2016 O vs 2015 O

[nzm136]

Since our offense is very fast, as was our defense this year, I tried to find pace-adjusted rankings. Non-adjusted stats are misleading.

As per adjustedstats(dot)com, our 2016 points per possession rank is 76/128, putting us slightly below average. Our 2015 points per possession rank was 36/128 (up from 112 in 2014).

As per footballoutsiders(dot)com, our 2016 our offensive rank (Off. S&P+ rank) was 68. Our 2015 rank was 61 (up from 110 in 2014).

The adjustedstats jump to 36 seems very high, but not impossible. The other metric weights field position/yardage and opponent, so they aren't necessarily apples to apples, but there should be a correlation.

But on the bright side, our offense is GOLD for any kid who wants more footage for his highlight tape (esp WR's and QB's), so there should be a recruiting uptick (although there isn't evidence of that happening yet). And, just having the right players with the right mentality/body type should lead to better results - even if all other factors stay the same.

 

[CuseOnly]

Why adjusted stats? The only thing that matters is, 1 - How many points we score in the duration of game and, 2 - How many our opponent scores in the duration of the same game.

 

[SoBristol]

Data is interesting -- thanks for that.

One improvement that should lead to better results is more upper classmen in the OL (same for the DL). Our OL (after injuries to Emerich & Palmer) had a true soph (Conway), a Rs-soph (Roberts), a RsF (Bryne), a RsF (Adams), and a RsJr (McGloster). For many programs, this group would be in development mode on the second team, behind upper class veterans.

A second improvement is a better group of RBs. We relied on a true soph (recruited as a hybrid) and a true frosh (quick, but undersized), and both may be adjusting to different roles next season.

As these two units develop (or get upgraded), the data will follow.

Also, there is evidence of a recruiting uptick -- the red-shirting O-linemen are going to push the current starters; the RB commit (Pierre) has put up huge numbers and should push for a role in 2017.

 

[nzm136]

Why adjusted stats? The only thing that matters is, 1 - How many points we score in the duration of game and, 2 - How many our opponent scores in the duration of the same game.

True, but the less efficient the offense is, the more chances the other team will have to score per point scored by the offense. Adjusting takes that into account when determining the quality of the offense.

 

[Alsacs]

We played 6 ranked teams and Notre Dame in 2016.
Last year we played 3 ranked teams Florida State, Clemson, LSU.
We faced the top 2 contenders for the Heisman this year.
We over scheduled for the talent we have.

 

[CuseOnly]

True, but the less efficient the offense is, the more chances the other team will have to score per point scored by the offense. Adjusting takes that into account when determining the quality of the offense.

What? So you are saying that how many points our offense scores determines how many points the other team scores? I thought hat had to do with our defense, silly me.

So our offense scores the same number of points in 2016 in exactly the same fashion and time, but our defense holds every opponent to zero means that our offense is better?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But on the bright side, our offense is GOLD for any kid who wants more footage for his highlight tape (esp WR's and QB's), so there should be a recruiting uptick (although there isn't evidence of that happening yet). And, just having the right players with the right mentality/body type should lead to better results - even if all other factors stay the same.

Bingo. This is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Why adjusted stats? The only thing that matters is, 1 - How many points we score in the duration of game and, 2 - How many our opponent scores in the duration of the same game.

I make fun of the Sabremetric type people a lot because I think they often take their analysis way too far. In this case though, I don't think you're taking things far enough in your thinking.

 

[Finwad32]

Since our offense is very fast, as was our defense this year, I tried to find pace-adjusted rankings. Non-adjusted stats are misleading.

As per adjustedstats(dot)com, our 2016 points per possession rank is 76/128, putting us slightly below average. Our 2015 points per possession rank was 36/128 (up from 112 in 2014).

As per footballoutsiders(dot)com, our 2016 our offensive rank (Off. S&P+ rank) was 68. Our 2015 rank was 61 (up from 2014).

The adjustedstats jump to 36 seems very high, but not impossible. The other metric weights field position/yardage and opponent, so they aren't necessarily apples to apples, but there should be a correlation.

But on the bright side, our offense is GOLD for any kid who wants more footage for his highlight tape (esp WR's and QB's), so there should be a recruiting uptick (although there isn't evidence of that happening yet). And, just having the right players with the right mentality/body type should lead to better results - even if all other factors stay the same.

Recruiting is typically 2-years behind. So we put up these numbers this season. High school Juniors are the ones really getting hot and heavy into recruiting right now, even So's. So, I'd imagine you'll see an uptick, in the skill positions at least, for the class of '18/'19.

Although, I think we'll find a minimum of 2, possibly 3 solid contributors from this year's WR haul. They're a talented group, as long as everything else goes according to plan.

 

[Millhouse]

this years offense was only a little bit better per play. despite the defense being horrific, they closed some of the gap between total yards allowed vs gained. the reason for this is because babers converted a lot more 4th downs keeping drives going

i am happy with the offense simply because I think the offense would've been pitiful under shafer (and because I know what the offense can do based on baylor, tulsa, and bowling green) i don't think that offense could've dealt with such awful blocking. but that's not anything anyone can prove.

 

[TheCusian]

It's this simple:

2015, less possessions for both O and D, a touch more efficient on O while playing it safe, slightly better D while being more aggressive = 4 wins vs #56 ranked SoS

2016, more possessions for both O and D, less efficient on O while being more aggressive, giving up tons of big plays on D = 4 wins vs #29 ranked SoS

The reason for optimism is the bolded part. The ceiling is higher with this offense getting more efficient and "clicking" better in 2017, even though the SoS may be similar.

 

[TheCusian]

Also, tempo-free stats are helpful at measuring efficiency - but if you are slightly less efficient but get an extra 3-4 possessions you can make up for it.

It also means if you get more possessions AND get more efficient -(Syracuse O in 2107?) than your ceiling is higher and you'll score more points.

(As been said here all season - it's not a yards problem, but a "waiting for the points to catch up with the yards" problem. And massive D problems )

 

[nzm136]

What? So you are saying that how many points our offense scores determines how many points the other team scores? I thought hat had to do with our defense, silly me.

So our offense scores the same number of points in 2016 in exactly the same fashion and time, but our defense holds every opponent to zero means that our offense is better?

Thinking that the two aren't related is rediculous. If a defense is expected to defend against twice as many drives because an offense can't stay on the field (for whatever reason - good or bad), would you honestly expect that defense to give up the same number of points?

 

[nzm136]

Also, tempo-free stats are helpful at measuring efficiency - but if you are slightly less efficient but get an extra 3-4 possessions you can make up for it.

It also means if you get more possessions AND get more efficient -(Syracuse O in 2107?) than your ceiling is higher and you'll score more points.

(As been said here all season - it's not a yards problem, but a "waiting for the points to catch up with the yards" problem. And massive D problems )

For simplicity's sake, ignoring special teams:

Net efficiency dictates who wins. Pace*net efficiency dictates the margin.

You can't make up for poor net efficiency by getting more possessions, assuming that your goal is to win (vs just entertaining your fans).

 

[Millhouse]

For simplicity's sake, ignoring special teams:

Net efficiency dictates who wins. Pace*net efficiency dictates the margin.

You can't make up for poor net efficiency by getting more possessions, assuming that your goal is to win (vs just entertaining your fans).

I don't think we saw it this year but if your team is better prepared for a track meet, you might see it hello your per play numbers, especially in the second half

You can only be so good shortening games as a non factory. Here we hope we eventually get a small per play advantage then amplify it. Hopefully next year.

 

[TheCusian]

For simplicity's sake, ignoring special teams:

Net efficiency dictates who wins. Pace*net efficiency dictates the margin.

You can't make up for poor net efficiency by getting more possessions, assuming that your goal is to win (vs just entertaining your fans).

Yup. It's that same * that make our team look worse when we lose.

 

[TheCusian]

I don't think we saw it this year but if your team is better prepared for a track meet, you might see it hello your per play numbers, especially in the second half

You can only be so good shortening games as a non factory. Here we hope we eventually get a small per play advantage then amplify it. Hopefully next year.

Right.

Teams that play from behind take more chances - so a more efficient offense with tempo can force teams into environments that are way outside of their comfort zones. Trying to keep up can lead to a lot of inefficiencies.

 

[JrodCuse]

I don't think you can really use 2016 as a measuring stick. Babers has said all along that it takes 18 months for his system to truly get integrated. That means 2017 will be a much better measuring stick with 2018 being the year we truly get to see what this offense can do. If we aren't humming along in 2018 then everyone can panic, but until then we are on a path heading somewhere bright and shiny.

 

[upperdeck]

if the QBs would stop missing wide open deep throws and just hit 50% of them we score 10 more points a game. we missed 5-6 just in the last 2 games. This offense creates more easy throws we just have to make the plays. And this is ZERO rushing game to hold the safeties..

 

[nzm136]

Yup. It's that same * that make our team look worse when we lose.

That's absolutely true.

Our system makes small losses look HUGE and small wins look HUGE. I think that's why this board looks bipolar most of the time.

 

[nzm136]

I don't think you can really use 2016 as a measuring stick. Babers has said all along that it takes 18 months for his system to truly get integrated. That means 2017 will be a much better measuring stick with 2018 being the year we truly get to see what this offense can do. If we aren't humming along in 2018 then everyone can panic, but until then we are on a path heading somewhere bright and shiny.

I agree. I think it takes 2 years to install his offense. I know he said a year and a half, but I'm going to hold serious judgement until year 3 ... or at least until the very end of the second year.

I still think it's interesting to analyze the stats before we get crazy excited w/ raw numbers.

 

[Millhouse]

I agree. I think it takes 2 years to install his offense. I know he said a year and a half, but I'm going to hold serious judgement until year 3 ... or at least until the very end of the second year.

I still think it's interesting to analyze the stats before we get crazy excited w/ raw numbers.

i think it's really interesting that yards per play differential got much worse but yards per game differential got much better. this probably gets into success rates and all kinds of data we don't really have access too. even i don't think it's all because of 4th downs

 

[Lou_C]

That's absolutely true.

Our system makes small losses look HUGE and small wins look HUGE. I think that's why this board looks bipolar most of the time.

Yep. It's all about at bats. You want more at bats when you've got the better team. You want less at bats when you're consistently trying to get the upset (see Navy). This isn't a quick fix system that I think many people expect...it doesn't really make up for talent.

That's one thing that drives some people crazy about Jimbo Fisher...he refuses to use any tempo at all...despite having more talent than 10-12 teams on the schedule every year. Why shorten the game? Give your guys more at bats and talent will eventually win out...fewer at bats magnify the import of turnovers, drops, penalties, etc.

Navy KNOWS it will always have a substantial talent disadvantage...that's an insurmountable and immutable factor. The system Syracuse is running is NOT that...the entire premise of success is based upon leveraging the offense for better recruiting.

Ultimately, Babers' "system" isn't going to be about consistently knocking off FSU and Clemson via Xs and Os and tempo. It's about Syracuse being very, very hard to beat when you've got any edge on a team at all...and beating their brains in. Using that to upgrade the talent, giving you that advantage over more teams...wash rinse repeat. If all goes well, your talent level gets good enough to win your share against anybody.

Baylor had a top 30 recruiting class for 2012-14...that's enough talent to play with anybody.

 

[Millhouse]

Yep. It's all about at bats. You want more at bats when you've got the better team. You want less at bats when you're consistently trying to get the upset (see Navy). This isn't a quick fix system that I think many people expect...it doesn't really make up for talent..

That's one thing that drives some people crazy about Jimbo Fisher...he refuses to use any tempo at all...despite having more talent than 10-12 teams on the schedule every year. Why shorten the game? Give your guys more at bats and talent will eventually win out...fewer at bats magnify the import of turnovers, drops, penalties, etc.

Ultimately, Babers' "system" isn't going to be about consistently knocking off FSU and Clemson. It's about being very, very hard to beat when you've got any edge on a team at all...and beating their brains in. Using that to upgrade the talent, giving you that advantage over more teams...wash rinse repeat. If all goes well, your talent level gets good enough to win your share against anybody.

Baylor had a top 30 recruiting class for 2012-14...that's enough talent to play with anybody.

i bristle at this. do you think baylor would've averaged the same yards per play if they huddled and bled the play clock?

i think it's clear that playing fast helps your offense. we were better per play this year with a horrible offensive line and our best back is 98 lbs.

for a lot of teams it's not worth it because they never think they'll be able to close the yards per play gap. but what a horrible way to live. in college football you have to have an identity and i don't want to plan on being bad forever

 

[nzm136]

Yep. It's all about at bats. You want more at bats when you've got the better team. You want less at bats when you're consistently trying to get the upset (see Navy). This isn't a quick fix system that I think many people expect...it doesn't really make up for talent.

That's one thing that drives some people crazy about Jimbo Fisher...he refuses to use any tempo at all...despite having more talent than 10-12 teams on the schedule every year. Why shorten the game? Give your guys more at bats and talent will eventually win out...fewer at bats magnify the import of turnovers, drops, penalties, etc.

Navy KNOWS it will always have a substantial talent disadvantage...that's an insurmountable and immutable factor. The system Syracuse is running is NOT that...the entire premise of success is based upon leveraging the offense for better recruiting.

Ultimately, Babers' "system" isn't going to be about consistently knocking off FSU and Clemson via Xs and Os and tempo. It's about Syracuse being very, very hard to beat when you've got any edge on a team at all...and beating their brains in. Using that to upgrade the talent, giving you that advantage over more teams...wash rinse repeat. If all goes well, your talent level gets good enough to win your share against anybody.

Baylor had a top 30 recruiting class for 2012-14...that's enough talent to play with anybody.

Except for the caveat that running a weird system might give a team an edge, talent being equal, I completely agree.

*Also, a pass heavy team will do well in the Dome, talent being equal. But your point still explains the vast majority of success that we can hope to have.