This post is the 2nd installment of a quarterly update based on our performances to date as well as assorted opponents' performances in their own games (see 1st Quarter Expectations).  Two essential companions to appropriately frame and ground this piece include csfuu’s excellent analysis of Expectations and Variability, as well as Bud’s weekly installment of Nole Your Opponents.

We are coming off a 10-year high event in terms of the program’s outlook.  While I attempt to remain grounded in my expectations, it was inevitable (mathematically as well as subjectively) that the win totals took a big jump based on results vs. UM and the other dominating performances against the other easier-than-expected opponents that we faced over the last 3 weeks.

This past quarter has not only been characterized by massive improvements to our own product, but coincident declines in several of the key roadblocks between our team and 10 wins + an ACCCG appearance: namely, Clemson, UNC, and Boston College taking slides, for assorted reasons.  Alternately, NCSU has stepped up its performance and now appears to be our foremost contender for the Atlantic Division crown.  Courtesy of the refreshing outcome of the matchup against the Miami Hurri --. maybe we’ll just call them the Pleasant Sprinkles from here on-- we now stand on the precipice of a special season.

Continue reading this post »

Ever the optimist, I have scoured the statistical universe to come up with what I believe to be our ace-in-the-hole in the matchup vs. UM.  Bud’s excellent analysis and prediction suggests we have to control the clock and stymie Miami’s rushing attack to win this game.  I have a two-fold hypothesis that relates to the rushing attacks of UM and FSU, respectively, that suggests this is more than possible. (Please excuse lack of A/2/D format; I prefer not to go that route unless a list includes at least 3 entries.)

1.    Miami’s rushing offense is, to some extent, a paper tiger that I believe we can indeed limit with 7 men, allowing us the opportunity win this game.

2.    Our ability to run the ball is being greatly discounted (or ignored), possibly due to valid concerns about the OL’s ability to pass protect.  However, Ponder and the RBs will indeed have surprising success on the ground against Miami’s vaunted defense.

As an initial caveat/clarification, I understand that much of the subsequent analysis relies on 3 or 4 games/observations (or fewer in some cases), which is much less than ideal.  But it’s all we have to speculate on at this point in the season, so I’m going to "run with it" to see if this theory has "legs" (excuse the puns).

ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESIS #1: Miami’s Rushing Attack Not As-Advertised

Let’s look at UM’s rushing attack pitted against the performances of other FBS squads against UM's common opponents.  Note that the numbers exclude Harris’ and other QB’s rushes/sacks, because we’re talking about the success of UM’s pro style running game fared versus each of these defenses, and want to make this as apples-to-apples as possible:

UM RBs vs. OSU: 23 carries/ 112 yards/ 4.87 ypc

• Ranks *1st* among 3 FBS opponents OSU has faced in ypc.  This is a respectable performance by UM, because we can assume OSU has a fairly stout defense.
• However, OSU's opponents to date (other than UM) don’t give us much context for "how good?"  Marshall is a very poor team (1-4, pounded by Bowling Green and Southern Miss) while Illinois is extremely one dimensional, sporting a QB with a 54% completion rate and a 3:4 TD:INT ratio. Despite no passing threat, Illinois RB’s still averaged 4.2 and 4.5 ypc, which doesn’t suggest ’85 Chicago Bears stinginess for OSU's rush D.

UM RBs vs. Pitt: 30 carries/ 112 yards/ 3.73 ypc

• UM’s performance ranks last (3rd) among the 3 FCS teams Pitt has faced in ypc. Both of Pitt’s other FBS opponents’ RBs (Utah, FIU), managed 4.0 ypc or better.  

UM RBs vs. CU: 37 carries/ 185 yards/ 5.0 ypc

• Quite surprisingly, Miami’s RB performance ranks last (3rd) again relative to Clemson's FBS opponents – UNT averaged 5.5 ypc and Auburn averaged 5.1 ypc vs. Clemson.  Again, this is excluding QB rushing, so the result isn’t skewed directly by Cam Newton (whose contributions incidentally would actually drop AU’s ypc).
• UNT is certainly an embarrassing mark on Clemson’s resume; it is hard to tell how legitimate their success was, but we do know it did not occur in garbage time.
• On the other point, is it shameful for UM to get outrushed by Auburn against a common opponent?  Common logic says "no," but to put this in context, perhaps we need to look at Auburn’s RB’s performances against other teams – again, perhaps surprisingly, AU had a better ypc against Clemson (5.1) than against either USCe (4.9) or Miss St, (4.3), with Ark St (5.8) being their only clearly superior FBS RB rushing performance.  So, on paper, we know Clemson is an elite rushing D; however, they have not played at that level to this point in the season.

In sum, none of the above is particularly condemning, but it does not suggest an offense that can run the ball with impunity.   I would suggest that UM is a good but not great running team right now, far short of elite.  Is this, perhaps, why Whipple insists on throwing so frequently?  He understands their shortcomings in this regard?

As a second component to our analysis of UM's expected success in running against FSU, we must examine how our rushing defense potentially stacks up.  Let’s look at how we rank in bottling up our opponents' rushing attacks so far, versus the other FBS competitition each team has faced:

OU: We contained the OU rush better than 3 of 4 opponents OU has faced – better than USU, Air Force, or Texas, but not as well as Cincy.

BYU: We contained the BYU rush better than 2 of 4 opponents, besting the efforts fo Washington and Air Force, though not faring as well as Nevada or Utah State.  (It is worth noting that our overall defensive performance vs. BYU is better than any of these opponents and, further, we also must consider that BYU lost a host of personnel in our game prior to the 2 consecutive poor rushing performances, coinciding with a switch to a more pass-heavy attack – 45 and 55 passing attempts in the contests after our game.)

Wake: We far and away performed better defending the rush than any of the other FBS defenses that Wake has faced – Duke, Stanford, and GT.  No, this is not a murderer’s row of rushing defenses, but the fact that Wake eclipsed 200 yards rushing against Duke and Stanford, and 160 against GT, suggests our holding their RBs to less than 100 yards hints at some quality.  (We should note that inevitably a large portion of the total against Stanford was in garbage time, as this game got out of hand very quickly.)

UVa: Unfortunately, they’ve only played one other FCS team in USC, against whom the Hoos RB’s ran for 158 yards at 5.1 ypc, versus 52 yards at 2.6 ypc against our defense.  Just one observation, but it’s a strong one.   If we consider FCS games, UVa rushed for over 200 and 6 ypc against Richmond, and 149 yards at 4.4 ypc against VMI.

The raw data above present a strong case about the prowess of our rushing defense, arguably containing our opponent's rushing attacks better than any other FBS teams they have faced, aside from Cincy's performance vs. OU in the "look-ahead" game. Going further, I believe you could also make the more subjective argument that our rushing defense is looking more and more impressive as the season progresses -- will this trend  continue?  Is it then logical to conclude that our rushing defense is as good as, or possibly superior to, UM’s rushing offense?  I believe it is reasonable to speculate that this is the case.

ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESIS #2: FSU’s Rushing Attack Better than Advertised

First, a technical note: this analysis DOES include QB’s rushing statistics, as our attack, when we're serious about winning versus working on process, entails a heavy dose of Ponder's legs.

OU: We ran against OU better than Texas and about as well as USU, but Cincy and Air Force had great success on the ground against OU.  Unfortunately, the dynamics of our defensive letdowns prevented us from seeing what type of success might have been possible in a competitive game.

BYU: Though all of BYU’s opponents have had measurable success on the ground, we ran as well as any, equaling Air Force’s output (in ypc terms at least, though they had more attempts), and much better than Washington, Nevada, or Utah State.

Wake:  Going for 201 yards @ 5.2 ypc, we ran as well as Duke (155/5.5) and better than GT (209/4.4), but short of Stanford’s mind-boggling performance (303/8.0).  Remember also that this game was our "glorified passing scrimmage," which led to some Ponder sacks/scrambles (11 carries for 11 yards total) rather than what you would expect for him with a committed rushing attack.  (Inference: we ran for 2 bills with one arm tied behind our backs.)

UVa: Again, they have played only one FBS opponent, but in that one observation, we essentially doubled USC’s output – 256 @ 6.1 ypc for FSU vs. 127 @ 3.8 for USC.  Now, while we know USC has struggled on the season, their ground game has been anything but weak, eclipsing 200 yards and 5 – 7 ypc in each of their 4 other FBS games.  USC is one of the nation's elite rushing attacks, and UVa shut them down.

The OU game is our only less than compelling demonstration of running prowess, and I believe it is reasonable to assume our lack of production in this game was in large part, a function of our defense's inability to stop OU's no huddle passing attack.  (That is, it is not a reflection about the quality of our running game.)  The other 3 games show strong evidence that we indeed can run the ball very, very well.  I would certainly qualify us as a top 15 running team currently, possibly better.  For what it's worth, Football Outsiders has us sitting at #5, currently.

CONCLUSIONS

The likely end result if both of these hypotheses are validated is that UM has only intermittent success running the ball, allowing penalties and/or sacks to end drives, while we control the clock and have more consistent success on the ground, setting up manageable 3rd down opportunities and winning the field position battle.  This forces UM to go to the air to match scores, while we are able to keep our 2 safeties deep – resulting in a J-Harris pick-fest and Seminole victory.

Unrelated to the above, but I'll also predict that Mark Stoops is the first DC that knows UM is starting a true frosh at tackle, and regardless of his physical talents, we will throw a couple of confusing blitzes at Seantrel Henderson to see if he is able to make good decisions, and get his 350 lbs positioned quickly enough, to stop a couple blitzes coming towards his side.  I think he slips up more than once in this regard and J Harris feels the pain.

Final homer prediction: FSU 31 – UM 24.   We run for 180+ and pass for an efficient 200, while UM runs for 120 and passes for an inefficient 270 (read: 2 INTs).

This post is a follow-up on a comment I made last week where I attempted to update my own preseason expectations, based on our performances to date as well as assorted opponents' performances in their games.

Relative to our own progress, I am enthused by our defense already having a performance that it was incapable of last year, just two weeks into the schedule.  I share everyone's concerns about the offense, but our staff's track record suggests the wrinkles will get worked out, or at least we will adjust our approach to highlight our strengths.

Externally, I'd say this week's theme is a perceived strengthening of the more competitive ACC teams (UNC, CU) with a coincident weakening of lesser ACC teams (Wake, UMd).  Just two or three games into the schedule, there are many teams with a lot of questions still to be answered.

Continue reading this post »

We ran through our nonconference schedule at a level right about at most of our expectations.  Not over-achieving, by any stretch, but pulling in the Old Spice crown, pitted against dropping the UF and OSU games, about balances out where we thought we would end up: a respectable, but not overly impressive, 12-2 final OOC record.

In the ACC, we've just pulled in that crucial 9th win and will be favored to pull in #10 this weekend.  In terms of preseason expectations, I think a 10-6 mark is something all but the most optimistic would have readily accepted from the outset, while 9-7 would have still been swallowed, though somewhat begrudgingly, by most.

Going forward, to me, there is little doubt at this point that we will win at least 1 of our next 2, and we will draw a middle-ish seed in the tournament.  We'll say 9 or higher.  It would be great to climb above that 8-9 game to avoid a 1-seed in the 2nd round of the NCAAT, but a lot remains to be determined in terms of ACC seeding, and that will likely dictate how high we can achieve in both of our upcoming post-season tournaments.

So we evaluate the season in light of at least a 9-7 ACC record, 12-2 OOC, and a middle-tier seed in the NCAAs -- isn't that right about in line with expectations, balancing out those Sweet 16 hopefuls with those that thought we'd miss Toney too much to even make the Dance?  The achievement has come by an unpredictable path; dropping so many home games in exchange for a surprising slate of road wins (at Carolina?), but now that we're close to solidifying an overall respectable performance, are we happy?

Continue reading this post »

With Stoops on board -- and given our personnel/recruiting prospects -- I think we can safely assume that we are going to be running a 4-3 next season.  That may give us enough clarity to start mapping out prospects for our depth chart up front.  Only counting committed recruits, things might look something like this:

1st: Dawkins (~270, Jr)          McCray (300+, Jr)     McDaniel (290+, So)     McAllister (260+, So)

2nd: White (250-260, Sr)        Barnes(~270, Fr)      McCloud (~280, So)      Jenkins (240+, So)

3rd: Cummings (~250, Fr)     Erving (~300, Fr)       Jacobs (~300, Fr)          Stevens (~240, Jr)

Other: D. Hicks (Fr), J. Jackson (Jr).. no idea how much/whether these guys will contribute. Hopeful Hicks can surprise, given his pedigree.

Note that this assumes a heavy rotation at DE, with little significance between 1st/2nd team besides the heavier run-stoppers in there on early downs and the pass rushers on the field for obvious passing downs.  Note that I am also not too concerned about order in the depth chart so much as overall quality.

Observations:

1. It looks as though we will gain some coveted mass up front, assuming the new crop of DTs allows Dawkins to move to his "true" SDE position, and that McAllister is able to leapfrog some of his elders..  While we actually fielded similar weights among our eventual starters for 2009 (White-261, McCray~300, McDaniel~285, McNeil-255), the real dropoff occurred in our backups, when guys like Yarborough (230), Dawkins at DT (260), Stevens + Jenkins(225) got thrown into the mix.

2. DT remains a serious concern.  We have the same starters... though with another year under their belts and hopefully heavier and stronger next year.  However, the fact remains that the next 4 guys behind the starters will either be coming straight out of high school or otherwise fielding zero NCAA experience.

3. On the positive side, I believe with proper technique/coaching on the outside (DEs), we may be able to put up a very formidable pass rush, provided we can induce 2nd or 3rd and long situations.  We actually appear to have a lot of talent to be mined at the DE positions, and one would think an able coach would be able to mold a number of true contributors out of the raw materials that he will have to work with.

4. Deas' ability to gain admission would make a massive difference, literally and figuratively...  perhaps as much as a 20 position swing in terms of our defensive efficiency ranking.    I know some say that, if he qualifies, he would come in as an SDE, but I do not believe there is any way we could afford NOT to use him in our DT rotation given our circumstances.

5. Other recruiting notes... Lemonier looks like our only other quality prospect out there to the casual observer, and while a tremendous talent, he is not precisely the type of player that fills our most pressing need (as a freshman).  We already have a surplus of speed rushers, and he wouldn't appear to be an every down DE straight out of the gates.  Is anyone aware of other "below the radar" prospects that might have a chance to contribute early, particularly any big bodies that could contribute early???

6.  Schematically, I would expect that we will continue to have to rely on a heavy run blitz/stack-the-box approach on early downs, but if successful, may then be able to move to a more conservative/zone approach on passing downs, as I am predicting our 4-man pass rush could make significant strides, though our run interior defense should still be sub-par.

Side notes. Perhaps this is overly optimistic, but I expect us to immediately jump to a top 60 defense next year, based purely on the development of young guys, who will no longer be handicapped by a coaching vacuum at DB, LB, and DE positions.  If Deas turns out to be the NFL-caliber talent that he is rumored to be, especially at the DT position, it could make us a bone fide top 5 ACC defense next year.

Not to get too far off subject, but top defenses should include Miami (lose only 2 Srs.), UNC (retain almost everyone, if Austin stays), Clemson (though they lose 3/4 of DBs if McDaniel jumps), and VT (will face struggles, though, as they lose at least 6/11 starters).  BC is always a schematic player, but losing 3/4 of their DL pulls them out of contention, in my opinion.  GT might be considered a wild card to contend for top 5 as well, as they sit in a similar situation with a lot of returning players, but coming off a very bad season.