🏈 Tackles for loss (TFL's)—where does the trend move in 2014 with the Tide? Phil Steele says...

[TerryP]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Alabama was #21 in the FBS in tfl in '11, slipped to #42 in '12 and just # 94 in '13. That trend will stop in '14.</p>&mdash; Phil Steele (@philsteele042) <a href="https://twitter.com/philsteele042/statuses/448266760571981824">March 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

---

Steele always has statistical data to back up his premise and I'm wondering what it is he's basing this statement on...along with this thought.

If we ended at #94 again, the trend would stop. Not much of a statement in that light, is it?

 

[252BAMA]

Yep! They doubled the 21 to 42, and more than doubled the 42 to 94. Can't double the 94 with only 128 teams.

 

[252BAMA]

It is not as if the defense is not on the field enough to make the TFL's. In the regular season, Bama ran fewer offensive plays (761) than any other team in the SEC. I use the regular season because the next four up the ladder only played the regular season. The ONLY four that didn't play in a Bowl! UK with 774, the other UA with 775, UF with 793, and ut with 804.

Pitiful to be below those four. Damn good thing they had a good punter and a good defense. Little wonder they have a new OC.


Edit: Double check reveals that LSU was halfway in the sinking boat with Bama. I was working with full season numbers, so taking away LSU's 71 offensive plays against Iowa in the Outback Bowl leaves them in the middle of the four mentioned at 778. FWIW, VU finishes out the bottom half of the SEC at 809. Fact remains that Bama was the WORST in the SEC in this category.

 

[riz]

It better stop, or we'll see the same kind of results, IMO.

 

[TerryP]

It is not as if the defense is not on the field enough to make the TFL's. In the regular season, Bama ran fewer offensive plays (761) than any other team in the SEC. I use the regular season because the next four up the ladder only played the regular season. The ONLY four that didn't play in a Bowl! UK with 774, the other UA with 775, UF with 793, and ut with 804.

Pitiful to be below those four. Damn good thing they had a good punter and a good defense. Little wonder they have a new OC.


Edit: Double check reveals that LSU was halfway in the sinking boat with Bama. I was working with full season numbers, so taking away LSU's 71 offensive plays against Iowa in the Outback Bowl leaves them in the middle of the four mentioned at 778. FWIW, VU finishes out the bottom half of the SEC at 809. Fact remains that Bama was the WORST in the SEC in this category.

I'm not sure I agree with how you're using the numbers here.

Just because the offense ran fewer plays than other teams doesn't automatically translate to the defense being on the field for more plays and by that giving them a greater chance to have more tackles for loss.

IE: Bama had 771 plays ran against them (rushing attempts and passing attempts.) LSU had 872 plays ran against their defense. UF had 712 offensive plays ran against them.

 

[TerryP]

Now that I've looked the numbers up, including bowl games, Alabama wasn't the worse team in the SEC in TFL. UK, UF, UT, A&M, UArk are listed below the Tide. (tied with LSU.)

Now I'm wondering where Steele pulled the #94 ranking from. I'm looking at cfbstats.com

I'm not disputing he's right in the rankings have progressively been worse.

 

[JoshB]

It is not as if the defense is not on the field enough to make the TFL's. In the regular season, Bama ran fewer offensive plays (761) than any other team in the SEC. I use the regular season because the next four up the ladder only played the regular season. The ONLY four that didn't play in a Bowl! UK with 774, the other UA with 775, UF with 793, and ut with 804.

Pitiful to be below those four. Damn good thing they had a good punter and a good defense. Little wonder they have a new OC.


Edit: Double check reveals that LSU was halfway in the sinking boat with Bama. I was working with full season numbers, so taking away LSU's 71 offensive plays against Iowa in the Outback Bowl leaves them in the middle of the four mentioned at 778. FWIW, VU finishes out the bottom half of the SEC at 809. Fact remains that Bama was the WORST in the SEC in this category.

Such a HORRIBLE stat to use if you're going to suggest how bad the offense was. You do realize that Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, etc. who are at the top of plays on offense were hurry up teams where the point is to get as many plays on offense as possible? Alabama was 4th in scoring offense, 4th in rush offense, 7th in pass offense, and 6th in total offense... so why would you ignore THOSE stats and use a pointless stat like amount of plays in a game?

 

[252BAMA]

Such a HORRIBLE stat to use if you're going to suggest how bad the offense was. You do realize that Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, etc. who are at the top of plays on offense were hurry up teams where the point is to get as many plays on offense as possible? Alabama was 4th in scoring offense, 4th in rush offense, 7th in pass offense, and 6th in total offense... so why would you ignore THOSE stats and use a pointless stat like amount of plays in a game?

I wasn't ignoring anything. I thought it interesting that Bama would be below the four, by far, worst teams in the conference in any stat, pointless or not.

 

[TerryP]

I've seen a stat that reflects the number of plays ran and how that equates to point production. Those teams mentioned (UT, UF, and UK) didn't run a lot of plays, but also had very little success when they ran the plays.

We scored right at 500 points last year (I think the number of 498) with 781 plays ran. Again, if I recall correctly, UF scored about 225 points last year in 793 plays.

We're low on plays, no doubt. We're high with success on those same plays.

Skews the way the stats read at a cursory glance.

 

[JoshB]

I wasn't ignoring anything. I thought it interesting that Bama would be below the four, by far, worst teams in the conference in any stat, pointless or not.

You first called it "pitiful" to have that many plays, so would it have been "less pitiful" to have more plays and less production? Then went on to say thank God Alabama had a good punter and good defense and then yet again suggested the lack of plays is why we have a new OC... So how are were NOT ignoring the other stats? By the way, Alabama was second in yards PER play...

 

[252BAMA]

You first called it "pitiful" to have that many plays, so would it have been "less pitiful" to have more plays and less production? Then went on to say thank God Alabama had a good punter and good defense and then yet again suggested the lack of plays is why we have a new OC... So how are were NOT ignoring the other stats? By the way, Alabama was second in yards PER play...

No, I want more plays and more production. That way they don't lose two games. And I am not inclined to brag about Bama being 4th, 4th, 7th, 6th, or even 2nd in anything.

 

[UAgrad93]

The number of offensive plays doesn't concern me. What bothers me is production you get WITH those plays. 3 plays in particular will continue to chap my azz about last season; 2 third down plays and a fourth down play late against those damn Barners!! Something positive on any ONE of those three and we aren't bitching about two losses IMHO.

 

[252BAMA]

The number of offensive plays doesn't concern me. What bothers me is production you get WITH those plays. 3 plays in particular will continue to chap my azz about last season; 2 third down plays and a fourth down play late against those damn Barners!! Something positive on any ONE of those three and we aren't bitching about two losses IMHO.

My point exactly. Bama converts those, and others, and they are running more offensive plays, rather than the defense playing the next series of plays. CNS is not happy about it, so i don't know why any of us would be.

 

[shipley00]

Now that I've looked the numbers up, including bowl games, Alabama wasn't the worse team in the SEC in TFL. UK, UF, UT, A&M, UArk are listed below the Tide. (tied with LSU.)

Now I'm wondering where Steele pulled the #94 ranking from. I'm looking at cfbstats.com

I'm not disputing he's right in the rankings have progressively been worse.

Looks like he was using the stats from the NCAA site. Appears we were tied for 94th with LSU.

http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=11

 

[TerryP]

The number of offensive plays doesn't concern me. What bothers me is production you get WITH those plays. 3 plays in particular will continue to chap my azz about last season; 2 third down plays and a fourth down play late against those damn Barners!! Something positive on any ONE of those three and we aren't bitching about two losses IMHO.

Adding to that, I'm still hung up on turning the ball over five times against OU. We ranked up a hell of a lot of yards (IE: positive production) but had those plays that erased the good.

 

[TerryP]

Looks like he was using the stats from the NCAA site. Appears we were tied for 94th with LSU.

http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=11

Ranked on average per game I see which skews the stat with the way our defensive scheme approached some games (IE: containment on running QB's.)

 

[shipley00]

Ranked on average per game I see which skews the stat with the way our defensive scheme approached some games (IE: containment on running QB's.)

Good point.

 

[riz]

Wasn't this thread about tackles for loss by our defense? :dazed:

 

[psychojoe]

As Mark Twain said, there are three kind of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.

Going into last season we were concerned about explosive plays on offense. We did pretty well on that a year ago, but one thing about explosive plays is that they put your defense right back on the field.

Tackles for losses are good things, but if you get them by stunts and blitzes, and get burned on big plays a result, these tactics are a mixed blessing.