| Logout |
Inside the Numbers: VT Red Zone Defense
by Kevin Cuddihy, 2/3/03
Note: This is the second of two articles of Virginia Tech in the Red Zone. The previous article took at look at VT's Red Zone Offense.
You get on your feet, your clap your hands, you shake your gobbler. You scream, you yell, you jump up and down. What we need now is NOISE, and lots of it! Why, you ask? The evil foe is inside the 20 yard line, has DARED to invade the Virginia Tech Red Zone!What did all that screaming get you, besides a sore throat on fall Sundays? Just how did the boys in maroon and orange respond to the plea to stop the bending before it breaks? Let's take a close look at that.
The Stats
| Opponent | Success | TDs |
|---|---|---|
| ASU | 0-0 | 0 |
| LSU | 1-1 | 1 |
| MAR | 3-5 | 3 |
| A&M | 0-0 | 0 |
| WMU | 0-1 | 0 |
| BC | 2-5 | 2 |
| RUT | 2-4 | 2 |
| TEM | 2-4 | 1 |
| PIT | 2-5 | 2 |
| SYR | 8-10 | 5 |
| WVU | 2-3 | 2 |
| UVA | 2-2 | 1 |
| MIA | 6-7 | 6 |
| AFA | 3-4 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 33-51 | 26 |
Within that, Tech gave up 26 touchdowns (15 rushing, 11 passing), gave up seven field goals in 12 attempts (blocking two of them), picked off eight passes, recovered two fumbles, got the ball back on downs twice, and stopped a last-play drive in the Red Zone to win the bowl game. Whew!
That comes out to a 64.7 percent success rate for Hokie opponents, and a 51 percent TD rate. While stats weren't available on the Big East web site as they were for offensive performance, I was able to get stats from a number of similar schools for comparison's sake.
| Team | Success | TDs | % | TD% | TOs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSU | 22-37 | 10 | 59.5 | 27.0 | 7 |
| VT | 33-51 | 26 | 64.7 | 51.0 | 10 |
| NCSU | 26-40 | 18 | 65.0 | 45.0 | 2 |
| TENN | 26-48 | 19 | 68.4 | 39.6 | 3 |
| BC | 29-41 | 22 | 70.7 | 53.7 | 5 |
| MIA | 29-39 | 23 | 74.4 | 59.0 | 4 |
| ORE | 34-44 | 30 | 77.3 | 68.2 | 2 |
| ND | 32-39 | 22 | 82.1 | 56.4 | 3 |
Some pretty impressive numbers on the face of it. VT was only five percentage points behind national champ Ohio State when it came to defending inside the Red Zone, and topped such teams as Tennessee, Miami, and Notre Dame. And take a look at the turnovers—double digit turnovers inside the Red Zone; double, triple, even quadruple all the other teams save Ohio State. VERY impressive! Some of those numbers up there, though, are more indicative of Tech's season.
For instance, while the Hokies are second in that group in scoring percentage, when you look at touchdown percentage they drop to fourth, as both NC State and Tennessee make up lost ground. Add in the fact that VT allowed the most Red Zone possessions of that little group, and the second-most touchdowns, and that percentage isn't quite looking so good anymore. Let's look further at the full stats.
Inside the Numbers
As with the offense article, let's break down the plays teams ran against Tech inside the Red Zone. Again, I've taken all the plays against Tech's Red Zone Defense and put them in a chart, which you can access here.Those teams combined for 152 plays inside the Hokie Red Zone (29 less than the VT offense's 181) and had 70 runs compared to 56 passes, plus 6 sacks, 12 FG attempts (7 made), and 8 penalties. Within those 152 plays, we saw the following:
22-56 passing, 247 yards, 11 TD, 8 INT, 6 SACK, 1 FUM
70 runs, 247 yards (3.53 YPC), 15 TD, 1 FUM
76 runs, 207 yards, (2.72 YPC) when counting sacks
That figures to a 1.13:1 run:pass ratio (70:62) and 10.3 pass plays per sack (56 passes and six sacks). And when disregarding sacks, it gives Hokie opponents the exact same rushing and passing yardage for true balance.
Scoring is roughly equal as well, with 11 touchdowns on 56 passes (every 5.1 passes) and 15 touchdowns on 70 runs (every 4.7 runs). So things seem even all around. Or do they?
If you read the article on Red Zone Offense, you might recall statistics showing the imbalance of Tech's passing and rushing, plus some criticism regarding why they don't pass more often in the Red Zone. I stated that the only factor that was pro-run was the equal number of turnovers for running versus passing with a much smaller number of passes. With such a small number, statistics are rarely significant. These stats, however, tell the same story with much more force.
Within a roughly equal number of passes and runs, we see only one turnover coming from the running game (a goal line fumble by Boston College) and a whopping NINE turnovers from the passing game: eight INTs and a fumble off of a sack of Pitt's Rutherford. Further, of the seven other teams I compared VT's Red Zone defense to, 19 of the 26 total turnovers forced came via the passing game.
More Comparisons
As in the article on Red Zone Offense, let's take a look at the season split up two ways: Losses versus Wins and first half of the season versus the second half. This, to me, is the biggest indicator of Virginia Tech's season.In Tech's ten wins, they allowed 15 scores in 26 opportunities, 11 of those going for touchdowns. In the four losses, they allowed 18 scores in 25 opportunities, with 15 of them going for touchdowns. Yes, you read right: Virginia Tech gave up almost as many Red Zone possessions in their four losses as they did in the ten wins, and a MUCH higher scoring and touchdown percentage.
When breaking it up into halves of the season, the gap obviously widens. In the first seven games, Tech gave up eight scores in 16 possessions (all touchdowns), but from the Temple game on, gave up 25 scores (16 touchdowns) in a whopping 35 possessions. That's an average of five Red Zone possessions a game the defense faced!
Let's put that into the solid figures of points. In their ten wins, Tech allowed a scant 89 points from the Red Zone—8.9 points per game. That's compared to the 199 points the Hokies scored from the Red Zone in those games, 19.9 ppg. With the four losses, VT allowed 114 points, for 28.5 points per game from the Red Zone. The offense? 83 points, which actually represents a slight increase to 20.75 ppg. But with the lesser Red Zone defense in the second half, we go from +110 to -31 in Red Zone Point Differential, a 141 point swing. That corresponds to a swing from an 11-ppg advantage to an 8-ppg deficit.
These stats tell an ugly story about the Hokie defense. Not only did they give up many more Red Zone opportunities in the second half of the season, but at least in the losses, they allowed more scores and more touchdowns in one less possession. To put it in the terms of defensive philosophy, they bent more and broke more. Not the way to win football games.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The good obviously has to start with Texas A&M and Arkansas State, where the Hokies gave up zero Red Zone scores. That's because neither team even GOT into the Red Zone. Impressive overall defense, that's for sure. For those games where VT actually defended inside the Red Zone, Boston College and Temple stand out, both games where Tech took the ball away twice inside the Red Zone, stopping potential scoring drives in tight ballgames that may have changed the outcome.The bad looks to be WVU and Air Force, as WVU scored two touchdowns in three trips inside the 20 (including a tough 3rd-and-goal touchdown from the 7 where holding them to a field goal would have been huge), and Air Force scored 13 points (all their points) from the Red Zone, converting a third down and a fourth down on successive drives to keep them alive.
The ugly is hideously ugly: Syracuse and Miami. In the double overtime game against Syracuse, the Orangemen scored on eight of ten trips inside the Red Zone. EIGHT OF TEN. Virginia Tech allowed as many scores in that one game as they did in the entire first half of the season. Miami comes in second-ugliest, with a 6-of-7 performance against the Hokie Red Zone defense, but scored more touchdowns than Syracuse (six to five). The only reason they're second-ugliest is that Tech matched them score for score, putting in six Red Zone scores of their own (but only five TDs).
Wrap Up
So what can we take away from these two articles on VT inside the Red Zone? Well first, it looks like Tech's RZ offense stayed consistent throughout the season, but the defense obviously flagged as they closed the season. To give up as many opportunities (and more points) inside the 20 in four losses as they did in 10 wins points an incriminating finger at both the overall and the Red Zone defense. The Hokies exhibited a strong ability to take the ball away when they hunkered down (10 turnovers, with a stretch of six straight games from BC to WVU with at least one Red Zone takeaway) but otherwise allowed too many opportunities and too many points.As for playcalling in the Red Zone, while the statistics of the Hokie Red Zone offense seem to indicate a bit of folly in the heavy dose of runs, a look at fumbles versus interceptions inside the Red Zone is a strong warning against too much passing, as well. The likely solution is a balance. The 1:1 ratio opponents attempted surely is not the way to go, as evidenced by the heavy number of interceptions. But even with the resultant higher number of turnovers, the increased ability to score with the pass inside the Red Zone points to the likelihood of the Hokies benefiting from some minor leveling in their run-pass ratio.
Virginia Tech's Red Zone defense was a strength early on in the season. Who could have imagined LSU and Texas A&M combining for only ONE Red Zone opportunity?? But who could imagine Syracuse and Miami combining for 17? As you can say for the Hokie defense overall, if their Red Zone defense had continued at the same high level of play they started the season with, a few more wins may have shown up in the ledger.
Next season is a brand new season, however, and another chance to cheer for a hold or chant "STICK IT IN! STICK IT IN! STICK IT IN!" Keep an eye on how
the Hokies do in the Red Zone, as that can be a strong indicator of how they do overall.
