A Final Look at the 2009 Florida State Offense
This is the second in a followup on last year's "did Florida State improve in 2008?" article. While last year it was appropriate to ask whether the 'Nole's 2008 season was an improvement over the 2007 campaign, there is no debate about the 2009 team. It definitely regressed as a whole. So for this series, I will look at the new highs and lows set by Florida State's offense, defense, and special teams. I ask where the team was better on the field, because there is no doubt as to whether the program is in better shape now than it was at any point in this millennium's first decade. FSU has leadership for the first time in a long while and the improvements made in recruiting by the new coaches are nothing short of staggering as the 'Noles recruiting class has rocketed from 34th on the day Bobby Bowden retired to what is now a guaranteed top 10 class.
Before you read this piece, please read part one.
If you are still using won-loss record evaluate a team's performance after seeing that teams all face varying levels of competition, stop reading this article. You can't be helped. For those of you who can see the fallacy in using wins to evaluate performance, you need something better.
Instead, let's turn to a better evaluation of performance: FEI. This is one of the most advanced methods of performance evaluation available to the general public. If you are new here, follow the links in the pasted text for a better explanation.
The Fremeau Efficiency Index principles and methodology can be found here. FEI rewards playing well against good teams, win or lose, and punishes losing to poor teams more harshly than it rewards defeating poor teams. games against I-AA or DII competition are not included or graded. It is drive-based, not play-by-play based, and it is specifically engineered to measure the college game.
FEI is the opponent-adjusted value of Game Efficiency, a measurement of the success rate of a team scoring and preventing opponent scoring throughout the non-garbage-time possessions of a game. It represents a team's efficiency value over average. Strength of Schedule is calculated from a privileged perspective (explained here) and represents the likelihood that an Elite team (top 5) would post an undefeated record against the given team's opponents to date.
- In 2007, the 'Noles were 7-6 against D1 teams, playing the 13th most difficult schedule. Florida State finished as the 36th best team in the country.
- In 2008, facing the 12th toughest schedule in the nation, the 'Noles went 7-4 against D1 teams. Florida State finished as the 10th best team in the country.
- This year, FSU faced the 5th toughest schedule in the country and finished 6-6 against D1 teams. The 'Noles ended up rated as the 24th best team in the country. That probably seems counter intuitive to you, but FSU didn't have the opportunity to rack up free wins against poor competition.
But what changed about this Florida State team? Why did the 'Noles go from the 10th best team to the 24th best club?
Let's start with offense.
Inside, a final look at the 2009 offense. Click "continue reading"...
- In 2007, the Noles averaged 5.2 yards per play in ACC play (including Duke). Excluding Duke (because Duke was a major outlier last year, playing far below conference standards), the Noles averaged 5.02 yards per play.
- In 2008, the Noles averaged 5.12 yards per play in ACC competition. There are no horrible teams to exclude from this data.
- This season in conference play, as previously discussed, the 'Noles offense was the only offense to break the 6.5 yards per play measure in over half a decade. The last team to do that had Phillip Rivers. The last team before that had Chris Weinke.
Click the graph to enlarge.
As for consistency, in 2007, the Noles averaged at least 4.85 yards per play 57% of the time, in ACC competition. In 2008, the Noles averaged at least 4.85 yards per play 88% of the time (7 of 8 games). This year, FSU easily managed 4.85 yards per play in every ACC contest (8 for 8). In fact, the 'Noles averaged at least 5.5 yards per play in every ACC game!
Some believe that FSU struggled to score in the red zone. They are wrong. In conference play. FSU was the only team to score a touchdown 70% of the time in the red zone. Check it out
As for total conclusions, they include non-conference games and I am not quite as comfortable drawing conclusions with that set of numbers because everyone plays a very different non-conference schedule. I need the help of experts. Again, we can turn to FEI.
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency and Adjusted Defensive Efficiency are the opponent-adjusted values of Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Efficiency, explained here. Like FEI, the multiple-order adjustments are weighted according to both the strength of the opponent and the relative significance of the result; efficiency against a team's best competition faced is given more relevance weight. AOE and ADE represent a team's value over/under average. Positive AOE and negative ADE are the most valuable.
- In 2007, FSU had the 64th best offense with a rating of -0.058
- In 2008, Jimbo Fisher won ACC Offensive cooridnator of the year and the 'Noles had the 17th best offense in the country with a rating of 0.322
- In 2009, FSU's offense was 8th best in the nation with a rating of 0.447
To go from 64th to 17th to 8th is tremendous. In case you were wondering, the 7 teams with a better offense than FSU were: Oregon (7th), Alabama (6th), Houston, (5th), Cincinnati (4th), Notre Dame (3rd), Stanford (2nd), and Georgia Tech (1st). And yes, while Georgia Tech did play poorly against at Miami and against Iowa, they absolutely shredded a bunch of other excellent defenses.
NOTE: remember that FEI automatically adjusts for rules changes because it measures performance on drives, as opposed to only games. It also doesn't count non-competitive drives (drives where the game is locked up, for instance a drive when a team leads by 40 in the 4th quarter). This explains why FSU got little credit for crushing UAB and DUKE in the 2007 ratings. FSU received zero credit for their wins against the I-AA competition in 2008.
But there is another set of ratings that can shed light on this situation even further. Bill Connelly's S&P+ ratings. Bill's set called Florida State the 32nd best team in the country. That might sit better with the group that thought this FSU team was terrible.
The S&P+ Ratings are a college football ratings system derived from the play-by-play data of all 800+ of a season's FBS college football games (and 140,000+ plays). There are three key components to the S&P+:
* Success Rate: A common Football Outsiders tool used to measure efficiency by determining whether every play of a given game was successful or not. The terms of success in college football: 50 percent of necessary yardage on first down, 70 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third and fourth down.
* EqPts Per Play (PPP): An explosiveness measure derived from determining the point value of every yard line (based on the expected number of points an offense could expect to score from that yard line) and, therefore, every play of a given game.
* Opponent adjustments: Success Rate and PPP combine to form S&P, an OPS-like measure for football. Then each team's S&P output for a given category (Rushing/Passing on either Standard Downs or Passing Downs) is compared to the expected output based upon their opponents and their opponents' opponents. This is a schedule-based adjustment designed to reward tougher schedules and punish weaker ones.The S&P+ figures used in the tables below only look at the plays that took place while a game was deemed "close," or competitive. The criteria for being "close" are as follows: a game within 24 points in the first quarter, with 21 points in the second quarter, and within 16 points in the second half.
And in this measure, FSU's offense earns high marks as well. According to Bill's system:
- In 2007, FSU had the 71st best offense in college football.
- In 2008, FSU had the 33rd best offense in college football.
- In 2009, FSU had the 9th best offense in college football.
I like when the ratings are close together and over the past 3 years, the two systems are within 8 spots of the other on average. And again, there is consistent improvement, from 71st to 33rd to 9th.
But because it is based on plays and not drives, Bill's system can give us something that FEI cannot: a breakdown of the different offensive components. Let's start with the run game:
- In 2007 the 'Noles had the 89th best running game in the country. FSU fans will remember this as Rodney Hudson's freshman year. The offensive line was a mess.
- In 2008 with the youngest offensive line in the country, FSU had the 15th best running game in the nation.
- This year, FSU had the best running game in the country. #1
WHOA. The #1 run game in the country? How could that be? FSU fans believe the running game regressed this year. How then could they be rated as the best running attack in the nation? I mean, FSU even effectively fired their running back coach in the middle of the season for incompetence. For an explanation, I asked Bill:
Me: Bill, am I reading this correctly? The #1 opponent adjusted rushing offense? FSU? Everyone says our rushing was down this year. Wow.Bill: Just looked it up in the database to make sure -- it is indeed correct. Looks like the BYU, NC State and Maryland games were the key ones. That, and playing against the #5 (Florida), #9 (Boston College), #12 (Clemson), #14 (North Carolina), #17 (Miami), #21 (West Virginia), #35 (South Florida), and #37 (BYU) Rushing S&P+ defenses. Shoot me whatever questions you've got, and I'll answer them.
While other teams were able to pound the ball to salt away the game when they had the lead, FSU's defense did not afford the 'Noles with that luxury.
Another important factor to consider in trying to digest the idea that the 'Noles had the best rushing offense in the country (Bama was #2, by the way), is that FSU ran the ball a lot more often in 2008 than they did this year. And FSU's big rushing performances in 2008 came against the 86th rated Miami rushing defense, the 56th ranked Colorado rushing defense, the 75th rated Georgia Tech rushing defense, the 49th rated Maryland rush defense, and the 103rd rated Wisconsin rushing defense.
Essentially, your eyes played tricks on you. FSU's rushing attack was better, but they played much tougher rush defenses this year than in 2008. Here's a look at the rush defenses faced in the last two years. They are adjusted for opponent, as any good measure should be.
| 2008 Opponent | Rush Defense Rank | 2009 Opponent | Rush Defense Rank |
| Florida | 5 | ||
| Boston College | 9 | ||
| Clemson | 12 | ||
| Virginia Tech | 13 | ||
| North Carolina | 14 | ||
| Florida | 15 | ||
| Wake Forest | 17 | Miami | 17 |
| West Virginia | 21 | ||
| Clemson | 22 | ||
| Boston College | 23 | ||
| South Florida | 35 | ||
| BYU | 37 | ||
| Maryland | 49 | ||
| Maryland | 55 | ||
| Colorado | 56 | ||
| Wake Forest | 71 | ||
| Georgia Tech | 75 | ||
| Miami | 86 | ||
| NC State | 89 | Georgia Tech | 89 |
| Wisconsin | 104 | ||
| NC State | 114 |
- If you combine both years, FSU faced 4 of the 5 toughest defenses on the chart in 2009
- FSU faced the top 3 defenses of either year in 2009
- FSU faced 8 of the top 13 defenses in 2009
- 7 of the worst 11 defenses were faced in 2008
- 4 of the worst 6 defenses were faced in 2008
- in 2008, the best 11 defenses FSU faced averaged a rating of 50
- In 2009, the best 11 defenses FSU faced averaged a rating of 32
Did FSU run the ball more often and for more yards in 2008 than they did in 2009? Yes. But did FSU run better in 2009 considering competition level? I now believe so.
As for the passing game, FSU saw a big jump as well.
- In 2007, with Drew Weatherford, FSU had the 47th best passing game in the country.
- In 2008 with the youngest offensive line in the nation, FSU had the 57th best passing attack as the line could not provide pass protection.
- In 2009, however, the Seminole passing game made a huge jump... all the way to 20th! The line protected Ponder and he lit everyone up. E.J. Manuel was serviceable in a backup role as well.
Probably the biggest factor in the passing game outside of having a Heisman trophy level quarterback in Ponder was the improvement of the offensive line. FSU was the only team in conference play to prevent sacks on more than 96.5% of passing plays. That is tremendous. Click to enlarge.
It would have been very interesting to see if FSU's passing offense could have been top 10 had Christian Ponder not injured his shoulder against Clemson.
I asked Bill who he thought the best offense would be next year and he said
Without considering returning starters, in alphabetical order: Arky, Bama, Auburn, Boise, BYU, Cincy, Fla, FSU, TCU, VT
Considering that FSU returns 10 of 11 starters, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that FSU could have the best offense in the country next season.
Tomorrow we will take a final look at the 2009 defensive performance.
1 recs |
122 comments
|
Comments
Can we pay in Skittles? I'm a little tight right now...
Seriously, this is fantastic site and I am on it every day, 2x minimum. It is a better site than Warchant.com in too many ways to count. The difference reminds me of the battle between Microsoft Encarta and Wikipedia. Nowadays, most people say “what’s Encarta?” Good work FSUn!
NoleCC, I beg to differ. If it is written in Wiki, it has to be true.
>-----:----:------>Spear 'em then Scalp 'em
Wikipedia
Is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
-Michael Scott
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
All true however
If you ask people, “What’s that on-line encyclopedia?” They say Wikipedia, not Encarta. So, a website that is put together as a labor of love, by a community of enthusiastic members is more powerful than a site put together by a high paid team of professional writers and researchers.
Note: While TomahawkNation may resemble Wikipedia in terms of the enthusiasm of it’s members, it is far different in terms of the consistent accuracy of its information. in 2008 Wikipedia was rated at 80% accurate, whereas Tomahawk grades out at 99.9%. (The missing .1% is for typos)
Dude
Warhcant isn’t even a distant 2nd. They are whatever last place would be
by FEARTHESPEAR! on Jan 19, 2010 8:56 PM EST up reply actions
sneak preview of the 2009 defense review
No matter how you crunch the numbers, the defense was bad!
Not so good against the run, not so good against the pass.
Foosball is the devil
Hey, you're being a little hard of the defense
You forgot one important thing….if there was an award for clean locker area….FSU would have won hands down….you can thank CTC for that when you see him.
You're right
Plus, I adjusted our defensive statistics by removing the Miami, GT, UNC run game, NC State, Clemson, and UF games and it turns out the defense was not so bad. I also gave bonus points for the clean locker room.
After careful analysis, we were only one player and a few plays away from being a top defense.
I’m thinking Bud will offer something better than this tomorrow.
Foosball is the devil
by IAHNole on Jan 19, 2010 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
is there anybody who tracks the "short, intermediate, deep" passing statistics?
I’d be interested to see how much more vertical we became from 2008 to 2009.
by The K-Man on Jan 19, 2010 9:07 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Quick analysis, if you could get your hands on the data,
Might be to subtract yards after catch from yards per completion. It would not give you a distribution between short/long, but at least would tell you the overall average length of completion. I would think looking at this statistic for Ponder’s portion of this season would be a big uptick over last year.
Yards after catch...
…if there is one thing I wish the play-by-play data would include, it is where a pass was caught in relation to where the play ended. We could do so much with that data, but it doesn’t exist. You would have to go back, watch every game, and document it for yourself.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
Don't we see this during coverage of games?
Is that just the networks collecting/reporting of this on a game-by-game basis? I could swear I’ve seen these numbers reported somewhere, i.e., “leading nation in yards after catch.”
Or maybe I saw YAC as yards after contact, but it seems like if they would record one of these they would record the other.
Oh well.
If Yards after catch was an accessible and popular stat
Colt McCoy’s draft status would be negligible before he ruins it at the combine. I think his injury in the first quarter against Alabama saved him some low marks from scouts.
Exactly
he can’t throw anything outside the hash after 10 yards.
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Mocking people who think McCoy is a first rounder is one of my favorite pastimes
365 days, until I change my ways.
NFL has that stat
Or at least the scouts do. ESPN has mentioned it on a few broadcasts as well. McShay has brought it up a few times.
by osceolafan850 on Jan 19, 2010 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
It might be available through STATS Inc. or something...
…but we have to process our information through the Automated Scorebook play-by-plays, and it’s not included there.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
Bud, you don’t have time to go over every passing play from the entire season and break it down by yardage? I’m a big fan of the site, but sometime you got to put in a little extra effort.
Great work Bud
Appreciate all the hard work you put in. It’ll be interesting to see the numbers of our defenses compared to the last two years.
Great writeup
not looking forward to tomorrow’s defensive breakdown. It will be ugly. Our offense should be fantastic next year. Ponder will be healthy, I expect Gran to improve the running backs, our line play will be solid and full of salty vets, and I’m hoping Fortson turns into the monster I think he can be at the receiver position. 2010’s future is looking bright.
Striker: "Surely you can't be serious!" Rumack: "I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."
Help us offense, you're our only hope!
I keed.
Considering that FSU returns 10 of 11 starters, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that FSU could have the best offense in the country next season
Efficiency-wise, its great to be the best in the nation. However, it would be even better to be the scoring offense as well. I can only hope our defense will get the turnovers that Hudson is known for and give us some short fields to work with. I’ll accept a 60-70th ranked defense in yards allowed if we’re also getting +/- 2.5 TO a game. Once the schedule is fixed, booya b*#^!s
"I got a PBS mind in an MTV world"...Jimmy Buffett
by The Ryno and I Know on Jan 19, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
Great write-up!
I am sure this fact was captured in the statistics somewhere, but it may just be the most important statement about the 2009 offense. The offense knew it had to score on virtually every drive, and it did it with a ruthless efficiency (especially with Ponder) drfving the ball the length of the field series after series. Thank God for Greg Reid or there may not have been any short scoring drives this year.
More insane than the number of 70 yard drives against the defense?
Because I remember THAT writeup. Shocking.
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Defense gave up 31 TD drives of 70+ yards (62% of TD scored against)
It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee
Yeah...
That’s not good. Anyone know what percentage our offense put up on 70+ yard drives (the “insane” number that FSUn alluded to…I guess it would be % TD scored on)
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
51% of scoring drives against took less than 3 minutes with 22.8% taking 4 plays or less
It's a beautiful day in Tallahassee
Ok, Ok negative nancy!!!
you’re killing me here…the nightmares are going to begin again if you keep it up!
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Ahhhh...Gotcha
Title predicions?
“Just how bad WAS the 2009 FSU defense?”
“FSU Defense 2009: Epic Fail”
“4 pounds of crap in a 2 pound bag”
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
How about
FSU’s 2009 Defense…a result of the 2007 recruiting class
365 days, until I change my ways.
Yeah...we got in a discussion about that class the other day.
Extremely disapointing. I know we all expected the defense to be questionable this year, but in reality, we probably shoulda seen this coming.
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
FSU's 2009 defense...NSFW
Speak softly, and carry a big Spear
by tdchrisdavis on Jan 19, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
Not Safe for Watching?
Not an alcoholic, just an FSU grad.
by onebarrelrum on Jan 19, 2010 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
was a joke...
Not an alcoholic, just an FSU grad.
by onebarrelrum on Jan 19, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
question about the metrics used to evaluate a team's performance
i’m relatively new to this blog. i like that you guys have coverage of FSU recruiting and statistical analysis that originated this century. as someone who is doing econometric research on the nfl, I wanted to get your guys opinion on judging nfl teams based on their W-L record. it makes sense to me that you guys do not do so in college because teams have a choice to play very easy ooc schedules, and even some bcs conferences are softer than others. however, no matter how easy an NFL team’s schedule is on paper every team they play is still an NFL team. i know some of you will point me to footballoutsiders’ VOA and DVOA, but from my work I’ve found that those metrics are a statistical holy grail.
Best available v. perfection
I agree that using W-L in the NFL is more acceptable than it is in college ball because of the relatively little variation in the NFL compared to college ball. I don’t study the NFL enough to recommend a better statistic, though guys I know who wager for a living use DVOA
Hey FSUn
can you repost the link to the table that illustrates the rushing offense you were explaining in the write up? I wanted to go back to it to see something, but I there’s now too many articles for me to try to remember where it was.
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
I can't remember the name of the site
It was linked about 4 or 5 days ago in a disucssion. At the top was a drop down menu with 3 or 4 categories of NFL stats, then the last 2 were applicable to the NCAA.
The site had a green background, and was called “obscure statistics” or something like that?
It was basically the data supporting the “FSU #1 rushing offense” argument. It outlined other offenses and their success against the run/pass based on the respective rankings of their opponents against them.
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Yep! That's it...I knew there was a word that started with an "O"...
Thanks man.
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
You guys wouldn't believe how hard that thing is to find via a search engine.
like pissing into the wind.
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
***correction
at the end of my post it should read ****not a statistical holy grail****
How much impact did each part of the offense have on the #1 running game?
Was that #1 ranking due more to a strong offensive line, talented RBs, or threat of a dynamic passing game? What parts will we see the most improvement from next year? Will the addition of a Smiley be the dimension that takes our offense to a whole other level? When was the last time that an offensive line came into a season with as much combined experience as ours does?
These are questions I will try to address this off-season
The basic answer is that we don’t know exactly how much credit is due to each component
For what it's worth...
FSU ranked 15th in Adj. Line Yards, suggesting that a) the backs were more responsible for the success than the line, and b) the line was still pretty good.
Of course, when using a per-play measure, you have to factor in that FSU was #1 in the country rushing only when they chose to rush, meaning the threat of the pass and the instances in which they chose to run likely mattered a ton.
Rushing S&P+ by down
1st Down Rushing: 4th in the country
2nd Down: 1st
3rd Down: 17th
Standard Downs: 1st
Passing Downs: 5th
They were also 1st in red zone rushing.
Rushing S&P+ by quarter
Q1 Rushing: 21st
Q2 Rushing: 2nd
Q3 Rushing: 7th
Q4 Rushing: 3rd
Per-play measures are so circumstantial that it is sometimes hard to boil down who truly had the best “running game” in the country, but considering the circumstances in which FSU tended to run the ball, they were no doubt rock solid.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
by Bill C. on Jan 19, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
1st in Red Zone rushing? Wow
That is tremendous and a lot of people will be scratching their heads. The thought here was that FSU struggled at times to run the ball in the red zone because the secondary blockers (TE’s and backs) didn’t do a great job and sometimes the backs missed the holes.
Could it be that those misses stood out because FSU was so good in the red zone?
I’m not sure what to make of the quarter statistics.
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, per-quarter stats are a little messy...
…simply because it doesn’t say a lot about how competitive a certain game was at the time.
As for why FSU was good in the red zone…obviously you saw them a lot more than I did, but I can say that the strength of the opponent played a large part in that too — if they faced a ton of top-notch red zone defenses and did even average in their carries, that would suggest that they were actually pretty good overall.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
That's what I keep telling myself
the strength of the opponent played a large part in that too — if they faced a ton of top-notch red zone defenses and did even average in their carries, that would suggest that they were actually pretty good overall.
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
Guess those computations didn't include the USF game
by Cigar City Nole on Jan 19, 2010 9:52 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think the point is that they did
That FSU just played elite defense after elite defense and yet people focus on the very few failures
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
Of course, when using a per-play measure, you have to factor in that FSU was #1 in the country rushing only when they chose to rush, meaning the threat of the pass and the instances in which they chose to run likely mattered a ton.
This would go well with the numbers indicating that FSU had the #1 2nd down rushing offense. I did notice that FSU often ran on 2nd and 10 type situations to get the down and distance into something more manageable.
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
2nd-and-10 = free yardage on the ground, it seems.
If I ever get the time, I’m going to take a look at run-pass splits for 2nd-down passing down situations (i.e. 2nd-and-7 or longer). Defenses will often give you a free 4-6 yards, at least, in those situations, and I’m curious who tends to take advantage of it the most.
(Then again, FSU ranked higher in standard downs rushing than passing downs, so who knows…)
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
Perhaps it is a patience issue
If a defense was going to allow me to get out of a poor leverage down and into something manageable on 3rd, I’ll take it every time.
(Then again, FSU ranked higher in standard downs rushing than passing downs, so who knows…)
Our draw game was poor this year. Perhaps that could explain the split.
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Perception, stats, and "choices"
Of course, when using a per-play measure, you have to factor in that FSU was #1 in the country rushing only when they chose to rush, meaning the threat of the pass and the instances in which they chose to run likely mattered a ton
This stuff about FSU being #1 rushing offense reminds me of the old phrase “Are you gonna believe me or you your own lyin’ eyes?” TN posters are not complete idiots. Few of us believe that FSU had the best rushing game in the country. Based on game impresions, I’d say we were about 30-40th.
What are some possible explanations for the stats vs. game impressions?
A) Part of those rushing stats must be QB scrambles. Ponder has some wheels, and EJ had to motor too (think MD game winning drive). Both usually had decent yardage on what started out as pass plays. If 1/3 – 1/2 of our rushing yds in a game come from Ponder scrambles, the game impression is that we have a mobile QB; not that we have a decent rushing game. Our “choice” to run in those instances was forced upon our QBs who saw the 2nd & 3rd lvl defenders deep down the field.
2) Quite often, FSU chose to throw when the down and distance would have mandated a running play for a good rushing team. 3rd & 2; 3rd & 3; goal-to-go plays would make FSU fans expect a pass when Bama, USC, and other good rushing teams would be expected to run the ball. Perception is that we did not have confidence in the running game or that we could overpower the opp. D. I would bet that the statistics would show we ran the ball when we had 4 or more yrds to go for a 1st down. If we had less than a yard to go, we would just QB sneak it. So we “chose” to run the ball on downs when Ds were most apt to be in a pass D or softest against the run.
D) We threw a lot of quick, short passes. Fans, commentators, and anyone watching recognized that the short passing game was an “extension” of our running game. Again, the perception is that we had to throw these short passes to account for our weak running game. Our “choice” to throw short passes rather than running or pitching the ball gave the impression that our coaches were far more confident in our passing game than in our running game, furthering the perception that our running game was mediocre. In many games, our strategy was to put together long, time-consuming drives, to keep our D off the field. Why take the risk of an errant pass or dropped ball (or pick six)—which would’ve stopped the clock—by throwing a quick pass near the line of scrimmage if our running game was as good as the short passing game?
Green) our memorable runs for decent yardage came on end arounds or QB draw and QB scrambles. If your biggest running plays come from your receivers and QBs, you do not have a dominant running game—that is unless you are GT, WVU, UFaG, or a service academy. I would suggest removing the QB & WR runs from the stats to get a better picture of who had the best rushing game, but you can’t do that because of those rascals that run triple option offenses.
In the end, we had a serviceable rushing attack. With Viloria and Smiley, I expect our rushing game to improve significantly—if Smiley is all he is cracked up to be. The best rushing team in the nation we are not. Not even close. I don’t think so, our coaches don’t think so, and I think the majority of our fans and opposing coaches would say the same.
I wonder how much of this would apply to other teams as well
I worry that we are becoming very rigid in our definition of running game. All QB runs are not scrambles and in college QB running is very much a part of the run game.
A) Part of those rushing stats must be QB scrambles. Ponder has some wheels, and EJ had to motor too (think MD game winning drive). Both usually had decent yardage on what started out as pass plays. If 1/3 – 1/2 of our rushing yds in a game come from Ponder scrambles, the game impression is that we have a mobile QB; not that we have a decent rushing game. Our "choice" to run in those instances was forced upon our QBs who saw the 2nd & 3rd lvl defenders deep down the field.
I highly doubt that 1/3rd or 1/2 of the rushing yardage came on qb scrambles. Designed runs are different.
Quite often, FSU chose to throw when the down and distance would have mandated a running play for a good rushing team. 3rd & 2; 3rd & 3; goal-to-go plays would make FSU fans expect a pass when Bama, USC, and other good rushing teams would be expected to run the ball. Perception is that we did not have confidence in the running game or that we could overpower the opp. D. I would bet that the statistics would show we ran the ball when we had 4 or more yrds to go for a 1st down. If we had less than a yard to go, we would just QB sneak it. So we "chose" to run the ball on downs when Ds were most apt to be in a pass D or softest against the run.
Isn’t that just a function of finding the optimal mix? Perhaps FSU knew it had a tremendous passing game and relied upon it too much (see #20 ranking). Maybe some teams like Bama or USC ran too often in those situations and became predictable. I would like to see the numbers. It seems that whenever we did it, we were very successful, no? Running backs accounted for 20 touchdowns and I don’t think most of those were on long gains.
D) We threw a lot of quick, short passes. Fans, commentators, and anyone watching recognized that the short passing game was an "extension" of our running game. Again, the perception is that we had to throw these short passes to account for our weak running game. Our "choice" to throw short passes rather than running or pitching the ball gave the impression that our coaches were far more confident in our passing game than in our running game, furthering the perception that our running game was mediocre. In many games, our strategy was to put together long, time-consuming drives, to keep our D off the field. Why take the risk of an errant pass or dropped ball (or pick six)—which would’ve stopped the clock—by throwing a quick pass near the line of scrimmage if our running game was as good as the short passing game?
Much of this is based on alignment but I do disagree with the idea that the short passing game is an extension of the passing game. If we were throwing a ton of bubble screens as we did in 2008, then I would agree. This year when we threw short, however, it was often the result of the defense dropping back and taking away the deep stuff, leaving the short stuff open. A lot of the answers to your questions are “because FSU has Christian Ponder and him throwing the ball is almost always a good idea”
Green) our memorable runs for decent yardage came on end arounds or QB draw and QB scrambles. If your biggest running plays come from your receivers and QBs, you do not have a dominant running game—that is unless you are GT, WVU, UFaG, or a service academy. I would suggest removing the QB & WR runs from the stats to get a better picture of who had the best rushing game, but you can’t do that because of those rascals that run triple option offenses.FSU’s wideouts accounted for only 206 rushing yards, approximately 10% of the total. QB’s less than 400 total yards and less than 20% of the total.
In the end, we had a serviceable rushing attack. With Viloria and Smiley, I expect our rushing game to improve significantly—if Smiley is all he is cracked up to be. The best rushing team in the nation we are not. Not even close. I don’t think so, our coaches don’t think so, and I think the majority of our fans and opposing coaches would say the same.
I think you’re equating the idea of the best running team with pushing the opposing team back. That’s not really what we do. I wrote about this last year but what we try to do is move people, often laterally, to create seams. It’s the idea behind our zone scheme and it works very well. When Denver won the super bowl they did not blow people off the ball. USC runs the same stuff we run and they do not blow people off the ball. The key is efficiently moving the ball on the ground., would you agree? This isn’t the NFL. WR and QB runs are included in run game effectiveness. It is the nature of the game.
Alabama had a very good rushing offense but they were not better at running in the red zone than FSU. They scored 31 rushing TDs. 13 came against FIU, North Texas, and Chattanooga. I’d argue that if Bama ran less often, they could have been the best rushing offense because people probably would not key their run so much.
Further, compare the rush defenses Bama saw to those FSU saw. Bama saw a rush defense outside the top 40 in 8 of its 13 games.
Inside the numbers
Below are the number of rushing yards attributable to our QBs and WRs out of the total number of rush yds per game, with some comments on a few games. I can agree that end arounds and designed QB draws and sneaks are part of an overall rushing attack. But when you rely heavily on the QBs and WRs, it indicates that the rushing game is not a juggernaut as a #1 ranking would suggest. Further, you’ll see that we didn’t post stellar rushing numbers against most teams, the likes of GT, Wake, MD being the exceptions. I hadn’t looked at these numbers before posting my comments above. The #1 ranking is primarily due to Ponder’s wheels and Jimbo’s play calling IMO. Jimbo does a nice job mixing things up to keep opposing Ds off balance. You’ll also see that in some of the games, we had a downright pitiful rushing output. I would also add that the QB rushing numbers factor in losses on sacks, so our QBs actually had more positive rushing numbers than the totals would indicate. Still, you’ll notice that in many games about 1/3 to 1/2 of our rushing yards came from QBs & WRs. Frankly, I don’t care whether we power rush or create lanes for slashing backs. Both give the same result if you do them effectively. IMO, our rushing game was not a juggernaut, but it was respectable enough to keep opposing defenses honest. So, here are the QB & WR numbers out of our total yds rushing per game, which I think supports most fans’ and commentators’ perceptions of our running attack.
UM: 41 of 110
J-State: 23 of 78
BYU: 102 of 313
USF: -30 of 19 (Ponder = injured knee)
BC: 48 of 71
GT: 17 of 180 (defense = swiss cheese; no need to scramble)
NC: 5 of 43 (Ponder had 14, but Givens lost 9)
NCSt: 29 of 277 (defense = swiss cheese; no need to scramble)
Clemson: -3 of 128 (Ponder = broken ribs and separated shoulder)
Wake: 48 of 217
MD: 91 of 198
UF: 44 of 83
WV: 83 of 226
Contrary to this (NoleLaw's) thought,
I think we are also a bit blinded in our perceptions because we were typically (or at least frequently) chasing teams from behind, or at best in a shootout. We saw against WVU what our run game was capable of once we got a bit of a lead; not to steal Coley’s term, but GRINDING it out in the end, in spite of the other teams’ best efforts to stop us.
I think the semblance of a defense could dramatically change the appearance/perception of our running game, because strong running teams with a solid defense get that 4th quarter boost where you are able to impose your will on a team after (1) you have secured a lead and (2) worn the opposition down.
With the exception of NC & UF we never trailed by so much that we had to abandon the run.
Clemson was an example of us having a 4th qtr lead and failing to GRIND it out. If we were truly had the best rushing game in the country, we would’ve thought rush first, then PA pass. That was not the mentality of our coaches or fans because it is no secret that our passing attack (with Ponder at the helm) was far better than our rushing attack. Some of that may also have had to do with our opponents’ run defense. I would venture to bet their pass Ds were not nearly as good as their run Ds. That is at least partly due to Ponder lighting up just about everyone he played against. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
A couple of other games where we should have ground it out (if we had the #1 rushing game) were USF and J-State. With Ponder hobbled by the knee injury, we should have ground USF’s D dow—if we could have. We simply didn’t have the horses to do it. J-State was played in a mud bowl. Our stellar line should have been able to open wide lanes by shoving & sliding guys to the side, yet we averaged a mere 3 yds per attempt.
In the end, we had a respectable rushing attack—at least enough to keep defenses honest & guessing—but it was not a juggernaught.
I fully expect the line to become more powerful under Viloria and hopefully Smiley lives up to the hype. Because we have so many guys returning, I do expect the running game to get better and we do have room for improvement.
As a side note, I think we would’ve won USF if Ponder didn’t have the knee injury. That’s what I thought as I was watching the game because there were several times where a healthy Ponder would’ve gotten a first down when he ran. He just couldn’t do it with the knee brace on.
Good points.
I agree that #1, better than Bama, is misleading.
However, I don’t think a single game lead (Clemson) refutes the point I am trying to make. What were we, up 3 at the end of the 3rd/beg. of 4th? How secure do you think Jimbo felt with a 3 point lead and CJ Spiller on the opposite sideline, vs. our defense? Whether ahead or not, we were never in a situation (aside from late in the BYU game, perhaps) where we knew we could afford to GRIND it out, run clock, and trust our defense to hold if they stopped us. We knew we had to score, every time — no lead was safe or insurmountable — and our playcalling reflected that.
USF would have scored 14 more points if they wanted
they completely shut it down in the 2nd half and held the ball forever.
Against Clemson there was another issue. Bobby got on the headset and started calling plays in the 2nd half. Most notably, the interception down the sideline.
Here’s what teams did rushing against Clemson. Removed the sacks because I agree it is misleading.
Opponent avg
Middle Tenn. St. 3.2
@ 13 Georgia Tech 6.1
Boston College 2.3
6 TCU 4.4
@ Maryland 2.5
Wake Forest 3.0
@ 19 Miami (Fla.) 6.1
Coastal Caro. 3.4
Florida St. 3.9
@ North Carolina St. 3.8
Virginia 4.0
@ South Carolina 4.1
+ 13 Georgia Tech 5.1
+ Kentucky 4.2
And remember that FSU had that huge -12 yard rush on the fumbled reverse that was actually set up beautifully.
That defense at home was not going to be run on. TCU 4.4 (scored 14 points, lots of QB rushing), UVA 4.0 (ran late even when down big too), FSU 3.9, Wake 3.0, MTSU 3.2 (ran late even when down big), BC 2.3
Again, you have to judge it in total.
Look at what teams did to UF, particularly in the swamp.
Opponent avg
+ 8 Cincinnati 5.3
Arkansas 5.0
+ 1 Alabama 5.0
+ Georgia 4.9
Florida St. 4.7
@ South Carolina 3.9
@ 17 LSU 3.9
Tennessee 3.8
@ Mississippi St. 3.8
Vanderbilt 3.7
@ Kentucky 3.6
Charleston So. 3.5
Troy 2.9
Florida Int’l 2.1
Or against Miami, one of the best 20 rushing defenses in the country
avg
@ Wake Forest 5.0
@ 10 Virginia Tech 4.9
@ South Fla. 4.6
Virginia 4.6
@ Florida St. 4.5
Oklahoma 4.4
+ 16 Wisconsin 4.3
Florida A&M 4.3
@ North Carolina 3.9
24 Clemson 3.8
@ UCF 3.3
Duke 3.0
13 Georgia Tech 2.8
Some of that may also have had to do with our opponents’ run defense. I would venture to bet their pass Ds were not nearly as good as their run Ds. That is at least partly due to Ponder lighting up just about everyone he played against. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
The defenses. FSU is only one game out of 12 or (13) for most of these teams.
That's not to say that I don't want to salt away a lead
I absolutely do. I want it done in whatever way we can do it. If a team is loading up against the run, running the ball is probably only the right call if your passing game is so poor that you can’t take advantage of the defense’s alignment.
Maybe my brain is on overload, but not quite sure what those stats tell us.
We had the 2nd best rushing attack at Florida, and the 4th best against Miami, while they were on the road?
I think you were countering NoleLaw, anyway (maybe?), I just wanted to make sure i was following your point.
I did notice that FSU often ran on 2nd and 10 type situations
I’ve said for a few years now (more in the NFL than college) that 2nd and 10 is a running down more so than 1st and down (excluding hurry up offense type situations).
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary." Vince Lombardi
"We'll win games with talent, we'll win championships with character." Jimbo Fisher
Do either methods account for how a team is being defended?
In other words, maybe teams were allowing some run success because they were so worried about Ponder torching them and/or the outside bubble screens. Also, how is the QB run factored in?
No idea about defense being run...
…and there’s really no differentiation between a QB run and a QB scramble that was initially intended to be a pass…they both go down as runs in the scorebook.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
Yeah, quite a few use different connotations...
…especially in the passing game (crossing pass, screen pass, etc.), but it is too inconsistent to be used at this point. They’re only now finally getting to where I can trust that the “pass intended for” info on incomplete passes is relatively consistent.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
It's as much Ponder than the line or backs
His pre-snap defensive scheme recognition was great this year. His ability to make changes on the fly is mini-Peyton.
Think of it this way. When the D committed 8 ( or more) into the box, he would (rightly) check out of a potential run call and go to an optimal pass play (e.g., bubble screen if the secondary was playing 3 deep and playing off the ball at corner). So while the backs and line did do the hogmolly work, it’s Ponder that put them into the place to succeed. It may not have always shown up in the YPC, but in the chess match it really worked opposing Defenses over (see: UNC, 2nd half).
Awsome article man
And I agree with using both they seem to play off each other well.
"Both" is the way to go.
Fremeau and I have a lot planned for the offseason, in regard to figuring out why some teams rank well in one system and poorly in another, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that both systems have a lot of merit, and our “F/+” measure is an attempt at merging data. We don’t have a spot for that on FO yet—I just include it sometimes in Varsity Numbers columns.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
The F/+ measure is great
One thing I would like to see is the 2007-2008 data uploaded to the site so that we can see where teams ranked in the overall rankings (not just offense and defense).
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
FSUncensored!
We all bow down to your article-writing kung fu. Thanks for doing such a great job and feeding my off-season appetite for more analysis and knowledge. This article just re-iterates the need for the defense to STEP UP. We’re so close to being great again and we have the tools in place to make great strides in the off season.
"He went into this whole spiel about Shaolin monks or something like that, how we need to be like Shaolin monks and how they don't talk for 15 years and stuff." - Caz Piurowski about Coach Coley
small correction
you wrote: "In fact, the ’Noles gained at least 5.5 yards per play in every ACC game! "
I think you meant: "In fact, the ’Noles averaged at least 5.5 yards per play in every ACC game! "
Thanks!
I sometimes do that. I try to proofread but it depends on my clinic hours.
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
Opening paragraph question
Third sentence in: “They definitely regressed.” The 2009 Offense regressed?
For tomorrow's article...
Please don’t post the chart of average ypp and ypp against FSU again. I think my head might explode.
Process > Results
by TBfisherman on Jan 19, 2010 12:05 PM EST via mobile reply actions
play calling
what i think this says a lot about is our improved play-calling. the same group of players would (and did) struggle to gain yardage because we were predictable with our play-calling in the “dark years”. over the past three seasons, we’ve seen huge upgrades on offense in regard to setting up future plays, knowing when to catch a defense off guard, using reverses and having multiple options for a well-trained QB. the coaching is much improved, but so is the play selection — especially the timing.
Scheme, play calling, technique, coaching
it is all better. The plays we call make sense within some logical sequence. They are set up by previous plays.
by Bud Elliott on Jan 19, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah...Until someone calls Trickett for a reference.
I can see him now, screaming “Whaaaaat!!!” as he spits the cigar out.
by Randall W. Spetman on Jan 19, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
FSU rushing 2010 and beyond
When I look back at Auburn of 2004, they primarily used Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown to create that monster of a run game (coached by Eddie Gran). Ronnie Brown (6’1, 232 as Sr) was used very effectively because of his sheer ability to catch out of the backfield as well as be a traditional tailback. In a few games this year Lonnie Pryor (6’1 200-205? as Fr) had a few looks at catching the ball 20ish yards downfield. Do you think Jimbo uses him in this capacity more next year? Ponder’s ability to scramble can get him out of trouble so he won’t always need a back to pick up an edge rusher.
You mentioned that when Jimbo was at LSU in their title run they used 5± running backs and only one cracked 500 yards rushing. If this same pattern holds true for FSU, the roles of each running back may be more defined by their specific abilities. We will have the capability of running many different plays that play to each running back’s strength versus giving different looks to confuse a defense, but are low percentage plays because the player is lacking an ability to routinely catch a screen, for instance.
Pryor is an excellent blocker and has nice hands
I do think we will continue to throw him the ball and the frequency might even increase.
I think he is a really good player. I haven't seen him be a great runner.
That’s a testament to his ability to be a great team player and be coachable.
Somehow, someway, I have a feeling FSun might have some surprises in store for us tomorrow with the defensive analysis.
Kudos on this one Bud, and thanks to Bill C. for your input.
>-----:----:------>Spear 'em then Scalp 'em
EDIT needed (typo)
In 2007, the Noles averaged at least 4.85 yards per play 57% of the time, in ACC competition. In 2008, the Noles averaged at least 4.85 yards per play 88% of the time (7 of 8 games). This year, FSU easily managed 4.85 yards per play in every ACC contest (8 for 8). In fact, the ’Noles averaged at least 5.5 yards per play in every ACC game!
I believe the bolded portion was meant to say 2009.
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary." Vince Lombardi
"We'll win games with talent, we'll win championships with character." Jimbo Fisher
Since I posted it originally there have been changes made
but I think I actually used (grabbed) the wrong quote (there was a little list that had the 2007, 2008, 2009 grouping and the 3rd started by saying 2007). I think I grabbed this one when I saw the 2007 beginning. I should have just grabbed the entire list.
regardless, the article is cleaned up a bit now and I can’t find the “typo” I noticed originally so I think you’ve already fixed it.
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary." Vince Lombardi
"We'll win games with talent, we'll win championships with character." Jimbo Fisher
Nice work Bud
Finally, someone who explained to the dolts out there who swear that our Offensive line played bad this year. Our pass pro was 10x better this year and our ypc on the ground stayed pretty much the same although we faced 5 of the top 25 or so rushing defenses in the country. The only time Ponder got banged up was when he scrambled out of the pocket. Now that we have a competent RB coach this year I see no reason why we cannot be a little more balanced on Offense and see our running game hopefully in the 5.0-5.5 ypc average.
Great read Bud.
I am extremely excited optimistic about our offense next year. With CP at the helm all year, it could be a special year barring injuries of course.
Blown away!
This in-depth analysis is absolutely AMAZING … not to suck up, but you are VERY talented in your research and analysis
I can see you being the “money ball” version of a GM for an NFL team years from now - any thoughts on exploring an avenue like that?
by Cigar City Nole on Jan 19, 2010 9:30 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I'd like to do that but those jobs are definitely not easy to come by.
There are many who are much smarter than me doing this type work. I just happen to have a passion for a college team.
Gracias Bud
Great article. I love the thought of CP7 leading the #1 offense next year. It would not suprise me. Jimbo for sure kept it 3rd and Manageable in 2009 and I know he will in 10. CP7 for Heisman!
by 3rdandManageable(VicVanBuren) on Jan 19, 2010 9:36 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Great analysis. It's what sets this board apart.
Other boards like to reference TN. On rare occassion I’ll peruse a few of the old boards which have bee reduced to a few oldtimers who were more fans of Bobby Bowden than of FSU and who for years would brook no dissent. There’s not many of those left. But even they will link to this board, although they accuse you of skewing tyhe stats and having an agenda to promote Jimbo Fisher much worse than their blind promotion of BB. Funny and sad at the same time.
My values: I love my wife, admire my dog, and believe very deeply that Bobby Bowden and Paula Dean were separated at birth.
Well that is their own territory and they can do what they want.
My agenda? I’d like FSU to be the best that it can be. I’d like us to play and act like an SEC school. I want us all to have the best understanding of the program that we can. I’m not much for nostalgia. I’m not much for paying someone big-time money for past performance when that person is quite literally the worst current (talking current ability here) head coach in the game.
me too! me too!
I’ve noticed how they never dare to come over here and try to put up rational counterargument based on facts or reasonable interpretations of statistics. These are folks led by emotional opinions. They are few, and I’m sorry I even brought them up for discussion here.
My values: I love my wife, admire my dog, and believe very deeply that Bobby Bowden and Paula Dean were separated at birth.

by 































