Certainly stats aren’t the entire story of any game because they fail to include all sorts of human factors, but tossing them out as useless is similar to saying that we shouldn’t keep score or Timmy, Timmy, Timmy Turner shouldn’t know how much of his mullah’s left while his soul’s in the furnace. “Fire” and “want” aren’t quantifiable.
For the most part, these are here for anyone to evaluate the game on their own without guessing at things which are knowable. The official football stats from NCAA.com for teams are hard to find on the page. To find them you have to go to the drop down menu at the bottom of the page under “Custom Reporting,” select FBS, run a custom report, then go to one of the categories, and click on the team you want. The categories are jumbled in some fashion that only makes sense to someone else. After re-ordering for each team, the stats can be placed side by side in a meaningful way.
Looking at Arkansas’ and Alabama’s seasons, arguably Alabama’s schedule has been slightly more difficult than Arkansas’.
Date | Arkansas | W/L | Arkansas | Opp | . | Alabama | W/L | Alabama | Opp |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4-1 | 180 | 116 | . | 5-0 | 220 | 65 | |||
09/03/2016 | Louisiana Tech | W | 21 | 20 | . | Southern California | W | 52 | 6 |
09/10/2016 | @ TCU | W (2OT) | 41 | 38 | . | Western Ky. | W | 38 | 10 |
09/17/2016 | Texas St. | W | 42 | 3 | . | @ Ole Miss | W | 48 | 43 |
09/24/2016 | Texas A&M | L | 24 | 45 | . | Kent St. | W | 48 | 0 |
10/01/2016 | Alcorn | W | 52 | 10 | . | Kentucky | W | 34 | 6 |
The difference really comes down to Kentucky which isn’t much. Who’s better? Texas A&M or Ole Miss? TCU or Southern Cal.? Louisiana Tech or Western Kentucky? Kent State or Alcorn State? At this point in the season, if these teams played head-to-head, the point spreads would be fairly small. Maybe TCU would be favored over USC. Maybe an A&M team would be a favorite over Ole Miss. Looking at numbers conservatively, the matchups are even. The remaining matchup Kentucky and Texas State, Kentucky would be a clear favorite simply because the Wildcats have more talent. Scoring comparisons between Saban and Bielema coached teams are pretty fair primarily because both look to control the ball and run down the clock at the end of the game with the lead or let off the throttle when the game is in hand. In contrast a Bobby Petrino team plays full throttle regardless of a lead.
So how does Arkansas stack up against Alabama? Sort the tables as you like. It’s frequently helpful to sort by one national ranking or the other. Alabama’s side is at the end of this post.
Arkansas’ Offense v. Alabama’s Defense
ARKANSAS OFFENSE | ARKANSAS NAT RNK | ARKANSAS VALUE | vs. | ALABAMA VALUE | ALABAMA NAT RANK | ALABAMA DEFENSE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scoring Offense (128 ranked) | 43 | 36 | vs. | 13 | 9 | Scoring Defense (128 ranked) |
First Downs Offense (128 ranked) | 28 | 119 | vs. | 63 | 9 | First Downs Defense (128 ranked) |
Total Offense (128 ranked) | 52 | 443.4 | vs. | 256.4 | 8 | Total Defense (128 ranked) |
Team Passing Efficiency (128 ranked) | 14 | 166.49 | vs. | 110.56 | 25 | Team Passing Efficiency Defense (128 ranked) |
Rushing Offense (128 ranked) | 48 | 197 | vs. | 68.4 | 3 | Rushing Defense (128 ranked) |
Passing Offense (128 ranked) | 55 | 246.4 | vs. | 188 | 27 | Passing Yards Allowed (128 ranked) |
Red Zone Offense (128 ranked) | 77 | 0.815 | vs. | 0.75 | 29 | Red Zone Defense (123 ranked) |
Sacks Allowed (127 ranked) | 31 | 1.4 | vs. | 3.4 | 17 | Team Sacks (128 ranked) |
Tackles for Loss Allowed (128 ranked) | 49 | 5.4 | vs. | 6.6 | 45 | Team Tackles for Loss (128 ranked) |
3rd Down Conversion Pct (128 ranked) | 55 | 0.417 | vs. | 0.278 | 14 | 3rd Down Conversion Pct Defense (128 ranked) |
4th Down Conversion Pct (126 ranked) | 61 | 0.556 | vs. | 0.333 | 16 | 4th Down Conversion Pct Defense (124 ranked) |
Completion Percentage (128 ranked) | 11 | 0.671 | vs. | na | na | Completion % Defense No Stat |
Passing Yards per Completion (128 ranked) | 47 | 13.11 | vs. | na | na | Passing Yards per Completion No Stat |
Defensive TDs Allowed No Stat | na | na | vs. | 5 | 1 | Defensive TDs (9 ranked) |
With the sole exception of Arkansas’ Team Passing Efficiency v. Alabama’ Team Passing Efficiency Defense, category by category Alabama’s defense bests Arkansas’ offense in stats allowed v. stats earned in both value and rank. The greatest differences are in Total Offense/Defense and Rushing Offense/Defense. While Arkansas’ offense is in the middle of the pack, Bama’s defense is in the top 10 in both categories. If the numbers tell as story about how Alabama will play, they suggest that Alabama’s style will be to keep the Hogs in front of them anticipating that they can stop Arkansas’ run offense and cause enough disruption of the quarterback with three defensive linemen. Even if they show more on the defensive line, someone will be dropping back in coverage.
Arkansas’ Defense v. Alabama’s Offense
ARKANSAS DEFENSE | ARKANSAS NAT. RANK | ARKANSAS VALUE | vs. | ALABAMA VALUE | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA OFFENSE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scoring Defense (128 ranked) | 47 | 23.2 | vs. | 44 | 13 | Scoring Offense (128 ranked) |
First Downs Defense (128 ranked) | 43 | 86 | vs. | 111 | 40 | First Downs Offense (128 ranked) |
Total Defense (128 ranked) | 52 | 374.4 | vs. | 484.4 | 30 | Total Offense (128 ranked) |
Team Passing Efficiency Defense (128 ranked) | 35 | 115.08 | vs. | 145.32 | 45 | Team Passing Efficiency (128 ranked) |
Rushing Defense (128 ranked) | 73 | 163.4 | vs. | 231.6 | 26 | Rushing Offense (128 ranked) |
Passing Yards Allowed (128 ranked) | 46 | 211 | vs. | 252.8 | 52 | Passing Offense (128 ranked) |
Red Zone Defense (123 ranked) | 24 | 0.722 | vs. | 0.957 | 10 | Red Zone Offense (128 ranked) |
Team Sacks (128 ranked) | 38 | 2.6 | vs. | 2 | 57 | Sacks Allowed (127 ranked) |
Team Tackles for Loss (128 ranked) | 61 | 6 | vs. | 5.4 | 49 | Tackles for Loss Allowed (128 ranked) |
3rd Down Conversion Pct Defense (128 ranked) | 115 | 0.478 | vs. | 0.487 | 23 | 3rd Down Conversion Pct (128 ranked) |
4th Down Conversion Pct Defense (124 ranked) | 124 | 1 | vs. | 0.714 | 19 | 4th Down Conversion Pct (126 ranked) |
Completion % Defense No Stat | na | na | vs. | 0.632 | 30 | Completion Percentage (128 ranked) |
Passing Yards per Completion No Stat | na | na | vs. | 12.27 | 75 | Passing Yards per Completion (128 ranked) |
Defensive TDs (9 ranked) | 3 | 3 | vs. | na | na | Defensive TDs Allowed No Stat |
The Razorbacks’ Defense fairs slightly better against Alabama’s Offense but hardly in areas where it matters most, Scoring, Rushing and 3rd Down Conversions.
Arkansas’ Special Teams v. Alabama’s Special Teams
ARKANSAS KICKING/ RECEIVING | ARKANSAS NAT. RANK | ARKANSAS VALUE | vs. | ALABAMA VALUE | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA RECEIVING / KICKING |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kickoff Return Defense (128 ranked) | 108 | 23.86 | vs. | 22.11 | 56 | Kickoff Returns (128 ranked) |
Punt Returns Against No Stat | na | na | vs. | 19.67 | 6 | Punt Returns (128 ranked) |
Punt Return Defense (128 ranked) | 89 | 9.83 | vs. | 41.44 | 18 | Net Punting (128 ranked) |
Blocked Kicks Allowed (128 ranked) | 1 | 0 | vs. | 1 | 19 | Blocked Kicks (19 ranked) |
Blocked Punts Allowed (126 ranked) | 1 | 0 | vs. | 0 | 0 | Blocked Punts (5 ranked) |
Kickoff Returns (128 ranked) | 116 | 17.18 | vs. | 20.35 | 54 | Kickoff Return Defense (128 ranked) |
Punt Returns (128 ranked) | 48 | 9.71 | vs. | na | na | Punt Returns Against No Stat |
Net Punting (128 ranked) | 10 | 42.76 | vs. | 7.75 | 63 | Punt Return Defense (128 ranked) |
Blocked Kicks (19 ranked) | 7 | 2 | vs. | 0 | 1 | Blocked Kicks Allowed (128 ranked) |
Blocked Punts (5 ranked) | 0 | 0 | vs. | 0 | 1 | Blocked Punts Allowed (126 ranked) |
Defensive TDs (9 ranked) | 3 | 3 | vs. | na | na | Defensive TDs Allowed No Stat |
On Special Teams, Arkansas holds abysmal rankings in all of D-I football in kickoff returns, kickoff return defense and punt return defense. Special teams are dangerously fickle, and the Hogs can ill-afford to give up any points or long returns on Special Teams. If the trends hold, it could be a problem Saturday.
Arkansas’ Turnovers & Takeaways v. Alabama’s Takeaways & Turnovers
ARKANSAS TURNOVERS LOST / WON | ARKANSAS NAT. RANK | ARKANSAS VALUE | vs. | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA TURNOVERS WON / LOST |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turnover Margin (128 ranked) | 31 | 0.6 | vs. | 0.6 | 31 | Turnover Margin (128 ranked) |
Turnovers Lost (128 ranked) | 58 | 7 | vs. | 8 | 47 | Turnovers Gained (127 ranked) |
Fumbles Lost (127 ranked) | 104 | 5 | vs. | 5 | 15 | Fumbles Recovered (108 ranked) |
Passes Had Intercepted (128 ranked) | 12 | 2 | vs. | 3 | 79 | Passes Intercepted (113 ranked) |
Turnovers Gained (127 ranked) | 19 | 10 | vs. | 5 | 23 | Turnovers Lost (128 ranked) |
Fumbles Recovered (108 ranked) | 15 | 5 | vs. | 4 | 83 | Fumbles Lost (127 ranked) |
Passes Intercepted (113 ranked) | 31 | 5 | vs. | 1 | 3 | Passes Had Intercepted (128 ranked) |
Turnovers can be game changers. The Razorbacks appear to hold some advantages here.
If there’s any weak link it’s in the inconsistency of a true freshman quarterback in Alabama’s Jalen Hurts. He’s a prototypical Alabama quarterback throwing the ball but is the Tide’s second leading rusher. That’s their biggest weakness. One shot on an open quarterback leaves the Tide with a second 1st year quarterback in Blake Barnett whose experience consists of mop up duty versus USC, Western Kentucky and Kent State. Lane Kiffin won’t resist the taking long shots down the field and shouldn’t. Arkansas’ defensive line must step up because they’ll have their opportunities to get to Hurts.
Offensively, the Razorbacks must avoid 3rd down situations against Alabama. Those “must convert” situations which the Hogs have made good on are not as likely to work against Alabama, and this isn’t a game where winning the time of possession helps the Razorbacks. The Hogs need to score as quickly as possible and need to convert on every trip into the red zone which has been problematic this year against lesser opponents.
If the Razorbacks can rattle the Tide’s quarterback, have an offensive scheme that works (trap blocking to free runners & using tight end size advantage) and avoid Special Teams disasters, a win isn’t out of reach. It all comes down to:
Hit that line! Hit that line!
Keep on going!
Take that ball right
down the field!
Give a cheer. Rah! Rah!
Never fear. Rah! Rah!
Arkansas will never yield!
On your toes, Razorbacks,
to the finish,
Carry on with all your might!
For it’s A-A-A-R-K-A-N-S-A-S
for Arkansas!
Fight! Fight! Fi-i-i-ight!
We’d be remiss if we weren’t fair and balanced and include Alabama Fight Song “Yea Alabama” – Shirley Q Liquor. — Sharp
This is how things look from Alabama’s side.
Alabama’s Offense v. Arkansas’ Defense
ALABAMA OFFENSE | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA VALUE | vs. | ARKANSAS VALUE | ARKANSAS NAT. RANK | ARKANSAS DEFENSE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scoring Offense (128 ranked) | 13 | 44 | vs. | 23.2 | 47 | Scoring Defense (128 ranked) |
First Downs Offense (128 ranked) | 40 | 111 | vs. | 86 | 43 | First Downs Defense (128 ranked) |
Total Offense (128 ranked) | 30 | 484.4 | vs. | 374.4 | 52 | Total Defense (128 ranked) |
Team Passing Efficiency (128 ranked) | 45 | 145.32 | vs. | 115.08 | 35 | Team Passing Efficiency Defense (128 ranked) |
Rushing Offense (128 ranked) | 26 | 231.6 | vs. | 163.4 | 73 | Rushing Defense (128 ranked) |
Passing Offense (128 ranked) | 52 | 252.8 | vs. | 211 | 46 | Passing Yards Allowed (128 ranked) |
Red Zone Offense (128 ranked) | 10 | 0.957 | vs. | 0.722 | 24 | Red Zone Defense (123 ranked) |
Sacks Allowed (127 ranked) | 57 | 2 | vs. | 2.6 | 38 | Team Sacks (128 ranked) |
Tackles for Loss Allowed (128 ranked) | 49 | 5.4 | vs. | 6 | 61 | Team Tackles for Loss (128 ranked) |
3rd Down Conversion Pct (128 ranked) | 23 | 0.487 | vs. | 0.478 | 115 | 3rd Down Conversion Pct Defense (128 ranked) |
4th Down Conversion Pct (126 ranked) | 19 | 0.714 | vs. | 1 | 124 | 4th Down Conversion Pct Defense (124 ranked) |
Completion Percentage (128 ranked) | 30 | 0.632 | vs. | na | na | Completion % Defense No Stat |
Passing Yards per Completion (128 ranked) | 75 | 12.27 | vs. | na | na | Passing Yards per Completion No Stat |
Defensive TDs Allowed No Stat | na | na | vs. | 3 | 3 | Defensive TDs (9 ranked) |
Alabama’s Defense v. Arkansas’ Offense
ALABAMA DEFENSE | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA VALUE | vs. | ARKANSAS VALUE | ARKANSAS NAT. RANK | ARKANSAS OFFENSE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scoring Defense (128 ranked) | 9 | 13 | vs. | 36 | 43 | Scoring Offense (128 ranked) |
First Downs Defense (128 ranked) | 9 | 63 | vs. | 119 | 28 | First Downs Offense (128 ranked) |
Total Defense (128 ranked) | 8 | 256.4 | vs. | 443.4 | 52 | Total Offense (128 ranked) |
Team Passing Efficiency Defense (128 ranked) | 25 | 110.56 | vs. | 166.49 | 14 | Team Passing Efficiency (128 ranked) |
Rushing Defense (128 ranked) | 3 | 68.4 | vs. | 197 | 48 | Rushing Offense (128 ranked) |
Passing Yards Allowed (128 ranked) | 27 | 188 | vs. | 246.4 | 55 | Passing Offense (128 ranked) |
Red Zone Defense (123 ranked) | 29 | 0.75 | vs. | 0.815 | 77 | Red Zone Offense (128 ranked) |
Team Sacks (128 ranked) | 17 | 3.4 | vs. | 1.4 | 31 | Sacks Allowed (127 ranked) |
Team Tackles for Loss (128 ranked) | 45 | 6.6 | vs. | 5.4 | 49 | Tackles for Loss Allowed (128 ranked) |
3rd Down Conversion Pct Defense (128 ranked) | 14 | 0.278 | vs. | 0.417 | 55 | 3rd Down Conversion Pct (128 ranked) |
4th Down Conversion Pct Defense (124 ranked) | 16 | 0.333 | vs. | 0.556 | 61 | 4th Down Conversion Pct (126 ranked) |
Completion % Defense No Stat | na | na | vs. | 0.671 | 11 | Completion Percentage (128 ranked) |
Passing Yards per Completion No Stat | na | na | vs. | 13.11 | 47 | Passing Yards per Completion (128 ranked) |
Defensive TDs (9 ranked) | 1 | 5 | vs. | na | na | Defensive TDs Allowed No Stat |
Alabama’s Special Teams v. Arkansas’ Special Teams
ALABAMA KICKING/ RETURNS | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA VALUE | vs. | ARKANSAS VALUE | ARKANSAS NAT. RANK | ARKANSAS RETURNS/ KICKING |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kickoff Return Defense (128 ranked) | 54 | 20.35 | vs. | 17.18 | 116 | Kickoff Returns (128 ranked) |
Punt Returns Against No Stat | na | na | vs. | 9.71 | 48 | Punt Returns (128 ranked) |
Punt Return Defense (128 ranked) | 63 | 7.75 | vs. | 42.76 | 10 | Net Punting (128 ranked) |
Blocked Kicks Allowed (128 ranked) | 1 | 0 | vs. | 2 | 7 | Blocked Kicks (19 ranked) |
Blocked Punts Allowed (126 ranked) | 1 | 0 | vs. | 0 | 0 | Blocked Punts (5 ranked) |
Kickoff Returns (128 ranked) | 56 | 22.11 | vs. | 23.86 | 108 | Kickoff Return Defense (128 ranked) |
Punt Returns (128 ranked) | 6 | 19.67 | vs. | na | na | Punt Returns Against No Stat |
Net Punting (128 ranked) | 18 | 41.44 | vs. | 9.83 | 89 | Punt Return Defense (128 ranked) |
Blocked Kicks (19 ranked) | 19 | 1 | vs. | 0 | 1 | Blocked Kicks Allowed (128 ranked) |
Blocked Punts (5 ranked) | 0 | 0 | vs. | 0 | 1 | Blocked Punts Allowed (126 ranked) |
Alabama’s Turnovers & Takeaways v. Arkansas’ Takeaways & Turnovers
ALABAMA TURNOVERS LOST / WON | ALABAMA NAT. RANK | ALABAMA VALUE | vs. | ARKANSAS VALUE | ARKANSAS NAT. RANK | ARKANSAS TURNOVERS WON / LOST |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turnover Margin (128 ranked) | 31 | 0.6 | vs. | 31 | 0.6 | Turnover Margin (128 ranked) |
Turnovers Lost (128 ranked) | 23 | 5 | vs. | 10 | 19 | Turnovers Gained (127 ranked) |
Fumbles Lost (127 ranked) | 83 | 4 | vs. | 5 | 15 | Fumbles Recovered (108 ranked) |
Passes Had Intercepted (128 ranked) | 3 | 1 | vs. | 5 | 31 | Passes Intercepted (113 ranked) |
Turnovers Gained (127 ranked) | 47 | 8 | vs. | 7 | 58 | Turnovers Lost (128 ranked) |
Fumbles Recovered (108 ranked) | 15 | 5 | vs. | 5 | 104 | Fumbles Lost (127 ranked) |
Passes Intercepted (113 ranked) | 79 | 3 | vs. | 2 | 12 | Passes Had Intercepted (128 ranked) |
6 Responses
Comments are closed.