I’ll be charting every single play for the games this year on a success rate chart. Teams receive a “check” if the play was “successful”, and an “X” if the play was unsuccessful.
What defines success? The parameters we set are…
· Run plays: 40 percent of yardage needed on first down, 60 percent on second and 100 percent on third to pick up a first down.
· Pass plays: 50 percent of yardage needed on first down, 70 percent on second and 100 percent on third to pick up a first down.
There are a couple other terms to know before you dive in:
· Passing down: Second and 8 or more, third/fourth and 5 or more. This is a down where the team will often pass because of the yardage they need to gain, and the defense can anticipate a passing play call.
· Standard down: Any other down/distance.
Still confused? For a further breakdown before diving into the numbers, read our guide here – LINK.
Note: I stopped charting plays after Indiana went ahead 34-13 with under 4:00 to play – that’s essentially garbage time.
What Went Well
Standard down offense: I charted IU as “successful” on 40 of 57 standard down plays – a 70 percent clip. That’s absolutely outstanding.
Part of that was supported by their success on the ground. IU called 40 run plays on their standard downs to only 17 passes, and finished the game “successful” on 33 of 49 total runs (67 percent).
Go go, IU run game. The Hoosiers rotated several backs in and out, but Devine Redding led the pack with 22 carries for 135 yards (a 6.1 yards per carry average). As you’d expect breaking in a new quarterback, IU leaned a ton on the run game, and (the numbers anyway) say it definitely worked.
Passing down defense: When Indiana was able to force FIU into long down/distances, the defense was able to clamp down. That’s a nice start to the year for a team that gave up so many big plays last year.
FIU only finished as “successful” on 2 of 19 passing down plays – just 10.5 percent. That’s a great effort by the Hoosiers, even if some of it was due to inept play by the Panthers. Throw a few big plays FIU’s way as a bone, and you still grade out at least average – again, that’s improvement.
Finishing the job and getting off the field when you have a good opportunity is obviously always a great thing. IU made sure to do to that last night.
What Didn’t Go Well
Passing down offense: Indiana charted out “successful” on just 6 of 21 of these plays (28.6 percent). The national average is usually around 32 percent, so it’s not like this was awful.
But there’s definitely a clear gap between how great IU did on standard downs and being below average when the down and distance was long.
IU called 12 passes and nine runs on their 21 passing down plays, and were successful on three of each.
Part of this is maybe going to happen with breaking in a new quarterback. The Hoosiers were “successful” on 10 of 17 (59 percent) standard down pass plays, so when the defense had to prepare for a run or pass, Lagow and the offense did fine.
But when the Hoosiers were dug into a hole, it wasn’t easy to get out.
Obviously there’s going to be a gap in standard down and passing down success rates given that it’s harder to convert on long down and distances. However, that’s a big, big gap for the Hoosiers last night.
Additional Success Rate Trends
· Big in the clutch: IU started the final period hot, "successful" on 12 of 14 plays (86 percent). That led to two touchdown drives that helped put the game away.
· Nice leverage rate: For the most part, Indiana’s ground game and standard down efficiency kept them out of the much less ideal passing downs scenarios. 57 of 78 plays (73 percent) were on standard down, which is above the national average of 68 percent.
Important to remember a couple things – this is only one week worth of data, and it was just FIU. There’s nothing to suggest these will be Indiana’s strengths and weaknesses each week out. It will take us a few weeks for us to have close to enough data to say "here's where Indiana is doing really well and isn't."
But it’s a start.
What defines success? The parameters we set are…
· Run plays: 40 percent of yardage needed on first down, 60 percent on second and 100 percent on third to pick up a first down.
· Pass plays: 50 percent of yardage needed on first down, 70 percent on second and 100 percent on third to pick up a first down.
There are a couple other terms to know before you dive in:
· Passing down: Second and 8 or more, third/fourth and 5 or more. This is a down where the team will often pass because of the yardage they need to gain, and the defense can anticipate a passing play call.
· Standard down: Any other down/distance.
Still confused? For a further breakdown before diving into the numbers, read our guide here – LINK.
Note: I stopped charting plays after Indiana went ahead 34-13 with under 4:00 to play – that’s essentially garbage time.
What Went Well
Standard down offense: I charted IU as “successful” on 40 of 57 standard down plays – a 70 percent clip. That’s absolutely outstanding.
Part of that was supported by their success on the ground. IU called 40 run plays on their standard downs to only 17 passes, and finished the game “successful” on 33 of 49 total runs (67 percent).
Go go, IU run game. The Hoosiers rotated several backs in and out, but Devine Redding led the pack with 22 carries for 135 yards (a 6.1 yards per carry average). As you’d expect breaking in a new quarterback, IU leaned a ton on the run game, and (the numbers anyway) say it definitely worked.
Passing down defense: When Indiana was able to force FIU into long down/distances, the defense was able to clamp down. That’s a nice start to the year for a team that gave up so many big plays last year.
FIU only finished as “successful” on 2 of 19 passing down plays – just 10.5 percent. That’s a great effort by the Hoosiers, even if some of it was due to inept play by the Panthers. Throw a few big plays FIU’s way as a bone, and you still grade out at least average – again, that’s improvement.
Finishing the job and getting off the field when you have a good opportunity is obviously always a great thing. IU made sure to do to that last night.
What Didn’t Go Well
Passing down offense: Indiana charted out “successful” on just 6 of 21 of these plays (28.6 percent). The national average is usually around 32 percent, so it’s not like this was awful.
But there’s definitely a clear gap between how great IU did on standard downs and being below average when the down and distance was long.
IU called 12 passes and nine runs on their 21 passing down plays, and were successful on three of each.
Part of this is maybe going to happen with breaking in a new quarterback. The Hoosiers were “successful” on 10 of 17 (59 percent) standard down pass plays, so when the defense had to prepare for a run or pass, Lagow and the offense did fine.
But when the Hoosiers were dug into a hole, it wasn’t easy to get out.
Obviously there’s going to be a gap in standard down and passing down success rates given that it’s harder to convert on long down and distances. However, that’s a big, big gap for the Hoosiers last night.
Additional Success Rate Trends
· Big in the clutch: IU started the final period hot, "successful" on 12 of 14 plays (86 percent). That led to two touchdown drives that helped put the game away.
· Nice leverage rate: For the most part, Indiana’s ground game and standard down efficiency kept them out of the much less ideal passing downs scenarios. 57 of 78 plays (73 percent) were on standard down, which is above the national average of 68 percent.
Important to remember a couple things – this is only one week worth of data, and it was just FIU. There’s nothing to suggest these will be Indiana’s strengths and weaknesses each week out. It will take us a few weeks for us to have close to enough data to say "here's where Indiana is doing really well and isn't."
But it’s a start.
