2014 offence and defence by the numbers

[B.C.FAN]

This was the year of the defence. Across the CFL, offensive scoring was down 23% from 2013 to 37.7 points per game, while overall scoring (including defensive and return TDs) was down 13% to 45.5 points per game. Net offensive yardage was down 6% (coincidentally, league attendance was also down by 6%). Passing yardage was down 9%, while rushing yardage was up 2%. Penalties were up 18%.

Despite the decline in offence around the league, the Lions' offensive and defensive production was almost unchanged from 2013, when measured in yardage. The B.C. offence put up an average of 330 yards a game in both seasons, improving slightly in rank from 6th in 2013 to 5th in 2014. The defence gave up 316 yards a game in 2014, marginally better than the 318 yards allowed in 2013, but the defensive ranking slipped from 2nd overall in 2013 to 3rd overall in 2014.

The big difference between 2013 and 2014 was scoring. The Lions' scoring was down 25% in 2014 to 380 points on the season, while the Lions gave up 365 points, down 21% from 2013.

Here are the Lions' key offensive and defensive stats and league rankings for 2014.

OFFENCE
*Scoring: 19.6 (5th)
Avg. offence per game: 330 (5th)
*TDs: 33 (5th)
TDs passing: 23 (3rd)
TDs rushing: 10 (T-6th)
Red-zone TDs: 54% (4th)
Passing yards per game: 245.3 (4th)
Passing yards per pass: 7.9 (2nd)
Pass completion %: 61.9 (6th)
Rushing yards per game: 107.8 (4th)
Rushing yards per carry: 5.1 (6th)
First downs: 336 (5th)
First downs rushing: 103 (5th)
First downs passing: 202 (3rd)
First-down yardage: 6.1 (T-5th)
Second-down yardage: 6.0 (2nd)
Second-down conversions: 43.2% (4th)
2 and outs: 103 (4th)
Big plays: 36 (4th)
Plays from scrimmage: 1381 (5th)
Fewest QB sacks: 53 (6th)


DEFENCE:
*Average scoring: 18.6 (3rd)
Average offence per game: 316 (3rd)
*TDs: 24 (1st)
Red-zone TDs: 48% (3rd)
TDs passing: 14 (1st)
TDs rushing: 10 (T-1st)
First downs: 312 (2nd)
First downs rushing: 111 (T-3rd)
Rushing yards per game: 113.5 (6th)
Rushing yards per carry: 5.8 (7th)
First downs passing: 173 (2nd)
Passing yards per game: 225.9 (3rd)
Passing yards per pass: 7.2 (2nd)
Pass completion %: 60.0 (2nd)
Interceptions: 14 (T-6th)
First-down yardage: 6.6 (8th)
Second-down yardage: 5.0 (1st)
Second-down conversions: 38.1% (2nd)
2 and outs: 120 (2nd)
QB sacks: 46 (T-6th)
Big plays: 36 (T-4th)
Plays from scrimmage: 1346 (2nd)

*Figures are for offence only and don't include defensive or kick-return TDs.

[South Pender]

Great information, B.C.FAN. It`s always good to have hard data on which to base our views, and such data can alter our perspective.

[MexicoLionFan]

Thanks BCFAN, I appreciate your efforts and insight...

In professional sports all that matters is Wins and Losses and championships won. To that end, stats are ALWAYS misleading and tell very little of the story. Great Defences with good offences will always have inflated numbers as the opposition is usually behind and have to pass and attack most of the game. In the end, what really matters is having an offence that can put together a drive for points when they absolutely need it...and defences that can GET OF THE FIELD when they have to...

IMO, we have neither...

[DanoT]

While stats are a big part of the game, I don't need them to know that for 2014 the Lions O was a snooze fest.

[B.C.FAN]

To me, the big questions that aren't answered by the stats are these:
1. How does a 6% decrease in offensive yardage across the league translate into a double-digit percentage decline in scoring?
2. Why were the Lions, with almost identical offensive and defensive yardage in 2014 as in 2013, caught up in the same double-digit decline in scoring?
It can't just be bad coaching because it's a league-wide phenomenon.

[sj-roc]

To me, the big questions that aren't answered by the stats are these:
1. How does a 6% decrease in offensive yardage across the league translate into a double-digit percentage decline in scoring?

If every TD drive this year had instead stalled at the defence's 1yd line, it would create a minimum % decrease in the total offensive yardage over what actually occurred. But scoring would drop more than 50% because all of those sevens — most of them would be sevens — would become threes at best. IOW, your question is based on a flawed assumption. You could even see scoring INCREASE against decreased offensive yardage if special teams were returning the hell out of punts and kickoffs across the board, with more drives starting already in FG range. The offence can only drive as far as the defence's goal line, however near or far away it happens to be. There's no reason why there should be any strict relationship between the two to the extent that you're implying when there are other factors that affect scoring.

[cromartie]

To me, the big questions that aren't answered by the stats are these:
1. How does a 6% decrease in offensive yardage across the league translate into a double-digit percentage decline in scoring?
2. Why were the Lions, with almost identical offensive and defensive yardage in 2014 as in 2013, caught up in the same double-digit decline in scoring?
It can't just be bad coaching because it's a league-wide phenomenon.

An overall decline in offensive line play due to the addition of a franchise without an adjustment to the ratio and....

An overall decline in Special Teams play due to the addition of a franchise, which means the league lacked depth.

No numbers here on penalties called/penalty yardage or Special Teams productivity. There are likely some more clues there.

[B.C.FAN]

No numbers here on penalties called/penalty yardage or Special Teams productivity. There are likely some more clues there.

Ah, you may have hit on something. I first looked at red-zone TDs, but there wasn't much change league-wide between 2013 (56%) and 2014 (54%). Similarly, the number of big plays (offence and special teams) declined only slightly from 420 in 2013 to 410 in 2014. Turnovers were down in 2014 but points off turnovers declined only slightly to 24% of scoring from 26% in 2013. Those figures alone wouldn't account for the sharp drop in scoring.

Penalties, however, as noted in my initial post, were up by 18% across the league in 2014. That was the biggest difference between 2013 and 2014 other than the 23% decline in offensive scoring. Penalties could go both ways, of course. Pass interference or illegal contact penalties against the defence could help the offensive team but holding or procedure penalties could hurt offences. In looking more closely at the penalty stats, it appears a disproportionate number of them have been called on offences and return teams.

2014 CFL PENALTIES (per-game change)
Offence: +30%
Return teams: +24%
Cover teams: +14%
Defence: +7%

I'm sure sj-roc would point out that we can't draw direct conclusions between the increase in penalties and the decline in scoring, but that may be a factor.

[sj-roc]

No numbers here on penalties called/penalty yardage or Special Teams productivity. There are likely some more clues there.

Ah, you may have hit on something. I first looked at red-zone TDS, but there wasn't much change league-wide between 2013 (56%) and 2014 (54%). Similarly, the number of big plays (offence and special teams) declined only slightly from 420 in 2013 to 410 in 2014. Turnovers were down in 2014 but points off turnovers declined only slightly to 24% of scoring from 26% in 2013. Those figures alone wouldn't account for the sharp drop in scoring.

That doesn't sound like much at first glance — a drop of (420-410)/420 or 2.4% — but there were 12.5% more games (72->81) played this year with the addition of Ott so the 2.4% I just gave you is flawed. It has to be viewed on a per-game basis: 420/72 = 5.83 big plays per game in 2013 but only 410/81 = 5.06 in 2014 — a drop of 13.2% in the big play rate. Since the bigger the play, the more likely it went for a TD, I think this drop in big plays is a factor.

Penalties, however, as noted in my initial post, were up by 18% across the league in 2014. That was the biggest difference between 2013 and 2014 other than the 23% decline in offensive scoring. Penalties could go both ways, of course. Pass interference or illegal contact penalties against the defence could help the offensive team but holding or procedure penalties could hurt offences. In looking more closely at the penalty stats, it appears a disproportionate number of them have been called on offences and return teams.

2014 CFL PENALTIES (per-game change)
Offence: +30%
Return teams: +24%
Cover teams: +14%
Defence: +7%

I'm sure sj-roc would point out that we can't draw direct conclusions between the increase in penalties and the decline in scoring, but that may be a factor.

Your figures say that penalties have increased across the board on all four units. BUT, the fact they've increased more on offences and return teams than on defences and cover teams would strike me as a drag on scoring, though I'm not immediately sure you could readily quantify from it exactly by how much scoring would drop.

Do we have any data handy on what happened 2005->2006 as the Renegades folded? To the extent that adding a new team has been a drag on offensive productivity, there should have been a similar effect in reverse upon subtracting one.

[South Pender]

If every TD drive this year had instead stalled at the defence's 1yd line, it would create a minimum % decrease in the total offensive yardage over what actually occurred. But scoring would drop more than 50% because all of those sevens — most of them would be sevens — would become threes at best. IOW, your question is based on a flawed assumption. You could even see scoring INCREASE against decreased offensive yardage if special teams were returning the hell out of punts and kickoffs across the board, with more drives starting already in FG range. The offence can only drive as far as the defence's goal line, however near or far away it happens to be. There's no reason why there should be any strict relationship between the two to the extent that you're implying when there are other factors that affect scoring.

Well, although the scenarios you suggest are possible in theory (e.g., drives stalling at the 1 yd. line, yielding minimal changes to total offensive yardage, but large decreases in points scored), they don't normally occur in practice. In fact we should expect a strong relationship between total offensive yardage and points scored. From NFL data (I couldn't find corresponding data from the CFL), if we use the year as the unit of analysis, there is a correlation of about .90 (which is extremely high) between (a) average yards gained per team per game and (b) average points scored per team per game, using the last 40 years of data (so that our sample size is 40) going back to the 1975 NFL season. In other words, in years in which offensive yardage was high, scoring was also high, and vice versa. No reason that I can see to expect CFL data to differ.

[sj-roc]

If every TD drive this year had instead stalled at the defence's 1yd line, it would create a minimum % decrease in the total offensive yardage over what actually occurred. But scoring would drop more than 50% because all of those sevens — most of them would be sevens — would become threes at best. IOW, your question is based on a flawed assumption. You could even see scoring INCREASE against decreased offensive yardage if special teams were returning the hell out of punts and kickoffs across the board, with more drives starting already in FG range. The offence can only drive as far as the defence's goal line, however near or far away it happens to be. There's no reason why there should be any strict relationship between the two to the extent that you're implying when there are other factors that affect scoring.

Well, although the scenarios you suggest are possible in theory (e.g., drives stalling at the 1 yd. line, yielding minimal changes to total offensive yardage, but large decreases in points scored), they don't normally occur in practice. In fact we should expect a strong relationship between total offensive yardage and points scored. From NFL data (I couldn't find corresponding data from the CFL), if we use the year as the unit of analysis, there is a correlation of about .90 (which is extremely high) between (a) average yards gained per team per game and (b) average points scored per team per game, using the last 40 years of data (so that our sample size is 40) going back to the 1975 NFL season. In other words, in years in which offensive yardage was high, scoring was also high, and vice versa. No reason that I can see to expect CFL data to differ.

We're talking different things. What I'm saying is there's no formula where you can plug in an x percent change in one scoring indicator and get back y percentage change in the scoring. I've never tried to claim there wasn't high correlation (in fact I deliberately avoided use of that word), but this doesn't help when you're trying to pick some sense out of one piece of data. You don't really know if what you're seeing is an outlier from the correlation.

Re: CFL v NFL, I have no numbers to back this up, but I would expect ST to have a greater role in the Cdn game and the off yards <—> scoring correlation to be accordingly weaker.

[B.C.FAN]

Do we have any data handy on what happened 2005->2006 as the Renegades folded? To the extent that adding a new team has been a drag on offensive productivity, there should have been a similar effect in reverse upon subtracting one.

Interesting hypothesis. This took some original number crunching, but it turns out in fact that CFL scoring declined from 48.0 points per game in 2005 to 46.6 points per game in 2006 after Ottawa folded and the league shrank to eight teams. The 2006 scoring was the lowest of the past decade until this year.

CFL SCORING (points per game)
2005: 48.0
2006: 46.6
2007: 49.1
2008: 51.8
2009: 51.3
2010: 52.9
2011: 50.3
2012: 51.8
2013: 52.4
2014: 45.5

The numbers show 2013 was the second highest-scoring year in the past decade so some drop-off would be expected, but to go from the second highest total in a decade to the lowest total is exceptional.

[TheLionKing]

Analytics anyone ?

[WestCoastJoe]

"Statistics are for losers," the saying goes. Some truth in that from a coaching point of view. They can be used to explain away a loss or a poor season. They can be used to one's advantage by either side in a debate. For some they can be about as uninteresting as the "dismal science," Economics.

Back in the day, sportswriters used to say that Fran Tarkenton would win the statistical battle, but lose the game. I thought that was unfair, but there it was.

For myself, as a amateur level coach, I used them for some things deemed necessary. Rushing attempts, yardage. Passing. Tackles. Et cetera. In basketball, scoring average, assists, rebounds, steals, turnovers, et cetera. In baseball, one keeps BA, HRs, many things, et cetera.

Coaches have to use them. And they can have validity in analyzing a team's performance. IMO.
.............

Re the defensive domination consideration in this thread, I attribute it to cycles. Offence up, down ... Defence down, up etc. Natural evolution. When one dominates, the other side is forced to adjust, which they do in time, more and more successfully. Someone comes up with a new scheme, or re-cycles an old one, with a twist or two. Around it goes.

In the face of superior coaching, IMO statistical analysis goes out the window. Build the skills and confidence. Be well prepared. Have good schemes. Play well.

The most important statistic of course is wins and losses.
................

Are the Lions offensive woes attributable to currently dominant defences in the CFL? It seems to me there is more to it than that. I see an offence that has trouble against vanilla schemes. I see an offence that does not do detailed preparation to take advantage of vulnerabilities and tendencies. Perhaps the staff does not see those weaknesses. Perhaps they do not know how to attack them. Perhaps they abide by the old philosophy of just execute. No need to be fancy. Pound the rock. Block. Tackle. And there is some truth in that. But if you face some Xs and Os masters, it seems clear to me you will struggle greatly.

Tom Landry got into great detail, successfully. One example. The Vikings had the amazing Alan Page, defensive tackle. At times almost impossible to block. But he had tendencies. He free lanced somewhat. He totally committed at times, leaving his defence vulnerable. So he plunged in. Blaine Nye, the Cowboys' offensive guard, let him penetrate, then walled him off, and rode him past the play. The running back had an open run to the end zone. Detailed preparation.

I sympathize with our coaches. But this is pro sports. Win or get shown the door, eventually.

I am not taking a personal stake in the future of Mike Benevides. That is Wally's call. Wins and losses will ultimately sway the decision. And there is the fan element. If they walk away because of the product, that is a serious matter for the franchise. If Benny has some success in these playoffs, I expect him to be back. Wally can continue to look over Benny's shoulder at practice and elsewhere (not an ideal situation in itself). What will be will be ... as a fan, I am somewhat resigned about wins and losses, but still enjoying the games.

[cromartie]

No numbers here on penalties called/penalty yardage or Special Teams productivity. There are likely some more clues there.

Ah, you may have hit on something. I first looked at red-zone TDs, but there wasn't much change league-wide between 2013 (56%) and 2014 (54%). Similarly, the number of big plays (offence and special teams) declined only slightly from 420 in 2013 to 410 in 2014. Turnovers were down in 2014 but points off turnovers declined only slightly to 24% of scoring from 26% in 2013. Those figures alone wouldn't account for the sharp drop in scoring.

Penalties, however, as noted in my initial post, were up by 18% across the league in 2014. That was the biggest difference between 2013 and 2014 other than the 23% decline in offensive scoring. Penalties could go both ways, of course. Pass interference or illegal contact penalties against the defence could help the offensive team but holding or procedure penalties could hurt offences. In looking more closely at the penalty stats, it appears a disproportionate number of them have been called on offences and return teams.

2014 CFL PENALTIES (per-game change)
Offence: +30%
Return teams: +24%
Cover teams: +14%
Defence: +7%

I'm sure sj-roc would point out that we can't draw direct conclusions between the increase in penalties and the decline in scoring, but that may be a factor.

Sorry I missed that initially.

Significant gains in Offensive and Return Team penalties can absolutely be a factor as they negatively impact both starting field position and drive length/yardage. So let's keep that in mind as a culprit. I wonder, specifically, how much holding/procedure calls are up across the league (even despite Dean Valli getting less playing time)....