2012 Pass Defense

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Oklahoma

 

Really?

[EZ-E]

Oklahoma

 

Really?

 

Just going from memory and not hard data, but I think if you'd look you'd be surprised. Educated guess.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Too difficult comparing two different quarterbacks to their combined season averages, and also unfair of a comparison because of Bellomy's complete inexperience. The stats would have been misleading one way or the other.

 

Stats can indeed be misleading. That's why I still put a little stock in the eyeball test.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

And now the answer to "did teams just run more and run more effectively against us?"

 

Teams averaged 39.57 rush attempts against non-Nebraska opponents. Against Nebraska, teams averaged 40.43 rush attempts. A comparison between the two statistics revealed that opponents did not attempt more rushes against Nebraska, F(1, 13) = .20, Mse = 25.22, p = .659. Combining this information with the pass attempts result tells us that teams didn't play Nebraska any differently than they played other opponents. They respected Nebraska's run defense, and didn't give enough respect to Nebraska's pass defense, much to their own downfall.

 

And was Nebraska's rushing defense really that bad? Did teams just play Nebraska and light them up with their running game? Teams averaged 4.35 rushing yards per attempt against their opponents. When they faced Nebraska, teams averaged a slightly better, but not significantly better 4.45 rushing yards per attempt, F(1, 13) = .028, Mse = 2.601, p = .869.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So to quickly sum up all of what I found today:

 

1) Teams did not attempt fewer passes than normal against our defense but were less successful at completing passes against our defense.

 

2) Teams did not attempt more rushes against our defense than normal against our defense and had equal success on the ground against our defense.

 

 

A thing to consider (and I will do my best to get to this tomorrow) is the difference in these stats for teams we beat and teams that beat us. Was there something that UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Georgia do against us that was different than what the 10 teams we beat did?

[EZ-E]

Really good info all around in this thread.

 

Couple pointers for you Bye Bye Big Twelve: look at the YPC by the QB in the UCLA game, and yards per passing attempt in the GA game.

[KJ.]

A thing to consider (and I will do my best to get to this tomorrow) is the difference in these stats for teams we beat and teams that beat us. Was there something that UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Georgia do against us that was different than what the 10 teams we beat did?

They scored more points. R^2 = 1.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

A thing to consider (and I will do my best to get to this tomorrow) is the difference in these stats for teams we beat and teams that beat us. Was there something that UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Georgia do against us that was different than what the 10 teams we beat did?

They scored more points. R^2 = 1.

 

I meant in how they got there

[True2tRA]

Plus 1 to you sir. Great work and great stats. There's really no argument. The stats don't lie. They deserve respect for their effort, I guess I didn't realize how good they were. I think those couple of terrible ass kickings we took, combined with the poor run defense really overshadowed what was a very solid effort in the passing game.

[Count 'Bility]

Great work, Landlord of Memorial Stadium!

 

I've been trying to keep myself occupied while I'm not doing any research work until next Tuesday, so I decided to take the analysis a step further. So far it's really just confirmatory results from the eyeball test, but this information is important, nevertheless.

 

These analyses were completed using a statistical test called a within groups analysis of variance (ANOVA), which tests if there is a mean difference between quantitative variables. In this case, the variables in question are pass attempts, pass completions, pass attempts against Nebraska, and pass completions against Nebraska. The main comparison is pass completions and pass completions against Nebraska, because that is the measure of efficiency being observed. However, the comparison between pass attempts and pass attempts against Nebraska is also important to try and dispel the notion that our passing defense was great because our rush defense was so terrible that teams just ran more against us, and abandoned the passing game.

 

That being said, here are the statistical results (so far):

 

Teams on Nebraska's 2012-13 schedule completed an average of 17.14 passes against the rest of their opponents. However, against Nebraska, teams completed an average of 12.93 passes. A comparison between the two statistics revealed that Nebraska's pass defense significantly reduced the amount of passes the opposing teams completed in comparison to their season averages, F(1, 13) = 28.61, Mse = 4.495, p < .001.

 

Teams on Nebraska's 2012-13 schedule attempted an average of 29.07 passes against the rest of their opponents. However, against Nebraska, teams attempted an average of 27.14 passes. A comparison between the two statistics revealed that teams did not significantly attempt fewer passes against Nebraska compared to their season averages, F(1, 13) = 1.54, Mse = 16.96, p = .237.

 

So there you have it, while teams did not attempt fewer passes than Nebraska in 2012, they were less efficient at doing so.

The numbers tell me that in the pass happy Big 12 we would have had a defense that looked a lot more like the 2010 defense. With how we were recruiting to the Big 12, its no wonder we were deepest in the secondary and very thin at linebacker. We didn't need linebackers.

In other words 2 X 3 = 6 and Apples are not Oranges?

 

Thanks guys. You didnt have to use so many words. But thanks nonetheless.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

A thing to consider (and I will do my best to get to this tomorrow) is the difference in these stats for teams we beat and teams that beat us. Was there something that UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Georgia do against us that was different than what the 10 teams we beat did?

Wisconsin part 2 has been speculation over and over on what went wrong there. Personally, I feel like Wisconsin part 1 is a more accurate description of that matchup.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is UCLA, Ohio St, and Georgia just flat out beat us with athletic skill and hot, nasty, speed. And I guess you could say that Wisconsin part 2 did as well, but I think it was more flukish myself. The perfect storm if you will. The other 3? We just got flat out athleticized.

[EZ-E]

Plus 1 to you sir. Great work and great stats. There's really no argument. The stats don't lie. They deserve respect for their effort, I guess I didn't realize how good they were. I think those couple of terrible ass kickings we took, combined with the poor run defense really overshadowed what was a very solid effort in the passing game.

 

I feel that if we would have beaten GA moods would be different.

[EZ-E]

 

 

 

A thing to consider (and I will do my best to get to this tomorrow) is the difference in these stats for teams we beat and teams that beat us. Was there something that UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Georgia do against us that was different than what the 10 teams we beat did?

Wisconsin part 2 has been speculation over and over on what went wrong there. Personally, I feel like Wisconsin part 1 is a more accurate description of that matchup.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is UCLA, Ohio St, and Georgia just flat out beat us with athletic skill and hot, nasty, speed. And I guess you could say that Wisconsin part 2 did as well, but I think it was more flukish myself. The perfect storm if you will. The other 3? We just got flat out athleticized.

 

I feel the athletes were on the roster to win all three games, however the depth wasn't there to beat Georgia. UCLA shocked me. tOSU in the horseshoe? Aggravating.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

A thing to consider (and I will do my best to get to this tomorrow) is the difference in these stats for teams we beat and teams that beat us. Was there something that UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Georgia do against us that was different than what the 10 teams we beat did?

Wisconsin part 2 has been speculation over and over on what went wrong there. Personally, I feel like Wisconsin part 1 is a more accurate description of that matchup.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is UCLA, Ohio St, and Georgia just flat out beat us with athletic skill and hot, nasty, speed. And I guess you could say that Wisconsin part 2 did as well, but I think it was more flukish myself. The perfect storm if you will. The other 3? We just got flat out athleticized.

 

I feel the athletes were on the roster to win all three games, however the depth wasn't there to beat Georgia. UCLA shocked me. tOSU in the horseshoe? Aggravating.

Losing by a score or two based on a play or 3 and yes, I'd agree with you overall. And maybe it does fall under the depth issue more than the skill issue, but to see our guys get juked and jived on a time-and-again basis in those three games (exluding UCLA-that game was close and we shouldve won it) showed me a pretty legitimate lack in the athletic dept.

[EZ-E]

 

 

 

A thing to consider (and I will do my best to get to this tomorrow) is the difference in these stats for teams we beat and teams that beat us. Was there something that UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Georgia do against us that was different than what the 10 teams we beat did?

Wisconsin part 2 has been speculation over and over on what went wrong there. Personally, I feel like Wisconsin part 1 is a more accurate description of that matchup.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is UCLA, Ohio St, and Georgia just flat out beat us with athletic skill and hot, nasty, speed. And I guess you could say that Wisconsin part 2 did as well, but I think it was more flukish myself. The perfect storm if you will. The other 3? We just got flat out athleticized.

 

I feel the athletes were on the roster to win all three games, however the depth wasn't there to beat Georgia. UCLA shocked me. tOSU in the horseshoe? Aggravating.

Losing by a score or two based on a play or 3 and yes, I'd agree with you overall. And maybe it does fall under the depth issue more than the skill issue, but to see our guys get juked and jived on a time-and-again basis in those three games (exluding UCLA-that game was close and we shouldve won it) showed me a pretty legitimate lack in the athletic dept.

 

You might be onto something. I seem to remember our line backing core being lost more times than they were found.