The CardBoard
Offense's Potential (improved version) - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Offense's Potential (improved version) (/thread-7737.html)


Offense's Potential (improved version) - Hulk01 - 09-08-2014

Can our guys explode their way to a great season?

I ask that because I am persuaded by the argument—started by Partriots But Not As In The Missile’s coach Bill Bellichick— that the key plays in football are explosive plays  (here defined as 20+ yards plays from scrimmage) and turnovers.

To offer a perspective, start with the explosiveness rankings for the 2013 Pac-12 team. The first number indicates that team’s percentage of 20+ plays per play.  The second is that team’s national ranking for points per possession (adjusted to the quality of their opponents, and courtesy of cfbstats.com).  The final number indicates turnovers.

Gaudily Dressed Tree Huggers  10.8 (5)    18   .
Buck-Toothed Syracuse Orangemen Wanna Bes  8.6 (32)  26   .
Iditarod Aspirants   8.4 (14)  16   

Praying Against Global Warmings  7.9 (12)  18        .
Beloved But Not Really A Farms   7.6 (15)  19  
Spielberg and Lucas Went Theres              7.3 (37)  17        .
Bears Dressed In Inappropriate Colors            7.2 (11)    16       

Still Getting Away With Indian Names 6.5  (52)    25     
Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons          5.9  (19)    18   
Derogatory Nicknames 5.5  (60)    28     
Middle of Nowheres    5.5  (54)    35   
Cool High Altitude Hometowns        5.0  (78)    24   

First, a worthy side note: 11 Pac-12 teams ranked in the top half of FBS teams for offensive production. 

And to the initial point: the correlation between the frequency of explosive plays and offensive production proved strong, with only three teams showing variances: Buck-Toothed Syracuse Orangemen Wanna Bes, Steve and George Went Theres and Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons.

For the Buck-Toothed Syracuse Orangemen Wanna Bes and Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons, the explanation may have been turnovers. The BTSO Wanna Bes surrendered the ball far more often, and The Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons far less often, than teams relatively as explosive. The Spielberg and Lucas Went Theres’ problem does not appear here, but may be suggested by one other key stat: The S&L Went Theres ranked 98th in the nation for third down conversion percentage, at 35.5 percent.  S & L Went Theres made big plays, it appears, but struggled to make key ones.

These numbers may bode well for us this season, given the playmaking potential of Montgomery and others.  Plus the top three opponents listed above depended on departing players for their explosiveness. Iditarod Aspirants has lost running back Bishop Sankey (24, second in the conference) and receiver Kevin Smith (14, tenth.)  Gaudily Dressed Tree Huggers’ big playmaker was not departing De’Anthony Thomas, who did contribute five big plays, but receiver Josh Huff, who tied Sankey with 24,  And Praying Against Global Warmings, the fourth most explosive team, relied heavily on now-departed Marion Grice’s 15 explosive plays, plus his five 30+ yard kickoff returns.

At the same time, three Stanford opponents this year return playmakers ranked in the top ten, one of them ahead of Ty Montgomery:
4.  Jaelen Strong, Praying Against Global Warmings, 22
6.  Ty Montgomery, Beloved But Not Really A Farms, 18
8.  Nelson Agholor, Spielberg and Lucas Went Theres, 15
10,  Byron Marshall, Gaudily Dressed Tree Huggers, 14

And note that Montgomery (kickoff returns and now punt returns) and Agholor (punt returns) were big playmakers on special teams last year, and likely in this one.

Could this become the best offensive team of the Harbaugh/Shaw era—or at least as high scoring a team, given the impact of special teams?  At least using the second measure, it’s possible but not likely because double-digit increases in scoring from one season to the next are not common.  Buncha Baptists in Waco made a leap when Some Thought He Was Better Than Luck But what A Bunch of Crap That Is arrived, and Beloved But Not Really A Farms jumped in Andrew’s second season; and Insane Southern Destroyers of Rival’s Beloved Flora made a remarkable leap last seasoon—almost 19 points more per game.  And obviously, this offense needs to convert in the red zone at or near its previous levels or it will be merely The Offense that Might Have Been. 

But I still am bullish.  There is some talent here including a guy who can get them the ball.

Dollie Wanna Do and Graduate Perplexed by Prolixity In the Frozen Tundra


Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - TrumpCard - 09-08-2014

This team is very good, especially on defense, but it is pretty bold to ask whether this is the best offensive team of the Harbaugh/Shaw era after a game in which the team scored 10 points.  Even by the end of the season, I don't think this team will get remotely close to 2010 or 2011.

--Hogan is not in the same league as Luck.  You can argue that Hogan is competent, but he's not a #1 overall draft pick, or anything of that sort.

--The OL has a lot of recruiting stars, but it played sloppy football.  Tons of penalties.  Two botched snaps and bad snap timing on the Wright fumble.  At best, they need a lot more reps before they reach the same realm as the 2009-2011 level.  Those teams absolutely crushed people up front.

--Montgomery is probably the most explosive WR of the era.  Cajuste and Rector are good, but I don't see them as better than the likes of Baldwin, Whalen, Whalen, and Owusu. 

--The TEs are a brobdingnagian upgrade from last year, but that's not saying much.  Hooper has not yet proven that he's the next Fleener or Ertz. 

--There is plenty of speed at RB, but I would just as soon take Toby, Stepfan, or Tyler.  And I would easily take Marecic or Hewitt over Ward.


Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - Hulk01 - 09-08-2014

I didn't mean to suggest this offense is likely to equal Luck III.  I do think it can hit 40 ppg, however, which isn't a big leap from last fall. 

At the same time, two scores against USC looks dismal, but nine times inside their 30, with a team that converts no better tban last years, scores a helluva lot of points and against a very athletic defense.

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - BostonCard - 09-08-2014

Plus vote just for the nicknames.

Looking at the 2010 - 2013 seasons:
2010 we had 69 plays running for 20+ yards (good for a tie for 14th in the country)
2011 we had 76 such plays (10th in the nation)
2012 we were down to 47 such plays (92nd in the country)
2013 we were back up to 68 (but compared to 2010, it was only good for 38th, which makes me think that other teams have been getting more explosive with time.
So far this year we have 10, good for 41st in the country.

My issue with this analysis is that there is a strong correlation between good offenses generally and explosive plays.  Even a team whose bread and butter is ball control and methodically running down the defense will break some long runs.  You get around that somewhat by looking at the percentage of plays that go long, but even then, I would argue that there is probably a strong correlation between the median play (I use median because it would not be prone to the distorting effects of long "explosive" plays the way the mean), and proportion of explosive plays.  Though we like to think of it as an either/or (you either use ball control to get consistent yardage OR you have high variance offense that can hit the big play but often strikes out), the truth is that the good teams tend to do both, while the bad teams can't really do either well.  Take "Derogatory Nicknames" and "Middle of Nowheres", two teams that hired high profile coaches who supposedly could bring pass-happy, big play offenses.  They ranked second and third to the last, mostly because they simply sucked.  Our "beloveds" was supposed to be a ball control offense, yet we are near the top in percent of 20+ yard play.

The bottom line, good teams get explosive plays, but it is hard to attribute causality.

BC

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - martyup - 09-08-2014

I spent more time decoding your nicknames than completing my final exam in Topics In Eastern Philosophy.

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - Hulk01 - 09-08-2014

And Marty, your struggle was Exactly My Point.  :D

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - yvonne - 09-08-2014

Those are some really clever nicknames.....

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - martyup - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 12:33 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:And Marty, your struggle was Exactly My Point.  :D

Here here!

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - Rally - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 10:53 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Can our guys explode their way to a great season?

I ask that because I am persuaded by the argument—started by Partriots But Not As In The Missile’s coach Bill Bellichick— that the key plays in football are explosive plays  (here defined as 20+ yards plays from scrimmage) and turnovers.

To offer a perspective, start with the explosiveness rankings for the 2013 Pac-12 team. The first number indicates that team’s percentage of 20+ plays per play.  The second is that team’s national ranking for points per possession (adjusted to the quality of their opponents, and courtesy of cfbstats.com).  The final number indicates turnovers.

Gaudily Dressed Tree Huggers  10.8 (5)    18   .
Buck-Toothed Syracuse Orangemen Wanna Bes  8.6 (32)  26   .
Iditarod Aspirants   8.4 (14)  16   

Praying Against Global Warmings  7.9 (12)  18        .
Beloved But Not Really A Farms   7.6 (15)  19  
Spielberg and Lucas Went Theres              7.3 (37)  17        .
59ers Dressed In Inappropriate Colors            7.2 (11)    16       

Still Getting Away With Indian Names 6.5  (52)    25     
Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons          5.9  (19)    18   
Derogatory Nicknames 5.5  (60)    28     
Middle of Nowheres    5.5  (54)    35   
Cool High Altitude Hometowns        5.0  (78)    24   

First, a worthy side note: 11 Pac-12 teams ranked in the top half of FBS teams for offensive production. 

And to the initial point: the correlation between the frequency of explosive plays and offensive production proved strong, with only three teams showing variances: Buck-Toothed Syracuse Orangemen Wanna Bes, Steve and George Went Theres and Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons.

For the Buck-Toothed Syracuse Orangemen Wanna Bes and Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons, the explanation may have been turnovers. The BTSO Wanna Bes surrendered the ball far more often, and The Just Waiting For Basketball Seasons far less often, than teams relatively as explosive. The Spielberg and Lucas Went Theres’ problem does not appear here, but may be suggested by one other key stat: The S&L Went Theres ranked 98th in the nation for third down conversion percentage, at 35.5 percent.  S & L Went Theres made big plays, it appears, but struggled to make key ones.

These numbers may bode well for us this season, given the playmaking potential of Montgomery and others.  Plus the top three opponents listed above depended on departing players for their explosiveness. Iditarod Aspirants has lost running back Bishop Sankey (24, second in the conference) and receiver Kevin Smith (14, tenth.)  Gaudily Dressed Tree Huggers’ big playmaker was not departing De’Anthony Thomas, who did contribute five big plays, but receiver Josh Huff, who tied Sankey with 24,  And Praying Against Global Warmings, the fourth most explosive team, relied heavily on now-departed Marion Grice’s 15 explosive plays, plus his five 30+ yard kickoff returns.

At the same time, three Stanford opponents this year return playmakers ranked in the top ten, one of them ahead of Ty Montgomery:
4.  Jaelen Strong, Praying Against Global Warmings, 22
6.  Ty Montgomery, Beloved But Not Really A Farms, 18
8.  Nelson Agholor, Spielberg and Lucas Went Theres, 15
10,  Byron Marshall, Gaudily Dressed Tree Huggers, 14

And note that Montgomery (kickoff returns and now punt returns) and Agholor (punt returns) were big playmakers on special teams last year, and likely in this one.

Could this become the best offensive team of the Harbaugh/Shaw era—or at least as high scoring a team, given the impact of special teams?  At least using the second measure, it’s possible but not likely because double-digit increases in scoring from one season to the next are not common.  Buncha Baptists in Waco made a leap when Some Thought He Was Better Than Luck But what A Bunch of Crap That Is arrived, and Beloved But Not Really A Farms jumped in Andrew’s second season; and Insane Southern Destroyers of Rival’s Beloved Flora made a remarkable leap last seasoon—almost 19 points more per game.  And obviously, this offense needs to convert in the red zone at or near its previous levels or it will be merely The Offense that Might Have Been. 

But I still am bullish.  There is some talent here including a guy who can get them the ball.

Dollie Wanna Do and Graduate Perplexed by Prolixity In the Frozen Tundra

Careful, Hulk, or you'll get this thread locked, too.

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - fullmetal - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 12:20 PM)martyup link Wrote:I spent more time decoding your nicknames than completing my final exam in Topics In Eastern Philosophy.

I vote we adopt these nicknames permanently.

Also, given that explosive plays happen due to a variety of sometimes-inconsistent reasons, I don't find this to be a fundamental statistic.  Of course you'd like every play to go for 15+ yds, but you can't count on power right to go 20+ yds each time, and you can't run trick plays each down in hopes of exploiting schematic mismatches to get 20+ yds.  I think explosive plays are a result of mismatches (athletic or schematic), but these generally happen often if one team is clearly better than the other. 

Chasing explosive plays may be a fool's errand.  I'd be perfectly happy with 5 yds/play, each and every play.  Gains of 0, 1, 20, 0, 3, 15, 2, etc are less indicative of a successful offense.

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - DC - 09-08-2014

I would be happy with an average passing attack.

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - Extra Point - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 04:50 PM)DC link Wrote:I would be happy with an average passing attack.

22 of 30 (73%) for 285 yards (9.5 yrds per play) and no interceptions is better than average.

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - washingtonismoney - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 05:26 PM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=DC link=topic=10587.msg97503#msg97503 date=1410220239]
I would be happy with an average passing attack.

22 of 30 (73%) for 285 yards (9.5 yrds per play) and no interceptions is better than average.
[/quote]

Not just above average but waaayyyyy above average.

But I do think Hogan's stats have been influenced by the situations the coaches put him in. I'm not sure their coaching is optimal from an overall offensive perspective, but they help bolster his stats. For example, I don't think they allowed Hogan to throw a ton on Saturday in the redzone -- unless it was a two-minute situation. And both of those times the offense ran into some trouble (Hogan threw a pass that probably should've been a pick ... and then that sack-fumble. The sack-fumble itself wasn't Hogan's fault though perhaps he should've checked to a play/protection that dealt with the overload blitz. At any rate, great things didn't exactly happen when Hogan threw when deep in SC territory.)

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - Rally - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 04:41 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=10587.msg97437#msg97437 date=1410204012]
I spent more time decoding your nicknames than completing my final exam in Topics In Eastern Philosophy.

I vote we adopt these nicknames permanently.

Also, given that explosive plays happen due to a variety of sometimes-inconsistent reasons, I don't find this to be a fundamental statistic.  Of course you'd like every play to go for 15+ yds, but you can't count on power right to go 20+ yds each time, and you can't run trick plays each down in hopes of exploiting schematic mismatches to get 20+ yds.  I think explosive plays are a result of mismatches (athletic or schematic), but these generally happen often if one team is clearly better than the other. 

Chasing explosive plays may be a fool's errand.  I'd be perfectly happy with 5 yds/play, each and every play.  Gains of 0, 1, 20, 0, 3, 15, 2, etc are less indicative of a successful offense.
[/quote]

4 yards and a cloud of dust, Marty?

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - CornFed - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 05:26 PM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=DC link=topic=10587.msg97503#msg97503 date=1410220239]
I would be happy with an average passing attack.

22 of 30 (73%) for 285 yards (9.5 yrds per play) and no interceptions is better than average.
[/quote]

Perhaps DC is just noting his satisfaction?

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - TrumpCard - 09-08-2014

I think it is notable that U$( did not record a sack or a QBH until the last minute of the game.  The OL made a ton of mistakes, but the protection was very solid and Hogan showed nice escapability.  Do you all think that it was just a matter of time before U$( finally hit pay dirt or did something change on the last drive that made it possible for U$( to hirt pay dirt twice in a row? 

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - washingtonismoney - 09-08-2014

Here's an interesting stat from Kyle Bonagura:

"When targeting a tight end this year, Kevin Hogan is 11 for 12 for 170 yards."

https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/509144405463138305

Re: Offense's Potential (improved version) - Mick - 09-08-2014

(09-08-2014, 05:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=10587.msg97506#msg97506 date=1410222410]
[quote author=DC link=topic=10587.msg97503#msg97503 date=1410220239]
I would be happy with an average passing attack.

22 of 30 (73%) for 285 yards (9.5 yrds per play) and no interceptions is better than average.
[/quote]

Not just above average but waaayyyyy above average.

But I do think Hogan's stats have been influenced by the situations the coaches put him in. I'm not sure their coaching is optimal from an overall offensive perspective, but they help bolster his stats. For example, I don't think they allowed Hogan to throw a ton on Saturday in the redzone -- unless it was a two-minute situation. And both of those times the offense ran into some trouble (Hogan threw a pass that probably should've been a pick ... and then that sack-fumble. The sack-fumble itself wasn't Hogan's fault though perhaps he should've checked to a play/protection that dealt with the overload blitz. At any rate, great things didn't exactly happen when Hogan threw when deep in SC territory.)
[/quote]


We scored just 10 points, least in a game since 2007.  I really hope that it was a perfect storm.  Seems to be.  We'll find out.