The Texas Defense: Or How To Create A Statistical Outlier
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 2:54 PM CDT
in Texas Longhorns and Other Football
Email
PrintI've documented the weird disconnect between our defense's raw performance in yards allowed and yards per play vs. points allowed since 2009, but this year that trend has only worsened and is, in large part, responsible for the fact that we're sitting here at 4-4 rather than 7-1.
Despite what many believe, limiting opponent scoring output is a function of team play, not just your defense.
Similarly, last year's defense and special teams proved that offensive scoring output is not just a function of offense, scoring a record 11 non-offensive touchdowns along with many short fields. We were only slightly above average on offense last year - struggling mightily in five games - but we were extraordinary at team scoring. To the unsophisticated observer, team scoring is mistaken for great offense just as scoring allowed is always (dis)credited to the defense.
My hope is to enrich that understanding.
To prove my point, consider the top 10 major FBS defenses ranked in yards per game in the NCAA (I exclude Kent State as a MAC team for what I hope are obvious reasons):
1 TCU 217.3
2 Ohio St. 234.2
3 Boise St. 236.4
4 West Virginia 249.8
5 Texas 267.0
6 Utah 267.7
7 LSU 277.6
8 UCF 279.8
9 Arizona 286.8
10 Alabama 291.3
Excluding Texas, those nine teams have a combined record of 64-9 and a .877 winning percentage.
That's an average record of 7-1, including three of college football's four unbeaten teams.
So how is it Texas could be 4-4?
Because our defensive raw output doesn't translate to scoring defense. Which it does - very neatly - for almost every other team in America.
Observe:
1 TCU 8.67
2 Alabama 12.5
3 Boise St. 13.4
4 Ohio St. 13.5
5 West Virginia 13.6
6 Utah 14.1
7 Arizona 14.3
8 Iowa 14.50
9 Missouri 15.3
10 LSU 15.6
Do those bolded names look familiar? Look at the first set of rankings. The overlap between yardage allowed and scoring defense is almost total - 8 of 10 teams and 7 of the first 7. BTW, Iowa is ranked #12 in yardage allowed and UCF just missed making the points per game list, ranking #11. So this isn't correlation, it's causation. If you want me to run the p-value, I can get Hucklerobot on it, but take my word for it that we're looking at substantially less than .05.
Missouri is the only outlier, ranking in the low 50s in yardage allowed, but still checking in at a respectable 15.3 ppg. Missouri's bend-but-don't-break schemes and an offense and special teams that don't put points on the board for the opposing team are largely responsible. I expect those numbers to converge in the 20s as the season progresses (and it has begun), but on balance Missouri is putting on a clinic in how to protect your defense in the other phases of the game.
The clear outlier here is Texas. There is no other team in the Top 5 (indeed, the Top 7) in yardage allowed not also found in the scoring defense Top 10. And you won't find us in the Top 15.
Or the Top 25.
Or the Top 30.
Or Top 40.
Keep looking...
There we are. We're #41 in the country. Allowing 21.4 points per game. Talk about an outlier. Let me assure you that 21.4 ppg and 267 yards allowed per game are not a common pairing. To the point of statistical improbability. You have to work hard to achieve this. One should expect a ppg output more along the lines of 10-14 ppg.
So, what's up?
Well, assuming you're not a regular reader, or haven't synthesized some of my themes since August, here are the broad strokes:
1. Bad offense. However, it's not simply a function of overly conservative or bad offense. There are somewhat careful bad offenses (LSU, West Virginia) and conservative good offenses (Ohio St, Alabama). And there are explosive offenses that allow your defense to play with a lead (Boise State, Utah).
We have a careless, bad offense. That is a deadly combination. Turnovers + lack of production = bad juju. A high scoring but careless offense (high output, high turnover) or even a conservative mistake-free offense (low output, low turnover) would greatly aid our calculus.
We can do neither. We are low output, high turnover. With a particular knack for offering up a short field. Though our ability to generate 4th quarter yardage is enviable.
2. Special teams. We turn the ball over in the punt return game inside our red zone, allow the field to shift with poor decision making (70th in net punting), and are awful on kick returns (115th in the nation). Special teams hold hidden yards and they are decisive in football games. That's why I write a special teams post-mortem and why I babble about them so much, much to your irritation.
Like your mother making you eat your brussel sprouts, I'm doing it because it's good for you.
Mack Brown believes we won the Nebraska game because of some mystical focused energy and because we "played hard." In fact, all of his explanations for game outcomes are almost entirely emotional. Which is incredibly worrying. Emotion is just as often a result of good play as it is the cause.
In fact, the Nebraska game was very simple: our offense didn't turn it over - playing offense in a way that would make SweaterTress smile - and we dominated field position with special teams.
Between those two things, we accumulated 150 hidden yards. Nebraska had to attack long fields. We attacked short fields. That's how you win at war, in business, and at football.
Against UCLA, Iowa State, and Baylor we pissed away the same amount of hidden yardage the other way. That's how they could score 30.7 ppg on average against us while averaging 318 yards per game. 30.7 ppg and 318 yards per game don't match up. You have to look to special teams and offense to find those hidden yards of output. Yet the defense still gets pinned with "allowing X number of points."
3. Team play incompatibility with our defense. This may be a subset of #1 and #2, but it deserves its own heading. From a macro-standpoint, we're very poorly constructed to support a defense that would thrive off of playing with a lead and 70-80 yards of field to defend. The rules, style of play, and structure of college football today mean that your offense and special teams should reasonably expect to put up points. Lots of them. If you're of the belief that 17-21 points should be enough to win a college football game with the way we expose our defense, you're living in another era.
Scoring trends are up. Way up.
It's not 1977. WRs aren't lining up in a three point stance. Offensive linemen can use their hands and can legally hold if they get their fit on a defender. QBs nowadays are selected for actual passing ability and athleticism instead of gutty leadership. The playmaking QB on offense is now someone to be loosed rather than tamed. Offense has been the beneficiary of every rule change in college football over the last 30 years, with the only exception perhaps being possession rules on a catch.
Play accordingly. Recruit accordingly. Scheme accordingly. We do not. And did not. And will not.
4. The defense itself. For all of its positive metrics, we're not great on 3rd down (36%, 31st in the country, which is very acceptable, but not great), largely because of inadequacies in safety play and an amazing ability to collect 3rd down penalties. Additionally, the turnover fairy has been unkind, particularly as it relates to fumble recoveries. We're 6 of 23 on the year in recovery and it has been proven pretty conclusively that recovering fumbles (not causing) is a coin flip. We've had a run of tails.
A lack of interceptions is as simple understanding the difference between Earl Thomas at safety and not having Earl Thomas at safety. Thomas was responsible not only for the interceptions he grabbed, but he also protected Blake Gideon, allowing him to operate essentially as the end of a turnover funnel with no responsibilities and the ability to stand in center field catching pop ups. No Earl, no easy picks. And with two safeties - neither of which can cover - we're forced to play predictable coverages that don't allow the secondary games that enfeeble QB minds and create easy picks.
This is not a push for dumb equivalence - I'm merely pointing out that our offense and special teams are operating at 20% maximization while defense operates at 85%. The defense isn't perfect, but it's playing at an A- level while the offense and special teams are a D- and C- respectively.
Final Word
Statistics are useful when you know which ones matter. When you don't, the discourse looks a lot like this:
Right now, I suspect we have some younger guys on this staff who know which ones matter and, more crucially, what they mean. Equally, we have some other guys on this staff who will create their own statistical categories when it suits them or cherry pick favorable ones while holding some units to impossible standards. The tension between them and how it all plays out will tell the story of Longhorn football and how Mack Brown defines his ultimate legacy.
124 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I have a question about this, iterations of which appear in several posts:
“A lack of interceptions is as simple understanding the difference between Earl Thomas at safety and not having Earl Thomas at safety.”
I understand that Thomas was very good and Gideon and Scott are very average, but do we really need to have first round talent in the secondary to beat Iowa State and Baylor in Austin?
It reminds me of when I heard some talking head remark that Davis had finally grown comfortable enough with Vince Young, in 2005, to turn him loose. A guy has to be a once-in-a-lifetime player in his third year for our OC to be comfortable turning him loose? It seemed ridiculous. As it does to think we can’t beat also-rans at home unless we have top ten picks all over the field. You need those to beat Oklahoma and to win your bowl game, but Iowa State? Baylor? In games in which the outcome was not a fluke?
I know this makes me a mouthbreather and poorly educated and subject to being banished to Hornfans, and I get that the short fields and 3-play possessions, and inability to play with a lead negatively impact the defensive bottom line, but I just don’t give Muschamp quite as complete of a pass as some. I mean, Kevin Prince took it to the house . . . OU came out in the no-huddle (surprise!) . . . someone made that call that had that very average DB as the last line of defense between the receiver and the goal line with time running out in the first half against Baylor . . .
Yes it’s all a function of team play, but the Boy Wonder DC has lost a little luster for me.
by JUICE on Nov 2, 2010 3:11 PM CDT reply actions
Our D is no better than they showed on ou’s first two scoring drives. Nuff statistics said.
by Outliers Figure on Nov 2, 2010 3:12 PM CDT reply actions
The corollary to that is that WM is not better than that either.
by Outliers Figure on Nov 2, 2010 3:14 PM CDT reply actions
This is flat out wrong. The obvious reason for the disconnect is that our defense is not forcing at least 3 turnovers per game. /Captain obvious.
Thank God we play FAU and not UCF this year. If that were the case, I’m pretty sure our offense would finish with negative yardage.
by jc25 on Nov 2, 2010 3:16 PM CDT reply actions
If you don’t get many replies to this post, it’s because you absolutely nailed it. I have nothing to add, or really say at all.
by Nero on Nov 2, 2010 3:17 PM CDT reply actions
“Mack Brown believes we won the Nebraska game because of some mystical focused energy and because we "played hard." In fact, all of his explanations for game outcomes are almost entirely emotional. Which is incredibly worrying. Emotion is just as often a result of good play as it is the cause”
This is an interest statement, mainly because Mack spends so much time talking to the players about things that seem to imply playing without emotion “withstand the surge” comes to mind
by roach on Nov 2, 2010 3:18 PM CDT reply actions
“Yes it’s all a function of team play, but the Boy Wonder DC has lost a little luster for me.”
What standard are you holding Muschamp to? Oregon St & SMU were able to move the ball pretty well against TCU, the best D in the country supposedly. TCU has an offense that stops the bleeding, overcomes adversity, takes pressure off the defense and so forth.
by Eskimohorn on Nov 2, 2010 3:18 PM CDT reply actions
Keep preaching, brother.
I’m continually amazed at how few people who claim a basic understanding of football recognize the symbiotic relationship between offense, defense and special teams. They really don’t seem to get that continually giving up the ball inside your 35 will not at some point stress the defense beyond what is reasonable, expecting that they will always rise to the occasion with only a third of the field to work with. Your comparison of scoring defense vs. yards/game does a great job of illustrating this.
A team can get by with a weak squad if the other two are pretty good, but two out of the three dragging ass is a killer. We have two of those, and the defense is good but not world-class.
Thanks also for pointing out the inanity of those who still hang onto the arcane notion that 21 points should be enough to win a modern college football came.
by Levander Williams on Nov 2, 2010 3:20 PM CDT reply actions
roach, when Mack was talking about "withstanding the surge," he was more concerned about the nasty rumor floating around that the recent Surge sponsorship was shrinking the players’ testicles due to copious amounts of Yellow 5. Rest assured that Brown put that rumor to bed posthaste.
by jc25 on Nov 2, 2010 3:22 PM CDT reply actions
Well done, sir. The special teams completely baffle me. I watch other programs get mileage out of hungry non-starters that mix extremely well with the difference making “gotta have’s” and wonder why we can’t convince our backups to play the kicking game hard in every aspect. The “what’s in it for me attitude” just doesn’t fit in the game of football. Thanks Scipio.
by TexasFootball on Nov 2, 2010 3:25 PM CDT reply actions
JUICE -
No one is offering a pass for the defense. Read my point #4.
I’m offering a macro understanding of why our defensive yardage output and points allowed statistics are so wildly divergent. There is no other team in America with this statistical profile. None.
If you’re someone who understands statistics, a #5 yardage allowed paired with #41 in scoring defense is a huge flashing red sign. It merits exploration.
As for Thomas, yes, we beat Iowa State and Baylor with him in the secondary. I wrote before the Baylor game that Briles’s entire game plan would be focused on our safeties and he didn’t disappoint. He avoided Curtis and Aaron like they were rattlesnakes coated in cyanide with explosive vests.
Every single thing Baylor did on offense was a challenge to Gideon and Scott. Even in the running game. They even directed their WRs to block our corners or find a linebacker on many running plays. And their game changing plays were all more or less on them. Including the Finley run, which goes for 12 yards if either guy takes a proper angle. Not to mention the Gideon-fail on the blitz.
To date, we’ve played a number of outstanding offenses (Nebraska, OU, Baylor) and NO high quality defenses. NONE. Not. One.
People are assuming that our offense and defense are facing equivalent challenges week-to-week. They are not. One unit, by and large, is producing solidly against quality competition. The other units – offense and special teams – are not producing against very poor competition.
Outliers Figure -
You’re as dumb as a box of rocks, obviously.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 3:26 PM CDT reply actions
Muschamp is world-class, however his poor play calling against Baylor (blitzing on 3rd and long twice) gifted the Bears with 14 points. Art Briles actually scouted Muschamp’s tendancies and knew he liked to blitz in certain situations, thus he instructed Griffin to look for the hot route when faced with 3rd and long.
The Longhorns front four were bringing good pressure against Griffin in passing situations without the benefit of the blitz, and Griffin in turn had shown that when pressured in the pocket he failed to maintain ball security. The first blitz call from WM (the one where Gideon whiffed on the tackle) was excusable — he tried something, it did not work. The second call (the one where Gideon tried to intercept an imaginary ball ten yards up field of the receiver) smelled of Greg Davis (or Einstein’s definition of insanity, take your pick).
Muschamp is one of the best, but when you have to write two LOOOOOOONG posts to defend him the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 3:27 PM CDT reply actions
Great write up as usual Scipio. People don’t seem to get that football is a team game. Mack doesn’t seem to get that.
This is the beginning of the end for Mack.
by PrimeTime on Nov 2, 2010 3:28 PM CDT reply actions
While your points are all right on the money, I do tend to think 21 points should be enough to beat Baylor and Iowa State at home.
That said when you absolutely can’t catch a fucking punt, 21 points isn’t enough to beat anyone.
I love how the excuse machine trots out the personal (very real and very serious) difficulties of a college player all the while failing to realize that he put the player in the position to fail. With full knowledge that said player has a history of failing in that very same position and that this week was particularly emotionally draining.
I don’t get it at all.
by roach on Nov 2, 2010 3:32 PM CDT reply actions
“Kevin Prince took it to the house . . . OU came out in the no-huddle (surprise!) . . . someone made that call that had that very average DB as the last line of defense between the receiver and the goal line with time running out in the first half against Baylor . . .”
Bingo. Muschamp is a human being, as such he makes mistakes as well. All the statistics in the world won’t erase that fact.
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 3:32 PM CDT reply actions
Surely the right running back would solve everything?
by parlin on Nov 2, 2010 3:32 PM CDT reply actions
dood -
This is a macro post. Exploring macro ideas. Individual game assessments are covered in my post-mortems. Plenty of criticism to be found for our defense, if you care to read them.
And your characterization of my post suggests your approach to this is as emotion-based as Mack Browns’.
It’s like fans feel the need to form these little personality cults. That’s not my thing. I like Muschamp generally because he’s a maximizer, a worker on the recruiting trail, and a very solid X & O guy. I could care less if he wanted to pal around with me. I’m the rare Texas fan that doesn’t place a premium on back slapping.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 3:34 PM CDT reply actions
“If you don’t get many replies to this post, it’s because you absolutely nailed it. I have nothing to add, or really say at all.”
19 responses and counting = NailFail
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 3:35 PM CDT reply actions
parlin -
You know just the words to wound me when I’m vulnerable. Man, I’m laughing.
roach -
The thing with the punt returners is puzzling. I don’t get it. Curtis certainly has the raw ability to be a fantastic returner, but catching the punt is a pre-requisite before all other things. You have to pull the guy at some point.
Muschamp’s weak spot is Gideon, but a viable replacement is a year away given that Vaccaro doesn’t seem to be a guy we trust setting coverages.
Scott and Gideon are a terrible pairing because neither can supplement the other weaknesses. As I’ve written, we’re basically pairing two strong safeties. Not good stuff when facing a 5 WR set and a mobile QB.
Remember that when we play A&M….
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 3:38 PM CDT reply actions
Unfortunately I think the defense was set up for failure from the beginning with “the best ever” comments. The defense has underperformed based on that expectation but they are still significantly above average. Lack of turnovers, 3rd down troubles and penalties have really hurt them.
The offense on the other hand is an abomination. And special teams is actually even worse if that is even possible.
From what I gather Mack doesn’t actually seem to get this. Scary thought going into next year..
by TShakCFP on Nov 2, 2010 3:41 PM CDT reply actions
Haven’t seen the post-mortem for Baylor/UT, did I miss it?
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 3:43 PM CDT reply actions
Scipio,
I hope your right about Vaccaro. Clearly this year is in the shitter, but I’m beginning to get seriously concerned about next year with Williams and Brown gone. As weak as the middle of our pass defense is right now, I think next year could be a disaster.
Two things give me hope. Jeffcoat et al in the front seven giving QB’s no time to throw and muschamps ability to maximize defensive talent.
Offensively my only hope is completely unrealistic.
by roach on Nov 2, 2010 3:44 PM CDT reply actions
It’s coming. Honestly man, I’m a little depressed. It’s not fun re-watching these things.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 3:45 PM CDT reply actions
Muschamp’s weak spot is Gideon, but a viable replacement is a year away given that Vaccaro doesn’t seem to be a guy we trust setting coverages.
Scipio -
Do you believe it’s Muschamp choosing to play Gideon, or is Mack overriding his choices on playing time? I think that Vaccarro/Scott is about the best safety combo that we currently have, and I don’t really understand why we still see the Gideon/Scott pairing.
Am I missing something that others see, or is this just a conspiratorial idea about Brown’s medling in lineup selections?
by Levander Williams on Nov 2, 2010 3:45 PM CDT reply actions
While your points are all right on the money, I do tend to think 21 points should be enough to beat Baylor and Iowa State at home.
Pointless and very misleading statement. Why?
Allowing 30 points should be enough to beat Baylor and Iowa State at home, too. Average points scored by a team in a college football game is almost 27. Scoring 21 points is worse than allowing 30. This isn’t the NFL, where that number is around 21.5 points.
by Huckleberry on Nov 2, 2010 3:47 PM CDT reply actions
I think if Thomas Paine wrote a football blog, it would read like the last 4 or 5 entries.
by PatronSaint on Nov 2, 2010 3:47 PM CDT reply actions
Remember that when we play A&M….
But — I thought in order for a QB to be effective throwing the football, he must have multiple seasons of starting game experience under his belt. Surely you can’t expect a QB to throw for nearly 450 yards in his first start, and carve up a respectable secondary in what would be his fifth? That would be wholly unfair and unreasonable.
by ACE on Nov 2, 2010 3:47 PM CDT reply actions
“Am I missing something that others see, or is this just a conspiratorial idea about Brown’s medling in lineup selections?”
Muschamp speaks highly of Gideon, you can’t blame Mack alone.
“Offensively my only hope is completely unrealistic.”
Lance Zierlein sez GD is all but gone.
http://blogs.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2010/10/mike_sherman_finally_makes_the.html
So maybe not so unrealistic after all.
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 3:50 PM CDT reply actions
I’ve written more than once this year that Mizzou’s defense is not a top ten defense merely because of the “scoring defense” statistic, noting the disparity between that ranking and “total defense.” I fear the Tigers are out to prove me right….
Also, it’s worth pointing out that the “scoring defense” stat is a complete misnomer, or at least should be recognized as a team stat, not a defense state. If your QB gives up a pick 6, that counts against your “scoring defense.” If your ST give up a TD on a KOR. that goes against your “scoring defense.” I mean, seriously, someone should fix that.
Texas’ penchant for special teams and defense TDs made UT’s “scoring offense” look more impressive than it’s actual offense was last year.
by Phenomenal Smith on Nov 2, 2010 3:50 PM CDT reply actions
Levander -
I like Adrian Phillips as our long term safety solution.
The deal with a Vaccaro-Scott pairing is that Muschamp trusts neither to set our defensive coverages. Aaron Williams is smart enough to do it, but he’s at CB. Can’t see the field.
When given a choice between a physical bust or a mental bust, coaches generally choose the former. Muschamp believes he can hide Blake Gideon. He can. When he’s paired with Earl Thomas or we’re playing an offense that doesn’t spread the field.
Any team that can spread the field and has a mobile QB spells trouble for this D. It’s a simple matter of match-ups – not some innate failing of Muschamp.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 3:50 PM CDT reply actions
“19 responses and counting = NailFail”
Just because some people like to talk in circles doesn’t mean their arguments won’t eventually slide down the drain.
by Nero on Nov 2, 2010 3:52 PM CDT reply actions
Phenom -
Right. I think you said that succinctly. I actually like scoring defense as a metric – it’s just crucial that fans understand that it’s a TEAM METRIC.
As a team, Ohio State and Alabama do a tremendous job of limiting scoring. But their defenses aren’t performing any better than Texas. Really.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 3:53 PM CDT reply actions
Huck
So your saying that Texas should not be able to hold Iowa State and Baylor below the average points allowed in a college football game? Are you kidding me?
by roach on Nov 2, 2010 3:55 PM CDT reply actions
When he’s paired with Earl Thomas or we’re playing an offense that doesn’t spread the field.
I’ve got some bad news for you.
by PatronSaint on Nov 2, 2010 3:57 PM CDT reply actions
roach -
Why do you believe points allowed are simply a function of defense?
We allowed 30.7 ppg against UCLA, ISU, Baylor. Yet we gave up 318 ypg. Do you understand that this is a disconnect? A massive one?
Are you reading the main post that this conversation is happening under?
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 3:59 PM CDT reply actions
Nice work, Scip.
Hey dood…do yourself a favor and go fuck yourself. It’ll be the best you ever had. Do it often and repeatedly and stay TFOOH.
by Blueshorn on Nov 2, 2010 4:01 PM CDT reply actions
Well, that and I’m saying that it’s a pointless statement and actually rather irritating when used as a tool to deflect attention from the offense to the defense.
Are you saying that Texas should not be able to score more than the average points allowed in a college football game against Iowa State and Baylor? Are you kidding me?
by Huckleberry on Nov 2, 2010 4:02 PM CDT reply actions
Great piece Scipio. First time poster, but a long time reader. Keep up the good fight.
I like Mack, but my alma mater comes first. I am tired of him putting his friends and cronies ahead of the institution that pays him five million dollars a year. I hope he sees the light and finally trims the fat in his coaching staff.
I am not expecting it though.
by Jeffrey on Nov 2, 2010 4:02 PM CDT reply actions
Muschamp believes he can hide Blake Gideon. He can. When he’s paired with Earl Thomas or we’re playing an offense that doesn’t spread the field.
Yeah, OK, but we don’t have Earl Thomas to help, and I’m still struggling to understand why we don’t see Vaccaro get the first look at safety against teams that spread the field. I get that Kenny isn’t an ideal free safety, but I think he offers an upside over Gideon even if he’s not a long term solution. It just seems like an odd choice to continue giving Gideon so much time if by doing so you have to hide him or stick him back in Cover 1 playing deep (assuming he doesn’t lose his mind and try to jump slants, for example).
by Levander Williams on Nov 2, 2010 4:02 PM CDT reply actions
“Mike Gundy was named to the Dodd Coach of the Year Watch List, after leading his team to a 7-1 start. "
Heh.
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 4:02 PM CDT reply actions
Scipio,
I don’t believe they are a function of defense alone. As I said I agree with your points above. I’m saying as a TEAM Texas should be able to hold Iowa State and Baylor to under 21 points. Of course that means the offense has to be competent (I’d even take conservative). Hell I’d rather run the ball three times into the middle of the line and punt than what we are right now. We should also be able to do simple things like catch punts, and return kicks to the 25 yardline.
Giving up 21+ points to Baylor and Iowa State is a failure, its a team failure, but its a failure nonetheless.
by roach on Nov 2, 2010 4:05 PM CDT reply actions
Where Gideon missed the tackle was not a huge blitz – one linebacker was rushing so it was a five on five.
by Farmer Jed on Nov 2, 2010 4:06 PM CDT reply actions
<emYeah, OK, but we don’t have Earl Thomas to help, and I’m still struggling to understand why we don’t see Vaccaro get the first look at safety against teams that spread the field. I get that Kenny isn’t an ideal free safety, but I think he offers an upside over Gideon even if he’s not a long term solution. It just seems like an odd choice to continue giving Gideon so much time if by doing so you have to hide him or stick him back in Cover 1 playing deep (assuming he doesn’t lose his mind and try to jump slants, for example).
Agreed. And if not Vaccaro, somebody. I refuse to believe that there are half a dozen guys on the roster right now that couldn’t do Gideon’s job better than him.
by PatronSaint on Nov 2, 2010 4:08 PM CDT reply actions
Outstanding work! What I’d love to see are stats that showed the percent contribution of the following to opponent points this year:
- Turnovers
- Short fields
- Special teams gaffes
- Defensive penalties
I buy into the thesis that offense and special teams are the biggest problems, but I do wonder how much those drive-extending penalties are hurting us versus these other things…
by Dumeril Seven on Nov 2, 2010 4:08 PM CDT reply actions
Levander –
Setting the secondary coverages means more than just Cover 1. It’s making sight adjustments, calling out changes based on shifts, assessing strength and hash adjustments etc.
I wager Muschamp trusts Gideon there more than any other safety. I don’t know where the calculus begins and ends where Gideon’s physical deficiencies hurt us more than his formational “reliability” helps us.
I suspect it’s expired, but it’s hard to make a change when you’ve invested 30+ starts in a guy and you’re not sure how the replacements will function under live fire. This isn’t as clean a choice as Muckelroy vs. Bobino since Muck was physically better and had better instincts and know-how.
Not excusing Muschamp – just offering a possible explanation from his perspective.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 4:09 PM CDT reply actions
regarding our lack of fumble recoveries -
I know the stat heads on this site have good evidence that recovering a fumble is fairly random and not something you can improve upon. However, I think there may be a lurking variable in there. The way I see it there are two types of fumbles. 1) Strips / Drops 2) Exchange (handoff) fumbles.
From the naked eye, it seems handoff fumbles are easier to recover by the offense and often are. Has there been an unusually high number of these by our opponents this year, and perhaps this is skewing our fumbles recovered percentage downward as a result?
This differentiation is not made in the game summary so one would have to review a lot of tape to find out.
by Nero on Nov 2, 2010 4:09 PM CDT reply actions
In addition to the long TD run, Gideon blew coverage on two long TD pass plays:
- Playing ~12 yards deep, he took an atrocious angle on the receiver who was running a slant route, jumping at the player but basically landing behind him, which allowed him to run virtually untouched for a TD.
- Playing as the deep safety, he saw the receiver start the slant route with Scott in primary coverage. Instead of attempting to meet the player & ball together – or just staying back to protect deep middle – he runs under the slant, misjudging badly, and allowing the receiver to catch the pass and run right through the space that he abandoned.
by Levander Williams on Nov 2, 2010 4:12 PM CDT reply actions
Dumeril -
Drive extending penalties are covered under 3rd down conversion %. We’re 31st in the country. Top third. Not fantastic, but not an embarrassment.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 4:12 PM CDT reply actions
“Where Gideon missed the tackle was not a huge blitz – one linebacker was rushing so it was a five on five.”
Are you talking about the first receiving touchdown, Williams 59-yarder? I don’t have the film in front of me so I can’t tell you who was blitzing, but I called blitz before the snap and so did Griffin. My point above was that there was no need to blitz, Baylor could not keep Acho or Jones out of the backfield.
Hey Blues – if you jump up and down a few times you might shake the sand out of your vagina.
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 4:12 PM CDT reply actions
God, the problem with being a relatively sane evaluator of our team is that all of these analysis articles that have followed this string of pathetic performances that is our season, coupled with Mack Brown press conferences, only further serves to enrage me during the week.
I have no down time to catch my breath. It’s all rage, all the time. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go listen to Juice Newton’s Angel of the Morning on repeat and do some flower arranging.
by SydneyCarton on Nov 2, 2010 4:14 PM CDT reply actions
“he runs under the slant, misjudging badly, and allowing the receiver to catch the pass and run right through the space that he abandoned.”
Yeah, that was something wasn’t it? I sure do miss those targetting penalties of the days of yore.
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 4:15 PM CDT reply actions
Nero -
Your assumption is correct. Handoff fumbles are the most common type and the most likely to be recovered by the offense.
Strips/big hits are the most likely to be recovered by D, if memory serves me correctly. Which makes sense since the offensive player has lost the initiative in recovery.
I’m not sure if we’ve had an inordinate amount or not, but it’s a great data point.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 4:15 PM CDT reply actions
Huck;
First, I’m not deflecting any attention from the offense. They suck I know it, you know it.
It’s not meaningless to give up over three touchdowns in a game to two shitty football programs. TCU gave up 10 points to Baylor. Do you think Texas should give up more because the average points allowed in a college football game is 27?
Before you answer consider that Texas is supposed to be an elite football program.
by roach on Nov 2, 2010 4:15 PM CDT reply actions
“In addition to the long TD run”
I guess it’s OK to hang the TD run on Gideon as well, seein’ as how he is the most experienced safety and all. But I seem to remember Christian Scott running himself out of the play on that one.
by dood on Nov 2, 2010 4:17 PM CDT reply actions
I think the majority of folks trying to drop the hammer on Muschamp for not meeting absolutely otherworldly expectations are:
A) Too young to know better
B) Old enough to remember Texas fielding a defense that seemed to accomplish exactly that when hampered by an atrocious offense in 1983
C) Ex-Marines with a GD love affair and a lack of mental acuity so profound that it makes me fear for our nation’s safety
D) Head coaches with a GD love affair and a misplaced loyalty so profound that it makes me fear for our program’s near-term future
Setting aside the irrelevance of A), the comedy of C) and the terrifying spectre of D), I think that B) is pretty interesting. I would suspect that a lot of the folks giving Muschamp some equivalent level of grief have vivid memories of Degrate, Leiding, Gray and co. rising up with a fury against some SWC opponent after our lame offense punted another ball away. This defense isn’t as good as that one by any objective measure (nor would one expect it to be when considering the Blake Gideon vs. Jerry Gray free safety matchup alone), so if it’s purely ’83 or bust for some folks then they are doomed to disappointment – probably for quite some time to come.
But what’s probably getting lost in the mists of time is alluded to by your point early in the piece – offenses are MUCH, MUCH better across the board than they were in 1983. For any number of reasons, the pendulum has swung tremendously towards offensive football – only we’ve managed to move away from a semi-modern execution of spread concepts to a 1999 offensive concept that was probably closer to 1983 in terms of its creativity. Relative yards per play is a very handy overview statistic, but I’ll bet any number of metrics would show the 2010 Texas offense to be WORSE relative to its peers than the legendarily maligned 1983 Texas offense.
What this defense is accomplishing in this era of football is terrific by any measure (as Huck’s adjusted stats bear out), but they are doing so while being HISTORICALLY handicapped by the other two units wearing Orange and White.
by nobis60 on Nov 2, 2010 4:19 PM CDT reply actions
I suspect it’s expired, but it’s hard to make a change when you’ve invested 30+ starts in a guy and you’re not sure how the replacements will function under live fire. This isn’t as clean a choice as Muckelroy vs. Bobino since Muck was physically better and had better instincts and know-how.
Fair enough. Some of these decisions are curious, but I know it’s a hell of a lot easier to make such decisions from the comfort of my couch.
by Levander Williams on Nov 2, 2010 4:19 PM CDT reply actions
I do recall some fumbles that have bounced out of bounds, and therefore are unrecoverable by either team but revert to the offense by default. Perhaps if these were adjusted out the recovery percentage would make more sense, but you’d have to do that across all teams to see, like handoff fumbles, if UT is seeing more of those than normal.
by Nero on Nov 2, 2010 4:20 PM CDT reply actions
roach -
It’s a fair question. I think the point is that Baylor has an outstanding offense and a very poor defense. One should calibrate expectations accordingly. Baylor is 7-2 for a reason and that reason is a dude named RGIII. It ain’t because James Francis and Robert Blackmon are on their D again.
Also, my post was macro for a reason. There are a dozen things about our defense we can point out in specific games that irritated us. However, just as it’s useful to write history a few years after the event, it’s very useful to take a look at the landscape from 10,000 feet from time to time.
It gives you a whole picture, a larger truth, that is obscured within a play, a drive, a quarter, or even one game.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 4:21 PM CDT reply actions
“Drive extending penalties are covered under 3rd down conversion %. We’re 31st in the country. Top third. Not fantastic, but not an embarrassment.”
But that shows rank versus other teams, not how that factor may or may not be specifically contributing to enemy points in our games. I expect there to be a correlation, but sometimes the extent of the correlation in either direction can be surprising and enlightening. I’m sure you can do this in your copious spare time. ;-)
by Dumeril Seven on Nov 2, 2010 4:22 PM CDT reply actions
Dumeril -
I will get right on it.
It led to inordinate point contribution against the Sooners and was more or less negligible in the rest of our games.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 4:25 PM CDT reply actions
I guess it’s OK to hang the TD run on Gideon as well, seein’ as how he is the most experienced safety and all. But I seem to remember Christian Scott running himself out of the play on that one.
The comment was prefaced as a response to Farmer Jed’s comment about Gideon missing a tackle on a LB blitz – I assumed that he was referring to the long TD run.
Thinking about it again, I don’t think Robinson was blitzing on that play, but he did slide out a gap and the RB ran through the gap that he originally was covering. Whether that was a miss on Robinson’s part, or a failure of whichever safety was supposed to keep containment in the middle, I don’t know.
On the first TD, I recall that there was a blitz on the left side, but I don’t believe that Gideon was involved. I could be wrong, but it would strike me as odd that you’d have a safety blitzing from 10-12 yards deep on a two-receiver side with no deep help.
by Levander Williams on Nov 2, 2010 4:27 PM CDT reply actions
Dumeril -
You could look across all teams and say that on average a third down penalty is given up at a certain yardline, most likely somewhere around the 50. I doubt the occurance of just one third down penalty on a drive leads to points any more often than a sack leads to an offense not scoring points.
But I know for a fact we have had drives where we have given up two third down penalties on the same drive. And I bet in those instances points are scored nearly every time.
by Nero on Nov 2, 2010 4:31 PM CDT reply actions
I don’t think there is any question that Gideon is on the field to set the coverages. Nothing else makes sense. I spent the Baylor game watching him on every snap. He’s constantly moving people around pre-snap. It’s ironic that he manages the positioning of everyone else and then can’t get himself in position to make a play. He takes bad angles on practically every play and he can’t cover his own shadow.
The touchdown right before the half was a simple matter of not striking with his head on the proper side of the ball carrier. That’s Football 101 that kids learn in grade school. It’s obviously a huge dilemma for Muschamp not to have any better option at that position. I wish he’d say “screw it” for one game and see if the alternative is really worse. But then he’d get blamed for that if it was. He’s hamstrung with kids he didn’t recruit and trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
by Blueshorn on Nov 2, 2010 4:31 PM CDT reply actions
Nobis-
That’s an interesting take on who has raw expectations of Muschamp. In my experience, albeit being a younger guy, it’s mostly older fans (40-45 and above) who are protective of the offense and somewhat questioning of the defense. Now, granted, I’m a 30 and typically hang around with other like minded people, but I feel it’s a lot of older guys who defend GD. I naturally just assume it’s because they were so damaged by the 85-97 years that any and everything that isn’t a flaming dumpster fire seems great to them.
I could be way off base here. But that was my knee-jerk reaction to all of this. Interesting what different people see.
And if we’re victims of the night, I won’t be blinded by the light.
by SydneyCarton on Nov 2, 2010 4:32 PM CDT reply actions
Who is in charge of Special Teams play? That guy never gets called out, and it is an abomination that is at least 1/3 of the wrong side of the equation here.
by . on Nov 2, 2010 4:41 PM CDT reply actions
If you’re referencing Juice Newton the youngest you could possibly be is 52, imo. Yet you type with the vigor and angst of someone much younger.
Could it be that older people are just more passive in general and are more worried about their teeth staying in their face and if they’re ever going to take a dump again? And in that regard they feel a kinship to GD? srr50 excluded mind you.
by magnusbleuveigner on Nov 2, 2010 4:42 PM CDT reply actions
Akina. At least it was in the past. And he was good at his job.
Mack Brown complacency curse, imo.
by SydneyCarton on Nov 2, 2010 4:42 PM CDT reply actions
Eh, I think special teams is broken up to a bunch of coaches.
by magnusbleuveigner on Nov 2, 2010 4:43 PM CDT reply actions
Special teams duties are divvied up, if I recall, with Tolley having overall responsibility.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 4:44 PM CDT reply actions
We haven’t sniffed a punt block this year. Haven’t sniffed a kickoff return. Everyone has seen the PR disasters week after week. Punt is spotty and doesn’t reflect smart football half the time. Field goal has been good enough to win (yea!!). Kickoff coverage – nobodies busted one for a TD, but the longer ones come at the wrong times. Used to be we kicked peoples asses on these units.
by . on Nov 2, 2010 4:46 PM CDT reply actions
It sucks that getting bowl eligible (and even to 9 wins in Mack’s mind) this season will likely take priority over getting players like Phillips more reps this year in order to be better next.
Hell, next year you’ll be able to add Brewster back into the All Strong Safety rotation.
by Horncasting on Nov 2, 2010 4:46 PM CDT reply actions
Just because Zierlien writes for OB’s doesn’t mean shit. He hardly ever discussed UT in the past and now he’s an expert? Bollocks.
by magnusbleuveigner on Nov 2, 2010 4:46 PM CDT reply actions
Sydney- interesting view on the age gap with regard to supporting Davis.
I’m 40 and have wanted Davis gone since at least my early 30’s, with the WSU game at age 33 being the pinnacle until now. If there is such a generation gap it could be, as you said, that we have been exposed to the horrors of the 85-97 years or it could be that we were first watching football in the late 70’s/early 80’s, back when a good defensive performance meant holding someone in the single digits. Or maybe all my contemporaries are getting early onset alzheimers.
by stuckinmn on Nov 2, 2010 4:48 PM CDT reply actions
nobis – I can assure you that the average US Marine shares a close kinship with Will Muschamp and would throw a box of Kleenex at the jackwagon running our offense. MARINES DON’T STORM THE BEACHES SIDEWAYS!!!!
by Orange Slices For Everyone on Nov 2, 2010 4:48 PM CDT reply actions
Lance Z’s opinion carries zero weight on this issue, and he’d probably tell you as much – it was an opinion not purporting any inside knowledge.
Getting bowl eligible is a crucial enough goal at this point that a great deal of effort should be bent toward it. We need those practices and I’m still dumb enough to hold out the faint hope that Mack might break out some wrath and get at least some of the right asses kicked during bowl game prep a la 2007.
Put the 22 on the field that you think give you the best chance to beat K State. If that bunch fails you, put in the kids to get seasoned against Ok St and FAU (who we should beat with Nkwopara starting) and by the time you face A&M they’ll be giving you at least what Kyle Kirkenmitchell are giving you. Greg Smith should not set foot on the field again under any circumstances.
by nobis60 on Nov 2, 2010 4:54 PM CDT reply actions
Orange Slices -
Believe me, as an American I am pleased to note that the Ex-Marine in question is an outlier in almost every conceivable sense.
by nobis60 on Nov 2, 2010 4:56 PM CDT reply actions
Stuckinmn-
I honestly think that the biggest factor HAS to be the people we choose to be around. People who visit Barking Carnival regularly, or even Shaggy Bevo, are likely to me more of group of like minded people. I sure as hell am not going to spend my Saturday’s watching 10 hours of football with a bunch of people who think Greg Davis is the bees knees and can’t recognize trends on any side of the ball. Regardless of age demographic, there are pockets of all of us everywhere.
Also…echeese is like in his 50’s right? I just sunk your battleship!
by SydneyCarton on Nov 2, 2010 5:03 PM CDT reply actions
Great post Scip,
Anyone who doesn’t recognize the offensive offense as the cancer of this team just doesn’t get it and probably never will…..no offense WM bashers. Overall point – the offense is so bad, it not only results in worse statistics for the defense but also complete emotional deflation. We had great starting field position this past Saturday and did nothing/kicked 5 field goals with it.
by utex01 on Nov 2, 2010 5:04 PM CDT reply actions
Could it be that older people are just more passive in general and are more worried about their teeth staying in their face and if they’re ever going to take a dump again? And in that regard they feel a kinship to GD? srr50 excluded mind you.
You came damn close to losing any future tote bag consideration as well as posting privileges there hotshot.
by srr50 on Nov 2, 2010 5:06 PM CDT reply actions
For what its worth, I’m 69 and DO NOT support Davis. In fact, had it been up to me, I would have fired MB, Davis and Reese immediately following the ’02 RRS. And nothing has changed since then except for the huge upgrade at DC.
by J.R.69 on Nov 2, 2010 5:08 PM CDT reply actions
nobis – Understood.
We definately had a small percentage of “outliers” we referred to as shitbirds. T. Boone’s use of this word pleases me greatly..
by Orange Slices For Everyone on Nov 2, 2010 5:26 PM CDT reply actions
Magnus-
I’m 30. And I’ll tell you what, I’m pretty damn close to an outline in my head for an Angel of the Morning themed Viewing Guide. I’m a renaissance man. That being said, I still have the angst of a much younger man.
by SydneyCarton on Nov 2, 2010 5:34 PM CDT reply actions
Could it be that older people are just more passive in general and are more worried about their teeth staying in their face and if they’re ever going to take a dump again? And in that regard they feel a kinship to GD? srr50 excluded mind you.
’bleuveigner,
I’m 56. I still have my teeth and I’m as regular as clockwork. Love me some Muschamp and I want Davis’ head on a stake. I think you’ll find many Royal loyalists who feel that way. Defense wins championships and championships are important. The Davis enablers are largely people who discovered the program during the dark days from the late 70s to the late 90s and never experienced a national title until Vince finally won one for Mack. Many of them falsely attribute that title to GD and Mack, when left to their own devices, Vince would have been completely wasted. Mack can do no wrong in their eyes and they’re satisfied with 10-win seasons in an era of 13 game schedules. Royalists consider that to be gross underachievement.
Being an enlightened Longhorn fan requires critical thinking skills and a curiosity a lot of people just don’t have. Thankfully, Barking Carnival finally showed up for those who do, or are willing to try to learn. It was a long time coming, but now we don’t have to hang out with the morons at HornFans and OB and get fed the company line by a bunch of asshats. There is a reason why echeese doesn’t post here.
by Blueshorn on Nov 2, 2010 5:37 PM CDT reply actions
Also, Lance Zerlein writes for OB now?
Glad I turned in my fucking subscription to that bowel movement of a site awhile back.
by SydneyCarton on Nov 2, 2010 5:37 PM CDT reply actions
Damnit. Why are the italics going haywire on this site? Try to put “I don’t give a fuck if I misspelled his name” in brackets and suddenly everything’s goes all limp wristed.
by SydneyCarton on Nov 2, 2010 5:38 PM CDT reply actions
About 15 seconds into the Holy Grail clip one of the Pythons has shaving cream on. Seen the movie at least 10 times and never caught that one before.
On a related note I’m picturing Mack standing at the entrance to the stadium and asking each of his assistants three questions before they meet “the standard”. First question is something about the velocity of a swallow.
by Art Vandelay on Nov 2, 2010 5:41 PM CDT reply actions
Also…echeese is like in his 50′s right?
This is true. He’s also a t-shirt longhorn fan who attended UTSA. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
by Blueshorn on Nov 2, 2010 5:44 PM CDT reply actions
Yeah, but he does have a picture of himself with Coach Royal that he uses as an avatar.
by Blueshorn on Nov 2, 2010 5:50 PM CDT reply actions
Scip – great stuff. Can you explain, or point me to a good link, the difference between the strong and free safety positions? And, can you describe what skills are most important to each, how some players can compliment each other (like Thomas and Dideoen, or would Thomas just make anyone else look good?), and give us a run down of our roster, describing the pros and cons of each player and who you expect to step up in the next year plus? I know it’s asking a lot, but figured you would like this under handed pitch of a question.Thanks
by DWH on Nov 2, 2010 6:06 PM CDT reply actions
DWH -
We don’t have a true strong and free safety. We play left and right.
No links, but off the top of my head:
Traditionally strong safeties are generally big guys that can support against the run that line up based on the TE’s alignment. They’re generally not great in coverage against a WR. They also play closer to the LOS. See OU’s Roy Williams.
A free safety gets to play a lot like the name sounds. And they need to be able to cover in space. They’re the weak side safety. Think Ed Reed. Your last line of defense and a guy who should be able to cover a hell of a lot of ground laterally.
A lot of those designations have been rendered moot by the advent of the spread. I was using “strong safety” as a means of communicating two guys who don’t do well in space.
Again – we do not run a traditional free/strong alignment, despite whatever the depth chart may say.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 2, 2010 6:15 PM CDT reply actions
Coaching’s an odd world. Gene Chizik, a better-than-average defensive coach, will by the end of this season be defined largely by three years, featuring:
A — an Auburn backfield that had 3 first rounds picks.
B – a Texas backfield that featured Jesus in Cleats I.
C – an Auburn backfield that features Jesus in Cleats II.
If great offense can make a defensive coach, then poor offense can destroy one.
And for all the talk about Les Miles, it’s clear to me who REALLY sold their soul to Lucifer.
by Great coaches on Nov 2, 2010 6:27 PM CDT reply actions
2010 Baylor is a VERY good offense, roach. That’s just the way it is. Their point total has been deflated by a very bad defense in a situation completely analogous to the reason Scipio made this post, except the converse.
by Huckleberry on Nov 2, 2010 6:30 PM CDT reply actions
t-shirt longhorn fans should be required to wear pieces of flare to make them identifiable
by Andrew on Nov 2, 2010 6:44 PM CDT reply actions
Addendum to Nero’s turnover question: does the 50-50 ratio assume people are just diving on the ball? Could our low recovery ratio be a matter of the defense trying to scoop it up to carry and hopefully score (to make up for our unproductive offense)? I’m just curious if there’s an explanation other than dumb luck to account for our low recovery rate.
by Canuck Horn on Nov 2, 2010 6:55 PM CDT reply actions
Greg Davis picking his nose all game long is “Dog Bites Man”.
Art Briles beating Will Muschamp on a blitz call is “Man Bites Dog.”
And the postgame news conference was just the ensuing rabies.
by Homesick Alien on Nov 2, 2010 7:02 PM CDT reply actions
Btw, what’s the picture linked with this story? I would like to know those ladies more.
by Canuck Horn on Nov 2, 2010 8:05 PM CDT reply actions
After reading the really solid coverage on our teams woes from a strongly data driven and reasonably objective standpoint, I was wondering if the BC staff would apply that outlook to two specific topics?
1. How does a change in football staff look to the “Powers that be” in and above Bellmont? Mack can fill his pressers with all the football mysticism he wants, but I suspect that Bellmont and Powers have a more concrete set of metrics that define success. What are those metrics, and how do they look from a corporate Longhorn Inc. style risk/reward/profitability standpoint? Do they ever look at those metrics, and ponder whether we could attain the same or similar results with a different assortment of coaches? Is the outlook coming from a short term view that assumes we could get the same number of wins/ticket sales/TV coverage at a cheaper price with coaches XYZ instead of ABC? Or is there a calculus that says the worth of the program and brand is tied too closely to coaches ABC, and only a severe devaluation (multi-year meltdown and revenue loss) merit a new “investment” strategy?
2 Crowdsourcing the offense. If we were to look at the talent we have, given a set of assumptions about their strengths and weaknesses and designed an offense from whole cloth, what would it look like? Given our assets on the roster, what would the most effective incarnation of an offense born of those players look like? Spread option? Pistol based running? Air Raid? What formations, constraints, and plays would define the core identity of the offense? Seriously, not the ten-yard minimum joke that has played itself out on message boards for the last 5 years, it’s old and was only marginally funny to begin with.
by Gate_of_Horn on Nov 2, 2010 8:13 PM CDT reply actions
I think some of you are just trying to be ironic, with your “OMG but the defense is giving up points!!!” bullshit.
Whether or not it’s intentional, it’s funny either way.
by nordberg on Nov 2, 2010 8:43 PM CDT reply actions
Scipio —
I wrote the following BEFORE the Baylor game, in discussion with an acquaintance that began more or less on the same point you underscore here — i.e., that the scoring-defense anomaly was due largely to the offense’s impotence. But I had a sort of nagging sense that there was something systemic and statistically relevant on the defensive side too, and this was what I came up with:
>>
There’s one other factor: We’ve just been very bad about allowing TDs this year. In 20 trips to the Red Zone, our opponents have scored 15 times (i.e. 75%), which is good for a tie for 20th nationally — not bad. (Mizzou, by the way, is on top; opponents have scored just 52% of the time against them when reaching the Red Zone.) But looking a little closer, you find the somewhat alarming discrepancy. Of those 15 times we allowed a score, 13 of them were touchdowns. Compare that to, say, Florida State, one of the teams tied with us at 75% (identical 15-of-20 stats) — and they’ve allowed 8 FGs but just 7 TDs. That translates into a pretty hefty surcharge of points on us.
This is something that’s really unlike a WM team. Remember the Rice game a couple years ago when the Owls had something like 11 plays from inside our 5 yard line and didn’t score.
OU put up an even 28 on us. Iowa State put up an even 28 on us. Those numbers are so round because whenever the opposition got close, they got touchdowns.
>>
The Baylor game results didn’t necessarily play into this rubric, but that was primarily because most of the TDs came from outside the Red Zone. (The 50+ run and the two 30+ passes.) One other factor, which the acquaintance brought up, is the degree to which we’ve been been burned by big-play scores; the 3 vs Baylor puts us at a total of 8 TDs allowed on plays of 20 yards or more for the season. (Another 6 have come on plays of 15-19 yards.)
For whatever all that is worth, anyhow.
by Editionshield on Nov 2, 2010 10:29 PM CDT reply actions
I have fond memories of listening to Juice Newton in my youth, and I am far from 50.
Seriously, I am not even close. It will be a very, very long time before I am 50.
Do you think these sideburns make me look hip?
by That's what she on Nov 3, 2010 12:25 AM CDT reply actions
Good addition, edition.
It doesn’t explain the anomaly totally, but it is interesting that the defense hasn’t been great at limiting touchdowns inside the red zone. I would definitely add it as a subheading to the the defense column as a legitimate issue.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 3, 2010 1:18 AM CDT reply actions
edition – I like the TD stats. So how many of the 20 red zone opportunities started inside that zone (turnover) vs started in our side of the field (our 20-50) vs their side. Might not tell us much, just curious.
Scip – on the safeties. Thanks. Scott is clearly a strong, Gideon doesn’t appear to be good at either as he has big deficiencies in the
Strong Safety – Larger, solid tackler, can cover the tight end, big in run support
Free Saftey – Fast, good coverage skills, good at angles and closing speed, good tackler.
And the “read” responsibilities are more a decision of who on the field has the understanding and quickness to make the reads and direct people. Helps to be a safety or LB from a position on the field perspective. So Gideon is not a great safety at either position, but his ability to make the presnap reads is needed. You would think someone that can make those reads would understand and excel at taking the right angles and executing the tackles to make up for the athletic deficiencies.
by DWH on Nov 3, 2010 3:48 AM CDT reply actions
Whoops. Not sure what happened there in that second paragraph.
“Gideon doesn’t appear to be good at either as he has big deficiencies in the in both run support and coverage support. "
I don’t think Gideon is a consistent tackler. He gets himself in position at times, only to “miss”. Vacarro doesn’t miss much. He closes well and tackles with authority. I seem to see Scott more involved in gang tackles and not as many one on one opportunities as Gideon and Vacarro. I would think that is because he plays more run support and doesn’t cover the 3rd wideouts or backs in space like the others. I haven’t seen enough of the others to be able to comment. How do we look across the board and going into next season? I liked your player evals you did right before the season.
by DWH on Nov 3, 2010 4:06 AM CDT reply actions
Great diagnosis of the macro situation from a statistical perspective. However, I must remind the many football techno nerds on this site that, football is an emotional game played by real people. Not figurines on a PlayStation EA sports game. Their is emotion and emotion is why we won 2005. Which is why being a visitor at a hostile environment at night is very, very tough.
Stats are very effective to use in small doses , but if used too deeply then you forget about the basics of the game itself.
If you don’t believe me check out Tech in 2008. Scored at will on us and in the last minute. Next week OU makes Tech look like a high school team. Stats going into that game ignore emotion, confidence, etc. ATM last year against us????
There are some super macros out there that will always stand. Like a pissed off team beats a complacent team. Like a Shutdown D beats a World class spread O every time. Check Oregon/ OSU last year.
I believe Mr. Saban teaches these things.
by Orange River on Nov 3, 2010 8:39 AM CDT reply actions
This is the last thing I’m going to say on this subject because my eyes are bleeding from reading the ignorance of so-called football fans/observers who think this defense has played “poorly” or is a big part of the problem. As it has been noted, and ignored by the obtuse masses, NOBODY thinks they get a pass or have been great, but they have been good to very good.
Critics ignore the total ranking #5 and yards per play ranking #1 (adjusted) and point to the scoring ranking #41.
Take away these three scores, and UT is ranked #23 scoring defense. They go from 21.38/game to 18.76/game.
7 points from a punt return by Nebraska
7 points from a 2 yard TD drive by UCLA after Brown fumbles punt return.
7 points from an 8 yard drive by Baylor after TE Smith tips pass from GG for INT.
There are 17 more points not included in this adjustment that come from teams getting the ball in UT territory due to offensive turnovers and/or poor special teams.
Add in the other factors that have been discussed, and realistically this is a Top 15 (or better) scoring defense.
by texoz on Nov 3, 2010 8:46 AM CDT reply actions
“Barking Carnival needs more T Shirt fans.”
Ripley missed a golden opportunity to hyperlink the T-Shirt emporium. We need to get Vasherized started on making a commercial and really start marketing all sizes of shirts from Minnesotahorn to The General. Maybe even get his missus in a BC cheerleader outfit. Then we can have a game between the progeny of Huck and Trips. One side in BC orange, the other in the road whites. ACTON!!
Confession time: Juice Newton reminds me of my damn youth too. Furthermore, I like the song in question. Back in my day* the 5 year old in the back seat didn’t have control over the radio and eventually you just started liking whatever your parents played. Sometimes you’re left making a confession like this, other times you’re bragging about being able to recite Bob Marley “Legend” at the age of 8. Either way, road trips with the parents ftmfw! Happy B-day, Mom.
*I’m 32.
by magnusbleuveigner on Nov 3, 2010 9:12 AM CDT reply actions
I’m 40. Thus I am a man. And my parents did not listen to Juice Newton while I was in the car. We had a fancy car with a cassette deck. Thus we had a choice of what we listened to.
The Brown press conference was nothing less than shocking. I wanted to think he was pulling some sort of misdirection thing – as in “we need three turnovers from the D a game [because our offense is worthless]” But if he is really trying to divert the blame to Muschamp, then he is much more Machiavellian than I thought, and is willing to knowingly sacrifice the good of the team for his own security. Because there is simply no way that a man smart enough to get where he is today could stand on the sidelines (much less watch film) and honestly declare the defense is primarily responsible for the product we have seen this year.
by I Must Be Old on Nov 3, 2010 9:24 AM CDT reply actions
Not a lot to add Scipio, except this is just stellar stuff.
Context is everything when it comes to stats. hpslugga over at Hornfans keeps trying to point that out when he isnt being shouted down for never having been a college coach.
One metric I would be interested in is plays run and plays defended or some variations on that. When you see your offense go three and out a few times in a row to start a game it kills your defense.
I am thinking specifically of the OU and UCLA games where we didnt move the ball at all in the first half when at least some first downs give your D a chance to adjust and firm up.
Again I reference Oregon. In the parts of the game where they start rolling I bet they are running twice as many plays as they are defending. You get to where you dont think about stopping them, you try not to drown.
by bullzak on Nov 3, 2010 10:04 AM CDT reply actions
Thanks for the post. It made me curious about what we do with a short field. Here goes-
Through 8 games, Texas offense has started a drive on the opponent’s 40 yard line (position picked arbitrarily by me before looking at the data) 12 times, and scored 35 points on those drives, for an average of 2.9 points per drive. Note- historically under Mack, Texas has scored 2.9 points/drive on all drives, regardless of starting position. On all drives this season, regardless of starting position, Texas averages 1.8 points. On all drives starting short of an opponent’s 40, Texas averages 1.6 points.
The opponents have had 9 drives this season start on Texas’ 40 or better. They have scored 44 points, for an average of 4.9 pts/drive. On all drives this season, regardless of start, they have averaged 1.5 pts/drive. On all drives starting short of our 40, opponents average 1.2 points. Note- I included BU’s last drive, which began on our 35 and ended with Griffin taking a knee. Remove that, and BU averages 5.5 pts per short field.
The game that makes the best contrast? ISU. Texas started two drives on the ISU 35 and 40, and totaled 3 points. ISU started 2 drives on the Texas 37 and 40 and totaled 14 points.
Takeaways-
1. Our defense is much more effective when they have more field to defend. I wonder if we are trying too aggresively schematically (via blitzes) to keep them scoreless, when we should be playing them “straight up” and conceding the field goal. This absolutely merits scrutiny by somebody (not me) who knows what they’re doing.
2. Our offense is ridiculously bad. Mack should really consider quick kicking on 3rd and long. Honestly.
by TaylorTRoom on Nov 3, 2010 10:48 AM CDT reply actions
Thanks for the thought provoking post Scipio.
The two teams that seem to at least be in the same ballpark as Texas are WVU and LSU. Both have terrible offenses (I wouldn’t call either one particularly careful considering turnovers lost: WVU 17, LSU 18, TX 18), but both manage to do SOMETHING well when the defense is on the sideline. WVU is somewhat efficient (top half) throwing the ball with 15 TDs for 6 INTs. LSU can run the ball and is pretty good all around (top quartile) on special teams.
The fact that Texas does NOTHING well when the defense gets off the field must have a terrible psychological effect on them.
by Magnificent Bastard on Nov 3, 2010 10:52 AM CDT reply actions
“Furthermore, I like the song in question.”
I happened to see Juice perform Angel of the Morning from the deck of the restaurant at the bottom of the ski mountain at Crested Butte, Colorado, back when she was a big deal. Seems like a long time ago.
by Blueshorn on Nov 3, 2010 10:55 AM CDT reply actions
I happened to see Juice perform Angel of the Morning from the deck of the restaurant at the bottom of the ski mountain at Crested Butte, Colorado, back when she was a big deal. Seems like a long time ago.
That’s because it was.
by srr50 on Nov 3, 2010 12:29 PM CDT reply actions
I always preferred “Queen of Hearts.”
But “Angel of the Morning” would help take my mind off of the bad football at this point.
by Bob in Houston on Nov 3, 2010 1:36 PM CDT reply actions
Okay, I decided to dig a little deeper on exactly what factors were driving our opponents’ scores. I went over to the Sports Illustrated site and sifted through the drive charts and play-by-play game summaries for 2010, put them in a simple spreadsheet, and came up with the following stats.
Looking at each score by an opponent — touchdown, field goal, safety — I categorized them by the situation that led up to them. The situational categories I looked at were: turnovers by the Texas offense or special teams, short field position given to an opponent, and Texas defensive penalties that extended an opponent’s scoring drive.
Here are the numbers:
% scores off offensive turnovers: 14.29%
% scores off punt return turnovers: 7.14%
% scores off short field: 25.00%
% scores off drive-extending penalties: 14.29%
% scores “not on the defense”: 32.14%
Not that these numbers are not supposed to add up to 100%. They don’t represent the full set of circumstance under which scores can happen, and there is overlap between categories (for instance, you can have an offensive turnover that results in short field).
Some of my definitions:
- “short field”: the opponent started a scoring drive on the Texas 40 yard line or closer. I figured that was in or very close to field goal range and thus puts the defense in a serious bind in terms of preventing an opponent from scoring. Oddly, my count of short fields doesn’t quite jive with TaylorTRoom’s and I’m not sure why. I doubt I’ll have time to figure it out either. Oh well.
- “Drive-extending penalty”: A penalty against the Texas defense which resulted in a “new” first down. So, if it was 1st and 10 and we drew a penalty of 10+ yards, then I considered that a drive-extending penalty; if it was for less than 10 yards, then I did not consider that drive-extending.
- “Not on the defense”: I broadly defined this as scores by the opponent from situations in which the Texas defense was either not on the field, or was hamstrung by crummy field position resulting from poor offensive or special teams play.
You may or may not agree with my definitions, but they made sense to me at the time.
Here’s my takeaway: 1/3 of our opponents’ scores have been off of poor play by the offense and special teams. If that doesn’t prove that our defense is not the problem, I don’t know what does. Take those away and our defense is in fact looking elite.
While not the long pole in the tent by any stretch, defensive penalties are significant (contributing to 4 touchdowns), resulting in as many opponent scores as offensive turnovers. In fact, one of the drives in the OU had two drive-extending penalties, and of course I didn’t include drive-extending penalties that didn’t result in an opponent score (and there were some), so the stats are slightly better than the reality. OTOH, I suspect the penalties would be ignored/forgiven if our offense and special teams weren’t putting our defense in such unfavorable situations so often.
by Dumeril Seven on Nov 3, 2010 1:44 PM CDT reply actions
Yes, but how many of you knew that the person who wrote “Angel of the Morning” is also the person who wrote “Wild Thing”….
by Editionshield on Nov 3, 2010 1:53 PM CDT reply actions
Excellent article, Scipio.
Have you ever heard the theory that many, if not most, football teams would be better off without ever attempting a punt return? That is, put no one back to catch and send an extra guy to attempt a block.
Advantages: no fumbled punt turnovers, no fair catches inside the 10, more blocks
Disadvantages: give up longer punts/worse field position, no great punt returns/TDs
I don’t know if you could analyze this theory statistically, but it’s an interesting concept.
by Drew on Nov 4, 2010 9:50 AM CDT reply actions
Drew -
The problem is that teams, knowing this, would just focus on getting the ball off of the punter’s foot instantly so you’d get no blocks. And without a returner to arrest a forward roll, you potentially allow 70-75 yard punts routinely.
by Scipio Tex on Nov 4, 2010 12:23 PM CDT reply actions
just a quick question that maybe was already asked and I missed it, but wouldnt defending a short field lead to fewer yards given up per point scored? in other words, if our offense is constantly putting our defense in a bad position (ie short field) then shouldnt we expect our D to yield fewer yards per score than normal? if so, the higher ranking re fewer yards per game is not an outlier with respect to points per game but rather would be consistent with it.
was this already explained? i scanned the responses but i might have missed it. thanks.
by Longhorn94 on Nov 15, 2010 1:00 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Barking Carnival
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
