This is a simple presentation of statistics which support the claim that our offensive coaches are out-performing their defensive counterparts.
(I've broken this up into two parts in order to fix the formatting problems.)
I start with the assumption that the talent level on the Noles offense and defense is similar. If this is grossly incorrect, then my argument never gets started. If the talent levels are similar, but the Noles offense is out-performing their defensive counterparts, then this difference in performance must be due to either coaching or competition. I argue that the difference is not due to competition, that is, we are not facing prolific offenses and so-so defenses. Thus, there must be a difference in the quality of coaching. Now, I'm not an X's and O's guy, so I can't evaluate the coaching directly. But if I eliminate the other variables, then it's the only thing left.
So, the first thing I need to establish is that the Seminoles offense is performing at a much higher level than the defense. I'll start with a look at the offense.
The Noles' Offense
First, consider national ranking of total offense per game: Noles are #25
Name | G | Rush Yards | Pass Yards | Plays | Total Yards | Yards/Play | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Houston | 5 | 628 | 2218 | 427 | 2846 | 6.7 | 569.2 |
2 | Texas Tech | 6 | 468 | 2661 | 447 | 3129 | 7.0 | 521.5 |
3 | Kansas | 5 | 946 | 1651 | 393 | 2597 | 6.6 | 519.4 |
4 | Texas A&M | 5 | 954 | 1609 | 433 | 2563 | 5.9 | 512.6 |
5 | Auburn | 6 | 1511 | 1428 | 446 | 2939 | 6.6 | 489.8 |
6 | Florida | 5 | 1423 | 1009 | 337 | 2432 | 7.2 | 486.4 |
7 | Texas | 5 | 875 | 1523 | 393 | 2398 | 6.1 | 479.6 |
8 | Nevada | 5 | 1444 | 931 | 346 | 2375 | 6.9 | 475.0 |
9 | Toledo | 6 | 877 | 1944 | 432 | 2821 | 6.5 | 470.2 |
10 | Notre Dame | 5 | 740 | 1610 | 343 | 2350 | 6.9 | 470.0 |
11 | Fresno State | 5 | 1376 | 965 | 359 | 2341 | 6.5 | 468.2 |
12 | BYU | 6 | 978 | 1794 | 402 | 2772 | 6.9 | 462.0 |
13 | Cincinnati | 6 | 881 | 1861 | 391 | 2742 | 7.0 | 457.0 |
13 | Oklahoma | 5 | 939 | 1346 | 386 | 2285 | 5.9 | 457.0 |
15 | Arkansas | 5 | 668 | 1591 | 341 | 2259 | 6.6 | 451.8 |
16 | West Virginia | 5 | 961 | 1285 | 343 | 2246 | 6.5 | 449.2 |
17 | Alabama | 6 | 1341 | 1327 | 427 | 2668 | 6.2 | 444.7 |
18 | Utah State | 5 | 1034 | 1184 | 358 | 2218 | 6.2 | 443.6 |
19 | Hawai'i | 5 | 354 | 1861 | 317 | 2215 | 7.0 | 443.0 |
20 | Utah | 5 | 1026 | 1162 | 363 | 2188 | 6.0 | 437.6 |
21 | USC | 5 | 1040 | 1113 | 323 | 2153 | 6.7 | 430.6 |
22 | Boise State | 6 | 1151 | 1426 | 403 | 2577 | 6.4 | 429.5 |
23 | Penn State | 6 | 1132 | 1433 | 397 | 2565 | 6.5 | 427.5 |
24 | Georgia Tech | 6 | 1662 | 898 | 393 | 2560 | 6.5 | 426.7 |
25 | Florida State | 6 | 770 | 1786 | 410 | 2556 | 6.2 | 426.0 |
Against opponents with winning records, the Seminole offense ranks #11:
Name | G | Rush Yards | Pass Yards | Plays | Total Yards | Yards/Play | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Houston | 2 | 290 | 801 | 176 | 1091 | 6.2 | 545.5 |
2 | West Virginia | 1 | 207 | 302 | 80 | 509 | 6.4 | 509.0 |
3 | Florida | 2 | 484 | 506 | 146 | 990 | 6.8 | 495.0 |
4 | Notre Dame | 1 | 154 | 336 | 72 | 490 | 6.8 | 490.0 |
5 | Cincinnati | 2 | 244 | 728 | 142 | 972 | 6.8 | 486.0 |
6 | Texas | 3 | 525 | 921 | 245 | 1446 | 5.9 | 482.0 |
7 | Idaho | 1 | 207 | 270 | 67 | 477 | 7.1 | 477.0 |
8 | Fresno State | 3 | 789 | 629 | 230 | 1418 | 6.2 | 472.7 |
9 | Texas Tech | 2 | 157 | 741 | 159 | 898 | 5.6 | 449.0 |
10 | Oklahoma State | 2 | 363 | 519 | 145 | 882 | 6.1 | 441.0 |
11 | Florida State | 5 | 692 | 1462 | 349 | 2154 | 6.2 | 430.8 |
Notice how many ranked opponents we have had vs. how many the top ten have had! That makes our position even more impressive.
When we consider only ranked opponents, here are the top 10 in total offense per game:
Name | G | Rush Yards | Pass Yards | Plays | Total Yards | Yards/Play | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Houston | 1 | 146 | 366 | 82 | 512 | 6.2 | 512.0 |
2 | Alabama | 1 | 268 | 230 | 79 | 498 | 6.3 | 498.0 |
3 | Fresno State | 2 | 610 | 340 | 153 | 950 | 6.2 | 475.0 |
4 | Michigan State | 1 | 105 | 354 | 65 | 459 | 7.1 | 459.0 |
5 | Mississippi State | 3 | 690 | 661 | 230 | 1351 | 5.9 | 450.3 |
6 | Texas Tech | 2 | 157 | 741 | 159 | 898 | 5.6 | 449.0 |
7 | Florida State | 4 | 622 | 1121 | 278 | 1743 | 6.3 | 435.8 |
8 | Oklahoma State | 1 | 194 | 240 | 72 | 434 | 6.0 | 434.0 |
9 | Washington | 3 | 389 | 839 | 230 | 1228 | 5.3 | 409.3 |
10 | Iowa State | 2 | 409 | 406 | 149 | 815 | 5.5 | 407.5 |
Again note that we have done this against more ranked opponents than those ahead of us.
Noles fare well in passing offense per game: (#14)
Name | G | Att | Comp | Pct. | Yards | Yards/Att | Int | TD | Rating | Att/G | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Houston | 5 | 276 | 192 | 69.6 | 2218 | 8.0 | 4 | 18 | 155.69 | 55.2 | 443.6 |
2 | Texas Tech | 6 | 315 | 218 | 69.2 | 2661 | 8.4 | 8 | 25 | 161.28 | 52.5 | 443.5 |
3 | Hawai'i | 5 | 214 | 128 | 59.8 | 1861 | 8.7 | 6 | 11 | 144.21 | 42.8 | 372.2 |
4 | Bowling Green | 6 | 311 | 197 | 63.3 | 2012 | 6.5 | 4 | 11 | 126.78 | 51.8 | 335.3 |
5 | Kansas | 5 | 197 | 137 | 69.5 | 1651 | 8.4 | 3 | 13 | 158.67 | 39.4 | 330.2 |
6 | Cincinnati | 5 | 188 | 125 | 66.5 | 1649 | 8.8 | 3 | 15 | 163.31 | 37.6 | 329.8 |
7 | Toledo | 6 | 251 | 149 | 59.4 | 1944 | 7.7 | 5 | 17 | 142.79 | 41.8 | 324.0 |
8 | Notre Dame | 5 | 163 | 109 | 66.9 | 1610 | 9.9 | 3 | 13 | 172.48 | 32.6 | 322.0 |
9 | Texas A&M | 5 | 215 | 130 | 60.5 | 1609 | 7.5 | 0 | 14 | 144.83 | 43.0 | 321.8 |
10 | Arkansas | 5 | 185 | 108 | 58.4 | 1591 | 8.6 | 4 | 15 | 153.06 | 37.0 | 318.2 |
11 | Duke | 6 | 256 | 163 | 63.7 | 1887 | 7.4 | 3 | 16 | 143.88 | 42.7 | 314.5 |
12 | Texas | 5 | 200 | 147 | 73.5 | 1523 | 7.6 | 6 | 10 | 147.97 | 40.0 | 304.6 |
13 | BYU | 6 | 185 | 130 | 70.3 | 1794 | 9.7 | 10 | 14 | 165.88 | 30.8 | 299.0 |
14 | Florida State | 6 | 219 | 148 | 67.6 | 1786 | 8.2 | 1 | 9 | 148.73 | 36.5 | 297.7 |
15 | SMU | 5 | 216 | 125 | 57.9 | 1485 | 6.9 | 10 | 10 | 121.64 | 43.2 | 297.0 |
16 | Wake Forest | 6 | 195 | 134 | 68.7 | 1719 | 8.8 | 7 | 15 | 160.97 | 32.5 | 286.5 |
17 | Michigan State | 6 | 201 | 118 | 58.7 | 1682 | 8.4 | 7 | 13 | 143.37 | 33.5 | 280.3 |
18 | Missouri | 5 | 186 | 111 | 59.7 | 1374 | 7.4 | 2 | 12 | 140.87 | 37.2 | 274.8 |
19 | UNLV | 6 | 235 | 146 | 62.1 | 1646 | 7.0 | 8 | 11 | 129.60 | 39.2 | 274.3 |
20 | Oklahoma | 5 | 174 | 104 | 59.8 | 1346 | 7.7 | 3 | 12 | 144.06 | 34.8 | 269.2 |
What about passing offense per game against ranked opponents?
Name | G | Att | Comp | Pct. | Yards | Yards/Att | Int | TD | Rating | Att/G | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Texas Tech | 2 | 109 | 76 | 69.7 | 741 | 6.8 | 1 | 4 | 137.11 | 54.5 | 370.5 |
2 | Houston | 1 | 46 | 32 | 69.6 | 366 | 8.0 | 1 | 3 | 153.58 | 46.0 | 366.0 |
3 | Michigan State | 1 | 40 | 26 | 65.0 | 354 | 8.9 | 1 | 2 | 150.84 | 40.0 | 354.0 |
4 | Southern Mississippi | 1 | 42 | 28 | 66.7 | 331 | 7.9 | 1 | 3 | 151.68 | 42.0 | 331.0 |
5 | BYU | 1 | 38 | 26 | 68.4 | 329 | 8.7 | 2 | 2 | 147.99 | 38.0 | 329.0 |
5 | Duke | 2 | 90 | 52 | 57.8 | 658 | 7.3 | 2 | 3 | 125.75 | 45.0 | 329.0 |
7 | Rice | 1 | 51 | 28 | 54.9 | 301 | 5.9 | 1 | 0 | 100.56 | 51.0 | 301.0 |
8 | UNLV | 1 | 41 | 25 | 61.0 | 292 | 7.1 | 3 | 2 | 122.27 | 41.0 | 292.0 |
9 | Purdue | 2 | 80 | 47 | 58.8 | 570 | 7.1 | 3 | 5 | 131.73 | 40.0 | 285.0 |
10 | Florida State | 4 | 142 | 97 | 68.3 | 1121 | 7.9 | 1 | 9 | 154.13 | 35.5 | 280.3 |
Now check this out -- we are #2 nationally in passer rating (for all Seminole QBs combined) vs. ranked teams:
Name | G | Att | Comp | Pct. | Yards | Yards/Att | Int | TD | Rating | Att/G | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navy | 1 | 13 | 9 | 69.2 | 156 | 12.0 | 1 | 2 | 205.42 | 13.0 | 156.0 |
2 | Florida State | 4 | 142 | 97 | 68.3 | 1121 | 7.9 | 1 | 9 | 154.13 | 35.5 | 280.3 |
3 | Houston | 1 | 46 | 32 | 69.6 | 366 | 8.0 | 1 | 3 | 153.58 | 46.0 | 366.0 |
Navy comes in ahead of us only because they have attempted so few passes. In reality, among teams with a significant passing attack, we are #1 in this category. But as amazing as that number is, wait until you see the passer rating of our ranked opponents so far (in defensive section below).
In first downs per game against ranked opponents, we fall ahead of Florida at #9:
Name | G | Rush | Pass | Penalty | Total | Total/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Houston | 1 | 6 | 22 | 4 | 32 | 32.0 |
2 | Texas Tech | 2 | 14 | 39 | 3 | 56 | 28.0 |
3 | Oklahoma State | 1 | 11 | 15 | 1 | 27 | 27.0 |
3 | Michigan State | 1 | 5 | 18 | 4 | 27 | 27.0 |
5 | Texas A&M | 1 | 7 | 14 | 5 | 26 | 26.0 |
6 | Mississippi State | 3 | 41 | 28 | 3 | 72 | 24.0 |
7 | Washington | 3 | 25 | 38 | 7 | 70 | 23.3 |
8 | Rice | 1 | 7 | 13 | 3 | 23 | 23.0 |
9 | Florida State | 4 | 38 | 46 | 7 | 91 | 22.8 |
10 | Florida | 1 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 22 | 22.0 |
And don't forget that no one else above us in the list has had 4 ranked opponents.
Finally, consider how Ponder ranks with other QBs in terms of passing yards per game:
Name | Team | Yr | Pos | G | Att | Comp | Pct. | Yards | Yards/Att | Int | TD | Rating | Att/G | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Case Keenum | Houston | JR | QB | 5 | 262 | 183 | 69.8 | 2130 | 8.1 | 4 | 17 | 156.50 | 52.4 | 426.0 |
2 | Taylor Potts | Texas Tech | JR | QB | 5 | 235 | 159 | 67.7 | 1817 | 7.7 | 6 | 13 | 145.76 | 47.0 | 363.4 |
3 | Greg Alexander | Hawai'i | SR | QB | 4 | 150 | 98 | 65.3 | 1433 | 9.6 | 4 | 9 | 160.05 | 37.5 | 358.3 |
4 | Tyler Sheehan | BGSU | SR | QB | 6 | 296 | 192 | 64.9 | 1960 | 6.6 | 4 | 11 | 130.05 | 49.3 | 326.7 |
5 | Todd Reesing | Kansas | SR | QB | 5 | 192 | 133 | 69.3 | 1579 | 8.2 | 3 | 13 | 157.56 | 38.4 | 315.8 |
5 | Jerrod Johnson | Texas A&M | JR | QB | 5 | 211 | 127 | 60.2 | 1579 | 7.5 | 0 | 14 | 144.95 | 42.2 | 315.8 |
7 | Jimmy Clausen | Notre Dame | JR | QB | 5 | 148 | 100 | 67.6 | 1544 | 10.4 | 2 | 12 | 179.26 | 29.6 | 308.8 |
8 | Tony Pike | Cincinnati | SR | QB | 5 | 174 | 116 | 66.7 | 1493 | 8.6 | 3 | 13 | 159.94 | 34.8 | 298.6 |
9 | Aaron Opelt | Toledo | SR | QB | 6 | 220 | 132 | 60.0 | 1784 | 8.1 | 5 | 14 | 144.57 | 36.7 | 297.3 |
10 | Christian Ponder | FSU | JR | QB | 6 | 217 | 147 | 67.7 | 1782 | 8.2 | 1 | 9 | 149.49 | 36.2 | 297.0 |
If we again limit this to ranked opponents, Ponder moves from #10 up to #7:
Name | Team | Yr | Pos | G | Att | Comp | Pct. | Yards | Yards/Att | Int | TD | Rating | Att/G | Yards/G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Taylor Potts | Texas Tech | JR | QB | 2 | 107 | 76 | 71.0 | 741 | 6.9 | 1 | 4 | 139.67 | 53.5 | 370.5 |
2 | Case Keenum | Houston | JR | QB | 1 | 46 | 32 | 69.6 | 366 | 8.0 | 1 | 3 | 153.58 | 46.0 | 366.0 |
3 | Austin Davis | USM | SO | QB | 1 | 42 | 28 | 66.7 | 331 | 7.9 | 1 | 3 | 151.68 | 42.0 | 331.0 |
4 | Max Hall | BYU | SR | QB | 1 | 38 | 26 | 68.4 | 329 | 8.7 | 2 | 2 | 147.99 | 38.0 | 329.0 |
5 | Kirk Cousins | Mich St | SO | QB | 1 | 35 | 23 | 65.7 | 302 | 8.6 | 1 | 1 | 141.91 | 35.0 | 302.0 |
6 | Jake Locker | Washington | JR | QB | 3 | 120 | 68 | 56.7 | 839 | 7.0 | 1 | 3 | 121.98 | 40.0 | 279.7 |
7 | Christian Ponder | FSU | JR | QB | 4 | 140 | 96 | 68.6 | 1117 | 8.0 | 1 | 9 | 155.38 | 35.0 | 279.3 |
I won't paste in all the rankings that Ponder sits near the top of, but here's an idea:
- QB Rating against ranked opponents: #2 (#1 is Mike Marscovetra of BC, who has only 10 completions vs. 1 ranked team. Ponder has almost 100 completions against ranked opponents)
- Yards per attempt vs. ranked: #6 (8.0 YPA)
- Completion % against ranked: #6 (68.6%)
- Total offense per game: #8 (317.5 YPG)
- Total offense per game vs. ranked: #7 (302.5)
- Yards per play vs. ranked: #6 (7.0 YPP)
- Total yards vs. ranked: #1 (1210) -- He wins this in part due to our schedule.