Our defense was 104th in the country last year in yards allowed. That's not good. But yards allowed is not the best metric to evaluate a defense. Luckily, there are some good metrics that take into account many things, such as how good is the other team's offense, removing garbage time, and situational aspects like down and distance.
When you look at the advanced numbers, our defense last year was average. Within the conference, the difference between us and those not named TCU or UT was negligible. To my untrained eye, the 2017 defense was a VAST improvement over recent years. We allowed 1 rushing TD/conference game. That's good for anyone. It's incredible for us.
The advanced stats also confirm a significant improvement overall, like one called Success Rate. A successful 1st-down play is defined as gaining 50% or more of needed yards, or on 2nd-down gaining 70% or more of needed yards, or on 3rd or 4th-down gaining 100% of needed yards. You can take a team's success rate and adjust it based on how good the other team was/what an "average" team's success rate would be against that particular opponent.
In 2015 & 2016, our adjusted success rates on defense were essentially dead last in the country (on offense, we were top 10 both years). In 2017, our defensive success rate improved by a lot (like 15% better), although it was still 90th in the country (offense dropped to 43rd).
IMO, the most frustrating aspect of a post-9/11 Tech defense has been 3rd-short scenarios. In 2015 and 2016, opponents converted over 75% of run plays on 3rd or 4th down with 2 or less yards to go. That's awful and was close to last among P5 teams. In 2017, we only allowed 61.7%, good for 31st in the country. That entire front 7 sans big Mych returns, though Preston Gordon & Mbanasor will def mitigate that loss.
A more complex metric called Explosiveness looks at just how potent a "successful" play really was for an offense. For defense, it's the inverse (as in, from a pts given up per play standpoint, how bad were those "unsuccessful" plays). As a rough example, this stat appropriately balances the difference between giving up (i) a 26-yard TD run, and (ii) 45-yard run given up from your opponents' 10-yard line, with 58 seconds left in the first half, on a drive that ultimately leads to a missed 56-yard FG.
In 2015 & 2016, our D was 110th in the country or worse in explosiveness (offense was top 10 both years). In 2017, our D was 47th in the country (offense was 31st). Since 2013, the team that won the "explosiveness" battle ended up scoring more points 88% of the time.
There's a hodgepodge metric (IsoPPP) that combines, in some stat geeks' opinions, the most important of these metrics when it comes to actually winning football games. It considers explosiveness, success rate, turnover margin, how well you play inside the 40, etc. It can be broken down by passing and running plays.
2015: D was 80th in the country in pass plays & 104th in runs.
2016: D was 120th in pass plays & 74th in runs.
2017: D was 36th in pass plays & 39th in runs.
TLDR: The "SHOW ME" guys have already been shown. And we return a lot of production from the D that did the showing.
When you look at the advanced numbers, our defense last year was average. Within the conference, the difference between us and those not named TCU or UT was negligible. To my untrained eye, the 2017 defense was a VAST improvement over recent years. We allowed 1 rushing TD/conference game. That's good for anyone. It's incredible for us.
The advanced stats also confirm a significant improvement overall, like one called Success Rate. A successful 1st-down play is defined as gaining 50% or more of needed yards, or on 2nd-down gaining 70% or more of needed yards, or on 3rd or 4th-down gaining 100% of needed yards. You can take a team's success rate and adjust it based on how good the other team was/what an "average" team's success rate would be against that particular opponent.
In 2015 & 2016, our adjusted success rates on defense were essentially dead last in the country (on offense, we were top 10 both years). In 2017, our defensive success rate improved by a lot (like 15% better), although it was still 90th in the country (offense dropped to 43rd).
IMO, the most frustrating aspect of a post-9/11 Tech defense has been 3rd-short scenarios. In 2015 and 2016, opponents converted over 75% of run plays on 3rd or 4th down with 2 or less yards to go. That's awful and was close to last among P5 teams. In 2017, we only allowed 61.7%, good for 31st in the country. That entire front 7 sans big Mych returns, though Preston Gordon & Mbanasor will def mitigate that loss.
A more complex metric called Explosiveness looks at just how potent a "successful" play really was for an offense. For defense, it's the inverse (as in, from a pts given up per play standpoint, how bad were those "unsuccessful" plays). As a rough example, this stat appropriately balances the difference between giving up (i) a 26-yard TD run, and (ii) 45-yard run given up from your opponents' 10-yard line, with 58 seconds left in the first half, on a drive that ultimately leads to a missed 56-yard FG.
In 2015 & 2016, our D was 110th in the country or worse in explosiveness (offense was top 10 both years). In 2017, our D was 47th in the country (offense was 31st). Since 2013, the team that won the "explosiveness" battle ended up scoring more points 88% of the time.
There's a hodgepodge metric (IsoPPP) that combines, in some stat geeks' opinions, the most important of these metrics when it comes to actually winning football games. It considers explosiveness, success rate, turnover margin, how well you play inside the 40, etc. It can be broken down by passing and running plays.
2015: D was 80th in the country in pass plays & 104th in runs.
2016: D was 120th in pass plays & 74th in runs.
2017: D was 36th in pass plays & 39th in runs.
TLDR: The "SHOW ME" guys have already been shown. And we return a lot of production from the D that did the showing.
