A Closer Look: 2006 Red Zone Production

In the last post, I took a closer look at our red zone production in 2006, and today we're going to take an even closer look than that.

Thankfully, the stat compilation company used by by RollTide.com this season provided in-depth play-by-play data of each and every snap, so we can analyze the Crimson Tide on a play-by-play basis. Furthermore, I've analyzed only eight games -- the eight conference games -- for the exact same reasons as mentioned earlier in the post on Pythagorean Wins.

So, after breaking down every red zone play in the conference games, what exactly did I find?

In the eight conference games, we ran a grand total of 94 plays in the red zone. And, well, those 94 plays were generally pretty damn ugly. All told, in 94 red zone plays, we accumulated only 166 yards of offense, about 1.7 yards per play. Moreover, we scored only seven touchdowns in these 94 plays, meaning we scored, on average, one touchdown per every 13.4 red zone plays.

John Parker Wilson, despite an otherwise solid year, struggled a good bit in the red zone. Yes, he did throw five red zone touchdown passes, but all told he was only 14-29 in the red zone, completing less than 50% of his passes. Moreover, Wilson also had 10 rushes (either scrambles or sacks) on aborted passing plays. All told, Shula and co. called 39 passing plays in the red zone in 2006, and it resulted in only 14 completions. Putting a percentage to it, only a mere 35.8% of called passing plays actually resulted in a completed pass, and the average completion -- in the relative rarity that it did occur -- went for only about four yards. Unfortunately, the much more often result was a sack, a Wilson scramble, a turnover, or an attempted pass that fell harmlessly to the ground.

Beyond that, I went a bit deeper in breaking down our red zone production into more specific categories. I broke down the 94 plays into four regions: from the 20-16, from the 15-11, from the 10-6, and from the 5 to the goal line. Looking at the numbers in that sense brought about some interesting insights.

From the 5-yard line to the goal line, we were atrocious, as expected, gaining only 15 yards off of 18 plays. All told, when inside the five, we netted on average about two feet per play. And the production from the 20-16 was even worse, as we gained only 32 yards off of 31 plays. Even though it's a higher yard-per-play average than from within the five, it's nevertheless worse because positive gains are capped inside the five yard line by a complete lack of room to move the ball much farther, something that is much less of a problem from the 20-16.

Of course, struggles in both areas had a very negative impact on overall point production. The struggles inside the five yard line turned should-be touchdowns into field goals, and the struggles to move ball from the 20-16 inside the 15 not only hurt point production by stopping drives that could have potentially produced touchdowns, but also by making the field goals that had to be kicked more difficult because of increased distance, which is course drives down the likelihood that those kicks will be successful. And the latter impact is far from insignificant. Given the relative inconsistency of college kickers, a field goal five to ten yards further away probably has anywhere from a 10%-25% smaller chance of being good than from one five or ten yards closer to the goal line.

Oddly enough, though, between the 15-6, we did relatively well, and much better than we did from the 20-16 or the 5 to the goal line. In that area, for whatever reason, we averaged around three yards per play, which, while not great, is triple what we averaged from the 20-16 and the 5 to the goal line. I honestly have no clue as to why that was. Perhaps it was just a statistical oddity that would have worked itself out had we seen a larger sample size, but perhaps there was a legitimate reason for the differences in levels of production. If it is the latter, though, I can't think of why that would be the case.

But what about offensive balance?

All we heard all year long, and even up until today, was that one of our main problems in the red zone was that we were not balanced, that we ran the ball entirely too much and got conservative when it counted; opposing defensive coordinators knew what we were doing, and this allowed opponents to effectively stop it. So how does that argument play out?

Once you run the numbers, that argument doesn't seem to have that much validity, despite spirited assertions to the contrary. All told, from the 20-6, we had 71 plays. Of those 71 plays, 39 were runs (54.9%), and 32 were passes (45.1%). And, of course, that 55-45 split is generally the definition of offensive balance in college football. Even when you break it down by individual games, we were still pretty balanced. We weren't too balanced in the Vanderbilt game (ran mostly), the Arkansas game (ran mostly, especially late in the fourth quarter), and the Florida game (passed mostly), but for the other five SEC games, we were really well balanced in terms of play-calling from the 20 to the 6.

At bottom, despite what some people will strongly assert to the contrary, conservatism wasn't the reason we struggled in the red zone. We were atrocious, for the most part, regardless what we did, whether it be run or pass.

From the five yard line to the goal line, it was a bit of a different story. We had 18 plays from inside our opponent's five yard line, 13 runs and 5 passes. Obviously, the play-calling was heavily swayed in favor of running the football, but before you criticize Shula, you have to keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of plays inside the five yard line should be running plays. Throwing the football that deep in your opponent's territory is very difficult, and the interceptions that can occur generally yield much higher return yardage for the opposing team than a normal interception. All told, running the football generally yields small, consistent gains, and that is what you need with such a short distance to go.

The problem wasn't, seemingly, the fact that we ran the ball so much from inside the five yard line, it was who we ran it with that was the problem. In conference play, Tim Castille -- out of the dread jumbo package -- got eight carries inside the five yard line (Castille carried the ball on almost 45% of plays inside the five), and those eight carries netted a grand total of five yards. All told, Castille averaged about 20 inches per carry inside the five yard line. In general, with Castille -- a fullback -- plays were very slow to develop, and it gave opposing defenses a lot of time to shoot the gaps and stop the play for little or no gain. At the end of the day, hindsight 20/20, a quicker back like Johns or Darby would have likely been the better solution.

The bottom line, the jumbo package should have be re-titled the junk package.

So what all should we take from the analysis? I'd say two things.

One, the play-calling -- or, more precisely, I should say the supposed overly conservative play-calling -- was not, apparently, the problem with our lack of red zone production in 2006. One way or the other, regardless of what we tried in the red zone, it just really didn't work. Running plays were generally stuffed at the line for little or no gain, and passing plays more often than not resulted in incompletions, interceptions, fumbles, or sacks. Our lack of red zone productivity would most certainly not have been improved simply by throwing more passes and opening the offense up more.

Two, however bad you thought our red zone production was in 2006, the statistics show that it was probably much worse than you imagined.

At bottom, after really going in-depth on overall red zone production in 2006, you just appreciate how horrendous it really was. Odds are, we could perform poorly in the red zone again in 2007, and still have red zone production significantly better than in 2006.

Heaven Help Us: Red Zone Breakdown

The Crimson Tide was atrocious in the red zone in 2006, and no one needs any in-depth analysis to figure that one out. But exactly how bad were we, and how much did it hurt us?

Answering the first question, it was as bad as you think, and then probably worse.

After running the numbers, we made 53 visits to the red zone in 2006. Of those 53 visits, we scored on just over 75% of them (40), which is a good -- but certainly not great -- number. The major problem, of course, was being able to put the ball into the end zone. All told, we only scored 20 touchdowns in 53 trips to the red zone, thus putting it in the end zone on only 37.74% of red zone trips.

It gets worse.

When we look at the eight conference games the Tide played (which, of course, we went 2-6), we made 28 trips to the red zone. Of the 28 times that we got into the red zone in SEC play in 2006, we managed a mere 6 touchdowns. 6 touchdowns in 8 conference games. Long story short, we scored a touchdown on only about 20% of our red zone trips in conference play.

Now let's compare that to LSU, who led the conference in both total offense and scoring offense. Believe it or not, LSU had essentially the same number of red zone trips in conference play that we did (LSU had 30 red zone trips, we had 28). But, of course, they did much more with theirs. All told, LSU scored 22 touchdowns in their 30 trips, and, well, that was a big part of the reason why they led the conference in point production.

So exactly how much did the lack of productivity in the red zone hurt us in terms of wins and losses? Quite a bit, it would seem. With even half-way decent red zone production (say, just to quantify that, 14 touchdowns on 28 trips), our final win-loss record would have been drastically different, and the margin of victory in the games we did win would have gone up as well.

Against Hawai'i, despite us leading all night, it turned out to be a close game, with victory ensured only when a time-expiring Colt Brennan heave to the end zone was intercepted by Lionel Mitchell. We went to the red zone five times that night, and emerged with only one touchdown. With decent red zone production, that game never comes down to a last-second heave.

Against Vanderbilt, the following week, we narrowly edged out a 13-10 victory, at home, over the eventual 4-8 Commodores after Leigh Tiffin booted a 47-yard field goal late in the fourth quarter. During that game, we went to the red zone four times, scored no touchdowns, and came away with only six points. Again, with decent red zone production, that game is never that close; we would have by somewhere in the neighborhood of 14-20 points.

Against Arkansas, two weeks later, five trips to the red zone netted only one touchdown and ten points. Even with slightly better than atrocious red zone production, much less decent production, Alabama wins that game in Fayetteville. Instead, horrendous red zone production turns a sure-win into a one-point loss.

The following week against Florida, two red zone trips netted six points and no touchdowns. Decent red zone production might not have turned this game into a win, but it would have made it very close. Most people forget that this was a 14-13 game with under seven minutes to go in the fourth -- and Alabama having the ball. With decent red zone production, we likely have a 17-14 lead at that juncture, and instead of throwing the football -- which led to a Reggie Nelson interception returned for a touchdown that ultimately doomed us -- we are running out the clock. Again, Florida may still have won, but it would have been a much closer game.

Against Ole Miss -- big shock forthcoming -- we actually had solid red zone production. I've written before that it was probably our best offensive performance, and rightfully so. Four trips to the red zone resulted in 20 points (two touchdowns and two successful field goals). And -- big shock again -- we won this one, though one of the poorest defensive efforts of the year turned it into a very close game.

The following week in Knoxville, poor red zone production was largely responsible for a loss to the hated Volunteers. We had three trips to the red zone, and could muster only one touchdown. With just one more touchdown on the other two red zone trips (again, my definition of half-way decent red zone production), we win that game. Instead of leading 13-9 late, we would have been leading 17-9, and Tennessee would have not only needed to score a touchdown, but successfully complete the two-point conversion just to force overtime.

Against Mississippi State, it was more of the same. Four trips to the red zone netted zero touchdowns and only nine points. In a game ultimately decided by eight points, decent red zone production could have gotten us a win.

One week later against LSU, we played the Bayou Bengals surprisingly tough, but again... red zone woes. We made three trips to the red zone, which netted only ten points. Although this is most likely still a win for LSU with decent red zone production, it would have went right down to the wire in a close contest, particularly if Jamie Christensen could have connected on a first quarter field goal.

Against Auburn, in the Iron Bowl, red zone woes played another big role in our loss. Three red zone trips resulted in only one touchdown, and nine total points. Again, with decent red zone production, we may win that one.

At bottom, red zone woes really killed our 2006 team. It wasn't just that our problems in the red zone hurt us some, they have a drastic effect on our overall win-loss record. We finished the regular season at 6-6, but being quite objective about it, and decent red zone production would have probably given us an 8-4 or 9-3 regular season record, with those losses being very close losses at that. That would have put us, likely, in the Peach Bowl, and Mike Shula would still be the head coach of the Crimson Tide.

The good news though, I suppose, is that with nine starters returning on the offense for 2007, this group should be able to finally break through and translate all of that potential into points.