Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by MuskogeeHogFan on 09 Jun 2018
  • This is an interesting way to preview the football season. Returning experience is always important but so is returning production on both sides of the ball. Not just the number of snaps played but what was actually done with that playing time. In all fairness, this article was posted 1/31/18 so there have probably been some minor changes among some of the teams listed. And of course, some of these teams have new HC's/OC's/DC's who bring with them changes in scheme, but they still need players who have playing experience and generated production in the past, regardless of the scheme's that they participated in previously. Returning experienced players who have contributed production is never a bad thing. You have to build from the foundation of the players that you have right now.

    How returning production in four offensive stats correlates with changes in Offensive S&P+ ratings:

    Returning experience on the line doesnít have nearly the statistical impact that we think it will. But with more data in the bank, we can see thereís a little correlation.

    The higher the number, the more likely returning production in these areas is to coincide with strong offense:

        Receiving yards correlation: 0.322
        Passing yards correlation: 0.228
        Rushing yards correlation: 0.176
        Offensive line starts correlation: 0.088

    The conclusion remains: Continuity in the passing game matters a hell of a lot, and continuity in the run game doesnít have as strong an impact.
    Correlation between defensive stats and changes in Defensive S&P+:

    On defense, where returning production appears to matter more in general, the correlations are both stronger and more diverse. Since teams use different numbers of defensive linemen, linebackers, and defensive backs, I look at both unit-specific categories and those for defense as a whole.

        Overall passes defensed correlation: 0.381
        Overall tackles correlation: 0.366
        Defensive back passes defensed correlation: 0.340
        Defensive back tackles correlation: 0.336
        Defensive back tackles for loss correlation: 0.303
        Overall tackles for loss correlation: 0.295
        Linebacker tackles for loss correlation: 0.206
        Linebacker tackles correlation: 0.192
        Defensive line sacks correlation: 0.126

    The main takeaways are similar to last year: Disruption and continuity in the secondary are key. And the ability to get hands on passes is harder to replicate than any other.

    So what does this mean for 2018? As with last year, I used categories like the ones above, weighted for largest effect ó so returning quarterbacks, receivers, and defensive backs carry more heft ó to create numbers for offense and defense.


    SEC Returning Off and Def Production and National Rank                  

    School   OFF   Rank   DEF   Rank   AVG   Rank
    MSU      82%    19    80%    22     81%     8
    FLA       77%    34    74%    36     76%    21
    A&M      66%    70    78%    27     72%    35
    ARK       76%    39    66%    58     71%    40
    AUB       78%    31    61%    80     70%    47
    KEN       47%   109    90%     7     69%    50
    MIZ       70%    54    66%    55     68%    52
    USC       84%   15     47%   119    66%    67
    OLM       64%   78     62%    73     63%   77
    GEO       66%   71     54%    96     60%   95
    ALA       62%    81    53%   102     58%  103
    VAN      58%    92     52%   105     55%  108
    TEN      58%    93     48%   117     53%  113
    LSU      39%   124     57%    90     48%  122
                      
    ARK Div I OOC Opp   
    School  OFF    Rank   DEF   Rank   AVG  Rank
    CSU      27%   129    44%   122    35%  130
    TUL      77%    35     66%    59    71%    38
    UNT     78%     29     60%    83    69%    45

    https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/1/31/16950222/2018-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience
  • #2 by Suidae Suis Scrofa on 09 Jun 2018
  • Why do I have a feeling that Alabama won't end up ranked 103 at the end of the season?

    -phil
  • #3 by bphi11ips on 09 Jun 2018
  • Good find, Muskogee.

    Shows why Arkansasís baseline should be 6-6 and why CSU angst is much ado about nothing.
  • #4 by MuskogeeHogFan on 09 Jun 2018
  • Why do I have a feeling that Alabama won't end up ranked 103 at the end of the season?

    -phil

    For context, here is 2017 and how the SEC teams ended up.

    School       Off       Rank      Def       Rank      Avg      Rank       W-L     2013-17 Avg Rec Rank
    KEN          87%        12      76%        25        81%       7          7-6               31.6
    USC          91%         7      72%        44        81%       8          9-4               21.0
    GEO          77%        35      85%        5         81%       9         13-2               7.0
    VAN          94%         3      68%        59        81%      10          5-7              48.0
    MIZ          89%        10      54%       102       72%      31          7-6              38.2
    FLA          81%        21      53%       103       67%      50          4-7              11.2
    AUB          72%        43      60%        79       66%      56         10-4               8.4
    MSU         72%        44      59%        85        65%      63          9-4              26.0
    ALA          64%        61      59%        84        62%      73         13-1               1.0
    ARK          55%        91      58%        89        57%      90          4-8              24.8
    A&M         39%       109      64%        67        52%     107         7-6              11.2
    TEN          42%       106      61%       78        51%      109         4-8              13.4
    OLM          37%       115      63%       71        50%      110         6-6              15.2
    LSU          59%        80       40%       119      50%       111        9-4                4.4

    https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/1/31/14451014/2017-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience-oregon-tcu-texas
  • #5 by MuskogeeHogFan on 09 Jun 2018
  • Good find, Muskogee.

    Shows why Arkansasís baseline should be 6-6 and why CSU angst is much ado about nothing.

    I think the interesting question here is, with this much returning production on both sides of the ball, what can new offensive and defensive coordinators and their schemes do with this experience? The change on offense is probably greater and requires more learning and polish to be executed properly, so the defense is going to have to figuratively "carry the ball" for this team for the first half of the season, maybe more. Now if the offense develops early and can put up in excess of 435 yds/gm and limit their T/O's and the Chavis' defense plays just average defense (which we haven't seen lately), then things may begin to look up sooner than many expect, including me.

    This is a bigger coaching challenge for Morris than the one he had at Clemson and probably the most challenging of Chavis' career in the SEC. I hope it is fun to watch.
  • #6 by MuskogeeHogFan on 10 Jun 2018
  • For context, here is 2017 and how the SEC teams ended up.

    School       Off       Rank      Def       Rank      Avg      Rank       W-L     2013-17 Avg Rec Rank
    KEN          87%        12      76%        25        81%       7          7-6               31.6
    USC          91%         7      72%        44        81%       8          9-4               21.0
    GEO          77%        35      85%        5         81%       9         13-2               7.0
    VAN          94%         3      68%        59        81%      10          5-7              48.0
    MIZ          89%        10      54%       102       72%      31          7-6              38.2
    FLA          81%        21      53%       103       67%      50          4-7              11.2
    AUB          72%        43      60%        79       66%      56         10-4               8.4
    MSU         72%        44      59%        85        65%      63          9-4              26.0
    ALA          64%        61      59%        84        62%      73         13-1               1.0
    ARK          55%        91      58%        89        57%      90          4-8              24.8
    A&M         39%       109      64%        67        52%     107         7-6              11.2
    TEN          42%       106      61%       78        51%      109         4-8              13.4
    OLM          37%       115      63%       71        50%      110         6-6              15.2
    LSU          59%        80       40%       119      50%       111        9-4                4.4

    https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/1/31/14451014/2017-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience-oregon-tcu-texas

    I added the 2013-2017 average class ranking from 24/7 to the 2017 results so that we can see how a team like LSU who had the least returning production, can still win 9 games. If you have a lot of talent that is stacked pretty deep you can still have a lot of churn each year (NFL Draft) and still perform at a high level.
  • #7 by Inhogswetrust on 11 Jun 2018
  • Good find, Muskogee.

    Shows why Arkansasís baseline should be 6-6 and why CSU angst is much ado about nothing.

    Agree except ANY one game a team wins sometimes when they have no business doing so. Therefore donít discount CSU having a chance of winning. It might not be a big chance but they do have A chance. I agree though that angst is not in order.
  • #8 by MuskogeeHogFan on 11 Jun 2018
  • Agree except ANY one game a team wins sometimes when they have no business doing so. Therefore donít discount CSU having a chance of winning. It might not be a big chance but they do have A chance. I agree though that angst is not in order.

    I agree, anything is always possible. However, if we allow a G-5 team that ranks #130 in returning team production in the country to beat us, even at their house, things are going to get HOT for Morris a lot sooner than maybe he might have expected. But to me, that's exactly why it isn't going to happen.
  • #9 by Inhogswetrust on 11 Jun 2018
  • I agree, anything is always possible. However, if we allow a G-5 team that ranks #130 in returning team production in the country to beat us, even at their house, things are going to get HOT for Morris a lot sooner than maybe he might have expected. But to me, that's exactly why it isn't going to happen.

    Sure but coaches at new places are more apt to lose games they shouldnít. Even Saban did so at Bama. One of those directional schools from Louisiana I think it was.
  • #10 by HotlantaHog on 11 Jun 2018
  • I agree, anything is always possible. However, if we allow a G-5 team that ranks #130 in returning team production in the country to beat us, even at their house, things are going to get HOT for Morris a lot sooner than maybe he might have expected. But to me, that's exactly why it isn't going to happen.
    I view Morris has a honeymoon period and the first year isn't all that relevant, if Hogs end up at least 4-8. Probably will be better than that. Disappointing yes, but will all be blamed on Bielema (and rightly so!) if things go south in year 1.
  • #11 by Nashville Fan on 13 Jun 2018
  • How could AR have stunk so bad last year and had the 39th Offense and 58th Defense? WOW the world is relative. I think that would have been middle of the pack SEC 10-15 years ago. I would have thought we were around 80-100s on both.  Nevermind I read the rest of the thread.
  • #12 by mckinneyhog5 on 13 Jun 2018
  • How could AR have stunk so bad last year and had the 39th Offense and 58th Defense? WOW the world is relative. I think that would have been middle of the pack SEC 10-15 years ago. I would have thought we were around 80-100s on both.  Nevermind I read the rest of the thread.

    I think you may be mixed up about what was posted. Nevermind, I read the last part of your post..lol.
  • #13 by MuskogeeHogFan on 13 Jun 2018
  • I view Morris has a honeymoon period and the first year isn't all that relevant, if Hogs end up at least 4-8. Probably will be better than that. Disappointing yes, but will all be blamed on Bielema (and rightly so!) if things go south in year 1.

    Morris has a honeymoon period of time, until he doesn't. Get beaten by 35-42 points by anyone on our schedule and the troops demonstrate what is perceived to be a lack of effort and the honeymoon will come to an abrupt end, first year or not. There is a certain faction of posters on here that are just waiting and hoping that will happen just so they can say..."told ya so".

    While most are more rational than that, getting pounded to that degree, even by Alabama, may give some folks a bit of a pause in terms of their support of the new coach. If it weren't for the disappointment that we just went through with Bielema, it might be different. I just don't think that a lot of fans are going to be quite as forgiving and understanding this time around...change in staff and schemes or not. JMO
  • #14 by Al Boarland on 13 Jun 2018
  • Morris has a honeymoon period of time, until he doesn't. Get beaten by 35-42 points by anyone on our schedule and the troops demonstrate what is perceived to be a lack of effort and the honeymoon will come to an abrupt end, first year or not. There is a certain faction of posters on here that are just waiting and hoping that will happen just so they can say..."told ya so".

    While most are more rational than that, getting pounded to that degree, even by Alabama, may give some folks a bit of a pause in terms of their support of the new coach. If it weren't for the disappointment that we just went through with Bielema, it might be different. I just don't think that a lot of fans are going to be quite as forgiving and understanding this time around...change in staff and schemes or not. JMO

    Well said.
  • #15 by Hogwild on 14 Jun 2018
  • Sure but coaches at new places are more apt to lose games they shouldnít. Even Saban did so at Bama. One of those directional schools from Louisiana I think it was.

    his 1st year at LSU he lost to UAB
    his 1st year atBama he lost to ULM
Pages:
Actions