Offensive line problems highlight the needs in the NFC North ... except in Chicago, which is kind of unsettling to think about.
12 Aug 2009
by Bill Connelly
Last time around in Varsity Numbers, we took our first stab at ranking offensive lines. The rankings revolved around two figures: Line Yards+ (a basic measure of the line's responsibility for rushing success, common to FO, and adjusted for strength of schedule) and Sack Rate+ (a stab at another FO-centric measure, Adjusted Sack Rate, once again schedule-adjusted). The fun thing about line rankings is that, in theory, you can use the same measures to evaluate both offensive and defensive lines.
So with that in mind, let's use the same measures to see what we can learn about defensive line play in both 2008 and 2009. Then, at the end, we'll take a look at some individual playmakers.
(And yes, we know that we're measuring the linebackers along with the defensive linemen with these team stats, but this article focuses specifically on the defensive line... with individual stats as well, as you will see shortly.)
Who had the best defensive lines in the country in terms of stopping the run? Included in the following table are each team's Line Yards+ rating, their raw Line Yards per Carry average, and their overall Rushing S&P+. As we learned a couple of months ago when we looked at overall defensive rankings, TCU mastered the art of the "+" in 2008. Even with a strength of schedule adjustment, TCU ranked head-and-shoulders above just about everybody else in multiple categories, as you'll see below.
| Defensive Line Rankings, Line Yards+ | ||||||
| LY+ Rk | Team | LY+ | LY/Carry | LY/C Rk | Rushing S&P+ |
Rushing S&P+ Rk |
| 1 | TCU | 154.8 | 1.85 | 1 | 165.9 | 1 |
| 2 | Ole Miss | 135.3 | 2.17 | 4 | 121.9 | 19 |
| 3 | Boston College | 129.4 | 2.08 | 2 | 118.9 | 23 |
| 4 | South Florida | 127.0 | 2.35 | 10 | 127.9 | 10 |
| 5 | Tennessee | 127.0 | 2.26 | 6 | 146.0 | 3 |
| 6 | Rutgers | 125.5 | 2.47 | 17 | 118.3 | 25 |
| 7 | Nevada | 125.3 | 2.11 | 3 | 106.9 | 45 |
| 8 | Penn State | 125.3 | 2.38 | 12 | 130.3 | 8 |
| 9 | Alabama | 125.1 | 2.30 | 9 | 139.6 | 5 |
| 10 | Texas | 120.2 | 2.65 | 29 | 147.1 | 3 |
| LY+ Rk | Team | LY+ | LY/Carry | LY/C Rk | Rushing S&P+ |
Rushing S&P+ Rk |
| 11 | Central Florida | 124.5 | 2.44 | 14 | 125.7 | 12 |
| 12 | Arizona State | 121.6 | 2.25 | 5 | 127.5 | 11 |
| 13 | Michigan | 120.4 | 2.40 | 13 | 111.5 | 36 |
| 14 | USC | 119.8 | 2.37 | 11 | 133.5 | 6 |
| 15 | Oklahoma | 116.6 | 2.71 | 37 | 129.8 | 9 |
| 16 | Oregon | 116.5 | 2.29 | 7 | 121.1 | 21 |
| 17 | Oklahoma State | 115.9 | 2.67 | 33 | 108.6 | 41 |
| 18 | Missouri | 115.4 | 2.61 | 23 | 124.5 | 14 |
| 19 | Virginia Tech | 115.4 | 2.32 | 9 | 125.3 | 13 |
| 20 | Auburn | 114.0 | 2.56 | 19 | 118.0 | 27 |
A few thoughts:
As with the offensive line stats, the Sack Rate+ figure is both more volatile (higher highs, lower lows) and mid-major friendly than Line Yards+. You could say that there are a lot ways to attack the quarterback, but not nearly as many to stop the run.
Of course, there is no variability regarding the top team on the list.
| Defensive Line Rankings, Sack Rate+ | ||||||
| SkRt+ Rk |
Defense | SkRt+ | Adj. SkRt |
Adj. SkRt Rk |
Passing S&P+ |
Passing S&P+ Rk |
| 1 | TCU | 240.0 | 10.3% | 1 | 176.4 | 1 |
| 2 | Texas | 160.4 | 8.7% | 5 | 148.9 | 3 |
| 3 | Nebraska | 159.3 | 8.6% | 9 | 112.2 | 28 |
| 4 | Virginia Tech | 155.0 | 8.7% | 6 | 105.1 | 44 |
| 5 | Oregon State | 147.7 | 10.0% | 3 | 116.5 | 16 |
| 6 | Central Michigan | 146.8 | 7.1% | 37 | 97.4 | 68 |
| 7 | Florida State | 146.5 | 10.3% | 2 | 105.7 | 43 |
| 8 | Vanderbilt | 146.1 | 7.6% | 26 | 114.9 | 19 |
| 9 | Troy | 144.3 | 8.1% | 17 | 109.5 | 33 |
| 10 | San Jose State | 140.9 | 8.6% | 7 | 133.4 | 6 |
| SkRt+ Rk |
Defense | SkRt+ | Adj. SkRt |
Adj. SkRt Rk |
Passing S&P+ |
Passing S&P+ Rk |
| 11 | Pittsburgh | 139.7 | 8.1% | 18 | 118.2 | 12 |
| 12 | Utah | 139.0 | 6.6% | 44 | 110.1 | 31 |
| 13 | Illinois | 138.3 | 8.6% | 10 | 109.3 | 34 |
| 14 | Air Force | 137.9 | 8.8% | 4 | 102.2 | 58 |
| 15 | Penn State | 137.5 | 7.5% | 27 | 111.4 | 29 |
| 16 | Michigan | 137.3 | 7.3% | 32 | 104.3 | 45 |
| 17 | Tulsa | 133.5 | 8.0% | 19 | 82.8 | 107 |
| 18 | Texas Tech | 133.1 | 7.8% | 24 | 114.4 | 21 |
| 19 | Minnesota | 132.0 | 7.7% | 25 | 87.7 | 96 |
| 20 | Missouri | 129.8 | 5.5% | 74 | 113.4 | 26 |
Teams in the top 20 in both Line Yards+ and Sack Rate+: TCU (first in LY+, first in SkRt+), Texas (10th, second), Virginia Tech (19th, fourth), Penn State (eighth, 15th), Michigan (13th, 16th), Missouri (18th, 20th).
As with the offensive line rankings, we will try to equally weight LY+ and SkRt+ to account for the crazy highs and lows of SkRt+.
| Overall Defensive Line Rankings | ||||||
| DL Rk | Team | LY+ | LY+ Rk | SkRt+ | SkRt+ Rk | DL+ |
| 1 | TCU | 154.8 | 1 | 240.0 | 1 | 301.5 |
| 2 | Texas | 124.6 | 10 | 160.4 | 2 | 244.7 |
| 3 | Ole Miss | 135.3 | 2 | 108.5 | 44 | 238.1 |
| 4 | Penn State | 125.3 | 8 | 137.5 | 15 | 237.8 |
| 5 | Central Florida | 124.5 | 11 | 128.5 | 22 | 234.0 |
| 6 | Virginia Tech | 115.3 | 19 | 155.0 | 4 | 233.7 |
| 7 | Nevada | 125.3 | 8 | 123.6 | 30 | 233.2 |
| 8 | Michigan | 120.4 | 13 | 137.3 | 16 | 232.8 |
| 9 | Boston College | 129.4 | 3 | 101.4 | 62 | 229.8 |
| 10 | Tennessee | 127.0 | 5 | 106.3 | 49 | 229.1 |
| DL Rk | Team | LY+ | LY+ Rk | SkRt+ | SkRt+ Rk | DL+ |
| 11 | Oregon State | 112.0 | 25 | 147.7 | 5 | 227.9 |
| 12 | Rutgers | 125.5 | 6 | 100.2 | 63 | 225.6 |
| 13 | Oklahoma | 116.6 | 15 | 126.7 | 24 | 225.5 |
| 14 | Missouri | 115.4 | 18 | 129.8 | 20 | 225.3 |
| 15 | South Florida | 127.0 | 4 | 93.0 | 70 | 224.7 |
| 16 | Illinois | 111.8 | 26 | 138.3 | 13 | 224.6 |
| 17 | Pittsburgh | 110.8 | 27 | 139.7 | 11 | 224.1 |
| 18 | Nebraska | 103.4 | 48 | 159.3 | 3 | 223.2 |
| 19 | Cincinnati | 113.9 | 21 | 126.0 | 26 | 222.5 |
| 20 | Utah | 109.1 | 32 | 139.0 | 12 | 222.1 |
At first blush, Central Florida's ranking is strangely high, being that A) UCF is a Conference USA team, and B) they went a cool 4-8 last year. But here they are, returning seven of their top eight players from a line that allowed just 3.4 yards per carry and managed 30 sacks (7.5 percent raw sack rate) against a series of decent offensive lines. Defense was not the problem for the Knights in 2008 -- the blame very much goes to an offense that ranked dead last in the country in Close S&P+, scored 14 points or less seven times, and averaged just 16.6 points per game. If the offense improves (not a given), a line including strong ends Jason Geathers and Bruce Miller and tackle Torrell Troup (the three combined for 39.0 sacks/tackles for loss) could lead UCF to a decent bounce-back season.
Meanwhile, one of the primary storylines for Penn State has been replacing star receivers Deon Butler, Jordan Norwood, and Derrick Williams, but if the Nittany Lions are going to make a Big Ten title run, they will need to quickly find a couple of fine replacements for ends Aaron Maybin (20.0 sacks/tackles for loss) and Maurice Evans, not to mention tackle Josh Gaines. Penn State usually produces good playmakers on the line, and obviously that will need to continue.
With clearly no way to chart every FBS game, there will never be the same level of data at the college level as there is at the pro level. There is just no way to look at how often defensive players made plays when they were on the field, which will certainly hinder analysis to some degree. But that's not going to stop us from giving it a shot.
So how do you go about evaluating individual defensive performers at the collegiate level when there is no way to account for how many plays a given defender actually played? Start with the basics, which in the case of Varsity Numbers are success rates and EqPts.
Using our favorite Varsity Numbers measures for evaluating individual defenders, we can go in two different directions:
1) We can simply add up the number of "successful" tackles (i.e., tackles that resulted in an unsuccessful play for the offense) a player made and consider that the rough start for a "playmaker" measure.
2) We can take the fantasy football approach. You know how in fantasy football, when individual defenders are used, you get 1 point for a solo tackle and 0.5 for an assist? What if we gave 1 point for every "successful" tackle and 0.5 for every unsuccessful one? After all, a player should get credit for even unsuccessful tackles, as technically they prevented a touchdown, right? One of the most impressive plays I ever saw was when Missouri defensive end Stryker Sulak chased down Texas A&M speedster Michael Goodson 43 yards after Goodson caught a deflected pass and raced down the left sideline unimpeded. It was one of the best plays Sulak ever made, and Option 1 would not give him any credit for it.
So with that in mind, let's throw some numbers in a table and see what we get. Below are rankings tables for both defensive ends and defensive tackles from 2008. While sacks are credited in a couple of different places (they are clearly successful tackles, plus they result in a loss of EqPts), other important things like forced fumbles and quarterback hurries are not in the end, they will need to be included in the equation. But we're keeping it simple at the moment.
Here is a description of the columns:
Adj. Tkl and Adj. Tkl Rk (Adjusted Tackles and Rank): This is the "adjusted" total of tackles, in which 1 point is given for a successful tackle, 0.5 for unsuccessful.
Total Success and Success Rk (Total Successful Tackles and Rank): This is simply the number of successful tackles the player made.
Def. S&P (Defensive S&P): For fun, let's also take a look at the S&P value for plays in which the given player made a tackle.
Ret. in 2009?: Self-explanatory. Are they back in college in 2009?
| Top 15 BCS-Conference (and major non-BCS) Playmakers at Defensive End, 2008 |
|||||||
| Adj Tkl Rk* |
Player | School | Adj. Tkl. |
Tot. Success |
Success Rk |
Def. S&P | Ret. in 2009? |
| 1 | Jammie Kirlew | Indiana | 56.3 | 50.0 | 2 | 0.263 | Yes |
| 6 | Daniel Te'o-Nesheim | Washington | 46.0 | 39.0 | 8 | 0.563 | Yes |
| 8 | Jason Worilds | Virginia Tech | 45.5 | 41.5 | 5 | 0.284 | Yes |
| 11 | Jeremy Beal | Oklahoma | 42.8 | 38.0 | 11 | 0.276 | Yes |
| 13 | Nick Reed | Oregon | 41.5 | 39.5 | 6 | 0.048 | No |
| 13 | Victor Butler | Oregon State | 41.5 | 37.0 | 14 | 0.205 | No |
| 15 | Koa Misi | Utah | 41.3 | 35.5 | 23 | 0.407 | Yes |
| 15 | Paul Kruger | Utah | 41.3 | 36.5 | 17 | 0.277 | No |
| 17 | Willie VanDeSteeg | Minnesota | 41.0 | 37.0 | 14 | 0.158 | No |
| 25 | Will Tukuafu | Oregon | 39.0 | 33.5 | 31 | 0.419 | Yes |
| 27 | Lamonte Nelms | Cincinnati | 38.8 | 32.0 | 43 | 0.429 | No |
| 28 | Jerry Hughes | TCU | 38.5 | 37.0 | 14 | -0.124 | Yes |
| 31 | Ryan Kerrigan | Purdue | 38.0 | 33.0 | 36 | 0.390 | Yes |
| 35 | Willie Young | N.C. State | 37.5 | 32.0 | 43 | 0.365 | Yes |
| 36 | Tim Jamison | Michigan | 37.3 | 34.5 | 25 | 0.235 | No |
| * The rankings listed here are rankings of all defensive linemen (ends and tackles) from all FBS teams (BCS and non-BCS). |
|||||||
Here are the six ends who received the most All-American mention in 2008, along with their Adjusted Tackles ranking: Oregon's Nick Reed (13th), TCU's Jerry Hughes (28th), Penn State's Aaron Maybin (48th), South Florida's George Selvie (59th), Texas' Brian Orakpo (88th), and Georgia Tech's Michael Johnson (94th). Anybody who saw Orakpo play knows how dominant he was, even though he didn't rank high on this list. Clearly this is a starting point for rankings rather than an end point. Still, it bears mentioning that both Oregon and Utah had multiple ends on the list.
In football, some of the best defensive tackles in the game do not make that many tackles -- their job is to take on as many blockers as possible to free up others to make the tackle. Of course, no matter how big you are, you still need the potential to make plays if you're going to get doubled up and free up your linebackers. In the end though, making plays is but one of your jobs.
Regardless, let's take a look at the best pure playmakers from the tackle position and see what kind of list we have.
| Top 15 BCS-Conference (and major non-BCS) Playmakers at Defensive Tackle, 2008 |
|||||||
| Adj Tkl Rk |
Player | School | Adj. Tkl. |
Tot. Success |
Success Rk |
Def. S&P | Ret. in 2009? |
| 2 | Ndamukong Suh | Nebraska | 54.3 | 50.0 | 2 | 0.263 | Yes |
| 9 | Jeremy Navarre | Maryland | 44.0 | 38.5 | 9 | 0.413 | No |
| 19 | Mike Newkirk | Wisconsin | 40.5 | 36.0 | 20 | 0.371 | No |
| 20 | Arthur Jones | Syracuse | 40.3 | 34.5 | 25 | 0.442 | Yes |
| 25 | Rashaad Duncan | Pittsburgh | 39.0 | 34.0 | 28 | 0.462 | No |
| 30 | Terrill Byrd | Cincinnati | 38.3 | 35.0 | 24 | 0.254 | No |
| 31 | Brigham Harwell | UCLA | 38.0 | 33.5 | 31 | 0.470 | No |
| 33 | Mitch King | Iowa | 37.8 | 36.0 | 20 | 0.114 | No |
| 38 | Tyson Alualu | California | 37.0 | 33.5 | 31 | 0.262 | Yes |
| 46 | Malcolm Sheppard | Arkansas | 36.0 | 31.5 | 48 | 0.255 | Yes |
| 65 | Ra'Shon Harris | Oregon | 33.0 | 31.5 | 48 | 0.240 | No |
| 65 | Matt Kroul | Iowa | 33.0 | 30.0 | 63 | 0.340 | No |
| 73 | David Lindquist | Illinois | 32.0 | 31.0 | 52 | 0.175 | No |
| 76 | Greg Newman | Utah | 31.8 | 28.5 | 75 | 0.316 | No |
| 76 | Ziggy Hood | Missouri | 31.8 | 26.0 | 105 | 0.478 | No |
While he may have faced some of the same struggles as Nebraska's line as a whole (i.e., big-play performance, but not every-play performance) Ndamukong Suh made far more plays than any other defensive tackle in the country. He made 11.5 more successful tackles than anybody else on the above list, and only one end (Jammie Kirlew) made as many plays as he did. That's very impressive. Plus, it doesn't even take into account the two huge interceptions for touchdowns that he pulled off in key moments against Kansas and Colorado. If he comes out in 2009 and doesn't get pushed around quite as much in the running game, he will likely be close to a consensus All-American.
Here are the four major All-American defensive tackles from 2008 and their Adjusted Tackles rankings: Iowa's Mitch King (33rd), Ole Miss's Peria Jerry (88th), Oklahoma's Gerald McCoy (214th), and Alabama's Terrence Cody (462nd). Playing at around 385 pounds last year, Cody was a Gilbert Brown-esque space eater and one of the more feared tackles in the game, even though he didn't make any "plays" as constituted here. Again, there is much more work to be done in this regard. But at the very least, this gives you an interesting look at pure playmakers, even if it is not a comprehensive look at the best linemen in the game.
One last point of interest: It's interesting to see how disparate S&P is among all of these high performers. Some made a lot of plays downfield, leading to higher S&P, while others only made plays close to the line of scrimmage. A low S&P can obviously be seen as a good thing, but in some ways so can a high S&P. No clear correlation between individual S&P and good performance here.
As always, feedback is welcome. What stats would you use to evaluate defensive linemen?
3 comments, Last at 13 Aug 2009, 7:57am by Bill Connelly
Comments
Re: Varsity Numbers' Four-Man Front
Just wanted to say I love the picture. Nothing like an action shot of a fat guy.
Re: Varsity Numbers' Four-Man Front
Illinois making any appearance in any "top-#" defensive category is surprising to this fan, given the defense's struggles in 2008, and given the fact that the DL did not have any players recognized as great. (Lindquist is a former walk-on who went undrafted.)
The sack rate is definitely influenced by Illinois' relentless blitzing (LBs accounted for 10 sacks), so you may have overrated the UI line.
Your numbers seem to imply that the back 7 brought the pass defense down, and I agree with that statement: none of the LBs could cover while the safeties were terrible.
Good luck with future work, which will certainly be interesting.
Re: Varsity Numbers' Four-Man Front
You raise a valid point. The Illinois D-line only accounted for 65.6% of their overall sacks (48th-highest in the country, 20 teams were at 80% or more), however they did manage 21.0 overall sacks (assuming who the rosters listed as LBs and DLs were accurate) which was tied for 24th-most in the country (OU, Central Michigan, and Cincinnati were tied for first at 31.0). I do think I'll be breaking in the "% of sacks" type of numbers in the future in terms of ranking units, but we're not there yet.
Post new comment