More Sobering Stats - You Can't Hide From The Numbers

[ssj4cane]

Comparing conference teams to what they have averaged in conf vs how they performed against UM this is what I got.


Georgia Tech is avg 420 yards and 6.03 yards per play in conference not counting UM
Against UM they had 401 yards and 4.14 yards per play

UNC is avg 385 yards and 5.62 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 500 yards and 6.33 yards per play

Wake is avg 256 yards and 3.84 yards per play in conf game not counting UM
Against UM they had 361 yards and 5.08 yards per play

FSU is avg 510.5 yards and 7.3 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 517 yards and 7.08 yards per play

Va Tech is avg 353 yards and 5.2 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 549 yards and 7.04 yards per play


I figured comparing conference teams was a good way to gauge how the defense really performs. One huge take away. Considering the offense we were playing that Va Tech performance may be the worst I've ever seen from a Canes team. We made them look better than FSU and we were at home. 200 yards more than they avg in the **** rain at home.

 

[The Franchise]

Watch Auburn and ask yourself if they're getting better as a program in Gus's FIRST YEAR AS HC. You left that part out. It's his first year there, and he's taken the SEC door mat that didn't win a conference game last year and has them in contention for the SEC title IN HIS FIRST YEAR. This is Corch Al's third year, and we are getting worse the more we play.

UM fans should be sour after last Saturday's total tank job. Let them shout from the mountain.

Apples and Oranges. Auburn's been raking in Top 10 recruiting classes for a half a decade. They are not talent deficient. People were saying the same thing about Brady Hoke IN HIS FIRST YEAR. Well.....dude is hot garbage now IN YEAR THREE. And yes....I'm sour too, just trying to look at that game with a little bit of perspective.

Give the guy his credit. He's completely turned that program around in one year in the toughest conference in FBS. When you don't give guys proper credit it cheapens the rest of the stuff you say. Their recruiting rankings probably aren't that much different than ours over the last several years.

 

[The Franchise]

All you have to say is we let VT score 42 points. W. Carolina's defense actually allowed 38 points (7 on a pick 6) to VT and VT was at home.

Did the turnovers and short field help? No.

How do you explain the other 3 touchdowns?

The field wasn't really all that short on two of the turnovers. I wonder how short the field was for Duke's D on the 4 INTs Duke's QB threw against VT. I think they only gave up 10 total points.

Data does not back up your contention. A team having first down at the 50 scores 50% of the time. That is an extremely high percentage when considering the overall scoring % of all drives. Heck its high when comparing to a team that has first down at the 20 which scores about 25%. taking one game and extrapolating data is meaningless.

You say they score 50% of the time. Is that TDs only or TDs and FGs? Pretty important distinction. Most of us probably would have settled for 50% scoring and not 100% TDs like we got.

 

[The Franchise]

**** I even forgot about ANOTHER JUCO we went after. Bond. Thats FIVE guys we went after in the off season to try to build up this defense. Think of how BAD the depth and/or talent must be, that we went after FIVE transfers and JUCOs just for the DEFENSE. I cant remember us EVER going after that many JUCOs or transfers in one year on just one side of the ball.

We recruited JUCO players, so that's a reason for us to get gashed to death by everyone including the 100th ranked offense that everyone's been owning this year? I'm not buying it. As for your question about why we should be better than last year from your previous post, I think that's the usual course of growth. You're supposed to get better if you're going in the right direction just because your players have been with you and in your system for another full offseason.

 

[Loafers]

All you have to say is we let VT score 42 points. W. Carolina's defense actually allowed 38 points (7 on a pick 6) to VT and VT was at home.

Did the turnovers and short field help? No.

How do you explain the other 3 touchdowns?

The field wasn't really all that short on two of the turnovers. I wonder how short the field was for Duke's D on the 4 INTs Duke's QB threw against VT. I think they only gave up 10 total points.

Data does not back up your contention. A team having first down at the 50 scores 50% of the time. That is an extremely high percentage when considering the overall scoring % of all drives. Heck its high when comparing to a team that has first down at the 20 which scores about 25%. taking one game and extrapolating data is meaningless.

You say they score 50% of the time. Is that TDs only or TDs and FGs? Pretty important distinction. Most of us probably would have settled for 50% scoring and not 100% TDs like we got.

Scoring is fgs and Tds. Which doesn't really matter since your contention that is wasn't really a short field. The fact are that The probability that a team scores goes up by a lot when giving them the ball near midfield. So it does matter

 

[OBLIVION]

 

[CANE4LIFE]

Comparing conference teams to what they have averaged in conf vs how they performed against UM this is what I got.


Georgia Tech is avg 420 yards and 6.03 yards per play in conference not counting UM
Against UM they had 401 yards and 4.14 yards per play

UNC is avg 385 yards and 5.62 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 500 yards and 6.33 yards per play

Wake is avg 256 yards and 3.84 yards per play in conf game not counting UM
Against UM they had 361 yards and 5.08 yards per play

FSU is avg 510.5 yards and 7.3 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 517 yards and 7.08 yards per play

Va Tech is avg 353 yards and 5.2 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 549 yards and 7.04 yards per play


I figured comparing conference teams was a good way to gauge how the defense really performs. One huge take away. Considering the offense we were playing that Va Tech performance may be the worst I've ever seen from a Canes team. We made them look better than FSU and we were at home. 200 yards more than they avg in the **** rain at home.

And how do you account for a game where say, your QB throws 4 picks, putting your defense on the field for most of the game. Or say, where Logan Thomas throws 4 picks against Duke, and only has 215 yards passing, but then only throws 2 picks against BC and throws for almost 400 yards? Does that mean Duke's defense is better than BC?

There is a reason why stats are measured on bigger averages than this "transference" type thing. Each game is different. Each team is different. Do these stats just cover games BEFORE they played us? Or does it include games AFTER as well? Wake lost their two best offensive players, so their offense is now dead in the water, so their total offense has gone off a cliff. Logan Thomas has had a pretty sh*tty year, but he did light up BC for almost 400 yards the week before they played us. OR, for example, take UF. If you look at UF NOW, they are a trainwreck, but when we played them, their starting QB was still playing, and they hadnt been decimated by injuries. So yeah, they are a dumpster fire now, but they were a better team when we played them, and beat them.

No one is arguing that our defense isnt a mess, but you have to take the big picture averages to gain a sense of where you really stand nationally. All this "well vs. team X we did Y, and team Z did Q, but then against W they did XYZ is to erratic.

 

[Loafers]

Comparing conference teams to what they have averaged in conf vs how they performed against UM this is what I got.


Georgia Tech is avg 420 yards and 6.03 yards per play in conference not counting UM
Against UM they had 401 yards and 4.14 yards per play

UNC is avg 385 yards and 5.62 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 500 yards and 6.33 yards per play

Wake is avg 256 yards and 3.84 yards per play in conf game not counting UM
Against UM they had 361 yards and 5.08 yards per play

FSU is avg 510.5 yards and 7.3 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 517 yards and 7.08 yards per play

Va Tech is avg 353 yards and 5.2 yards per play in conf games not counting UM
Against UM they had 549 yards and 7.04 yards per play


I figured comparing conference teams was a good way to gauge how the defense really performs. One huge take away. Considering the offense we were playing that Va Tech performance may be the worst I've ever seen from a Canes team. We made them look better than FSU and we were at home. 200 yards more than they avg in the **** rain at home.

And how do you account for a game where say, your QB throws 4 picks, putting your defense on the field for most of the game. Or say, where Logan Thomas throws 4 picks against Duke, and only has 215 yards passing, but then only throws 2 picks against BC and throws for almost 400 yards? Does that mean Duke's defense is better than BC?

There is a reason why stats are measured on bigger averages than this "transference" type thing. Each game is different. Each team is different. Do these stats just cover games BEFORE they played us? Or does it include games AFTER as well? Wake lost their two best offensive players, so their offense is now dead in the water, so their total offense has gone off a cliff. Logan Thomas has had a pretty sh*tty year, but he did light up BC for almost 400 yards the week before they played us. OR, for example, take UF. If you look at UF NOW, they are a trainwreck, but when we played them, their starting QB was still playing, and they hadnt been decimated by injuries. So yeah, they are a dumpster fire now, but they were a better team when we played them, and beat them.

No one is arguing that our defense isnt a mess, but you have to take the big picture averages to gain a sense of where you really stand nationally. All this "well vs. team X we did Y, and team Z did Q, but then against W they did XYZ is to erratic.

Not to mention they all don't have the same exact common opponents.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

**** I even forgot about ANOTHER JUCO we went after. Bond. Thats FIVE guys we went after in the off season to try to build up this defense. Think of how BAD the depth and/or talent must be, that we went after FIVE transfers and JUCOs just for the DEFENSE. I cant remember us EVER going after that many JUCOs or transfers in one year on just one side of the ball.

We recruited JUCO players, so that's a reason for us to get gashed to death by everyone including the 100th ranked offense that everyone's been owning this year? I'm not buying it. As for your question about why we should be better than last year from your previous post, I think that's the usual course of growth. You're supposed to get better if you're going in the right direction just because your players have been with you and in your system for another full offseason.

Come on dude, you are better than that. You know **** well what Im saying. LOL. It wasnt "we recruited JUCO players". We brought in FIVE JUCO and Transfers JUST on Defense. FIVE guys for our defense. In one off season. That has NEVER happened in the 30 years I have been watching UM Football. Weve brought in guys, but FIVE just on one side of the ball? Not ONLY does it tell you that we were thin, but regardless of wether you believe it or not, what it ALSO reveals, is how the STAFF feels about our talent and depth on Defense. Which, if nothing else, at least partially explains why they are playing as conservatively as they are. Wether its true or not, its obvious that AG and MD are not happy with the talent and depth on the defense.

 

[The Franchise]

All you have to say is we let VT score 42 points. W. Carolina's defense actually allowed 38 points (7 on a pick 6) to VT and VT was at home.

Did the turnovers and short field help? No.

How do you explain the other 3 touchdowns?

The field wasn't really all that short on two of the turnovers. I wonder how short the field was for Duke's D on the 4 INTs Duke's QB threw against VT. I think they only gave up 10 total points.

Data does not back up your contention. A team having first down at the 50 scores 50% of the time. That is an extremely high percentage when considering the overall scoring % of all drives. Heck its high when comparing to a team that has first down at the 20 which scores about 25%. taking one game and extrapolating data is meaningless.

You say they score 50% of the time. Is that TDs only or TDs and FGs? Pretty important distinction. Most of us probably would have settled for 50% scoring and not 100% TDs like we got.

Scoring is fgs and Tds. Which doesn't really matter since your contention that is wasn't really a short field. The fact are that The probability that a team scores goes up by a lot when giving them the ball near midfield. So it does matter

You're nitpicking. I said the field wasn't really that short. I didn't say we shouldn't have allowed a point. We shouldn't have allowed 21 points. That was 100% TDs. Do you think that's a poor job in light of the 50% stat (FGs and TDs) stat you posted?

 

[The Franchise]

**** I even forgot about ANOTHER JUCO we went after. Bond. Thats FIVE guys we went after in the off season to try to build up this defense. Think of how BAD the depth and/or talent must be, that we went after FIVE transfers and JUCOs just for the DEFENSE. I cant remember us EVER going after that many JUCOs or transfers in one year on just one side of the ball.

We recruited JUCO players, so that's a reason for us to get gashed to death by everyone including the 100th ranked offense that everyone's been owning this year? I'm not buying it. As for your question about why we should be better than last year from your previous post, I think that's the usual course of growth. You're supposed to get better if you're going in the right direction just because your players have been with you and in your system for another full offseason.

Come on dude, you are better than that. You know **** well what Im saying. LOL. It wasnt "we recruited JUCO players". We brought in FIVE JUCO and Transfers JUST on Defense. FIVE guys for our defense. In one off season. That has NEVER happened in the 30 years I have been watching UM Football. Weve brought in guys, but FIVE just on one side of the ball? Not ONLY does it tell you that we were thin, but regardless of wether you believe it or not, what it ALSO reveals, is how the STAFF feels about our talent and depth on Defense. Which, if nothing else, at least partially explains why they are playing as conservatively as they are. Wether its true or not, its obvious that AG and MD are not happy with the talent and depth on the defense.

I have said repeatedly that the talent of the players who play the most on D isn't all that great right now. There's no questioning that. The disconnect between those making excuses for our corches and those demanding more of them is that the talent is nowhere near bad enough to justify the atrocious results.

VT's talent had them rated 100th offensively coming into our game, and they were universally considered a **** offensive club. Everyone pretty much owned them. And they went out there and marched up and down the field at will on us and scored as much as they wanted to. We stood no chance of stopping or slowing them down and made an erratic QB look like a Heisman finalist. With EVERYTHING on the line, we laid a pterodactyl egg. That's why everyone's so tweaked.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

**** I even forgot about ANOTHER JUCO we went after. Bond. Thats FIVE guys we went after in the off season to try to build up this defense. Think of how BAD the depth and/or talent must be, that we went after FIVE transfers and JUCOs just for the DEFENSE. I cant remember us EVER going after that many JUCOs or transfers in one year on just one side of the ball.

We recruited JUCO players, so that's a reason for us to get gashed to death by everyone including the 100th ranked offense that everyone's been owning this year? I'm not buying it. As for your question about why we should be better than last year from your previous post, I think that's the usual course of growth. You're supposed to get better if you're going in the right direction just because your players have been with you and in your system for another full offseason.

Come on dude, you are better than that. You know **** well what Im saying. LOL. It wasnt "we recruited JUCO players". We brought in FIVE JUCO and Transfers JUST on Defense. FIVE guys for our defense. In one off season. That has NEVER happened in the 30 years I have been watching UM Football. Weve brought in guys, but FIVE just on one side of the ball? Not ONLY does it tell you that we were thin, but regardless of wether you believe it or not, what it ALSO reveals, is how the STAFF feels about our talent and depth on Defense. Which, if nothing else, at least partially explains why they are playing as conservatively as they are. Wether its true or not, its obvious that AG and MD are not happy with the talent and depth on the defense.

I have said repeatedly that the talent of the players who play the most on D isn't all that great right now. There's no questioning that. The disconnect between those making excuses for our corches and those demanding more of them is that the talent is nowhere near bad enough to justify the atrocious results.

VT's talent had them rated 100th offensively coming into our game, and they were universally considered a **** offensive club. Everyone pretty much owned them. And they went out there and marched up and down the field at will on us and scored as much as they wanted to. We stood no chance of stopping or slowing them down and made an erratic QB look like a Heisman finalist. With EVERYTHING on the line, we laid a pterodactyl egg. That's why everyone's so tweaked.

Brother I understand perfectly why everyone is ****ed. I am ****ed and disgusted too. But what Im trying to do is have rational conversations about WHY we are in the mess we are in. To me, the "Scheme sucks, Donofrio is a moron" excuse is over simplistic and not telling the whole story, maybe not even most of it. These guys arent mentally retarded, so there is a major breakdown somewhere on the defense, and I would like to see it fixed. For all the huffing and puffing and bombastic demands, AG is NOT going to fire Donofrio tommorow, or next week, or next month. IF he goes, it wont be til the end of the season, and personally, I dont want to drop 2 or 3 more games just to "prove" that he sucks and should be fired. I would like us to win out.

I dont think anyone is making excuses for Donofrio. Its obvious he is not getting the job done. Can he get it fixed? I dont know, and I would hope that he's running out of time to figure it out. But I think people may be setting themselves up for great disappointment if they think this is a simple matter of just replacing a DC and everything is going to be fine. I think our problems are more than just schematic.

 

[Loafers]

The field wasn't really all that short on two of the turnovers. I wonder how short the field was for Duke's D on the 4 INTs Duke's QB threw against VT. I think they only gave up 10 total points.

Data does not back up your contention. A team having first down at the 50 scores 50% of the time. That is an extremely high percentage when considering the overall scoring % of all drives. Heck its high when comparing to a team that has first down at the 20 which scores about 25%. taking one game and extrapolating data is meaningless.

You say they score 50% of the time. Is that TDs only or TDs and FGs? Pretty important distinction. Most of us probably would have settled for 50% scoring and not 100% TDs like we got.

Scoring is fgs and Tds. Which doesn't really matter since your contention that is wasn't really a short field. The fact are that The probability that a team scores goes up by a lot when giving them the ball near midfield. So it does matter

You're nitpicking. I said the field wasn't really that short. I didn't say we shouldn't have allowed a point. We shouldn't have allowed 21 points. That was 100% TDs. Do you think that's a poor job in light of the 50% stat (FGs and TDs) stat you posted?

I do agree. It was **** poor. I'm just pointing out that giving a team the ball at midfield is HUGE. It's not something to be shrugged off as well the turnovers didn't occur close to end zone. The defensive performance was atrocious.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

Watch Auburn and ask yourself if they're getting better as a program in Gus's FIRST YEAR AS HC. You left that part out. It's his first year there, and he's taken the SEC door mat that didn't win a conference game last year and has them in contention for the SEC title IN HIS FIRST YEAR. This is Corch Al's third year, and we are getting worse the more we play.

UM fans should be sour after last Saturday's total tank job. Let them shout from the mountain.

Apples and Oranges. Auburn's been raking in Top 10 recruiting classes for a half a decade. They are not talent deficient. People were saying the same thing about Brady Hoke IN HIS FIRST YEAR. Well.....dude is hot garbage now IN YEAR THREE. And yes....I'm sour too, just trying to look at that game with a little bit of perspective.

Give the guy his credit. He's completely turned that program around in one year in the toughest conference in FBS. When you don't give guys proper credit it cheapens the rest of the stuff you say. Their recruiting rankings probably aren't that much different than ours over the last several years.

I didn't mean to imply that he isn't a good coach. I've been impressed with him and what he did at Ark. St. I do, however, feel he was given a much better situation than Al. I also think he will do worse in his third year than he is this year.

 

[Loafers]

**** I even forgot about ANOTHER JUCO we went after. Bond. Thats FIVE guys we went after in the off season to try to build up this defense. Think of how BAD the depth and/or talent must be, that we went after FIVE transfers and JUCOs just for the DEFENSE. I cant remember us EVER going after that many JUCOs or transfers in one year on just one side of the ball.

We recruited JUCO players, so that's a reason for us to get gashed to death by everyone including the 100th ranked offense that everyone's been owning this year? I'm not buying it. As for your question about why we should be better than last year from your previous post, I think that's the usual course of growth. You're supposed to get better if you're going in the right direction just because your players have been with you and in your system for another full offseason.

Come on dude, you are better than that. You know **** well what Im saying. LOL. It wasnt "we recruited JUCO players". We brought in FIVE JUCO and Transfers JUST on Defense. FIVE guys for our defense. In one off season. That has NEVER happened in the 30 years I have been watching UM Football. Weve brought in guys, but FIVE just on one side of the ball? Not ONLY does it tell you that we were thin, but regardless of wether you believe it or not, what it ALSO reveals, is how the STAFF feels about our talent and depth on Defense. Which, if nothing else, at least partially explains why they are playing as conservatively as they are. Wether its true or not, its obvious that AG and MD are not happy with the talent and depth on the defense.

I have said repeatedly that the talent of the players who play the most on D isn't all that great right now. There's no questioning that. The disconnect between those making excuses for our corches and those demanding more of them is that the talent is nowhere near bad enough to justify the atrocious results.

VT's talent had them rated 100th offensively coming into our game, and they were universally considered a **** offensive club. Everyone pretty much owned them. And they went out there and marched up and down the field at will on us and scored as much as they wanted to. We stood no chance of stopping or slowing them down and made an erratic QB look like a Heisman finalist. With EVERYTHING on the line, we laid a pterodactyl egg. That's why everyone's so tweaked.

Brother I understand perfectly why everyone is ****ed. I am ****ed and disgusted too. But what Im trying to do is have rational conversations about WHY we are in the mess we are in. To me, the "Scheme sucks, Donofrio is a moron" excuse is over simplistic and not telling the whole story, maybe not even most of it. These guys arent mentally retarded, so there is a major breakdown somewhere on the defense, and I would like to see it fixed. For all the huffing and puffing and bombastic demands, AG is NOT going to fire Donofrio tommorow, or next week, or next month. IF he goes, it wont be til the end of the season, and personally, I dont want to drop 2 or 3 more games just to "prove" that he sucks and should be fired. I would like us to win out.

I dont think anyone is making excuses for Donofrio. Its obvious he is not getting the job done. Can he get it fixed? I dont know, and I would hope that he's running out of time to figure it out. But I think people may be setting themselves up for great disappointment if they think this is a simple matter of just replacing a DC and everything is going to be fine. I think our problems are more than just schematic.

I tend to agree with you but he wouldn't be the first coach not to be retarded and suck. Sometimes it's just fit. I think one reason is that beyond talent deficiencies is that they are converting from one d to the other so existing personnel doesn't fit. Every scenario is in play. I will add that Todd grantham took over at Uga and tried to convert them into a 34 defense and it hasn't worked out at all. Their d sucks. He will probably be fired. And they have more talent than us. Most think he smart and a good coach but it's not working. So to say it's too simplistic that it's donofrio I am not completely sure.

 

[westcoastcanes]

serpico going ham in this thread

 

[zone3cane]

The offense would be better w/ even an average defense but since the defense is terrible b/c of a coaching, the entire team looks terrible.

The offense has to have a perfect game blocking, passing, catching, and running just so Miami can beat a team like WF w/o needing a last minute saving TD drive to do so.

 

[zone3cane]

I want to hear consingler aka Dorito apologist explain this

I posted already big man, it's not my fault you are illiterate.

bro you were in hiding after the VT fiasco b/c u and your compadres were slurping off Dorito like he's the 2nd coming off Nick Saban. Making every excuse in the world for him even saying that it's the offenses fault why the defense is struggling and the talent, anything but Dorito.

You made one stupid post after the other acting like anyone who was against Dorito was delusional while you just as easily put all the blame on the offense b/c James Coley isnt Goldens best friend.

 

[NVA CANE]

For all of the excuse makers what will be you're excuse next year. Since you guys keep saying next year will be better cause we have talent coming in. Well that talent will be true freshman. Are we gonna hear the depth is still too young and we have to wait another year until they mature. Or will it be well the senior class was Goldens first recruiting class that he had to rush so they're not that good so we have to wait a year to let them go as well. I just want to know what the excuses will be come next year so I can prepare.

Here is the thing. You infuse any scheme with talent and it will work to a certain degree. But the mere fact that you need so much talent to find success against mediocre offenses is very telling. It means the implementation of the scheme is faulty because you are not maximizing the talent instead you are using the talent to justify your scheme.

We we all know what Miami defenses are capable of. We've seen them over the last three decades. This coaching staffs philosophy will never get Miami to that elite level of defense and maximize the talent they have access to.

Work to to the strengths of your talent to vice versa.

 

[52CANES]

I wish there was some stats for college offensive drives like there is for nfl because at least partially its our offense. PARTIALLY.

We've even dropped to #82 in Defensive Efficiency (DFEI). Interesting, the 3 above us are Maryland, LSU, and Cincinatti and the 3 below are Tennessee, Boston College, and Texas A&M.