th quarter, they're running the ball, even if they're coached by June Jones or Mike Leach.
-
I can see that, 9 passes for each running play would be hard to do, in part because a sack is the latter, but mostly nobody calls that many passes.