Statistically, the Oregon defense - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Statistically, the Oregon defense (/thread-14548.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Statistically, the Oregon defense (/thread-14548.html)
Statistically, the Oregon defense - washingtonismoney - 10-10-2017
Isn't bad against the run, per Bill Connelly's stats. They're #17 in "success rate" allowed (which are defined as plays, basically, that keep you ahead of the chains -- 50% of needed first down yardage, 75% of needed second down yardage, 100% of third and fourth down yardage). Still pretty good at preventing explosive plays; #34 at explosive rushing plays allowed.
Curiously their passing defense has a brobdingnagian gap: #7 on success rate allowed when the opponent passes...and #113 on explosive plays allowed.
If these stats are predictive, we might see another disjointed game Saturday -- a lot of plays that go nowhere followed by big booms.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - stupac2 - 10-10-2017
I took a brief look at this somewhere and found that, excepting Cal, Oregon's opponents ran for +/-0.5 ypc off of their average, their averages were just bad. I know that Connelly does opponent quality adjustments for some things, but this might be a case where the opposition hasn't been good enough to demonstrate anything.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - lex24 - 10-10-2017
"If these stats are predictive, we might see another disjointed game Saturday -- a lot of plays that go nowhere followed by big booms."
Yep. This will not be a replay of 2013. That was one of the most brutally efficient running games I've ever seen. A constant stream of 4 to 5 yards. Play after play. Held the ball for over 42 1/2 minutes. 79 plays - 66 running. Gaffney 45 carries for about 160 yards. 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Woody Hayes was dancing somewhere. It was incredible execution. And it kept a very explosive offense off the field. And took away any rhythm.
(10-10-2017, 08:33 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Isn't bad against the run, per Bill Connelly's stats. They're #17 in "success rate" allowed (which are defined as plays, basically, that keep you ahead of the chains -- 50% of needed first down yardage, 75% of needed second down yardage, 100% of third and fourth down yardage). Still pretty good at preventing explosive plays; #34 at explosive rushing plays allowed.
Curiously their passing defense has a of exceedingly large proportions gap: #7 on success rate allowed when the opponent passes...and #113 on explosive plays allowed.
If these stats are predictive, we might see another disjointed game Saturday -- a lot of plays that go nowhere followed by big booms.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - unclechuck - 10-10-2017
Curiously their passing defense has a of exceedingly large proportions gap: #7 on success rate allowed when the opponent passes...and #113 on explosive plays allowed.
Ducks have 4 true FR in their DB rotation (CB/S/nickel), so while talented, there have been frequent blown coverages given the newbs and a first year DC/system. Also explosion numbers a bit skewed by ASU game where their large WRs (Harry, Harvey) repeatedly grabbed 30 yd jump ball passes over UOs 5'9-11 CBS. Not sure we have the WRs to take great advantage of them. (A healthy & active JJAW could change this)
OLBs are large & rangy so will be a challenge for our TEs to be consistently successful against them. ILBs are Dye (v good) and others of modest skills / production, so a good chance for some long Love lopes via inside seams. Concur with WIMs more quantitative take that it will be a lot of sparring, punctuated by big plays for Cardinal.
Duck backup QBs showed no ability with long ball vs WSU, so we will likely crowd the box and dare them to beat us deep, so that we neutralize their solid run game. They have deep quality on OL so it will be important for us to get 3 & outs and not let them start grinding down our DL or Q4 might not be pretty. If we get good enough QB play to sustain some clock eating drives, to supplement our couple of explosion plays we should be able to grind out a double digit victory.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - SamuelMcF - 10-10-2017
(10-10-2017, 10:35 PM)unclechuck link Wrote:Not sure we have the WRs to take great advantage of them. (A healthy & active JJAW could change this)
They have deep quality on OL so it will be important for us to get 3 & outs and not let them start grinding down our DL or Q4 might not be pretty.
JJ is healthy and ready to go.
I'd be worried about our DL/pass rush in the 4th quarter, but since Kalambayi and Phillips are both out for the 1st half I suspect we'll be more solid in this department. They will be much fresher than everyone else out there.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - dabigv13 - 10-10-2017
I like that glass half full take...
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - gocard14 - 10-11-2017
That is an odd stat based on the numbers it uses. I (and Shaw) would consider a 4 yard run on first and 10 a modest success. Likewise a 6yard run on 2nd and 10 is a success for the offense. The third and 4th down stats make more sense, though Id argue that when Shaw calls a draw on 3rd and 15 and gains 10 yards hes happy because he was playing the field position game.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - Hulk01 - 10-11-2017
The Ducks have a better defense than ours (and could have an outstanding one next year.)Â But it's spotty; lots of very young players, especially their DBs, making rookie mistakes.
They've played five bad running teams and one below-average one. But they still look stouter than our guys at defending against the run.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - lex24 - 10-11-2017
Maybe. But you correctly note that Oregon has played against 4 poor running teams. While Stanfird has faced a great running team (SDS) a very good one (USC) a solid one (Utah - I thought they abandoned the run Sat. Which was a mistake) one below average average (ASU) and two poor (Rice and UCLA).
More concerning Sat, of course, is how they handle the run with Kalambayi and Phillips out. Big day for Swan, Williams and Robinson.
(10-11-2017, 06:51 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The Ducks have a better defense than ours (and could have an outstanding one next year.)Â But it's spotty; lots of very young players, especially their DBs, making rookie mistakes.
They've played five bad running teams and one below-average one. But they still look stouter against he run the our guys.
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - qwerty49 - 10-11-2017
(10-10-2017, 11:18 PM)SamuelMcF link Wrote:[quote author=unclechuck link=topic=17659.msg205676#msg205676 date=1507700109]Not sure we have the WRs to take great advantage of them. (A healthy & active JJAW could change this)
They have deep quality on OL so it will be important for us to get 3 & outs and not let them start grinding down our DL or Q4 might not be pretty.
JJ is healthy and ready to go.
I'd be worried about our DL/pass rush in the 4th quarter, but since Kalambayi and Phillips are both out for the 1st half I suspect we'll be more solid in this department. They will be much fresher than everyone else out there.
[/quote]
Their OL is big and experienced and when hes healthy Royce Freeman is a big horse to ride. Plus they get Charles Nelson back. Its easy to say we need to control TOP against them, especially in the first half with our 2 starters out, but weve all seen that movie before and we also dont have the best run defense either. I have a feeling that were about to see just how valuable Horrible Harry is. But lets hope we also get to see a real coming out party for Jovan Swann!
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - teejers1 - 10-11-2017
Unless and until Stanford shows it is competent passing the ball, why wouldn't EVERY team put 9 in the vicinity of the box, spy/contain Love, and make Stanford WRs beat you one-on-one (which also would require an accurate - or at least semi-accurate pass - from the QB)? It just seems that even a so-so D could cause Stanford problems with this approach.
Until Stanford show the ability to pass, then every game is nerve-wracking.
Oh yeah, and Stanford's inability to stop the run makes everything more nerve-wracking.
P.S. YPP stats, especially this year, seem a bit shaky to base "good offense" claims on, due to boom or bust Love offense. [3 and out; 3 and out; 3 and out; 80 yard TD run. Call it 10 plays, 95 yards = 9.0 YPP. Good offense? Points per drive is better (and I understand Stanford is still good on that front). But of course, there is the KO return or the TO inside opponent's 25 yard line that could affect numbers.
What might be an interesting stat is PPD on drives started on your side of the 50. That would strike me as a decent indicator of whether an O can consistently put together scoring drives. (Given the number of 50+ yard runs by Love, I suspect Stanford would still do reasonably well by this metric).
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - washingtonismoney - 10-11-2017
(10-11-2017, 12:31 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:P.S. YPP stats, especially this year, seem a bit shaky to base "good offense" claims on, due to boom or bust Love offense. [3 and out; 3 and out; 3 and out; 80 yard TD run. Call it 10 plays, 95 yards = 9.0 YPP. Good offense? Points per drive is better (and I understand Stanford is still good on that front). But of course, there is the KO return or the TO inside opponent's 25 yard line that could affect numbers.
What might be an interesting stat is PPD on drives started on your side of the 50. That would strike me as a decent indicator of whether an O can consistently put together scoring drives. (Given the number of 50+ yard runs by Love, I suspect Stanford would still do reasonably well by this metric).
Stanford is ninth in the country on points per drive: https://twitter.com/SolidVerbal/status/917443306526789632
Re: Statistically, the Oregon defense - CTcard - 10-11-2017
(10-11-2017, 12:36 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17659.msg205778#msg205778 date=1507750301]
What might be an interesting stat is PPD on drives started on your side of the 50. That would strike me as a decent indicator of whether an O can consistently put together scoring drives. (Given the number of 50+ yard runs by Love, I suspect Stanford would still do reasonably well by this metric).
Stanford is ninth in the country on points per drive: https://twitter.com/SolidVerbal/status/917443306526789632
[/quote]
Per drive stats are better, but harder to find.
Brian(?) Fremeau of FEI fame has a nice site that eventually puts up all sorts of per drive stats.
http://www.bcftoys.com/
Unfortunately, at this time only total FEI is available, and none of the detailed breakdown stats for 2017.
By the way, FEI loves Stanford. #8 in the country in total FEI right now. Oregon at #18 is rather high as well.
Not sure I entirely see the why of that.