Oklahoma State Preview, Part 3: Rush Defense

by Peter Bean on Oct 24, 2008 12:50 AM CDT in Football Comment 11 comments

In the wake of Texas' good-not-great win over UTEP six weeks ago, I took a look at Texas' rushing production and wondered who would step up to assist Colt McCoy. In Part 3 of our OSU preview we take a look both at the Texas running game and the Oklahoma State rush defense.

After the jump you'll fine a full charting of Texas performance rushing the ball in every game since UTEP as well as updated season totals. The preview concludes with a look at OSU's rush defense performance to date.

TEXAS RUSH OFFENSE IN 2008

TEXAS RUSHING GAME-BY-GAME SINCE UTEP

Note: Sacks are excluded from the rushing plays charted below.

RICE	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
Colt McCoy	7	87	12.4	1
Vondrell McGee	8	28	3.5	0
Fozzy Whittaker	0	0	0	0
Cody Johnson	15	67	4.5	1
Chris Ogbonnaya	2	5	2.5	0
John Chiles	9	84	9.3	1
TEAM TOTAL	42	275	6.6	3

ARKANSAS	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
Colt McCoy	9	84	9.3	2
Vondrell McGee	16	48	3.0	0
Fozzy Whittaker	0	0	0	0
Cody Johnson	9	43	4.8	1
Chris Ogbonnaya	0	0	0	0
John Chiles	10	13	1.3	0
TEAM TOTAL	50	208	4.2	3

COLORADO	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
Colt McCoy	8	59	7.4	0
Vondrell McGee	8	30	3.8	0
Fozzy Whittaker	0	0	0	0
Cody Johnson	11	27	2.5	2
Chris Ogbonnaya	9	71	7.9	1
John Chiles	2	8	4.0	0
TEAM TOTAL	42	205	4.9	3

OKLAHOMA	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
Colt McCoy	10	56	5.6	0
Vondrell McGee	1	-2	-2.0	0
Fozzy Whittaker	0	0	0	0
Cody Johnson	3	4	1.3	3
Chris Ogbonnaya	15	127	8.5	0
John Chiles	2	1	0.5	0
TEAM TOTAL	31	186	6.0	3

MISSOURI	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
Colt McCoy	10	33	3.3	2
Vondrell McGee	6	58	9.7	0
Fozzy Whittaker	2	20	10.0	0
Cody Johnson	5	17	3.4	1
Chris Ogbonnaya	13	65	5.0	2
John Chiles	2	24	12.0	0
TEAM TOTAL	39	213	5.5	5

TEXAS RUSHING TOTALS, SEASON

Note: Stats are again sack-adjusted.

2008 TOTALS	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
Colt McCoy	60	435	7.3	6
Vondrell McGee	57	243	4.3	1
Fozzy Whittaker	14	92	6.6	0
Cody Johnson	58	214	3.7	10
Chris Ogbonnaya	44	285	6.5	3
John Chiles	31	144	4.7	1
TEAM TOTAL	280	1445	5.2	21

Bullets? Bullets.

The Longhorns' 5.2 yards per rush average is down almost a full yard per game from last season, but if I had time right now to work through the play-by-play in more detail, I suspect I'd find that our averages skew downwards due to banal series of predictable rushes with the team comfortably in command of the game.
Even if Texas' rushing game is merely "good" at this point, it's nonetheless improved from six weeks ago.
Chris Ogbonnaya in Big 12 play: 37 rushes, 263 yards, 7.1 ypc, 3 TDs.
Colt McCoy: Silly. Removing sack data helps illuminate his effectiveness as a rusher. Would you trade him for any quarterback in the country at this point? Hard to imagine anyone saying 'yes.'
Like almost everything else about this team, the following two points loom as exciting positives: (1) The rushing game has improved as the year has progressed and (2) The team has plenty of capacity to improve still more.

OKLAHOMA STATE RUSH DEFENSE IN 2008

In looking at the OSU rush defense to date, I wanted to look beyond the easy-to-find numbers and do a more probing analysis that:

(A) Removed the noise of sack data from the picture, and
(B) Charted how well OSU's opponents rushed the ball vs the Cowboys against how well they have rushed the ball vs the other teams they've played, and
(C) Eliminated any and all non-Division 1 teams from the mix. Thus, we won't consider OSU's performance against SW Missouri State, nor do the charts below include WSU's performance against Portland State, Houston's against Southern, Troy's against Alcorn State, Missouri's against SE Missouri State, or Baylor's against Northwestern State.

OSU OPPONENT RUSH TRENDS V. OSU PERFORMANCE

	NON-	OSU	AVGs			Vs	Okie	State
	Att/Gm	Yds/Gm	Yds/Att	TDs/Gm	ATT	YDS	AVG	TDs
Wash St	31.5	87.5	2.3	0.5	32	119	3.7	1
Houston	34.0	167.4	4.9	1.8	22	96	4.4	1
Troy	38.5	201.8	5.2	1.8	23	144	6.3	0
A&M	25.7	119.5	4.1	0.8	28	203	7.3	2
Mizzou	31.2	149.2	4.8	2.6	16	81	5.1	2
Baylor	40.4	217.6	5.4	2.4	29	50	1.7	1

More bullets? More bullets.

Gary Pinkel is an idiot.
Though the A&M game stands out for its ugly numbers, keep in mind Mike Goodson brok an 80-yard TD run in that one. Take away that rush and the numbers were fine.
OSU's performance against Baylor stands out as exceptional. Question: Is OSU improving? I've seen enough from Mike Gundy to respect what he's doing--certainly on offense. Did the Baylor game represent a turning point for the rush defense? Maddeningly, it wasn't on TV, so I was left to watch the thing unfold on Gamecast.
Looking at Texas' winning offensive formula so far in 2008, I don't see anything in the above to lead me to believe the rushing component will be out of play on Saturday. The 'Horns should be able to pick up the 5-6 yards a pop to complement Colt's aerial attack.
On the scouting side: I've been more impressed with Oklahoma State's starting defensive ends (and Jeremiah Price) than their tackles, but on the whole it's not an intimidating D-Line. The back seven are the strength of the defense.
Good news for OSU? Though a team with a killer D-Line would give its defensive coordinator the most flexibility to deal with Texas, at heart a team needs an athletic back seven that makes plays to disrupt the passing game. Texas' rushing game is merely good; the passing game is great.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Looking beyond the easy-to-find numbers

After all, not everyone can have a column on espn.

Until this post, I’ve been extremely cautious about OSU. They’re still dangerous, but this helps put their new and improved defense in perspective. And I have to keep reminding myself how damn good the Texas offense has been.

On a meta-ish note, I wonder if “professional” columnists ever consider using controls in their stat analyses for thing like, say, the noise of sack data. Surely some of them do, right? TrueHoop (now at espn) is one example of a mainstream sports outlet that attempts to examine beyond the obvious, glaring ideas and stories. As for the front page types, do they just ignore these more critical approaches to sports, for fear of alienating their popular audiences? One would think that new points of view, or at least a creative twisting of the lens, would attract even mainstream sports consumers.

Hook ’em

by Kool Hand on Oct 24, 2008 2:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Alright, I'm sucked in...

…why exactly is Gary Pinkel an idiot? Because Mizzou didn’t run more? You do realize that most of Mizzou’s rushing yards came on Chase Daniel scrambles and not actual running plays, right? And that OSU completely shut down Mizzou’s actual running plays? And that a lot of the “passes” Daniel threw in the second half were actually just long pitches that, for all intents and purposes, constituted the new ‘running game’ (which is why Daniel finished the game going 25-for-27…most of his ‘passes’ were extremely high-percentage short throws)? And that once Mizzou abandoned the traditional “running game”, they actually started moving the ball again? Continuing to hand off to Derrick Washington would have been a disaster. Pinkel actually made a very solid adjustment that almost saved the game for us.

And if that’s not what you were inferring, I apologize. I have a deeply-embedded Pinkel defense mechanism. :-)

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Oct 24, 2008 8:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I dont speak for PB, but my assumption would be...

Because Mizzou didn’t run more?

Yes. And then…

You do realize that most of Mizzou’s rushing yards came on Chase Daniel scrambles and not actual running plays, right?

Why?

And that OSU completely shut down Mizzou’s actual running plays?

In the first quarter, which was sufficient to make Pinkel and co abandon it. Assuming PBs numbers are correct, there were only 10 non-Chase, non-1 yard line runs by the Mizzou offense. Only two of those came in the second half of the game, and both were in the 3rd quarter. When you pass every down, its no wonder that the D will sniff out some picks.

Four rushes came in the second quarter; Washington had 3 rushes averaging 5.6 ypc (and a TD from 5 yards out) and Maclin had one carry for 9 yards. That represents 40% of the rushing attempts, and those all sound pretty successful. But then only 2 attempts total in the second half?

by BoddickerIsClutch on Oct 24, 2008 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey Boddicker?

You’re clutch.

The Boy: I just thought Missouri got way too one-dimensional in that game, didn’t attack OSU’s soft underbelly, and amplified the effectiveness of their blitzes. In any case, you’d know better than I whether Pinkel’s a good coach on the whole; but I watched that game three times before Mizzou game to Austin and I thought Pinkel’s offensive game plan sucked. For one night, anyway, he was bad.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Oct 24, 2008 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still seethe at the sight of the word "Boddicker"...

…but I guess that’s a personal problem.

Again, OSU so successfully shot through the gaps of the O-line that Mizzou’s traditional “run” play (it seems like they basically only have one, though I know it’s more complicated than that) just wasn’t an option until they could do some quick passing to get the LBs out of the backfield. But by the time the short passing started working, Mizzou was down 11 and had little choice but to throw.

And besides that, Mizzou RBs had 3 carries in Q1, 3 in Q2 and 3 in Q3. They were pretty uniformly one-dimensional all game after the first drive (okay, that’s not entirely true—their run-pass % still went down each quarter). I was complaining about the run-pass ratio until I realized what they were doing in stretching the field wide, and it ended up being the only reason they got back in the game.

That said, there’s absolutely no question that Mike Gundy outcoached Pinkel—he coached a better game than I thought he was capable of coaching. PB, you’ve seen the game more than I have—I tried to more or less block it out and move on the moment my BTBS piece was done, so I’m sure you’ve seen some things that I didn’t.

Bottom line: if your O-line suddenly can’t block anybody, it’s pretty hard to make any play work, especially a relatively slow-developing run play. Maybe they should have narrowed their splits (assuming they didn’t…I couldn’t tell from row 61) or made further blocking adjustments, but to me the run-pass ratio itself didn’t kill them. And when four scrambles account for almost all of your rushing yards while your RBs are combining for 8 yards on 9 carries and you’re down on the scoreboard, you really don’t have much choice but to find something different that might work.

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by Bill C. on Oct 24, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No you're right

There was no question OSU was blowing up what Pinkel sought to do from the onset, but he just quit way too early, without making any attempt to adjust. It struck me as the wrong decision, though I was benefited with hindsight. Armchair coaching is easy!

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Oct 24, 2008 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice way to skew statistics

By taking out sacks, you automatically make rushing offenses look better, and rushing defenses look worse. Otherwise you count the positives from QB scrambles when the intent was to throw, but not the negatives if they get tackled behind the line (if I’m not mistaken, the prime way McCoy and many other QBs get a lot of their rushing yards). If you really want to be more even, you would have to review every play to see whether the intent of the play was a pass or rush, then take out all gains from rushing on plays intended as passes. That being far too complicated, the simplest thing is to include sacks.

by apollo883 on Oct 24, 2008 9:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You are mistaken.

Texas often runs the zone read or option with McCoy in as QB, so the prime way he gets yards is not QB scrambles. Most of McCoy’s scrambles end up being completed passes or short gains, because he is not looking to run. I do not think including sacks is the answer.

by billb on Oct 24, 2008 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could be

I agree with you that the best way would be to review plays individually, but… I know

the sacks are failed pass plays and don’t want ‘em in there. If the numbers tick upwards with some scrambles, I’m okay with that, insofar as they add value to the player as a rusher. Whereas a sack may be any number of things which have nothing to do with the QB’s rushing ability.

In any case, so long as one’s consistent in employing the adjustment across the board, the desired result is achieved.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Oct 24, 2008 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

some points worth further discussion

The Longhorns’ 5.2 yards per rush average is down almost a full yard per game from last season, but if I had time right now to work through the play-by-play in more detail, I suspect I’d find that our averages skew downwards due to banal series of predictable rushes with the team comfortably in command of the game.

Texas’ running game is more consistent than last year, despite the lower yards per carry. There are many fewer long runs > 30 yards (no Jamaal Charles) which greatly reduces the average per carry, but there are also many fewer running plays gaining 2 yards or less. The Horns have been able to sustain multi-play drives with virtually all running plays against both Oklahoma and Missouri. I would agree that Texas is “good” not great at rushing, but if the defensive team starts pulling safeties back or switches to a 4-2-5 to defend the pass, the Horns will enforce payment.

Every team but Baylor and Houston had a better rushing average per play against OSU than their average for the year. I see this as a reflection of OSU’s non-overwhelming D line and a vulnerability that the Horns can exploit.

Though a team with a killer D-Line would give its defensive coordinator the most flexibility to deal with Texas, at heart a team needs an athletic back seven that makes plays to disrupt the passing game.

Any team that lacks power on the line is in trouble against Texas. Teams that give the Horns trouble are those that, through blitzing or ferocious play of the DE’s or blitzing LB’s (Kansas State anyone? Even TCU through 3 quarters last year?) give Colt happy feet and don’t allow him to check down to alternative receivers. This year’s FAU game shows what happens if you rely on coverage – Colt will beat you with his feet and dink and dunk you to death. The Horns are now #1 in part because Colt and his receivers lick their chops when teams blitz. I agree that OSU’s DE’s are active and disruptive, but I don’t see them beating Ulatoski or Hix more than a few times.

by burnt in ny on Oct 24, 2008 9:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

but if the defensive team starts pulling safeties back or switches to a 4-2-5 to defend the pass, the Horns will enforce payment.

And OSU played nickel against Missouri for what seemed like almost the whole game. Daniel had 5 rushes in the first half, the SHORTEST of which was 9 yards. He averaged for 10 yards per carry in the first half, and why Pinkel didn’t have Daniel rushing 15 times in the first half is baffling.

by sessamoid on Oct 24, 2008 1:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs