So many of you may remember that I ran some numbers over the summer to see just how we have done in previous years, and what our offense needed to do to really get us to where we needed to be. The conclusion I came up with at the time was as follows:
If we prop our historical game by game scoring to be about 2 TDs more per game, we'll be right where we need to be. That'll put us breaking that 31 point barrier more times than not, and by doing so, significantly increase our odds of winning any given game, as that historically is the maximum amount of points you'll see our defense give up in a game in any given season. Considering the offense we've seen the last few years, and the playmakers we do have, who knows, 2 TDs per game might be attainable as early as this season.
So... how does this work our on the current season? Well, first of all, if we look strictly at ACC play this year, our defense is faring a little better this year than it has in the recent past, with us giving up an average of 17.8 points per game in conference play, compared to 19.8 in 2015 and 20.5 in 2014. Its the best scoring defense we've had in conference play since 2013, and 2nd best that we've had since our last ACC title. Nothing especially significant here, and much in line with what we've had, but still lagging behind the peak we had back in 2004-2010 when we had a scoring defense that only once allowed more than 16 points per game.
Where you start to see the shift is on offense. In ACC play since we joined the ACC in 2004, we have seen season averages as follows:
- 2004 - 28.75
- 2005 - 32.8
- 2006 - 23.25
- 2007 - 31.87
- 2008 - 18.87
- 2009 - 33.62
- 2010 - 34.75
- 2011 - 27.75
- 2012 - 22.87
- 2013 - 22.37
- 2014 - 19
- 2015 - 22.62
So our best seasons we've ever had in ACC play were 2009 and 2010 when Tyrod was doing Tyrod things, and we were rightfully wrecking the conference, and the average between those two years was 34.18 points per game. Ready for this year's numbers?
- 2016 - 33.33
Yes, that's right, the scoring we have this year on offense is surpassing every year we've ever had in ACC play outside of the two upperclassmen years of Tyrod, the starting QB of the Buffalo Bills. Yeah, its that impressive. And remember earlier when it was said that as long as we got to 31 points we're in a great position to win any given football game? Well, in every game we've played this year, the first team that got to 31 ended up winning the game, outside of Duke, when it ended up being close because we only got to 24. Also worth noting that this average could very likely increase the next 2 ACC games when we play 2 of the worse defenses in the conference in both GT and UVa.
And this is a team being led by a QB who wasn't playing Division 1 football last year, and being coached by an offensive staff loaded with guys new to the program, meaning its completely reasonable to think that our offensive numbers should only increase down the road as the players throughout the program are fully spun up on the Fuente system. And should that happen, you're looking at a program where, under the status quo on defense, we're set for the long haul.
Exciting times for these Hokies. Exciting indeed.
Comments
We somehow make every defense look like the Steel Curtain against us when they're statistically in the bottom 10% though, so i'm not going to hold my breath that we get 31 against those teams, especially seeing our injuries the way they are.
EDIT:
I take back my comment. In past years it's been like that but so far this year our O has been pretty excellent (even in losing causes). In past years that hasn't been the case but it's not fair to categorize those teams to this one. Mea Culpa.
I'm genuinely curious on what aspects of this offense this year are not good enough for you? Offensively, we're putting up points and stats this year that match the previous peak of the program in ACC play, a time that many have been begging for us to get to. We're exceeding any realistic expectations we could have had for the team prior to the season and are performing at a level that right now has us in the hunt for the ACC title.
And this is only 9 games into the Fuente era.
I mean, I get it, we don't always click on all 8 cylinders at all times every game, but there are seriously few teams who do. Even Clemson had crap performances against NCSU, Louisville against UVa, UNC crapped the bed against us, Alabama's offense sputtered against LSU... It happens to everyone. Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill with this reply, but I am genuinely curious on what more we could realistically want out of what they're doing this year.
Don't forget, our offense had to play UNC in a hurricane, so we should have scored more.
Oh absolutely. We only threw the ball what, 3 or 4 times all game, and only once in the second half? Our biggest strength on offense was completely negated by the elements, so its completely reasonable to expect we would have put up more.
Maybe not a popular opinion, but I disagree. A lot of our points were off of turnovers and great field position, which I don't think we could count on in regular circumstances. I understand that we both played in the same weather, but I think the main difference was that we limited our mistakes and were better able to capitalize on theirs. While I wouldn't go as far to say we won because of the weather as the UNC fanbase wants to believe, I have no problem saying that the weather had a big impact on what they were able to do, and we handled it better than they did. Without the hurricane factor I think they make less mistakes and hit a few big plays, which greatly changes the way our offense plays. To be clear, I still think we're the better team, but I don't think we can assume we beat them by 40+ on a clear sunny day because we beat them by 30+ in a hurricane.
If a team limits it's mistakes, and capitalizes on its opponent's mistakes on a clear, sunny 65 F day, I'd say that team has a pretty good shot of winning in a D1 foozeball scrum.
I'm of the belief that UNC's lack of Elijah Hood, especially in those conditions, was a bigger factor in the outcome of the game than the weather. Logan couldn't keep his feet and the third string guy isn't very good. They couldn't run the ball and it killed them.
PS. Really like and agree with overall post and am excited about the future of our program. This is EXACTLY what we have been saying and dreaming about since the early 2000's. Fuente + Foster 4 ever
I agree with everything you've said. Your initial question got me thinking though, in my opinion what aspect is not good enough?
Red Zone Rank 43 with Score Percentage 87.23%
Red Zone TD Rank 99 with TD Percentage 55.32%
Wow avg 33 pts per game with a Red Zone TD Rank of 99.
What would we avg per game if that rank was 43?
If I start thinking about that, I'd have to call a Dr in about 4 hours
How about this gem:
Red Zone Scoring Attempts per game
#6. Virginia Tech 5.1 per game.
behind these 5
1. Louisville 6.3
2. Michigan 6.0
3. Washington State 5.8
4. West Virginia 5.3
5. Houston 5.2
last year we were #43 at 3.9 per game.
5.1 RZSAG at 83% RZ Scoring percentage and 55% RZ TDs means (roughly) 20-21 PPG. If we're getting 33.33, then that means we're getting 1 to 2 long scores/non-offensive TDs and 2 to 4 37+ yd FGs
If we are able to have 7 or more scoring drives of which at least 4 are TDs, I'd expect to beat anybody, especially when matched with the LPD.
If you believe red zone performance is luck, the best way to get around that is to get into the red zone a crapton of times.
I don't believe it's all luck but there is a fair amount of luck there. Teams tend to see their red zone numbers fluctuate wildly year to year. It's not the most consistent stat.
No I think you and other folks are right. In past years it's been like that but so far this year our O has been pretty excellent (even in losing causes). In past years that hasn't been the case but it's not fair to categorize those teams to this one. Mea Culpa.
No biggie at all. I was just curious on where it came from. And yes, you are right in that our offense just couldn't get out of its own way the last few years. I mean hell, in 2014 we averaged 19 points per game on offense in regulation in ACC play. 19! This year we're averaging over 2 TDs more than that.
But this year we're completely re-calibrating expectations. One chart that I ran over the summer showed the amount of times we consistently broke certain score ranges on offense by the end of regulation in ACC play. Since 2012 we've had 31 points at the end of regulation a total of 5 times, twice in 2012, once in 2013, twice in 2014, and not once last year. This year alone we've already done that 4 times in ACC play.
Just reinforces the fact that we can't be worried about past offensive trends anymore with VT. What used to be isn't what is or what will be.
No worries. Without your comment I wouldn't have seen Redzone ranking of 99
We put up 54 on a really bad defense
We also put up 34 on a pretty bad defense
And 36 against another bad defense and 37 against a mediocre defense
I'm not sure what you're talking about
My guess is putting up 17 on Syracuse statistically putrid defense. I agree with the point that all great offenses have tough games sometimes, but I understand that game being a trigger to memories of about 15 years of making bad defenses look great with some regularity.
Yes I was not being reasonable. I was comparing past teams to this team and that's not a good comparison. My B.
Or we could just increase time of possession, the most important stat that will define VT's season
You joke, but ToP will play a significant role this week
I do not joke! I'll have to look up the statistics, but I believe that the agreement between TOP and score would have correctly predicted our current record
NO NO NO NO NOa little harsh, sorryEDIT: nope nope nope
Refer to the table below. Our two worst games are in red for both point differential and TOP. Next two worst are in orange. Best games in green. See the correlation? Neither do I.
Looks like TOP predicts a 7-2 record? Is that you, Pete Moris?
(edit: I agree, he did say TOP "and score".)
I admit, disregarding games where there is no correlation between TOP and result, there seems to be a good correlation between TOP and result.
#TarheelLogic
I hereby nominate this for the VT football version of "netflix and chill"
Yep. When TOP and score agree, it counts as a victory for us. When it doesn't, it's a loss.
7-2
I'm seriously hoping these stats hold up all season long so I can lord it over all of you for the entire offseason
I, for one, welcome our new equine overlord.
May all the blessings of hyagreeva be bestowed upon thee, GuitarMan
I'm gonna go ahead and call it: GT will manage to win TOP this Saturday and still get their doors blown off.
So until we lose again, this won't work anymore.
So by record we are 7-2.
And if we measured wins by time of possession we are 7-2.
Also, there are six games where we won with more possession, and one game where we lost with worst time of possession. So there are 7 games in which TOP and score agree on the outcome, while there are 2 that disagree on the outcome. 7-2
EDIT: Added the word 'six'
happy coincidence...no correlation
Going by TOP, we lost to Miami and beat UT. Two things that couldn't be further from the truth. I think that's the point
I edited after you posted, my bad.
No worries. The point really should be: No matter how we slice it, we're still 7-2 right now and that's pretty goddamn awesome
I get what you're saying. And it's like nails on a chalkboard to my soul.
If it weren't already obvious, I'm going to bend data to my will on this topic as far as I can get away with it, and then a little more, too.
For example, if we had 72 minutes total TOP and a 7-2 record, I would use that, too.
I'm actually enjoying the heck outta doing it, too, if it weren't already obvious.
Have to say, I'm enjoying the show
That's just cold!!
Don't worry about HOAT, he's tougher than a Bud Foster blitz. Besides, once you earn more than 10K turkey legs around here, Sam Rogers style invincibility is bestowed.
I wish I had as many turkey legs as HOAT...maybe someday.
Let me help with that...wait, you're way ahead of me!
(downvote, downvote, downvote)
Satire, nice
Looking for a picture with "horse" and "leg" but realized I already posted that one.
hokie07ME now has two replies to his comment.
07-2
oh man, I thought you were doing all that satirically
You're a true believer. That's....cool
BelieverTrollWell...a large part of it is satirical. But an even larger part of it is to emphasize that there isn't a metric out there that perfectly describes how to win games or how to predict a victory. There are far too many factors at play to focus on any one and single it out as important for all games (or not), so when I see a philosophical approach to any of them, I want to push back a bit. Satire is an enjoyable way to do it.
I've never seen any analysis showing to what level TOP accurately predicts the outcome of a game. Naturally, it's plain to see that engineering an in-game strategy where time of possession is maximized doesn't guarantee victory. I'll never make a claim that makes this suggestion.
But does it generally help? Is there a correlation between having the advantage in time of possession and winning? If you win time of possession by two seconds, probably not. But what about 5 minutes? 10? I think we had an almost +20-minute TOP advantage in the hurricane against UNC and we pummeled them. Does the probability of victory increase with a wider difference in TOP? Who knows. I haven't looked.
I'm not claiming it does. But I'm not ruling it out, either.
And in the meantime, satire.
Very low R squared value. Against UNC, we held a 2:1 TOP advantage and won by 31. GT held the same advantage over Miami this year and lost by 14.
at some point I'll try to compile some more data but those were two glaring examples that came to mind that argues against correlation at the extremes of TOP split.
Anecdotally I'm sure there are plenty of examples. Option offenses probably violate a general assumption about it anyway, given the nature of how the team plays. Still curious. Also too lazy to do it myself. Would rather automate it.
I am a believer in time of possession as at least one favorable factor. There are however many ways to win a game. For example, you could dominate time but repeatedly settle for field goals. Or you could dominate turnovers on a short field, not have time but a ton of points. Etc., etc.
If you are going to compile data, I might recommend only looking at 3 quarters. Probably more often than not the winning team is milking clock in the 4th whereas the time of possession is then an effect of winning versus being a cause.
Also didn't help that we had "we absolutely must win TOP to win games because if we don't we tire out the defense then we have no hope" shoved down or throats constantly the last however many years while the offense only sputtered. Now we're winning games by putting points on the board and seemingly not really carrying much about milking clock at all points in the game, essentially throwing that mindset out the window. And the true kicker here.... Our defense is actually playing better this year than the last 2...
It's showing TOP isn't the end all be all it was made out to be and I appreciate HOAT for reminding us of this every week.
Yeah I never really bought into the 'we tire out' mantra when we couldn't handle a sixty minute game. There are few games I can recall where the offense really just wore out the defense over time, two involving Oregon (OSU NC game when Zeke just kept pummeling them, and Stanford beating them down the year before, I think) and when we played Alabama and Roy Upchurch ran all over us in the fourth quarter.
I think the only thing we can say for sure is that there is a high degree of correlation between scoring more points than the other team and victories. The rest is more than likely just statistical hand-waving.
Have the courage of your convictions Mr. Treadmill Sir.
I'm extremely happy with this team. I could however see a sophomore slump next year if we lose some of the firepower we have and awaiting the full impact of fuente's recruiting. The future is bright though even if that does turn out to be true for next year.
Possibly. It would be hard to replicate what Ford and Bucky are to this team, and if they both go, we could struggle a bit on offense. That said, we'll have a senior QB in Evans with a year of starting experience under his belt in the ACC with a roster that has had a year to learn the Fuente system. What we lose in pure skill, we should gain in scheme, and as we see with the numbers above, the scheme means a lot to this offense. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see us have our production stay relatively the same if only because of the new wrinkles we'll be able to introduce.
There will be a lot of rebuilding going on in the ACC next year. I certainly think we could fall prey to a sophomore slump, but UNC will likely be without Trubisky, Switzer, Bug Howard, Mack Hollins, Elijah Hood, and TJ Logan. Miami will be without Brad Kaaya and Coley, possibly more. Pitt will likely be without Peterman and Conner. Clemson will be without Watson, Gallman, Mike Williams, Artavis Scott, and possibly a few other early entries. FSU will have Francois returning and lose Dalvin Cook, while Louisville will retain LJ for another year but lose a few receivers and their TE.
ACC looks to be interesting next year outside of Louisville likely being the favorite.
So, what you're saying is, people graduate (or move on). And we're not the only team this happens to.
I don't think we have much to worry about. New guys will develop. They already are developing.
Juggernaut!
via GIPHY
via GIPHY
Can't comment statistically. But it's nice to know we've got innovative
plays getting called and we're capable of good numbers.
I would love to see an uptick in red zone touchdown efficiency, only cause it brings back memories of ocainspring. Pitt should have been put away in the first half.
I'm an engineer and efficiency is important.
I maintain that we're a 10 or 11 win team if Kyle Fuller stays healthy in 2013. Sighhhh
It's the margin of victory the past two weeks that has me filled with trepidation. No other stat has me concerned, it's just this team is doing just enough to win and if you play on that edge too often, you get cut.
And then the all too familiar "we were just a couple plays/blocks/steps away from a win" talk starts up.
Last few weeks looked super-conservative to me, like Fuente was trying to get the traditional running game going to prove a point.
I don't mind if this team runs jet sweeps and WR screens if they get the production and points.
So it's possible for a coach to fix an offense in less than half a decade? I'm confused.
just stop. it's not worth it.
Nah, I'm withholding judgement on Fuente's offense until at least year three. We need to see how he functions once he gets "his" guys in the system. It's just not fair to really evaluate him before then.
I've always admired your tenacity in pointing out how bad Loeffler was
When you begin fixing it 3 years before that coach gets there, yes, it's much easier for that coach to fix.
David Hale just tweeted that we're 125th out of 128 FBS teams in converting 3rd and short. I would say that's been a very frustrating part of this offense.
Edit: sorry this was supposed to be in reply to Alum on what aspects of the offense need improvement.
Are we really? Feels like we're better than that
that's not surprising, really. Our between-the-tackles running game is pretty awful. Our successful running plays seem to consist of sweeps and QB keepers, neither of which find much success on obvious running situations (like 3rd and short).
All that being said, how often are we in 3rd and short?
To be fair, the defense and special teams averaged 10 of those points I'd be willing to wager
Well, Alum, I hate to burst your bubble...
So I won't. Carry on, young man.
Great post, thanks. I would like to see how the ACC has changed overall in the same period. Has scoring been more or less constant for the conference as a whole?
I'll put that on the backburner and look into that when I can. Good idea! I suspect we'll see the ACC, as well as football as a whole, has seen a massive uptick in offensive production the last 10-15 years, so while our defense was only giving up 10-11 points per game in ACC play back in 2005 and 2006, our defense could actually be statistically better right now at just under 18 per game based on the norm for what the rest of the conference was doing.
The real question is "If our offense really clicks, could we beat Bama?" /s
Dunno, but if we do, mission accomplished.
Not yet, we'd have one more game left.
I've already got the t-shirt. Let's do it.
#BeatBama #DBU #TshirtRevengeTour #ExceptDecadeOfDomimanceThatOneIsDoingOkay