Sigh. It’s this. Again.
Since it seems our prior four-part analyses didn’t quite sink in, we’re going to say this once more, with feeling:
- More passing does not correlate with less time of possession
- Time of possession does not correlate with defensive performance, and
- Time of possession is not correlated with winning.
Since normative distributions and decades-long data sets didn’t convince you. I think I have to do it only with 2024 data. And, to that end, in the next few pieces, I am going to explain to you in painstaking, autistic detail — using only the first half of this season — the following two things:
- Why my above are true, as applied to this team; and,
- Where Alabama’s defensive woes actually lie: conversion defense, and explosive play defense.
We all onboard?
Good. Grab some coffee. If this won’t convince you, nothing will.
We’ll start with one that requires the least math, and that is the easiest understood
‘Bama’s explosiveness problem
Alabama, on paper at least, has a very respectable defense — certainly good enough to pair with a dynamic offense to win a title (seriously, go look at some of the numbers from the 2020 defense. They were “worse” than you remember.)
On an opponent-adjusted basis, the Tide’s defense is 16th overall in efficiency, 26th in drive efficiency, and 24th in explosive efficiency. It is 17th in rush efficiency defense, 17th in forcing negative drives, 24th in negative-play efficiency, and 26th in pass efficiency: Top 20% or better across the board. It is 2nd in the SEC at +1.00 TO per game, and surrenders about what they have the last several years — 20 PPG.
So, where does the problem lie? The issue is two-fold. The first requires a more granular look at conversion defense (which we will do on Friday). The second is explosiveness, and we tackle that second part now.
Last season, Alabama surrendered 151 plays over 10 yards in 14 games. This season, even with two soup cans to their credit, ‘Bama has already hit half that number: 75. Still, that’s not too far off from their historic norm under Saban, and indeed is even better per-game than most years: 147 in 2022, 176 in 2021, 168 in just 13 games in 2020, 167 in 13 games in 2019, etc.
So where’s the problem?
The problem is what happens to this team after it allows an explosive play.
Let’s put this to some numbers so you can see:
Western Kentucky:
- Explosive plays allowed: 2 total
- Drives with explosive plays / number allowed on drive n / type of scored allowed: 2 total; 1/0, 1/0
- % Opponent scores on drives with explosive plays / % scoring accounted for: 0 / 0%
- Points per explosive play allowed: 0
This is an outlier because WKU got steamrolled, only generated two XP in garbage time, and no scores came out of it. If you’re a DC, this gets you drinks at the Houndstooth and some random bar cougar playing pocket pool with you.
USF:
- Explosive plays allowed: 6
- Drives with explosive plays / number allowed on drive n / type of scored allowed (0, 3, 7): 4 total; 1/3, 3/3, 1/7, 1/3
- % Opponent scores on drives with explosive plays / % scoring accounted for: 100% of scoring drives, 100% of scoring
- Points per explosive play allowed: 2.67
This really tells the story in stark detail. On every drive where Alabama allowed an explosive play (as defined by runs over 10 yards / passes over 15 yards), it allowed a score. It did so six times on four drive. And those four drives accounted for every single USF point scored. When Alabama prevented explosive plays, USF didn’t score.
Wisconsin:
- Explosive plays allowed: 5 total
- Drives with explosive plays / number allowed on drive n / type of scored allowed (0, 3, 7): 4 total; 1/0, 1/0 (TO), 2/7, 1/0
- % Opponent scores on drives with explosive plays / % scoring accounted for: 25% of scoring drives, 70% of all scoring.
- Points per explosive play allowed: 2.0
In some ways, this was the anti-USF game. Wisconsin was able to drive the field, but Alabama’s defense forced TOs, missed field goals, regouped or otherwise got off the field after allowing a big play. Conceding that big plays are going to happen at this level against a talented Big 10 team on the road, this is what you like to see from your defense: negating the damage that a successful offensive play can create — just 2 points per big play was great.
Georgia:
- Explosive plays allowed: 11 total
- Drives with explosive plays / number allowed on drive n / type of scored allowed (0, 3, 7): 7 total; 1/0 (INT), 3/7, 1/8, 2/7, 2/6, 1/6, 1/0 (INT)
- % Opponent scores on drives with explosive plays / % scoring accounted for: 71% of scoring drives, 100% of all scoring
- Points per explosive play allowed: 3.1
You thought this was going to be a lot worse, didn’t you? The points-per-big play are similar to USF (hovering near 3), but Georgia was its own worst enemy, as was ‘Bama’s feast-or-famine secondary. On two drives where the Bulldogs hit big plays, the Tide was able to later force a turnover (including ZB’s game-winner in the endzone). And that’s good. Because we saw the exact same pattern we saw with USF — outside of those Beck gaffes, Georgia was damn-near automatic reaching the endzone on drives where they hit big gainers. If Beck has a competent four quarters and/or ‘Bama’s secondary doesn’t discombulate him, who knows how this one ends up.
Vanderbilt:
- Explosive plays allowed: 9 total
- Drives with explosive plays / number allowed on drive n / type of scored allowed (0, 3, 7): 5 total; 2/7, 1/0, 1/7, 3/3, 2/7
- % Opponent scores on drives with explosive plays / % scoring accounted for*: 80% of scoring drives, 75% of all scoring
- Points per explosive play allowed: 4.4
This game has already been documented as a fluke across the board, despite the fact ‘Bama didn’t play well enough to win. But it was also bad news in the Big Play category. Call it the ant-Wisconsin game — Vanderbilt was both able to drive the field and cash in and keep pushing down the field after a big play. Those explosive plays were in 60% of all scores, and omitting the INT return for a TD, were responsible for 75% of VU scoring drives. Vanderbilt did more than any other team with their big plays by also being able to piece together 3 yards here, 6 yards there, and punctuate it with the occasional intermediate shot down the field. Tough offense to stop when it is effective, and it showed.
South Carolina:
- Explosive plays allowed: 7 total
- Drives with explosive plays / number allowed on drive n / type of scored allowed (0, 3, 7): 4 total; 1/0 (INT), 1/7, 3/7, 2/6
- % Opponent scores on drives with explosive plays / % scoring accounted for*: 75% of scoring drives, 79% of all scoring*
- Points per explosive play allowed: 3.42
Once again, the pattern is here. Alabama gives up a big play (even a fairly small one), and the opponent is almost guaranteed to cash it in. And in this game, which was a closely contested defensive effort, big plays were felt across the board. USC didn’t get many shots in — but they counted a lot: 80% of all of the ‘Cocks’ scoring. And, once you omit the safety USCe chalked up, an ungodly 91% of South Carolina’s offensive scoring came from drives with an explosive play. That’s making the most of your chances — USCe had the second-best cash-in rate, and not coincidentally, it was the Tide’s second-closest game.
Aren’t these just numbers in a vacuum?
These numbers may not mean much without a meaningful comparison. Fortunately for you, I’ve done the math on this one too, going back since the Portal / NIL era. Over the last four years, here’s what the “average” Alabama defense has done, using the same 10+ run / 15+ pass:
Alabama defense 2019-2013
- Average explosive plays allowed per game: 5.14 per game
- Drives with explosive plays: 4.40 per game
- % scoring per game off explosive plays: 61% of all scoring
- Points per game off explosive plays: 11.68
Alabama Defense 2024
- Average explosive plays allowed: 6.667 per game
- Drives with explosive plays: 4.8 per game
- % scoring per game off explosive plays: 70.66% of all scoring
- Points per game off explosive plays: 15.667
What we’re looking at here, when you put it all together is a defense that gives up about the same amount drives with explosive scores, but about 1.5 more explosive plays per drive. That is resulting in about 4 more points per game for opponents off of big games.
That suggests what your eyes probably already tell you (and which Josh tries to debunk): Momentum is real. It’s a very young defense that is going to be burned, sure. But when they give up a big play, they often have a difficult time regrouping and getting back off the field. “Historic” Alabama was able to regroup about 20% more effectively after surrendering an explosive play. This team, in a new scheme, simply has not been able to do so.
Is this a time of possession problem? No, it’s an inexperience, miscommunication, and thin roster problem — all operating in a brand new system. The good news is, and you wouldn’t really believe it, Alabama is actually giving up fewer of those gambling 25+ yard kill shots that Alabama historically surrendered under Saban. The downside is, unless they can get some mental toughness after a bad break, then ‘Bama is going to be susceptible to cascading bad fortunes. Because, in most respects, Wommack’s strategy of making teams drive the field works. It’s very hard to do so. And once the Tide gets its explosive play issues cleaned up, the defense could be quite formidable.
But for now, you can groan inwardly every time the Tide gives up a 12-yard run or an 18-yard pass. The numbers suggest that it is merely to prologue to about 3 free points on the board for every time it happens.
Good thing Alabama has to go to Neyland this weekend, huh?
Roll Tide
Poll
Which scares you more about Tennessee?
-
33%
Their running game and death by a thousand cuts.
(99 votes)
-
47%
Another fiasco where the secondary is torched repeatedly for big plays.
(141 votes)
-
12%
Ain’t skeered, Pawwwwwl
(38 votes)
-
7%
“Barbecue” is not a verb.
(21 votes)
299 votes total
Vote Now
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)