Note on "Situational" Defense

[StatTiger 3,188]

Coach Ellis Johnson previously described the 2013 Auburn defense as being average overall but very good in "situational play". Auburn’s national rankings of No. 87 in total defense and No. 47 in scoring defense supports the “average” comment made by Auburn’s defensive coordinator.

Auburn finished No. 13 in third-down defense and No. 10 in Red zone defense, which supports Johnson’s comment of being very good in situational play. Auburn was No. 10 in third-down defense against ranked opponents and No. 7 in Red zone defense against ranked competition. Proof that Auburn’s defense rose to the occasion against better competition.

If Auburn had one of the top defenses in the nation on third-down, why did they allow so many yards and points during 2013? The problem came not on third-down but during first-down play. The 2013 Auburn defense finished the season at No. 105, when it came to first-down defense, allowing 6.54 yards per play. When the Tigers forced their opponent to third-down (situational play), Auburn rose to the occasion. Of the 73 times Auburn forced the opponent into third and at least 10-yards to convert, the opponent converted only 12 times last season.

In terms of pass-efficiency defense, Auburn was No. 88 on first-down and No. 8 on third-down. Once the opponent was placed into predictable situations, Auburn was sound on defense.

Auburn’s primary issue on defense was simply giving up too many big plays during 2013. Last season Auburn’s defense surrendered 74 plays of 20-yards or more. Breaking the plays down by downs, here is how they unfolded…

1^st down: 34

2^nd down: 26

3^rd down: 12

4^th down: 2

60 of the 74 plays of 20-yards or more allowed came on 1^st and 2^nd downs or 81.1 percent. Of the 74 plays allowed, 53 came via the passing game (71.6 percent). Interestingly, Auburn was No. 29 nationally in allowing pass-plays of 15-yards or more and No. 110 in allowing run plays of 10-yards or more. This is an immediate red flag; Auburn needs to improve on run-defense as well as the number of big plays allowed in 2014.

Last season the Tigers were No. 63 in run-defense (yards allowed per game) and No. 80 in rushing yards allowed per play on first-down. This means Auburn not only struggled defending the run but also struggled early on during possessions defended. Once again, this is a strong indicator Auburn’s defense needs to improve on early downs to create more opportunities in situational play. Though Auburn was No. 13 nationally in third-down defense, the Tigers were No. 79 in forcing third-down situations (Percentage of plays defended on third-down).

[AUbritt 611]

Really nice analysis, Stat. The good news is there's a lot of room for improvement (especially on early downs, and especially in run defense!).

If we can stop the run on first down, then we'll be able to set teams up to be much more predictable. Here's hoping our D-line and linebackers take on the challenge!

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

Very informative Stat. We appreciate your hard work providing us with these items. I do think there is room for improvement on defense . I also think that the offense running the HUNH will cause some strain on the defensive numbers. That is why the situational stops are so important. WDE

[AU64 10,122]

JMO but seems that AU (Johnson) has the tendency to gamble on first down plays...got burned a number of times which helped create those stats.

The goal apparently was to create third and long situations by making a big stop (for loss) on first down and my sense is the result of the strategy was either a very good defensive stop.....or a very long first down gain.

We got burned on the sell-out defensive plays way too many times....were suckered on play-action and draw plays when it was obvious that we were "bringing the house". That's a tendency that most teams could read...and take advantage of. I'm thinking we could be a little more unpredictable on our first down plays....and disguise our blitzes better.

[McLoofus 35,182]

JMO but seems that AU (Johnson) has the tendency to gamble on first down plays...got burned a number of times which helped create those stats.

The goal apparently was to create third and long situations by making a big stop (for loss) on first down and my sense is the result of the strategy was either a very good defensive stop.....or a very long first down gain.

We got burned on the sell-out defensive plays way too many times....were suckered on play-action and draw plays when it was obvious that we were "bringing the house". That's a tendency that most teams could read...and take advantage of. I'm thinking we could be a little more unpredictable on our first down plays....and disguise our blitzes better.

Interesting. Nice insight.

[WarEagle84 0]

So the solution is obviously to have Johnson tell the players that it's always 3rd down.

[WFE12 9,203]

dang it,why did mincy have to go and get arrested..oh well..while he's out someone like trovon reed will hopefully step up

[mrdude 3]

So the solution is obviously to have Johnson tell the players that it's always 3rd down.

Yes, third down in the red zone and all of our opponents are ranked in the top 10.

[AU64 10,122]

So the solution is obviously to have Johnson tell the players that it's always 3rd down.

Yes, third down in the red zone and all of our opponents are ranked in the top 10.

Just don't ever play the "prevent defense"...that's all I ask.