Notre Dame Football: Brian VanGorder's Defenses by the Numbers

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Excluding a certain position battle between a pair of quarterbacks, arguably the biggest Notre Dame football storyline of the past few months has been new defensive coordinator Brian VanGorder and his aggressive approach.

VanGorder arrived in South Bend with a wealth of experience as a defensive coordinator—many years and many different stops—at both the collegiate and professional levels.

Entering his 26th season as a coach, VanGorder is now with his 12th school or organization. His longevity provides us with a strong sample size to analyze his past defenses.

We’ll take a by-the-numbers look at what trends have emerged over his years as a collegiate defensive coordinator, and we’ll examine what we should expect from the Irish in 2014.

(The following charts feature stats and rankings from VanGorder’s years as a defensive coordinator at the collegiate level. Notre Dame’s 2013 stats and rankings are included for comparison’s sake.)

Year	Team	Rank	Points Per Game
2013	Notre Dame	27th	22.4
2012	Auburn	65th (tied)	28.3
2004	Georgia	9th	16.5
2003	Georgia	3rd	14.5
2002	Georgia	4th	15.1
2001	Georgia	17th	18.9
2000	Western Illinois	23rd (tied)	17.6
1999	Central Michigan	96th	31.3
1998	Central Michigan	43rd	23.0
1997	Central Florida	73rd	27.5
1991	Grand Valley State	5th	11.8

Bend but don’t break.

Aggressive. High pressure.

Very generally, those are two different approaches to defense. But no matter the style, the substance is how many points a defense allows.

In these 10 years, VanGorder’s defenses finished around 34th in the nation in scoring defense, on average. There were elite years at Georgia and struggles at Central Florida and Central Michigan.

While an elite defense is likely a stretch for the Irish in 2014—especially with loads of youth and inexperience—a solid, above-average unit is reasonable, based on VanGorder’s past.

Year	Team	Rank	Yards Per Game
2013	Notre Dame	31st	366.2
2012	Auburn	81st	420.5
2004	Georgia	8th	288.9
2003	Georgia	4th	276.9
2002	Georgia	15th	303.5
2001	Georgia	49th	361.5
2000	Western Illinois	12th	278.0
1999	Central Michigan	79th	386.1
1998	Central Michigan	50th	354.1
1997	Central Florida	81st	393.9

In the nine years in which we analyzed total defense, VanGorder’s squads finished, on average, 42nd in the nation, slightly worse than they did in scoring defense but still solidly positioned.

Again, VanGorder’s defenses are historically good—not great—when it comes to allowing yards, something we saw from Notre Dame last season, when the Irish ranked 31st in the nation in total defense.

Year	Team	Rank	Yards Per Game
2013	Notre Dame	70th	168.0
2012	Auburn	100th	197.58
2004	Georgia	15th	106.9
2003	Georgia	13th	102.4
2002	Georgia	19th (tied)	114.0
2001	Georgia	15th	108.8
2000	Western Illinois	40th	131.0
1999	Central Michigan	84th	171.8
1998	Central Michigan	69th	164.5
1997	Central Florida	39th	131.5

When it comes to stopping the run, VanGorder’s units checked in at an average of 44th in the nation, right in line with the rest of the defensive numbers.

It’s unreasonable to expect the Irish to be dominant against the run in 2014. Notre Dame is replacing five starters in the front seven of a defense that was below average—70th in the nation—defending the rushing game last season.

Year	Team	Rank	Yards Per Game
2013	Notre Dame	15th	198.2
2012	Auburn	48th (tied)	222.9
2004	Georgia	16th	182.0
2003	Georgia	6th	174.5
2002	Georgia	31st	189.5
2001	Georgia	96th (tied)	252.6
2000	Western Illinois	12th	147.0
1999	Central Michigan	68th	N/A
1998	Central Michigan	32nd	N/A
1997	Central Florida	107th	262.5

The average ranking for VanGorder’s passing defenses is 46th, which slots those defenses closer to the middle of the pack than to the cream of the crop.

The Irish appear to be stable in the secondary, with KeiVarae Russell and Cole Luke manning the corners and Max Redfield emerging in the back half of spring practices. Matthias Farley earned praise from coaches for his work at nickelback, and Cody Riggs is scheduled to join the program in June after graduating from Florida in May.

Year	Team	Rank	Interceptions
2013	Notre Dame	53rd (tied)	13
2012	Auburn	123rd (tied)	2
2004	Georgia	113th (tied)	5
2003	Georgia	21st (tied)	17
2002	Georgia	36th (tied)	16
2001	Georgia	54th (tied)	12
2000	Western Illinois	22nd (tied)	17
1997	Central Florida	54th (tied)	11

On average, these seven defenses finished 60th in the nation in interceptions, highlighted by the especially weak 2012 and 2004 seasons.

Looking ahead, if Notre Dame does, in fact, play more press coverage on the perimeter and bring more pressure off of the edges, there figure to be plenty of opportunities for defensive backs to make plays in one-on-one situations.

Year	Team	Rank	Fumbles Recovered
2013	Notre Dame	118th (tied)	4
2012	Auburn	53rd (tied)	11
2004	Georgia	21st (tied)	12
2003	Georgia	42nd (tied)	12
2002	Georgia	21st (tied)	15
2001	Georgia	60th (tied)	9
2000	Western Illinois	13th (tied)	17
1997	Central Florida	62nd (tied)	10

VanGorder’s defenses ranked 20-plus spots higher, on average, in recovering fumbles than they did in nabbing interceptions. That’s good news for an Irish defense that tied for last in 2013 in fumbles recovered with four.

The key takeaways

No matter how we slice up the statistics, VanGorder’s defenses have averaged out to produce good seasons. There have been stellar and struggling seasons, with middling years mixed in, as well.

Joe Raymond

On very few occasions have VanGorder’s defenses been elite at causing turnovers. Except in 2000 at Western Illinois—when the Leathernecks finished tied for 13th with 17 fumbles recovered—no VanGorder defenses cracked the top 20 in either interceptions or fumbles recovered.

Still, an aggressive defense might not automatically translate to more turnovers, and that also might not be the primary goal of VanGorder’s attacking approach, according to Irish head coach Brian Kelly.

“I think that’s too simple of a term—creating turnovers,” Kelly said in early April. “I think what Coach VanGorder and I want to create there is, we want to create more pressure for the quarterback. We want them under more duress. And so from that standpoint, maybe the net gain there is turnovers. But I think if they’re making bad decisions and throwing the ball away, we’re gaining downs in that respect too.”

*All quotes obtained firsthand unless otherwise noted.

Mike Monaco is a lead Notre Dame writer for Bleacher Report. Follow @MikeMonaco_ on Twitter.