:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47637559/usa-today-8910415.0.jpg)
Bill Connelly invented all of this; check out his college football analytics blog, Football Study Hall.
But first, a few words about El Tractorcito
This game of the century of the week[1] was replete with narratives coming in, as this series has become among the country’s must-see games over the last several seasons. One of those narratives was a matchup of the SEC’s top running backs[2] — this year, perhaps the country’s two best backs — in Leonard Fournette and Derrick Henry. We covered what happened to Fournette yesterday, but today is all about Henry.
1 | Quit stealing my material, Verne.
2 | Healthy ones, anyway. How you rank these two and Nick Chubb is beyond me.
One of the frequent criticisms of Henry is his difficulty handling tacklers at the point of attack; a common occurrence this season is Henry being stuffed by a defender shortly after receiving the handoff. It’d happened 28 times coming in to the LSU game — about 16% of his carries on the season — and while a lot of that is on the offensive line, it’s possible in part to Henry’s upright running style and top-heavy build.
LSU managed to stop Henry for a loss or no gain just three times on Saturday, well below that 16% rate I mentioned earlier, and he absolutely gashed them on the other 35 carries. This guy is money when he hits the second level, and that’s never been clearer than on the Tide’s longest offensive play of the game, a 40 yard romp early in the second quarter:
Out of a Pistol look,[3] Henry cuts up between Alphonse Taylor and Dominick Jackson via a nice block by O.J. Howard to take the defensive end out of the play. Ryan Kelly moves big Kendell Beckwith — the only defender with a reasonable chance of stopping this — out of the way, and then Henry does the rest. Deceptive acceleration and two stiff-arms of Jamal Adams later, the Tide was set up on LSU 2 yard line — one more handoff to Henry made it a 10-0 game.
3 | Which was awesome this week, as we’ll cover in a minute.
These were 40 of the 210 yards Henry would eventually accrue on the evening, and a career day from Arkansas’ Brandon Allen is likely the only thing that kept him from SEC Offensive Player of the Week honors. This was so outstanding a performance that Henry, previously looking like an also-ran in the postseason hardware department, now appears to be in the driver’s seat for the Heisman Trophy, among other awards. The best part is he couldn’t care any less about that because he’s fully bought in to the Process, and is more concerned with the fact he fumbled late in the game against the Tigers, and also with preparation for Mississippi State. We’re going to miss this guy when he’s gone, folks.
- Air Yards — The down-the-field or vertical yardage gained on a pass play as a result of the quarterback’s throw (i.e., prior to the receiver’s involvement), as measured from the line of scrimmage. So for forward passes thrown behind the line of scrimmage, the Air Yardage would be negative. This metric is also tracked on incomplete passes — underthrown balls are measured from where the ball lands, and overthrown balls from where the intended receiver is. Balls tipped at the line or thrown away are not measured. The companion statistic on completed passes is yards after catch — the sum of Air Yards and yards after catch on a completed pass equals the yardage gained on the play.
- Catch Rate — The number of balls caught over the number of targets for an individual, or how often a receiver makes the catch when targeted.
- Disruptive Plays — A sum of sacks, stuffs (tackles for loss on a ballcarrier, as opposed to a QB on a pass play), blocked kicks/punts, passes defensed/broken up, interceptions, and forced fumbles. Think of these as things that got you multiple helmet stickers when you were playing peewee.
- Distance Splits — Aside from the quarterback performance chart (which is in terms of Air Yards), all distances refer to the yardage to go for that particular down, not how much yardage would be required for a successful play (see Success Rate).
- Percent of Total for Rushing and Passing Splits by Down — These numbers refer to the percentage of first down plays that were a rush, second down plays that were a pass, and so on, NOT the percentage of rushes that were on first down. For example, the sum of first down pass frequency and first down rush frequency will be 100%, but the sum of first, second, third, and fourth down rush frequencies will be well in excess of 100%.
- Garbage Time — Defined as when a game is not within 28 points in the first quarter, 24 points in the second quarter, 21 points in the third quarter, or 16 points in the fourth.
- Pass Direction — One the quarterback performance chart, the pass directions (left, middle, right) refer to the third of the field the ball was thrown to, as defined by the hash marks, relative to the direction the offense is moving (i.e., from the quarterback's perspective). 'Left' throws are to the leftmost third, 'middle' throws are to the area between the hashes, and so on.
- Run Directions — See the figure below. Defensive letter gap terminology is on the top in blue, and offensive hole terminology is on the bottom in green. Rushes are coded as 'Left Tackle' if they head through the left B and C gaps / the 3 and 5 holes, and so on.
- Success Rate — A 'successful' play is defined as gaining 50% of required yardage on first down, 70% of required yardage on second down, and all of the required yardage on third and fourth downs — required yardage is another term for the distance required for a first down on a given play. Success rate is simply how often a team is successful.
- Target — The intended receiver on a pass play. All pass plays have intended receivers, with the exception of passes that were tipped at the line, thrown away, or otherwise thrown in such a manner as to render identification of an intended receiver impossible.
- YAC — Passing Yards After Catch, the amount of yardage gained by the receiver after catching a pass. YAC + Air Yards = Passing Yards.
- iPPP — Isolated Points Per Play, the amount of Net Equivalent Points gained per successful play. This is the best explosiveness metric the advanced stats community currently has; read more about it here.
- Line Yards — The number of rushing yards on every run attributable to the offensive line’s efforts. Read more about it here.
- Highlight Yards — The number of rushing yards on every run attributable to the running back’s efforts. Line Yards + Highlight Yards = Rushing Yards. Read more about it here.
- Opportunity Rate — The percentage of carries where the back has an opportunity to accrue Highlight Yards; read more about it here.
- Running Back Rating (RBR) — An overall quality metric for running backs, this is the product of Opportunity Rate and Highlight Yards per Opportunity.
Overall Offensive Performance
| Quarter Breakdown | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | ||||
| VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| Plays | 20 | 173 | 20 | 161 | 22 | 130 | 12 | 86 |
| S. Rate | 40.0% | 45.7% | 30.0% | 42.9% | 50.0% | 42.3% | 66.7% | 43.0% |
| iPPP | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| Pass % | 40.0% | 44.1% | 38.9% | 53.8% | 28.6% | 43.3% | 16.7% | 43.4% |
| P. S. Rate | 50.0% | 45.3% | 28.6% | 40.5% | 66.7% | 43.6% | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| P. iPPP | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 |
| Rush % | 60.0% | 55.9% | 61.1% | 46.2% | 71.4% | 56.7% | 83.3% | 56.6% |
| R. S. Rate | 33.3% | 47.4% | 36.4% | 48.6% | 46.7% | 43.1% | 70.0% | 53.2% |
| R. iPPP | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 1.0 |
Observations
This game was over by the fourth quarter, until that fumble by Henry allowed LSU to score a touchdown early in the quarter and pull the margin back under 16. The ensuing possession from the Tide chewed up 9:18 off the clock — a slow, smothering, exclamation point of a drive that harkened back to the way the 2009 Tide would end hopes and dreams through ruthless efficiency. The best part of this chart to me is the rushing success rate progression, which increased by the quarter as the LSU defense got more and more worn out. The encouraging part about that is the rush/pass split became more and more slanted toward the run in tandem with the increase in success rate, which I hope means a certain dashing offensive coordinator is starting to figure this team out. I’d like to direct you to something I wrote at the end of last season:
Just to sum that up: the last two Tide OCs in their first years on the job failed to run when they should have in a critical spot, losing the game and opportunities for national titles. They both clearly learned from that. And then they brought national titles. I’m just sayin’.
Might this have been the game where it finally clicked for Kiffin? I guess we’ll find out.
| Formation / Playcall Breakdown | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Call | Plays | Percent of Total | Success Rate | iPPP | |||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| Shotgun | 39 | 52.7% | 54.5% | 30.8% | 43.0% | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Pistol | 16 | 21.6% | 24.7% | 50.0% | 44.1% | 1.3 | 1.0 |
| Under Center | 19 | 25.7% | 20.7% | 68.4% | 44.7% | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| No Huddle | 38 | 51.4% | 62.4% | 34.2% | 43.7% | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Huddled | 36 | 48.6% | 37.6% | 55.6% | 43.5% | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| Play Action | 9 | 12.2% | 12.9% | 33.3% | 45.1% | 1.5 | 1.9 |
Observations
This may be the only game left this year where you see such a close split between Huddled and No Huddle plays, as the Tide was in full ball control mode for most of this one. Generally it doesn’t matter for the Tide in terms of success rate, with a slight edge to Huddled plays in terms of explosiveness, but Huddled was the ticket in this one with a solid 0.9 iPPP and a success rate of nearly 56%. Pistol looks were frighteningly effective, with an iPPP of 1.3 on 16 plays at a 50% rate of success. Sets with Jake Coker under center were a bit more successful but barely over half as explosive as Pistol looks, whereas Shotgun was a bit of a dog with a decent iPPP but low, low success rate. Play action passes were back in the repertoire this week, with LSU unable to replicate the pass rush of Texas A&M or the secondary play of The Viles.
| Personnel Breakdown | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Plays | Percent of Total | Success Rate | iPPP | |||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| 11 | 34 | 45.9% | 43.1% | 26.5% | 39.4% | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 10 | 16 | 21.6% | 24.3% | 43.8% | 45.9% | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| 12 | 11 | 14.9% | 15.3% | 63.6% | 45.2% | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| 21 | 5 | 6.8% | 6.8% | 60.0% | 48.6% | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 23 | 3 | 4.1% | 1.1% | 100.0% | 83.3% | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Observations
We’re at the point in the season where there aren’t too many surprises here. The Tide will operate out of mostly one-back sets, and they will be effective regardless of what the opponent does.[4] There were a few opportunities to use the heavier sets this week, with 32 and 23 personnel producing a 100% success rate across five plays. When the Tide load up the line of scrimmage with extra beef — including a few cameos by A’Shawn Robinson, who’s apparently so dominant he has to be used on offense as well — it’s extremely tough to deal with for any defense, let alone LSU’s.
4 | gump gump gump gump gump roll tide
| Down and Distance Matrix | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distance | Metric | Down | |||||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | ||||||
| VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
||
| Short (0-3 Yds) |
|||||||||
| Plays | 2 | 8 | 3 | 22 | 4 | 27 | 2 | 6 | |
| S. Rate | 50.0% | 62.5% | 100.0% | 77.3% | 75.0% | 55.6% | 50.0% | 66.7% | |
| iPPP | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1.4 | |
| Medium (4-6 Yds) |
|||||||||
| Plays | 0 | 5 | 6 | 47 | 3 | 24 | 0 | 3 | |
| S. Rate | --- | 40.0% | 50.0% | 61.7% | 33.3% | 41.7% | --- | 33.3% | |
| iPPP | --- | 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 1.0 | --- | 0.9 | |
| Long (7-10 Yds) |
|||||||||
| Plays | 32 | 226 | 10 | 78 | 5 | 25 | 0 | 2 | |
| S. Rate | 46.9% | 45.6% | 20.0% | 37.2% | 60.0% | 28.0% | --- | 0.0% | |
| iPPP | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.4 | --- | --- | |
| Very Long (11+ Yds) |
|||||||||
| Plays | 1 | 13 | 3 | 34 | 3 | 29 | 0 | 0 | |
| S. Rate | 0.0% | 23.1% | 33.3% | 32.4% | 0.0% | 13.8% | --- | --- | |
| iPPP | --- | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.8 | --- | 1.3 | --- | --- | |
Observations
We’ll see in a minute that the main reason Henry had such a huge day is the Tigers’ defensive front seven got whipped by the Tide’s offensive line, and the best example of that is the top line in this chart. The Tide’s typically good for about a 65% success rate on short yardage plays, but went 8/11 this week, which is nearly 73%. The first miss was the busted jet sweep on a 4th and 1 in the first quarter where the timing between Coker, Kelly, and Calvin Ridley was off, but the other two were on early downs, and subsequently followed up with successful carries from Henry. It’s always nice to be able to pick up one or two yards when you really need them, and the Tide were more than up to that task on Saturday.
Third downs were better than usual this week, as the Tide’s 7/15 performance was a good 10% higher than their seasonal conversion rate. Of particular note were the three successful plays on third and longs, which consisted of twin 14 yard completions to Ridley and a 29 yard gallop from Henry that was the final nail in the coffin for the Tigers.
Offensive Line Performance
| Rush Splits by Down, Distance, and Direction | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | Attempts | Rush % | S. Rate | iPPP | LY/Att. | ||||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| All Carries | 46 | 67.6% | 53.4% | 47.8% | 47.8% | 1.0 | 0.9 | 3.6 | 3.2 |
| 1st Down | 27 | 77.1% | 58.1% | 40.7% | 41.2% | 1.1 | 0.9 | 3.5 | 3.0 |
| 2nd Down | 12 | 68.4% | 57.2% | 58.3% | 55.9% | 0.8 | 0.9 | 4.1 | 3.7 |
| 3rd Down | 6 | 40.0% | 36.9% | 50.0% | 45.9% | 0.9 | 0.7 | 3.2 | 3.0 |
| Short (0-3 Yds.) |
9 | 90.9% | 81.0% | 77.8% | 70.0% | 0.3 | 0.7 | 2.1 | 2.3 |
| Medium (4-6 Yds.) |
6 | 75.0% | 53.8% | 50.0% | 66.7% | 1.3 | 0.7 | 4.5 | 3.7 |
| Long (7-10 Yds.) |
29 | 66.7% | 51.6% | 41.4% | 43.4% | 1.3 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 3.5 |
| Very Long (11+ Yds.) |
2 | 28.6% | 37.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | --- | --- | 4.3 | 2.7 |
| Left End |
4 | 8.9% | 14.3% | 50.0% | 51.4% | 1.1 | 1.1 | 4.9 | 4.1 |
| Left Tackle |
6 | 13.3% | 12.4% | 50.0% | 46.9% | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
| Middle | 20 | 44.4% | 46.7% | 60.0% | 47.9% | 0.6 | 0.9 | 3.6 | 3.0 |
| Right Tackle |
10 | 22.2% | 13.5% | 20.0% | 31.4% | 2.9 | 0.9 | 3.1 | 2.9 |
| Right End |
5 | 11.1% | 13.1% | 60.0% | 52.9% | 1.0 | 0.8 | 4.5 | 3.6 |
Observations
As I mentioned yesterday, this chart probably had some errors in it going back as quarterback scrambles were included where they shouldn’t have been, but as quarterback rushing is not a huge part of the Tide’s offense this year it probably wasn’t apparent on the offensive side. Now and moving forward, the only plays reflected above will be designed runs, which are handoffs to skill players and intentional quarterback rushes like zone reads and draws.
Pick a direction, any direction. Didn’t matter, because the line blocked and opened up big holes for Henry and Kenyan Drake. In fact, the Tide notched at least one run in excess of 10 yards in each direction, which I think may be the only time this season that’s happened. The continual presence of defenders in the backfield that had characterized the Tide’s play over the last several weeks was nowhere to be found on Saturday, as the Tide line allowed just five negative plays amongst the 74[5] the Tide ran against the Tigers, about half of their rate on the season. Two of those were blown up on the edges, and in that respect not really on the offensive line.
5 | The 75th was a kneeldown, which along with spikes are never included in this analysis.
Saturday was probably the best we’ve seen this group play since the Wisconsin game, and you have to believe the bye week was a big part of that. The whole team, not just the line, looked fresher and more explosive than we’ve seen them since the start of the season. It’s almost like football is a physical, grueling sport or something.
Running Back Performance
| Advanced RB Splits | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | Attempts | Opp. Rate | Hlt. Yds. / Opp. | RBR | |||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| All Carries | 46 | 41.5% | 45.7% | 6.9 | 4.7 | 2.9 | 2.2 |
| 1st Down | 27 | 40.0% | 40.2% | 7.1 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 1.7 |
| 2nd Down | 12 | 60.0% | 57.1% | 4.0 | 5.0 | 2.4 | 2.9 |
| 3rd Down | 6 | 20.0% | 35.5% | 22.0 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 1.5 |
| Short (0-3 Yds.) |
9 | 20.0% | 42.4% | 2.0 | 6.6 | 0.4 | 2.8 |
| Medium (4-6 Yds.) |
6 | 50.0% | 56.4% | 6.3 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 1.5 |
| Long (7-10 Yds.) |
29 | 42.9% | 45.6% | 7.9 | 5.4 | 3.4 | 2.5 |
| Very Long (11+ Yds.) |
2 | 50.0% | 34.6% | 1.5 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Left End |
4 | 75.0% | 62.2% | 3.2 | 4.6 | 2.4 | 2.9 |
| Left Tackle |
6 | 33.3% | 32.3% | 11.8 | 10.4 | 3.9 | 3.3 |
| Middle | 20 | 43.8% | 44.4% | 3.9 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 2.0 |
| Right Tackle |
10 | 20.0% | 31.4% | 22.0 | 5.1 | 4.4 | 1.6 |
| Right End |
5 | 60.0% | 58.8% | 4.2 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 |
Observations
This is just nuts. Look at those RBRs! 1.7 is a pretty solid day based on what I’ve seen this season, and that was the lowest the Tide backs put up in any particular direction. LSU has some outstanding run defenders up the middle in Beckwith, Adams, Christian LaCouture and Davon Godchaux, and they kept opportunity rates fairly low between the tackles. They still allowed nearly 44% of the Tide’s carries up the middle to go for five yards or more, which is just stupid. The Tide backs did the most damage running behind Jackson and Cam Robinson, however, accruing nearly 17 Highlight Yards per opportunity on those attempts. This wasn’t quite the overwhelming dominance of the Wisconsin game, but it was as close as the Tide’s gotten all year.
| Individual RB Stats | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Atts. | S. Rate | Opp. Rate | HLT Yds. / Opp. |
RBR | LY/Att. | |||||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| Henry, Derrick | 37 | 51.4% | 47.2% | 42.4% | 46.4% | 5.7 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 3.3 |
| Drake, Kenyan | 8 | 37.5% | 48.3% | 37.5% | 46.7% | 12.3 | 3.2 | 4.6 | 1.5 | 4.1 | 3.1 |
Observations
As unbelievable as Henry was in this game, Drake was perhaps even more impressive. He looked… right for the first time all year, as the bye week was as kind to him as it was to the rest of the team. The speed and quickness were definitely there this week, as was a patience and control to his running that’s been absent for most of the year. There may have been something to that talk regarding the coaching staff telling Drake he needed to settle down and stop trying to score on every play, as this was easily Drake’s best performance of the season. Every carry he calmly waited for his blocking to develop before turning on the jets for big gains, providing the perfect complement to Henry’s bruising style. Hopefully this is a portent of things to come down the stretch, as excellent play from Drake is just one more problem opposing defenses have to deal with.
Oh, and before I forget, nice job with the ball security, sir. LSU was desperately trying to rip the ball out of Drake’s hands on his various touches throughout the evening, and they were never successful. For someone who started out as one of the country’s worst fumblers, it’s great to see the progress he’s made in that department.
Quarterback Performance
| Map of Quarterbacking Excellence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air Yards | Metric | Left | Middle | Right | Totals |
| 7 | 4 | 10 | 21 | ||
| Behind L.O.S |
|||||
| Comp. % | 4/4 (100.0%) | 3/3 (100.0%) | 2/2 (100.0%) | 9 | |
| S. Rate | 75.0% | 33.3% | 50.0% | ||
| iPPP | 1.0 | 2.9 | 1.1 | ||
| 0-5 Yards |
|||||
| Comp. % | 2/2 (100.0%) | 0/0 (---) | 2/3 (66.7%) | 5 | |
| S. Rate | 50.0% | --- | 66.7% | ||
| iPPP | 0.2 | --- | 1.0 | ||
| 6-10 Yards |
|||||
| Comp. % | 0/0 (---) | 1/1 (100.0%) | 0/0 (---) | 1 | |
| S. Rate | --- | 100.0% | --- | ||
| iPPP | --- | 0.4 | --- | ||
| 11-15 Yards |
|||||
| Comp. % | 0/1 (0.0%) | 0/0 (---) | 1/2 (50.0%) | 3 | |
| S. Rate | 0.0% | --- | 50.0% | ||
| iPPP | --- | --- | 1.3 | ||
| 16+ Yards | |||||
| Comp. % | 0/0 (---) | 0/0 (---) | 1/3 (33.3%) | 3 | |
| S. Rate | --- | --- | 33.3% | ||
| iPPP | --- | --- | 1.6 | ||
Observations
I brought up the 2009 team in the lead-in, and there’s more similarities there than you might think. Coker has a much, much stronger arm than Greg McElroy, but at this stage of the season that’s who he reminds me of the most. McElroy was the prototypical “game manager” quarterback that the media wants all Alabama quarterbacks to be, and while that label was incorrectly applied to A.J. McCarron and Blake Sims it’s a pretty accurate description of Coker at this point.
Most of his throws are going to be within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage, usually to either edge, with the occasional deep throw mixed in to keep the defense honest. You don’t need more than that with such a strong running game, and when you don’t ask too much of your quarterback, his opportunities to make critical mistakes go down accordingly. Coker, partly due to his own development but partly due to the ongoing education of Kiffin, is making less and less of those as the season wears on, which bodes well for the postseason.
| Incompletions Breakdown | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Count | Percent of Total | ||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
||
| Misfires | 3 | 13.0% | 14.8% | |
| Defensive Wins | 2 | 8.7% | 13.6% | |
| Drops | 1 | 4.3% | 4.8% | |
| Offensive Errors | 0 | 0.0% | 0.8% | |
| Penalties | 1 | 4.3% | 2.0% | |
Observations
Coker really only threw one bad ball all night — a four yard throw in the second quarter that was a sure touchdown, aside from the fact it was thrown several yards behind Ridley. Another misfire to ArDarius Stewart was a rushed throw that would have been a sack otherwise, and the third a bomb to Ridley that was a bit overthrown. One out of 21 ain’t bad, yall.
| Pass Splits by Down and Distance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | Attempts | Pass % | S. Rate | iPPP | |||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| All Passes | 23 | 32.4% | 46.6% | 47.8% | 41.6% | 1.1 | 1.4 |
| 1st | 8 | 22.9% | 41.9% | 62.5% | 51.0% | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| 2nd | 6 | 31.6% | 63.1% | 33.3% | 41.9% | 1.1 | 1.4 |
| 3rd | 9 | 60.0% | 42.8% | 44.4% | 29.2% | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| Short (0-3 Yds.) |
1 | 9.1% | 19.0% | 100.0% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 0.5 |
| Medium (4-6 Yds.) |
2 | 25.0% | 46.2% | 50.0% | 38.9% | 0.4 | 0.9 |
| Long (7-10 Yds.) |
15 | 33.3% | 48.4% | 53.3% | 42.6% | 1.3 | 1.5 |
| Very Long (11+ Yds.) |
5 | 71.4% | 62.2% | 20.0% | 39.1% | 1.1 | 1.7 |
Observations
Success rates on very long yardage and second downs were a bit low, but otherwise this was an above-average performance for Coker and the receivers. They were over 15 percent more successful on third downs, which is fantastic and hopefully a sign of things to come.[6]
6 | Noticing a trend yet? I’m pretty bullish on the Tide at this point.
Receiver Performance
| Individual WR Stats | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Targets | Catch Rate | YAC/Catch | Pts./Target | |||
| VS. LSU |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
VS. LSU |
2015 Season |
|
| Ridley, Calvin | 10 | 70.0% | 72.1% | 7.7 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Stewart, ArDarius | 4 | 50.0% | 51.9% | 7.0 | 5.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| Mullaney, Richard | 3 | 100.0% | 66.7% | 8.0 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Howard, O.J. | 2 | 100.0% | 78.8% | 1.5 | 5.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Drake, Kenyan | 2 | 100.0% | 80.0% | 16.5 | 15.3 | 1.6 | 1.0 |
Observations
Despite the low catch rate, this was another solid performance from Stewart. The drop was really, really bad, and I imagine it will be a “teachable moment” for the young receiver this week, but other than that Stewart was money again. As noted above, the only other non-catch was on a rushed throw from Coker, which Stewart was clearly turning back for and missed only because of the timing. He picked up 47 yards on his other three targets,[7] solid production that could be the “missing piece” for this offense in the absence of Robert Foster, as Gary Danielson correctly pointed out on the telecast.
7 | One was in garbage time, which is why it isn’t shown here.
That being said — um, get the ball to Drake, please? I don’t care that most of his “catches” are extended handoffs in the form of screens and jet sweeps, just get the ball in his hands. He’s the most explosive player on the Tide, and you can see his points per target numbers are ahead of Ridley and company. His YAC/catch is inflated because of the types of routes he runs of course, but he’s still providing more value than anybody else on the team whenever he touches the ball.
Ridley, Howard, and Richard Mullaney were their typical dependable selves, with Ridley providing the consistent, steady production throughout the game and Mullaney and Howard providing the tough, clutch catches. Much like Drake’s improvement with fumbling, Howard is a far cry from the drop machine he was at the beginning of 2014, and as a result is a go-to player on third downs. He picked up another this week, helping to melt LSU’s hopes away by extending the game’s final drive.