Kinnick Stadium is a place where strange, strange things
happen in football. Like, for example, the irrational Hawkeye win over Ohio
State this year. This weekend’s Purdue win wasn’t quite one of those strange things;
S&P+ gave the Boilers a 49% chance to win (Purdue +.4 point spread), which
makes this barely an upset, even if Vegas had Iowa as a 6 point favorite.
Still, it’s a huge win, keeping bowl hopes alive for another week, and setting
up a Bucket game with the winner going to the postseason. It was yet another
day of mediocre offense and pretty good defense, but it got the job done [1,2].
Holy Sacks Batman!
Purdue has struggled to apply pressure to opposing
quarterbacks for most of the 2017 campaign; coming into this week, they had
averaged a sack on 4.79% of dropbacks (FBS average 6.26%), which has
contributed to the defense’s vulnerability to the pass (prior to the game v.
Iowa, they allowed 6.54 yards per dropback, compared to an FBS average of 6.32
yards per dropback). The Iowa Hawkeyes, meanwhile, had been a pretty decent at
keeping the quarterback upright, allowing a sack on only 5.28% of dropbacks,
compared to an FBS average of 6.06%. The matchup is one that should have been
in the Hawkeye’s favor [3].
Instead, the Boilers made mincemeat of the Iowa offensive
line, dropping quarterback Nathan Stanley for 6 sacks on 39 dropbacks for a
loss of 44 yards, yielding an astronomical sack rate of 15.38%. For context,
the highest sack rate over the season is Michigan State’s 11.36%, with
defending National Champion Clemson close behind with 11.05%. Only four teams
are above 10%; the Spartans and Hawkeyes are joined by IU (I’ll talk more about
that later) and Washington. Antoine Miles recorded two sacks, with Markus
Bailey, Gelen Robinson, T.J. McCollum, and Eddy Wilson each registering one [3,4,5].
 |
| Figure 1: Iowa Individual Passing Statistics [4,5] |
The pass rush kept the usually efficient Stanley in check;
compared to Iowa’s season average coming into the game of 6.27 yards per
dropback (FBS average: 6.54 yards per dropback) the Hawkeyes were held to a
meager 3.38 yards per dropback [3,4,5].
 |
| Figure 2: Iowa Individual Rushing Statistics [4,5] |
The Hawkeyes also were held in the rushing attack, with a
meager 3.94 yards per rush (FBS average: 5.11 yards per rush). The normally
rush-heavy Hawkeyes (who averaged 47.05% of plays passes coming into the game)
were forced to throw the ball (to the tune of 54.93% of plays passes), which
given the success of the Purdue pass rush was not a successful proposition. The
Hawkeyes found themselves unable to move the ball, with a minuscule 3.63 yards
per play (FBS average: 5.78), and thus unable to score the ball, with 1.27
points per offensive drive [3,4,5].
Puny O-Line
 |
| Figure 3: Purdue Individual Rushing Statistics [4,5] |
On the other side of the ball, Purdue was also finding
themselves struggling in the rushing attack. Compared to a season average of 5.16
yards per rush (FBS average: 5.11 yards per rush), the Boilers were held to a pathetic
3.76 yards per rush. While this is against a strong Iowa rush defense (allowing
4.19 yards per rush, compared to an FBS average of 4.97 yards per rush), it’s
still a poor performance for what has been the strength of this offense. With
poor performances by most of the running backs (and 32 of Jones’s yards coming
on a single rush), this isn’t an issue of a back having a slow day; it’s a poor
job by an offensive line that has provided strong blocking most of the year [3,4,5].
 |
| Figure 4: Purdue Individual Passing Statistics [4,5] |
In pass protection, the story wasn’t better. Sindelar found
himself on the ground 3 times off 30 dropbacks, with a sack rate of 7.50%,
compared to Purdue’s season average of 6.64% and an Iowa defensive season
average of 4.92% (FBS offensive average: 6.06%). This contributed to a rather
low 5.08 yards per dropback, compared to Purdue’s season average of 5.73 yards
per dropback and an Iowa 6.59 yards per dropback (FBS offensive average: 6.54
yards per dropback). With the running attack sidelined, the Boilers had to rely
on this less-than-successful passing attack, with 61.54% of plays passes,
compared to a season average of 56.61%. This led to a horrible (but still
better than Iowa) 4.54 yards per play, compared to Purdue’s season average of
5.48 yards per play and the FBS average of 5.78 yards per play [3,4,5].
Where did the Boilers find the edge to get 1.83 yards per
drive and generate enough offense to complement the stout defense? Field
position made a big difference for the Boilers, with their average starting
field position at the Purdue 39, compared to Iowa starting on average at their
own 27.55 yard line. Iowa’s Colten Rastetter often found himself kicking into a
16 mph wind, limiting him to an average punting distance of 29.7 yards (season
average: 40.5 yards), with Joe Schopper of the Boilers also struggling to hit
his stride against the wind as well, with an average of only 31.8 yards (season
average: 38.9 yards). Field position helped to turn Purdue’s meager offensive
advantage and great defensive performance into a win [3,4,5,6,7,8].
Meaty French Mittens
While Saturday afternoons belong to the Boilers, Saturday
mornings I tend to spend following Arsenal Football Club, which at times can be
equally frustrating as the Boilers (although I can’t complain too hard about consistent
top 4 finishes). The Gunners have struggled mightily on defense this season, particularly
in transition, but have been able to rely on the meaty
French foreheads (and feet) of Alexandre Lacazette and Olivier Giroud to
score goals, who have combined for 7 goals of Arsenal’s 22 goals in Premier League
play this year [9].
Why do I bring this up? Well, Purdue has been plague by
drops by receivers this year, including the two of the Boiler’s top three
targeted receivers, Gregory Phillips (Catch rate: 59.2%) and Anthony Mahoungou
(Catch rate: 69.6%). Compare those numbers to Purdue’s top target, Jackson
Anthrop, who has a 72.2% catch rate. But Mahoungou has enough speed to make big
plays, even if he has struggled on the season to catch the ball. Against Iowa,
however, he was stellar. The senior, targeted 9 times, had 7 catches (Catch
rate: 77.8%) and 135 yards, with two touchdowns. He flew by Iowa corners, and
had an incredible game. In his final game, hopefully he and his newfound Meaty
French Mittens can give me a few more French scores to cheer for. Or more
likely regress to the mean, but at least I’ve still got Lacazette and Giroud [1,4,5].
B-word Update
 |
| Figure 5: Purdue Win Distribution [1] |
The first couple weeks, I made jokes in this segment about
the joys of flying Southwest Airlines. I decided to keep this running gag, even
if it was totally unpaid advertisement for Southwest. In the last couple weeks,
it’s been a real struggle to find things to say, so I am happy this segment is
coming to a close, at least until next year. But if you thinking about flying
to a post season football contest, remember checked bags are free, which means
you won’t have to worry about buying a set of travel size toiletries. And you
can bring some post game beverage from one of Indiana’s many find beverage
makers.
The Bucket Game
Two teams enter. One team leaves 6-6 and with a bowl bid.
The other still leaves (Ross Ade isn’t the Thunderdome), but 5-7 and likely
home for the holidays. It’s one of the more meaningful Bucket Games in recent
memory, with both bowl eligibility and a chance for the Boilers to finally get
back to beating IU on a regular basis. This will likely be an odd Bucket Game,
not just for the importance, but also for two schools that typical have had to
be great on offense to succeed, but have won with defense this season.
 |
| Figure 6: IU Team Statistics [3,10] |
 |
| Figure 7: Purdue Team Statistics[1,3] |
Indiana is really bad on offense this year. And by really
bad, and mean Darrell Hazell may secretly be calling the shots in Bloomington
bad. IU’s running game has been a pitiful sight all year, and will find itself
matched against a strong Purdue rush defense (4.18 yards per rush, compared to
an FBS average of 4.97 yards per rush), that has managed to hold teams
averaging significantly more than IU’s 4.15 yards per rush (FBS average: 5.11
yards per rush) in check. The H-words may have a better time trying to pass, as
Purdue’s pass defense has only been just below average, allowing 6.21 yards per
dropback (FBS average 6.32 yards per dropback) with the IU offense averaging a
meager 5.62 yards per dropback (FBS average: 6.54 yards per dropback). S&P+
does not likely them much either, 98th in the country in offense and
with a rushing success rate of 34.7% (FBS average: 42.4%) and a passing success
rate of 40.6% (FBS average: 40.4%). Points will likely come few in number for
the H-words, unless they are able to exploit the only relatively weak spot in
the Purdue defense [3,10].
Much like the Boilers, the H-words have been stellar on
defense. The IU rush defense has held its opponents to 4.45 yards per rush (FBS
average: 4.97 yards per rush), which is going to provide yet another challenge
to a Purdue rushing game that has played rather average, having averaged 5.16
yards per rush (FBS average: 5.11 yards per rush). The Boilermaker passing
attack (5.73 yards per dropback) will likely not find itself able to pick up
the slack; IU has been great all season defending the pass, averaging 5.23
yards per dropback (FBS average: 6.32 yards per dropback). This is in no small
part due to an incredibly pass rush, getting a sack on 10.39% of dropbacks.
Eight IU players have registered multiple sacks, including six defensive
linemen (which would suggest that sacks have come without rushing additional
defenders). With a Boilermaker offensive line that has struggled to hold back
the pass rush, allowing 5.66% of dropbacks to end with a sack (FBS average:
4.72%), Elijah Sindelar may find himself becoming well acquainted with Ross Ade
Stadium’s wonderful grass surface [3,10].
Rivalries are always the best when the games are close. Both
teams are going to struggle putting up points, with two solid defenses facing
offensives that haven’t been as great of units. While Purdue’s offense is
merely a below average unit compared to the downright disastrous IU offense, IU’s
dominating pass rush will find themselves matched up against a Purdue passing
offense that is not great, and may be leaned on. With a low scoring game
likely, I am scared a turnover or weird bounce will make or break the game, and
a sack-happy IU defense has the advantage in that kind of game. S&P+ favors
the Boilers, projecting a 26.0-22.0 game, but I’d put it in the neighborhood of
a true toss-up. Hopefully, the Boilers can find their way on the ground, and
not have to rely on the IU pass rush that may tip the game [1].
Boiler Up!
References:
[1] https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2017-purdue-advanced-statistical-profile
[2] http://www.oddsshark.com/ncaaf/purdue-iowa-odds-november-18-2017-794240
[3] http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs
[4] http://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400935411
[5] http://www.espn.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=400935411
[6] https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KIOW/2017/11/18/DailyHistory.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
[7] http://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/3918007/joe-schopper
[8] http://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/3917640/colten-rastetter
[9] https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/goals?se=79&cl=1
[10] https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2017-indiana-advanced-statistical-profile
Well done as always
ReplyDelete