Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 9
| visibility 2,458

Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010


Aug 2, 2011, 12:59 PM

 
Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010

TigerNet takes a look at the offensive numbers of 2009 and 2010 and finds there is little difference except in one big area. Full Story »


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010


Aug 2, 2011, 8:17 PM

I think you picked the right cause (i.e., Ford & Spiller), but the wrong effect (i.e., field position & red zone scoring).
RZ= red zone, Diff= difference from '09 to '10
2009: 51 RZ trips, 28 TDs
2010: 46 RZ trips, 25 TDs
Diff: -5 RZ trips, -3 TDs
That means only 0.36 fewer RZ trips/game, and 1.3 fewer pts/game.
There real difference is in TDs scored on kick returns and from outside the RZ.
2009: 6 KR TDs, 19 non-RZ TDs
2010: 1 KR TDs, 8 non-RZ TDs
Diff: -5 KR TDs, -11 non-RZ TDs
That's a loss of 16 TDs on "long" plays. That's more than a TD/game, which is definitely significant. I'm sure the 6 KR TDs were due to Ford & Spiller, but I didn't have time to look up specifics on long TDs from the offense. I'd guess the majority were due to F&S and many others were the result of CU players getting single, loose, or no coverage due to the opposing D worrying about F&S. The only possible exception I can think of was Harper's long run at NC St, but there were probably a few others.
Also, the the starting field position in 2009 was the CU 37 and the CU 31 in 2010. I'd say that's pretty good in both cases.
Thoughts?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010


Aug 2, 2011, 9:25 PM

reviewing your stats I think that you have hit on something.

I also think that the big strike was the missing components from the previous year. This has been panned out well by several sources comments on our receiving game. Our receivers had an inability to seperate and this inability definitely contributed to the non-strike ability with our offense.

Add in the inability for our kicking game to convert on chipshots and makeable attempts. You get what we got.

I hope that the new game-plan progresses nicely in scoring on the big strike as well as hitting the field goals.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010


Aug 4, 2011, 9:16 AM

Another thing is the Fear/Respect factor that required defenses to play somebody farther off the ball to act as a safety when Spiller and Ford were there. Last year we didn't have that threat, and defenses knew it. I think our speed threats will be greater this year, but it's hard to duplicate that kind of speed. We should have more weapons, though, which should be even harder to defend.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Very well put!***


Aug 2, 2011, 9:28 PM [ in reply to Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010 ]



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Good analysis. But field position helped. Combo effect.


Aug 3, 2011, 5:05 AM [ in reply to Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010 ]

I did a similar analysis at the end of last season and came to a similar conclusion about the Spiller & Ford long-strike effect. The offense wasn't very good either year but the S&F long-strike & kick-punt-return game masked the weakness of the 2009 offense.

Although the field possession "average" may not have been much different on kickoffs, I think that in 2009, there were many more times in 2009 when the offense started with great field position, or even inside enemy territory after a kick or PUNT return.

There was a cumulative effect of several things that led to fewer points in 2010. There were 5 fewer kick/punt-return TDs in 2010, and at least 1 fewer interception-return TDs. That averages out to about 3 points/game.

Slightly less efficient field goal kicking in 2010 led to about 1 point less per game.

That's an average of 4 points per game from special teams and defense. If Clemson had an extra 4 points each game in 2010, would Clemson have lost to Auburn & FSU, or even BC & USF? Yeah... I know it doesn't work that way, but it all adds up.

Offense Yards per play:
2009: 5.73, 54 TDs
2010: 5.02, 39 TDs

Punt return average:
2009: 14.38YPR (2 TDs)
2010: 11.03YPR (0 TDs)
2 fewer TDs.

Kick return average:
2009: 23.78YPR, (4 TDs)
2010: 22.62YPR, (1 TDs)
3 fewer TDs.

Turnovers:
2009: Gained 30, lost 24. +6
2010: Gained 20, lost 23. -3
That's a swing of 9 posessions.

RZ points-per-trip:
2009: 4.59
2010: 4.35

FG %:
2009: 64.5% (Jackson)
2010: 63.6% (Catanzaro)
~1.05 points/game difference.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Excellent observation.


Aug 3, 2011, 9:34 AM [ in reply to Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010 ]

That is major cause for encouragement. Our long-strike capability will be back this season due to personnel and scheme. With CM's dedication to stretching the field and the influx of WR/RB who can fly, we should see a return to '09 numbers.

Add to that a dedication to the power running game and our RZ offense should be better than '09 or '10. Just suppose we equal the '09 stats from outside the RZ and improve significantly in RZ offense. Buckle up, boys and girls, could be a fun ride!

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




The definition of awesome!


Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010


Aug 3, 2011, 1:31 AM

Very interesting...I suspected this, but hadn't looked at any numbers. Identify the problem, and do something about it...I believe we're on our way!

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Inside the offensive stats of 2009 and 2010


Aug 3, 2011, 7:53 PM

This shows that Billy Napier should have never been named OC. Now that we have a real OC maybe those numbers will improve dramatically. I cant wait till the season starts its going to be very interesting!!! GO TIGERS!!!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Note sure I would put it all on BN


Aug 4, 2011, 9:27 AM

as a conflict between his and CDS' offensive philosophy which showed in games. At least now there is an OC who is on the same page offensively.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 9
| visibility 2,458
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic