Author Topic: Efficiency numbers  (Read 6981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38108
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2013, 01:40:15 PM »
man, this bbs'ing season is going to feel like the bbs'ing off season after we hired oscar if bill doesn't get this thing figured out.

Then will roll into a very interesting bbs basketball season

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55976
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2013, 01:53:22 PM »
I wonder what our YPP on first down is like compared to last year.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38108
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2013, 01:55:11 PM »
Our 3rd down conversion rate comparo would probably be pretty  :lol:

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2013, 01:59:07 PM »
I wonder what our YPP on first down is like compared to last year.

I would like to see that stat, too. I really don't think it would be all that different. 3rd down is a drive killer for us this year, regardless of the yardage to gain. If anything, 3rd and medium is better than 3rd and short because it takes the QB fetal position play off the table.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2013, 02:02:46 PM »
I wonder what our YPP on first down is like compared to last year.

This year:
73 rush attempts, 5.14 YPC, 6 TD
45 pass attempts, 11.4 YPA, 2 TD, 2 INT

Last year:
273 rush attempts, 5.07 YPC, 16 TD
124 pass attempts, 9.8 YPA, 2 TD, 2 INT

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2013, 02:06:35 PM »
Our 3rd down conversion rate comparo would probably be pretty  :lol:

Offense:
This year 51.0%
Last year 50.0%

Defense:
This year 48.5%
Last year 40.2%

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38108
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2013, 02:08:13 PM »
Our 3rd down conversion rate comparo would probably be pretty  :lol:

Offense:
This year 51.0%
Last year 50.0%

Defense:
This year 48.5%
Last year 40.2%

Offense = Much closer than I would have thought.

Defense = holy crap  :frown:

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88679
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2013, 02:09:54 PM »
now that we're through the tough stretch in the schedule I expect our numbers to improve. drastically.

Offline SwiftCat

  • #LIFE
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Depth Charge
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2013, 02:10:10 PM »
The offense really converts on half of its 3rd downs? Doesn't feel like it.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88679
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2013, 02:11:49 PM »
The offense really converts on half of its 3rd downs? Doesn't feel like it.

we turn it over shitloads.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2013, 02:12:36 PM »
I don't think our defensive 3rd down numbers will change much over the next couple of games. There won't be a whole lot of 3rd downs played.

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2013, 02:20:53 PM »

we turn it over shitloads.

We didn't commit our 9th turnover of the season until the Baylor game last year.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2013, 02:24:29 PM »

we turn it over shitloads.

We didn't commit our 9th turnover of the season until the Baylor game last year.

Yes.

Biggest issues going into the bye week:
Offensive turnovers.
Defensive lack of turnovers.
Defensive 3rd down conversions.
Offensive identity/plan.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53946
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2013, 02:29:19 PM »

we turn it over shitloads.

We didn't commit our 9th turnover of the season until the Baylor game last year.

Yes.

Biggest issues going into the bye week:
Offensive turnovers.
Defensive lack of turnovers.
Defensive 3rd down conversions.
Offensive identity/plan.

Players all hating Waters

Offline SEK_EMAW

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2013, 02:36:46 PM »
man, this bbs'ing season is going to feel like the bbs'ing off season after we hired oscar if bill doesn't get this thing figured out.

Then will roll into a very interesting bbs basketball season

Suzie Fritz and the VolleyCats, tho.

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2013, 02:37:48 PM »
Yes.

Biggest issues going into the bye week:
Offensive turnovers.
Defensive lack of turnovers.
Defensive 3rd down conversions.
Offensive identity/plan.

The identity/plan go hand in hand with the turnovers on offense. Both turnovers on Saturday were a result of having the guys in the wrong situation, mainly having Waters running the ball by design.

The lack of takeaways is concerning on defense, but the inability to get off the field on 3rd down is terrible. Teams seem to be converting a very high % of 3rd & 7+ plays against us.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2013, 02:40:42 PM »
One of Waters' turnovers was on a passing play, though.

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2013, 02:47:40 PM »
One of Waters' turnovers was on a passing play, though.

Good point. I've lost track of all of them.

Offline Daddy Claxton

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2013, 02:48:40 PM »
One of Waters' turnovers was on a passing play, though.
And the other was on an apparently good play call because it was a  TD if the OL's ass had not been in the way.

Offline ksupamplemousse

  • Elevate
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4530
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2013, 03:00:14 PM »
This defense won't create turnovers this year unless we find a better option than Roberts, get consistent pressure from ANYONE on our d-line, and put our more athletic linebackers on the field. Right now the QB has MORE than enough time to throw to the guy that Roberts is covering, regardless of how much time his route takes to complete, and when the other team runs all they have to do is get through the line and they are guaranteed to get into the secondary because our linebackers are so slow...and usually out of position or stuck on a block. I just pray that some of the backups on this team realize the opportunity in front of them and practice their asses off over the next two weeks.
This is who I am...I have no problem crying. - Jerome Tang

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2013, 03:03:16 PM »
I'm not even sure if pressure from the d-line makes any type of difference when you have a corner who has to give a 15 yard cushion on 3rd and 6.

Offline ksupamplemousse

  • Elevate
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4530
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2013, 03:09:58 PM »
I'm not even sure if pressure from the d-line makes any type of difference when you have a corner who has to give a 15 yard cushion on 3rd and 6.

If we were getting consistent pressure then I doubt we would be giving 15 yard cushions on 3rd and 6. We run a defense that tries to limit the big play. Having no pressure from the line plus a corner that doesn't have the speed to press and recover means we will be giving that cushion until we replace the corner with someone faster, or we start getting pressure.
This is who I am...I have no problem crying. - Jerome Tang

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2013, 03:16:51 PM »
I'm not even sure if pressure from the d-line makes any type of difference when you have a corner who has to give a 15 yard cushion on 3rd and 6.

If we were getting consistent pressure then I doubt we would be giving 15 yard cushions on 3rd and 6. We run a defense that tries to limit the big play. Having no pressure from the line plus a corner that doesn't have the speed to press and recover means we will be giving that cushion until we replace the corner with someone faster, or we start getting pressure.

Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing. Tighter coverage would force the receiver to run a route to get open. Our coverage leaves the receiver open at the snap for an easy 2 step drop and toss. You are right about the lack of a pass rush making tighter coverage a greater risk, too, though. At some point, I think our coaches need to grow a pair of balls and start getting stops, though. We are giving up big plays despite our soft coverage. We might as well tighten things up and hopefully get some 3 and outs as well.

Offline GoodForAnother

  • It was all a scheme I used to read emaw magazine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6045
  • You hate to see this Mike
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2013, 03:17:34 PM »
One of Waters' turnovers was on a passing play, though.
And the other was on an apparently good play call because it was a  TD if the OL's ass had not been in the way.

the butt fumble was pretty upsetting for me because I only needed us to cover 6 points in order to hit a 3 team parlay  :frown:
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 04:15:57 PM by GoodForAnother »
emaw

Offline ksupamplemousse

  • Elevate
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4530
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #49 on: September 23, 2013, 03:20:13 PM »
I'm not even sure if pressure from the d-line makes any type of difference when you have a corner who has to give a 15 yard cushion on 3rd and 6.

If we were getting consistent pressure then I doubt we would be giving 15 yard cushions on 3rd and 6. We run a defense that tries to limit the big play. Having no pressure from the line plus a corner that doesn't have the speed to press and recover means we will be giving that cushion until we replace the corner with someone faster, or we start getting pressure.

Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing. Tighter coverage would force the receiver to run a route to get open. Our coverage leaves the receiver open at the snap for an easy 2 step drop and toss. You are right about the lack of a pass rush making tighter coverage a greater risk, too, though. At some point, I think our coaches need to grow a pair of balls and start getting stops, though. We are giving up big plays despite our soft coverage. We might as well tighten things up and hopefully get some 3 and outs as well.

I'd be cool with having a safety help Roberts over the top, so that he could play press coverage more often. Ideally that would also include our slow as crap linebackers being replaced with their athletically superior backups, because our safeties have had to make way too many tackles this year, and I worry that if one of them was constantly asked to cover Roberts' ass, then would just give up big run plays instead of pass plays on that side of the field.
This is who I am...I have no problem crying. - Jerome Tang