Pass defense stats (YPG): not as horrible as they seem?
Much is being made of the fact that our pass defense ranks dead last (120th) in yardage allowed (1539 yards in 5 games, or 307.8 yds/gm). But the sky isn't actually falling. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the "yardage allowed" metric doesn't take into account our 7 interceptions. The INTs show up in the pass efficiency rankings, where we rank 79th: not awesome, but not horrible.
There are a few other things that stand out from a more detailed look at the pass defense stats.
http://ncaastatpages.com/defense/pass_efficiency_defense?compiled_on=20…
Attempts. We lead the nation in pass attempts against, at 206. Clearly, the game plan for our opponents has been to exploit our young secondary. The Indiana game has some impact on these stats, given how long their pass-first offense was on the field.
Completion percentage. Our completion percentage against is 60.68%, which ranks 77th. Again, not awesome, but not horrible.
Interceptions. We have recorded 7 INTs, which ties us for 16th place with 11 other teams (though 5 of those teams have played 4 games). We are averaging 3.4 interceptions per 100 attempts, which ranks us 57th: above average!
Yards per attempt. We are averaging 7.47 yards per opponent attempt, which ranks 91st. That's not so hot, but hey, at least we're not #120!
Touchdowns. We've allowed 8 passing touchdowns, for which we are tied for 83rd (higher rank = less touchdowns) with 9 other teams. Passing touchdowns per attempt against is 3.88, which ranks 48th (less touchdowns = higher ranking).
I think these statistics basically reflect what we've seen on the field: a willingness to concede the short-yardage passing game in exchange for fewer big plays and more interceptions. Given our personnel, this isn't a crazy approach. And there is opportunity for upside, if players are able to improve with their game experience.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
Man, you can skew the numbers however you like....it's bad.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
Most importantly, we are not last in scoring defense (#73) but we are close to tops (#9) in scoring offense. That's all that matters. More points for than against = wins.
October 4th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
Winning football is like losing weight: If you score more than your opponent, you win football games. If you burn more calories than you consume, you lose weight, no matter how many calories you consume.
This PSA brought to you by Barwis.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
The numbers are the numbers. It is very clear to every opponent that the pass defense is a weakness. Every team, but especially pass-first teams, will try to expoit this. If they have an accurate experienced QB, it will go well, but the drives will be long if the defense does not give up the big play. At the same time, more (but shorter) pass plays are more opportunities for errors. This is simple strategy on the part of the Michigan D to make up of our deficiency. This approach - as distasteful as many of you all find it to be - is the approach that gives us the best chance of winning games right now.
Next season, this strategy will probably not be as necessary given the loss of nearly all of the experienced Big Ten QB's.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
How about a new metric - like yards per minute? When the defense is on the field for 40+ minutes a game, it gives the opponent a lot of time to rack up passing yards and points. If our offense had longer drives it wouldn't be as exciting to watch but would give our defense a chance to rest.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
Yeah -- next time we're about to score on a 50+ yard run on the second play of a drive, DRob or Smith should just take a knee so we can chew up more clock time. We should be following Roundtree's lead on this! (/s, obviously).
ok, I'll concede that we had a couple three-and-outs in the fourth q on Saturday, but given that we out gained them on the day, the 'problem' is more one of scoring too quickly than it is of ineptitude at clock chewing.
Some dubious (i.e., self-compilied) stats to support my dubious argument:
In Saturday's game, M had...
- six TD drives averaging 1:12 minutes and 4.3 plays, and
- six non-scoring drives averaging 1.16 minutes and 3.9 plays. (It doesn't add up to 18 minutes, I know -- I told you they were self-compiled stats.)
Also -- I remember this from following the game online (f u very much, WWL, for putting this game on your virtually non-existant network!), but what happened with the clock on Michigan's last drive? The kickoff bears the time "0:17", but so does Indiana's first play on their drive. Did no time tick off even though it was returned for 20 yards?
October 4th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
then Charlie would like to have a word with you (mubgxoxobbqetc)
October 4th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^
It gives them lots of opportunities to rack up yards running many, many plays. Some of these will end with scores, some will not. Errors are going to happen to an opposing offense. Indiana executed well and had few unforced errors.
Regarding rest, barwis says rest is for pussies.
October 4th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
I think that's the best one. It shows how much the other team actually has to show for the yardage it's gotten. Our YPP was terrific the first two weeks. Not sure where it is now.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
I agree that it's not as bad as if we were being gashed on 80 yard deep balls every play. I also think the IU game was the last game for the rest of the year where the opposing team makes ove 50 passing attempts. We learned a good lesson this past weekend:
Our scheme concedes short passes and if we face a strong QB/WR combo, we're in an awful lot of trouble, especially if that gets coupled with a strong RB. The thing to keep in mind, again, is that I don't think there is any other QB in the conference who is as significant of a threat when it comes to executing short passes as Chappell.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
We will perform best against teams with a combination of: (1) less accurate QBs; (2) QBs whose decision-making capabilities aren't great; (3) teams without a tandem of reliable receivers.
Seems to me we face a number of those teams going forward.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
If any other team tries it, they will not have the same success. I frankly hope that someone tries to do it. There is a reason Chappell had no interceptions since last year.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
Nice try, sucka'! But Cousins is going to treat your secondary like I treat that waitress at Crunchy's -- pure abuse. Get ready to bend over and take it, Gayverines. Some hot Spartan beef is coming your way, and it's not going to stop until it's been satisfied TWICE IN THE SAME NIGHT.
SPARTAN NATION
October 4th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
....just makes me feel confused and disturbed.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
Stop. Take this to Rivals. Or discuss the game with us.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
Can I have turkey beef instead? It's healthier. And I won't need it more than once, I usually only have one helping of food at night. Thanks!
October 4th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
Well, guess that post confirms just about all you need to know about little brother.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
It confirms that we're winners. PUNK.
SPARTAN NATION
October 4th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
Webster's must have changed the definition of winners:
Winner, noun; One who trolls around on other teams boards adding nothing intelligent to the conversation. All the while talking trash and making themself look like an obsessed moronic dork.
Congratulations, you truly are a winner
October 4th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
so what you are saying is Spartins like rape?
October 4th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
I'm just going to say that TRUE SPARTAN WARRIORS like to win, wheneva' and howeva'. TASTE IT.
SPARTAN NATION
October 4th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
so what you are saying is Spartins like rape?
It sounds more like GayAssPrisonRape to me....but that 's not surprising with the lineup of rap sheets on their teams.
I'm not so sure Mike Martin is really into that kind of perversion -- I think he prefers to beat you the old fashion way -- In Your Grill All Day Long.
Yo, Cousins - Martin's comin' for ya!
Oh, you'll live through it - but you'll have night terrors afterwards. Sleep well this week, Little Brother, because you'll be waking up in cold sweats for quite some time after Saturday.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
Allegedly two of their basketball players do.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^
Suck on it. Suck it hard and suck it long. Try negging me in real life, not internet life, and I'll crush you like I'm Kimbo Slice against some average UFC dude.
I can't wait to watch your loser team in your loser stadium on Saturday get destroyed by TRUE SPARTAN WARRIORS. It's going to be more epic than "The Mummy Returns". SUCK IT!
SPARTAN NATION
October 4th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
I just pictured you in a flat brimmed hat turned sideways, with two fake diamond earrings, a wife beater on, and facial hair (but the kind that looks like pubes growing out of your cheeks because you're not old enough to grow a full beard yet). The best part was, what you said in your post above were lyrics to your freestyle rap battle.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
kimbo slice actually wasn't very good.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
He's awesome. The T.V. people wouldn't have kept saying he's awesome if he wasn't, DUMBASS.
SPARTAN NATION
October 4th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
The T.V. people wouldn't have kept saying he's awesome if he wasn't
My sides hurt now
October 4th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
Kimbo Slice comment is where the parodic nature of dude's posts is revealed. I know it's lame to explain jokes, but this is definitely a joke.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^
says he's some 300 pound 40-something year old who still thinks he has game even though he hasn't been able to run a mile without massive chest pains since HS senior year... you're in a spartan snuggie right now aren't you?
October 4th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
I'm pretty sure I nailed that cougar behind Rumrunners, once. Good times, brah.
Back to your point -- the only stereotype I'm seeing is that SPARTANS ARE AWESOME and Wussverines suck. EAT IT.
SPARTAN NATION
October 4th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
This has to be a joke, right? Like a reverse troll? I'm betting it's Blazefire.
Blazefire, is that you?
October 4th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
I had the same thought -- the Spartiness of those posts is almost too good to be true.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
Except that it's been a member for 1 year 28 weeks, which means it's either real, or a deep cover ninja reverse troll.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
Too over the top at certain points to be anything but a troll disguised as a Spartan troll.
Fun to neg anyway though.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
Reverse Troll - very nice!
That was entertaining. SUCK it Trebek! O'Doyle Rules!
October 4th, 2010 at 9:05 PM ^
i have a feeling your whole family is about to go down! GO BLUE BEAT green!
October 4th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
Gayverines? That's not even a well-thought out play on words. It bears no resemblence to the original word. That's like me calling the Spartans the "Sparbitches" or the "Failtans"
Also, thanks for that "hot Spartan beef" offer. I'm gonna pass, though.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
Crunchy's fucking sucks.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
That's just sad whether you're an MSU troll or just pretending to be an MSU troll.
October 4th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
October 4th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
So Michigan had five games to determine what is absolutely ineffective defensively and still managed to escape all of those games with wins. That is huge.
What is clear is that what GERG has been dialing up on defense hasn't been working.
NOW is the time to change it up and throw MSU a curveball. Blitz some guys who haven't been blitzing yet.
Press the hell out of the MSU WRs. GERG should tell his CBs that if they don't get at least 1 or 2 illegal contact penalties then they aren't aren't chucking the WRS hard enough!
October 4th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
Being 120th in yardage allowed clearly stems from leading the nation in attempts against, which in turn comes from our offense being so fast (and our secondary being so young, like you point out). That leads to more possessions. In fact, I bet we are close to leading the nation in possessions per game too, whether for us or the opponents.
On the other hand, the number of pass attempts is going to inflate the number of INTs we get too. So I wouldn't put too much stock in that yet.
The most meaningful statistic here, I think, is the completion percentage against us. That's independent of the number of possessions/attempts. So being in the middle-of-the-road on that one is a pretty good sign.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
We are below average in posessions per game. I think that the average is something like 13 and the only time that we reached that was against ND.
That is the most frustrating aspect of our terrible defense. The fact that it can't force enough three-and-outs to get our offense out there more often. The fact that we are still ranked #2 in total offense in the nation under these circumstances is incredible. I'd bet anything that we lead the nation in yards per posession by a significant margin.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
Its like you're almost trying to act classy
October 4th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
Good post. I think it highlights what it looks like: people aren't scoring as much as the stats would indicate from a yardage perspective. Not to mention that one thing skewing the stats is the number of possessions. Anyone know how many possessions opposing offenses have against us? It has to be much higher than the average. I would think.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
I was actually looking at this yesterday, and it surprised me too. The "bend but don't break" isn't successful in a sense of being good but it is successful in a sense of executing the intended result of controlling points at the expense of yards.
This is an obvious comment, but Michigan State is the real test. Cousins is good but his achilles heel is concentration lapse - maybe that's where we get interceptions?
Turnover battle winner wins this game, I'm calling it now. This will be VERY close.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
It doesn't matter if we give up 12 straight 8 yard outs or one busted coverage that gives up a touchdown. Both result in 6 points and both are demoralizing. I would rather see our secondary play more aggressive coverage without giving an 8(!) yard cushion on a 3rd and 5. If we get burned every once in a while, what is the difference? At least we might have a chance to get a 3 and out here and there. This bend, bend, bend, bend, then break coverage is straight up retarded. Also, 4 man rush = way less time for a qb to wait for someone to eventually get wide open.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
This isn't true. They're the same as you've described them, but that's only because you've set the results of both drives as a premise.
The difference between a 12 passing play drive and a 1 passing play drive is that the 12 play drive presents 12 opportunities to create a turnover.
The story of the game was Indiana's execution. Can Cousins do the same? Possible, but not certain.