Recruiting Forum Football Talk IX

[jave36]

A better lead block and that would have been a score. Have to point out the bad and good...... It wasn't a "bad" block, it just wasn't a really good block.

Really surprised they didn't get Heard for a blindside, he obliterated that guy. Against Bama or UGA, he definitely gets called for that. You're right, a better block by the WR and that's a score.

Really great first block by MK though.

 

[Brillovol]

I've been diving into defensive numbers again this morning. I've been struggling a ton with the discrepancy between what I've been seeing versus what the predictive numbers are saying about the quality of our defense. Watching the games it feels like our defense is in the lower half of the SEC and the traditional stats (points + total yards) agree.

I'm seeing three major factors that play into this.
1. Our ability to create turnovers and generate points is wildly underrated.
2. Our SOS to-date has been really good. (We've played 9th hardest schedule in terms of offenses faced.)
3. A lot of the stuff that looks bad in stats has been in garbage time.

Points allowed doesn't tell the whole story, particularly with Heupel's philosophy. Many (falsely) claim Banks of being overly conservative because they see him allow a lot of dink and dunk down the field, but that's not at all true. Heupel's / Banks' entire philosophy is built around creating havoc: negative plays and turnovers. To do that, they're content to let drives stretch on for a bit to allow more opportunities to create big negative plays, and it's actually working quite well.

To help account for this, I've taken points allowed per drive, and I've done two things to it:
1. Remove garbage time
2. Adjust for turnovers. (-3.5 points for a turnover, -7 points for a defensive touchdown).

When you do this for all teams, we go from #113 in the nation in points allowed per game to #56, because the defense is generating 10 points per game above the average FBS team.

When you account for our schedule, the defense gets bumped up into the top 25-30 range, and in the upper half of the SEC.

We've also held every P5 opponent under their season average by this metric.

Syracuse: (Adjusted Points-per-Drive) 1.14 -> (Against Tennessee) 0.95
Georgia: 3.18 -> 2.21
Miss St: 2.04 -> 1.43
Arkansas: 2.49 -> 1.86
Alabama: 3.05 -> 2.72
Kentucky: 1.44 -> 1.17

TLDR: The defense is a lot better than the traditional stats show, because we're creating more points off of turnovers than anyone in the country. They need to start getting credit for generating 20% of the points of the #2 scoring offense in the country.

Me trying to think that our defense isn’t hot slaw…

 

[Enki_Amenra]

I've been diving into defensive numbers again this morning. I've been struggling a ton with the discrepancy between what I've been seeing versus what the predictive numbers are saying about the quality of our defense. Watching the games it feels like our defense is in the lower half of the SEC and the traditional stats (points + total yards) agree.

I'm seeing three major factors that play into this.
1. Our ability to create turnovers and generate points is wildly underrated.
2. Our SOS to-date has been really good. (We've played 9th hardest schedule in terms of offenses faced.)
3. A lot of the stuff that looks bad in stats has been in garbage time.

Points allowed doesn't tell the whole story, particularly with Heupel's philosophy. Many (falsely) claim Banks of being overly conservative because they see him allow a lot of dink and dunk down the field, but that's not at all true. Heupel's / Banks' entire philosophy is built around creating havoc: negative plays and turnovers. To do that, they're content to let drives stretch on for a bit to allow more opportunities to create big negative plays, and it's actually working quite well.

To help account for this, I've taken points allowed per drive, and I've done two things to it:
1. Remove garbage time
2. Adjust for turnovers. (-3.5 points for a turnover, -7 points for a defensive touchdown).

When you do this for all teams, we go from #113 in the nation in points allowed per game to #56, because the defense is generating 10 points per game above the average FBS team.

When you account for our schedule, the defense gets bumped up into the top 25-30 range, and in the upper half of the SEC.

We've also held every P5 opponent under their season average by this metric.

Syracuse: (Adjusted Points-per-Drive) 1.14 -> (Against Tennessee) 0.95
Georgia: 3.18 -> 2.21
Miss St: 2.04 -> 1.43
Arkansas: 2.49 -> 1.86
Alabama: 3.05 -> 2.72
Kentucky: 1.44 -> 1.17

TLDR: The defense is a lot better than the traditional stats show, because we're creating more points off of turnovers than anyone in the country. They need to start getting credit for generating 20% of the points of the #2 scoring offense in the country.

If we'd just stop giving up 3rd and Harriman plays people wouldn't have such a negative opinion.

 

[Orangeburst]

Me trying to think that our defense isn’t hot slaw…

View attachment 785777

 

[SmyrnaATLVolisback]

Portal should be crazy for us this year. My guess:


1 QB (depth)
1 WR (only if big time player)
1 RB
1-3 OL (depending on transfers)


5-6 DB
1 LB
3-4 DL

I think we see a lot of DB transfers that aren’t playing plus just players leaving for nfl or graduation.

 

[RandomUTfan]

I've been diving into defensive numbers again this morning. I've been struggling a ton with the discrepancy between what I've been seeing versus what the predictive numbers are saying about the quality of our defense. Watching the games it feels like our defense is in the lower half of the SEC and the traditional stats (points + total yards) agree.

I'm seeing three major factors that play into this.
1. Our ability to create turnovers and generate points is wildly underrated.
2. Our SOS to-date has been really good. (We've played 9th hardest schedule in terms of offenses faced.)
3. A lot of the stuff that looks bad in stats has been in garbage time.

Points allowed doesn't tell the whole story, particularly with Heupel's philosophy. Many (falsely) claim Banks of being overly conservative because they see him allow a lot of dink and dunk down the field, but that's not at all true. Heupel's / Banks' entire philosophy is built around creating havoc: negative plays and turnovers. To do that, they're content to let drives stretch on for a bit to allow more opportunities to create big negative plays, and it's actually working quite well.

To help account for this, I've taken points allowed per drive, and I've done two things to it:
1. Remove garbage time
2. Adjust for turnovers. (-3.5 points for a turnover, -7 points for a defensive touchdown).

When you do this for all teams, we go from #113 in the nation in points allowed per game to #56, because the defense is generating 10 points per game above the average FBS team.

When you account for our schedule, the defense gets bumped up into the top 25-30 range, and in the upper half of the SEC.

We've also held every P5 opponent under their season average by this metric.

Syracuse: (Adjusted Points-per-Drive) 1.14 -> (Against Tennessee) 0.95
Georgia: 3.18 -> 2.21
Miss St: 2.04 -> 1.43
Arkansas: 2.49 -> 1.86
Alabama: 3.05 -> 2.72
Kentucky: 1.44 -> 1.17

TLDR: The defense is a lot better than the traditional stats show, because we're creating more points off of turnovers than anyone in the country. They need to start getting credit for generating 20% of the points of the #2 scoring offense in the country.

I truly admire that you put all this work into this. I gave up trying to convince anyone. Clearly they need Tim Banks to be a garbage coach so I let them believe that.

 

[Enki_Amenra]

Coaches don't have to come and go like the sun and moon....I hate that stupid merry-go-round from hell and I DO NOT EVER want back on that freaking thing. I don't care who the AD is...you get the wrong guy and you are screwed, and there is no magic 8 ball, nobody has one..anybody can make a bad hire..hell..they can make a absolutely great hire that everyone applauds and it will just go wrong for a million reasons.

Bad thing about a poor hire is you've just flushed 3+ years down the drain.

We (the fans) were being squeezed by the previous AD. They knew exactly what they were doing, imo. Make a hire, just be a coach good enough to bring some excitement, pump sales and fill the stadium for a couple years. Take a little hit in the bad seasons on y3 - 5. Fire the coach and hire a coach good enough to bring some excitement, pump sales and fill the stadium for a couple of years. Take a little hit on y3 - 5, etc.

It's the easy thing for an incompetent AD to do and create an illusion good enough to slide by for a few years. They weren't dedicated/serious about being a real winner, it was just about scamming the fans to generate a few $s. In the long run, that's what pissed off some of the big donors when they caught on to their scheme and forced the hire of a real AD, instead of a snake oil salesman.

 

[RandomUTfan]

 

[TrippieRedd]

 

[PowerT.]

@Stoerner Fumbles …. I assume out this week but this very much puts him in line to play the last 3 games?

 

[SSVol]

Getting paid well to perform at a high level, but with less expectation? Nobody is getting fired from Ole Miss for winning 9 games, but that happens routinely at LSU and UF. I know what I'd do.

 

[jave36]

I've been diving into defensive numbers again this morning. I've been struggling a ton with the discrepancy between what I've been seeing versus what the predictive numbers are saying about the quality of our defense. Watching the games it feels like our defense is in the lower half of the SEC and the traditional stats (points + total yards) agree.

I'm seeing three major factors that play into this.
1. Our ability to create turnovers and generate points is wildly underrated.
2. Our SOS to-date has been really good. (We've played 9th hardest schedule in terms of offenses faced.)
3. A lot of the stuff that looks bad in stats has been in garbage time.

Points allowed doesn't tell the whole story, particularly with Heupel's philosophy. Many (falsely) claim Banks of being overly conservative because they see him allow a lot of dink and dunk down the field, but that's not at all true. Heupel's / Banks' entire philosophy is built around creating havoc: negative plays and turnovers. To do that, they're content to let drives stretch on for a bit to allow more opportunities to create big negative plays, and it's actually working quite well.

To help account for this, I've taken points allowed per drive, and I've done two things to it:
1. Remove garbage time
2. Adjust for turnovers. (-3.5 points for a turnover, -7 points for a defensive touchdown).

When you do this for all teams, we go from #113 in the nation in points allowed per game to #56, because the defense is generating 10 points per game above the average FBS team.

When you account for our schedule, the defense gets bumped up into the top 25-30 range, and in the upper half of the SEC.

We've also held every P5 opponent under their season average by this metric.

Syracuse: (Adjusted Points-per-Drive) 1.14 -> (Against Tennessee) 0.95
Georgia: 3.18 -> 2.21
Miss St: 2.04 -> 1.43
Arkansas: 2.49 -> 1.86
Alabama: 3.05 -> 2.72
Kentucky: 1.44 -> 1.17

TLDR: The defense is a lot better than the traditional stats show, because we're creating more points off of turnovers than anyone in the country. They need to start getting credit for generating 20% of the points of the #2 scoring offense in the country.

This is a good post, but it's not a binary situation where only one of the things can be true. Having literally the worst 3rd down defense in the country is a fact. Having a top scoring defense is also a fact. Banks isn't intentionally allowing teams to convert 3rd and long over and over again because he's "allowing the drive to stretch out in hopes of making a havoc play or turnover," he's doing a piss poor job of defending 3rd down. But he also has done a phenomenal job of creating turnovers and scoring when creating turnovers. While there's a tiny bit of crossover in that sometimes to create those massive plays, you have to be aggressive and that leads to giving up big plays; that isn't usually the case with our 3rd down woes. It's not being overly aggressive that leads to 3rd and long being converted over and over.

This is where stats don't tell the whole story. The stats would make you believe Banks is just super aggressive all the time, and that leads to giving up big plays sometimes. But that's not the case at all, he's not usually aggressive at all on 3rd downs, we play 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7 more often than we press.

You're right Banks deserves a ton of credit for the positives you mentioned; but he also deserves the criticism for being unable to defend 3rd downs, and it's rarely if ever because he was being too aggressive.

I also take issue with giving -3.5 points for a turnover, because that assumes every drive for our opponent would have resulted in at least a field goal, they would never have just punted if we hadn't gotten the turnover. Maybe for a redzone turnover that would be appropriate, but not every turnover.

Really amazing post though, thanks for doing all that research.

 

[jave36]

Getting paid well to perform at a high level, but with less expectation? Nobody is getting fired from Ole Miss for winning 9 games, but that happens routinely at LSU and UF. I know what I'd do.

More importantly, Ole Miss has a HUGE NIL fund that I'm not sure LSU and UF have matched. That matters much more than traditionally rich recruiting territories now.

 

[RandomUTfan]

 

[LouderVol]

He’s on the Moi path and play more next year

that requires too much patience for these instant gratification millennials.

 

[Vols410]

This is a good post, but it's not a binary situation where only one of the things can be true. Having literally the worst 3rd down defense in the country is a fact. Having a top scoring defense is also a fact. Banks isn't intentionally allowing teams to convert 3rd and long over and over again because he's "allowing the drive to stretch out in hopes of making a havoc play or turnover," he's doing a piss poor job of defending 3rd down. But he also has done a phenomenal job of creating turnovers and scoring when creating turnovers. While there's a tiny bit of crossover in that sometimes to create those massive plays, you have to be aggressive and that leads to giving up big plays; that isn't usually the case with our 3rd down woes. It's not being overly aggressive that leads to 3rd and long being converted over and over.

This is where stats don't tell the whole story. The stats would make you believe Banks is just super aggressive all the time, and that leads to giving up big plays sometimes. But that's not the case at all, he's not usually aggressive at all on 3rd downs, we play 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7 more often than we press.

You're right Banks deserves a ton of credit for the positives you mentioned; but he also deserves the criticism for being unable to defend 3rd downs, and it's rarely if ever because he was being too aggressive.

I also take issue with giving -3.5 points for a turnover, because that assumes every drive for our opponent would have resulted in at least a field goal, they would never have just punted if we hadn't gotten the turnover. Maybe for a redzone turnover, that would be appropriate, but not every turnover.

Really amazing post though, thanks for doing all that research.

Thanks for the response, I really don't disagree with much of anything here.

The worst attribute of our defense is, far and away, performance on 3rd down. Honestly, I think we'll see that get better over time and we're suffering from some inexperience and luck.

The cons you mention are real. My point is that those cons reduce what could be a great defense (top 10) to merely a good defense (top 30). Where relying on the eye test alone (or traditional stats) make us look like a horrible defense.

I'll only add that the expected value of a turnover is generally accepted to be in the 3.5-4 points range. It doesn't assume that every drive would have resulted in a FG+. What it assumes is that the instant change in field position generally results in an immediate swing of 3.5-4 expected point differential on average.

 

[RandomUTfan]

Getting paid well to perform at a high level, but with less expectation? Nobody is getting fired from Ole Miss for winning 9 games, but that happens routinely at LSU and UF. I know what I'd do.

It's absolutely a great argument. He only has to win 7 regular season games every year to get a year extension. But also there are two more I will add: He has more money to buy a roster at Ole MIss, and they are going to give him a stupid raise that will match what anyone else is able to offer him.

 

[MoCo_Vol]

Portal should be crazy for us this year. My guess:


1 QB (depth)
1 WR (only if big time player)
1 RB
1-3 OL (depending on transfers)


5-6 DB
1 LB
3-4 DL

I think we see a lot of DB transfers that aren’t playing plus just players leaving for nfl or graduation.

Always take OL/DL if they're good fits.

DB I say you focus on keeping Hood, Redmond, & Gibson all the rest get too demanding you show them the door. I'd probably have a car waiting for Boo after our last game.

WR room honestly knowing it's really year 2 we see results I agree ya only take a big time player. Travis Smith Jr, Matthews, Radarious, Staley, Jefferson, Dodson all young guys that we should focus on returning for next year. Plus incoming talent.

Curious to see how LB room works out...Carter & Telander are both just juniors. I fully expected Carter would have a good season and leave for draft, with the turf toe injuries though he may decide to come back for his senior season. Worry is younger guys wanting to play and hitting the portal. Bolton is a RS Junior though, might be able to convince him to graduate and transfer down for his final year somewhere else where he can be a starter full time. Cannot let Perlotte, Spillman, or Harmon portal imo.

 

[Mullins2010]

@Stoerner Fumbles…. I assume out this week but this very much puts him in line to play the last 3 games?

Florida

 

[De La Cloobs]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Danny White has been the best hire in the athletic department since my birth.

 

[SSVol]

It's absolutely a great argument. He only has to win 7 regular season games every year to get a year extension. But also there are two more I will add: He has more money to buy a roster at Ole MIss, and they are going to give him a stupid raise that will match what anyone else is able to offer him.

If they have money to buy a top roster, they certainly have the money to keep the coach proven to use it well enough. They may not win championships, but they will fill the stadium. That's actually pretty rational and probably not far from DW's view of the problem.

 

[RandomUTfan]

More importantly, Ole Miss has a HUGE NIL fund that I'm not sure LSU and UF have matched. That matters much more than traditionally rich recruiting territories now.

Throw everything else out. It's not nearly as relevant anymore. What do you have to spend on building a roster? That's what is going to separate coaching jobs from each other these days.

Dan Mullen took UNLV because of the resources. Makes no sense based on CFB history, but it's Vegas. We're talking about a team the people who fix games have a rooting interest in!

Throw out all the old hierarchies in the pre-NIL/Portal era. It's a new game. Teams in huge metro cities like LV, Kansas City, Nashville are set to benefit.

 

[Jack Burton]

This is a good post, but it's not a binary situation where only one of the things can be true. Having literally the worst 3rd down defense in the country is a fact. Having a top scoring defense is also a fact. Banks isn't intentionally allowing teams to convert 3rd and long over and over again because he's "allowing the drive to stretch out in hopes of making a havoc play or turnover," he's doing a piss poor job of defending 3rd down. But he also has done a phenomenal job of creating turnovers and scoring when creating turnovers. While there's a tiny bit of crossover in that sometimes to create those massive plays, you have to be aggressive and that leads to giving up big plays; that isn't usually the case with our 3rd down woes. It's not being overly aggressive that leads to 3rd and long being converted over and over.

This is where stats don't tell the whole story. The stats would make you believe Banks is just super aggressive all the time, and that leads to giving up big plays sometimes. But that's not the case at all, he's not usually aggressive at all on 3rd downs, we play 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7 more often than we press.

You're right Banks deserves a ton of credit for the positives you mentioned; but he also deserves the criticism for being unable to defend 3rd downs, and it's rarely if ever because he was being too aggressive.

I also take issue with giving -3.5 points for a turnover, because that assumes every drive for our opponent would have resulted in at least a field goal, they would never have just punted if we hadn't gotten the turnover. Maybe for a redzone turnover that would be appropriate, but not every turnover.

Really amazing post though, thanks for doing all that research.

The stats and the eye test are enough to know that our defense is really bad. Yes, we’re missing players, but we’re also missing tackles. The scheme doesn’t work for the personnel.

If we had Oklahoma’s defense we would win a National Championship this year.

 

[RandomUTfan]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Danny White has been the best hire in the athletic department since my birth.

Eh, Plowman was way up there and affects more. Even Randy Boyd has been transformative for the University and I was not at all happy about a politician taking that job.

 

[Peradox1K]

Our defense is probably getting reeeaaal tired of running thousands of extra laps after each game