Does Size Really Matter?
by missourinole on Aug 6, 2009 10:00 AM EDT
in FSU Football
90 comments
A while back, FSUncensored argued that "size matters" when it comes to a defense's front 7. He wrote:
Size in the front 7 is a crucial component of a successful defense
Below the jump, I will see if the numbers support this claim.
Is Bigger Really Better?
Must a defense have a bulky front 7 in order to succeed? What ever happened to "speed kills" and "lean mean fighting machine?" I mean, isn't there more than one way to do defense? Not according to FSUncensored. Consider this quotation from FSUn:
"In Part One (see link in lead paragraph), we discussed the reasons for FSU's poor run defense. Simply put, FSU's defense lacks the minimum bulk in its front 7 defenders to stop the run without dedicating another defender (from the secondary) to the cause. Committing an extra defender to the run overtaxes our secondary, leaving us vulnerable to play action fakes."
FSUncensored's argument in full can be found here and here.
I take FSUn to essentially be saying this: if the front 7 lacks the minimum bulk, then either (a) we cannot stop the run or (b) our pass defense suffers. That is, if the front 7 of a defense lacks the minimum bulk, then that defense will not be successful. (I'll call this claim the Bulk Thesis) I'll take "successful" to mean either (I) holding quality opponents to fewer than 5 YPP; or (II) an Adjusted Defensive Efficiency score of -0.40 or better. I'm using two different metrics for the sake of thoroughness. A successful defense need only satisfy one of the two.
"Minimum Bulk"
So what is "minimum bulk?" This is difficult to figure. But rather than setting an arbitrary number, I'll take it to be the average total weight of the top 10 (by Adjusted Defensive Efficiency or "ADE") defenses in the country in 2008, minus the standard deviation, which comes to a grand total of 1778 total lbs. I'm not sure how else to come up with a "minimum bulk" number. I should also mention that I'm not very skilled with statistics -- I'm learning as I go. So I'm likely to commit some horrible fallacy. Caveat lector.
| TEAM | ADE rank | F7 Weight | |
| 1 | Florida | 1 | 1845 |
| 2 | BC | 2 | 1902 |
| 3 | Wake | 3 | 1875 |
| 4 | Clemson | 4 | 1785 |
| 5 | USC | 5 | 1860 |
| 6 | UConn | 6 | 1738 |
| 7 | UNC | 7 | 1865 |
| 8 | TCU | 8 | 1876 |
| 9 | Texas | 9 | 1807 |
| 10 | VAtech | 10 | 1770 |
| AVG | 1832.3 |
Standard deviation = 54
Minimum Bulk = 1778 lbs.
Now we can immediately see that two teams in the top 10 will fall below our minimum bulk number of 1778 lbs.: UConn and VATech. So right away we seem to have some evidence contrary to FSUn's Bulk Thesis. However, this is statistically expected. Now we can give the Bulk Thesis more detail:
Bulk Thesis: if the total weight of the front 7 of a defense is less than 1778 lbs., then either (I) that defense will not hold quality opponents to fewer than 5 YPA; or (II) that defense will not have an Adjusted Defensive Efficiency score of -0.40 or lower.
FSUn may balk at the amount of specificity I've given his claim, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be any way to test it. And if his claim can't be tested then it doesn't amount to much, since it is, after all, a claim about measurable things.
So here's what we need in order to show that the Bulk Thesis is false -- we need a significant number of examples of defenses who meet the following criteria:
(i) the total weight of their front 7 is less than 1778 lbs.
AND either
(ii) they hold quality opponents to fewer tha 5 YPA
OR
(iii) they have an ADE score of -0.40 or lower.
Now look at the following chart from 2008
TOTAL DEFENSE AGAINST WINNING TEAMS ONLY (ranked by Yards per Play):
| Name | G | Rush Yards | Pass Yards | Plays | Total Yards | Yards/Play | Yards/G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | USC | 7 | 621 | 1022 | 442 | 1643 | 3.7 | 234.7 |
| 2 | Boston College | 10 | 940 | 1782 | 638 | 2722 | 4.3 | 272.2 |
| 3 | TCU | 6 | 282 | 1336 | 371 | 1618 | 4.4 | 269.7 |
| 3 | Florida | 10 | 1076 | 1741 | 636 | 2817 | 4.4 | 281.7 |
| 3 | Tennessee | 6 | 695 | 1033 | 390 | 1728 | 4.4 | 288.0 |
| 6 | Connecticut | 7 | 702 | 1193 | 423 | 1895 | 4.5 | 270.7 |
| 6 | Wake Forest | 9 | 1198 | 1425 | 578 | 2623 | 4.5 | 291.4 |
| 6 | Iowa | 7 | 715 | 1354 | 459 | 2069 | 4.5 | 295.6 |
| 9 | UCF | 6 | 916 | 1272 | 463 | 2188 | 4.7 | 364.7 |
| 10 | Ohio State | 8 | 904 | 1636 | 530 | 2540 | 4.8 | 317.5 |
| 10 | Clemson | 8 | 1328 | 1346 | 561 | 2674 | 4.8 | 334.3 |
| 10 | California | 8 | 1218 | 1589 | 587 | 2807 | 4.8 | 350.9 |
| 10 | Boise State | 6 | 965 | 1248 | 462 | 2213 | 4.8 | 368.8 |
| 14 | Utah | 6 | 665 | 1272 | 397 | 1937 | 4.9 | 322.8 |
| 14 | Notre Dame | 6 | 1022 | 929 | 398 | 1951 | 4.9 | 325.2 |
| 14 | North Carolina | 9 | 1343 | 1925 | 663 | 3268 | 4.9 | 363.1 |
If we toss out Utah and Boise State (weak schedule), and Notre Dame (they ran a 3-4 in 2008) all 12 of the remaining teams gave up less than 5 YPA against quality opponents, and thus they all satisfy criteria (ii). Now which of these teams also satisfy criteria (i)? Only 2: UConn (1738) and UCF (1762). And let's be honest -- UCF didn't play a single ranked team, so they're out. Hmmm, only UConn remains. FSUn's Bulk Thesis is looking pretty good.
Now what if we look at ADE scores?
| TEAM | ADE |
| Florida | -0.567 |
| Boston College | -0.547 |
| Wake Forest | -0.511 |
| Clemson | -0.491 |
| USC | -0.483 |
| Connecticut | -0.46 |
| North Carolina | -0.443 |
| TCU | -0.437 |
| Texas | -0.421 |
| Virginia Tech | -0.406 |
| Mississippi | -0.405 |
Only these 11 teams had a score of -0.40 or lower. We've already eliminated most of them, but the new candidates are USC, UNC, and VATech. Of these, which satisfy criteria (i)? Only VATech (1770 total lbs.). So after all that work, we are left with only two examples that defy the Bulk Thesis: Virginia Tech and UConn (our original two suspects!). Very disappointing. Perhaps I've been too stringent.
Revising the Criteria
Suppose I were to change the minimum bulk to 1800 lbs. (still much less than the average of the top 10), and I were to raise the minimum ADE to, say -0.30. Would I get different results? You bet. The highlighted teams below satisfy our revised criteria.
| TEAM | ADE |
BULK |
YPP against winning teams |
| Florida | -0.567 | 1845 | 4.4 |
| Boston College | -0.547 | 1902 | 4.3 |
| Wake Forest | -0.511 | 1875 | 4.5 |
| Clemson | -0.491 | 1785 | 4.8 |
| USC | -0.483 | 1860 | 3.7 |
| Connecticut | -0.46 | 1738 | 4.5 |
| North Carolina | -0.443 | 1865 | 4.9 |
| TCU | -0.437 | 1876 | 4.4 |
| Texas | -0.421 | 1807 | 5.6 |
| Virginia Tech | -0.406 | 1770 | 5.1 |
| Mississippi | -0.405 | 1800 | 5.1 |
| Iowa | -0.393 | 1833 | 4.5 |
| Ohio State | -0.322 | 1811 | 4.8 |
| Florida State | -0.32 | 1735 | 5.1 |
| Cincinnati | -0.315 | 1697 | 5 |
| Pittsburgh | -0.314 | 1760 | 5 |
| Oklahoma | -0.312 | 1748 | 5.7 |
| California | -0.335 | 1881 | 4.8 |
| ECU | -0.326 | 1829 | 5.1 |
| South Carolina | -0.327 | 1882 | 5.2 |
| Tennessee | -0.319 | 1781 | 4.4 |
Now I get Clemson, UConn, VATech, FSU, Cincinnati, Pitt, Oklahoma and Tennessee -- all as examples contrary to the Bulk Thesis. This seems like a significant number (8) of quality examples. Out of the 21 teams with the best ADE scores (and respectable schedules) nationally, more than a third of them defy the Bulk Thesis. But if the Bulk Thesis were correct, wouldn't we expect the vast majority of the best defenses to conform to it? I'll put it another way.
If bulk on the front 7 (relative to your competition) is crucial (necessary) for successful defense, then it follows that nearly all successful defenses should have bulky front 7s. In other words, FSUn is suggesting that successful defense is an excellent predictor of front 7-bulkiness. But if successful defenses have bulky front 7s only 62% of the time, this isn't a reliable enough number for prediction -- it's just slightly better than a coin-flip. That is, we shouldn't reliably expect that successful defenses will have huge front 7s. So with the revised criteria, the Bulk Thesis appears false or on shaky ground at best. (Note: If you put the ADE number back down at -0.40 but leave the bulk number at 1800, then the percentage improves to 72%.)
Conclusion
So you can take my post one of two ways:
- You can go with the original proposed criteria (minimum bulk of 1778, YPP < 5.0, ADE at least -0.40) and conclude that FSUncensored's Bulk Thesis is absolutely confirmed by the numbers. Two counter-examples just isn't enough to disprove his claim.
- You can go with my revised criteria (min. bulk of 1800, YPP<5.0, ADE at least -0.30), and conclude that the Bulk Thesis is false -- there are a significant number of defenses that defy the principle. These defenses have front 7s that are lighter than other elite lines, and yet they performed at the highest levels in 2008.
Now if you take option (1), then you have to agree that the Noles desperately need to beef up their front 7. If we start the year with a total weight under 1778, then we may be in for trouble. The numbers suggest we won't be able to hold our YPP under 5 (excluding cupcakes), which is crucial.
If you take option (2), then you might think that there is another way to do things. We can have a leaner, meaner defensive front, similar to VATech, Clemson and Tennessee. But still, all three of these front 7s were in the 1770 range last year, so we might as well agree with FSUn!
At the end of the day, even though I suspected that the Bulk Thesis was false, the numbers have once again validated FSUncensored's excellent football instincts.
0 recs |
90 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Can't put so much emphasis on #'s especially Weight
seems obvious to me that weight alone doesnt tell enough about a players ability/strength/mental capacity/ etc etc etc
Espn do you think maybe we could get someone to cover the ACC that wears big boy pants?
TEBOW IS A GAY ROBOT
Things are cyclical
In the late 80s and 90s, FSU and Miami primarily pioneered “speed kill” defenses, de-emphasizing bulk for speed. Offenses adjusted. Size matters more now. I think it matters less for the front 7 as a whole, but more for the interior line. When speed killed, one’s line penetrated. Now offenses have adjusted, and likely you need some interior linemen who tie up the middle with size more.
Adjusting, I think you see Va Tech is less an exception to the first criteria than you think. The starting NT for them last year was over 300, his backup not much less. (UConn remains an outlier).
The exceptions in the revised criteria? Clemson’s two interior players are around 300, Oklahoma 295+, Tennessee’s interior linemen in the depth chart average over 300. The teams that still are light on the interior (290 or less) have larger DEs for the most part (all the exceptions remaining still play 4-3).
My latter point is that it would be interesting to dive deeper, as I suspect there is a revision of the size matters concern that is true.
by Wild@Heart Nole on Aug 6, 2009 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
very well said Wild
I think this article only confirms the bulk thesis. To me, the concept behind the bulk thesis is that it is extremely difficult to defend the run without the necessary size up front. FSU was a prefect example of this last season. The reason why they are in the top 20 in ADE is because they defended the pass extremely well in obvious passing situations, where they didn’t have to cheat people up to help the undersized front.
I am in the camp that you can have lighter LB’s on the outside, and thus some variance in the overall weight of the front 7, provided the line is big enough. As Wild observed, the examples in the -.30 ADE all had large interior players.
Nice Post
I guess the reason I went with the front 7 was to account for the 3-4 defense (Bama and Cal), and because some teams were big because they had huge backers and seemed to fit the profile.
Why not run the numbers with jkust the front 4?
"I am not now at all sure that the tendency to treat the whole thing as a kind of vast game is really good - certainly not for me who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive." - J R R Tolkein
Because some teams have small fronts and big backers
Like Iowa, who did very well.
The common accepted thing is the front 7.
Pass defense is of course predicated on 0, 1, or 2 safeties, it’s a structural thing. If you can play the run with 7, it’s much better.
Math makes my head hurt
'Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football.' John Heisman
'I'm not a Role Model" - Charles Barkley
does size matter I say yes
I think you need a balance at all the Pos. If you have a bigger D-line then you can have smaller faster LB that can run freely. If you have smaller faster D-line then you need to ahve bigger LB to shed the O-line when they get to them (and they will) Its all about placement of the players. EB was great for FSU last year and yes our speed killed. We killed behind the line but couldnt stop the run.
Lets look At GT offense we can help to shut them down if we stop the dive and make them run outside the T. Letting our LB get to them but if we have small DT the G will get to the LB and no one can get to the QB making the SS and CB cover down and then its off to the races. This is why the zone read kills us. We cant stop up the holes and the cutback is a 4yd game. look at BC last year 4th Qrd. It was lights out because we didnt have any size. At 25lb to the D-line and it help out. Not Fat weight but lean muscle
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
This is excellent work!
A few thoughts, if I may
- If we exclude Boise and Utah (and we should), then we should also throw out TCU, even though they are a bulky defense. Brian admits his ADE number struggles when a team plays 9 or 10 patsies and 1 or 2 juggernauts and does well against one of the elites.
- What happened to Alabama?
- My approach was far from scientific. Your work is much better.
- UConn is interesting. They are very well coached. I wonder if the weather factors heavily.
Wild@heart Nole brings up a great point above.
Great work, MissouriNole!
I left out 3-4 teams like Bama
But somehow Cal slipped by me. I think the stats I found for Cal were listed incorrectly. I left out 3-4 teams since you would expect them to be automatically lighter. But perhaps a high-performing 3-4 team under 1800 should count against the Bulk Thesis. After all, going with the 3-4 is one way of going lighter & faster, right?
by missourinole on Aug 6, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Not if you do it like Bellichek...
His LBs are huge…Oversized NT, oversized DEs….
I have six locks on my door all in a row. When I go out, I only lock every other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they are always locking three.
Elayne Boosler
I thought in the 3-4
The 3 down lineman were all DT one True the others just big and the OLB were DE/OLB like what EB could have been.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
To stop the spread
1) can it be done I think so.
2) how could you do it
3) can it work agenst other offences
I think you need both speed and size not all in one though. You have to stop 7 people with 7 people. (most spread teams have a running QB right and you have to stop them too)
You need to have BIG and STRONG DT.
You have to have some DE with some size but faster is better.
You need at least one BIG LB right in the middle
you need 2 fast LB one the outside.
the DT hold the middle and make everything go around them. the DE get up field and make the pocket as so the QB cant get out. The LB fill the holes. throw in Blitzing and run more zone you could kill teams. Have the DE drop back in zone have lb blizt take a chance. If you can get a team to think they have something like a open or one on one WR or a LB on a Fast WR then you can get a QB to do what you want them to do.
I think it could work Im not a Def guy but it makes sence to me.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
now vs a pro-style what do you do
You stack the box and have 8 in it right you just added 170 -200lb to the front 7. when you do that you dont have to get the guys with size but all speed and thats how it kills when you have 8 guys thats are faster someone will get through most of the time. and thats what happened in the 80s and 90s. That and our DB were great and could hang one on one
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
Good point about quality DBs
If you have DBs that can go one on one, then putting 8 in the box won’t hurt you as much. This is another difference between Nole teams of the 2000’s and Nole teams of the 90’s.
I remember reading about Bill Snyder at Kansas State and how one of his top priorities in rebuilding the program was elite DBs who could go one on one — this enabled him to do more with less defensively. Remember Terrance Newman, Chris Canty, etc.?
by missourinole on Aug 6, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely
Was then’t Canty a defensive end for UVA though?
The problem against the spread is that the 3 and 4 wideouts are almost always better than the 3 and 4 corners, no matter the team.
so find a way to have 5 DB cover 4 WR
could you do this in a zone where they can still have 2 guys close enough to help the run at the same time. Dont know if that makes sence. Also In a zone if we got more of the Hyb LB then you could have 5 or even 6 DB on the field and still have the speed and size at LB would ahve to have a huge D-line though. A ZONE WOULD WORK
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
That is why
pressure, in my opinion, is the only way to slow down the spread. If you can’t get it with your front, you have to blitz, creatively and continuously. Asking your db’s to cover for more than a couple of seconds on every play is too much. For some reason, it seems like conventional wisdom dictates that the way to stop the spread is to sit back and never blitz. I don’t understand that thinking.
The best recent example I can think of is Michigan v. Florida in the Capital One Bowl. Great game, Michigan was blitzing on practically every down it seemed. When they finally took the lead for good, I’m almost positive they blitzed the crap out of Tebow four consecutive plays (rather than sit back and let his wideouts get open). Tebow threw four straight incompletions in the face of heavy pressure, and Michigan won.
Key differences
in
Spread throw and spread to run teams. The spread to throw (BYU, TTech) teams don’t run thier QB so it’s still 11 on 10. Ole Miss blitzed TTech very well.
Spread to run is much harder to defend. I’m not so sure on blitzing these guys as much. Good example with UF- Michigan, though it seems to me Tebow was badly banged in that game and they didn’t run their normal offense as a result, but rather a more TTech like look.
they were punishing tebow
he was constantly being hit while or just after he threw. He still ran for probably 70 yards though, and Harvin ran for like 160 (although IIRC, one was like a 90+ yarder on an inside run that only Harvin could have turned into that kind of a play).
Had Hart not caught his first case of fumbilitis in that game, Michigan may have won big.
I agree that spread pass first v. spread throw first is a big distinction, and that blitzing on run first teams has the potential to give up some big plays. I think I could live with that, if it meant making it more difficult for teams to make the correct reads. I
Canty is currently in the defunct AFL
He was drafted by the Patriots back in 97. Not the same as Chris Canty the DE.
by missourinole on Aug 6, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
couldnt we get a pic of Aubrey Phillips up there
sorry had to take one last shot at him.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
Assuming normality... (Warning... probably not for those who haven't had a stats class)
1 standard deviation from the mean isn’t really that significant.
If our hypothesis is that top teams must average 1832 pounds, we wouldn’t usually reject the null at 1778. Over 16% of teams could be expected to be less than that due to simple random variation (see: Va Tech and Utah).
If you go 2 standard deviations, and set the new cut off at 1724, then we’d have a stronger hypothesis test (about the 5% level) and you’ll see that every team but one listed under the “Revising the Criteria” section meets this demand. One out of 20 is what we’d expect due to random chance with our 5% rejection level. We can call this “getting lucky” or “playing above their head.” In Cincy’s case it was because they forced a lot of turnovers with their secondary.
With a standard deviation this big, we would assume that all of those numbers come from the same distribution. Consequently, we wouldn’t be able to reject the null hypothesis that the top defenses are larger.
Either way, we are the second smallest team on that top 20 list. We are dangerously close to relying on statistical luck in order to account for our size deficiencies. Five to ten pounds of good weight per man wouldn’t hurt us at all.
by MattDNole on Aug 6, 2009 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Excellent statiscal critique, MattD
And just to take it a step further qualitatively, weight is not an indicator of athleticism. So a “speedy” defense can help explain defensive achievement. That being said, I’d like to see us play a SDE who weighs more than 250.
Strength too
A team that has a 280 lb tackle who is a good deal stronger than another team’s 300 lb tackle is probably going to have better results all else being equal.
I’d rather have speed with my linebackers and defensive backs, strength in the interior, and a balance at the DE all else equal.
by Wild@Heart Nole on Aug 6, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
MattDNole shows his geekdom!
I held back showing mine – I’ve taught that stuff. But a caveat on all that is the sample size is a bit small. Trying to do a statistical analysis on such a small sample size is dangerous.
Probably to properly spot the trend would be to take the last five or ten years worth of data, more teams, or find other ways to get the sample size up to a hundred plus teams analyzed. Trying it with the NFL might be interesting too – the talent level between first and last place is closer than probably the talent level of the first and 32nd best NCAA defenses last season, as would other factors like athleticism and speed.
by Wild@Heart Nole on Aug 6, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Man, now I know who to talk to
before I do any future statistical analysis! This blog has smart readers!
That's why I like this site.
It’s like “step your game up or go back to wherever you came from”. I honestly believe we create smarter ’Nole fans.
That and your the Chief.
" And He drank the world's sin so He could carry you in, and give you life"
Conversely
I’d be interetsed in a piece on the converse of the hypothesis that shows the % of bottom 20 defenses that are under 1724 pounds.
Or a list of the weights of the bottom 20 defenses’ front 7….
Don't know
I don’t think that would be interesting. There are probably a number of teams who are over the 1724 threshold but due to a couple to handful players who are just plain fat.
by Wild@Heart Nole on Aug 6, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Wait a second
Does anyone else think BMI is a completely overhyped metric?
A.) I’m not an expert in this area
2.) Statements below are opinions only
D.) I don’t have a D, but needed to complete the list.
I’m 6’0", 195# @ 30 years old. This says that I am slightly overweight, according to various BMI metrics. My body fat is at 10%, which isn’t at college athlete level, but is better than typical (~15 to 18%).
I don’t have a large frame, and I’m not all that muscular, but I am fit and take care of myself. I don’t train like a bodybuilder, and instead train like an athlete, because that’s what I like to do.
With that said, I think typically BMI will be skewed for athletes, especially large athletes like the DL and LB positions. I may be wrong, and like I said above, I’m not an expert in this area, but I don’t think you would see any indication of how strong someone is vs. how fat someone is from a BMI comparison.
</end rant>
by PBD on Aug 7, 2009 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Various sources
I must admit that the accuracy of the data may be suspect in some cases. Weights are easily found on team rosters. Teams certainly inflate numbers, but if everyone inflates about the same amount, then it all evens out. A few numbers I stole from FSUn. To determine who the “starters” were, I looked through official school sites, 2008 previews, etc. to get depth charts. Then I checked these against the final stats, game logs, etc. This was a headache. In some cases I confirmed “starters” with other SBNation bloggers. It was hard to say, in some cases, who the “starters” were, since there was some change as the year went by. So, in the end, maybe we should take the numbers as estimates. But I think you can see the various defensive line coaches’ philosophies coming out in the data — you can tell who wanted bulky lines and who didn’t.
by missourinole on Aug 6, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
After looking over these numbers
It has become absolutely clear to me FSU will defeat Miami by 14 points on labor day. Doesn’t this jump out at anyone else?
I agree but dont see where you are getting that.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
Let's see if I have anything to add to this discussion...
I have said before I am not a stats/numbers guy. I think you can get lost in them and miss the reality of stuff and the general purpose of them in the first place. However, this is a necessary discussion on the size of the front 7. Regardless of where the “minimum bulk” weight is either at 1800 or 1778, you really have to look at your personnel. Because I believe size should be directly tied to strength, leverage and the ability to get where you need to be I believe these are the most relevant questions. You can’t just have a bunch of fat guys and call it a day. Are they big guys who can plug the whole and not get worn down by bigger and more aggressive offensive lines. Are your linebackers big/strong enough to shed blocks, jam TE’s and receivers coming shallow across the middle, and stand up bigger Running Backs. Do they compliment their size with the ability to get where they need to be (whether it’s at the quarterback, or to the flats, etc). EB balanced out his size with a 4.7 and the ability to be quick in the backfield. Lastly, are they in shape? Some could argue that a NT doesn’t need to be in great shape, but have the ability to give 4-6 plays a series. I wan’t a guy with a high motor who can plug a hole, but also make it a living hell for the Guards and Center. These questions all seem common sense, but somehow it feels like they get lost in the numbers. I still buy into the Minimum Bulk theory, with these exceptions. It DOES matter who is filling that size (and I don’t think any of you have argued against that, just pointing it out).
"I have come that you may have life, and life to the max"
Good points. Can we just assume
as FSUn suggested in an earlier comment, that the top defenses have about the same talent/fitness/strength? Otherwise, too many variables.
Indeed,
however the whole point of that is not to find more variables to do more stats but to keep the bottom line the bottom line. You can’t base an entire team off of statistics and weights. My whole point was that those questions have to be the fundamentals of recruiting front 7, not whether they weigh, or have the potential to weigh a certain amount.
"I have come that you may have life, and life to the max"
Does this all account for 2nd team?
On the front 7 in college football, 2nd team is a large factor as well.
But bottom line to me…..FSU is way…WAY too small and on top of that, we have the double wammy of lack of depth. The kids at DE and LB this year who are 2nd team would normally be 3rd team (at least at this point in their careers) on a ‘normal’ FSU defense. But FSU is falling fast defensively.
To complicate all this…..FSU schedules way too tough which makes it even harder for a small front 7 to get through the season.
Thank god for Jimbo’s recruiting on the defensive side.
Way behind.
The negative momentum of the JB years are just starting to shift in the right direction for offensive talent and depth. They’ve got numbers, but not the age. However, it’s an obvious uptick in the past 2 recruiting classes.
On the other hand, the D is still 1-2 years behind and can’t catch up til new coaches are installed.
Okay
who picked the Clemson guy for the cover of the article? We couldn’t get a Corey Simon picture or something?
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't." - General George S. Patton
Jacobbi McDaniels
I know it is asking a lot of a freshman but if he is all we think he is and comes in ready to play he might provide some penetration we have not been seeing lately. A B. J. Raja type can seriously help a defense.
Good breakdown! While the sample size is very small (I doubt anyone wants to calculate starting weights for ALL 120 Div-1 teams), the correlation between the weights and ADE is alright. It’s an r-squared of 0.2116. Want to know how FSU’s defense should perform? Simply plug in the starting 7’s weight into the following function and voila, the predicted ADE will pop right out.. The predicted value will change with more data, I doubt it’s a linear relationship as well, but, what the heck.
f(x)=-0.000658(x)-0.79
1778 lbs= -0.3793
1810 lbs= -0.4003
This also shows that weight only contributes to 21% of the defenses efficiency. That’s pretty good for a single variable.
Mhauer -- that's just the sort
of help I needed to make this thing sing. Thanks. I looked at correlations® between various stats, but I wasn’t sure how to go further. The correlation between ADE and weight seemed to be too small to be interesting.
So, at 1797, we should end up with an ADE of -0.39 (according to your formula). Let’s see how this plays out!
This is great work!
This is the type of info that has made TN the pinnacle for FSU sports fanatics.
Fridge, you look good won’t you back that thang up.
Sweetness can’t stand it when you back that thang up.
They call you big daddy when you back that thang up.
Do the Super Bowl Shuffle while you back that thang up.
Thank you, Mystikal.
by MattDNole on Aug 6, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Either someone is playing a trick
or it is an optical illusion, but I swear that picture of the fridge has gotten larger since my first visit today.
Little known scientific fact:
The temperature difference between the Fridge’s butt and his shadow in this picture is over 300 degrees Celsius.
I don't mean to trash this piece, because I think it has a great start. Hopefully we can improve on it.
This sample size is so small that it is very hard to show a correllation. It could be that 75% of Div 1 teams are over the 1778 number (just an example) and there is no correlation between weight and defensive ability and the data would only be representative of the weights of all Div. 1 teams. If we only wanted to look at the top 20 teams, we would have to do it over several years so we would have enough data points. I think this study is hard to do with an arbitrary number. It would probably be more productive to take all the Div 1 team weights are see if there is a significant correlation between a team’s weight and a team’s APE and YPA. I guess I only know enough about statistics to know this is not strong enough. Maybe one of the other guys knows how to do what I am talking about, otherwise I am just a naysayer. I suspect that in order to show a correlation to a significant level, the weight would have to be too low to prove anything. If I am wrong, I am sure MattD or Wild@Heart can explain why.
OH YEAAHH!
It’s been a few years since I took statistics, but I recall a way to calculate to how strongly two things correlate. I bet you might find a stronger correlation with another statistic like number of starts, returning starters, age, or years on the team.
Agree with the two above
“I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.” – George Canning
I think a better comparison would be something trying to correlate the advanced defensive stats with a better measure than weight. Maybe use weight as a component, but also factor in strength, using bench + power clean numbers. I think we’re assuming those to be equal for “elite” level defenses, but there would probably be a large discrepancy when you factor in the defenses with “fat boys”.
All you statisticians out there, feel free to tell me I’m an idiot, which I may very well be in this case.
by PBD on Aug 7, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I think among the major college teams, your bigger guys will generally be stronger
Also, a 300lber is just tougher to move than a 270lber, assuming similar talent levels.
I'd like to see some data comparing it though
I don’t think you can necessarily make that assumption. That’s basically saying that each program’s strength program is the same, they evaluate personnel the same, etc. I know it makes the analysis easier, and that’s fine for a generalization.
I’m definistely not digging deeper, but I think it would be interesting that if someone could / wanted to go beyond weight, incorporating measures of upper body strength and lower body explosiveness would be good measures to look at.
Even in looking at our DL, IIRC Budd Thacker’s numbers are crazy, but he still gets pushed into the LBs. I’m certain that there are others who are large man-mountains who aren’t as strong as he is.
I realize that particular example argues against my case, but that’s all I had to go on off the top of my head…
Criticism well-taken
others have voiced similar concerns — I’ll be more careful with conclusions drawn from stats in the future.
Well I think you do need some size at Nose Guard and Defensive Tackle, but you cannot sacrifice too much speed for sake of size or you still get burned. I also find it somewhat hypocritical if we do not apply this somewhat to the other side of the ball as well. Though we want quick, athletic offensive linemen, does not weight equate to strength somewhat on that side of the ball as well? So truly we want both lines to get thicker muscle wise, without too much fat that would slow them down. Its easier said that done, but so far I think Coach Stroud has got both sides headed in that direction from what I have read, especially hearing how much Dawkins put on. I almost find it hard to believe without PEDs, but I am turning a blind eye to that hehe!
I also find it somewhat hypocritical if we do not apply this somewhat to the other side of the ball as well. Though we want quick, athletic offensive linemen, does not weight equate to strength somewhat on that side of the ball as well?
The difference is that if the offensive line get’s a stalemate, they lose. If the defense does that, they win. Not sure if that makes sense.
couldn't have said it better myself
With the o-line reference. Trickett ain’t no dummy. I think BC is a great example of what big DT can do though, so I am not arguing that size doesn’t matter at all.
OH YEAAHH!
by TBfisherman on Aug 7, 2009 1:42 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
BC should be the point that size maters.
What BC had last year and we ran into was the whole point.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
To me the bottom line has always been DT bulk
I don’t mind quick ends if the Tackels can hold their ground, I rather like it.
End’s keep their ears pinned back the entire game and the Tackles hold the middle of the line. Backers can blitz occationally and support both run and pass.
Yeah, right!
There has to be balance somewhere
Its always good to have some faster DT and some bigger DT same for the ends. On 2 and 3 you throw in the big guys and stop up the holes. on 3 and long send in the smaller speed. I can see 4DE going in on 3 and long. You have to use the LB in this way too. just because he the SLB dont meen he needs to be the big LB sometime the big guy sits in the mid some times not.
Why is the sky blue? Because, God Loves the Infantry
Don't agree hear
If you can send two ends up field and still collapse the pocket from the middle that’s tuff on 3rd down too…also less vulnerable to draws etc.
Yeah, right!
So instead of this approach Take the top twenty defenses of say the last three years ; rating by strength of schedule weighted end of season ranking under something like the RPI check the weights?
"I am not now at all sure that the tendency to treat the whole thing as a kind of vast game is really good - certainly not for me who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive." - J R R Tolkein
I found a very interesting article that addresses team weights on NFL teams
Heavy pressure: NFL players struggle with weight game
I think this quote from Nick Sabin is very interesting in light of our discussion.
After April’s draft, Dolphins coach Nick Saban said he wished he could have worked a trade to move up and pick Haloti Ngata, a 6-4, 340-pound defensive tackle selected 12th overall by the Baltimore Ravens.
“I always say it this way: They have weight classes in boxing for a reason. The heavyweights don’t fight the lightweights,” Saban said. “What’s the reason for that? Because if a big guy is just as good as a little guy, the little guy doesn’t have much of a chance.”
OH YEAAHH!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
