Wow, thanks that's great information. It looks like 3rd and long for Michigan's defense = doom.
Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Third Down...of DOOM!
Filed under:
(Warning, I am a historian by trade, not a statistician,
so I may have made some incorrect conclusions, which is why I included
all of the data.)
Michigan's fatal flaw Saturday, literally, was third down
defense. While there were some positives, including two Brandon Graham
sacks, the big plays on third down were the difference in the game.
I've made a chart, because, well, I needed a chart. Basically, I wanted to see if the stats backed up up on this, and certainly, they bore me out. I also hope the formatting remains.
| Quarter | To Go | Result | Pos. Yards | Neg. Yards | Play | Notes |
| 1st | 16 | Converted | 23 | 23 yard pass | ||
| 1st | 5 | Converted | 61 | 61 yard pass | TOUCHDOWN | |
| 1st | 6 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 1st | 9 | Converted | 12 | 12 yard pass | ||
| 2nd | 1 | Converted | 2 | 2 yard rush | ||
| 2nd | 1 | Not Converted | -3 | (3 yard rush) | ||
| 2nd | 10 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 2nd | 8 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 3rd | 12 | Not Converted | -7 | (7 yard sack) | ||
| 3rd | 6 | Converted | 50 | 50 yard pass | ||
| 3rd | 6 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 3rd | 6 | Converted | 12 | 12 yard pass | ||
| 3rd | 12 | Converted | 44 | 44 yard pass | ||
| 4th | 19 | Not Converted | -8 | (8 yard sack) | ||
| 4th | 6 | Converted | 17 | 17 yard pass | ||
| 4th | 1 | Not Converted | 0 | 0 yard rush | Converted on 4th | |
| 4th | 7 | Converted | 7 | 7 yard pass | TOUCHDOWN | |
| 4th | 14 | Not Converted | -2 | (2 yard rush) | Clock Drain | |
| 8.06 | 20.73 | 11.56 |
Basically, Michigan had MSU in an
average of 3rd and 8 and allowed an average of 11.56 yards on all plays,
or 20.73 yards on the positive plays. Two of these plays were actual
touchdowns.
So, to show this was not a fluke, I went back and looked at Penn State and Illinois. (I could have looked at Toledo, but that portended doom)
Penn State numbers, average to go 5.93, average gain on all plays 9.75, average gain on positive plays, 18.29 yards.
| Quarter | To Go | Result | Pos. Yards | Neg. Yards | Play | Notes |
| 1st | 11 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 2nd | 7 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 2nd | 2 | Converted | 2 | 2 yard rush | ||
| 2nd | 1 | Not Converted | -1 | Fumble, -1 yard | ||
| 2nd | 7 | Not Converted | 6 | 6 yard pass | ||
| 2nd | 3 | Converted | 3 | 3 yard pass | TOUCHDOWN | |
| 3rd | 6 | Converted | 9 | 9 yard rush | ||
| 3rd | 10 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 3rd | 2 | Not Converted | 1 | 1 yard rush | ||
| 3rd | 7 | Converted | 15 | 15 yard pass | ||
| 4th | 10 | Converted | 11 | 11 yard pass | ||
| 4th | 6 | Converted | 8 | 8 yard pass | ||
| 4th | 1 | Not Converted | 0 | 0 yard rush | ||
| 4th | 10 | Converted | 80 | 80 yard pass | TOUCHDOWN | |
| 5.93 | 18.29 |
9.57 |
Illinois: Average to go: 7.28. Average yards on
all third down plays (including penalty yards): 10.94. Average yards
gained on conversions: 20.22
| Quarter | To Go | Result | Pos. Yards | Neg. Yards | Play | Notes |
| 1st | 10 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 1st | 6 | Not Converted | 6 | 6 yard pass | After ILL holding | |
| 2nd | 2 | Converted | 3 | 3 yard rush | ||
| 2nd | 3 | Converted | 9 | 9 yard pass | ||
| 2nd | 1 | Not Converted | -1 | (1 yard rush) | ||
| 2nd | 10 | Not Converted | 4 | 4 yard rush | ||
| 2nd | 16 | Not Converted | -6 | (6 yard rush) | ||
| 3rd | 9 | Converted | 9 | 9 yard pass | ILL Hold Accepted | |
| 3rd | 10 | Converted | 77 | 77 yard pass | TOUCHDOWN | |
| 3rd | 8 | Converted | 15 | 15 yard penalty | PI on Harrison | |
| 3rd | 15 | Not Converted | 4 | 4 yard pass | ||
| 3rd | 12 | Converted | 14 | 14 yard pass | ||
| 3rd | 6 | Not Converted | 0 | Inc. Pass | ||
| 4th | 5 | Converted | 4 | 4 yard penalty | PI on Ezeh | |
| 4th | 2 | Converted | 50 | 50 yard rush | ||
| 4th | 1 | Converted | 1 | 1 yard rush | TOUCHDOWN | |
| 4th | 8 | Not Converted | 3 | 3 yard rush | ||
| 4th | 7 | Not Converted | 5 | 5 yard rush | ||
| 7.28 | 20.22 | 10.94 |
So, in my mind, the stats bear it out. Michigan is
solid at getting teams into third down situations, only to have them
explode in their face on third down. Six touchdowns, and five plays
over 40 yards. I lack the historical data to know if this is an
all-time low, but it doesn't exactly look good and it certainly at least makes me feel better that I'm not just percieving things this way.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:12 PM
#2
Wow, thanks that's great
October 27th, 2008 at 2:31 PM
#3
Good job on research. I
Good job on research. I called for someone to gather data on opponent 3rd down conversion rate during the liveblog on Saturday; it's worse than I thought. Oh well, hopefully team can have a good week of practice and come out prepared for Purdue.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:38 PM
#4
The best part is...
....that this means the D is actually quite good on 1st and 2nd down and maybe it is just a playcalling or scheming issue for 3rd downs. That all can be fixed....I would hope. Maybe we should send this to Schem Hall?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:49 PM
#5
Three - Man Fronts
The three-man fronts on third downs probably have something to do with it.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:55 PM
#6
Yeah, right.
You can look at the defense UFRs if you want to justify your assertion. Until then I'll be sitting here doubting it.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:50 PM
#7
this is good
hard to put the numbers into context (compared to other teams, good, bad, NCAA or B10 averages).... but it still looks reasonable. this is believable on 1st impression b/c the 'yards to get' metric (which is basically how the opponents did on 1st & 2nd downs, in sum) makes sense:
PSU, the better team, performed better on non-predictive downs (1st & second down) than Ill and finally MSU (only gaining 2 total yards on 1st & 2nd down).
we just busted our pass coverage, or MSU has REALLY good 3rd & long package, or both.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:12 PM
#8
50%!!!!!!!!!
conversion rate on third down! and with third and long a lot of times. Pathetic.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:16 PM
#9
FWIW, we rarely ran a 3-man
FWIW, we rarely ran a 3-man front on Saturday, and still got uniformly shreaded.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:24 PM
#10
There was one play in the 4th
There was one play in the 4th quarter, I believe, where we lined up in a 6-2 I think and we end up rushing almost all of them. I need to watch the game again for the play, but I think they did a quick pass for a big gain on that one. It was polar opposite of what we have seen on most 3rd downs and it pissed me off more than rushing 3 guys. I was glad to see 4 down linemen on most 3rd down conversions.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:39 PM
#11
Wow...
I wonder what Brian's old "3rd down distance VS. Percent Conversion" chart would look like for us this year. A "normal" correlation would be that 3rd-down conversion was inversely proportional to distance (ah... with the "Alan Branch Anomaly" for very short yardage). But your info suggests that the opponent's conversion rate is proportional to distance needed. Inconceivable!
Also, if the correlation is strong enough, I think that would be a serious indictment of our scheme rather than the players (assuming players fuck up in a somewhat random fashion).
Moneyball!
October 27th, 2008 at 3:45 PM
#12
darn it chitown
i was using "complains about 3 man front after msu game" as a nice shortcut to see which posters to ignore
October 27th, 2008 at 3:54 PM
#13
I would just use the
I would just use the "complains about Shafer" as your litmus test.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:59 PM
#14
2007 MSU 3rd down stats
2007 UofM vs MSU 3rd down stats without the pretty formatting
MSU was 7-19 on 3rd down against us.
Ave Yards to go on 3rd down: 7.68
Ave Yards gained on 3rd down: 2.89
# of 3rd down TDs: 1
# of 3rd down turnovers: 1
October 28th, 2008 at 12:25 AM
#15
Just a side note
The title of the post sounds like that of a really bad Goosebumps book--written by RL Stine, a Buckeye no less.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:28 PM
#16
Brutal.
Nice research.
Can we play by CFL rules from here on out?
