WVU Football: Five “Must Improve” Areas On Offense - Offensive Efficiency

This is the third in a series of five articles that discuss WVU's offense.  This article covers offensive effectiveness.

Efficiency...Or Not

By any measurement, last season's offense was a below average unit.  Dana Holgorsen has never coached an offense with so little firepower.  Nationally, Holgorsen's Mountaineers ranked 79^th in scoring, 82^nd in rushing, 34^th in passing and 62^nd in total offense.  Production dropped off to the dreaded Jeff Mullen days.  This series of articles has discussed how average to below average offensive line and quarterback play contributed to low scoring production.  Another problem that resulted in WVU's offensive woes involved efficiency.  The offense simply couldn't sustain drives.  Here are the efficiency statistics from last season:

2013 Offensive Efficiency**

Game	Drives	3 and outs	Turnovers	Punts	Turnover on Downs	Missed FGs	Scoring Drives
William&Mary	13	4	1	5	0	1	3 TDs/1 FG
@ Oklahoma	14	5	3	7	1	0	1 TD
Georgia State	13	1	1	7	1	1	5 TDs/2 FGs
Maryland***	14	3	6	8	0	0	0
Oklahoma St	19	5	2	8	0	2	2 TDs/3 FGs
@ Baylor	16	6	2	7	4	0	4 TDs
Texas Tech	13	5	1	5	2	0	3 TDs/2 FGs
@ Kansas State	13	2	3	5	2	0	1 TD/2 FGs
@ TCU	16	1	2	7	0	0	3 TDs/3 FGs
Texas	18	6	5	7	1	0	5 TDs/1 FG
@ Kansas	15	4	2	8	1	1	3 TDs
Iowa State	18	3	4	3	2	1	4 TDs/3 FGs
Totals	182	45	32	73	14	6	34 TDs/17 FGs

**Includes six possessions at end of half/game

***Neutral site game in Baltimore

WVU scored on only 51 of 182 drives.  That's 28% of the time the Mountaineers had the football (for an efficiency rating of 0.28).  In other words, WVU only scored on a little over one out of every four possessions. For comparison purposes, WVU almost had as many three and outs (45) as scoring drives (51).

WVU Kept Pace With Conference Big Boys, But Couldn't Score

How do these numbers compare to last season's Big 12 Conference teams?  The next chart will examine how Big 12 teams performed in conference play.  Non-conference games have intentionally been removed to keep strength of schedule issues from skewing the stats.

2013 Big 12 Offensive Efficiency - Conference Games [conference rank in brackets]

Team	Drives	Turnovers	Punts	Turnover on Downs	Missed FGs	Scoring Drives (TDs/FGs)	Efficiency Factor
Baylor	140 [4]	12 [1]	39 [2]	8 [7]	7	69 (56/13)     [1]	0.49 [1]
Oklahoma	113 [10]	14 [2]	48 [4]	4 [2]	3	46 (30/16)     [6]	0.41 [2]
Oklahoma St	142 [1]	14 [2]	61 [7]	5 [4]	5	54 (45/9)       [2]	0.38 [4]
Texas Tech	137 [7]	24 [8]	47 [3]	8 [7]	4	51 (36/15)      [3]	0.37 [6]
Texas	129 [8]	16 [4]	53 [5]	6 [5]	2	49 (32/17)      [4]	0.38 [4]
Kansas State	118 [9]	18 [5]	38 [1]	1 [1]	3	48 (38/10)      [5]	0.41 [2]
TCU	139 [5]	26 [10]	67 [8]	6 [5]	3	32 (23/9)        [9]	0.23 [9]
Iowa State	141 [3]	19 [7]	69 [9]	4 [2]	3	37 (27/10)      [8]	0.26 [8]
Kansas	138 [6]	18 [5]	70 [10]	16 [10]	4	23 (15/8)       [10]	0.17 [10]
WVU	142 [1]	24 [8]	57 [6]	13 [9]	4	40 (26/14)      [7]	0.28 [7]

As seen above, the Mountaineer offense really struggled in both non-conference and Big 12 play.  WVU scored on only 28% its drives.  That lowly efficiency rating ranked the Mountaineers seventh in the Big 12, ahead of only Iowa State, TCU and Kansas.

It is no coincidence that all four teams with low offensive efficiency - WVU, Iowa St, TCU and Kansas - did not qualify for post-season play.

Last season, there was an almost 10% disparity between WVU and the conference's sixth most efficient team - Texas Tech.  Bowl participant teams possessed offenses that scored almost 40% of the time.  That's two out of every five drives.

The irony of these offensive efficiency statistics is that Dana Holgorsen's team led the Big 12 Conference in opportunities to score.  WVU tied Oklahoma State for first place with 142 offensive possessions.

Unfortunately, WVU couldn't do anything with these opportunities.  The Mountaineers ranked sixth in punts, seventh in scoring drives, eighth in turnovers lost and ninth in turnovers on downs.

WVU Offensive Efficiency:  A Recent History

The next chart shows how WVU offenses have fared over the last ten seasons.

Year	Drives	Turnovers	Punts	Turnover on Downs	Missed FGs	Scoring Drives (TDs/FGs)	Efficiency Rating
2013	182	32	73	14	6	51 (34/17)	0.28
2012	177	13	45	18	8	80 (69/11)	0.45
2011	181	22	56	9	6	79 (63/16)	0.44
2010	165	28	67	7	7	52 (42/10)	0.32
2009	169	25	64	9	2	56 (43/13)	0.33
2008	162	16	62	9	3	55 (38/17)	0.34
2007	174	21	49	9	6	81 (68/13)	0.47
2006	156	17	35	4	5	82 (65/17)	0.53
2005	158	17	57	5	7	61 (50/11)	0.39
2004	156	22	56	9	8	59 (47/12)	0.38

Last season's Mountaineers possessed the worst offense of the last ten years.  That is hard to do when one recalls the three seasons when Jeff Mullen dismantled WVU's high powered offense.  Remember, Dana Holgorsen was brought to Morgantown to revitalize the Mountaineer's attack.

Diagnosis

Last season, WVU struggled on offense for numerous reasons.

First, all three quarterbacks lacked starting experience for WVU.  That's what happens when an NFL caliber player like Geno Smith runs the offense for three years.

Second, the offense lacked experience - particularly at the skill positions.  WVU only returned two starters from 2012.  Both were linemen.  All skill position players, with the exception of Ivan McCartney, had never started for WVU.  Houston transfer and now NFL running back Charles Sims could not be a one man show.  Meanwhile, junior college transfers Dreamius Smith, Mario Alford and Kevin White saw their first FBS action.

Third, the offensive line, combined with an inexperienced backfield, failed to protect WVU's quarterbacks.  The offense allowed 28 sacks.  Millard, Trickett and Childress often lacked the time needed to find open receivers.

Fourth, accuracy and injury issues plagued the Mountaineer quarterbacks.  Quarterbacks missed receivers in critical third down situations.

Fifth, the offense couldn't stay on the field.  The offensive line couldn't push forward the line of scrimmage in short yardage situations.  Receivers dropped numerous passes.  Turnovers killed drives.

Whatever could go wrong often did.

Prognosis

In Lindy's Sports College Football 2014 Preview, an anonymous Big 12 coach summed up WVU's offensive problems in the following statement:

"Dana is figuring out that this head coaching stuff ain't easy.  West Virginia's got some personnel problems on offense, and he knows it...We know what Dana wants to do on offense.  But he doesn't have the people to do it.  It's that simple."

That statement summed up last season.   But does it hold true in 2014?

Much work needs to be done to make Dana Holgorsen's offense a respectable and relevant unit.

The Mountaineers return six starters and plenty of experience as they begin their third Big 12 campaign.

Quinton Spain and Mark Glowinski anchor a young line that has game experience.  Trickett has had a full year to comprehend Holgorsen's offense.   The receivers need to show improvement.  At the Big 12 Media Days in Dallas, Holgorsen stated that Trickett has "built the communication needed with his receivers" to make the offense effective.  The backfield possesses plenty of talent, depth and experience.

This experience needs to translate into greater offensive efficiency.

If experience translates into improvement, then the Mountaineer's prospects for a winning record greatly improve.

Tomorrow's article discusses offensive red zone efficiency.

As always,

Let's Go, Mountaineers!

Series Links:

1.       Offensive Line Play

2.       Quarterback Play

3.       Efficiency

4.       Red Zone Efficiency

5.       Turnovers

*Information/stats for this article come from the following sources:  wvusports.com, cfbstats.com, ncaa.com, WVUStats.com, philsteele.com, espn.go.com, Phil Steele's 2014 College Football Preview, Lindy's Sports College Football 2014 Preview, Athlon Sports College Football 2014 National Edition, and USA Today Sports 2014 College Football Preview.