Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: In Crunch Time, Spurs Don't Change Their Game

Past As Prelude: Predicting PSU's Defensive Success in 2010

Feel a little strange this week?  Weakness?  Headache?  You may even have symptoms of depression, anxiety, or craving according to Wikipedia's "withdrawal" article.  You're not alone: it's happens to most of us in the days following the first weekend without football since the beginning of August.  And no, the Nordic Combine and Women's Hockey are not going to scratch that itch.

There's good news and there's bad news.  The bad is that you still have about a month until the first days of spring practice in the Big Ten.  For Penn State fans like myself, you have to wait until March 26.  The good news?  For those of you interested in Penn State, I think I can help ease the pain by offering another opportunity to wildly reasonably speculate on our team's success next year on the defensive side of the ball.

My approach here is to to look at things in the macro, not contingent upon any hypothetical depth chart and without focusing on things like "individual players."  We'll have all spring and summer to examine starting lineups and specific team matchups.  For now, we'll take a broad, bird's eye view of Penn State's recent defensive performances and see how they may project into success on the field in 2010.

Star-divide

Introduction

So The Rivalry, Esq. has finally retained special Penn State counsel.  First, as for "Paterno Ave": if you've been to State College before, then you know that the main street running through downtown is College Ave.  I've thought for a while that a great tribute to Coach Joe would be to rename the town's main avenue after him.  "Paterno Field at Beaver Stadium" is just too much of a mouthful, and it sound too 21st-century for such a traditional icon.  I'm sure I'm not the first one to come up with it or write about it on the internet, but there you go, just trying to spread the word.  Second, bear with me for the first few posts because I haven't written anything other than legal briefs for the past 4 years.  At least I made the post's title an alliteration and did that strikethrough thing so far.

 

Penn State's Defense: The Recent Past

Charts:

Penn State's Big Ten Rank in Scoring and Total Defense, 2004-2009

Psudef0409_medium

The chart above shows where among Big Ten teams Penn State's defense ranked when compared to other defenses in the conference.  This reflects all games, not just in-conference games.  CFBStats.com only goes back to 2004, but I think it's a enough for our purposes.  Going back farther may not even be very relevant. 

At first glance you know the main story here: Penn State's defense has been among the top third of the Big Ten for the last six seasons.  Aside from a slight dip in 2006, you could argue that PSU has been among the top one or two defenses in the league for a while.  For our purposes here, I think the point is that they have been pretty damn good.  Aside from a handful of painful exceptions, the Penn State defense has reliably kept games in reach for the team to win.  Fans can argue over the merits/lunacy of the beloved "Bend But Don't Suck" scheme, but when you look at the stats, it's gotten the job done.

Now, when we look at the chart, do we see any clear trends?  Anything that would show some gradual (or sharp) decline, recent improvement, or otherwise?  I don't really think so.  The chart may not be perfect in this regard, however.  Using ranks, rather than a static metric (like yards per game or points allowed), allows us to see how the team compares to the rest of the conference in each year pretty well, but it may skew comparisons between different seasons.  2006 may have been a down year for Penn State, or it may have been the same for us and Iowa/Wisconsin/Ohio State did really well.  Generally, though, I don't see a trend that I could reasonably extrapolate to change the results next year.  Penn State isn't clearly slipping in the schematic arms race in the conference or anything like that, and I also don't think they have pulled away from the pack of other great defenses in the league. 

Conclusion thus far: Penn State's defense has been consistently very good for the past couple years, and there is no clear trend that things should radically change in 2010.

X610_medium

What's Changed

The question now becomes what, if anything, is a major factor that may throw off the expectation of another good defensive year?  Let's look at some:

 

Coaching and Scheme:

Let's make this short and quick: we are talking about Penn State, and nothing has changed since the Cretaceous Period.  Actually, now they can actually tell us that the Tyrannosaurs JoePa recruited at linebacker in his early days had blue and white feathers.  The most recent change to the defensive coaching staff was the addition of safeties coach Kermit Buggs in 2003, before any of the above-referenced seasons took place.  Defensive Coordinator Tom Bradley has been on staff since 1978.  I only graduated in 2006, so one of my elders can feel free to correct me, but I believe the same defensive scheme has been in place for just about forever.

Nothing regarding Coaching or Scheme has changed  or will change: no reasons to lead us to believe that Penn State's defensive consistency is at risk here.

 

Talent Level:

I'm about to talk about recruiting rankings.  It won't hurt, I promise.  What I wanted to see when I put together the following chart was two things: has the talent level of incoming players been consistent for the last couple years, and, if so, is it any different now? 

Average National Rank of PSU's Three Most Recent Recruiting Classes, By Year

Psurecruits0410_medium

The chart above is the three recruiting classes' national rank, leading up to the year, averaged.  For instance, "2010" is the average of the national rank of Scout or Rivals' 2008, 2009, and 2010 recruiting classes.  "2006" averages the ranks of the 2006, 2005, and 2004 classes.  So it accounts for the True Freshmen, Sophomores, and Juniors playing in a given year.  The chart is NOT just defensive recruits or recruits who ended up playing defense.  Yes, that may be an issue.  Remember: birds' eye view.  This is just a very general measure of talent levels in the program at a given time.

The actual rankings of the recruiting classes don't matter here.  Regardless of the numbers associated with these classes, if they stayed consistent I think we should (theoretically, big picture) be able to reasonably expect the same coaches to produce similarly-successful defenses with the same talent levels.

This chart is not as consistent as the first.  That being said, I don't think anyone could come away saying the general talent level at Penn State has deteriorated in recent years.  The young blood coming up in the program is roughly as good as it has been in a while, and the staff has been able to put some good units on the field with that type of talent.


Returning Starts

Now we get into the grey area of what is an objective, general statistic and what it getting into the nitty gritty of the 2010 starting lineup.  Phil Steele would lead you to believe it's as simple as "Penn State's defense has 5 returning starters."  This is another topic that is debatable, but I disagree that its that straightforward.  Maybe the number of returning offensive lineman is a consistent measurement.  You don't typically rotate that position during a game, O-lines need time to gel, etc.  Returning quarterback is probably also pretty straight: QB's need game time to get comfortable and then succeed.  But defense?  D-lines get rotated throughout a game; the best players may start but the backups get game time.  Nickel packages put non-starting defensive backs on the field on a consistent basis. 

I wouldn't want to ignore this completely, but I don't know how much "Penn State returns 5 of 11 'starters' in 2010" factors into the above macro approach.  I don't have statistics regarding how much turnover there was in any particular year the last few years, but obviously it was occurring and the defense managed to retain a certain level of effectiveness.  Problems with ignoring this?  Skewer me in the comments.

 

Takeaway

So we have a defense that has maintained a very high level of play for the past six seasons.  They've stayed within the top third of the conference and flirted with the very top.  Penn State has managed to sustain this success over at least a six year period, despite the player turnover.  The same coaches have been in place during this time, and will be in 2010.  The same schemes have been employed.  Penn State has, roughly, been feeding the same talent into the system to produce these results, and will be at that level this coming season.

So what happens in 2010?  Penn State fields another defense among the best in the conference.

There are arguments to be made to the contrary, and we have months to discuss them.  But now, when you Penn Staters start hearing "No Sean Lee, no Navarro Bowman, No Jared Odrick....No good" all offseason, you will at least have some counterpoints available.  Pro bono, of course.

Comment 25 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

One counterpoint.

If you look solely at trends, then you could just as soon look at special teams defense. Often, ST defense can be seen as a precursor for future defenses as a lot of special teamers are second-team players or underclassmen.

Penn State punt return yards defense
2008 5.3 ypp 15th nationally
2007 5.4 ypp 10th nationally
2006 4.5 ypp 10th nationally

All looks good here. Of course, what happened last year?
2009 16.5 ypp 117th nationally

Again, big picture. Personally, I don’t feel PSU will collapse on defense, but trends are difficult to project into the future in college football.

by Cairo on Feb 18, 2010 9:40 PM CST reply actions  

Charts?

Are you sure you’re not from Georgia Tech?
(I have a feeling this meme is gonna stick for a while)

In all seriousness, while total and scoring defense are reasonable stats, reflecting the non-con games, especially last year when the non-con schedule was weak, may not be the best indicator.
Then again, pulling that data out would be a serious pain, and since this is a broad stroke look at it….eh, nevermind.

It never gets to be easy

by chitownhawkeye on Feb 18, 2010 10:05 PM CST reply actions  

Recent History To Repeat Itself

I have to agree that PSU has started a trend in the last few years on the defensive side of the ball. And if you must bring up stats then it is also worth mentioning that in the games the Lions won in ‘09 they averaged 27.45 ppg on O; and in the two games they lost, Iowa and OSU, put up 21 and 24 point respectively. The Lions in each of those vicotries failed to score more than 10 points, and in the Iowa game, barely assembled an offense after scoring a TD on the opening drive (Clark went 12/32 w/ 194 yards 1 TD and 3 INT’s). In addition, the PSU defense held Stanzi to 135 yards passing and picked him off twice.

by The G-Man on Feb 18, 2010 10:17 PM CST reply actions  

They have talent besides Lee, etc..

They just have to use it right. The game aganist tOSU this year is going to be another defensive battle, i think. Just like in 2008, but with better results for us, instead of you ;P

by Ian_InsideTheShoe on Feb 19, 2010 5:47 AM CST reply actions  

I think cth may be right about sifting out the recent non-con games

from the analysis. It would be interesting as long as, um, you did the work.

I do see some consistency between the arts-&-charts portion of your program. I base that on looking at the 2004-2005 recruitment ratings (comparatively not good) seems to be related to the 2006 Defensive performance. Based on recruiting only, the Defense should be pretty good, but not quite as good as 2009.

I like your choice of photo; any one that has a UM QB getting planted is a good photo. Well done.

Granted, I don't know what down it is..

by KenK on Feb 19, 2010 10:56 AM CST reply actions  

Respectfully disagree

In theory, I like the idea of taking out the cupcakes so as to remove stat-padding, but I think in practice it’s not the best idea. I’ll agree that none of the I-A noncon teams were strong (or even all that close to strong), but if your argument is that the overall number isn’t accurate for including these games against softer competition, then why stop there? Temple was a decent team last year – not great, but decent. Can you say with total confidence that Illinois was a better team last year than Temple? Syracuse played Minnesota close and beat Northwestern. Those teams were on Penn State’s schedule too, and no one is proposing removing them.

My point is simply when do you draw the line? Sure, remove Eastern Illinois and other I-AA schools. That seems reasonable enough. But once you graduate to I-A you can get caught up in splitting hairs between lesser lights in big conferences/mediocre teams in smaller conferences. Penn State still had to line up against these teams and play without letting down. If you’re going to remove them, you might as well remove whatever other sub-par offenses PSU may have faced.

by Aphilfan on Feb 19, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions  

Forgot one bit.

I know NW and Minn are better than Syracuse. I pointed it out only to say that Syracuse showed up against other teams in the conference and perhaps shouldn’t be tossed aside so quickly.

by Aphilfan on Feb 19, 2010 5:09 PM CST up reply actions  

I think that Paterno Ave had drawn the line in his 1st chart

by comparing Conference standings. Since he is at a conference level, I’d suggest dropping non-con games. You make a good point about Northwestern and Minnesota being ‘weak sisters’, but they are conference schools.

I used PA’s same source, cfbstats.com and came up with this comparison. PSU (12.2), OSU (12.5) and Iowa (15.4) were the leading scoring defenses in the Big 10 for all games played. However, there is a bit of a spread in con and noncon games. PSU gave up 14.9 for con games and 8.0 in noncon. OSU was 12.6 and 12.0 respectively, and Iowa was 16.1 and 14.2, respectively. Obviously, PSU had a greater benefit for total points allowed by their schedule.

In Total Defense, the differences are even more pronounced. OSU’s total yards allowed was 262.3 (277.9 con, 237.4 noncon), Iowa’s 276.5 was 279.3 con and 272.2 noncon, and PSU’s 274.5 was 310.3 con and 217.2 noncon. Again, PSU truly benefitted from a softer noncon schedule than OSU and Iowa.

If you want t change the context of the discussion away from Conference rankings to National rankings, then yes, all games should be included.

Granted, I don't know what down it is..

by KenK on Feb 20, 2010 11:10 AM CST up reply actions  

Holy crap

did Ken really do some research?? Nice job..

by Ian_InsideTheShoe on Feb 20, 2010 11:40 AM CST up reply actions  

ken

you must be pretty damn inspired to do research on the weekend. kudos.

by Graham Filler on Feb 20, 2010 2:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, I was sitting around sipping coffee today, trying

to mitigate the effects of last night’s, um, winefest. Cabernet sure is good.

Granted, I don't know what down it is..

by KenK on Feb 20, 2010 4:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Fortunately, the information was pretty easy to get, otherwise….

Granted, I don't know what down it is..

by KenK on Feb 20, 2010 4:22 PM CST up reply actions  

Good point

For whatever reason it didn’t occur to me to make that logical leap between conference standings/schedule. I took it as a specific indictment of quality of the opponent (and a fair one at that), rather than the more general point you were making. Makes more sense in that light.

The findings are interesting, and there is certainly a significant benefit to the schedule, but apart from maybe the 300+ ypg in conference play I’m not sure the frame of the discussion shifts significantly. Scoring defense still ranks a solid second in this case (assuming OSU/PSU/Iowa is still the top three). I’d be interested to see where the yardage puts them in conference, but I can’t see them dropping more than one spot.

Even if the total D drops to fourth instead of third somehow, I think Paterno Avenue’s point stands given that the Defense was still firmly ensconced in the top third of the league (though admittedly a little closer to that 2006 outlier he mentioned).

by Aphilfan on Feb 21, 2010 12:59 AM CST up reply actions  

Yep, you are right.

Anyway that you slice & dice it, PSU’s defense, no matter who they play, should be pretty good this coming year.

Granted, I don't know what down it is..

by KenK on Feb 21, 2010 9:40 AM CST up reply actions  

I appreciate the comments

When I take a similar look at the offense, I’ll take a closer look at this point. I’ll either pick the data I think is most relevant, and explain the decision, or maybe put up 2 charts.

I see that PSU’s defensive statistics take a slight hit when you look at in-conference games only. My thinking in including all games was largely based on the premise that I thought Penn State’s nonconference schedule was not meaningfully weaker than other Big Ten teams in general. In 2009 we admittedly had a weak schedule. However, in the time span covered, PSU played Boston College, Notre Dame (twice), and Oregon State in the regular season. Bowl game opponents included Florida State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, USC, and LSU. As far as I can tell, the bowl games are accounted for.

Ohio State probably played stiffer competition, but did any other Big Ten teams play a lineup that was so much better that the chart is misleading? I think it still represents what I wanted it to: Penn State’s defense has recently been among the best in the conference.

Thoughts?

by Paterno Ave on Feb 22, 2010 8:08 AM CST up reply actions  

I think CTH and KenK’s point was more that by removing noncon games you get rid of some of the variance in quality of opponent. I’m sure there’s a regression technique that could do the same trick, but it’s much easier to go this way.

FWIW, I agree that PSU hasn’t done too poorly in scheduling, just the victim of the occasional program collapse (Syracuse, ND in ‘07), that’s partially balanced out by playing an unexpectedly decent team (USF, ’09 Temple).

by Aphilfan on Feb 22, 2010 9:47 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't care what science says.

I refuse to accept their claims that dinosaurs had feathers. They can go piss on some other part of my childhood.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Feb 21, 2010 12:40 AM CST reply actions  

PLUTO IS A PLANET!

That is all.

It never gets to be easy

by chitownhawkeye on Feb 22, 2010 10:13 PM CST up reply actions  

So if Penn State had the top defense in 04

then how did they have such a terrible record? Was it because the offense was really, really horrendous?

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Feb 22, 2010 5:49 PM CST reply actions  

Yes

I spent my senior year in the student section with a bunch of people trying to figure out how to boo the offense off the field while simultaneously giving the D a standing ovation.

Both of their best offensive players were quarterbacks, the playcalling was unimaginitive, they couldn’t figure out who to use at RB, they were a year away from having capable wideouts, and the offensive line was atrocious. Other than that, though, they were stellar.

That 6-4 Iowa loss was probably the best example I could think of for this.

by Aphilfan on Feb 23, 2010 8:51 AM CST up reply actions  

From 2 wins in the Big Ten to BCS the next year

JoePa had a plan of some sort. How to get talented recruits despite three seasons that would easily count as god awful… How to win big games… How to make an opposing QB look like a total idiot… How to dispose of Anthony Morelli… Done.

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Feb 23, 2010 12:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Sooo

PSU is usually a pretty good defensive squad. That should stay roughly the same next year. Give or take a little bit.

Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

by Roland86 on Feb 23, 2010 4:51 PM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools


CONSIDER THEM ROLLED.


Managers

M_small Graham Filler

Cigar_small Jonathan Franz

Bama_hawkeye_small Bama Hawkeye

Ted_logo_small Ted Glover

Editors

Wrigleymarquee_small Hilary Lee

Authors

Small Chadnudj

Img-20101223-00043_small JDMill

Afudyfycaae-oai_jpg_large_small MSULaxer27

Small Paterno Ave

Smokecrop_small babaoreally

Sherman_sea_1868_small KennardHusker