BYU vs Opponent Averages Week 4

Week 4 more data! Although, Cal did have a bye week, so no changes there. But here is how BYU has performed against opponent averages with the BYU game removed from the calculation.



Arizona

BYU held Arizona 15.3 points below their scoring offense average (38.3).

BYU held Arizona 257.7 yards below their total offense average (583.7).

BYU held Arizona 157.7 yards below their rushing offense average (286.7).

BYU held Arizona 100.0 below yards than their passing offense average (297.0).

BYU held Arizona 55.61 below points above their PER offense average (163.98).



BYU scored 2 fewer points than the Wildcats’ scoring defense average (30.0).

BYU gained 25.3 fewer yards than the Wildcats’ total defense average (417.3).

BYU gained 12.7 fewer yards than the Wildcats’ rushing defense average (195.7).

BYU gained 12.7 fewer yards than the Wildcats’ passing defense average (221.7).

BYU was 10.63 above the Wildcats’ PER defense average (128.15).



Cal

BYU held Cal 13.5 points below their scoring offense average (34.5).

BYU allowed Cal 23.5 more yards than their total offense average (374.5).

BYU allowed Cal 6 more yards than their rushing offense average (178.0).

BYU allowed Cal 17.5 more yards than their passing offense average (196.5).

BYU held Cal 5.96 below points above their PER offense average (136.17).



BYU scored 2 points below the Bears’ scoring defense average (20).

BYU gained 23 fewer yards than the Bears’ total defense average (310).

BYU gained 61 fewer yards than the Bears’ rushing defense average (152).

BYU gained 38 more yards than the Bears’ passing defense average (158).

BYU was 0.48 points above the Bears’ PER defense average (91.63).



Wisconsin

BYU held Wisconsin 14.7 points below their scoring offense average (35.7).

BYU held Wisconsin 97.3 yards below their total offense average (491.3).

BYU held Wisconsin 83 below yards their rushing offense average (287.0).

BYU held Wisconsin 14.3 yards below their passing offense average (204.3).

BYU held Wisconsin 61.00 points below their PER offense average (175.14).



BYU scored 12.7 more points than the Badgers’ scoring defense average (11.3).

BYU gained 4.3 more yards than the Badgers’ total defense average (306.7).

BYU gained 74.6 more yards than the Badgers’ rushing defense average (116.3).

BYU gained 70.3 fewer yards than the Badgers’ passing defense average (190.3).

BYU was 12.79 points below the Badgers’ PER defense average (127.49).



McNeese St

BYU held McNeese 26.3 points below their scoring offense average (29.3).

BYU held McNeese 165.7 yards below their total offense average (372.7).

BYU held McNeese 60.3 yards below their rushing offense average (133.3).

BYU held McNeese 105.3 yards below their passing offense average (230.3).

BYU held McNeese 81.59 points below their PER offense average (178.73).



BYU scored 10.7 more points than the Cowboys’ scoring defense average (19.3).

BYU gained 94.3 fewer yards than the Cowboys’ total defense average (385.3).

BYU gained 6.3 more yards than the Cowboys’ rushing defense average (96.7).

BYU gained 158.7 fewer yards than the Cowboys’ passing defense average (288.7).

BYU was 14.42 points below the Cowboys’ PER defense average (126.35).



Through Game 4

BYU has held four of four opponents below their scoring offense averages.

BYU has held three of four six opponents below their total offense averages.

BYU has held three opponents below their rushing offense averages.

BYU has held three of four opponents below their passing offense averages.

BYU has held four of four opponents below their PER offense averages.



BYU has scored more points against two of four opposing scoring defense averages.

BYU has gained more yards against one of four opposing total defense averages.

BYU has gained more yards against two of four opposing rushing defense averages.

BYU has gained more yards against one of four opposing passing defense averages.

BYU has had a higher PER against two of four opposing PER defense averages.

Defense is looking solid. What's not included here is the field position advantages they've created. Offense, not so good.

redneckjedi wrote:

Defense is looking solid. What's not included here is the field position advantages they've created. Offense, not so good.

I think the O is doing what Kalani wants -- controlling the ball, avoiding turnovers, eating clock, and putting up 20+ a game. This is protecting his defense and letting them do what they do best.

snoscythe wrote:

Defense is looking solid. What's not included here is the field position advantages they've created. Offense, not so good.

I think the O is doing what Kalani wants -- controlling the ball, avoiding turnovers, eating clock, and putting up 20+ a game. This is protecting his defense and letting them do what they do best.

I agree, and I am a little worried about it, because the 20+ is only coming when the D/ST give them a huge assist with field position. Yeah, we're eating clock and not turning it over, but we're not really moving the ball either consistently, either. To compete at the level at which we're currently ranked, we've got to be able to trust the O to have at least 1 or 2 75+ yard TD marches in them a game, to give the D a break, flip the field position battle, and certainly to score the points. Consider:

• Against AZ, we had TD drives of 59 (AZ 3&out, short punt), 75 (solid drive, start of 2nd half), 58 (AZ 3&out, short punt), and 36 (AZ 3&out, big punt return) yards.


• Against Cal, we had a TD drive of 73 (Cal in the prevent since we needed 2 scores?) yards.


• Against Wisconsin, we had TD drives of 75 (solid drive, answer to Wisc TD), 89 (solid drive, double pass for 31 to score), and 27 (INT + return) yards.


• Against McNeese, we had TD drives of 44 (Blocked FG + return), 31 (INT + return), and 35 (short punt, big return) yards.

That's 11 offensive TDs through 4 games, and only 3 of them coming from 75+ yards out. Maybe that's the plan - win the field position battle and score the easy ones. But that means if your D has an off day or is mismatched against the opponent, you lose. The O has got to be able to step up in that scenario, and it's going to happen.

Here's some data that I think shows offensive improvement:



2016

15 3-and-outs*

50 total drives

30% of drives



2017

16 3-and-outs

43 total drives

37.2% of drives



2018

11 3-and-outs

48 total drives

22.9% of drives



More 2018 data by Cal & non-Cal games:

Cal:

7 3-and-outs

13 total drives

53.8% of drives



Non-Cal:

4 3-and-outs

35 total drives

11.4% of drives.



For reference, in 2014, 53 of BYU's 191 drives were 3-&-out (27.7%). In 2015, it was 47 of 169 (27.8%) so 11% seems to be VERY good.



* I counted any drive that either ended in a punt on 4th down or a turnover on 1st, 2nd, 3rd down without gaining a single first down.