Author Topic: Waters  (Read 45503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Canary

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2962
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #275 on: October 07, 2014, 11:27:19 AM »
I don't think I've ever noticed how shitty MBC is.  Good grief.
No.

Offline Canary

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2962
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #276 on: October 07, 2014, 11:27:35 AM »
I don't think I've ever noticed how shitty MBC is.  Good grief.

Hey, here's an idea. Quit hating on a top 25 team.  :comehere:
Bravo.

Offline Winters

  • The King of Real Zeal
  • Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *********
  • Posts: 16035
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #277 on: October 07, 2014, 11:29:14 AM »
Do what you want.



I like this team tho.  :ksu:
Best #heel and/or #babyface on this blogsite



If it were up to me, Wintz would be on a fan scholarship, full ride.

Offline Canary

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2962
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #278 on: October 07, 2014, 11:29:57 AM »
Do what you want.



I like this team tho.  :ksu:
Stud.

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16212
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #279 on: October 07, 2014, 11:41:18 AM »
If you want to be at a site where talking bad about your team is outlawed, then you need to head over to gopowercat.com, idiot.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #280 on: October 07, 2014, 11:48:30 AM »
You can talk all the crap you want, just bring some rough ridin' zeal with it. Don't just throw out "he sucks", "you're creepy for liking him", etc. and not have any actual facts to why he sucks. Otherwise, you just sounds like a kim carnes mouthpiece.

Offline meow meow

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11102
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #281 on: October 07, 2014, 11:53:43 AM »
he seems to underthrow balls a lot.  he takes a lot of sacks.

Offline Canary

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2962
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #282 on: October 07, 2014, 12:03:55 PM »
If you want to be at a site where talking bad about your team is outlawed, then you need to head over to gopowercat.com, idiot.
gE is great. Hate the haters. Love the lovers. Great we're taters. Love like brothers.

Offline g2brg

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #283 on: October 07, 2014, 12:06:19 PM »
Kinda nice to not destroy the qb's shoulder by using a rb near the goal line! :popcorn:

Offline Mr Bread

  • We Gave You Bruce
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 7867
  • I've distressing news.
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #284 on: October 07, 2014, 12:15:43 PM »
Canary gets it.  Every cat fan here is a best friend blood brother forever to all other cat fans. 
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated.

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: Waters
« Reply #285 on: October 07, 2014, 12:28:00 PM »
All Jake needs is 42 more TD's this year and 3 more Int's to match CK's JR and SR yr production.  And then also lead his team to a big 12 title.

While I don't disagree with the overall comment, Waters' TD numbers would look way better right now if we weren't handing the ball to Jones in the Wildcat almost every time we get inside the five.

That's where Klein cleaned up.

To put what you said another way, if Will Spradling only had Lebron's ability, KSU basketball would have been better.

I'm not speaking to ability, I was just commenting on the differences in TD's.

I'm all for letting Jones do his thing inside the 5.  But Klien's gaudy TD numbers had a lot to do with the fact that if we were inside the five, Klien was dozing his way in there.  You can't do that with Jake, but we've got a different solution, so either way, it's fine.  We're still scoring TD's.

We're currently 7th in the nation in Red Zone attempts, 4th in pure Red Zone scoring, and 13th in TD conversion%.  Had Lockett not popped up the INT and Cantele missed the 22 yarder against Auburn, we'd be 28/29 in the red zone, which would have put us at 6th place in the nation in red zone scoring percentage.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #286 on: October 07, 2014, 12:32:50 PM »
I'm not speaking to ability, I was just commenting on the differences in TD's.

I'm all for letting Jones do his thing inside the 5.  But Klien's gaudy TD numbers had a lot to do with the fact that if we were inside the five, Klien was dozing his way in there.  You can't do that with Jake, but we've got a different solution, so either way, it's fine.  We're still scoring TD's.

We're currently 7th in the nation in Red Zone attempts, 4th in pure Red Zone scoring, and 13th in TD conversion%.  Had Lockett not popped up the INT and Cantele missed the 22 yarder against Auburn, we'd be 28/29 in the red zone, which would have put us at 6th place in the nation in red zone scoring percentage.

Great post. Besides the fluke against Auburn, in the redzone this team has been excellent at scoring when the opportunity comes. Plus we're top 20 in points per play, points per drive, and yards per point; all quality efficiency numbers.

Offline Skipper44

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7562
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #287 on: October 07, 2014, 12:38:03 PM »
If you want to be at a site where talking bad about your team is outlawed, then you need to head over to gopowercat.com, idiot.
gE is great. Hate the haters. Love the lovers. Great we're taters. Love like brothers.
:cheers:

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63974
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #288 on: October 07, 2014, 12:41:05 PM »
Serious question _fan, why does this offense "feel" bad? The stats show that it's pretty decent, but nearly every drive leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is something unfulfilling. It's possible that it's just I don't like waters, but I don't think that's it. All of Kleins 15 minute drives were more exciting to me.

Dunno
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #289 on: October 07, 2014, 12:43:47 PM »

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #290 on: October 07, 2014, 12:48:42 PM »
Serious question _fan, why does this offense "feel" bad? The stats show that it's pretty decent, but nearly every drive leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is something unfulfilling. It's possible that it's just I don't like waters, but I don't think that's it. All of Kleins 15 minute drives were more exciting to me.

Dunno

I have no idea.

The top 20 numbers for efficiency I posted only include our FBS games as well, so Stephen F Austin is not included.

The yards per play numbers aren't as good this year (like #33 or something at 6.1 YPP) and we're not quite as explosive, but as long as the efficiency numbers stay solid we're going to win games.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #291 on: October 07, 2014, 12:53:41 PM »
Serious question _fan, why does this offense "feel" bad? The stats show that it's pretty decent, but nearly every drive leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is something unfulfilling. It's possible that it's just I don't like waters, but I don't think that's it. All of Kleins 15 minute drives were more exciting to me.

Dunno
Your hate for Waters and love for Sams has been well known for quite sometime. It's very possible that you can't get out of your own way. Which there's nothing wrong with that, but I think that's the case right here.

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: Waters
« Reply #292 on: October 07, 2014, 01:07:56 PM »
Serious question _fan, why does this offense "feel" bad? The stats show that it's pretty decent, but nearly every drive leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is something unfulfilling. It's possible that it's just I don't like waters, but I don't think that's it. All of Kleins 15 minute drives were more exciting to me.

Dunno

I have no idea.

The top 20 numbers for efficiency I posted only include our FBS games as well, so Stephen F Austin is not included.

The yards per play numbers aren't as good this year (like #33 or something at 6.1 YPP) and we're not quite as explosive, but as long as the efficiency numbers stay solid we're going to win games.

That's the primary problem.  We don't seem to have the home run ability that we showed at times last year.

On the flip side, we're 8th in the nation in 3rd down conversion %.  We're currently at 50.77% on third down conversions.  That's #1 in the Big 12.  For comparison, OU is 8th in the league right now in 3rd down conversion % at just over 41%.

If you look at the number of long plays from scrimmage, we're 50th in plays of 10 yards or more and firmly in the 60-90 camp for anything over 20+ yards.

Also, in the last few games, we haven't had to march down the field as much because of how much we're forcing other teams to punt and how good Lockett has been at returning them.  Considering that we're #2 in the nation in punt return average (24.7 per return), if it's getting kicked to us, we're going to have good field position, and we're going to sustain drives until we get into the red zone and convert.

Offline jc_jax

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #293 on: October 07, 2014, 01:22:06 PM »
Serious question _fan, why does this offense "feel" bad? The stats show that it's pretty decent, but nearly every drive leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is something unfulfilling. It's possible that it's just I don't like waters, but I don't think that's it. All of Kleins 15 minute drives were more exciting to me.

Dunno

I have no idea.

The top 20 numbers for efficiency I posted only include our FBS games as well, so Stephen F Austin is not included.

The yards per play numbers aren't as good this year (like #33 or something at 6.1 YPP) and we're not quite as explosive, but as long as the efficiency numbers stay solid we're going to win games.

As a fan of your fan analysis, are you considering doing them this year?  Did you notice the play at 13:50 in the 3rd qtr against Tech?  It got blown up, but seemed like a new formation that I don't recall seeing.  Later in the game, they ran a similar formation, minus the motion.  Is that new to others as well?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtA6qyRemM4#t=81m40s



There are 10 types of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #294 on: October 07, 2014, 01:25:40 PM »
Serious question _fan, why does this offense "feel" bad? The stats show that it's pretty decent, but nearly every drive leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is something unfulfilling. It's possible that it's just I don't like waters, but I don't think that's it. All of Kleins 15 minute drives were more exciting to me.

Dunno

I have no idea.

The top 20 numbers for efficiency I posted only include our FBS games as well, so Stephen F Austin is not included.

The yards per play numbers aren't as good this year (like #33 or something at 6.1 YPP) and we're not quite as explosive, but as long as the efficiency numbers stay solid we're going to win games.

As a fan of your fan analysis, are you considering doing them this year?  Did you notice the play at 13:50 in the 3rd qtr against Tech?  It got blown up, but seemed like a new formation that I don't recall seeing.  Later in the game, they ran a similar formation, minus the motion.  Is that new to others as well?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtA6qyRemM4#t=81m40s





I'm going to try. I'll be honest, I have been taking time I usually take for analysis in the past to watch the Royals.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19424
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Waters
« Reply #295 on: October 07, 2014, 01:25:46 PM »
Honestly it's probably because of the Iowa State + Auburn games.  We saw the offense just disappear and our run game evaporate. And even now, nothing "looks" easy. Waters looks like he has to run for his life a lot and then completions are challenged or require a great catch. It rightly or wrongly colors how the offense is perceived.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19424
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Waters
« Reply #296 on: October 07, 2014, 01:27:10 PM »
The comfort blanket of an effective QB draw is just not there (yet?).

Offline kstate4life

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 938
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #297 on: October 07, 2014, 01:35:56 PM »
Is it possible that we haven't seen as many home run plays because of Lockett's hammy?  He doesn't seem to be getting as open as he did last year, which could be why Waters is holding the ball longer.  And he really is our only deep play threat.  Maybe as his he heals our offense will start to open up more.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #298 on: October 07, 2014, 01:38:07 PM »
The comfort blanket of an effective QB draw is just not there (yet?).

Yeah. If we had a "money play" to convert short yardage situations, I would feel a whole lot better about our offense.

Offline slobber

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12427
  • Gonna win 'em all!
    • View Profile
Re: Waters
« Reply #299 on: October 07, 2014, 01:40:13 PM »
In the past, what percent of the QB rushing yards were designed QB running plays vs this year?
When it's a scramble, it feels like a busted play that turned out ok. Designed runs that turn out good look awesome from the beginning.


Gonna win 'em all!