Rushing attempts

Discussion of the Falcon football team.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jacobs4Heisman
a.k.a. Capt. Rex Kramer
a.k.a. Capt. Rex Kramer
Posts: 7889
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Aliquippa, PA

Rushing attempts

Post by Jacobs4Heisman »

Rushing attempts by QBs this season -- 250

Rushing attempts by non-QBs this season -- 255

Seeing opposing defensive coordinators beam during BG preparations -- priceless.
Roll Along!
User avatar
Warthog
Freak Wanna-be!!
Freak Wanna-be!!
Posts: 7040
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:57 am
Location: Bowling Green, OH

Post by Warthog »

Speaking of statistics, I am baffled how this can happen. We were ranked 55th in total offense in Div I-A. That is based on yards. So you would think gaining yards would equate to points. Not so with us. We were ranked 91st in scoring. A difference of 36 places. Only UCF (44 and 98)and La Tech (63 and 102) had bigger discrepencies betweeen their ranking in yards and points.

What makes this even more amazing is that we were such a good rushing team. You usually see teams that can pass like crazy but struggle in the red zone. Seldom do you see a rushing team that has as much trouble as we did trying to score. My two gueses as to why? First, field position. We were not an explosive team. Our best plays seemed to go for 6 to 8 yards. It is hard to finish off drives when you have to go 70 or 80 yards all the time and are only getting about 5 or 6 yards per. That means having everything go right for 12-14 plays in a row. The long field makes that difficult.

Second, play calling. After we have run 8 or 10 decent plays in a drive, the defense knows what we are doing. We get down inside the 20 or 30 and keep running the same three or four plays that got us there. We need more variety in the red zone.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
Overstreet23
Egg
Egg
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:46 pm

Post by Overstreet23 »

Warthog wrote:Speaking of statistics, I am baffled how this can happen. We were ranked 55th in total offense in Div I-A. That is based on yards. So you would think gaining yards would equate to points. Not so with us. We were ranked 91st in scoring. A difference of 36 places. Only UCF (44 and 98)and La Tech (63 and 102) had bigger discrepencies betweeen their ranking in yards and points.

What makes this even more amazing is that we were such a good rushing team. You usually see teams that can pass like crazy but struggle in the red zone. Seldom do you see a rushing team that has as much trouble as we did trying to score. My two gueses as to why? First, field position. We were not an explosive team. Our best plays seemed to go for 6 to 8 yards. It is hard to finish off drives when you have to go 70 or 80 yards all the time and are only getting about 5 or 6 yards per. That means having everything go right for 12-14 plays in a row. The long field makes that difficult.

Second, play calling. After we have run 8 or 10 decent plays in a drive, the defense knows what we are doing. We get down inside the 20 or 30 and keep running the same three or four plays that got us there. We need more variety in the red zone.
TRUE, VERY TRUE. Does anyone from the team read this web site? Any players or coaches out there?
User avatar
Flipper
The Global Village Idiot
The Global Village Idiot
Posts: 18349
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Ida Twp, MI

Post by Flipper »

We underutilized our FB this year. We didn't run him enough and we didn't throw to him at all. We relied waaaaay too much on QB draws and short sideline routes to the WR's.

We didn't capitalize on our opportunities because we were not a very precise offense. Sloppy routes, bad reads, poor thorws, missed blocks, repetitive play calling. All those things hurt us badly.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
User avatar
Warthog
Freak Wanna-be!!
Freak Wanna-be!!
Posts: 7040
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:57 am
Location: Bowling Green, OH

Post by Warthog »

And now here is a similar analysis on the defensive side. We ranked 52nd in yards allowed per game, yet were 98th in points allowed, a drop of 46 positions. Only FIU, Illinois, Oregon, and Wyoming had bigger differences in yards allowed rank and points allowed rank.

Here's another one, not sure if this makes sense, but I think it is interesting. Average yards allowed per game divided by average points allowed per game. This number tells me, on average, how many yards did the defense allow per point.

For example, our number comes in at 11.25. So for every 11.25 yards the defense allowed, the opponent scored one point. Only Temple allowed fewer yards per point, on average (10.95).

To lend some validity to this statistic, Ohio State is best at 26.25 yards per point. So if an offense gained 350 yards against Ohio State, that meant they probably scored about 13 points. If we gave up 350 yards of offense, that meant the opponent probably scored about 31 points. Is that crazy, or what?

Other teams at the OSU end of the spectrum are Va Tech, BYU, Florida, Auburn, Wake Forest, Boston College, Wisconsin, USC, and Wisconsin. Obviously some of the best teams in the country. Teams at our end of the spectrum: Temple, Utah St, Idaho, FIU, Buffalo, Illinois, Wyoming Duke, and Tulane. Not a decent team amoung them.

So what does this mean? It means we gave up way too many points where the opponent scored without our defense even being on the field. SPECIAL TEAMS, SPECIAL TEAMS, SPECIAL TEAMS. Can it get any more obvious? Take away the 8 returns for TDs we allowed, and we fall about 40 places in the ranking of this stat. And that doesn't take into account all the field position we gave up on special teams at all.

Can you tell it's the day before Thanksgiving and I don't want to work? :D
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
San Diego Falcon
Peregrine
Peregrine
Posts: 1369
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:26 pm

Post by San Diego Falcon »

Warthog, those are some absolutely amazing statistics. They scream underachievement.
"but when you look at ths team beyond the suck , you see a glorious future again" - MACMAN
User avatar
Warthog
Freak Wanna-be!!
Freak Wanna-be!!
Posts: 7040
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:57 am
Location: Bowling Green, OH

Post by Warthog »

San Diego Falcon wrote:Warthog, those are some absolutely amazing statistics. They scream underachievement.
Any guesses as to why we underachieved? My first and only one is coaching.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
Globetrotter
Turbo
Turbo
Posts: 11346
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:17 am

Post by Globetrotter »

Warthog wrote:And now here is a similar analysis on the defensive side. We ranked 52nd in yards allowed per game, yet were 98th in points allowed, a drop of 46 positions. Only FIU, Illinois, Oregon, and Wyoming had bigger differences in yards allowed rank and points allowed rank.

Here's another one, not sure if this makes sense, but I think it is interesting. Average yards allowed per game divided by average points allowed per game. This number tells me, on average, how many yards did the defense allow per point.

For example, our number comes in at 11.25. So for every 11.25 yards the defense allowed, the opponent scored one point. Only Temple allowed fewer yards per point, on average (10.95).

To lend some validity to this statistic, Ohio State is best at 26.25 yards per point. So if an offense gained 350 yards against Ohio State, that meant they probably scored about 13 points. If we gave up 350 yards of offense, that meant the opponent probably scored about 31 points. Is that crazy, or what?

Other teams at the OSU end of the spectrum are Va Tech, BYU, Florida, Auburn, Wake Forest, Boston College, Wisconsin, USC, and Wisconsin. Obviously some of the best teams in the country. Teams at our end of the spectrum: Temple, Utah St, Idaho, FIU, Buffalo, Illinois, Wyoming Duke, and Tulane. Not a decent team amoung them.

So what does this mean? It means we gave up way too many points where the opponent scored without our defense even being on the field. SPECIAL TEAMS, SPECIAL TEAMS, SPECIAL TEAMS. Can it get any more obvious? Take away the 8 returns for TDs we allowed, and we fall about 40 places in the ranking of this stat. And that doesn't take into account all the field position we gave up on special teams at all.

Can you tell it's the day before Thanksgiving and I don't want to work? :D
I think you are missing something in your conclusion, but it does say special teams, sts sts.....That is field position. We are always giving our opponnet a short field.
User avatar
Rightupinthere
Mercenary of Churlishness
Mercenary of Churlishness
Posts: 6549
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Ye Olde Pigeon Hole

Post by Rightupinthere »

Globetrotter wrote: I think you are missing something in your conclusion, but it does say special teams, sts sts.....That is field position. We are always giving our opponnet a short field.
Very true. A factor of average starting field would normalize the numbers.
"Science doesn’t know everything? Well science KNOWS it doesn’t know everything… otherwise it’d stop."
Dara O'Brian - Comedian
User avatar
Bleeding Orange
The Abominable Desert 'Cat
The Abominable Desert 'Cat
Posts: 7065
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Searching for a home, via Chicago...
Contact:

Post by Bleeding Orange »

Rightupinthere wrote:
Globetrotter wrote: I think you are missing something in your conclusion, but it does say special teams, sts sts.....That is field position. We are always giving our opponnet a short field.
Very true. A factor of average starting field would normalize the numbers.
We lost the game last night from the opening kickoff. Field position, field position, field position.
From the halls of ivy...

It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. ~Ronald Reagan

Image

:smt117
User avatar
Jacobs4Heisman
a.k.a. Capt. Rex Kramer
a.k.a. Capt. Rex Kramer
Posts: 7889
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Aliquippa, PA

Post by Jacobs4Heisman »

Bleeding Orange wrote:
Rightupinthere wrote:
Globetrotter wrote: I think you are missing something in your conclusion, but it does say special teams, sts sts.....That is field position. We are always giving our opponnet a short field.
Very true. A factor of average starting field would normalize the numbers.
We lost the game last night from the opening kickoff. Field position, field position, field position.
Actually, we lost the game last night on Dec 19th, 2002.
Roll Along!
User avatar
redskins4ever
Peregrine
Peregrine
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by redskins4ever »

The worst rushing coaching I have ever seen in my life. Why do you run into your lineman when you can cut to the left where there is no one?

The QB draw is dead... especially when you run it every other play.

BG deserves a better coach than GB.
User avatar
jpfalcon09
Peregrine
Peregrine
Posts: 8623
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:32 pm
Location: Detroit Beach, MI

Post by jpfalcon09 »

What happened to giving Bullock and Macon like a total of 30 carries a game? The running game should be what sets the tempo of your offense and controls the ball, instead we run the ball on 1st and 10, get 5 yards, then throw on 2nd and 5 to force a 3rd and 5 situation and usually a horrendous pass.

If we have a solid RB in Bullock and a good backup in Macon, why the hell don't we utilize them? I guess that's why I'm not a coach...or something like that?
The longer the walk, the farther you crawl.
User avatar
Rightupinthere
Mercenary of Churlishness
Mercenary of Churlishness
Posts: 6549
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Ye Olde Pigeon Hole

Post by Rightupinthere »

jpfalcon09 wrote:What happened to giving Bullock and Macon like a total of 30 carries a game?
That's just to throw off the other teams. A ruse de guerre, if you will.

It worked like a broken clock.
"Science doesn’t know everything? Well science KNOWS it doesn’t know everything… otherwise it’d stop."
Dara O'Brian - Comedian
Post Reply