BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Line Stats

Topic: Line Stats

Author

Message

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

Line Stats

Posted: 2/18/2014 3:52:27 PM

For the stat geeks.....Football Study Hall ranks O Lines and D Lines based on some advanced stats. Some interesting stuff there.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Line Stats

Posted: 2/18/2014 4:23:24 PM

Thanks, that will be very interesting. I will look at stats from both Ohio and U.Mass, where Ohio's new line coach coached last year.

AdjLYards - This attempts to separate gains caused by the line from gains caused by the backs. Gains of 0-4 yards are the responsibility of the line. Gains 4-10 yards are on both the line and the back. Gains of over 10 are credited to the back. Losses are extra blame on the line. This stat is also adjusted for the strength of the foe. Ohio ranked 114th in this measure. UMass was dead last in the country, at 126th.

Std Downs - This the gain on a normal rushing down - first down, 2d and 6, 3d and 4, etc. Ohio did better here, at 2.8 yards, good for 83rd. U.Mass again was very near the bottom at 2.49 yards, for 119th.

Passing Downs - This is the gain in normal passing situations, such as 2d and 7, 3d or 4th and 5+. Ohio averaged 2.5 yards, 117th in the country. U.Mass was at 2.53 yards, good for 115th.

Opportunity rate - the percentage of times that the line "does it's job" and allows the runner to gain at least 5 yards. Ohio's line succeeded 34.9% of the time, good for 109th. U.Mass was successful 33.9%, for 112th.

Power success rate - Pct of times run succeeds at 3rd and 2 or 4th and 2 or less. Ohio succeeded 52.8% of the time, good for 119th in the country. U.Mass did pretty well at this, at 73.7%, good for 36th.

Stuff rate - pct of time lose yards - Ohio did pretty well here, at 18.7%, good for 58th. U.Mass was 21.7%, for 102d. I personally credit Ohio's running backs in part for the few losses.

Adj sack rate - sack rate adjusted for opponents - Ohio, with a mobile and experienced QB, still did poorly here, and finished 114th. U.Mass was exceptional here, at 17th.

       AdjL   StdD PassD OppRt PowerSuc Stuff Sacks Avg
BG     59    25     13     12     86      57   114    52
Kent     99    62     33    105     71      37    14    60
Buffalo 117   100     81     86    101      92    46    89
UMass   126 119    115    112 36 102    17    90
Akron   124   115     89     91     88     114    43    94
Ohio    114    83 117    109 119    58   114   102
Miami   119   107     91    118    107      80   126   107

NIU       9     3      5      3     39       4     3     9
Toledo   18     8      1     10     28       6     4    11
BalSt    87    21     68     63    123      53     7    60
EMU      85    18     86     75     65      54    98    69
WMU     116    85     92     91     99      99    21    86
CMU     123    89     75    113    105 112 104   103

On the whole, with the exception of NIU and Toledo, the offensive lines in the MAC were not good last year. Unfortunately, even among a bad lot, Ohio's was one of the worst. They did OK on standard running downs, (presumably because they caught the defenses off guard by running Beau up the middle

), and Beau/Boykin weren't tackled for losses often, but other than that, they were near the bottom in every measure. U.Mass's lines were also not great, although they didn't give up a lot of sacks, and they did well in short yardage situations.

Let's hope with a new year, the line is a lot better in 2014.

Last Edited: 2/18/2014 7:18:15 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Line Stats

Posted: 2/18/2014 7:41:30 PM

As for defense, the stats are:

       AdjL   StdD PassD OppRt PowerSuc Stuff Sacks Avg
Buffalo 45    41     49     47     88      32     9    44
Akron    55    38    115     39     52    40    57    57
BG     86    64    109     76     28      50    18    62
UMass   115 115 31    115     51    85   126    91
Ohio    124    79 125     49    115     110    39    92
Kent    116 121     17    119    119 107    45    92
Miami   126   104    115 125   55    69   116   101

Toledo 72 102 77 94     54      95     1    71
NIU     118   103     71 54 87     125    44    86
BalSt   102    98    109     78     70     103    42    86
CMU     121   125     37     88 90    83    79    89
EMU     122   112    124    112     72     126    24    99
WMU     113 115 87    112 64    92   124   101

Not surprisingly, with Mack, Buffalo tops these measures. Note that while the West dominates in the Offensive Line stats, the East dominates in the Defensive line stats. The West is MACtion, for sure. Note that the one defensive stat where the MAC does pretty well is sacks. It is such a passing league, obviously the defenses aggressively get after the passers,

Looking at Ohio, a few things stick out. They do pretty well at sacks, but are 125th in defending the run on passing downs. That indicates a problem in going too much after sacks at the expense of sound defense. Also note they were bad in both success on power downs, and in stuffs, so they need better power up front. There are a lot of young DL players in the system, so I have hopes that Ohio will improve in all these measures in the next couple years.

Last Edited: 2/18/2014 7:43:19 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: Line Stats

Posted: 2/18/2014 9:01:27 PM

Gosh, I'm even an accountant who loves numbers but this seems a bit much. All you had to do was watch our line play vs the best teams in the league last year and you know how bad both lines really were.

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

RE: Line Stats

Posted: 2/18/2014 9:57:15 PM

L.C. wrote:

Looking at Ohio, a few things stick out. They do pretty well at sacks, but are 125th in defending the run on passing downs. That indicates a problem in going too much after sacks at the expense of sound defense. Also note they were bad in both success on power downs, and in stuffs, so they need better power up front. There are a lot of young DL players in the system, so I have hopes that Ohio will improve in all these measures in the next couple years.

One thought I had is that it shows how important linebackers are to our D Line's success. Especially on passing downs, when LBs would normally be in coverage, the DL isn't holding ground against the run without that support.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,495

Status: Offline

RE: Line Stats

Posted: 2/18/2014 10:12:22 PM

Casper71 wrote:

Well, the numbers confirmed that the offensive line was really as bad as I thought. It also confirmed that the defense had some issued, but how much of it was a youth issue and how much was a strategy issue it difficult to know. All I know for sure is that if Ohio is going to do as well as we'd like, there is going to need to be a major improvement in both lines.

The numbers also make painfully clear that when the line isn't making holes, there isn't much that can be done from a play-calling standpoint. If you don't have the power to make the down in short-yardage situations, and you're getting stuffed a lot in all situations, it's going to be difficult to get any long drives, which is what we saw.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Showing Replies:	1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 207 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

207 Guests
0 Registered Users

There are no other users looking at this page.