A Look Back At ISU on Third Down

I've long since run out of my own ideas on which to blog. That's why, on my latest visit to the awesome MGoBlog, I came back with an actual idea. Over there, they've got an awesome database of third down conversion stats from last year. Now, if you don't like seeing "bad" stuff, or if you're prone to vomiting when hearing about last year's excuse for "defense", or our "power" offense, please navigate over to a happier blog. I suggest BurntOrangeNation or PhogBlog if you want to see some of our conference foes deal with something called the postseason.

Our first graph is third down conversion efficiency. The dark black line is the NCAA average for conversions at that distance. For example, 68% of NCAA teams converted on third and one. It's graph time. Let's start out with the offense.



We converted most of the time on 3rd and 1, and all the way up to 3rd and 3. This is pretty much due to fullback Ryan Kock, who has a motor that knows no reverse. What stands out as rather curious is the fact that we were below average for every distance past. Who'dve thunk this would be an issue with Todd Blythe, jon Davis, Milan Moses, RJ Sumrall, Austin Flynn and Bret Meyer to throw to that gaggle? Flynn is a solid possession reciever. Blythe was a top WR in the conference (or at least he was). It really shows how our offense struggled when it mattered. We're Iowa State, I guess, We didn't suck horribly, but just enough. I could've sworn we had a good offense coming into 06. We were slightly above average on short distances thanks to our fullback, but our passing game (because we wouldn't run it on 3rd and 4+ very often) cost us on third down.

Now for the defense. I suggest you turn away.



Red is bad. The amount of red you see on our graph is REALLY bad. The green is really inconsequential, as third downs over ten yards occur a whole lot less than those under. Teams were an EIGHTY PERCENT bet to convert on 3rd and 1. It's rather disgusting that we allowed nearly 10% above the NCAA average up until about 3rd and 8. That goes to show that our defense pretty much sucked when it mattered. We were pretty damn good on 3rd and 13, but that's not much to brag about. Most downs aren't going to be at that distance. It actually seems a little strange originally, with our substandard defensive backfield.

That eighty percent rate is why we focused on defensive linemen quite a bit in the recruiting period. It's only a third down scenario, and I'd love to see graphs for all three downs, but it shows that our line was a weak spot. Of course, our backfield was a weak spot too, so, we ended with four wins.

Next up is a rather unique graph showing the distribution of our distances on third down. The dark black line is the NCAA average. Green simply means more, and red, less. Again, the offense:



The spike at 10 yards is due to the rules of football, of course. We had a large amount of third and ones, which was alright with Kock, but that large green spike at around 3rd and 7, and that even bigger one at 3rd and 10, mixed in with our underperforming pass offense, is bad. Those two graphs added together show that we're putting ourself in bad situations, and we aren't succeeding. There's also a lot of third downs over 15 yards, which seems to correllate to penalties at inopportune times.

The spike at around 3rd and 7, to me, speaks of this scenario. First down: Hicks two yard run up the middle. Second down: Incomplete pass, or Hicks, one yard run up the middle. Our anemic run game on first and second set us up for failure on third, as our passing game decided to suck.

Now, for the defense.



This is horrible. The Cyclone defense forced offenses into ridiculously low percentages of 3rd and 10+, while allowing a substantially high percentage of 3rd and shorts. Two graphs ago, we saw our defense couldn't stop anyone on third and short. This graph shows we put the opposition in that postition A LOT. That adds up to the high scores racked up on us. The lower the normal numbers of 3rd and longs also decrease chances for forced punts, which, I hear, are good on defense.

Those prior four graphs add up to form these two. The red equals successful conversions, while the blue equals total attempts.

The offense:



After third and one, suckitude. We converted 14 out of every 19 times on 3rd and 1, down to 4 out of every 19 times on 3rd and 10. Lot's of blue is bad here. There is lots of blue. Understand, failure rates are understandable on third down, but good teams convert more than we did. So did mediocre teams.

The defense:



Red is bad here. There is LOTS of red. Not much more needs to be said. Our defense stunk.

Overall, this shows our lack of ability to stop anyone on third down. The money down. Will Chizik and Bolt be able to buck this trend? If they want to start winning games again, they'll have to. I've told you what you already knew...we stunk on third down. It's hard to recruit clutch ability, or to teach the kids to come up when it counts. It is an area for improvement, however. And we need to.