May 23, 2013

2013 Returning Experience: Quarterback

January 23, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Tajh Boyd Passing

With the return of Tajh Boyd the only major question at quarterback in 2013 is who will back Boyd up.

Junior Cole Stoudt will participate in his third spring game in April and has two full seasons and 171 mostly meaningless snaps under his belt.

Not listed is redshirt Chad Kelly, who many expect to beat out Stoudt for the backup job and seems to be more suited to the Chad Morris offense than the tall, lanky Stoudt.

This will be an interesting story line to follow during the spring, summer and into the fall to see whether the staff opts to continue to prepare and develop Stoudt or begin the process of initiating Kelly to assume the starting position in 2014.


2012 Quarterback Experience Final -

The backup battle also may have long-term consequences on whomever loses the battle. After two years at second team, how would Stoudt take being demoted to 3rd team and face being a backup throughout his career? Not having used his redshirt year to date, there are multiple options available to Stoudt if this scenario developed.

On the other hand, one would suspect that Kelly didn’t come to Clemson to be a third string quarterback and assuming he doesn’t see significant time in 2013 how would Kelly feel about going into 2014 competing with Stoudt and any other quarterbacks in camp? By that time it would be more than 2 years since Kelly saw meaningful snaps in a game and 20 year olds are rarely known for their patience.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , ,

Adam Eargle & Seldom Used Reserve to Collaborate on Infographics

January 11, 2013 by Leave a Comment
TB2012

Ever tire of our color-coded spreadesheets? They aren’t for everyone to be sure. Wish you could get that same information in a different way? 

Spreadsheets aren’t for everyone. For example, our recent story on Rod McDowell being the unsung hero of the Chic-Fil-A Bowl contained minimal stats and no spreadsheet, but included a 7 second video that received over 400 views on it’s first day has been one of our most popular stories.

In short, people want to receive information via different avenues. Spreadsheets are great, but only tell part of the story and at times eyes glaze over at stats on spreadsheets.

In an effort to make this site more visually attractive and user-friendly we will be collaborating with Adam Eargle on infographics - eye-catching graphical representations of the stats we’ve been providing via spreadsheets.

Remember our widely read (and not-so-pretty) color-coded spreadsheet on Tajh Boyd by Distance and Area of Field?  Below is what Adam was able to turn that into.

TB2012

Moving forward the plan is to incorporate these graphics into posts as time permits and where it makes sense.

Adam is a Clemson graduate and professional graphic artist who does all the artwork for this site, our Facebook page and our Twitter account.  You can also find Adam’s professionally done work at adameargle.com.

If your business or employer (or you) has a need for professional  artwork I humbly suggest that you contact Adam at adam.eargle@gmail.com and find out if he can be of assistance.

We appreciate all the time and effort Adam has spent making this site visually attractive and look forward to seeing his creations on Seldom Used Reserve.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: ,

Updating Tajh Boyd by Area of Field (and other interesting tidbits)

January 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Tajh Boyd Passing

In a remarkable season for Tajh Boyd, perhaps one of the most remarkable items is the balance between the left and right sides of the field.

Boyd threw 170 passes – exactly – to each side of the field and the yardage gained is within 14 yards. Obviously, some of that is dependent on the defense, some is luck, some is timing, some is injuries,etc. That said, one would think there is some correlation to Chad Morris attempting to achieve not only a balanced run/pass mix, but a passing game that is not predictable.

You would also think that this balance would be less likely with the absence of Sammy Watkins in three complete games and 98% of the bowl game. But that speaks to the season Nuk Hopkins had. The numbers show Hopkins was targeted over 50 times on each side of the field (and once a game or so in the middle).

Other interesting tidbits from the Chick-fil-A Bowl and season:

• Heading into the bowl Boyd was 10 of 18 for 108 yards on passes between 6 and 10 yards downfield to the left side of the field. An average of 1.5 passes per game to this area. Against LSU Boyd was 7 for 7 for 65 yards throwing to this area. Whatever Boyd and/or Morris noticed was exploited. An area they had thrown to 4.8% of the time was targeted 14% of the time against LSU.

• On the right side of the field it was the 11-15 yard range. Clemson had attempted 17 passes to this area in the first 12 games (4.5%). Boyd was 3 of 6 (12% of passes) for 54 yards against LSU in this area.

• One area Boyd had much success during the season, but 0 against LSU was the deep (21 yards and +) right side. Boyd entered the game having completed a remarkable 17 of 27 passes for 5 touchdowns in this area, but was 0 for 3 against LSU. Perhaps this is where Watkins and Bryant were missed.

• Not all passes behind the line of scrimmage are bubble screens, but there’s a reason that Clemson runs these plays – they work. Combining all areas of the field Boyd completed 88 of 96 (91.7%) of his passes where the receiver was behind the line of scrimmage for 643 yards. That works out to 6.7 yards per play.

• Those 96 passes represent 22.5% of Boyd’s total passes – almost one fourth of Clemson’s passes are behind the line of scrimmage.

• Another 111 passes (26.0%) were between the line of scrimmage and 5 yards downfield. On these passes Boyd completed 78 (70.3%) for 597 yards with 8 touchdowns and 1 interception. That works out to 5.4 yards per play which is significantly less (19% less) than the passes thrown behind the line of scrimmage.

• Simple math tells us 207 of Boyd’s 427 passes (48.5%) were within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage and these passes account for 166 of Boyd’s 287 completions (57.8%) and 1,240 (31.1.%) of Boyd’s 3,896 passing yards.

• The above also means that Boyd is completing 80.2% of passes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage and on all other passes he is completing 55.0% of his passes.

None of this is meant to imply that Boyd can’t throw the ball downfield. On the contrary, you’d be hard pressed to find a college quarterback that throws a better deep ball as evidenced by Boyd’s numbers on passes over 20 yards:

• 34 of 67 (50.7%) for 1,287 yards (19.2 yards per attempt), 15 touchdowns (22.4% of attempts) and 6 interceptions.

One final note that I found interesting, though I’m not sure what it means (and maybe it means nothing): As a right-handed quarterback Boyd has higher completion percentages to the left side (vs. the right side) of the field for every interval up to 15 yards. Being right-handed myself, I would think he would be more comfortable throwing to the right side and therefore more accurate in that direction. It doesn’t appear to be due to a specific receiver as both Hopkins and Watkins catch passes on either side. Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area can shed some light on it, assuming there is light to be shed.

Note: The totals and targets for each side of the field are on page 2 of the document below.

Boyd by Area 2012.2xls –

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , ,

Keep An Eye On…

December 30, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Tajh Boyd Passing

Tajh Boyd’s stats against LSU.

As the regular visitors are well aware this site is mainly focused on using metrics to analyze college sports. I’ve learned however, that statistical analysis is not always the answer. Sometimes your eyes tell you things that statistics can’t or don’t.

As I watched the Clemson/South Carolina game on November 24 I began to get a sinking feeling. That feeling was that Clemson’s offense struggles against physical defenses more often than not.

This theory was partially validated by the numbers we posted earlier in the week showing the difference in the number of plays that Clemson runs vs. non-top 25 defenses and top 25 defenses – 20% less.

But my eyes told me Tajh Boyd plays differently against South Carolina than he does against everyone else and South Carolina has a defense that is different from everyone else on the Clemson schedule including Florida State and the 2011 version of the Virginia Tech defense.

Furthermore, the defense on the Clemson schedule that LSU most closely resembles in my mind is – South Carolina.

LSU doesn’t have Jadeveon Clowney, but they have the next best thing – Sam Montgomery. They are big, physical and athletic.


Boyd v. Top 11 –

In looking back at Boyd’s play against top defenses over the last two years, there has been some success against Florida State and Virginia Tech, but has had two sub-par games against South Carolina, going 22 of 53 (41.5%) with 2 touchdowns and 3 interceptions.

Boyd has faced 6 teams with top 11 defenses over the last two years and has completed about 51.6% of his attempts and averaged 215 yards per game and just under 7 yards per pass attempt in those games.

That 215 number is interesting because in the other 20 starts in Boyd’s career he averages 304 yards per game – 89 more yards per game.

This, of course, is not entirely Boyd’s fault and I’m certainly not implying that here. The pass blocking needs to protect Boyd (by design and execution), the running game needs to be a threat (and consistently used) and a myriad of other things need to happen for the quarterback to be successful.

However, Boyd’s numbers are a barometer of how the offense is performing in general. It’s difficult to complete passes when you’re running for your life. It’s difficult to complete passes when the running game isn’t working.

If Boyd is completing ~ 50% of his passes and on pace for 200 yards passing the Clemson Tigers will be in trouble. If Boyd’s numbers approach or exceed 60% completions and 250 yards while the game is in doubt Clemson has a fighting chance to upset LSU.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: ,

Play Counting

December 27, 2012 by 1 Comment
Play Count Photo

In general, I have not been a proponent of the “80+ plays = a win” club.  My own tracking of statistics for college football as a whole over the course of multiple seasons show that the average number of plays between winning teams and losing teams is small.  Many teams that reach 80 or more plays lose.

I did, however, think that the number of plays Clemson ran against South Carolina was important enough to make it my “Keep An Eye On” topic and for once I hit the nail on the head. 

The inability to sustain drives doomed Clemson on November 24th.  Clemson had the ball 4 times in the second quarter with the lead and had “drives” of 5, 5, 5 and 4 plays and 0 points. 

Clemson ended up running 59 plays in a 27-17 loss against the number 11 defense in the nation.

 

Play Counts –

The Tigers have been prolific against defenses ranked outside of the top 25, averaging 88 plays per game.  When faced with more talented opposition Clemson averages only 70 plays – 20% less. (Only FBS defenses used in averages)

The numbers drop similarly when comparing wins and losses – Clemson averages 84 plays in wins and only 68 in losses – a 19% difference.

When Clemson runs 80 plays they are 7-0.  When they don’t they are 3-2 and more importantly 0-2 against top 11 defenses.  LSU is ranked 8th in total defense.

These numbers make it imperative that Clemson approaches 80 plays on New Years Eve.  This is not an impossible task as the Tigers ran 77 plays against a pretty good Florida State defense in Tallahassee in game 4.

It’s not unusual to see a dip in plays run against better ranked defenses. To the contrary, that’s part of how the lofty ranking was obtained. But the difference in the South Carolina game was pronounced.

It’s true that the defense had trouble getting off the field in the second half as South Carolina dominated in time of possession and plays run.

On the other hand – if Clemson could have extended just one of the 4 drives in the second quarter when they had the ball and the lead, they very easily could have gone up by two scores at the half and the second half may well have been different.

The numbers are pretty clear for this years Clemson Tigers. The closer to 80 plays they get in Atlanta, the better chance they have of winning.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: ,

Dissecting Third Downs

December 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment
3rd_Down

One of the biggest improvements in the Clemson offense in the Chad Morris era has been third downs. The Tigers currently reside in 4th place in the NCAA rankings converting 52.13% of third down opportunities, up from 39.27% (and a 67th ranking) in the last year of Billy Napier calling plays.

It’s really quite remarkable. Everything being equal Clemson has a better chance than not of converting a given third down.

The problem is, of course, everything is not equal and the shorter the distance to go on third down, the better chance a team has of converting as shown in the chart below.


2012 TD Detail –

We often hear announcers talk about getting to a “manageable third down” when its second and 14 or so, theory being that instead of trying a low percentage play that might gain all 14 yards needed for a first down an offense should attempt to gain half of the yards (more or less) on second down and leave themselves with a 3rd and 7 (or so) which would increase the likelihood of converting on third down. Basically, the odds of converting two shorter plays are better than attempting to convert one long play. This led me to get curious about the averages on every third down attempt (including goal to go situations) and the results are below. 2012 TD By Distance –

The first two are not surprising. One would expect the highest conversion rate when the distance needed is smallest and the second highest rate when the needed distance is the next smallest. Things get a bit weird after that, when we see a huge dip when the distance to go increases from 2 to 3 and another drop from 3 to 4, after which the conversion rate goes back up in a fairly predictable pattern until 10 yards to go.

However, the 2 to 3 dip intrigued me. What happened? What is it about that extra 36 inches that caused the conversion rate to drop like a rock? The data below appears to show a shift in philosophy from running to passing when the distance changes from 2 to 3 yards. I first noticed this tendency last year in year 1 of the Morris regime. 2012 TD Comparison –

The longer distance leads to a predictable decrease in success rates for rushing attempts, but the 36% conversion rate on passes is also interesting to me. Two of those failed passes were drops (Brandon Ford against Auburn and Sammy Watkins against N.C. State). For our purposes here it really doesn’t matter why they failed, just that they failed.

While the decrease in conversion on rushes was predictable, I was intrigued by trends that may become apparent by breaking down the rushes by player and I wasn’t disappointed. I think we all knew that the Tigers relied on Tajh Boyd in short yardage, but these two charts show that not only do they rely on Boyd on 3rd and 4th and 1 as previously written here, but the same is true on 3rd and 2 or 3, despite a higher success rate for running backs in similar situations. 2012 Third Down 2 _ 3 By Player –

Does anyone else find it strange that the star running back, one of the top rushers in school history, carried the ball 2 (of a possible 13) times on third and 2? Or 4 of a possible 21 times on third and 2 and third and 3?

You’re probably thinking what I was – McDowell’s chances came in blowout time as did Howard’s, Stoudt’s and Davidson’s. That is true – for the most part. Two of McDowell’s carries came in blow out time (as did the carries from the other players). Still, that means Ellington carried the ball 4 of 16 times (25%) on 3rd and 2 or 3 when the game was in doubt. Boyd carried the ball 62.5% of the time in these situations.

There could be obvious reasons for this disparity. Boyd has improved as a runner and he’s closer to the line of scrimmage, minimizing the chance for a negative play. There’s less chance of a bad exchange and turnover. Perhaps Boyd is changing the play at the line depending on the alignment of the defense. 

On the other hand we aren’t talking about 3rd and 1 (or inches). We’re talking about 3rd and 2 and 3rd and 3. There’s a risk that the quarterback gets stuffed by a lineman that a running back could potentially avoid and the running back is moving forward at the snap while the quarterback is stationary.

This led me to wonder about how often (as a percentage of total carries) Ellington and Boyd carried the ball on third down. Naturally, one would think that Ellington’s percentage would go down from first, to second to third to fourth down. And already knowing that Boyd carried the ball a great deal on third down, I suspected his number would be relatively high. I had no idea of the disparity. Boyd carries the ball 4 times as much (as a percentage of carries) on third down as Ellington. The question is why? BoydEllington_ThirdDownRushes –
My guess is Morris calls more plays for Boyd and Boyd changes a few based on the defense. If we are talking read option here, there hasn’t been much optioning.  One would think the defense would eventually force Boyd to give the ball up, which leads me to believe that most of these are not options, but designed runs (my eyes tell me that, too). 

We’ll never know how much of each of these has caused the diparity in numbers, but a couple of things are obvious to the average observer – Morris is more comfortable with Boyd carrying the ball in these situations and Boyd carries the ball more on third and 2 or 3 than everyone else combined (when game is in doubt), regardless of field position and game situation.

With the overall success on third downs, it’s hard to pick nits here. After all, as I pointed out earlier the Tigers are 4th of 120 teams in third down conversions. My intent here was not to criticize the play calling or suggest I know more than Morris about what call to make on third and 3 or what player to lean on when its third and 2 – obviously I don’t.

My intent is to point out what is likely to happen in the future given what has happened in similar situations in the past.

Other interesting discoveries:
• Clemson has run 5 plays from the opponents 3 on third and goal. 3 Boyd runs and 2 Boyd passes.
• No one else has carried the ball on 3rd and goal from the 3.
• Only 1 of the above 5 plays was successful – Boyd scored on a 3 yard run against South Carolina on 3rd and goal from the 3.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , ,

Tigers Dominant in Short Yardage

December 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Boyd Running

We’ve spent considerable time in this space documenting the success and failures of Clemson in short yardage situations over the years. From the Mad Scientist to Billy Napier and through the first year of Chad Morris the Tigers struggled when they needed a yard.

Some moron even suggested that short yardage was Morris’ kryptonite back in the summer. This moron stands corrected.

As documented below, Clemson was simply outstanding in short yardage situations in 2012. In 12 games, over 35 chances only 5 times did the Tigers fail on third or 4th and 1 (including goal to go situations).

Against good defenses (Florida State, South Carolina) and bad (Duke, Wake Forest and N.C. State) the Tigers were successful in short yardage situations.


Short Yardage 12 –

In 9 games Clemson fail didn’t fail in these situations even once. They failed twice in two games and won those (Virginia Tech and Boston College). They failed once against Maryland and won comfortably. The difference? Tajh Boyd carrying the ball. Boyd was successful on 15 of 16 rushes in short yardage situations (93.8%). Boyd was successful on all 5 attempts in similar situations last season, but in 2012 Boyd has 3 times as many attempts in 2 less games. Short Yardage Summary –

Somewhere along the line Morris decided to trust Boyd with the ball more in short yardage situations and Clemson has been rewarded with significant improvement in an area that has been a multiple year sore spot with Clemson fans that created questions on everything from training tables to strength and conditioning coaches.

As the video below shows, Boyd has been lethel on 3rd in short. Clemson led Maryland 14-0 near the end of the first quarter when Boyd picks up a first down after being hit at the line and bouncing off a tackler. On the very next play, Boyd fires a 28 yard scoring pass to Nuk Hopkins.

A year does not a trend make, especially when recent failure stretches over multiple seasons, but it is a welcomed step in the right direction.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , ,

Looking Back – Game 12

November 25, 2012 by 1 Comment
OrangeandWhite.com

Thoughts mostly collected while waiting for Clemson to get the ball in the 3rd quarter of Saturday’s game (and a few post game thoughts, too).

  • As anticipated, Clemson was stifled by South Carolina’s ball control offense and inability of the defense to get off the field on third down.
  •  27% of Clemson’s plays from scrimmage came on 1 drive.
  • Clemson’s possessions consisted of 3, 16, 2, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, and 3 play “drives”.
  • I love Jaron Brown, he’s one of my favorite players and he made a couple of nice catches.  Not sure why he seemed to be a focal point of the passing game from the first drive.
  • Not sure what to say about the defensive backfield that hasn’t already been said.  Lack of talent and injuries is not a good combination.  To add insult to injury, the few times the coverage was good a flag flew.
  • The kickoff and punt game (not just the coverage) need to improve markedly in 2013.
  • Tig Willard was all over the place early.
  • Clemson never appeared in sync, especially Tajh Boyd.   Boyd’s first pass of the game sailed over the head of Sammy Watkins.  On the second drive Boyd threw one too tall for Hopkins that got him upended.
  • The running game appeared surprisingly strong.  Why it wasn’t used more in the first half, considering Boyd’s issues above, is mystifying.
  • Twice Clemson got the ball with a 14-10 lead in the second quarter and reached at least midfield.  I thought the Boyd interception by Devonte Hollomon on a pass thrown up for grabs could have been a game changer.  If the Tigers score there they go up 17-10 or 21-10 at the half.  Different game at that point.
  • This was not a shining moment for Chad Morris.  Like the rest of the free world, wondering why one of the most inventive OCs in college football dials up a quarterback keeper on 3rd and 9 from the South Carolina 45 early in the 2nd quarter and then punts the ball away.  So Rob Spence-like.
Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , , , ,

Keep An Eye On…

November 23, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Chad Morris

The number of plays Clemson’s offense runs.  Obviously, the more the better.  The Tigers are averaging 82 plays per game this season and it doesn’t take a rocket genius to see that when the offense is “on” it churns out plays, chunks of yards, scores and wins.

Chad Morris

Despite averaging 200 yards a game on the ground this is not a grind it out for four quarters offense.  The number of plays, and hence more opportunities for big plays, is paramount.

To further complicate this equation, look for Spurrier to employ a ball control offense in an attempt to limit the Tigers possessions.  Last season, in Columbia, the Tigers only ran 60 plays and were totally dominated.  Possessions are at a premium and the chances of the Tigers duplicating their 18 offensive possessions from the North Carolina State game is 0.  This further emphasises the importance of third down conversions, limiting turnovers and scoring touchdowns instead of field goals.

Run 60 plays again and the Tigers have no chance.  70 plays gives the Tigers a 50/50 chance.  Every play over 70 is crucial in my estimation and improves the Tigers odds of winning.

If the Tigers hit the magic Malzahn number of 80 that tells me one of two thing has happened and both are good for Clemson.  Either the game has turned into a “shootout” (both teams over 30) or the Tigers have a comfortable lead and the offense is clicking.

I’ll take either of those scenarios, if offered.

So, for the first time in my life when Saturday night rolls around I’ll be counting snaps.

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With:

Receiving Stats Through 5 Games

October 2, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Amid all the deserved hype of Nuk Hopkins incredible season, the solid workman-like production of Brandon Ford is being overlooked. Many, myself included, wondered about the drop-off from Mackey Award Winner Dewayne Allen to converted wide receiver Ford. Worry no more.

Five games into the 2012 season Ford has 18 catches for 213 yards (11.8 average), 4 touchdowns and a couple of circus catches. Extrapolate this out to 12 games and theoretically Ford could end up with 43 receptions, 511 yards and 9/10 touchdowns. And those are just Ford’s numbers. Sam Cooper caught a touchdown pass against Boston College and Stanton Seckinger has begun to contribute.

Who knows if Ford reaches those numbers because it’s likely that Sammy Watkins is back in the lineup with some regularity over the next 7 games and there’s only one ball to go around.

But, if you’re a tight end on the Clemson roster or one considering Clemson, you have to like what you have seen of the Chad Morris offense over the last 1.5 seasons.


Receivers-Game 5 –

Filed Under: Clemson Football Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts