Author Topic: Efficiency numbers  (Read 6961 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Efficiency numbers
« on: September 23, 2013, 10:05:31 AM »


Its a fair point to consider the competition we've faced, but its still 1/3 of the season, so its not insignificant.

The clear talking points that have already been mentioned stand out; turnovers and total number of snaps. Just in terms of "per play" stats right now, the offense and defense are comparable to the rest of Snyder 2. However, the turnover numbers on both sides of the ball have been the real downfall for this team and a major reason we are 2-2. Plays per game have become a real problem too; part of that is the turnover issue, part the TOP problems caused by the Waters led offense.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38108
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2013, 10:17:22 AM »


Its a fair point to consider the competition we've faced, but its still 1/3 of the season, so its not insignificant.

The clear talking points that have already been mentioned stand out; turnovers and total number of snaps. Just in terms of "per play" stats right now, the offense and defense are comparable to the rest of Snyder 2. However, the turnover numbers on both sides of the ball have been the real downfall for this team and a major reason we are 2-2. Plays per game have become a real problem too; part of that is the turnover issue, part the TOP problems caused by the Waters led offense.

How about special teams.

Also, more than two and a half times the O t.o.'s as last year.   :sdeek:

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2013, 10:18:41 AM »
How about special teams.

Also, more than two and a half times the O t.o.'s as last year.   :sdeek:

The lack of TOs on defense is a huge concern as well.

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2013, 10:19:57 AM »
I feel like if Bill saw those numbers he’d come to the conclusion that all we have to do is not turn the ball over.  I think that’s all the talking points you’re going to hear from Stan as well.  “Waters is good, just needs to be more protective of the ball”.  Much the same way you’d watch a circus and say “ya know, that juggler's good, just needs more arms”.

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38108
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2013, 10:20:38 AM »
How about special teams.

Also, more than two and a half times the O t.o.'s as last year.   :sdeek:

The lack of TOs on defense is a huge concern as well.

Yeah, equally bad regression on both sides from last year to this. 

Who is our turnovers coach?  Was it Joe Bob?

Offline lopakman

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2449
  • #1Wiggins
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2013, 10:21:17 AM »
How about special teams.

Also, more than two and a half times the O t.o.'s as last year.   :sdeek:

The lack of TOs on defense is a huge concern as well.

Yep, I feel like last year you could always count on the defense to cause a turnover at just the right time.  Like you just knew it was going to happen.  This year I do not feel that way and it makes me sad.
@lopakman

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38108
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2013, 10:21:49 AM »
I feel like if Bill saw those numbers he’d come to the conclusion that all we have to do is not turn the ball over.  I think that’s all the talking points you’re going to hear from Stan as well.  “Waters is good, just needs to be more protective of the ball”.  Much the same way you’d watch a circus and say “ya know, that juggler's good, just needs more arms”.

This is kinda what a bunch of us have been saying by wanting Sams in.  Half of it anyway.

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2013, 10:22:41 AM »
How about special teams.

Also, more than two and a half times the O t.o.'s as last year.   :sdeek:

The lack of TOs on defense is a huge concern as well.

20yd cushions on WR's kind of makes it hard to sit on some routes like we usually do. 

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55976
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2013, 10:29:35 AM »
Man, turnovers.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2013, 10:39:20 AM »

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2013, 10:41:57 AM »
Wow, punt coverage sucks. Krause really needs to get a little more loft under the ball and Sean needs to evaluate just who he has on the punt team trying to make tackles.

Offline Pett

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4250
  • KLI GOD
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2013, 10:49:17 AM »
This is the main problem...

Quote
Texas coach Mack Brown says LHC Bill Snyder told him, "If I have to lose, it needs to be to a friend."

Loser's mentality. Also includes hand writing congratulatory letters to the opponent when they beat us. I hope Bill still cares as much as he use to :Crybaby:
« Last Edit: September 23, 2013, 11:58:17 AM by Pett »

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88679
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2013, 10:50:18 AM »
bill must be best buds with that loser D2 coach who whipped his ass

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2013, 11:00:11 AM »
Wow, punt coverage sucks. Krause really needs to get a little more loft under the ball and Sean needs to evaluate just who he has on the punt team trying to make tackles.

That's where numbers can be skewed this early (we've only had 4 returns against us); the issue was really the one return vs NDSU. Besides the offensive issues that have been discussed enough from that game, that return is a big reason we lost against them, IMO.

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2013, 11:20:34 AM »
I'm too lazy to go back and look it up, but I'm just going to state something as though I have:  Our starting field position has to be worse than last year, both offensively and defensively - primarily due to poor kick/punt coverage, turnovers, and avg return game.  But that's what bad teams do.  They put themselves in bad situations, routinely. 

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2013, 11:58:51 AM »
I'm too lazy to go back and look it up, but I'm just going to state something as though I have:  Our starting field position has to be worse than last year, both offensively and defensively - primarily due to poor kick/punt coverage, turnovers, and avg return game.  But that's what bad teams do.  They put themselves in bad situations, routinely. 

Its a good point, so I looked it up.

Last year our average starting field position was our 36 yard line. Opponents' was their 26 yard line.

This year our ASP is our 29 yard line. Opponents' average is their 30 yard line.

From +10 to -1.

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2013, 12:07:22 PM »
thanks _Fan.  Not as drastic as I thought, but still material.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2013, 12:18:39 PM »
thanks _Fan.  Not as drastic as I thought, but still material.

When you combine TO ratios and field position lost/gained its a big deal.

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23381
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2013, 12:25:38 PM »
remember when our offense would pick up a couple of yards here and a couple of yards there and then we'd just tell collin to fall forward on a third and two and then just get right back up and do it all over again. i mean do you guys?  cause oh man :love:

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2013, 12:29:49 PM »
thanks _Fan.  Not as drastic as I thought, but still material.

When you combine TO ratios and field position lost/gained its a big deal.

certainly, I was just expecting the +/- between opponent's ASP between years to be greater. 

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88679
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2013, 12:31:32 PM »
remember when our offense would pick up a couple of yards here and a couple of yards there and then we'd just tell collin to fall forward on a third and two and then just get right back up and do it all over again. i mean do you guys?  cause oh man :love:

JAKE WATERS YPA, THO!

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2013, 12:32:27 PM »
thanks _Fan.  Not as drastic as I thought, but still material.

When you combine TO ratios and field position lost/gained its a big deal.

certainly, I was just expecting the +/- between opponent's ASP between years to be greater. 

Our KO return coverage is actually slightly better this year.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2013, 12:32:48 PM »
remember when our offense would pick up a couple of yards here and a couple of yards there and then we'd just tell collin to fall forward on a third and two and then just get right back up and do it all over again. i mean do you guys?  cause oh man :love:

JAKE WATERS YPA, THO!

I feel like this is directed at me. :D

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88679
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2013, 12:35:54 PM »
remember when our offense would pick up a couple of yards here and a couple of yards there and then we'd just tell collin to fall forward on a third and two and then just get right back up and do it all over again. i mean do you guys?  cause oh man :love:

JAKE WATERS YPA, THO!

I feel like this is directed at me. :D

it was directed at everyone who talks up this bullshit stat (along with other stats not related to us scoring or keeping the ball)

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2013, 01:15:29 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.