I finally had a chance to wade through Pitt’s Offensive drives to see if anything jumped out and as expected it is a pretty sad story. For comparison purposes, I chose to use Minnesota’s drive performance since there have been many references lately about Pitt needing to duplicate their success and I thought you folks would appreciate that comparison.
Overall Pitt had 154 possessions, scored 24 offensive TDs, made 18 FGs and missed 5FGs plus had 18 turnovers on offense. Minnesota had 125 possessions, scored 52 offensive TDs, made 10 FGs, missed 3 FGs and had 14 turnovers on offense. The first thing that jumps out is how did Minnesota score over twice as many TDs with 29 less possessions. Was it a quick strike offense? Not really.
Looking at all 98 drives that started inside the Minn 40 yard line 9 drives occurred in a quick strike fashion (5 plays or less). The other 30 TDs were 6 plays or more. 21 of those were 9 plays or more. The longest was 18 plays.
By comparison Pitt had 126 possessions starting inside the Pitt 40 yd line. They scored a TD on 18 of those. 6 were quick strike (5 plays or less) and 12 were similar to Minnesota’s sustained drives averaging 9.8 plays per TD.
Looking at all possessions, Pitt had 17 drives of 10 or more plays that did not end in a TD. Minnesota only had 8 drives like this.
Was the issue turnovers? Pitt seemed to have a lot of them this year. However as a percentage of possessions, Pitt had a turnover on 11.6% of drives while Minnesota had 11.2%. So this was not really the issue in terms of volume but the timing of them was terrible and the general lack of points scored turned games into a pick’em.
A few interesting facts about turnovers. Neither team had a turnover all season on any drive that started on the opponents side of the 50. Are defenses on their heels or do offensive players subconsciously have better ball security when starting field position is better?
Of the 32 combined turnovers, 84% occurred on the first 5 plays of a drive, 59% occurred on the first 3 plays of a drive and 25% occurred on the first play of a drive. That’s something to watch. As the drive continues beyond 5 plays the offense has much better ball security.
Well I’m sitting here with 9 pages of notes and I guess the answer comes down to Pitt having to convert too many 3rd downs in a row to sustain drives. They don’t need splash plays based on Minnesota’s high level of success without an overwhelming number of quick strike scores. However Pitt needs the 8-13 yard gains sprinkled into their drives to keep them out of do or die 3rd downs several times each drive.
Aside from TEs most of the offensive personnel returns so hopefully the unit can jell in the spring and turn this around next fall. Maybe a few late recruiting surprises can blossom into much needed play makers.
=======
Here is some extra detail for those who are interested. I grabbed some analysis from Watchdtadium.com from the 2018 season that showed scoring rate based on starting field position of all CFB drives, over 6500 possessions. I looked at the field broken into 10 yard increments. Below, when I write 80+ that really means 80-89 yds from the end zone.
It is important to realize that across college football, 41.3% of drives start 70-79 yards from the end zone due to the ball placed at the 25 yard line after most kickoffs and many punts end up in that area of the field. Pitt started at the 70+ mark 42% of the time and Minnesota did the same 40% of the time. This means you need an offensive unit capable of scoring TDs from 75 yards out on at least 40% of their possessions....if they are going to be a 9 or 10 game winner.
Below shows the outcome of 2019 offensive possessions for Pitt and Minnesota starting at the various yard lines compared to the actual 2018 scoring rate by distance. Scoring is TDs & FGs combined.
90+ 2018 teams scored 25.9%
Pitt 16 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 5TO, 12.5%
Min 15 poss, 3TD, 1FG, 3TO, 26.6%
80+ 2018 teams scored 31.2%
Pitt 31 poss, 5TD, 5FG, 3TO, 32.2%
Min 17 poss, 6TD, 2FG, 3TO, 47%
70+ 2018 teams scored 35.6%
Pitt 65 poss, 9TD, 7FG, 7TO, 24.6%
Min 50 poss, 21TD, 1FG, 2TO, 44%
60+ 2018 teams scored 44.4%
Pitt 14 poss, 3TD, 2FG, 1TO, 35.7%
Min 16 poss, 9TD, 1FG, 3TO, 62.5%
50+ 2018 teams scored 51.6%
Pitt 12 poss, 0TD, FG, 3TO, 0%
Min 10 poss, 4TD, 1FG, 3TO, 50%
40+ 2018 teams scored 57.5%
Pitt 7 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 0TO, 28.5%
Min 10 poss, 5TD, 2FG, 0TO, 70%
30+ 2018 teams scored 67%
Pitt 4 poss, 2TD, 1FG, 0TO, 75%
Min 1 poss, 1TD, 0FG, 0TO, 100%
20+ 2018 teams scored 74.2%
Pitt 2 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 0TO, 100%
Min 5 poss, 3TD, 1FG, 0TO, 80%
10+ 2018 teams scored 89.1%
Pitt 2 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 0TO, 100%
Min 1 poss, 0TD, 1FG, 0TO, 100%
0+ 2018 teams scored 98.3%
Pitt 1 poss, 1TD, 0FG, 0TO, 100%
Min 0 poss, 0TD, 0FG, 0TO, 0%
Overall Pitt had 154 possessions, scored 24 offensive TDs, made 18 FGs and missed 5FGs plus had 18 turnovers on offense. Minnesota had 125 possessions, scored 52 offensive TDs, made 10 FGs, missed 3 FGs and had 14 turnovers on offense. The first thing that jumps out is how did Minnesota score over twice as many TDs with 29 less possessions. Was it a quick strike offense? Not really.
Looking at all 98 drives that started inside the Minn 40 yard line 9 drives occurred in a quick strike fashion (5 plays or less). The other 30 TDs were 6 plays or more. 21 of those were 9 plays or more. The longest was 18 plays.
By comparison Pitt had 126 possessions starting inside the Pitt 40 yd line. They scored a TD on 18 of those. 6 were quick strike (5 plays or less) and 12 were similar to Minnesota’s sustained drives averaging 9.8 plays per TD.
Looking at all possessions, Pitt had 17 drives of 10 or more plays that did not end in a TD. Minnesota only had 8 drives like this.
Was the issue turnovers? Pitt seemed to have a lot of them this year. However as a percentage of possessions, Pitt had a turnover on 11.6% of drives while Minnesota had 11.2%. So this was not really the issue in terms of volume but the timing of them was terrible and the general lack of points scored turned games into a pick’em.
A few interesting facts about turnovers. Neither team had a turnover all season on any drive that started on the opponents side of the 50. Are defenses on their heels or do offensive players subconsciously have better ball security when starting field position is better?
Of the 32 combined turnovers, 84% occurred on the first 5 plays of a drive, 59% occurred on the first 3 plays of a drive and 25% occurred on the first play of a drive. That’s something to watch. As the drive continues beyond 5 plays the offense has much better ball security.
Well I’m sitting here with 9 pages of notes and I guess the answer comes down to Pitt having to convert too many 3rd downs in a row to sustain drives. They don’t need splash plays based on Minnesota’s high level of success without an overwhelming number of quick strike scores. However Pitt needs the 8-13 yard gains sprinkled into their drives to keep them out of do or die 3rd downs several times each drive.
Aside from TEs most of the offensive personnel returns so hopefully the unit can jell in the spring and turn this around next fall. Maybe a few late recruiting surprises can blossom into much needed play makers.
=======
Here is some extra detail for those who are interested. I grabbed some analysis from Watchdtadium.com from the 2018 season that showed scoring rate based on starting field position of all CFB drives, over 6500 possessions. I looked at the field broken into 10 yard increments. Below, when I write 80+ that really means 80-89 yds from the end zone.
It is important to realize that across college football, 41.3% of drives start 70-79 yards from the end zone due to the ball placed at the 25 yard line after most kickoffs and many punts end up in that area of the field. Pitt started at the 70+ mark 42% of the time and Minnesota did the same 40% of the time. This means you need an offensive unit capable of scoring TDs from 75 yards out on at least 40% of their possessions....if they are going to be a 9 or 10 game winner.
Below shows the outcome of 2019 offensive possessions for Pitt and Minnesota starting at the various yard lines compared to the actual 2018 scoring rate by distance. Scoring is TDs & FGs combined.
90+ 2018 teams scored 25.9%
Pitt 16 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 5TO, 12.5%
Min 15 poss, 3TD, 1FG, 3TO, 26.6%
80+ 2018 teams scored 31.2%
Pitt 31 poss, 5TD, 5FG, 3TO, 32.2%
Min 17 poss, 6TD, 2FG, 3TO, 47%
70+ 2018 teams scored 35.6%
Pitt 65 poss, 9TD, 7FG, 7TO, 24.6%
Min 50 poss, 21TD, 1FG, 2TO, 44%
60+ 2018 teams scored 44.4%
Pitt 14 poss, 3TD, 2FG, 1TO, 35.7%
Min 16 poss, 9TD, 1FG, 3TO, 62.5%
50+ 2018 teams scored 51.6%
Pitt 12 poss, 0TD, FG, 3TO, 0%
Min 10 poss, 4TD, 1FG, 3TO, 50%
40+ 2018 teams scored 57.5%
Pitt 7 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 0TO, 28.5%
Min 10 poss, 5TD, 2FG, 0TO, 70%
30+ 2018 teams scored 67%
Pitt 4 poss, 2TD, 1FG, 0TO, 75%
Min 1 poss, 1TD, 0FG, 0TO, 100%
20+ 2018 teams scored 74.2%
Pitt 2 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 0TO, 100%
Min 5 poss, 3TD, 1FG, 0TO, 80%
10+ 2018 teams scored 89.1%
Pitt 2 poss, 1TD, 1FG, 0TO, 100%
Min 1 poss, 0TD, 1FG, 0TO, 100%
0+ 2018 teams scored 98.3%
Pitt 1 poss, 1TD, 0FG, 0TO, 100%
Min 0 poss, 0TD, 0FG, 0TO, 0%
