How Much Better Is Maryland Football’s Defense
September 22, 2012; Morgantown, WV, USA; Maryland Terrapins defensive lineman Joe Vellano (72) on the field against the West Virginia Mountaineers during the fourth quarter at Milan Puskar Stadium. The West Virginia Mountaineers won 31-21. Mandatory Credit: Charles LeClaire-US PRESSWIRE
A lot of hubbub has been made about Maryland’s defense this season since Brian Stewart took over as coordinator this offseason, and rightly so. Just in terms of raw statistics, the Terrapins are ranked by the NCAA as 11th in the nation in total defense, giving up 288 total yards per contest, with opponents averaging a mere 4.32 yards per play (Florida is holding opponents to 4.1 yards per play, for comparison). There is no question that Maryland’s defense isn’t Alabama, but just by basic metrics you can clearly see that the Terrapins are much, much, improved from last season. How much?
Well, last season through seven games was not nearly as peachy, to put it lightly. Through seven in 2011, the Terrapins had given up 3,094 total yards on the defensive end, 27 touchdowns in total (versus 16 this season so far), and had six of their first seven opponents score 21 or more points on them (compared to this season, where only three of the first seven have done so). Granted, the opponents were ranked teams like West Virginia, Clemson, and Georgia Tech, the Terps were still getting gashed by every opponent (including Temple). The result was that the Terrapins went from 2-5 to a 4-3 that could very, very, easily be a 5-2 (but that part we won’t dwell on, sparing Craddock this time).
But if you really want to get a gauge on how good this defense has become, advanced metrics can give an even better picture on what you see on the field. For that, I like to rely on a site called FootballOutsiders.com, who do a fantastic job compiling every single play of every game and bringing them together in a nice metric called the Fremau Efficiency Index (or FEI, for short). It takes into account the following:
(from their website)
- DFEI: Defensive FEI, the opponent-adjusted efficiency of the given team’s defense.
- DE: Defensive Efficiency, the raw unadjusted efficiency of the given team’s defense, a measure of the actual drive success of its opponents against expected drive success based on field position.
- FD: First Down rate, the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in at least one first down or touchdown.
- AY: Available Yards, yards earned by the opponent offense divided by the total number of yards available based on starting field position.
- Ex: Explosive Drives, the percentage of each opponent offense’s drives that average at least 10 yards per play.
- Me: Methodical Drives, the percentage of each opponent offense’s drives that run 10 or more plays.
- Va: Value Drives, the percentage of each opponent offense’s drives beginning on their own side of the field that reach at least the team’s 30-yard line.
- DSOS Pvs: Defensive Strength of Schedule to date, the likelihood that an elite defense (two standard deviations better than average) would have an above-average DE rating against each of the offenses faced to date.
- DSOS Fut: Defensive Strength of Schedule remaining, the likelihood that an elite defense (two standard deviations better than average) would have an above-average DE rating against each of the remaining offenses to be faced.
I’m going to condense the tables used here to show the Top 15 (which Maryland is not in) and then the five teams above and below Maryland in the rankings (to get an idea of where they stand).
DFEI | DFEI Rk | Team | FBS Rec | FEI Rk | DE | DE Rk | FD | FD Rk | AY | AY Rk | Ex | Ex Rk | Me | Me Rk | Va | Va Rk | DSOS Pvs | Rk | DSOS Fut | Rk |
-.748 | 1 | Stanford | 5-2 | 9 | -.425 | 24 | .580 | 18 | .341 | 14 | .068 | 20 | .102 | 21 | .272 | 17 | .143 | 10 | .409 | 36 |
-.727 | 2 | Alabama | 7-0 | 3 | -1.003 | 1 | .500 | 1 | .224 | 1 | .059 | 17 | .059 | 3 | .161 | 1 | .377 | 55 | .552 | 67 |
-.716 | 3 | Michigan State | 4-4 | 29 | -.581 | 11 | .576 | 15 | .343 | 16 | .054 | 15 | .098 | 19 | .232 | 7 | .131 | 6 | .430 | 43 |
-.694 | 4 | Oregon | 6-0 | 4 | -.717 | 4 | .611 | 25 | .343 | 15 | .069 | 21 | .139 | 62 | .288 | 26 | .404 | 60 | .428 | 42 |
-.669 | 5 | Florida State | 5-1 | 8 | -.556 | 16 | .536 | 4 | .294 | 4 | .043 | 8 | .116 | 31 | .177 | 4 | .270 | 24 | .559 | 68 |
-.662 | 6 | Oklahoma | 4-1 | 2 | -.794 | 2 | .640 | 39 | .291 | 3 | .020 | 4 | .060 | 4 | .167 | 3 | .254 | 23 | .050 | 2 |
-.637 | 7 | Cincinnati | 3-1 | 15 | -.564 | 14 | .614 | 29 | .389 | 30 | .091 | 36 | .114 | 28 | .310 | 34 | .581 | 97 | .294 | 22 |
-.622 | 8 | Kansas State | 6-0 | 1 | -.324 | 30 | .611 | 26 | .376 | 29 | .019 | 3 | .222 | 114 | .327 | 41 | .345 | 44 | .063 | 4 |
-.602 | 9 | Rutgers | 6-0 | 14 | -.564 | 13 | .592 | 21 | .373 | 28 | .099 | 38 | .099 | 20 | .286 | 24 | .352 | 46 | .369 | 32 |
-.567 | 10 | Notre Dame | 7-0 | 6 | -.742 | 3 | .583 | 19 | .347 | 18 | .014 | 1 | .181 | 95 | .258 | 15 | .601 | 102 | .354 | 29 |
-.558 | 11 | Florida | 7-0 | 5 | -.583 | 10 | .544 | 6 | .326 | 11 | .051 | 12 | .190 | 103 | .280 | 21 | .482 | 80 | .667 | 85 |
-.548 | 12 | Boise State | 6-1 | 27 | -.600 | 9 | .645 | 43 | .350 | 20 | .039 | 6 | .171 | 86 | .243 | 11 | .689 | 114 | .519 | 60 |
-.547 | 13 | South Carolina | 6-2 | 25 | -.704 | 5 | .616 | 30 | .314 | 9 | .047 | 9 | .128 | 47 | .235 | 8 | .451 | 71 | .435 | 46 |
-.530 | 14 | LSU | 6-1 | 11 | -.651 | 7 | .538 | 5 | .264 | 2 | .050 | 11 | .075 | 8 | .164 | 2 | .471 | 78 | .409 | 37 |
-.511 | 15 | Oregon State | 6-0 | 7 | -.394 | 25 | .667 | 58 | .396 | 32 | .107 | 40 | .147 | 67 | .304 | 31 | .310 | 33 | .531 | 65 |
That’s the Top 15. Now here is where Maryland stands
DFEI | DFEI Rk | Team | FBS Rec | FEI Rk | DE | DE Rk | FD | FD Rk | AY | AY Rk | Ex | Ex Rk | Me | Me Rk | Va | Va Rk | DSOS Pvs | Rk | DSOS Fut | Rk |
-.289 | 31 | Virginia Tech | 3-4 | 47 | -.166 | 42 | .671 | 62 | .436 | 50 | .118 | 50 | .118 | 35 | .387 | 61 | .178 | 15 | .727 | 98 |
-.278 | 32 | Texas Tech | 5-1 | 10 | -.199 | 38 | .661 | 53 | .400 | 33 | .068 | 19 | .136 | 59 | .353 | 50 | .368 | 50 | .053 | 3 |
-.277 | 33 | Minnesota | 3-3 | 70 | -.202 | 37 | .667 | 59 | .410 | 36 | .111 | 44 | .153 | 72 | .295 | 28 | .447 | 69 | .483 | 53 |
-.263 | 34 | Mississippi State | 6-0 | 30 | -.556 | 15 | .594 | 22 | .351 | 21 | .047 | 10 | .188 | 102 | .279 | 20 | .765 | 119 | .281 | 18 |
-.251 | 35 | Northern Illinois | 6-1 | 41 | -.103 | 46 | .727 | 86 | .475 | 67 | .078 | 26 | .247 | 121 | .417 | 74 | .508 | 83 | .774 | 108 |
-.249 | 36 | Maryland | 3-3 | 57 | -.443 | 21 | .554 | 9 | .313 | 8 | .084 | 33 | .120 | 41 | .243 | 10 | .612 | 105 | .255 | 15 |
-.243 | 37 | Toledo | 6-1 | 31 | .033 | 67 | .773 | 110 | .508 | 84 | .205 | 111 | .114 | 29 | .407 | 69 | .278 | 27 | .678 | 88 |
-.243 | 38 | Wake Forest | 3-3 | 75 | -.066 | 53 | .676 | 66 | .433 | 49 | .108 | 42 | .108 | 24 | .317 | 36 | .401 | 59 | .269 | 16 |
-.242 | 39 | Missouri | 2-4 | 81 | -.174 | 39 | .645 | 44 | .426 | 44 | .158 | 77 | .105 | 22 | .328 | 42 | .524 | 85 | .333 | 26 |
-.234 | 40 | Fresno State | 4-3 | 45 | -.459 | 18 | .521 | 2 | .310 | 6 | .117 | 49 | .074 | 7 | .221 | 6 | .587 | 99 | .520 | 61 |
-.212 | 41 | Purdue | 2-4 | 74 | .013 | 65 | .703 | 78 | .461 | 62 | .081 | 31 | .149 | 68 | .364 | 56 | .173 | 13 | .306 | 23 |
I know that’s a lot to take in, but I’ll try to explain it a bit better for you now. What stands out to me? That the Terrapins fell as far as they did to 31st. It isn’t bad, but basic statistics would suggest that the Terrapins are a lot better than 31st in the nation given how well their defense has been playing. Part of that is because these statistics are harsh on teams that play creampuff schedules and do not completely dominate weak teams. So far, the Terrapins have played one elite team (West Virginia, kind of), and they lost while giving up points in the thirties. This is not to knock the defense, it just means that the schedule isn’t working in their favor on some of these metrics (like the overall score which places them thiry-first in the nation). It does, however, compliment the Terrapins in a lot of good categories.
In particular, the Terrapins are 9th in the nation in First Down Rates at .554, the percentage of opponent offensive drives that result in at least one first down or touchdown. Wisconsin, TCU, LSU, Florida, and Alabama are teams ahead of them in that statistic, so if we are cherry-picking statistics, the Terps are incredibly good at forcing teams to punt early and often. Considering how often the offense stalls out, this number is particularly impressive as the defense is constantly on the field. As we saw against N.C. State, though, regardless of field position the Terrapins are incredibly effective at forcing the opponent’s offense to rely on the pass, and then proceed to break up everything in sight.
Another good statistic that the Terrapins are very good in is Available Yards. This number represents the yards earned by the opponent offense divided by the total number of yards available based on starting field position. By this metric it has the Terrapins ranked 8th in the nation, at .313. Again, this is a stat that almost shows how good this team is at bending a times, but never breaking. The field position they are given is rarely good, and yet they still manage to keep opponents from scoring or gaining many yards at all. When you account for all the awful punts Maryland has had that gives opposing offenses the ball around their 40 yard line, it’s a telling stat for the Terrapins. Bottom line? These guys do not quit, regardless of the field position.
Finally, we’ll look at another statistic that really shows how good the Terrapins are at stopping opponents on the defensive end using the Value Drives statistic. This one is the percentage of each opponent offense’s drives beginning on their own side of the field that reach at least the team’s 30-yard line. For this, the metric has the Terrapins ranked 10th in the nation at .243. It goes along with the bend-but-don’t-break mentality that the Terrapins defense has. They stop teams regardless of field position, and ensure that even if drives go ten or more plays,opponents have to fight for every single yard.
We notice this one a lot when the Terrapins play opponents who end up at the 50 yard line, but have to settle for field goals because the Terps are so good at busting up plays with less field. This defense swarms, and they are versatile in that plenty of their players (Hartsfield, Tate, Drakeford) can play more than one position. This is a fast unit that, when there are less yards to be had on the field by the offense, uses its speed to cover more field. Not a bad thing for the Terrapins.
Of course, with statistics, you have to show the good and the bad in order to get any real perspective on how good the stat itself is. Without boring you with details, these rankings scold the Terrapins for their schedule thus far. One metric, DSOS Pvs ( Defensive Strength of Schedule to date, the likelihood that an elite defense (two standard deviations better than average) would have an above-average DE rating against each of the offenses faced to date), suggests accurately that the Terrapins haven’t faced anyone that an elite defense wouldn’t tear up either. It has them ranked 105th, and suggests that .612 percent of defenses would have great games against the opponents the Terps have faced. As much as I want to take weight into this statistic, the reality is that any team has to play their schedule. Thus far the Terrapins have played admirably against everyone they have faced, and quite frankly I am satisfied with that.
Now in the second half of the schedule, the Terrapins have a much tougher task at hand. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech all score quite a bit, so we can really get a good gauge of just how impressive (statistically, at least) this squad is. There is a statistic for this, called DSOS Fut, which applies the same standard as the previous paragraph, only with future teams. Feel free to look at the table for that number (it’s 15th in the nation), but I am going to have to ignore that one.
What do all these numbers tell us? That Maryland is very good on defense to this point, but they have a tougher task ahead of them. Compared to last year, though, how improved are they? Well, I’ll just let the chart speak for itself on that matter:
2011:
DFEI | DFEI Rk | Team | FBS Rec | FEI Rk | DE | DE Rk | FD | FD Rk | AY | AY Rk | Ex | Ex Rk | Me | Me Rk | Va | Va Rk | DSOS | Rk |
.010 | 61 | Georgia Tech | 7-5 | 43 | .132 | 79 | .645 | 46 | .480 | 79 | .149 | 78 | .157 | 83 | .427 | 81 | .129 | 54 |
.012 | 62 | Wake Forest | 5-7 | 55 | .041 | 70 | .705 | 88 | .471 | 72 | .158 | 87 | .151 | 80 | .411 | 74 | .185 | 74 |
.018 | 63 | Arizona State | 5-7 | 42 | .054 | 72 | .710 | 92 | .497 | 84 | .159 | 88 | .131 | 62 | .422 | 79 | .089 | 34 |
.043 | 64 | Ohio | 9-4 | 58 | -.093 | 52 | .636 | 38 | .420 | 44 | .110 | 44 | .117 | 34 | .364 | 53 | .349 | 103 |
.048 | 65 | SMU | 7-5 | 70 | -.105 | 46 | .638 | 39 | .447 | 59 | .092 | 29 | .131 | 60 | .418 | 77 | .103 | 39 |
.053 | 66 | San Diego State | 7-5 | 75 | .066 | 75 | .664 | 59 | .462 | 65 | .150 | 80 | .171 | 99 | .380 | 59 | .171 | 70 |
.077 | 67 | Marshall | 7-6 | 85 | -.093 | 51 | .651 | 51 | .432 | 52 | .138 | 68 | .125 | 46 | .373 | 57 | .138 | 55 |
.084 | 68 | East Carolina | 5-7 | 92 | .055 | 73 | .706 | 89 | .511 | 92 | .127 | 58 | .183 | 104 | .437 | 86 | .146 | 57 |
.096 | 69 | Miami (OH) | 4-8 | 76 | -.078 | 55 | .667 | 60 | .432 | 51 | .078 | 18 | .163 | 86 | .345 | 41 | .248 | 90 |
.101 | 70 | Utah State | 6-6 | 65 | -.021 | 63 | .688 | 76 | .459 | 63 | .132 | 62 | .118 | 36 | .406 | 71 | .437 | 111 |
.121 | 71 | Miami | 5-6 | 26 | .065 | 74 | .714 | 94 | .501 | 87 | .105 | 40 | .248 | 119 | .444 | 90 | .186 | 75 |
.134 | 72 | Louisiana Monroe | 3-8 | 86 | -.089 | 54 | .648 | 49 | .425 | 48 | .128 | 59 | .120 | 40 | .355 | 48 | .476 | 113 |
.148 | 73 | Oregon State | 3-8 | 91 | .314 | 98 | .707 | 90 | .517 | 94 | .138 | 67 | .147 | 77 | .429 | 82 | .047 | 14 |
.148 | 74 | Maryland | 1-10 | 81 | .370 | 104 | .758 | 106 | .559 | 104 | .156 | 83 | .188 | 109 | .491 | 105 | .051 | 17 |
.152 | 75 | Western Kentucky | 7-4 | 87 | -.044 | 59 | .645 | 47 | .430 | 50 | .177 | 100 | .105 | 22 | .383 | 60 | .323 | 102 |
By every statistic, we can say that Brian Stewart has improved this team. And for that we commend him for the job he’s done, and hail praise upon the 3-4 (for now).
—————-
Later this week, we’ll be breaking down the 3-4 defense and what makes it so effective by doing a little film study, so be sure to stay tuned into the site.