Longhorn Football - Past 4 Years - Updated
I'll admit it, I'm an engineer.
As such, I tend to lend more credence to statistics than probably most of the people out there.
That said, I found myself looking to compare the national championship Horns, to Colt's horns. No one gets more credit (Vince) or more blame (Colt) for the performance of the team than the quarterback, but Football, perhaps more than any other sport, is a team sport.
Here is the data - absolute numbers are averages per instance or per game, depending on the stat, and in parenthesis is the national rank.


First off, as we should all well know, the 2005 squad was a hell of a team. Top 10 offense, defense, and in special teams categories. Wow. It should also come as no surprise that Vince hardly went down at all.
Second thing that sticks out to me, is the decline in special teams and defense since 2005. Reasons for this could stem from lbs of pot, to Chizik, to Akina, to Cosby. Whatever the reason, that sort of sharp decline is really a concern. I hope that Muschamp helps to fulfill our hopes and dreams, and hopefully Shipley or someone gets a chance to step up on special teams to give us some help there as well.
Third is turnovers. Margin as well as absolute here. Honestly the overall number I was expecting a more dramatic difference from 2005 to 2007, not a 30% increase. However, that combined with our lack of creating turnovers is killer. Hopefully Colt can lower his picks, and we can generate a few of our own with Beasley and some LB blitzing pressure. This is another really bad trend to see that we need to improve on immediately.
Ok enough of me, take a long look over the numbers yourself. Are there any conclusions you draw from them? Any opinions reinforced, any dispelled?
Part 2:

First off, something was out of whack for the Tackles for Loss stats in 2004. Ill assume the national position is right, but something changed, and the per game numbers didn't sync with the other years, so I didn't include it.
What else, I'm surprised at how little we actually ran in 2006, and when we did, how few yards per carry we had. With the O-line being what it was, Greg must have been seriously confused as to how to run without Vince.
Lastly I was at first appalled by our yards penalized, looking at these other stats I think I consider around the 40th in the nation near what I would call "disappointing"; however for penalty yards as I looked at the teams on the top, we are about right. I think penalties shows some measure of aggression on D, and no doubt bone-headedness, but I don't think you push your limits if you don't break them sometimes. So, I'm fine with where we stand in penalties.
Plus in 2005, that was just more yards for us to gain back each possession!
Time of possession in 2006 is counter-intuitive as well. With what is certainly our worst rushing year, and 3rd down conversion year, we had our best time of possession. Though really, with them being so close, you might as well assume they are equal. Point still stand though.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
0 recs |
24
comments
Read Related
Comments
Good stuff
I've been pouring over similar numbers for this year's football annual.
One note: I love stats as much as you do. Really do. On these things, though, I highly recommend you look closely at rate statistics instead of counting stats.
For example, the 2006 defensive numbers look better than they actually were because the games were a little shorter (clock rule). Change your research to yards per attempt, or total yards per play, etc, and you'll give slightly different (but more insightful) results.
Not that your points aren't illustrated by what you've got. Nicely done.
by PB @ BON on Apr 8, 2008 5:28 PM CDT 0 recs
Agreed
However thats why I also put forth the national ranking, which gives an idea of what was going on in a national scale, to try and give some context to the absolute numbers.
Though I would also suggest looking at the national picture in broad groupings. Such as, I dont see much sense in arguing about the total offense variance shown above, except that 2005 was an awesome year for us, which again, we should all know damn well already.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Apr 9, 2008 8:28 AM CDT
up
0 recs
One point....
....would be that Greg Robinson's improvement of the defense was more significant than that of Gene Chizik. In fact, I'm not sure Chizik's defense was that good without VY on the other side of the ball in 2005.
by HornChamps on Apr 8, 2008 7:18 PM CDT 0 recs
Time of possession
Honestly the 2005 team had an amazing o-line and I'm not sure where that'd get quantified, but maybe TOP. Sacks allowed kinda shows the picture, but being able to maintain possession and also not feeling the pressure very often impacts so many stats without really being shown by any of them. Is there an average plays per drive stat or something similar kept anywhere?
I didn't realize we gave up 70 more yards per game than last year. That's a pretty staggering number.
by tenuki on Apr 8, 2008 7:45 PM CDT 0 recs
Two stats I'm not seeing
which may be difficult to quantify are:
- injuries to starters on all three squads (which played a role especially in '06 and somewhat in '07) or starts lost to injury; or experience lost to injury.
- experience per position two-deep and per team.
This last one is where the '05 team had a real edge.
In 2006 the secondary was all beat up but there just isn't any way to quantify those starters who were injured but still playing (high ankle sprains, broken toe, shoulders, etc.). The total defensive figure for '06 didn't reflect this, but when it was broken down the pass defense stats were frightening and segued directly to the big jump in '07.
The numbers do back up the big changes Mack made (or was forced to make) and underscore the down spin we're hearing.
Good to see some football stats. Thanks.
by whills on Apr 8, 2008 8:51 PM CDT 0 recs
I'm not sure a healthy ankle...
... will teach Killebrew how to play zone coverage. '07 was a lost cause, defensively.
by Horn Brain on
Apr 8, 2008 10:23 PM CDT
up
0 recs
well
by owenh on
Apr 8, 2008 10:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
A healthy team
Is part of the luck that it takes to build a champion.
2005 saw the least number of injuries that I can unquantifiably remember.
Again with zero data to back it up, 2007 may have been one of the worst, starting from offseason problems, to all the redshirts we felt we had to burn, to Limas...
Has Sergio played a full healthy year yet? Hopefully that is coming forthwith!
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Apr 9, 2008 8:34 AM CDT
up
0 recs
One Other Stat
Yards-per-carry may be a stat that gives an indication to the strength of the '05 OLine. I'd also like to see the total offense broken into total passing and total rushing. Also, I'd like to see how many cheeseburgers Will Allen has consumed over the past couple of seasons.
Nice work, Boddie!
by Bombilla on
Apr 9, 2008 9:36 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Well, that accounts for the pickle slice
in the eye injuries.
by whills on
Apr 9, 2008 2:10 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Another thing that's important
The two things that, to me, drive all these stats are:
a) The Oline
b) The LBs
The LBs cost us both the rush AND pass defense. That's what ended up killing our 06 season.
Our 07 season came down to injuries on the Oline and the same set of LBs.
As for special teams? Quan isn't an explosive returner, and doesn't seem to be very good at following blocks. But that's just my opinion.
by fathead on Apr 9, 2008 12:28 AM CDT 0 recs
There is a mystery about Quan's speed.
When he was in HS, Quan's speed was extraordinary. I saw him (and his brother) runs the 100- and 200-m dashes at the Texas Relays and State Meets. The legendary story coming out of Mart was that five scouts once timed him in the 40 and the slowest watch had him at 4.29.
Obviously no one thinks he has that blinding sub 4.3 speed anymore.
What stole it away from him?
Baseball, where there isn't much speed work per se and he lost his edge over time? He was still much, much faster than the average baseball player but no longer pushing pure sprinter speed.
Growing too muscular as he matured? Both Quan and his brother were physical specimens, heavily muscled on an under-6' frame, medium-heavy boned (in the small-medium-large scale of skeletal structure). Unlike, say, Brendan Christian, a comparable (and a little faster) sprinter of the time, who looked spindly side-by-side with Quan.
As always for Mack, does experience and sure-handedness offset better (and younger) speed and shiftiness?
While the reliability factor is a serious consideration, the numbers show that punt and KO returns have declined and with that, much of our special team's threat.
If you take away short punts from teams backed up to the goal line (esp. teams like Baylor), the Horns special teams didn't scare anyone. Of course, the returner is only part of the equation, with down field blocking and punt rush the other elements. We've fallen off in punt blocking the last two years, also.
The special teams excellence (except for KO coverage) the 2005 team enjoyed has become merely average at best. So, the special teams decline matches right in with those of the O and D.
2008 isn't about reloading; it's about reconstruction of the whole team. No wonder they're downplaying the expectations to the kids.
by whills on
Apr 9, 2008 2:07 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Quan is Underated
He has tremendous hands, desire, and I think he is a real asset to the team.
by realmccoy on
Apr 9, 2008 8:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
re:
I don't think anyone is doubting that. Quan is just not as explosive as Ramonce or A Ross were IMO. I think that's the consensus around here. We need someone to step up on special teams, so we can get better field advantage and give Quan a break. Quan is a great possession receiver. We need a deep threat to help our running game and Colt, and Quan is not that.
by vy til i die on
Apr 9, 2008 8:58 PM CDT
up
0 recs
That's pretty much it.
He's a fine player and, without a doubt, as realmccoy says, a real asset.
by whills on
Apr 9, 2008 11:27 PM CDT
up
0 recs
no doubt
when you need that first down, through it to quan. Need a bomb down field...ehhh probably no gonna happen a lot.
But I love quan as much as the next fan. The effort is never lacking.
by owenh on
Apr 10, 2008 12:35 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Quan is like Colt's David Thomas...
... Reliable as hell, under-appreciated. The guy makes some seriously amazing catches for 8-10 yards a pop, and rarely gets the credit beyond "Oh, and look, Quan had a great game again... hmm." I think that if Mack and co. want him running back punts and kicks next year, he's got the work ethic to speed train all summer and come out quicker. He's a football player.
by Horn Brain on
Apr 10, 2008 1:16 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Colt is Like Quan's John Thomas
HA! Couldn't resist!!
by Bombilla on
Apr 10, 2008 11:14 AM CDT
up
0 recs
3rd Down Conversions
Look at that stat. I think you'll be amazed by what you see. They keep the defense off the field and keep drives going.
There is a site somewhere on the interwebs that charts third down conversion percentages vs. distance to go and compares with the national average. Vince's teams were all green...colt's all red. Any one have the link?
by afat on Apr 9, 2008 9:05 AM CDT 0 recs
2005 KR Stats
It makes the game a lot easier with a good KR like Ramonce. You have to wonder how much better we would have been the past two years with him on the team.
by SuperHorn on Apr 9, 2008 9:26 AM CDT 0 recs
I have actual work to do for now...
But Ill try to make another chart to add in later today with some more stats people are looking for.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Apr 9, 2008 9:39 AM CDT 0 recs














