Offseason Stat Crunch: Life After VY
Much has been made of Texas' defensive woes last season - particulary with defending the pass - but I hadn't sat down with the final offensive numbers since the season ended to compare the dropoff from 2005.
As great a freshman debut as McCoy had, the 2006 Texas Longhorn offense was a pop warner version of the Vince Young-led attack. You already knew that, but you'd be surprised how big the dropoff is when you see the actual numbers. I know I was.
The following chart sets the 2005 and 2006 offenses next to one another, as well as the percent difference between the two. The McCoy-led Longhorns were not even in the same stratosphere as the historic 2005 group:

The glaring numbers, of course, are in the rushing game, where Vince helped '05 Texas gain 1,460 more yards on 1.5 yards more per carry, with as astounding 31 more touchdowns. It's not like VY and Texas were scoring so many rushing touchdowns because the passing game was broken, either. Texas had more passing yards (on more yards per attempt and per catch) in 2005 than the 2006 team. During his senior season, Vince Young took his passing critics behind the shed, beat them lifeless, burned the remains, and scattered the ashes over Merril Hoge's front lawn.
Don't forget, too, that Texas was up so big, so often in 2005, that most of these numbers were accumulated in three quarters of a game.
All things considered, Texas did pretty well for itself last season. The Longhorns combined a small step backwards on defense with a gigantic step backwards in offense and still were one quarterback injury away from winning the Big 12 and making a BCS Bowl.
There's little reason to expect the 2007 Longhorns (or any future Texas team) to match the 2005 production, but there's also good reason to expect some improvement. McCoy has blown up the standard learning curve and proven himself ready to direct a highly-efficient pass-oriented attack. The running game, a relative disappointment in 2006 (especially compared to 2005), is no lock to improve with three new starters on the line, but there's a good argument to be made that Texas will be able to run off of their passing prowess better than they did last season.
The one thing that we learned last season and should have at the forefront of our minds in 2007 is that this team will likely go only as far as Colt McCoy takes it. Another injury to McCoy would be a gigantic setback to the offense. The good news? If Colt stays healthy, we may see one of the best Texas offenses (mortals division) since Mack Brown arrived in Austin.
--PB--
0 recs |
18 comments
Comments
The numbers seem to indicate...
the same debate we were having before. Why was our running game so ineffective? Obviously, Colt and the WR crew wasn't the problem (as evidenced by the increased TD:INT ratio, first downs via pass, and completion %). The decrease in yards per catch and passing yards per game seem minimal; it's the yards per carry and rushing yards per game that are troublesome. As you pointed out, some of that is attributed to VY, but we all agreed that last year Charles and Selvin were disappointing at best.
We'll see if Mack and GD can identify the problem: was it the pro-style offense that didn't rush as effectively because Colt wasn't a threat, or was Charles just the beneficiary of a fantastic o-line and the threat of VY?
In an earlier thread, I gave my opinion that Charles will have a fantastic junior season, and I'm sticking to that story.
by jc25 on May 3, 2007 2:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A small factor
was that VY was better at the pitchout than CM. Not only did he make the QB run a viable option, he also executed the pitch itself much better.
by Caradoc on May 3, 2007 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clock Rules
Not to in any way dimish the results b/c last year's offense was clearly worse than 2005's version, but the asinine modified kickoff clock rules didn't do the offense any favors either as it reduced the total number of plays.
On the flip side, the fewer number of plays works to show really how awful the defense was. Imagine if they had to defend more plays last year -- yikes.
by tx salamander on May 3, 2007 3:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point about the clock rules...
Maybe the numbers PB did could be adjusted by the increase/decrease nationwide to adjust for the failed clock rules experiment.
by bellhalla on May 3, 2007 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what was the average decrease in offense....
across the NCAA with the clock changes?
I'm too lazy to look it up....
by cortexas on May 3, 2007 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Averages
That's why I included all the per-play averages. The counting stats were affected to some degree by the clock rules, but not the rate stats. Our per-play averages dipped by significantly, which the clock rule wouldn't affect.
by Peter Bean on May 3, 2007 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know what improves a "per-play" average?
an 80 yard run.
by bamfor on May 3, 2007 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the myth of Vince
I'd like to see the same comparison with 2004 vs. 2005.
Vince didn't walk on water until his Jr. year.
by cortexas on May 3, 2007 10:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
second half of his sophomore year
by billyzane on May 3, 2007 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2005 was an anomaly
Vince Young won that National Championship and his talents skewed the statistics for 2005.
When you compare 2004 to 2006, they are quite similar, though you do have to adjust for Cedric Benson.
Points/Game; 35.25 vs. 35.9
1st Downs; 284 vs. 284
Tot.Offense: 5573 vs. 5089
Yds./Play: 6.3 vs. 6.0
by HornChamps on May 3, 2007 11:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
actually, not that surprising, considering that
Out of our last six games (including the two losses), we won three of those games by less than a touchdown, and that is with the opportunistic fumble recovery very late in the Nebraska game. Basically, we were hanging on by our fingernails against Nebraska, Texas Tech and Iowa.
Interesting to see how much the team's performance was affected when Derek Lokey broke his leg in Lincoln.
The only close 2005 games (i.e. less than a touchdown difference) that I remember were against the Buckeyes in Columbus and the Trojans in Pasadena.
by bravobevo on May 4, 2007 11:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oklahoma State
The OSU game wasn't a blowout.....well, at least not until the pump-fake-run-for-80-yards play that Greg Davis called.
by Shake on May 4, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
interetsing tidbit
i wonder if there's any reason for us losing a much higher percentage of our fumbles in 06 than 05. We fumbled quite a bit more in 05 (35!) but only lost 9, and then in 06 we fumbled 25 times and lost a startling 14 of them. Kind of odd.
Also, I am totally ignoring the "total ..." stats because the 05 team played one more game and didnt have th clock rules. The only good indication of differences between the two seasons is "per ..." or 3rd downs.
by BigTexBD on May 4, 2007 12:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
2005 will always be a high water mark
Remember, the Longhorns set the NCAA record for total points in a season and set several school records for the following:
Total yards
highest per game average yards
Most rushing TD's
Highest avg yards per rush,
Most first downs
I suspect the 2005 season will always be considered the gold standard for UT offenses in the future.
by TroutDog1 on May 4, 2007 1:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Picking nits here...
Basic point is valid, but may want to check the source for some of your numbers
- % change for Pass Yards Per Game is not correct; s/b closer to <3.5%>
- Assuming Total Pass Yards and Completion-Attempts numbers are right then 2005 Yards per attempt is wrong; 3083/366 = 8.4 not 9.2
- Also 2005 Completion percent is wrong based on Completion-Attempts number; 218/366 = 59.6% not 64.8%
- No way the 2005 TD number is correct at 26; if it is then we only averaged 12 points per game on TD's; which means the other 38.2 points per game came from field goals, PATs and safeties. Not likely
by blazerhorn on May 4, 2007 4:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
On that last point...
I think 26 refers to the number of passing TDs. We also had 55 TDs rushing, as you can see above. Together (~ 44 PPG), they account for our scoring average if you allow for, say, a couple FGs per game.
by a0nyme on May 4, 2007 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hrmm...
- The % change on pass yards per game is a type; my notes have a scribbly three that looked like an eight. Good catch.
2 and 3) Both explained by a simple typo: the pass attempts should read 336, not 366.
- a0nyme is correct; you're misreading the chart. That's just the pass TD total.
Thanks for keeping me honest...
by Peter Bean on May 4, 2007 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs























