The Next Step for the Program

[GoSU96]

Closing the talent gap.

Here is some 2012 data showing SU relative to the teams it will be playing this year (Wagner aside).

Name .....Yds Per Gm Yds Per TD ..Pls Per TD ...Off TD
Clemson ...512.7 ......101.0 ...16.1 ...66
SU ...476.3 ......131.7 ...21.9 ...47
FSU ...470.8 ......103.0... 14.7 ...64
GT ...441.1 ......102.9 ...16.7... 60
NCSt ......421.2 ......127.3... 24.2 ...43
PSU ...417.5...... 119.3 ......22.2 ...42
NW ...394.6 ......114.0 ......21.4... 45
Pitt ...390.1 ...126.8 ......22.1 ......40
BC ...349.4 ......167.7 ......32.7 ......25
Tulane .....319.5...... 147.5...... 31.4 ......26
Wake ......301.3 ......129.1 ......29.6...... 28
UMD ...284.8 ......122.0 ......27.7...... 28

SU really improved it's ability to move the ball, (one factor was running more plays per game) but the scoring wasn't close to what teams that were generating similar yards were getting. Supports the idea that SU wasn't beating teams with talent but with scheme, playcalling, and execution. Also tends to indicate that SU had less easy possessions via specials and plus field turnovers than others. There were many more 10+ yd plays than in the last 10 years but it wasn't translating to a huge jump in scoring. With the yds SU was generating they should have been in the mid 50's in offensive TD's.

Until SU takes that next step in talent the challenge before McDonald and Lester is to pick up where Hackett and Marrone left off and improve upon it. More short fields would be a big help as well.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

Interesting stats, but I don't understand your methodology and don't really agree with your conclusions.

On methodology, its not really explained where Yds per TD or Pls per TD come from or even represent. I would typically take Yds per TD to mean how long the average scoring drive was and that would be a helpful stat to know to get some perspective, but that clearly isn't it at over 100 Yds per TD. I would assume you or the stat developer you pulled it from merely divided Yds per game by the number of TDs scored, but it can't be Yds per game divided by number of offensive TDs scored or that would be for SU about 100 and for Clemson significantly less than 100. Did you divide Yds per game by total TDs (offensive, defensive, special teams?) and if so, why would you do that?

On conclusions, I don't agree that this data shows SU was beating teams with scheme, playcalling and execution. I don't disagree necessarily with that conclusion, but the data you cite doesn't show that at all. I think what it shows is that we struggled to score offensive TDs. My recollection certainly is that particularly early in the year, we struggled to score TDs in the Red Zone and I recall early season goal line stands and utter frustration before the TANK package righted that ship. I don't think the data supports your conclusion that we had less easy possession due to specials, although I really can't tell from your chart. I would agree in general from my recollection that was the case. I think average scoring drive in yards would show that, but you haven't presented that data. You conclude there were many more 10+ yard plays than in the previous 10 years, but there's no data in the chart that compares that and I don't really know if that is true or not. Finally, you say that with the yards per game, SU should have scored in the mid 50's in offensive TDs. I disagree. I would say SU would have been expected to score in the mid 60's with that many yards per game.

I don't mean to rip this apart to be a jerk, just to point out that while we are all SU fans and I am particularly interested in data and conclusions that can be reached from interpreting it, this chart is not really helpful without: 1) a statement as to what each stat is a measurement of (Pls per TD? -- I'm guessing Plays but don't really know); 2) some explanation as to methodology for coming up with the data; and 3) conclusions that are supported by the data or additional data supporting the conclusions provided.

All in good fun and again, thanks for attempting to get into the data and reach conclusions and thanks for being a Cuse fan. We need every one we can get.

 

[FAL]

HCSS: "Stats are for losers."

F stats (and Ped State).

 

[All4SU]

As you said, SU got little help in the field position game from special teams last season. If we can be more effective on punt returns and KO returns this year, it will go a long way towards offsetting any offensive deficiencies we may have compared to last year.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Interesting stats, but I don't understand your methodology and don't really agree with your conclusions.

On methodology, its not really explained where Yds per TD or Pls per TD come from or even represent. I would typically take Yds per TD to mean how long the average scoring drive was and that would be a helpful stat to know to get some perspective, but that clearly isn't it at over 100 Yds per TD. I would assume you or the stat developer you pulled it from merely divided Yds per game by the number of TDs scored, but it can't be Yds per game divided by number of offensive TDs scored or that would be for SU about 100 and for Clemson significantly less than 100. Did you divide Yds per game by total TDs (offensive, defensive, special teams?) and if so, why would you do that?

On conclusions, I don't agree that this data shows SU was beating teams with scheme, playcalling and execution. I don't disagree necessarily with that conclusion, but the data you cite doesn't show that at all. I think what it shows is that we struggled to score offensive TDs. My recollection certainly is that particularly early in the year, we struggled to score TDs in the Red Zone and I recall early season goal line stands and utter frustration before the TANK package righted that ship. I don't think the data supports your conclusion that we had less easy possession due to specials, although I really can't tell from your chart. I would agree in general from my recollection that was the case. I think average scoring drive in yards would show that, but you haven't presented that data. You conclude there were many more 10+ yard plays than in the previous 10 years, but there's no data in the chart that compares that and I don't really know if that is true or not. Finally, you say that with the yards per game, SU should have scored in the mid 50's in offensive TDs. I disagree. I would say SU would have been expected to score in the mid 60's with that many yards per game.

I don't mean to rip this apart to be a jerk, just to point out that while we are all SU fans and I am particularly interested in data and conclusions that can be reached from interpreting it, this chart is not really helpful without: 1) a statement as to what each stat is a measurement of (Pls per TD? -- I'm guessing Plays but don't really know); 2) some explanation as to methodology for coming up with the data; and 3) conclusions that are supported by the data or additional data supporting the conclusions provided.

All in good fun and again, thanks for attempting to get into the data and reach conclusions and thanks for being a Cuse fan. We need every one we can get.

Oh man, Go's going to think I wrote this post.

 

[Millhouse]

HCSS: "Stats are for losers."

F stats (and Ped State).

He was looking for a good one liner but that is pretty meatheaded

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[CuseCrew08]

Last year, especially early in the year, we had trouble moving the ball in the red zone. I seem to remember moving the ball 20 to 20 with relative ease, just to get bogged down in the red zone.

It looked to me like Hackett and Marrone were trying to out think themselves instead of doing what worked to get them to the red zone.

 

[Chip]

I mostly agree, but I think you need to redefine what you mean by "talent". Breakaway talent, or big play talent, whatever you want to call it, that to me is what is missing.

Last year we had talent at QB, OL (OT and C specifically), RB (but not breakaway back), WR (but not home run threats).

One other thing, when I look at the 60 TD club on your list, one thing they had that we didn't was a dual threat QB. I'd take Nassib over anyone on 3rd and long. But maybe they didn't face as many, or could move the chains without throwing the ball.

 

[OrangePA]

I mostly agree, but I think you need to redefine what you mean by "talent". Breakaway talent, or big play talent, whatever you want to call it, that to me is what is missing.

Last year we had talent at QB, OL (OT and C specifically), RB (but not breakaway back), WR (but not home run threats).

One other thing, when I look at the 60 TD club on your list, one thing they had that we didn't was a dual threat QB. I'd take Nassib over anyone on 3rd and long. But maybe they didn't face as many, or could move the chains without throwing the ball.

I presume that Go refers to "home run" talent.

The ability to get a TDs on a given play from anywhere on the field.