KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: ksu_FAN on November 05, 2007, 08:23:52 AM
-
I only got to listen to the game, but obviously we weren't very good and I'm most disappointed that we essentually seemed to think we could show up and win. It is hard to get teams up to play for 12 games, but there really isn't much of an excuse for what happened saturday IMO. Still, the rediculous posts about firing everyone from Prince to Tibesar are rediculous.
This team continues to prove a key aspect to our success is winning the STs battle, or at least not having any major breakdowns there. Giving ISU a short field to start the game and then missing a FG from this past week. We have shown this year that we don't have to have a perfect game on offense or defense to win, but we do need to win STs and if we don't we need more from both our offense and defense and this team isn't at that point yet.
I think at this point we're in "get worse before you get better" mode on defense. At least I hope so. IMO it would be an absolute mistake to scrap Tibesar and the 3-4 after only one year. You can't continue to have turnover on your staff and especially change entire schemes and expect to be successful. You've got to get some continuity there and we've got to get better players to fit the scheme, especially up front. I think we've done a good job of rotating people in for the future, the problem is we don't seem to have as many of those young guys that are contributing at DE or NT.
Offensively we weren't horrible. In fact, if you get 425 yards and 5.7 YPP you should score more than 20 points. We left at least 10 more on the field with a missed FG and a blown call. Sounds like we had some major drops (and from uncharacteristic players like Nelson) that would've set up more points. And our running game wasn't horrible from the RB spot, 20 carries for 119 yards. I do think the number of attempts for those guys should be over 25 though. ISU tearing up all of our gadgets was a problem, as well as 2 sacks on Freeman. The issue we may need to address is checking our own tendancies, obviously the way ISU sniffed out all our attempts at trick plays we need to address that. However, its hard for me to complain about the progress of this offense this year. That phase of the game is definately moving in the right direction.
The maddening part about Prince has been the ups and downs. The losses to Baylor and ISU are simply something we haven't had to deal with and probably the key comparison to Snyder that people are upset about. Snyder lost plenty of games his last few years, but the only comparable loss to those 2 was against ku; he simply didn't lose many games to teams he shouldn't have once he got the program going after ISU in 93. On the other hand college football has changed a lot and there aren't nearly as many dreadful programs even like you saw in the 90s. Its hard to argue that parity in college football has changed the game and there are many more opportunities to lose those games you think you shouldn't.
To get where most had hoped this team has to win out. 7-5 is a bit of a disappointment after opeing Big 12 play with a win at UT. However, I still think if we can manage that its still a step in the right direction, and a bowl win would make it an even more significant step.
-
Games Snyder lost that he shouldn't have:
05 aTm (home)
04 ku
03 OSU
03 Marshall (home)
02 CU
01 aTm (home)
00 aTm
98 aTm
98 Purdue
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/KansasState.htm
And the whole running the ball more thing just seems like something people say, no one explains what running the ball more would help. Like you said, we got 425 yards and 5.8 ypp. Does 10 more runs at 4.5 a pop really make a significant difference? How?
-
Games Snyder lost that he shouldn't have:
05 aTm (home)
04 ku
03 OSU
03 Marshall (home)
02 CU
01 aTm (home)
00 aTm
98 aTm
98 Purdue
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/KansasState.htm
And the whole running the ball more thing just seems like something people say, no one explains what running the ball more would help. Like you said, we got 425 yards and 5.8 ypp. Does 10 more runs at 4.5 a pop really make a significant difference? How?
I agree that those were bad losses. I'm just saying since 93, ISU (93, 07), Baylor (06), and ku (04) are the only losses we have to teams that finished with 4 losses or less.
And I agree, with 425 yards of offense (plus 201 return yards) its rediculous that we only scored 20 points. Mind boggling really.
-
It's our defense and our kickoff coverage. Throw in some untimely turnovers (even though overall we're like +1.5, but that's driven by playing Baylor and getting about 7 turnovers in one game). That's really it. Our offense had a bad game, which it will happen from time to time, but overall, it's quite simply that our defense sucks something terrible. That's what drives it all.
-
The more I think about it, college football is about field position and turnovers more than anything else. I think Prince realizes this, and I'm morphing into his mind. Few teams in college football are going to win the turnover + field position battle and win.
Pick sixes are like infinitely good field position.
Giving away your opening possession + giving the ball on the 30 is pretty bad, too.
Turnovers on 40 yard pass plays are basically punts w/o returns.
The defensive troubles are amplified by a 30 yard opening drive. I don't think anyone would have been upset with the team giving up 17 points.
-
The more I think about it, college football is about field position and turnovers more than anything else. I think Prince realizes this, and I'm morphing into his mind. Few teams in college football are going to win the turnover + field position battle and win.
Pick sixes are like infinitely good field position.
Giving away your opening possession + giving the ball on the 30 is pretty bad, too.
Turnovers on 40 yard pass plays are basically punts w/o returns.
The defensive troubles are amplified by a 30 yard opening drive. I don't think anyone would have been upset with the team giving up 17 points.
That is correct. The disappointing things is even getting into that hole, you hope the defense can step up and at least hold ISU to a FG. Then they bring in their RFR QB and drive right down the field. Those things applify the problems with defense. But everyone forgets that outside of one drive the defense came out in the 2nd half and shut down ISU. This is a game where we were inconsistent in all 3 phases of the game and when you do that you are going to lose. If we had at least managed to play mistake free (not giving points away) on offense or STs we win this game. STs gave away at least 10 points and offense gave away 14 (pick 6 and bad call/inability to score from a yard out). Giving away 24 points is not going to win you many games and it only magnifies the issues we had on defense.
-
Games Snyder lost that he shouldn't have:
05 aTm (home)
04 ku
03 OSU
03 Marshall (home)
02 CU
01 aTm (home)
00 aTm
98 aTm
98 Purdue
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/KansasState.htm
And the whole running the ball more thing just seems like something people say, no one explains what running the ball more would help. Like you said, we got 425 yards and 5.8 ypp. Does 10 more runs at 4.5 a pop really make a significant difference? How?
The theory goes the a GOOD running game will help your defense. Being able to grind out yard after yard eats clock and keeps their offense off the field. Their D then adjusts by putting 8 - 9 in the box which then opens up the deep passing game.
The key to this is to have a GOOD running game. In our case you have to adjust to what our personnel will allow us to do well. On offense that means a lot of Freeman to Jordy, Jordy to TE, Jordy on the reverse statue of liberty fumble-ruskie double hook and ladder fake field goal punt half back pass bold and daring everybody has seen 20 times plays.
-
The theory goes the a GOOD running game will help your defense. Being able to grind out yard after yard eats clock and keeps their offense off the field. Their D then adjusts by putting 8 - 9 in the box which then opens up the deep passing game.
That doesn't help when you're down 21-3. Like, at all.
And giving your defense good field position will help more than a running game.
I think the only time where "lack of a running game" possibly cost the game was Auburn, and even that's debateable.
-
I can't imagine how "good" our team would be if our defense was better. I was on the "run" band wagon, and while I do think that running a bit more would provide more balance and give the opposing defenses a bit more to be concerned with, our offense is still, for the most part, scoring very well. Our defense sucks. If our defense was better, imo, we'd probably see our rush ypg go up, but our ypc go down.
-
I can't imagine how "good" our team would be if our defense was better. I was on the "run" band wagon, and while I do think that running a bit more would provide more balance and give the opposing defenses a bit more to be concerned with, our offense is still, for the most part, scoring very well. Our defense sucks. If our defense was better, imo, we'd probably see our rush ypg go up, but our ypc go down.
With such a focused passing game we run the risk of more FP's letting balls bounce off of their hands 10 feet in the air for a DB to pick for 6.
-
all about consistancy, when all cylanders click we win. there have been games when our offense clicks and defense doesn't show and vice versa. There have been games when offense and defense have been ok but ST kills us.
We are not good enought to overcome mistakes. That is the bottom line.
Sure we fell behind, our d played well enough in the 2nd half for us to win. Our offense had been scoring 20 points a game and had the ball on their side of the field 10 times. We scored 4 of those times. that doesn't get it done.
-
The theory goes the a GOOD running game will help your defense. Being able to grind out yard after yard eats clock and keeps their offense off the field. Their D then adjusts by putting 8 - 9 in the box which then opens up the deep passing game.
That doesn't help when you're down 21-3. Like, at all.
And giving your defense good field position will help more than a running game.
I think the only time where "lack of a running game" possibly cost the game was Auburn, and even that's debateable.
For the most part, the offense is pretty efficient. The only reason I wish they had a better running game is for the red zone offense. As predictable as the option to the short side of the field was inside the 5 with snyder, it was effective.
Its not necessarily one phase of the game that cost ksu the game, it was shooting themselves in the foot in all phases (fumbled ko, pick 6, and watts getting burned)
-
For the most part, the offense is pretty efficient. The only reason I wish they had a better running game is for the red zone offense. As predictable as the option to the short side of the field was inside the 5 with snyder, it was effective.
Its not necessarily one phase of the game that cost ksu the game, it was shooting themselves in the foot in all phases (fumbled ko, pick 6, and watts getting burned)
Well, a questionable holding call prevented a first and goal inside the 5 and a questionable early whistle eliminated a TD run.
Running the ball is not the problem.
-
The offense is fine. We don't have the horses on D (especially when no one is 100% healthy). Snyder's staffs recruited position players on D, and we need "athletes" on D for the 3-4. Prince and Tibs will get us athletes.
-
Running the ball is not the problem.
Please post something... Anything, really, that will help me believe that your FBIQ is a number greater than or equal to zero.
Look at our trips to the red zone, and the number of touchdowns we have. That stat is DIRECTLY tied to a team's ability to RUN THE FOOTBALL.
You see, as you get closser to the endzone, the amount of field that the DB's have to cover shrinks. Thus, making the passing game much easier to defend.
Conversely, if a team can actually run the ball consistently, and with confidence, then the ratio of trips into the redzone that are converted to TD's dramatically increases.
Running the football should be the foundation of EVERY offense at any level below the NFL.
No charge.
-
Running the ball is not the problem.
Please post something... Anything, really, that will help me believe that your FBIQ is a number greater than or equal to zero.
Look at our trips to the red zone, and the number of touchdowns we have. That stat is DIRECTLY tied to a team's ability to RUN THE FOOTBALL.
You see, as you get closser to the endzone, the amount of field that the DB's have to cover shrinks. Thus, making the passing game much easier to defend.
Conversely, if a team can actually run the ball consistently, and with confidence, then the ratio of trips into the redzone that are converted to TD's dramatically increases.
Running the football should be the foundation of EVERY offense at any level below the NFL.
No charge.
Part of the problem is also WHO is running the football. Leon cannot read a block to save his life and needs to go back to Pop-warner for a couple of months.
-
Running the ball is not the problem.
Please post somthing... Anything, really that will help me believe that your FBIQ is a number greater than or equal to zero.
Look at our trips to the red zone, and the number of touchdowns we have. That stat is DIRECTLY tied to a team's ability to RUN THE FOOTBALL.
You see, as you get closser to the endzone, the amount of field that the DB's have to cover shrinks. Thus, making the passing game much easier to defend.
Conversely, if a team can actually run the ball consistently, and with confidence, then the ratio of trips into the redzone that are converted to TD's dramatically increases.
Running the football should be the foundation of EVERY offense at any level below the NFL.
No charge.
Hmm, you'd expect the best rushing teams to be the best in the red zone, right?
TEAM TD% YPC
1) Oklahoma 0.83 5.40
2) Texas 0.78 5.20
3) Missouri 0.70 4.00
4) Texas Tech 0.66 2.80
5) Kansas 0.65 4.80
6) Nebraska 0.62 3.90
7) Oklahoma State 0.57 5.40
8) Texas A&M 0.57 4.70
9) Colorado 0.52 3.80
10) Kansas State 0.52 4.20
11) Iowa State 0.45 2.90
12) Baylor 0.35 2.10
Oh, wait, Texas Tech is ahead of 7 teams that run the ball better than them. (6 by at least 1 ypc).
Oklahoma State (best rushing offense in the league) is 7th in TD%. KSU only gets TD's 5% less than the best in rushing team in the league.
A&M (most attempts, second in yards) is 8th. WTF? They "establish the run" as well as anyone in the league!
I mean, you have a cute little analogy, but it just doesn't apply here. There is no statistical connection between rushing and red zone touchdowns.
-
Running the ball is not the problem.
Please post somthing... Anything, really that will help me believe that your FBIQ is a number greater than or equal to zero.
Look at our trips to the red zone, and the number of touchdowns we have. That stat is DIRECTLY tied to a team's ability to RUN THE FOOTBALL.
You see, as you get closser to the endzone, the amount of field that the DB's have to cover shrinks. Thus, making the passing game much easier to defend.
Conversely, if a team can actually run the ball consistently, and with confidence, then the ratio of trips into the redzone that are converted to TD's dramatically increases.
Running the football should be the foundation of EVERY offense at any level below the NFL.
No charge.
Hmm, you'd expect the best rushing teams to be the best in the red zone, right?
TEAM TD% YPC
1) Oklahoma 0.83 5.40
2) Texas 0.78 5.20
3) Missouri 0.70 4.00
4) Texas Tech 0.66 2.80
5) Kansas 0.65 4.80
6) Nebraska 0.62 3.90
7) Oklahoma State 0.57 5.40
8) Texas A&M 0.57 4.70
9) Colorado 0.52 3.80
10) Kansas State 0.52 4.20
11) Iowa State 0.45 2.90
12) Baylor 0.35 2.10
Oh, wait, Texas Tech is ahead of 7 teams that run the ball better than them. (6 by at least 1 ypc).
Oklahoma State (best rushing offense in the league) is 7th in TD%. KSU only gets TD's 5% less than the best in rushing team in the league.
A&M (most attempts, second in yards) is 8th. WTF? They "establish the run" as well as anyone in the league!
I mean, you have a cute little analogy, but it just doesn't apply here. There is no statistical connection between rushing and red zone touchdowns.
Sure there is. Do your cute little study on all 119 teams and get back with me.
Your miniscule sample size means nothing, and you have done absolutely nothing to take into consideration the quality of defenses that each team has faced.
Further, you used a couple of "exceptions to the rule" to prove your point amongst a sample size of just 12.
-
Sure there is. Do your cute little study on all 119 teams and get back with me.
Your miniscule sample size means nothing, and you have done absolutely nothing to take into consideration the quality of defenses that each team has faced.
Further, you used a couple of "exceptions to the rule" to prove your point amongst a sample size of just 12.
LOL. That's not a sample size of twelve, it's a sample size of 275 red zone trips and 2400+ carries. That's plenty of data for trends to pop up, especially if rushing was directly correlated to red zone touchdown success.
It is conference games only, so the quality of competition is fairly obvious that the entire list, with the exception of OU being first, is an "exception to the rule".
-
The sample size would have to be bigger to explore this fully, but actually, I do indeed see a noticeable correlation between Rusty's YPC and TD% numbers...
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q45/kougar24/ypc_to_tds.png)
Not surprisingly, Tech's input goes against the grain, but other than that, a correlation is definitely there.
-
Kougs, the r squared for that data is .4583.
That is not in the neighborhood of being statistically significant.
-
Do it for all 119 teams (I'm curious).
-
Do it for all 119 teams (I'm curious).
put the red zone data on a spreadsheet, and I will.
(NCAA.org does not keep this as an official stat).
-
btw: freeman made a remarkable play when viers f-ed up the snap, freemaw caught it and found murphy for a huge 1st down.
-
btw: freeman made a remarkable play when viers f-ed up the snap, freemaw caught it and found murphy for a huge 1st down.
qfmft
-
Do it for all 119 teams (I'm curious).
put the red zone data on a spreadsheet, and I will.
(NCAA.org does not keep this as an official stat).
Where did you get your data, espn.com?
-
http://www.big12sports.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2007-2008/confonly.html
-
Here, buy this software (http://www.statcrew.com/html/football1.shtml), and then we can run some extensive tests on your theory. (I can't find red zone scoring stats for all of D-1A anywhere.)
-
While redzone data is as good as you'll find (and apparently that's not all that easy to find), I'd really be ineterested in seeing the data for TD% from 1st and goal and how that correlates to YPC.
While I don't have any data, I always feel pretty queasy when we get a 1st and goal outside the 5. First and goal from the 8 feels like an automatic FG try for our offense.
-
While I don't have any data, I always feel pretty queasy when we get a 1st and goal outside the 5. First and goal from the 8 feels like an automatic FG try for our offense.
I doubt that is unique to KSU.
Most teams %'s will go down in that situation, I would imagine.
-
While I don't have any data, I always feel pretty queasy when we get a 1st and goal outside the 5. First and goal from the 8 feels like an automatic FG try for our offense.
I doubt that is unique to KSU.
Most teams %'s will go down in that situation, I would imagine.
I'm sure you are right. But my guess is that better running team's %'s dip less than others.
-
Kougs, the r squared for that data is .4583.
That is not in the neighborhood of being statistically significant.
the r square doesn't speak to significance. rather to the strength of the relationship.
the data look fairly convincingly anti-rusty, though the sample size really is too small to do much with.
-
Kougs, the r squared for that data is .4583.
That is not in the neighborhood of being statistically significant.
the r square doesn't speak to significance. rather to the strength of the relationship.
It's a real weak relationship.
-
Kougs, the r squared for that data is .4583.
That is not in the neighborhood of being statistically significant.
the r square doesn't speak to significance. rather to the strength of the relationship.
It's a real weak relationship.
Yeah, it is, but there is definitely an upward trend to the data. You can't deny that.
So, you gonna buy that software? :pray:
-
Kougs, the r squared for that data is .4583.
That is not in the neighborhood of being statistically significant.
the r square doesn't speak to significance. rather to the strength of the relationship.
It's a real weak relationship.
That's because the sample is too small.
-
Correlation between rushing y/c and turnovers.
-
Yeah, it is, but there is definitely an upward trend to the data. You can't deny that.
Yeah, but yards per play has a very similar trend. Shockingly, teams with better offenses overall do better in the red zone than crappy offenses. The correlation (which is very slight) between rushing and red zone efficiency does not explain causitation.
Kougs, the r squared for that data is .4583.
That is not in the neighborhood of being statistically significant.
the r square doesn't speak to significance. rather to the strength of the relationship.
It's a real weak relationship.
That's because the sample is too small.
No, like I said above, you have 275 red zone attempts and 2400 carries in that data. It's enough.
-
Here is the correlation data:
TEAM TD% YPC YPP YPA
1) Oklahoma 0.83 5.40 5.50 7.60
2) Texas 0.78 5.20 6.60 8.30
3) Missouri 0.70 4.00 6.20 8.30
4) Texas Tech 0.66 2.80 6.90 8.30
5) Kansas 0.65 4.80 5.60 6.70
6) Nebraska 0.62 3.90 5.60 7.10
7) Oklahoma State 0.57 5.40 6.70 9.10
8) Texas A&M 0.57 4.70 5.20 6.00
9) Colorado 0.52 3.80 4.90 6.20
10) Kansas State 0.52 4.20 5.70 6.90
11) Iowa State 0.45 2.90 4.20 5.60
12) Baylor 0.35 2.10 4.40 5.60
correlation 0.673 0.636 0.665
Notice that yards per attempt and yards per carry are virtually identical.
-
If you add the SEC, the correlation gets weaker:
YPC: 0.55
YPP: 0.52
YPA: 0.51
TEAM TD% YPC YPP YPA
Oklahoma 0.83 5.40 5.50 7.60
Texas 0.78 5.20 6.60 8.30
Missouri 0.70 4.00 6.20 8.30
Texas Tech 0.66 2.80 6.90 8.30
Kansas 0.65 4.80 5.60 6.70
Nebraska 0.62 3.90 5.60 7.10
Oklahoma State 0.57 5.40 6.70 9.10
Texas A&M 0.57 4.70 5.20 6.00
Colorado 0.52 3.80 4.90 6.20
Kansas State 0.52 4.20 5.70 6.90
Iowa State 0.45 2.90 4.20 5.60
Baylor 0.35 2.10 4.40 5.60
Georgia 0.71 4.60 5.60 6.90
LSU 0.64 4.80 5.90 7.40
Tennessee 0.68 4.80 5.80 6.80
Mississippi St. 0.71 3.70 4.40 5.40
Kentucky 0.70 4.70 6.00 7.10
Alabama 0.61 4.00 5.10 6.30
Arkansas 0.63 6.40 6.60 6.80
Florida 0.75 5.00 7.00 9.90
South Carolina 0.59 3.60 5.30 6.80
Auburn 0.61 3.80 5.00 7.00
Vanderbilt 0.47 3.90 4.80 6.10
Ole Miss 0.36 3.90 5.40 6.80
correlation 0.55 0.52 0.51
-
Adding the ACC, here are the correlations:
YPC: 0.43
YPP: 0.45
YPA: 0.44
Keeps getting worse for bookie.
(up to 36 teams and almost 1000 red zone opportunities for those scoring at home.)
-
So if there's no correlation what does this tell us, exactly?
-
So if there's no correlation what does this tell us, exactly?
There is correlation between TD% in the red zone and YPC.
The problem is, the correlations between TD% and both YPA and YPP are virtually identical to the YPC correlation.
What it tells you, is that better offenses are better at scoring touchdowns in the red zone than bad offenses, regardless of their strengths, and people that say "we need to establish the run to score more TD's" are full of sh*t.
-
you can't compare ypplay and ypcarry because ypc is included in the ypp data. they aren't independent.
personally, i would prefer regressions to correlations. you have a hypothesized causitive relationship. also your sample size is the number of teams. that is the unit of data you are analyizing (you are not, f.ex. analyizing if a run of 8 yards resulted in a score more often than a run of 3 yards, your data are the averages). with the sec and big 12 you are close to a good sample. add another conference and it should be fine.
to keep it simple, i would just run simple linear regressions on ypc and yppass if you wanted to see whether one is more important than the other on red zone scoring. if you want to look at all factors that impact red zone scoring, maybe also do turnover rate and penalty number. prob. in a multiple regression framework.
-
you can't compare ypplay and ypcarry because ypc is included in the ypp data. they aren't independent.
personally, i would prefer regressions to correlations. you have a hypothesized causitive relationship. also your sample size is the number of teams. that is the unit of data you are analyizing (you are not, f.ex. analyizing if a run of 8 yards resulted in a score more often than a run of 3 yards, your data are the averages). with the sec and big 12 you are close to a good sample. add another conference and it should be fine.
to keep it simple, i would just run simple linear regressions on ypc and yppass if you wanted to see whether one is more important than the other on red zone scoring. if you want to look at all factors that impact red zone scoring, maybe also do turnover rate and penalty number. prob. in a multiple regression framework.
As in, r-squared? Refresh my stats, plz.
-
I have no stats to back this up but...
i think our scoring problems in the redzone are a result of our pass first offense. We run the ball pretty well between the 20's as indicated by ypc. Our passing game sets up the run well when teams have to play both safety's 15-20 yds off the ball.
This changes in the redzone however and teams don't have to respect the deep ball. essentially the offense is playing in a smaller box. teams man up on our below avg recievers and te's, double team jordy, and can leave the lb's and safety's close.
We just don't have the oline, fb for a "power running game" inside the 20. I think if RP can recruit more physical linemen that can really push the dline around this would change. All goes back to recruiting.
-
regression gives you an r2 as well as a p value. (also an equation, the slope of which might be interesting to this question). regression assumes a causitive relationship.
correlation gives you an r and a p value. it evaluates any relationship, not assuming one variable influences values of the other.
-
Here it is w/ the Pac 10, Big XII, ACC, and SEC.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c131/rlj4794/redzone.jpg)
-
good stuff. both are pretty weak. looks like luck has a big impact.
-
This has turned into a remedial course in statistics.
Fascinating. (Srsly)
-
So in summation, good offenses find a way (whether by pass or rush) to score. A team's offensive "balance" doesn't necessarily matter, it's the manner at which they utilize their strengths.
-
OK, I see now.
I haven't done any statistics in a while, and now I understand what's going on.
Correlation is extremely weak. Fortunately, most football coaches get glossy eyed when it comes to statistics. Next time a coach says we need a running game to help in the redzone, I'll just snicker.
-
Adding the ACC, here are the correlations:
YPC: 0.43
YPP: 0.45
YPA: 0.44
Keeps getting worse for bookie.
(up to 36 teams and almost 1000 red zone opportunities for those scoring at home.)
Actually, what "keeps getting worse" is your FBIQ....
Tell us, oh great sage, what happens to YPC stats when a team punches it in from the 3 yd line or closer. Is that better, or worse, for their YPC stats in the redzone? Additionally, what you fail to factor in to your little study is the fact that any QB sacks that occur within the 20 yard line will actually impact a teams YPC stats.
No where did I say that the ability to score touchdowns was directly related to YPC. What I said was, the ability to score touchdowns is related to a teams ability to run the football. With few exceptions to the rule, this will remain a constant across all levels of the game for each of our foreseeable lifetimes.
Please help us all understand why having a strong running game is a bad thing. That was the original question, wasn't it?
Let me spell this out for you in a way that should be easy for all to understand.... Statistics equations class be damned. In order to run the football with any consistency whatsoever, a team would need to have an offensive line that can consistently control the line of scrimmage. Assuming a team has an offensive line that can control the line of scrimmage, then passing also becomes much easier simply due to the fact that the QB will have more time to survey the coverage and not be running for his life.
I understand that you likely have not had any football gear on your person since junior high or so, nor have you ever taught the game. So, I'll give you a pass for not understanding the nuances of lining eleven players up on each side of the ball with differing game circumstances (read: field position, score, gameclock, down & distance, etc.) when considering "statistics" inside the redzone. I would like to congratulate you, however, on your ability to plot basic statistical equations on a graph though.
:rolleyes:
-
Somebody run yards per carry versus winning percentage. That is really what people who say we need a running game are saying. A good running game = more wins.
-
Please help us all understand why having a strong running game is a bad thing. That was the original question, wasn't it?
No. That leap of logic isn't founded based on Rusty's argument.
A more accurate take on Rusty's viewpoint would be to say that the ability to score is not dependent on the ability to run the ball.
-
Tell us, oh great sage, what happens to YPC stats when a team punches it in from the 3 yd line or closer. Is that better, or worse, for their YPC stats in the redzone? Additionally, what you fail to factor in to your little study is the fact that any QB sacks that occur within the 20 yard line will actually impact a teams YPC stats.
This is all YPC, so a three yard TD run (or ten three yard TD runs, for that matter) would have little impact over the course of a season and sacks would affect all teams.
No where did I say that the ability to score touchdowns was directly related to YPC. What I said was, the ability to score touchdowns is related to a teams ability to run the football. With few exceptions to the rule, this will remain a constant across all levels of the game for each of our foreseeable lifetimes.
Is YPC not directly related to "ability to run the football"? Do you have a better way of quantifying "ability to run the football"?
Please help us all understand why having a strong running game is a bad thing. That was the original question, wasn't it?
No one said having a strong running game is a bad thing. There are many ways to have success on offense. The original question was whether or not KSU's running game was keeping KSU from scoring points. Evidence suggests that it is not.
I understand that you likely have not had any football gear on your person since junior high or so, nor have you ever taught the game. So, I'll give you a pass for not understanding the nuances of lining eleven players up on each side of the ball with differing game circumstances (read: field position, score, gameclock, down & distance, etc.) when considering "statistics" inside the redzone. I would like to congratulate you, however, on your ability to plot basic statistical equations on a graph though.
LOL, you have nothing to suggest that KSU's running game is keeping KSU from scoring points, other than "I coach jr. high football and understand nuances".
-
How about, what's the overall record for teams that average 180+ yds/game vs teams that avg, less than let's say 110 yds per game.
-
if you look at the stats basically all the bcs contenders run the ball for over 180 yds/game or are in the top 25 team rushing category.
if you look at the bottom 25 team rushing category LOL.
only about 3 teams in the bottom 25 average over 30 points/game, Tech, Hawaii, and Bowling green.
there are about 5 teams in the top 25 team rushing that average under 30 points /game.
does that help anyone's argument?
-
Usually, a good team has a good offensive line and that good offensive line can run and pass block. There probably isn't a correlation between scoring and just someone's ability to run or just someone's ability to pass. Look at KSU's offense in 2001, we could run on anyone, but we couldn't score (averaged 29ppg).
-
LOL, you have nothing to suggest that KSU's running game is keeping KSU from scoring points, other than "I coach jr. high football and understand nuances".
Getting stuffed at the one yard line kept KSU from scoring seven points against a PITIFUL Iowa State defense just after averaging less than 2 YPC on three attempts from inside the ISU six yard line.
:tongue:
-
LOL, you have nothing to suggest that KSU's running game is keeping KSU from scoring points, other than "I coach jr. high football and understand nuances".
Getting stuffed at the one yard line kept KSU from scoring seven points against a PITIFUL Iowa State defense just after averaging less than 2 YPC on three attempts from inside the ISU six yard line.
:tongue:
Sincerely,
OSU getting stuffed twice inside the 5 by a terrible KSU rush defense.
-
LOL, you have nothing to suggest that KSU's running game is keeping KSU from scoring points, other than "I coach jr. high football and understand nuances".
Getting stuffed at the one yard line kept KSU from scoring seven points against a PITIFUL Iowa State defense just after averaging less than 2 YPC on three attempts from inside the ISU six yard line.
:tongue:
Weren't you complaining about my initial sample size being too small?
:tongue:
-
This years statistics show that to be a Top 5 team in the BCS you need a solid running game (all 5 are in the top 30 nationally in rushing yards per game). However after that it is all over the map and 6 teams in the BCS top 20 aren't even in the top 50. 8 of the top 10 teams in rushing offense aren't in the BCS top 20.
Having a solid run team, especially in YPC is important, but doesn't gurantee success and plenty of teams that are barely average rushing the football have very good teams. Today's offenses that spread the field and have numerous pass attempts that essentually act as a running game has negated the old adages about running the football, but certainly you can't throw it out completely either. The variety of offenses in today's game make it tough to make blanket statements about running the football.
-
Look at the flip side of this...the defense...by all accounts (and statistics) our rush defense sucks and our pass defense is good...but we've given up 11 passing TD's in comparison to 7 rushing TD's. And IIRC, of the passing TD's we've given up, like 7 of them have been for 20+ yards (thanks watts).
-
what is scary about the team rushing stats is that we score way more poinst/game than everyone around us except for Purdue!
Purdue! :crybaby:
-
This years statistics show that to be a Top 5 team in the BCS you need a solid running game (all 5 are in the top 30 nationally in rushing yards per game). However after that it is all over the map and 6 teams in the BCS top 20 aren't even in the top 50. 8 of the top 10 teams in rushing offense aren't in the BCS top 20.
No, they show that top 5 BCS teams have solid running games this year. 3 of the top 5 BCS are also in the top 10 in pass efficiency, and a 4th is 11th. Only one is in the top 15 in rushing.
Having a solid run team, especially in YPC is important, but doesn't gurantee success and plenty of teams that are barely average rushing the football have very good teams. Today's offenses that spread the field and have numerous pass attempts that essentually act as a running game has negated the old adages about running the football, but certainly you can't throw it out completely either. The variety of offenses in today's game make it tough to make blanket statements about running the football.
I agree. Obviously, jr. high coaches would think running the football is the most important thing...mostly because they don't have a choice.
-
Nice "pot shot", Rusty...
This "Jr High coach" knows so little about the game that he's been a speaker at some of the top coaching clinics in Texas, as well as being recently offered the job as the Defensive Coordinator at a school in the largest high school classification in the state.
And, guess what... We will face plenty of teams that will be capable of running pass-based offenses. Yet, our focus will be to stop the run first, because running the ball and stopping the run is what wins football games.
-
Nice "pot shot", Rusty...
This "Jr High coach" knows so little about the game that he's been a speaker at some of the top coaching clinics in Texas, as well as being recently offered the job as the Defensive Coordinator at a school in the largest high school classification in the state.
And, guess what... We will face plenty of teams that will be capable of running pass-based offenses. Yet, our focus will be to stop the run first, because running the ball and stopping the run is what wins football games.
You can definitely win by focusing on stopping the run and running the ball, but it isn't the only way. Rushing offnese is not holding KSU's offense back, that's all I'm saying.
And LOL @ whipping out the "credentials".
-
LOLOL
-
Nice "pot shot", Rusty...
This "Jr High coach" knows so little about the game that he's been a speaker at some of the top coaching clinics in Texas, as well as being recently offered the job as the Defensive Coordinator at a school in the largest high school classification in the state.
And, guess what... We will face plenty of teams that will be capable of running pass-based offenses. Yet, our focus will be to stop the run first, because running the ball and stopping the run is what wins football games.
You can definitely win by focusing on stopping the run and running the ball, but it isn't the only way. Rushing offnese is not holding KSU's offense back, that's all I'm saying.
And LOL @ whipping out the "credentials".
Nope. It's NOT the "only way". It's simply the BEST way.
And, I disagree. If KSU's offense posed a bit more of a threat running the football, or at least being considerably more balanced, they would be FAR more efficient in the red zone. Or, anywhere else on the field for that matter.
LOL @ your low FBIQ.
-
So the problem with the team is the offense? Or are we just wanting to know how an offense that averages 36ppg could get better? Kind of like "I wish Ell could throw the ball better".
-
Would you guys agree that the ammount of rushing that we are doing is holding us back?
IMO JJ should get 25 touches/game.
-
More interesting stats on the topic (Big 12 only).
Redzone TD % (rank) - rushing yards per game (rank).
OU 1 - 7
UT 2 - 3
MU 3 - 5
Tech 4 - 11
ku 5 - 5
NU 6 - 9
aTm 7 - 2
OSU 7 - 1
KSU 9 - 8
CU 9 - 6
ISU 11 - 10
BU 12 - 12
I would like to see more rushing attempts by backs per game. Right now Johnson and Patton combine to average 22 rushing attempts (at 5.2 per) per game. I suppose I'd like to see that at just slightly more, perhaps 25-30.
-
Maybe if Kstate rushed more they'd have Freeman throwing less and his interception number wouldn't be sky high.
Maybe teams that run the ball with a decent ypc also have a low amount of turnovers because fumbling just isn't as common as throwing interceptions and interceptions are much more likely if you're throwing a billion times a game due to lack of a running game.
Maybe.
-
Nope. It's NOT the "only way". It's simply the BEST way.
If two teams get identical yards, and one turns the ball over significantly less than a team that runs significantly better, the team that holds onto the ball will win more games. You only think it's the best way because it's how you've been taught.
And, I disagree. If KSU's offense posed a bit more of a threat running the football, or at least being considerably more balanced, they would be FAR more efficient in the red zone. Or, anywhere else on the field for that matter.
What are you looking for? X more carries/game? A specific run to pas ratio? More YPC? Or will you just know it's good enough when your coaching-clinic-speaker gut tells you it's good enough?
Would you guys agree that the ammount of rushing that we are doing is holding us back?
IMO JJ should get 25 touches/game.
36 points a game!
-
I think the statistics show that having a good running game increases your chances of success.
For example..
KSU - Auburn - KSU had 27 yards rushing, 289 passing. (Loss by 10)
KSU - San Jose St. KSU had 152 yards rushing, 272 passing. (win by 20)
KSU - Missouri St. KSU had 221 yards rushing, 325 passing. (win by 49)
KSU - Texas - KSU had 113 yards rushing, 217 passing. (win by 20)
KSU - ku - KSU had 53 yards rushing, 310 passing. (loss by 6)
KSU - CU - KSU had 249 yards rushing, 214 passing. (win by 27)
KSU - OSU - KSU had 125 yards rushing, 404 passing. (loss by 1)
KSU - BU - KSU had 208 yards rushing, 255 passing. (win by 38)
KSU - ISU - KSU had 78 yards rushing, 347 passing. (loss by 11).
Just looking at those numbers, and only for KSU, when the numbers are more even, the balance is there, KSU's success is much more definitive in terms of scoring.
I'd say that maybe the red-zone correlation isn't as significant as is the ability to run the ball and control the game. Doing so, means you can end up winning the game.
So when Prince says we need a running game to help win games, I think it shows pretty well that having one helps us win.
Perhaps, that's the better relationship.
-
I think the statistics show that having a good running game increases your chances of success.
For example..
KSU - Auburn - KSU had 27 yards rushing, 289 passing. (Loss by 10)
KSU - San Jose St. KSU had 152 yards rushing, 272 passing. (win by 20)
KSU - Missouri St. KSU had 221 yards rushing, 325 passing. (win by 49)
KSU - Texas - KSU had 113 yards rushing, 217 passing. (win by 20)
KSU - ku - KSU had 53 yards rushing, 310 passing. (loss by 6)
KSU - CU - KSU had 249 yards rushing, 214 passing. (win by 27)
KSU - OSU - KSU had 125 yards rushing, 404 passing. (loss by 1)
KSU - BU - KSU had 208 yards rushing, 255 passing. (win by 38)
KSU - ISU - KSU had 78 yards rushing, 347 passing. (loss by 11).
Just looking at those numbers, and only for KSU, when the numbers are more even, the balance is there, KSU's success is much more definitive both in terms of scoring.
I'd say that maybe the red-zone correlation isn't as significant as is the ability to run the ball and control the game. Doing so, means you can end up winning the game.
So when Prince says we need a running game to help win games, I think it shows pretty well that having one helps us win.
Perhaps, that's the better relationship.
In KSU's case, this is more a function of getting an early lead, than "ability to run".
rushing by quarter:
ATT YDS YPC
1st Quarter 60 274 4.57
2nd Quarter 56 172 3.07
3rd Quarter 63 248 3.94
4th Quarter 95 515 5.42
rushing based on score:
ATT YDS YPC
Winning By 15+ Pts 84 498 5.93
Winning By 8-14 Pts 46 177 3.85
Winning By 1-7 Pts 45 217 4.82
Tied 45 165 3.67
Losing By 1-7 Pts 27 63 2.33
Losing By 8-14 Pts 17 26 1.53
Losing By 15+ Pts 10 63 6.30
KSU runs the ball when they win, they don't necessarily win when they run the ball. 1057 yards came with the game tied or a lead, 152 yards came when trailing.
You could do the same thing for turnovers, FWIW.
AU: -1
SJSU: -2
MSU: even
UT: +4
ku: even
CU: +4
OSU: -2
BU: +6
ISU: -2
The only game KSU lost with a negative turnover margin was SJSU. The only game they lost with the turnovers even or better was ku (an undefeated top 5 team).
-
I think the statistics show that having a good running game increases your chances of success.
For example..
KSU - Auburn - KSU had 27 yards rushing, 289 passing. (Loss by 10)
KSU - San Jose St. KSU had 152 yards rushing, 272 passing. (win by 20)
KSU - Missouri St. KSU had 221 yards rushing, 325 passing. (win by 49)
KSU - Texas - KSU had 113 yards rushing, 217 passing. (win by 20)
KSU - ku - KSU had 53 yards rushing, 310 passing. (loss by 6)
KSU - CU - KSU had 249 yards rushing, 214 passing. (win by 27)
KSU - OSU - KSU had 125 yards rushing, 404 passing. (loss by 1)
KSU - BU - KSU had 208 yards rushing, 255 passing. (win by 38)
KSU - ISU - KSU had 78 yards rushing, 347 passing. (loss by 11).
Just looking at those numbers, and only for KSU, when the numbers are more even, the balance is there, KSU's success is much more definitive both in terms of scoring.
I'd say that maybe the red-zone correlation isn't as significant as is the ability to run the ball and control the game. Doing so, means you can end up winning the game.
So when Prince says we need a running game to help win games, I think it shows pretty well that having one helps us win.
Perhaps, that's the better relationship.
In KSU's case, this is more a function of getting an early lead, than "ability to run".
rushing by quarter:
ATT YDS YPC
1st Quarter 60 274 4.57
2nd Quarter 56 172 3.07
3rd Quarter 63 248 3.94
4th Quarter 95 515 5.42
rushing based on score:
ATT YDS YPC
Winning By 15+ Pts 84 498 5.93
Winning By 8-14 Pts 46 177 3.85
Winning By 1-7 Pts 45 217 4.82
Tied 45 165 3.67
Losing By 1-7 Pts 27 63 2.33
Losing By 8-14 Pts 17 26 1.53
Losing By 15+ Pts 10 63 6.30
KSU runs the ball when they win, they don't necessarily win when they run the ball. 1057 yards came with the game tied or a lead, 152 yards came when trailing.
You could do the same thing for turnovers, FWIW.
AU: -1
SJSU: -2
MSU: even
UT: +4
ku: even
CU: +4
OSU: -2
BU: +6
ISU: -2
The only game KSU lost with a negative turnover margin was SJSU. The only game they lost with the turnovers even or better was ku (an undefeated top 5 team).
It's called game management.
You can get an early lead, then you can go to the run to keep the other offense off the field, force them to become one dimensional and make mistakes.
You get more turnovers in a game when you're forced to play from behind. It's something that affects us as well as any other team. It's part of the game.
What you cannot deny is that the run game is important as part of the overall strategy for success, and the numbers do not speak otherwise.
You may argue that the running game has less effect on one aspect or another, but managing the game is just as much strategy of using various combinations, one of which is an effective running game.
-
Nope. It's NOT the "only way". It's simply the BEST way.
If two teams get identical yards, and one turns the ball over significantly less than a team that runs significantly better, the team that holds onto the ball will win more games. You only think it's the best way because it's how you've been taught.
Agreed. Turnovers will absolutely KILL you.
Very few championship exceptions to the rule of "Run the ball. Stop the run. Win the game." exist... Spurrier's method is about the only championship example that comes to mind off the top of my head and even his defenses were predicated on stopping the run first.
And, I disagree. If KSU's offense posed a bit more of a threat running the football, or at least being considerably more balanced, they would be FAR more efficient in the red zone. Or, anywhere else on the field for that matter.
What are you looking for? X more carries/game? A specific run to pas ratio? More YPC? Or will you just know it's good enough when your coaching-clinic-speaker gut tells you it's good enough?
Offensively, we're looking for:
1) No turnovers
2) Win time of possession
3) Average > 5 yds per rush
4) < 20 yds in penalties
Defensively, we're looking to:
1) Hold oppoonent to < 100 yds rushing
2) 3 "takeaways"
3) Five "3 & outs"
4) ZERO TD's after "sudden change"
5) NO plays > 20 yds
6) Win 60+% of 3rd downs
7) Less than 3 yds per rush
-
I do think that JJ does need to get more touches, maybe 5 more per game, but that's because I think he's a weapon that needs to be used more and because I think JF should throw a touch less. We're something like 0-8 in JF's starts when he has >40 Pass attempts.
-
Fun fact, KSU gets more YPC in the red zone than Oklahoma (best red zone TD% in conference).
OU gets 3.04, KSU gets 3.75.
The difference is OU's passing efficiency is 291.74, while KSU's is 150.04.
^I realize that's just anecdotal evidence, but it's interesting.
http://www.cfbstats.com/2007/team/327/rushing/offense/situational.html
http://www.cfbstats.com/2007/team/327/passing/offense/situational.html
http://www.cfbstats.com/2007/team/522/rushing/offense/situational.html
http://www.cfbstats.com/2007/team/522/passing/offense/situational.html
-
Nope. It's NOT the "only way". It's simply the BEST way.
If two teams get identical yards, and one turns the ball over significantly less than a team that runs significantly better, the team that holds onto the ball will win more games. You only think it's the best way because it's how you've been taught.
Agreed. Turnovers will absolutely KILL you.
Very few championship exceptions to the rule of "Run the ball. Stop the run. Win the game." exist... Spurrier's method is about the only championship example that comes to mind off the top of my head and even his defenses were predicated on stopping the run first.
OU 2000, but you have the same defense.
Offensively, we're looking for:
1) No turnovers
2) Win time of possession
3) Average > 5 yds per rush
4) < 20 yds in penalties
OK, looking at this specifically, running the ball isn't your number one priority, and you could easily replace #3 with a completion %/YPA combination of some sort and still achieve what you're looking for in time of possession.
Defensively, we're looking to:
1) Hold oppoonent to < 100 yds rushing
2) 3 "takeaways"
3) Five "3 & outs"
4) ZERO TD's after "sudden change"
5) NO plays > 20 yds
6) Win 60+% of 3rd downs
7) Less than 3 yds per rush
Why is yards per rush #7, but yards per game #1?
-
It's called game management.
You can get an early lead, then you can go to the run to keep the other offense off the field, force them to become one dimensional and make mistakes.
You get more turnovers in a game when you're forced to play from behind. It's something that affects us as well as any other team. It's part of the game.
What you cannot deny is that the run game is important as part of the overall strategy for success, and the numbers do not speak otherwise.
You may argue that the running game has less effect on one aspect or another, but managing the game is just as much strategy of using various combinations, one of which is an effective running game.
I agree with that, but it seems KSU's success hinges more on an early lead than anything. JMO, no stats involved.
-
It's called game management.
You can get an early lead, then you can go to the run to keep the other offense off the field, force them to become one dimensional and make mistakes.
You get more turnovers in a game when you're forced to play from behind. It's something that affects us as well as any other team. It's part of the game.
What you cannot deny is that the run game is important as part of the overall strategy for success, and the numbers do not speak otherwise.
You may argue that the running game has less effect on one aspect or another, but managing the game is just as much strategy of using various combinations, one of which is an effective running game.
I agree with that, but it seems KSU's success hinges more on an early lead than anything. JMO, no stats involved.
That's true with any team.
-
Nope. It's NOT the "only way". It's simply the BEST way.
If two teams get identical yards, and one turns the ball over significantly less than a team that runs significantly better, the team that holds onto the ball will win more games. You only think it's the best way because it's how you've been taught.
Agreed. Turnovers will absolutely KILL you.
Very few championship exceptions to the rule of "Run the ball. Stop the run. Win the game." exist... Spurrier's method is about the only championship example that comes to mind off the top of my head and even his defenses were predicated on stopping the run first.
OU 2000, but you have the same defense.
Like I said, there ARE exceptions to the rule.
Offensively, we're looking for:
1) No turnovers
2) Win time of possession
3) Average > 5 yds per rush
4) < 20 yds in penalties
OK, looking at this specifically, running the ball isn't your number one priority, and you could easily replace #3 with a completion %/YPA combination of some sort and still achieve what you're looking for in time of possession.
I've already agreed with you that creating/elimination of turnovers is HIGHLY important. Ball security is ALWAYS the number one point offensively.
So, in turning to your second point, the key word here is "easily". I believe that to be false.... Here's why.
TIME. Game time, and practice time.
Game time: Anytime a pass hits the ground, the clock stops. Thus leaving more time for the other offense. If they are out rushing you, then they are eating more of the clock. Once the ball is snapped, a running play that nets zero yards still runs about 40-45 seconds off the clock. An incomplete pass runs about 5 seconds off the clock on average.
Practice time: The key is "reps". There is only so much practice time and any time spent practicing passing takes away from time spent practicing your run game. Run blocking and pass blocking are two distinctly different skills, not to mention the amount of timing involved in a pass game.
Theoritcally, replacing#3 with a completion %/YPA combination of some sort to still achieve what you're looking for in time of possession might be "easy". Practically, however, it's anything but "easy".
Defensively, we're looking to:
1) Hold oppoonent to < 100 yds rushing
2) 3 "takeaways"
3) Five "3 & outs"
4) ZERO TD's after "sudden change"
5) NO plays > 20 yds
6) Win 60+% of 3rd downs
7) Less than 3 yds per rush
Why is yards per rush #7, but yards per game #1?
It's just the order in which I posted them. If one accomplishes #7, then it is highly unlikely that the offense would accomplish #1.
-
Game time: Anytime a pass hits the ground, the clock stops. Thus leaving more time for the other offense. If they are out rushing you, then they are eating more of the clock. Once the ball is snapped, a running play that nets zero yards still runs about 40-45 seconds off the clock. An incomplete pass runs about 5 seconds off the clock on average.
Why is time of possession so important to you?
Practice time: The key is "reps". There is only so much practice time and any time spent practicing passing takes away from time spent practicing your run game. Run blocking and pass blocking are two distinctly different skills, not to mention the amount of timing involved in a pass game.
Theoritcally, replacing#3 with a completion %/YPA combination of some sort to still achieve what you're looking for in time of possession might be "easy". Practically, however, it's anything but "easy".
I get how it can be difficult to successfully implement a passing offense at the jr. high/high school level, but I this doesn't applies with KSU. I mean, how much better does a team scoring 37 ppg need to be? You could also argue that practicing the run game is a waste of time because you get fewer yards per play and fewer big plays rushing. It's all about what you feel is important.
It's just the order in which I posted them. If one accomplishes #7, then it is highly unlikely that the offense would accomplish #1.
Gotcha, I thought you were listing them in order of priority.
-
winning TO battle>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running the ball successfully.
-
make that not turning it over at all and gettting at least 1 turnover.
-
Why is time of possession so important to you?
While not "impossible", it's much harder to score when the other team has the ball. The more you increase your TOP, the more you reduce your opponents opportunites for scoring.
Practice time: The key is "reps". There is only so much practice time and any time spent practicing passing takes away from time spent practicing your run game. Run blocking and pass blocking are two distinctly different skills, not to mention the amount of timing involved in a pass game.
Theoritcally, replacing#3 with a completion %/YPA combination of some sort to still achieve what you're looking for in time of possession might be "easy". Practically, however, it's anything but "easy".
I get how it can be difficult to successfully implement a passing offense at the jr. high/high school level, but I this doesn't applies with KSU. I mean, how much better does a team scoring 37 ppg need to be? You could also argue that practicing the run game is a waste of time because you get fewer yards per play and fewer big plays rushing. It's all about what you feel is important.
I agree completely when discussing the jr high level. There are still WAY too many basic fundamentals to be taught at that level.
However, it applies pretty equally at both the HS and collegiate levels... especially in Texas where we have spring football and constant 7-on-7 tourneys going on all summer long to work on timing between QB's and receivers. The main difference is the overall size, speed, and quality of athletes across the board as you get to the next level.
How much better does a team that avg.'s 37 PPG need to be? Easy.... Enough better to hold on to the ball long enough to keep from losing four games!! And, I stand by the fact that it could be accomplished by a better ground game which could effectively shorten contests and limit opponents possessions.
At the end of the day, what I feel is important is the W-L columns... Hell, I don't care if our offense only averages 20 PPG if we don't lose!!
It's just the order in which I posted them. If one accomplishes #7, then it is highly unlikely that the offense would accomplish #1.
Gotcha, I thought you were listing them in order of priority.
:thumbsup:
-
While not "impossible", it's much harder to score when the other team has the ball. The more you increase your TOP, the more you reduce your opponents opportunites for scoring.
You also reduce your own opportunities for scoring in the process.
How much better does a team that avg.'s 37 PPG need to be? Easy.... Enough better to hold on to the ball long enough to keep from losing four games!! And, I stand by the fact that it could be accomplished by a better ground game which could effectively shorten contests and limit opponents possessions.
I agree, but I really only think that applies in the Auburn game, like I said before.
One thing you haven't mentioned is personnel. KSU has an O-line full of FP's, an All-American WR, a 6-5 QB with a rocket arm, and a couple average RB's. It makes sense to throw quick passes to the All American as much as possible, right? You negate the pussyness of the line, somewhat and get the ball in the hands of your best player.
If KSU had Darren McFadden at RB and some badass OL's, then I would have a problem with the run/pass ratio, but KSU's offense is really playing to its strengths right now. Prince has shown at UVA that he will adjust his system to suit his personnel - with Matt Schaub at QB, he passed 466 and rushed 439 times. With Marques Hagans at QB, he passed 363 and rushed 450. I think you'll see more emphasis on running the ball with the departure of Nelson and hopeful depussification of the OL.
-
While not "impossible", it's much harder to score when the other team has the ball. The more you increase your TOP, the more you reduce your opponents opportunites for scoring.
You also reduce your own opportunities for scoring in the process.
Again, the chances for scoring are greater when you have possession of the ball. Why wouldn't one want to maximize time of possession if this is the case?
How much better does a team that avg.'s 37 PPG need to be? Easy.... Enough better to hold on to the ball long enough to keep from losing four games!! And, I stand by the fact that it could be accomplished by a better ground game which could effectively shorten contests and limit opponents possessions.
I agree, but I really only think that applies in the Auburn game, like I said before.
One thing you haven't mentioned is personnel. KSU has an O-line full of FP's, an All-American WR, a 6-5 QB with a rocket arm, and a couple average RB's. It makes sense to throw quick passes to the All American as much as possible, right? You negate the pussyness of the line, somewhat and get the ball in the hands of your best player.
If KSU had Darren McFadden at RB and some badass OL's, then I would have a problem with the run/pass ratio, but KSU's offense is really playing to its strengths right now. Prince has shown at UVA that he will adjust his system to suit his personnel - with Matt Schaub at QB, he passed 466 and rushed 439 times. With Marques Hagans at QB, he passed 363 and rushed 450. I think you'll see more emphasis on running the ball with the departure of Nelson and hopeful depussification of the OL.
Good points.... Especially about trying to take advantage of Nelson.
However, with that said, part of the problem regarding our OL being a bunch of FP's is due to the excessive time spent on pass blocking. Any OL worth his salt would MUCH rather run block and knock somebody's dick in the dirt than pass block any day. We spend WAY too much time working on pass blocking, IMHO, which in turn, causes our OL to become bigger FP's.
It seems that we are continuing to recruit pass-blocking FP's though, and I tend to agree with Ballplayers at gopowertard in that Freeman is an incredible talent, but doesn't seem to have the "intangibles" that it takes to win close games. We may be stuck in this funk for at least another 2 years or so...
:yuck:
-
Again, the chances for scoring are greater when you have possession of the ball. Why wouldn't one want to maximize time of possession if this is the case?
Getting first downs would be more important than TOP when it comes to having possession of the ball.
However, with that said, part of the problem regarding our OL being a bunch of FP's is due to the excessive time spent on pass blocking. Any OL worth his salt would MUCH rather run block and knock somebody's dick in the dirt than pass block any day. We spend WAY too much time working on pass blocking, IMHO, which in turn, causes our OL to become bigger FP's.
I can kind of see that, but do you spend more time trying to depussifying your OL (possibly costing wins this year, possibly increasing wins in the future), or more time trying to reduce sacks and interceptions when trying to get the ball to your best player (more likely increase wins this year).
It seems that we are continuing to recruit pass-blocking FP's though, and I tend to agree with Ballplayers at gopowertard in that Freeman is an incredible talent, but doesn't seem to have the "intangibles" that it takes to win close games. We may be stuck in this funk for at least another 2 years or so...
BP should stick to basketball. Freeman lacks an OL more than "intangibles". I think Ell won maybe two close games his entire career. We were good when Ell was our QB.
Also, another fun stat (this site is awesome):
KSU is 7th in the country in red zone yards per carry.
Name G Att Yards Avg. TD Long 1st 10+ 20+
1 Louisiana Tech 9 49 221 4.51 13 19 13 8 0
2 Maryland 9 60 262 4.37 22 19 14 10 0
3 Illinois 10 53 223 4.21 16 16 12 5 0
4 Arkansas 9 73 279 3.82 16 17 11 8 0
4 Texas Tech 8 38 145 3.82 14 17 8 3 0
6 Florida 9 88 335 3.81 24 19 22 11 0
7 Kansas State 9 77 289 3.75 16 20 19 11 1
8 West Virginia 8 90 335 3.72 23 20 19 12 2
9 Oregon 9 82 303 3.70 24 18 19 11 0
10 Kentucky 9 74 270 3.65 14 18 17 11 0
http://www.cfbstats.com/2007/leader/national/team/offense/situational21/category01/sort02.html
-
I kind of LOL at the criticism JF is taking for not being able to win close games. I'm kind of a hard ass when it comes to JF, but what is he supposed to do against Auburn when AA throws a no hitter and gives Auburn's best defensive player a clear shot at him about 1.5 seconds after the snap? What's JF supposed to do when Viers forgets to block McClinton play in and play out? Was he supposed to make our TE's hold onto the ball against OSU? ISU was probably one of his poorer games, and really he was affected by a couple of drops by his WR's (mainly Jordy, but I ain't mad at Jordy).
-
Update:
I emailed Marty at cfbstats.com, and he added Red Zone TD% to his site, so I now have Red Zone TD % for all 119 teams:
http://cfbstats.com/2007/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category27/sort01.html
His site also has stats broken down by where the plays take place...so I compared the correlations of RZYPC, RZYPA, YPC, and YPA. Yards per attempt had a slightly higher correlation that yards per carry, both in the red zone and overall. All correlations are pretty weak, really, but blaming KSU's Red Zone problems on a failure to "establish the run" looks pretty silly..
You might want to right click -> View image:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c131/rlj4794/redzonetds.jpg)