Defending the Run vs Defending the Pass
by SCM on Aug 17, 2009 1:44 PM CDT
in Michigan Football
7 comments
Yes please.
Over the past several weeks I've had two types of thoughts regarding our secondary: "our starters at the corners should be solid" and "holy @#%@# who's going to play safety and we can't even spell depth". Such are the vascillations of a cautiously excited/nervous fan, yay college football indeed.
For those of you that haven't yet read The Obscene Diaries of a Michigan Fan by Craig Ross, consider this your recommendation of the day. The genesis of this post comes from his examination on the difference between interceptions and fumbles, "are all turnovers created equal?" in which he examined 113 Michigan games:
Michigan record when even fumbles and more interceptions: 1-8 (11.1%)
Michigan record when even fumbles and fewer interceptions: 15-1 (93.75%)
Michigan record when even interceptions and more fumbles: 4-3 (57.1%)
Michigan record when even interceptions and fewer fumbles: 8-3 (72.7%)
For the moment I am left with the conclusion that an interception is a more consequential occurrence than a lost fumble [...]
Thankfully this particular passage was penned well before last year's fumble fest. In sitting there thinking about such breakdowns, I started to wonder if there was an appreciable difference between teams with defenses that were better at stopping the run vs those that ranked highly against the pass. Stats being stats and all I still found the following somewhat interesting.... with some obvious caveats:
1. Top 25 defenses in either category are, well, top 25 defenses... Michigan's D last year ranked 87th in pass defense and 50th in rush defense, which goes against the "trend" demonstrated here as you'll see in just a second. This is a complex way of saying, if your defense is all around bad, it doesn't much matter if it is "less bad" against the run.
2. This is not to suggest that a team can focus soley on one aspect and get away with it.
Statistics from the wonderfully detailed NCAA football statistics database.
2008 Pass Defense leaders: 180 wins vs 127 losses
Rank Name Games Patt Pcomp Papct Ydscmp Int Intpct Yds Ydsatt TDs Ydspgm CM Wins Losses Ties
1
Southern California
13
382
199
52.09
8.78
19
4.97
1747
4.57
6
134.38
0
12
1
0
2
South Carolina
13
328
189
57.62
10.95
14
4.27
2070
6.31
9
159.23
1
7
6
0
3
New Mexico St.
12
300
176
58.67
10.87
9
3.00
1913
6.38
14
159.42
0
3
9
0
4
Tennessee
12
332
186
56.02
10.35
17
5.12
1925
5.80
8
160.42
0
5
7
0
5
Northern Ill.
13
338
208
61.54
10.07
6
1.78
2094
6.20
13
161.08
1
6
7
0
6
Florida St.
13
342
175
51.17
12.06
9
2.63
2111
6.17
15
162.38
0
9
4
0
7
Miami (Fla.)
13
336
172
51.19
12.52
4
1.19
2153
6.41
15
165.62
1
7
6
0
8
UCLA
12
332
177
53.31
11.37
11
3.31
2012
6.06
19
167.67
0
4
8
0
9
Connecticut
13
368
196
53.26
11.16
18
4.89
2187
5.94
9
168.23
0
8
5
0
10
San Jose St.
12
356
187
52.53
10.93
16
4.49
2043
5.74
9
170.25
0
6
6
0
11
TCU
13
384
193
50.26
11.50
15
3.91
2219
5.78
8
170.69
0
11
2
0
12
Clemson
13
428
239
55.84
9.38
19
4.44
2243
5.24
14
172.54
0
7
6
0
12
Wake Forest
13
382
199
52.09
11.27
18
4.71
2243
5.87
15
172.54
0
8
5
0
14
Tulane
12
288
184
63.89
11.27
9
3.13
2074
7.20
18
172.83
0
2
10
0
15
Vanderbilt
13
362
193
53.31
11.78
20
5.52
2274
6.28
15
174.92
0
7
6
0
16
Virginia Tech
14
343
181
52.77
13.54
20
5.83
2450
7.14
12
175.00
1
10
4
0
17
Mississippi St.
12
324
169
52.16
12.54
8
2.47
2119
6.54
13
176.58
0
4
8
0
18
Boston College
14
435
244
56.09
10.15
26
5.98
2477
5.69
9
176.93
0
9
5
0
19
Auburn
12
369
199
53.93
10.78
11
2.98
2146
5.82
19
178.83
0
5
7
0
20
Florida
14
456
242
53.07
10.40
26
5.70
2518
5.52
12
179.86
0
13
1
0
21
Bowling Green
12
354
206
58.19
10.53
15
4.24
2170
6.13
13
180.83
0
6
6
0
22
Oregon St.
13
354
183
51.69
12.85
13
3.67
2352
6.64
15
180.92
0
9
4
0
23
Arizona
13
407
228
56.02
10.37
16
3.93
2365
5.81
12
181.92
0
8
5
0
24
Purdue
12
359
202
56.27
10.89
10
2.79
2199
6.13
14
183.25
1
4
8
0
25
Ohio St.
13
440
253
57.50
9.43
15
3.41
2386
5.42
12
183.54
1
10
3
0
2008 Rushing Defense Leaders: 247 wins vs 83 losses
Rank Name Games Carries Net Avg TDs Ydspgm Wins Losses Ties
1
TCU
13
355
612
1.72
9
47.08
11
2
0
2
Alabama
14
391
1038
2.65
5
74.14
12
2
0
3
Texas
13
356
1086
3.05
8
83.54
12
1
0
4
Mississippi
13
411
1112
2.71
9
85.54
9
4
0
5
Southern California
13
416
1136
2.73
8
87.38
12
1
0
6
Nevada
13
377
1152
3.06
17
88.62
7
6
0
7
Boston College
14
454
1277
2.81
14
91.21
9
5
0
8
Penn St.
13
430
1212
2.82
12
93.23
11
2
0
9
Iowa
13
397
1222
3.08
7
94.00
9
4
0
10
South Fla.
13
436
1238
2.84
12
95.23
8
5
0
11
Utah
13
415
1289
3.11
10
99.15
13
0
0
12
Tennessee
12
444
1237
2.79
6
103.08
5
7
0
13
Louisiana Tech
13
435
1350
3.10
12
103.85
8
5
0
14
Virginia Tech
14
451
1462
3.24
12
104.43
10
4
0
15
Florida
14
440
1476
3.35
9
105.43
13
1
0
16
Connecticut
13
423
1427
3.37
16
109.77
8
5
0
17
LSU
13
421
1432
3.40
17
110.15
8
5
0
18
Ohio St.
13
406
1433
3.53
7
110.23
10
3
0
19
Cincinnati
14
481
1610
3.35
13
115.00
11
3
0
20
Oklahoma
14
469
1627
3.47
19
116.21
12
2
0
21
Nebraska
13
418
1514
3.62
24
116.46
9
4
0
22
Boise St.
13
476
1534
3.22
9
118.00
12
1
0
23
Oregon
13
503
1552
3.09
18
119.38
10
3
0
24
Georgia Tech
13
432
1564
3.62
13
120.31
9
4
0
25
California
13
495
1589
3.21
16
122.23
9
4
0
Seven teams appear on both lists: USC, Tennessee, UConn, TCU, Va Tech, Florida, and Boston College. Their combined record was 68-25. So taking out those seven teams leaves the records as thus:
Passing D: 112-102 (52.3%)
Rushing D: 179-58 (75.5%)
I don't know about you but I'd call that an appreciable difference. Again I'm not trying to suggest that a team that can get by with a poor secondary, but given the choice of having a lockdown D against the pass or the run, it's apparent that you'd rather be solid against the run.
How does this bare out in the Big 10? Well the top 4 teams in pass defense last season were as follows: Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, and Wisconsin. Rush defense? Penn State, Iowa, Ohio State, and Northwestern. Doing the same thing we did with the top 25 D's, remove PSU and OSU and you get a breakdwon of 11-14 vs 18-8.
Should Michigan fans still be concerned about the state of the secondary? Certainly. Is it possible that this can still be an effective defense if it is able to excel against the run? Moreso than I previously thought...
0 recs |
7 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I don’t know if its as much defending one aspect, but stopping the huge 70 yard plays that would hurt the team so bad last year.
Most of the time the defense was actually pretty good on 2-3 downs.. but the big play is what hurt Michigan’s numbers and ultimately team during games.
by JC314 on Aug 17, 2009 2:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That's a great point...
I don’t have the stat handy, but I’m fairly certain that the number of plays allowed over 20 yards was something that was appalling. That’s the tricky thing with these stats, there’s a lot of factors that go into it that I certainly didn’t flush out. More than anything I just think it was an interesting trend to point out.
Frankly if we can simply get to the point where we’re not allowing 50+ plays of 20 yards or more and we actually get off the field on 3rd and long then we’ll be better off than last year regardless of the personnel.
GO BLUE! http://www.maizenbrew.com/
by SCM on Aug 17, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Devil's Advocate (I agree with your hypothesis, but there might be a hole in the logic)
Isn’t it Football 101 that teams with a comfortable lead throw less and run more? And wouldn’t that lead to inflated running totals and falsely-positive pass defense numbers for crappy teams who are getting routinely blown out? I’m looking at you, Purdue…
storminspank: "Or we could join you can take our pants off."
by Hawkeye State on Aug 17, 2009 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and it's a point that...
I was going to delve into before deciding to rather just kind of let it stand where it is. There’s an awful lot of factors (like I said earlier) that would enter into the gross determination of “solid D against the run” and “solid D against the pass”. It certainly stands to reason that teams that are poor and getting beat often will be seeing less passes (unless you’re the ’90s version of Steve Spurrier or John Cooper and enjoy running up the tally on teams) particularly later in games and then naturally bolster their pass defense numbers.
When I get a moment I’ll try to see if I can get a number of pass attempts that each of those teams faced, particularly the Purdue’s of the world.
GO BLUE! http://www.maizenbrew.com/
by SCM on Aug 17, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quick update
Purdue defended 359 pass attempts last season
Ohio State – 440 pass attempts
Penn State – 399 pass attempts
Wisconsin – 404 pass attempts
So yes, of those top 4, Purdue clearly faced fewer passes over the year.
Also interesting to note was that Michigan only faced 374 pass attempts, and still had one of the worst pass defenses in the country, giving some statistical weight to the “too many big plays” that we all knew was the case last year.
GO BLUE! http://www.maizenbrew.com/
by SCM on Aug 18, 2009 10:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
And I think you’ll see less of those plays this year. Actually I’m just hopeful, but from what I’ve heard our corners aren’t going to be on “islands” as much this year. That, and Stevie Brown and Brandon Harrison aren’t playing safety anymore.
Does addition by subtraction qualify here?
by JC314 on Aug 18, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sure hope so...
I’m all for Stevie Brown having a reversal of fortunes, but I’m much happier that he’ll be trying to accomplish that at the “Not Safety” position.
GO BLUE! http://www.maizenbrew.com/
by SCM on Aug 19, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Maize n Brew
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.
