Usually most statistical research is done as a means of answering some core question. But I'm not sure there's an answer to Georgia's running game woes beyond a simple, sweeping statement: The Dawgs are just bad at running the ball.
So these numbers weren't meant to prove anything. Instead, I was wondering if they might create some new questions. In many respects, I think that may be the case. So while the bottom line may still be that Georgia stinks at running the ball, there is certainly more to the story.
As I pointed out in posts yesterday, there's some statistical evidence that shows that maybe Richard Samuel's lack of "instincts" isn't his problem and there's some evidence that shows that Clint Boling's potential move to left guard could be a boost for the Dawgs, too.
Here's some more of what I found in looking closer at the running game. (WARNING: If you haven't enjoyed the previous nuts-and-bolts, statistics-heavy posts we've done, you're going to hate this one.)
Breaking down the running game by quarter:
|Quarter||Carries||Yards||TB carries|| TB yards|
First, a note: TB carries and TB yards are runs by tailbacks only. My thought process was that Branden Smith's runs or Logan Gray's sneaks (can they be called a "sneak" when everyone in the stadium knows what's coming?) or the fullback runs aren't really a true indication of Georgia's running game since they're typically gadget plays or short-yardage situations. They all count in the stadings and contribute to the outcome, but they don't necessarily give us the best information about Georgia's actual success running the football. This also takes out the negative yardage from QB sacks.
In either case, there's a pretty obvious trend that develops here that is similar to what we noticed when we studied Willie Martinez's defense a few weeks ago: Georgia is much better in the second and fourth quarters than it is in the first and third quarters.
I don't know if that means that Georgia's game plan entering games is bad or that the adjustments made during the game are good. It could certainly be the case that most defenses enter a game geared to stop the run, and as the offense loosens things up throwing the ball, the running game finds more room to run.
Whatever the reason, the outcome is pretty obvious: In the first quarters of games this season, Georgia is averaging 2.8 yards per carry by its tailbacks. In the second quarter, that number jumps to 6.09 ypc. In the third quarter, the average falls again, all the way down to 3.58 ypc. But in the fourth quarter, the Dawgs' find success once again, running at a 5.21 ypc clip.
Even if we add in all the yardage on the ground along with QB sacks, the trend remains, albeit slightly less pronounced. In the first quarter, UGA averages 2.75 ypc, in the second, that jumps to 5.09 ypc. The third quarter takes another dip to 2.91 ypc, then jumps again in the fourth quarter to 3.73 ypc.
Again, it's hard to know for sure what conclusions we can draw from these numbers, but it does seem to support Mike Bobo's dedication to running the football, even when the early success isn't seen.
Of course, yards are one thing. Points are another. Does running the ball more actually lead to more points on the board for Georgia? After all, the score is really the bottom line.
From these aggregate numbers, it seems pretty clear that running the ball more or less doesn't really have much of an effect on denting the scoreboard at all. In fact, the only real glaring stat here is that Georgia downright stinks in the third quarter. Other than that, the offensive output is essentially unchanged at any other point in the game, regardless of whether the Dawgs run it 42 times or 63 times.
Those are aggregate numbers, however. What about more specific instances?
The truth is, there haven't been many quarters in which Georgia has been particularly successful running the football. That probably shouldn't come as a surprise, given that the Dawgs rank 103rd nationally in rushing yardage. But really, it's almost impressive how consistently bad Georgia has been.
In 28 quarters of football this season, Georgia has run for 20 or fewer yards 19 times (68 percent). In eight instances, Georgia has gone an entire quarter with 10 or fewer rushing yards.
Even if we eliminate all the gadget plays and sack yardage, etc., and stick just with the work of the tailbacks, those numbers still look awful. The tailbacks have failed to net 20 yards in a quarter 16 times and have been held to 10 or fewer on six occasions.
And for all the bad efforts, there are very few good ones to balance them out. Georgia's tailbacks have topped 40 yards in a quarter just four times all season, and one of those was buoyed by an 80-yard run by Richard Samuel. Add back in all the gadget plays, etc., and as a team the Bulldogs topped 40 yards in a quarter just six times (21 percent).
But forget about success for a second. Let's just look at commitment. Does running the ball more translate to more points?
Here are Georgia's most prolific quarters of the year in terms of running the ball:
|#carries||When||Points|| Points next Qtr|
|17|| 4Q vs Van||14||N/A|
|12|| 4Q vs Ark||10||N/A|
|11|| 1Q vs Ark||10||17|
|11|| 3Q vs OSU||3||0|
|10|| 3Q vs ASU||0||6|
|10|| 1Q vs OSU||7||0|
So Georgia's six most prolific running quarters (i.e. the top 21 percent of its total quarters) of the season have accounted for 26 percent of the Bulldogs' total offensive points. Essentially there is no appreciable difference in scoring success when the Dawgs run the ball more often and there's little evidence to show that running the ball a great deal in one quarter "loosens up" the defense for the next quarter.
Of course, there is one other thing that running the football often does: It keeps the opposition off the field. We've discussed on this blog several times about how Georgia's inability to sustain long drives has killed the Dawgs in time of possession and left the defense reeling far too often. On 58 of Georgia 88 offensive drives (or would-be drives in the cases of special teams fumbles) the Dawgs have run five or fewer plays this season. That's a whopping 66 percent of the time. It's not wonder the Dawgs' D ranks last in the SEC in scoring defense.
The way to combat that? Running the football.
Running the ball effectively generally leads to more offensive plays which leads to a greater time of possession which leads to fewer opportunities for the opposition to score.
So, has running the ball more helped Georgia's defense? Here, again, are Georgia's most prolific running quarters in terms of carries:
|#carries||When||T.O.P.|| Opp Pts|
|17||4Q vs Van||10:59||0|
|12|| 4Q vs Ark||8:50||3|
|11|| 1Q vs Ark||9:04||21|
|11|| 3Q vs OSU||6:59||7|
|10|| 3Q vs ASU||7:45||14|
|10|| 1Q vs OSU||8:34||0|
It's safe to call the first quarter against Arkansas and the third quarter against Arizona State anomolies in terms of scoring. Georgia struggled with turnovers in each, and of those 35 points, 28 followed turnovers.
So set that aside, and the numbers show what intuitively should be obvious: When Georgia runs the ball often, the offense wins the time of possession battle (in this case, five out of six times) and the defense looks better.
Now let's look at the six quarters in which Georgia ran the ball the least:
|3|| 4Q vs. OSU||7:31||7|
|3|| 2Q vs LSU||2:50||3|
|4|| 1Q vs Tenn||5:59||0|
|4|| 2Q vs Tenn||7:26||21|
|4|| 1Q vs SC||3:41||17|
|4|| 3Q vs Ark||4:46||17|
That first quarter vs. Tennessee is the clear outlier here, but remember, Georgia dinked and dunked the ball in the passing game enough that it effectively simulated a running game. While the Dawgs only allowed three points against LSU in that quarter, too, it's worth remembering that the defense essentially had to stand on its head to keep the Tigers off the scoreboard.
Overall, the lack of a running game not only resulted in points for the opposition, but left Georgia absolutely crushed in the time of possession sweepstakes.
Does this mean Georgia needs to run the ball more? Or should we really consider that lack of production and say Georgia is already probably running the ball too much?
I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but I do know this: Senator Blutarsky makes a compelling argument that Florida's best strategy against Georgia this week is to sit back and wait for the Bulldogs to beat themselves.
If you’re Urban Meyer, it’s not hard to draw up a basic strategy for this week. It boils down to three simple words: play it safe. Let Georgia beat itself; with the Dags’ turnover problems and inability to run the football consistently, that’s not exactly a monumental task for a team with the best defense in college football.
It's probably an effective strategy, considering the number of miscues Georgia has made this year.
But running the football -- regardless of how effective those runs are -- helps kill the clock and (assuming Richard Samuel isn't coughing up the ball) limits your opportunities to make mistakes.
So perhaps there's some real merit to simply waiting for the right moment to look for the big play and spending the rest of the time chipping away on the ground.