Interesting Stat: adjusted YPP

[AE 87]

Okay, so I had two lingering impressions from the season. First, it seems like O gradually got better over the season but were pretty good to start with. Second, it seemed that our D got dramatically better, if still not good/great, after the game.

As it turns out, by one measure, that ended up pretty close. The measure that I considered was an adjusted yards per play. For example, I divided our offensive yards/play by the opponent's season average yards/play allowed and divided our yards/play allowed by our opponents season average yards/play.

From Tulane through Pitt, we averaged 1.21 ypp over opponents' season average D and our D allowed 1.21 ypp over our opponents' season average O.
Then, from UVA through MissSt, we averaged 1.27 ypp over opponents' season average D and allowed only .96 ypp of our opponents' season average O ypp. We held UVA, NC St, CU, and georgie under their season average ypp O. The outlier was FSU to whom we allowed 1.21 of their season average ypp O, which may be attributable to CCK knowing our personnel and JWinston having a great game..

 

[GTJoeBrew]

What was amazing was that our offense seemed to play better against better opponents. We were firing on all cylinders(on O anyways) against Miss St.

 

[Longestday]

I just re-watched Wofford, Tulane, and VT 2014. Our offense was not nearly as "smoove" as the end of the season. Miami was the first game that the offense just clicked. The O missed stepped against Duke, then they clicked again for UNC, and clicked all the way to Clemson where the Tigers stout D held us pretty good.

I think the above posters are right! The O improved but the competition got more difficult.

 

[swampsting]

Watching the second half against Georgia and the entire games against FSU and Missy State and that offense was leaps and bounds better than it was against Wofford and Tulane. And that was without Snoddy and Smelter. If those two had played against Missy State, it might have been 70 on the board.

 

[AE 87]

 

[takethepoints]

The big story here isn't the O, it's the D. We really improved after Pitt and with the same personnel. Against 5 bowl teams, no less.

If we can get a bit better, just a bit, next year on D, then duplicating our success this year will be a whole lot easier. Let's hope that works out.

 

[AE 87]

The big story here isn't the O, it's the D. We really improved after Pitt and with the same personnel. Against 5 bowl teams, no less.

If we can get a bit better, just a bit, next year on D, then duplicating our success this year will be a whole lot easier. Let's hope that works out.

Yeah, that's what I think too. I agree that overall we ran more smoothly on O as the season went on, but this measure suggests that we made dramatic improvement on D. We went from allowing 20% more yards/play than our opponents were averaging to allowing just their average ypp. In other words, this simple metric suggests we went from a significantly below average D to an average D.

This metric suggests our O perhaps improved some with Duke and following but fell off a bit vs georgie and FSU

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah, that's what I think too. I agree that overall we ran more smoothly on O as the season went on, but this measure suggests that we made dramatic improvement on D. We went from allowing 20% more yards/play than our opponents were averaging to allowing just their average ypp. In other words, this simple metric suggests we went from a significantly below average D to an average D.

This metric suggests our O perhaps improved some with Duke and following but fell off a bit vs georgie and FSU

In today's offensive climate, a defense that holds the opponents to four TDs might be the new measuring stick. Jeez, offenses can hang points on the board.

 

[AE 87]

In today's offensive climate, a defense that holds the opponents to four TDs might be the new measuring stick. Jeez, offenses can hang points on the board.

Well, that's why I don't look at it in terms of per game stats. While you're right that today's offensive climate tends toward more scores, that's typically because they have more possessions. Our offense lowers the number of possessions/game. We were #12 in pts/game, but probably had 2/3 of the # of possessions that Baylor or TCU, who were #1 and #2, had.

What that means is that our #12 in pts/game was probably #2 in pts/drive but our #53 in pts/game allowed D was probably #80-100 in pts/drive allowed.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, that's why I don't look at it in terms of per game stats. While you're right that today's offensive climate tends toward more scores, that's typically because they have more possessions. Our offense lowers the number of possessions/game. We were #12 in pts/game, but probably had 2/3 of the # of possessions that Baylor or TCU, who were #1 and #2, had.

What that means is that our #12 in pts/game was probably #2 in pts/drive but our #53 in pts/game allowed D was probably #80-100 in pts/drive allowed.

Good point. I probably was focused too much on the skill positions and the guys now playing them.

 

[cyptomcat]

adjusted ypp, sounds familiar

 

[AE 87]

adjusted ypp, sounds familiar

LOL/SMH. I don't know