Defensive Stop Rate

#51
#51
@sjt18 since you believe I cherry picked by using 247 composite, which recruiting service do you believe would've had us ranked in the top half of the SEC in terms of DB talent?

Any? If I actually just picked the one who ranked our guys the worst, tell me which service I should've used and where they would have ranked us?

I'll wait.
 
#52
#52
When Banks was hired, I looked at his previous jobs and was encouraged. His teams generally improved year over year.
Unfortunately, there are moments in games. and whole games, too, where the defense looks completely ineffective.
You do realize that is true for EVERY defense in the nation including the best. Every defense has moments in games and even full games where they are ineffective. Every team in the playoff had those moments during the season. Ohio State did a number of times, Michigan did (in the playoffs) TCU did once they played real teams even Georgia's all-world defense did vs Kent State and Ohio State.

It's all about perspective and perception. When its your team, a bad performance is the end of the world and especially on these boards every single mistake in a game is agonized over. When we get scored on it's because the defense sucks not because the other team did something wrong. Trust me the fanbase of every single team that played UT outside of Georgia and South Carolina thought their DC should be fired after the game. In most cases, it was not their defenses that sucked it was our scheme they weren't ready for.

People need to realize it's not all black and white. Sometimes you can call the right play and execute it perfectly and still fail. In my eyes, our defense struggled because of injuries (lack of consistent personnel is a death knell for a defense and secondarily they had to play a ton of series which was exacerbated by the injuries. The fact they played a ton of series is not something they can control.... the offense scored a TON. this is exactly why @Vol8188 is right on point to say look at points per drive. It's also an interesting stat for the offense because it kind of shows a picture a lot of people don't normally seem to see.

Last year UT was ranked 5th in NPD Net points per drive which is offensive-defensive points per drive. This is a measure of the whole team's efficiency. UT is ranked 7th in OPD which might surprise some but our offense is about the number of opportunities. We score a lot because we run a lot of plays and conversely our 37th-ranked DPD is affected by that same thing. No matter how much better I am than you or vice versa, given enough chances the weaker guy will still get some wins. The net SUM of the 2 puts us right where we deserved to be ranked end of the season.

ppd.jpg
note where TCU and LSU are ranked for giggles. Outside of those the final top 10(AP/Coaches) rankings of the season are very similar.




All these numbers are gotten from here. They remove garbage possessions as defined below BCF Toys - 2022 Points Per Drive

Unless otherwise noted, all ratings and supporting data are calculated only after first filtering out garbage possessions, defined as of February 2021, as follows:
  • An offensive possession of two plays or fewer that runs out the clock to conclude the first half, or that runs out the clock to conclude the second half with the score tied, and does not result in a turnover, score, or field goal attempt.
  • A possession in the second half of a game in which eight times the number of the losing team's remaining possessions plus one is less than the losing team's scoring deficit at the start of the possession.
  • An offensive possession of two plays or fewer by the losing team with a score deficit greater than eight points that runs out the clock to conclude the game.
  • An offensive possession or non-offensive scoring possession by the winning team leading by eight points or fewer at the start of the possession that runs out the clock to conclude the game.
From 2007 to 2022, 10.7 percent of all possessions have been classified as garbage possessions according to these criteria. FBS games have averaged 26.3 total game possessions and 23.5 non-garbage possessions per game in that span.
 
#53
#53
You do realize that is true for EVERY defense in the nation including the best. Every defense has moments in games and even full games where they are ineffective. Every team in the playoff had those moments during the season. Ohio State did a number of times, Michigan did (in the playoffs) TCU did once they played real teams even Georgia's all-world defense did vs Kent State and Ohio State.

It's all about perspective and perception. When its your team, a bad performance is the end of the world and especially on these boards every single mistake in a game is agonized over. When we get scored on it's because the defense sucks not because the other team did something wrong. Trust me the fanbase of every single team that played UT outside of Georgia and South Carolina thought their DC should be fired after the game. In most cases, it was not their defenses that sucked it was our scheme they weren't ready for.

People need to realize it's not all black and white. Sometimes you can call the right play and execute it perfectly and still fail. In my eyes, our defense struggled because of injuries (lack of consistent personnel is a death knell for a defense and secondarily they had to play a ton of series which was exacerbated by the injuries. The fact they played a ton of series is not something they can control.... the offense scored a TON. this is exactly why @Vol8188 is right on point to say look at points per drive. It's also an interesting stat for the offense because it kind of shows a picture a lot of people don't normally seem to see.

Last year UT was ranked 5th in NPD Net points per drive which is offensive-defensive points per drive. This is a measure of the whole team's efficiency. UT is ranked 7th in OPD which might surprise some but our offense is about the number of opportunities. We score a lot because we run a lot of plays and conversely our 37th-ranked DPD is affected by that same thing. No matter how much better I am than you or vice versa, given enough chances the weaker guy will still get some wins. The net SUM of the 2 puts us right where we deserved to be ranked end of the season.

View attachment 542603
note where TCU and LSU are ranked for giggles. Outside of those the final top 10(AP/Coaches) rankings of the season are very similar.




All these numbers are gotten from here. They remove garbage possessions as defined below BCF Toys - 2022 Points Per Drive

Unless otherwise noted, all ratings and supporting data are calculated only after first filtering out garbage possessions, defined as of February 2021, as follows:
  • An offensive possession of two plays or fewer that runs out the clock to conclude the first half, or that runs out the clock to conclude the second half with the score tied, and does not result in a turnover, score, or field goal attempt.
  • A possession in the second half of a game in which eight times the number of the losing team's remaining possessions plus one is less than the losing team's scoring deficit at the start of the possession.
  • An offensive possession of two plays or fewer by the losing team with a score deficit greater than eight points that runs out the clock to conclude the game.
  • An offensive possession or non-offensive scoring possession by the winning team leading by eight points or fewer at the start of the possession that runs out the clock to conclude the game.
From 2007 to 2022, 10.7 percent of all possessions have been classified as garbage possessions according to these criteria. FBS games have averaged 26.3 total game possessions and 23.5 non-garbage possessions per game in that span.

THIS.......👏👏👏👏
 
#54
#54
At Tuesdays Press Conference, like clockwork, the media asked Coach Banks about stats.

He mentioned, as usually, he knows the stats, but the only stat that he really focuses on is "stop rate". He said that his goal is to find a way to stop the other team from scoring and getting off the field so that the offense can get on the field and score because in football, that's how you win games.

We are #23 in the country in stop rate for 2022. For perspective, Michigan #3, Penn State #5, Georgia #8, Ohio State #11 and Alabama #18. All of these programs have talent, depth and experience on D that we don't have, yet we were just as effective in stop rate.

In 2021, we were #86 in stop rate. We improved and moved 63 spots in one year and there are only 5 or 6 defenses in the country that improved more.

We are heading in the right direction on D.
As you appear to be relatively new here, let me give you a word of advice. Don't waste your time arguing with sjt18. After several years of my observation, he appears to have an endless amount of time to devote to talking message board opponents in circles, it's like litigating against Disney or some other trillion dollar corporation. He will paper you to death, you can spend all day on here arguing with him and really not get anywhere. Just move on. LOL.
 
#55
#55
THIS.......👏👏👏👏
Did you look at the numbers? Even just considering averages and not game particulars... it shows the O carrying the D.
@sjt18 since you believe I cherry picked by using 247 composite, which recruiting service do you believe would've had us ranked in the top half of the SEC in terms of DB talent?
So your challenge is that I accept your false premise first? No thanks.

You cherry picked in two ways. One, you chose a recruiting site that had numbers that supported your claim. Two, you picked a "metric" that you could use that may or may not be reflect true talent. You had a conclusion and went looking for support. No shame in admitting that. But instead you want me to give you a "win" so that you don't have to admit that your "proof" isn't the ironclad case you and others keep pretending it is.

Any? If I actually just picked the one who ranked our guys the worst, tell me which service I should've used and where they would have ranked us?

I'll wait.
No need to wait. Go back through and eliminate the 4/5* non-contributors. Then take maybe the 2 deep from each team and objectively rate them in terms of what they've done and how they've developed as college players. If you are going to make a "talent" claim then going back to a subjective rating applied to them in HS is not sufficient proof.
 
#56
#56
Did you look at the numbers? Even just considering averages and not game particulars... it shows the O carrying the D.
So your challenge is that I accept your false premise first? No thanks.

You cherry picked in two ways. One, you chose a recruiting site that had numbers that supported your claim. Two, you picked a "metric" that you could use that may or may not be reflect true talent. You had a conclusion and went looking for support. No shame in admitting that. But instead you want me to give you a "win" so that you don't have to admit that your "proof" isn't the ironclad case you and others keep pretending it is.


No need to wait. Go back through and eliminate the 4/5* non-contributors. Then take maybe the 2 deep from each team and objectively rate them in terms of what they've done and how they've developed as college players. If you are going to make a "talent" claim then going back to a subjective rating applied to them in HS is not sufficient proof.


Which recruiting site does not support my claim? Did any of them have us in the top half of the SEC? Which one?

You're the one making this claim. That I intentionally used the recruiting site that had us ranked the worst. Show your work. Which site would have had our DBs ranked significantly higher?

It's not about giving me a win at all. It's about you admitting that you're just completely lying here. You've falsely accused me of something and refuse to back up your claim.

If I intentionally picked the site that ranked us lowest, which site would you have used? Do you believe ESPN or rivals to be better?

My argument has never been that recruiting rankings are a perfect assessment of talent. Such a thing does not exist. Ten of the best defensive coaches in history and ten of the best defensive scouts in history will all have a different opinion on who has the most talent. I'm in no way claiming it's a perfect metric. Just like if I said "we lead the league in points", I'm not proclaiming "total points scored is the best indicator of offensive success". Rather I'm making a statement that based on a composite ranking (an average of all recruiting services) our DBs were 2nd to last in talent. Idk how you can be too ignorant to understand that. You keep trying to redirect the conversation to the value of recruiting rankings, that's a different topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AllThingsTN
#57
#57
You do realize that is true for EVERY defense in the nation including the best. Every defense has moments in games and even full games where they are ineffective. Every team in the playoff had those moments during the season. Ohio State did a number of times, Michigan did (in the playoffs) TCU did once they played real teams even Georgia's all-world defense did vs Kent State and Ohio State.

It's all about perspective and perception. When its your team, a bad performance is the end of the world and especially on these boards every single mistake in a game is agonized over. When we get scored on it's because the defense sucks not because the other team did something wrong. Trust me the fanbase of every single team that played UT outside of Georgia and South Carolina thought their DC should be fired after the game. In most cases, it was not their defenses that sucked it was our scheme they weren't ready for.

People need to realize it's not all black and white. Sometimes you can call the right play and execute it perfectly and still fail. In my eyes, our defense struggled because of injuries (lack of consistent personnel is a death knell for a defense and secondarily they had to play a ton of series which was exacerbated by the injuries. The fact they played a ton of series is not something they can control.... the offense scored a TON. this is exactly why @Vol8188 is right on point to say look at points per drive. It's also an interesting stat for the offense because it kind of shows a picture a lot of people don't normally seem to see.

Last year UT was ranked 5th in NPD Net points per drive which is offensive-defensive points per drive. This is a measure of the whole team's efficiency. UT is ranked 7th in OPD which might surprise some but our offense is about the number of opportunities. We score a lot because we run a lot of plays and conversely our 37th-ranked DPD is affected by that same thing. No matter how much better I am than you or vice versa, given enough chances the weaker guy will still get some wins. The net SUM of the 2 puts us right where we deserved to be ranked end of the season.

View attachment 542603
note where TCU and LSU are ranked for giggles. Outside of those the final top 10(AP/Coaches) rankings of the season are very similar.




All these numbers are gotten from here. They remove garbage possessions as defined below BCF Toys - 2022 Points Per Drive

Unless otherwise noted, all ratings and supporting data are calculated only after first filtering out garbage possessions, defined as of February 2021, as follows:
  • An offensive possession of two plays or fewer that runs out the clock to conclude the first half, or that runs out the clock to conclude the second half with the score tied, and does not result in a turnover, score, or field goal attempt.
  • A possession in the second half of a game in which eight times the number of the losing team's remaining possessions plus one is less than the losing team's scoring deficit at the start of the possession.
  • An offensive possession of two plays or fewer by the losing team with a score deficit greater than eight points that runs out the clock to conclude the game.
  • An offensive possession or non-offensive scoring possession by the winning team leading by eight points or fewer at the start of the possession that runs out the clock to conclude the game.
From 2007 to 2022, 10.7 percent of all possessions have been classified as garbage possessions according to these criteria. FBS games have averaged 26.3 total game possessions and 23.5 non-garbage possessions per game in that span.
The problem with this is what I've pointed out a few times already. Banks' averages aren't the problem. It is the games where he inexplicably collapses. Purdue... UK last year... USCe this year...

Ironically if I read your info right... some of his worst games like USCe would include "garbage time" scores by the opponent that wouldn't be counted.

Also, UT doesn't score a lot because they run a lot of plays. They run a lot of plays per minute... but not per game. The Vols were 5th in the SEC and 32nd nationally in plays.
 
#58
#58
The problem with this is what I've pointed out a few times already. Banks' averages aren't the problem. It is the games where he inexplicably collapses. Purdue... UK last year... USCe this year...

Ironically if I read your info right... some of his worst games like USCe would include "garbage time" scores by the opponent that wouldn't be counted.

Also, UT doesn't score a lot because they run a lot of plays. They run a lot of plays per minute... but not per game. The Vols were 5th in the SEC and 32nd nationally in plays.

Ooooo, you mean "cherry picking".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllThingsTN
#59
#59
The problem with this is what I've pointed out a few times already. Banks' averages aren't the problem. It is the games where he inexplicably collapses. Purdue... UK last year... USCe this year...

Ironically if I read your info right... some of his worst games like USCe would include "garbage time" scores by the opponent that wouldn't be counted.

Also, UT doesn't score a lot because they run a lot of plays. They run a lot of plays per minute... but not per game. The Vols were 5th in the SEC and 32nd nationally in plays.

Ooooo, you mean "cherry picking".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllThingsTN
#62
#62
Which recruiting site does not support my claim? Did any of them have us in the top half of the SEC? Which one?
Which recruiting site is THE perfectly accurate predictor of talent and particularly the difference between a 4* and a high 3*? You CAN give up on this point. I'm NOT going to accept your false premise. I will offer this to show it false though. I believe it was Mizzou that had about five 4* DBs. But 3 of them didn't get meaningful playing time. Their best two players were 3*. So what does pointing to them having more "4*" than UT prove? Nothing. Not a single thing.

You're the one making this claim.
Well, no. I have not made the claim that UT's secondary was 13th in talent or anything else. That was you. And you picked a subjective evaluation of talent by journalists of players when they were in HS as your "proof".
That I intentionally used the recruiting site that had us ranked the worst. Show your work. Which site would have had our DBs ranked significantly higher?
You intentionally used a metric that showed UT ranked only better than Vandy in your effort to prove it was OK for Banks to allow other teams to run over UT's D.

It's not about giving me a win at all. It's about you admitting that you're just completely lying here. You've falsely accused me of something and refuse to back up your claim.
Not lying. You wanted to claim that UT lacked talent in the secondary. You chose a source that would prove your point. I have no interest in accepting your false premise and then putting in 30 minutes to a couple of hours looking through all of the recruiting sites to see if one scores UT's DBs higher than the others. Honestly just a waste of time and especially when you won't even admit that you did something that is actually justifiable... just not as solid as you are pretending.

My argument has never been that recruiting rankings are a perfect assessment of talent. Such a thing does not exist.
Yet that was THE basis for your claim that UT did not have talent in the secondary.

Rather I'm making a statement that based on a composite ranking (an average of all recruiting services) our DBs were 2nd to last in talent. Idk how you can be too ignorant to understand that.
LOL... and you probably don't see how you just completely and totally contradicted yourself within just a few lines... Oh, but it is my "ignorance" that prevents me from "understanding". Yes. I am too "ignorant" to understand that recruiting rankings can at once NOT be "perfect assessments of talent" and at the same time PROVE that UT's DBs were 2nd to last in talent.
 
#64
#64
Obviously, yes. If you score a TD 100% of the time, that is elite. Not sure what you're getting at here.
Efficient, yes but 28 points doesn't sound very elite. But that's perfect world. Idk where to find the specific stats buy I'd guess 80% is probably closer to to top end of percentages. So if they had 5 drives and scored on 4 would that be elite or would you need more information? How many passing yards did they have? How many rushing? Are they 1 dimensional. You can say yards don't matter but they do. They may not be everything but they do indicate whether something is a strength or weakness and if you watch the film it verifies it
 
#65
#65
Which recruiting site is THE perfectly accurate predictor of talent and particularly the difference between a 4* and a high 3*? You CAN give up on this point. I'm NOT going to accept your false premise. I will offer this to show it false though. I believe it was Mizzou that had about five 4* DBs. But 3 of them didn't get meaningful playing time. Their best two players were 3*. So what does pointing to them having more "4*" than UT prove? Nothing. Not a single thing.

Well, no. I have not made the claim that UT's secondary was 13th in talent or anything else. That was you. And you picked a subjective evaluation of talent by journalists of players when they were in HS as your "proof". You intentionally used a metric that showed UT ranked only better than Vandy in your effort to prove it was OK for Banks to allow other teams to run over UT's D.

Not lying. You wanted to claim that UT lacked talent in the secondary. You chose a source that would prove your point. I have no interest in accepting your false premise and then putting in 30 minutes to a couple of hours looking through all of the recruiting sites to see if one scores UT's DBs higher than the others. Honestly just a waste of time and especially when you won't even admit that you did something that is actually justifiable... just not as solid as you are pretending.

Yet that was THE basis for your claim that UT did not have talent in the secondary.

LOL... and you probably don't see how you just completely and totally contradicted yourself within just a few lines... Oh, but it is my "ignorance" that prevents me from "understanding". Yes. I am too "ignorant" to understand that recruiting rankings can at once NOT be "perfect assessments of talent" and at the same time PROVE that UT's DBs were 2nd to last in talent.

In no way is that my premise nor has it ever been. There is no perfect predictor of talent. Even the best scouts/coaches cannot perfectly predict such things. But recruiting services are a measure and composite rankings caption the over industry's opinion so it's a fair starting point.

It proves we've been out recruited during the cornbread years by some of the lowest in the SEC and that we lack upper level SEC talent, especially in our secondary.

Do you get off to making up arguments for others? 90% of this garbage you've written, I've never stated. "It was ok for Banks to allow other teams to run over UT's D", not a thing I've said.

We obviously lacked talent in the secondary. I don't even think that's debatable. Our secondary was really, really bad.

At no point have I ever pretended it was solid.

How have I contradicted myself at all? Based on 247 composite rankings we were 2nd to last in DB talent, and yet those rankings are not perfect. Just like Nick Saban's rankings wouldn't be perfect or those of any other coach, scout or recruiting service.

You're just beating the same straw man to death and pretending you've made a valid point. Recruiting rankings are not perfect. No metric is a perfect indicator of team talent. No even NFL draft picks because NFL scouts all the time miss. Yet this (247 composite rankings) is one indicator of talent and according that indicator we are really far behind the rest of the league.
 
#66
#66
Efficient, yes but 28 points doesn't sound very elite. But that's perfect world. Idk where to find the specific stats buy I'd guess 80% is probably closer to to top end of percentages. So if they had 5 drives and scored on 4 would that be elite or would you need more information? How many passing yards did they have? How many rushing? Are they 1 dimensional. You can say yards don't matter but they do. They may not be everything but they do indicate whether something is a strength or weakness and if you watch the film it verifies it

You can only score if you have the ball. But if you score everytime you have the ball that's obviously elite. It also helps account for pace of play. For example if you were an option team and you decided to bleed the clock on every play down to 1 second, you could possibly only get a handful of possessions a game. But if you score every time you have the ball, that's elite for sure.

Yes 4/5 would still be elite. Who cares how many yards you have or if you're "1 dimensional"? If we scored by passing every time or rushing every time why would that matter?

Yards per play matter for sure. Yards themselves no because it's a stat that is skewed by pace of play.
 
#68
#68
@sjt18 since you believe I cherry picked by using 247 composite, which recruiting service do you believe would've had us ranked in the top half of the SEC in terms of DB talent?

Any? If I actually just picked the one who ranked our guys the worst, tell me which service I should've used and where they would have ranked us?

I'll wait.
I like cherries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#69
#69
You can only score if you have the ball. But if you score everytime you have the ball that's obviously elite. It also helps account for pace of play. For example if you were an option team and you decided to bleed the clock on every play down to 1 second, you could possibly only get a handful of possessions a game. But if you score every time you have the ball, that's elite for sure.

Yes 4/5 would still be elite. Who cares how many yards you have or if you're "1 dimensional"? If we scored by passing every time or rushing every time why would that matter?

Yards per play matter for sure. Yards themselves no because it's a stat that is skewed by pace of play.
I'd say a defense would care if you were 1 dimensional. If they can shut down the triple option or sell out for the run and force you to pass, it'll be a long day. And vice versa, if a defense has a good front 6/7 and a weak secondary, teams will attack the secondary, hence where indicators from yardage come in.
 
#70
#70
I'd say a defense would care if you were 1 dimensional. If they can shut down the triple option or sell out for the run and force you to pass, it'll be a long day. And vice versa, if a defense has a good front 6/7 and a weak secondary, teams will attack the secondary, hence where indicators from yardage come in.

Points per drive factors everything in you just mentioned. If defenses were shutting you down it would be reflected there.
 
#72
#72
Points per drive factors everything in you just mentioned. If defenses were shutting you down it would be reflected there.
Doesn't mean 1 or 2 teams can't take advantage of what others let you get away with. The game isn't played on paper.
 
#73
#73
Doesn't mean 1 or 2 teams can't take advantage of what others let you get away with. The game isn't played on paper.

I'm not arguing it is. Even in that one game your success or lack of success offensively would still be most accurately displayed by your points per drive.

It's as simple as asking what's the objective offensively? To score. So why would we care about rushing or passing yards (granted our team is amazing at both)?

I would agree that balance (in ability, not necessarily attempts) is useful and nice. But if you had the right guys could you still be the best offense of all time running 100% of the time or passing 100% of the time? Absolutely. Is it likely? No.
 
#74
#74
I'm not arguing it is. Even in that one game your success or lack of success offensively would still be most accurately displayed by your points per drive.

It's as simple as asking what's the objective offensively? To score. So why would we care about rushing or passing yards (granted our team is amazing at both)?

I would agree that balance (in ability, not necessarily attempts) is useful and nice. But if you had the right guys could you still be the best offense of all time running 100% of the time or passing 100% of the time? Absolutely. Is it likely? No.
All I'm saying is there are no statistics that are going to make me think our secondary play was remotely good. The defense was carried by the DL/LBs.
 

VN Store



Back
Top