2017 Weekly Boiler Stat Summaries: Week 9, v. Nebraska

That was a game that could have, should have, been a win. Instead, it was a close loss. There was a lot of good in the performance of the Boilers under the lights on a cold October night, but some deficiencies in play that held back a win. What is most worrying is that many of these issues are continuing issues that have plagued the Boilers all season, most notably dropped passes holding back the passing attack and struggles defending the pass.

Gandalf is Not On The Purdue Defense 

If there is anything good to take away from recent Purdue defensive performances, it is the dominance of the rush defense. Coming into the game Purdue had been allowing 4.57 yards per rush, and were facing a Nebraska defense struggling to move the ball with 4.55 yards per rush. Nebraska was absolutely shutdown by the Boilermakers, averaging only 2.54 yards per rush. The Huskers only hope running the ball was freshman Jaylin Bradley, who wasn't seen until the second half and averaged 6.00 yards per rush - which is a good but not exceptional performance for a back. The leader in carries for the Huskers, Devine Ozigbo, was held to 0.80 yards per carry, which is a terrible performance for the player Nebraska was asking to be their number one back but a great job for the Boilermaker defense [1,2,3].

Figure 1: Nebraska Individual Rushing Statistics [2,3]

Being held to a horrible performance on the ground, the Huskers turned to their passing attack with 67.6% of plays called as passes. This put the game in the hands of the Purdue passing defense, the weak point of the defense, which entered the game allowing 6.71 yards per dropback (FBS average: 6.25). This did not end well for the Boilers [1,2].

Figure 2: Nebraska Individual Passing Statistics [2,3]

Tanner Lee and the Huskers were efficient in their passing, which allowed the Husker offense to move the ball once game situations forced Mike Riley to abandon the run. This also allowed the Huskers to take advantage of fatigue on the Boilermaker defense as the game continued.

Figure 3: Possession Statistics [4]

Figure 4: Drive Statistics For Purdue And Nebraska By Half [3]

While time of possession is flawed as a statistic, the larger share of plays run by Nebraska led to Purdue's defense being more fatigued as the game wore on. This, along with greater use of the (more efficient) passing game by the Huskers in the second half changed the game. Purdue was dominating in the first half, averaging double the points per drive. Nebraska reversed that in the second half. Purdue's offense failed to keep pace.

The Song Remains The Same

Figure 5: Purdue Individual Rushing Statistics [2,3]

Figure 6: Purdue Individual Passing Statistics [2,3]

Purdue on offense was nearly the same Purdue team we've seen the past few games. Receivers dropping balls, limiting the efficiency of the passing game. A strong rushing attack not nearly picking up the slack.

There were some small differences. For one, Blough took all of the snaps at quarterback which marked the first game one quarterback took all the snaps all season. The play calling also became much more run-dominant; on Saturday, 43.9% of the plays were passes compared to the average coming into the game of 56.5% of plays. Pass protection was also much better with only 3.45% of dropbacks ending in sacks on the day, compared to the season average of 7.30% of dropbacks. The results still were pretty similar; compared to a season average of 5.57 yards per play, against the Huskers the Boilers managed only 5.50 yards per play and 1.85 points per drive. This didn't create enough points to stave off a late push from the Cornhuskers [2,3,1].

To Run, Or Not To Run

Speaking of staving off the Cornhuskers, Purdue was presented a 3rd and 8 on their own 29 with 2:15 to go in the game. Jeff Brohm called a run, which resulted in a 4 yard Richie Worship gain and then a punt. The Huskers won the game with a touchdown on the ensuing drive, despite running out of timeouts. Had the Boilers gotten the first down, they likely would have wound the clock down enough to win [3].

So was the play call correct? Should the Boilers have called a pass? Looking at data from every 2016 FBS v. FBS game and excluding plays that occurred during Football Outsider's definition of garbage time, on 3rd and 8 situations conversions occurred on 33.2% of pass plays (remember that I count sacks as a pass play) and 31.5% of rushing plays. While the play technically should have been a pass, there isn't a huge difference between the two options [5,6].

What was unlikely to have been a debate was whether to go for it on a fourth down and 4 to go on your own 33 with 1:29 to go and an opponent with no timeouts. However, with a struggling pass defense and an efficient passing attack on the other side it becomes an interesting question for a coach to consider. For FBS teams in 2016, 46.7% of 4th and 4 attempts were converted. Depending on the evaluation of how likely the opponent is to score is, the odds of converting the fourth down are high enough that going for it should be considered [5].

B-Word Update

Figure 7: Purdue Win Distribution [7]

Remember, if you cancel a Southwest flight, you will receive a flight credit good for up to twelve months from the booking date.

Cannon Game!

Figure 8: Illinois Team Statistics [1,8]

Figure 9: Purdue Team Statistics [1,7]

Figure 10: Illinois Individual Passing Statistics [8]

It's time for everyone's favorite Purdue artillery-shaped trophy game! Yup, next Saturday the Fighting Illini visit West Lafayette. The Illini, as has been typical the past few years, are a struggling football team - currently sitting at 2-6 overall and 0-5 in conference.

On offense the Illini have struggled to move the ball in any manner with 4.66 yards per rush (FBS average: 5.10), 5.20 yards per dropback (FBS average: 6.51), and 4.94 yards per play (FBS average: 5.79). Quarterback play has been a particularly sore spot for the Illini. Jeff George, Jr. has taken the majority of snaps and hasn't played well with 6.00 yards per dropback and seven interceptions. Cam Thomas has split time and has been even worse of a passer with a miserable 26.67% completion percentage and gaining only 4.30 yards per dropback. Thomas has been a potent rusher, averaging 8.7 yards per rush. Points will come at a premium for the Illini [1,8].

On defense the Illini have been a pretty average unit with 5.04 yards per rush (FBS average: 4.93), 6.37 yards per dropback (FBS average: 6.26), and 5.57 yards per play (FBS average: 5.57). Purdue's rushing attack, averaging 5.48 yards per rush, will likely be leaned on once again given the state of the passing game. If the Boilermaker defense can hold the Illini offense to another putrid performance, that may be enough for a victory [1].

S&P+ heavily favors Purdue, projecting a score of 32.1-17.7. In a game typically featuring two of the worst football teams in the Big Ten conference, Saturday appears to be a match-up between a somewhat competent team and one of the worst teams in the Big Ten conference. This should be an opportunity for the Boilermakers to get back on track after the last few weeks of woeful performances. It is also critical for hopes of postseason play; with a win, Purdue has a 52.04% chance of finishing with at least 6 wins. With a loss, Purdue has a 13.14% chance of finishing with at least 6 wins [7].

Boiler Up!

References
[1] http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs
[2] http://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=400935395
[3] http://www.espn.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=400935395
[4] http://www.espn.com/college-football/matchup?gameId=400935395
[5] http://ncaasavant.com/about.php
[6] http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff
[7] https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2017-purdue-advanced-statistical-profile
[8] https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2017-illinois-advanced-statistical-profile