Date: 22/08/25 - 14:20 PM   48060 Topics and 694399 Posts

Author Topic: K-State Football...  (Read 3636 times)

November 05, 2007, 08:23:52 AM
Read 3636 times

ksu_FAN

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11401
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. 

November 05, 2007, 08:30:13 AM
Reply #1

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 08:34:04 AM by Rusty »

November 05, 2007, 08:40:29 AM
Reply #2

ksu_FAN

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11401
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.

November 05, 2007, 08:48:39 AM
Reply #3

catzacker

  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 8304
  • Personal Text
    Fear the Brick
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.  

November 05, 2007, 08:54:28 AM
Reply #4

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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.

November 05, 2007, 09:00:16 AM
Reply #5

ksu_FAN

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 11401
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.

November 05, 2007, 10:40:35 AM
Reply #6

Houstoncat93

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 687
  • Personal Text
    It's good to be good again!
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.

November 05, 2007, 11:46:58 AM
Reply #7

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 11:49:22 AM by Rusty »

November 05, 2007, 12:48:22 PM
Reply #8

catzacker

  • Junior Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 8304
  • Personal Text
    Fear the Brick
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. 

November 05, 2007, 12:57:36 PM
Reply #9

LimestoneOutcropping

  • Administrator
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 6938
  • Personal Text
    Skate on Sister School
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.

November 05, 2007, 01:26:11 PM
Reply #10

cireksu

  • Guest
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.

November 05, 2007, 02:10:02 PM
Reply #11

tmramrod91

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1360
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)

November 05, 2007, 02:46:04 PM
Reply #12

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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.

November 05, 2007, 03:13:39 PM
Reply #13

ArchE_Cat

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1117
  • Personal Text
    ksufanscopycat
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.

November 05, 2007, 03:27:11 PM
Reply #14

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584

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.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 03:30:18 PM by Bookie Pimp »

November 05, 2007, 03:43:57 PM
Reply #15

ArchE_Cat

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1117
  • Personal Text
    ksufanscopycat

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.

November 05, 2007, 03:50:15 PM
Reply #16

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.

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?

Code: [Select]
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.

November 05, 2007, 03:59:39 PM
Reply #17

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584

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?

Code: [Select]
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.


November 05, 2007, 04:16:01 PM
Reply #18

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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".

November 05, 2007, 04:16:34 PM
Reply #19

kougar24

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6966
  • Personal Text
    shame on you, non-believers
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...






Not surprisingly, Tech's input goes against the grain, but other than that, a correlation is definitely there.

November 05, 2007, 04:23:32 PM
Reply #20

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
Kougs, the r squared for that data is .4583.

That is not in the neighborhood of being statistically significant.

November 05, 2007, 04:25:48 PM
Reply #21

kougar24

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6966
  • Personal Text
    shame on you, non-believers
Do it for all 119 teams (I'm curious).

November 05, 2007, 04:26:21 PM
Reply #22

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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).

November 05, 2007, 04:28:11 PM
Reply #23

fatty fat fat

  • Premium Member
  • Hall of Fame

  • Offline
  • *******

  • 29013
  • Personal Text
    The very best.
btw: freeman made a remarkable play when viers f-ed up the snap, freemaw caught it and found murphy for a huge 1st down.
It is a tragedy because now, we have at least an extra month without Cat football until next year. I hate wasting my life away but I can hardly wait until next year.

November 05, 2007, 04:29:46 PM
Reply #24

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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

November 05, 2007, 04:31:29 PM
Reply #25

kougar24

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6966
  • Personal Text
    shame on you, non-believers
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?

November 05, 2007, 04:33:01 PM
Reply #26

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.

November 05, 2007, 04:45:19 PM
Reply #27

kougar24

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6966
  • Personal Text
    shame on you, non-believers
Here, buy this software, 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.)

November 05, 2007, 04:55:03 PM
Reply #28

Skycat

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 2129
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.

November 05, 2007, 04:59:40 PM
Reply #29

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.
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.