FanPost

Advanced Statistics Review: Success on Passing Downs vs. NC State

Andy Lyons

After last week's advanced stats review, I suggested that Louisville's offensive woes were related to it's relative lack of success on passing downs. Before the NC State game, Louisville was ranked (92) on passing downs. Passing downs are considered 2nd down with 8 or more yards to go, or third or fourth down with 5 or more yards to go.

In order to be considered 'successful' in the S&P+ metric, the offense must gain 70 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third and fourth down. Note that just because it is considered a 'passing down' a running play still counts. The results of the NC State game tell us two big things. One, the Cards are getting better on passing downs (although facing a weaker defense). Second, DeVante Parker and Michael Dyer are absolutely indispensable on passing downs.

In the NC State game, Louisville faced twenty-one passing downs. Of these, only five were considered successful, good for a success rate of 23.8%. As of last week, the national average was 30.6%. In the Clemson game, Louisville's success rate on passing downs was a mere 11.5%. Even though NC State's defense is significantly weaker than Clemson's, this is a marked improvement.

Of these five successful passing downs, Michael Dyer and DeVante Parker account for each of them:

Down To Go Gain % Gain Target
2nd 10 7 70% Dyer
2nd 11 21 191% Parker
2nd 10 27 270% Dyer
3rd 7 12 171% Parker
3rd 12 46 (TD) 383% Dyer

Now, you could throw out that last Dyer touchdown given the fact it was an end-of-game clock killing situation that happened to go for a big run, but I'm going to leave it in here so we can all feel a bit better about the level of improvement we saw on Saturday.

There wasn't a significant common thread in the unsuccessful passing downs, but we did see several poor throws and drops which kept the Louisville offense from seeming 'fully clicked' on passing downs. Nonetheless, there were still a few unsuccessful plays that lead to 3rd and short situations.

Down To Go Gain % Gain Target
2nd 10 0 0% Rogers
3rd 10 0 0% Rogers
2nd 10 6 60% Rogers
2nd 18 2 11% Quick
3rd 16 -6 -38% SACK
3rd 6 0 0% Parker
2nd 14 0 0% Parker
3rd 14 0 0% Cruz
2nd 9 0 0% Cruz
3rd 9 0 0% Parker
2nd 8 4 50% Rogers
2nd 15 6 40% Dyer
3rd 9 0 0% Rogers
2nd 10 -7 -70% SACK
3rd 17 0 0% Scott
2nd 11 -1 -9% Dyer


With this defense, the Louisville offense just needs to be about average -- and it's getting there. As we look forward, we should keep our eyes peeled for continued improvement on passing downs, because the failures in these situations thus far have continued to contribute to stalled drives.