[BostonCard]

So, we end the season 9-5, 0-2 in the "post-season" such as it is.  I think in the aggregate, the season probably went a bit as what a neutral observer would have expected, so as a fan, one cannot help but feel a bit disappointed.  The season always starts with a lot of potential upside (and downside), but as the season progresses, that sort of vanishes and you have what you have.  For this team, I think the TCU encapsulated the season.  You have a singular player in Bryce Love who yesterday:

• Broke the Stanford season record for rushing yards (poor McCaffrey; his record lasted 2 years)
  
• Broke the NCAA record for most 50+ yard runs in a season
  
• Broke the Stanford record for 100 yard games (12).  He didn't gain 100 yards in two games: OSU, in which he did not play, and WSU, which was his first game back from injury.  He also broke the record for most 100 yard rushing games playing with one ankle, notching 5 such games (UW, Cal, ND, USC, and TCU)
  

His touchdown yesterday was classic Bryce Love.  Toss play against a stacked line.  Find a crease, break an arm tackle, and outrun everyone for 69 yards.  Also, of note, that was a first down run, for all those of you complaining we ran too much on first down.  On the season, we ran on first down 249 times, gained 1595 yards (6.4 yards per cary), and had 16 touchdowns.  In contrast, we passed 119 times (which comes out to 32% of the time, excluding sacks), and gained 649 yards (5.4 ypa).  Even if you exclude Chryst, Costello passed 67 times, and gained 334 yards on first down, which is only 5 yards per attempt.  Maybe Shaw had Love run on first down, even against a stacked line, 2/3 of the time because it worked better than passing on first down.

That being said, we also had the following:
first drive: 3 plays, -1 yard, punt
second drive: 3 plays, 2 yards, missed field goal
fifth drive: 2 plays, 10 yards, interception
seventh drive: 3 plays, -2 yards, punt
tenth drive: 3 plays, 0 yards, punt
eleventh drive: 3 plays, -15 yards, punt
thirteenth drive: 3 plays, -5 yards, interception

This is what I worried about earlier in the year when I talked about offensive fragility.  Lots of drives that didn't just not lead to scores, but didn't even lead to first downs.  If you go to bcf toys, there's a stat called "first down rate"; it's the proportion of drives that gain at least a first down (or score a touchdown).  Despite ranking highly in other per-drive metrics (typically in the top-20), we ranked 48th in OFD rate at 74%. 

For the season, on a per play basis, we beat the opposition 6.45 to 5.98.  However, we ran over 100 fewer plays than our opponents (949 to 843) and as consequence we were outgained on the season (5672 to 5441).  I think this is frustrating to a lot of people (hi Teejers), because yeah, it is tough to watch a team three-and-out a half dozen times in a game.  Those of us who are more optimistic will note that despite all this, we did find a way to mostly make it work, and our 32 points per game were about 10 points more than our opponents scored against us (which is, after all, what counts), and not bad at all, when taken on a per-drive basis.  2.78 points per drive (before the game against TCU) is 17th in the country, and is better than teams like Clemson, Auburn, and USC.  Considering we did it with an ineffective QB for the first half of the season, and a redshirt freshman the second half, I think we did pretty well.

I think Terry's succinct post points to the real problem with this year's team; the defense was our achilles heel.  Simple stats don't do it justice, because we were second in the conference in scoring defense, behind just Washington, and even total defense (405 yards per game), was ok (#6 in the conference).  The problem is when you start looking at advanced stats.  We gave up 6 yards per play.  Our defensive FEI was 2.17, which was 62nd in the conference (behind even Cal's).  We gave up 2.06 points per drive, which was 57th in the NCAA.  But as I think WIM noted earlier, some of that was due to "turnover luck".  We were sixth in the country in terms of turnover margin, gaining 10 fumbles and 18 interceptions (tied for 7th most in the country).  But while we recovered 50% of our opponents fumbles, we lost only 4 out of our 18 fumbles.  It turns out that the defense typically recovers about half of all fumbles, so while our defense wasn't especially lucky, our offense probably should have lost 5 more fumbles than it did, which was five fewer possessions our defense had to defend.  The numbers on interceptions are even more stark.  We had 34 pass break ups total this year (and thus 52 passes defended), which means that we intercepted 34.6% of all passes defended this year (per this site, passes defended is the single biggest predictor of interceptions: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/1...oklahoma); we would have expected to intercept about 11.  In contrast our opponents had 68 pass break ups, but only 8 interceptions for an interception rate of 10.5%; we would have expected them to intercept about 17 of our passes (think of all the dropped interceptions by OSU, I think, against Chryst).  The bottom line is that our defense looked ok for stretches this year, but a lot of it was smoke and mirrors, and luck.  This all came crashing down in the second half of the last game of the season, as the defense gave up three touchdowns and one field goal in five meaningful drives for TCU in the second half.  Fittingly, the one stop we got occurred when we recovered a fumble.  You can point to the offense needing to score one field goal in any one of the three second half drives that ended in a punt or turnover (or get the touchdown on the one drive where we scored the field goal), but the defense only needed to get one stop in the four TCU drives that ended with a score.

That being said, winflop (I think) is right that this defense was decimated by injuries.  Losing Holder, Reid, Alfieri, Barton, Cotton, not to mention some of their back-ups.  That's tough to withstand, even for a team with depth; for us, where I think our achilles heel will be the dropoff from starters to second/third string guys, it's a killer.  Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

I'm not sure what next year will bring.  A lot will depend on who comes back and who goes pro.  I'm hopeful that Costello makes a reasonable progression from first to second year starter, so I expect the offense will be a bit less run-centric than this year, even if Love comes back.  The line should be very good to outstanding, barring injuries, and we should be deep at receiver and tight end, with the hope that St. Brown provides the deep threat we have been lacking. On defense, with Phillips gone (and Cotton), I feel as goes the DL so will go the team.  The bad news is that we do not have any proven players at DL.  The good news is that we finally have warm bodies, and I am hopeful that someone will emerge, as has been the case each of the last three years.  Assuming everyone heals up, I think linebacker will be less of a liability than this year, and am hopeful that Okereke will make a Skov and Martinez-like progression from Jr. to Sr. year.  Defensive back could be a position of strength if guys with eligibility return, or it could find us struggling again.

I suspect early predictions will range from 5-7 to 10-2 in the regular season.  Right now I find it easiest to project a 9-3 season, largely reverting to just carrying forward this year's result, but let's see who comes back (and who our opponents lose).

BC

[BostonCard]

So, we end the season 9-5, 0-2 in the "post-season" such as it is.  I think in the aggregate, the season probably went a bit as what a neutral observer would have expected, so as a fan, one cannot help but feel a bit disappointed.  The season always starts with a lot of potential upside (and downside), but as the season progresses, that sort of vanishes and you have what you have.  For this team, I think the TCU encapsulated the season.  You have a singular player in Bryce Love who yesterday:

• Broke the Stanford season record for rushing yards (poor McCaffrey; his record lasted 2 years)
  
• Broke the NCAA record for most 50+ yard runs in a season
  
• Broke the Stanford record for 100 yard games (12).  He didn't gain 100 yards in two games: OSU, in which he did not play, and WSU, which was his first game back from injury.  He also broke the record for most 100 yard rushing games playing with one ankle, notching 5 such games (UW, Cal, ND, USC, and TCU)
  

His touchdown yesterday was classic Bryce Love.  Toss play against a stacked line.  Find a crease, break an arm tackle, and outrun everyone for 69 yards.  Also, of note, that was a first down run, for all those of you complaining we ran too much on first down.  On the season, we ran on first down 249 times, gained 1595 yards (6.4 yards per cary), and had 16 touchdowns.  In contrast, we passed 119 times (which comes out to 32% of the time, excluding sacks), and gained 649 yards (5.4 ypa).  Even if you exclude Chryst, Costello passed 67 times, and gained 334 yards on first down, which is only 5 yards per attempt.  Maybe Shaw had Love run on first down, even against a stacked line, 2/3 of the time because it worked better than passing on first down.

That being said, we also had the following:
first drive: 3 plays, -1 yard, punt
second drive: 3 plays, 2 yards, missed field goal
fifth drive: 2 plays, 10 yards, interception
seventh drive: 3 plays, -2 yards, punt
tenth drive: 3 plays, 0 yards, punt
eleventh drive: 3 plays, -15 yards, punt
thirteenth drive: 3 plays, -5 yards, interception

This is what I worried about earlier in the year when I talked about offensive fragility.  Lots of drives that didn't just not lead to scores, but didn't even lead to first downs.  If you go to bcf toys, there's a stat called "first down rate"; it's the proportion of drives that gain at least a first down (or score a touchdown).  Despite ranking highly in other per-drive metrics (typically in the top-20), we ranked 48th in OFD rate at 74%. 

For the season, on a per play basis, we beat the opposition 6.45 to 5.98.  However, we ran over 100 fewer plays than our opponents (949 to 843) and as consequence we were outgained on the season (5672 to 5441).  I think this is frustrating to a lot of people (hi Teejers), because yeah, it is tough to watch a team three-and-out a half dozen times in a game.  Those of us who are more optimistic will note that despite all this, we did find a way to mostly make it work, and our 32 points per game were about 10 points more than our opponents scored against us (which is, after all, what counts), and not bad at all, when taken on a per-drive basis.  2.78 points per drive (before the game against TCU) is 17th in the country, and is better than teams like Clemson, Auburn, and USC.  Considering we did it with an ineffective QB for the first half of the season, and a redshirt freshman the second half, I think we did pretty well.

I think Terry's succinct post points to the real problem with this year's team; the defense was our achilles heel.  Simple stats don't do it justice, because we were second in the conference in scoring defense, behind just Washington, and even total defense (405 yards per game), was ok (#6 in the conference).  The problem is when you start looking at advanced stats.  We gave up 6 yards per play.  Our defensive FEI was 2.17, which was 62nd in the conference (behind even Cal's).  We gave up 2.06 points per drive, which was 57th in the NCAA.  But as I think WIM noted earlier, some of that was due to "turnover luck".  We were sixth in the country in terms of turnover margin, gaining 10 fumbles and 18 interceptions (tied for 7th most in the country).  But while we recovered 50% of our opponents fumbles, we lost only 4 out of our 18 fumbles.  It turns out that the defense typically recovers about half of all fumbles, so while our defense wasn't especially lucky, our offense probably should have lost 5 more fumbles than it did, which was five fewer possessions our defense had to defend.  The numbers on interceptions are even more stark.  We had 34 pass break ups total this year (and thus 52 passes defended), which means that we intercepted 34.6% of all passes defended this year (per this site, passes defended is the single biggest predictor of interceptions: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/1...oklahoma); we would have expected to intercept about 11.  In contrast our opponents had 68 pass break ups, but only 8 interceptions for an interception rate of 10.5%; we would have expected them to intercept about 17 of our passes (think of all the dropped interceptions by OSU, I think, against Chryst).  The bottom line is that our defense looked ok for stretches this year, but a lot of it was smoke and mirrors, and luck.  This all came crashing down in the second half of the last game of the season, as the defense gave up three touchdowns and one field goal in five meaningful drives for TCU in the second half.  Fittingly, the one stop we got occurred when we recovered a fumble.  You can point to the offense needing to score one field goal in any one of the three second half drives that ended in a punt or turnover (or get the touchdown on the one drive where we scored the field goal), but the defense only needed to get one stop in the four TCU drives that ended with a score.

That being said, winflop (I think) is right that this defense was decimated by injuries.  Losing Holder, Reid, Alfieri, Barton, Cotton, not to mention some of their back-ups.  That's tough to withstand, even for a team with depth; for us, where I think our achilles heel will be the dropoff from starters to second/third string guys, it's a killer.  Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

I'm not sure what next year will bring.  A lot will depend on who comes back and who goes pro.  I'm hopeful that Costello makes a reasonable progression from first to second year starter, so I expect the offense will be a bit less run-centric than this year, even if Love comes back.  The line should be very good to outstanding, barring injuries, and we should be deep at receiver and tight end, with the hope that St. Brown provides the deep threat we have been lacking. On defense, with Phillips gone (and Cotton), I feel as goes the DL so will go the team.  The bad news is that we do not have any proven players at DL.  The good news is that we finally have warm bodies, and I am hopeful that someone will emerge, as has been the case each of the last three years.  Assuming everyone heals up, I think linebacker will be less of a liability than this year, and am hopeful that Okereke will make a Skov and Martinez-like progression from Jr. to Sr. year.  Defensive back could be a position of strength if guys with eligibility return, or it could find us struggling again.

I suspect early predictions will range from 5-7 to 10-2 in the regular season.  Right now I find it easiest to project a 9-3 season, largely reverting to just carrying forward this year's result, but let's see who comes back (and who our opponents lose).

BC

[BostonCard]

So, we end the season 9-5, 0-2 in the "post-season" such as it is.  I think in the aggregate, the season probably went a bit as what a neutral observer would have expected, so as a fan, one cannot help but feel a bit disappointed.  The season always starts with a lot of potential upside (and downside), but as the season progresses, that sort of vanishes and you have what you have.  For this team, I think the TCU encapsulated the season.  You have a singular player in Bryce Love who yesterday:

• Broke the Stanford season record for rushing yards (poor McCaffrey; his record lasted 2 years)
  
• Broke the NCAA record for most 50+ yard runs in a season
  
• Broke the Stanford record for 100 yard games (12).  He didn't gain 100 yards in two games: OSU, in which he did not play, and WSU, which was his first game back from injury.  He also broke the record for most 100 yard rushing games playing with one ankle, notching 5 such games (UW, Cal, ND, USC, and TCU)
  

His touchdown yesterday was classic Bryce Love.  Toss play against a stacked line.  Find a crease, break an arm tackle, and outrun everyone for 69 yards.  Also, of note, that was a first down run, for all those of you complaining we ran too much on first down.  On the season, we ran on first down 249 times, gained 1595 yards (6.4 yards per cary), and had 16 touchdowns.  In contrast, we passed 119 times (which comes out to 32% of the time, excluding sacks), and gained 649 yards (5.4 ypa).  Even if you exclude Chryst, Costello passed 67 times, and gained 334 yards on first down, which is only 5 yards per attempt.  Maybe Shaw had Love run on first down, even against a stacked line, 2/3 of the time because it worked better than passing on first down.

That being said, we also had the following:
first drive: 3 plays, -1 yard, punt
second drive: 3 plays, 2 yards, missed field goal
fifth drive: 2 plays, 10 yards, interception
seventh drive: 3 plays, -2 yards, punt
tenth drive: 3 plays, 0 yards, punt
eleventh drive: 3 plays, -15 yards, punt
thirteenth drive: 3 plays, -5 yards, interception

This is what I worried about earlier in the year when I talked about offensive fragility.  Lots of drives that didn't just not lead to scores, but didn't even lead to first downs.  If you go to bcf toys, there's a stat called "first down rate"; it's the proportion of drives that gain at least a first down (or score a touchdown).  Despite ranking highly in other per-drive metrics (typically in the top-20), we ranked 48th in OFD rate at 74%. 

For the season, on a per play basis, we beat the opposition 6.45 to 5.98.  However, we ran over 100 fewer plays than our opponents (949 to 843) and as consequence we were outgained on the season (5672 to 5441).  I think this is frustrating to a lot of people (hi Teejers), because yeah, it is tough to watch a team three-and-out a half dozen times in a game.  Those of us who are more optimistic will note that despite all this, we did find a way to mostly make it work, and our 32 points per game were about 10 points more than our opponents scored against us (which is, after all, what counts), and not bad at all, when taken on a per-drive basis.  2.78 points per drive (before the game against TCU) is 17th in the country, and is better than teams like Clemson, Auburn, and USC.  Considering we did it with an ineffective QB for the first half of the season, and a redshirt freshman the second half, I think we did pretty well.

I think Terry's succinct post points to the real problem with this year's team; the defense was our achilles heel.  Simple stats don't do it justice, because we were second in the conference in scoring defense, behind just Washington, and even total defense (405 yards per game), was ok (#6 in the conference).  The problem is when you start looking at advanced stats.  We gave up 6 yards per play.  Our defensive FEI was 2.17, which was 62nd in the conference (behind even Cal's).  We gave up 2.06 points per drive, which was 57th in the NCAA.  But as I think WIM noted earlier, some of that was due to "turnover luck".  We were sixth in the country in terms of turnover margin, gaining 10 fumbles and 18 interceptions (tied for 7th most in the country).  But while we recovered 50% of our opponents fumbles, we lost only 4 out of our 18 fumbles.  It turns out that the defense typically recovers about half of all fumbles, so while our defense wasn't especially lucky, our offense probably should have lost 5 more fumbles than it did, which was five fewer possessions our defense had to defend.  The numbers on interceptions are even more stark.  We had 34 pass break ups total this year (and thus 52 passes defended), which means that we intercepted 34.6% of all passes defended this year (per this site, passes defended is the single biggest predictor of interceptions: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/1...oklahoma); we would have expected to intercept about 11.  In contrast our opponents had 68 pass break ups, but only 8 interceptions for an interception rate of 10.5%; we would have expected them to intercept about 17 of our passes (think of all the dropped interceptions by OSU, I think, against Chryst).  The bottom line is that our defense looked ok for stretches this year, but a lot of it was smoke and mirrors, and luck.  This all came crashing down in the second half of the last game of the season, as the defense gave up three touchdowns and one field goal in five meaningful drives for TCU in the second half.  Fittingly, the one stop we got occurred when we recovered a fumble.  You can point to the offense needing to score one field goal in any one of the three second half drives that ended in a punt or turnover (or get the touchdown on the one drive where we scored the field goal), but the defense only needed to get one stop in the four TCU drives that ended with a score.

That being said, winflop (I think) is right that this defense was decimated by injuries.  Losing Holder, Reid, Alfieri, Barton, Cotton, not to mention some of their back-ups.  That's tough to withstand, even for a team with depth; for us, where I think our achilles heel will be the dropoff from starters to second/third string guys, it's a killer.  Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

I'm not sure what next year will bring.  A lot will depend on who comes back and who goes pro.  I'm hopeful that Costello makes a reasonable progression from first to second year starter, so I expect the offense will be a bit less run-centric than this year, even if Love comes back.  The line should be very good to outstanding, barring injuries, and we should be deep at receiver and tight end, with the hope that St. Brown provides the deep threat we have been lacking. On defense, with Phillips gone (and Cotton), I feel as goes the DL so will go the team.  The bad news is that we do not have any proven players at DL.  The good news is that we finally have warm bodies, and I am hopeful that someone will emerge, as has been the case each of the last three years.  Assuming everyone heals up, I think linebacker will be less of a liability than this year, and am hopeful that Okereke will make a Skov and Martinez-like progression from Jr. to Sr. year.  Defensive back could be a position of strength if guys with eligibility return, or it could find us struggling again.

I suspect early predictions will range from 5-7 to 10-2 in the regular season.  Right now I find it easiest to project a 9-3 season, largely reverting to just carrying forward this year's result, but let's see who comes back (and who our opponents lose).

BC

[BostonCard]

So, we end the season 9-5, 0-2 in the "post-season" such as it is.  I think in the aggregate, the season probably went a bit as what a neutral observer would have expected, so as a fan, one cannot help but feel a bit disappointed.  The season always starts with a lot of potential upside (and downside), but as the season progresses, that sort of vanishes and you have what you have.  For this team, I think the TCU encapsulated the season.  You have a singular player in Bryce Love who yesterday:

• Broke the Stanford season record for rushing yards (poor McCaffrey; his record lasted 2 years)
  
• Broke the NCAA record for most 50+ yard runs in a season
  
• Broke the Stanford record for 100 yard games (12).  He didn't gain 100 yards in two games: OSU, in which he did not play, and WSU, which was his first game back from injury.  He also broke the record for most 100 yard rushing games playing with one ankle, notching 5 such games (UW, Cal, ND, USC, and TCU)
  

His touchdown yesterday was classic Bryce Love.  Toss play against a stacked line.  Find a crease, break an arm tackle, and outrun everyone for 69 yards.  Also, of note, that was a first down run, for all those of you complaining we ran too much on first down.  On the season, we ran on first down 249 times, gained 1595 yards (6.4 yards per cary), and had 16 touchdowns.  In contrast, we passed 119 times (which comes out to 32% of the time, excluding sacks), and gained 649 yards (5.4 ypa).  Even if you exclude Chryst, Costello passed 67 times, and gained 334 yards on first down, which is only 5 yards per attempt.  Maybe Shaw had Love run on first down, even against a stacked line, 2/3 of the time because it worked better than passing on first down.

That being said, we also had the following:
first drive: 3 plays, -1 yard, punt
second drive: 3 plays, 2 yards, missed field goal
fifth drive: 2 plays, 10 yards, interception
seventh drive: 3 plays, -2 yards, punt
tenth drive: 3 plays, 0 yards, punt
eleventh drive: 3 plays, -15 yards, punt
thirteenth drive: 3 plays, -5 yards, interception

This is what I worried about earlier in the year when I talked about offensive fragility.  Lots of drives that didn't just not lead to scores, but didn't even lead to first downs.  If you go to bcf toys, there's a stat called "first down rate"; it's the proportion of drives that gain at least a first down (or score a touchdown).  Despite ranking highly in other per-drive metrics (typically in the top-20), we ranked 48th in OFD rate at 74%. 

For the season, on a per play basis, we beat the opposition 6.45 to 5.98.  However, we ran over 100 fewer plays than our opponents (949 to 843) and as consequence we were outgained on the season (5672 to 5441).  I think this is frustrating to a lot of people (hi Teejers), because yeah, it is tough to watch a team three-and-out a half dozen times in a game.  Those of us who are more optimistic will note that despite all this, we did find a way to mostly make it work, and our 32 points per game were about 10 points more than our opponents scored against us (which is, after all, what counts), and not bad at all, when taken on a per-drive basis.  2.78 points per drive (before the game against TCU) is 17th in the country, and is better than teams like Clemson, Auburn, and USC.  Considering we did it with an ineffective QB for the first half of the season, and a redshirt freshman the second half, I think we did pretty well.

I think Terry's succinct post points to the real problem with this year's team; the defense was our achilles heel.  Simple stats don't do it justice, because we were second in the conference in scoring defense, behind just Washington, and even total defense (405 yards per game), was ok (#6 in the conference).  The problem is when you start looking at advanced stats.  We gave up 6 yards per play.  Our defensive FEI was 2.17, which was 62nd in the conference (behind even Cal's).  We gave up 2.06 points per drive, which was 57th in the NCAA.  But as I think WIM noted earlier, some of that was due to "turnover luck".  We were sixth in the country in terms of turnover margin, gaining 10 fumbles and 18 interceptions (tied for 7th most in the country).  But while we recovered 50% of our opponents fumbles, we lost only 4 out of our 18 fumbles.  It turns out that the defense typically recovers about half of all fumbles, so while our defense wasn't especially lucky, our offense probably should have lost 5 more fumbles than it did, which was five fewer possessions our defense had to defend.  The numbers on interceptions are even more stark.  We had 34 pass break ups total this year (and thus 52 passes defended), which means that we intercepted 34.6% of all passes defended this year (per this site, passes defended is the single biggest predictor of interceptions: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/1...oklahoma); we would have expected to intercept about 11.  In contrast our opponents had 68 pass break ups, but only 8 interceptions for an interception rate of 10.5%; we would have expected them to intercept about 17 of our passes (think of all the dropped interceptions by OSU, I think, against Chryst).  The bottom line is that our defense looked ok for stretches this year, but a lot of it was smoke and mirrors, and luck.  This all came crashing down in the second half of the last game of the season, as the defense gave up three touchdowns and one field goal in five meaningful drives for TCU in the second half.  Fittingly, the one stop we got occurred when we recovered a fumble.  You can point to the offense needing to score one field goal in any one of the three second half drives that ended in a punt or turnover (or get the touchdown on the one drive where we scored the field goal), but the defense only needed to get one stop in the four TCU drives that ended with a score.

That being said, winflop (I think) is right that this defense was decimated by injuries.  Losing Holder, Reid, Alfieri, Barton, Cotton, not to mention some of their back-ups.  That's tough to withstand, even for a team with depth; for us, where I think our achilles heel will be the dropoff from starters to second/third string guys, it's a killer.  Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

I'm not sure what next year will bring.  A lot will depend on who comes back and who goes pro.  I'm hopeful that Costello makes a reasonable progression from first to second year starter, so I expect the offense will be a bit less run-centric than this year, even if Love comes back.  The line should be very good to outstanding, barring injuries, and we should be deep at receiver and tight end, with the hope that St. Brown provides the deep threat we have been lacking. On defense, with Phillips gone (and Cotton), I feel as goes the DL so will go the team.  The bad news is that we do not have any proven players at DL.  The good news is that we finally have warm bodies, and I am hopeful that someone will emerge, as has been the case each of the last three years.  Assuming everyone heals up, I think linebacker will be less of a liability than this year, and am hopeful that Okereke will make a Skov and Martinez-like progression from Jr. to Sr. year.  Defensive back could be a position of strength if guys with eligibility return, or it could find us struggling again.

I suspect early predictions will range from 5-7 to 10-2 in the regular season.  Right now I find it easiest to project a 9-3 season, largely reverting to just carrying forward this year's result, but let's see who comes back (and who our opponents lose).

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Few points, here and there.

1) Re: the boom-and-bust offense, a big part of this is the particular strengths and weaknesses of the principal players. Bryce Love, especially on one ankle, is more a big play guy than a steady gainer. Costello, temperamentally, appears to prefer aggressive strikes downfield to shorter passes. (At least at this point of his career.) He's a sub-60% passer and I think the Stanford offense (generally) works best when the QB is in the mid-60s or above, even if that means sacrificing some explosive plays. The combination, of course, made for a lot of offensive variability. Accentuating this tendency was TCU's big blitzing, which made for either a missed pass from Costello or a big play. It was a bit odd to me that they didn't have, for example, a screen play that was a bit more high-reliability while still keeping some big-play potential. Ah well.

2) While the defense bore a lot of injuries, I'm not sure I accept this as a reason for its poor performance, for a few reasons. First, the defense had a clean bill of health early in the year and nevertheless got garroted by SC. While the first big injury felled Barton against San Diego State, the defense nevertheless got beat pretty good by UCLA and was porous against the run in games against ASU and Utah. (Note that sacks made the running statistics slightly deceptive in both games, but the ASU and Utah RBs and WRs were successful in both games.) Even some of the games it was successful have a significant asterisk: against Oregon, the defense faced a backup QB; against Rice, it faced one of the worst teams in the country; against SDSU, it gave up a game-winning drive. (Yes, I know the defense doesn't deserve primary blame for the SDSU game, but for me, giving up a game-winning drive late isn't a good look. Agree to disagree if we must.)

Second, while a significant number of players went down to injury, if you think that reveals a lack of depth, then you have to acknowledge that that's quite the comedown from preseason expectations. Before the season, we thought Holder's backup, Alameen Murphy, was an experienced guy. He was named captain of the team and started, what, half the games in 2016? Murphy had 36 tackles and 7 PBUs in 2016, which are pretty solid marks for a DB. (To take a random comparison, Alex Carter in 2014 had 41 tackles, 9 PBU, and 1 pick.)

The pattern repeats across positions. Barton may have been injured, but Kevin Palma was an honorable mention linebacker in 2016. Alfieri was a backup for most of the year, so his injury isn't *that* significant. (And only held him out of one game.)

So if you think injuries were really that vicious a scythe, then you should still have significant questions about the quality of the defense. Because there were proven backups across the defense (except, to be fair, at the line), and plenty of highly recruited players. (Curtis Robinson, Treyjohn Butler, Andrew Pryts, and Obi Eboh are guys -- just off the top of my head -- who were highly regarded players coming out of high school who didn't play much of a role during the year.) So I think "injuries" has a certain surface plausibility as an argument but, ultimately, fails to convince me fully. To be fair, other than "the line was very bad," I don't have a satisfying explanation for what went wrong, but I think the coaches have some 'splainin' to do.

3) Too early to tell without knowing who comes back and who leaves across the conference -- we don't even know the final composition of the recruiting class yet! -- but sans Phillips it feels like a 7-5 season to me.

[washingtonismoney]

Few points, here and there.

1) Re: the boom-and-bust offense, a big part of this is the particular strengths and weaknesses of the principal players. Bryce Love, especially on one ankle, is more a big play guy than a steady gainer. Costello, temperamentally, appears to prefer aggressive strikes downfield to shorter passes. (At least at this point of his career.) He's a sub-60% passer and I think the Stanford offense (generally) works best when the QB is in the mid-60s or above, even if that means sacrificing some explosive plays. The combination, of course, made for a lot of offensive variability. Accentuating this tendency was TCU's big blitzing, which made for either a missed pass from Costello or a big play. It was a bit odd to me that they didn't have, for example, a screen play that was a bit more high-reliability while still keeping some big-play potential. Ah well.

2) While the defense bore a lot of injuries, I'm not sure I accept this as a reason for its poor performance, for a few reasons. First, the defense had a clean bill of health early in the year and nevertheless got garroted by SC. While the first big injury felled Barton against San Diego State, the defense nevertheless got beat pretty good by UCLA and was porous against the run in games against ASU and Utah. (Note that sacks made the running statistics slightly deceptive in both games, but the ASU and Utah RBs and WRs were successful in both games.) Even some of the games it was successful have a significant asterisk: against Oregon, the defense faced a backup QB; against Rice, it faced one of the worst teams in the country; against SDSU, it gave up a game-winning drive. (Yes, I know the defense doesn't deserve primary blame for the SDSU game, but for me, giving up a game-winning drive late isn't a good look. Agree to disagree if we must.)

Second, while a significant number of players went down to injury, if you think that reveals a lack of depth, then you have to acknowledge that that's quite the comedown from preseason expectations. Before the season, we thought Holder's backup, Alameen Murphy, was an experienced guy. He was named captain of the team and started, what, half the games in 2016? Murphy had 36 tackles and 7 PBUs in 2016, which are pretty solid marks for a DB. (To take a random comparison, Alex Carter in 2014 had 41 tackles, 9 PBU, and 1 pick.)

The pattern repeats across positions. Barton may have been injured, but Kevin Palma was an honorable mention linebacker in 2016. Alfieri was a backup for most of the year, so his injury isn't *that* significant. (And only held him out of one game.)

So if you think injuries were really that vicious a scythe, then you should still have significant questions about the quality of the defense. Because there were proven backups across the defense (except, to be fair, at the line), and plenty of highly recruited players. (Curtis Robinson, Treyjohn Butler, Andrew Pryts, and Obi Eboh are guys -- just off the top of my head -- who were highly regarded players coming out of high school who didn't play much of a role during the year.) So I think "injuries" has a certain surface plausibility as an argument but, ultimately, fails to convince me fully. To be fair, other than "the line was very bad," I don't have a satisfying explanation for what went wrong, but I think the coaches have some 'splainin' to do.

3) Too early to tell without knowing who comes back and who leaves across the conference -- we don't even know the final composition of the recruiting class yet! -- but sans Phillips it feels like a 7-5 season to me.

[washingtonismoney]

Few points, here and there.

1) Re: the boom-and-bust offense, a big part of this is the particular strengths and weaknesses of the principal players. Bryce Love, especially on one ankle, is more a big play guy than a steady gainer. Costello, temperamentally, appears to prefer aggressive strikes downfield to shorter passes. (At least at this point of his career.) He's a sub-60% passer and I think the Stanford offense (generally) works best when the QB is in the mid-60s or above, even if that means sacrificing some explosive plays. The combination, of course, made for a lot of offensive variability. Accentuating this tendency was TCU's big blitzing, which made for either a missed pass from Costello or a big play. It was a bit odd to me that they didn't have, for example, a screen play that was a bit more high-reliability while still keeping some big-play potential. Ah well.

2) While the defense bore a lot of injuries, I'm not sure I accept this as a reason for its poor performance, for a few reasons. First, the defense had a clean bill of health early in the year and nevertheless got garroted by SC. While the first big injury felled Barton against San Diego State, the defense nevertheless got beat pretty good by UCLA and was porous against the run in games against ASU and Utah. (Note that sacks made the running statistics slightly deceptive in both games, but the ASU and Utah RBs and WRs were successful in both games.) Even some of the games it was successful have a significant asterisk: against Oregon, the defense faced a backup QB; against Rice, it faced one of the worst teams in the country; against SDSU, it gave up a game-winning drive. (Yes, I know the defense doesn't deserve primary blame for the SDSU game, but for me, giving up a game-winning drive late isn't a good look. Agree to disagree if we must.)

Second, while a significant number of players went down to injury, if you think that reveals a lack of depth, then you have to acknowledge that that's quite the comedown from preseason expectations. Before the season, we thought Holder's backup, Alameen Murphy, was an experienced guy. He was named captain of the team and started, what, half the games in 2016? Murphy had 36 tackles and 7 PBUs in 2016, which are pretty solid marks for a DB. (To take a random comparison, Alex Carter in 2014 had 41 tackles, 9 PBU, and 1 pick.)

The pattern repeats across positions. Barton may have been injured, but Kevin Palma was an honorable mention linebacker in 2016. Alfieri was a backup for most of the year, so his injury isn't *that* significant. (And only held him out of one game.)

So if you think injuries were really that vicious a scythe, then you should still have significant questions about the quality of the defense. Because there were proven backups across the defense (except, to be fair, at the line), and plenty of highly recruited players. (Curtis Robinson, Treyjohn Butler, Andrew Pryts, and Obi Eboh are guys -- just off the top of my head -- who were highly regarded players coming out of high school who didn't play much of a role during the year.) So I think "injuries" has a certain surface plausibility as an argument but, ultimately, fails to convince me fully. To be fair, other than "the line was very bad," I don't have a satisfying explanation for what went wrong, but I think the coaches have some 'splainin' to do.

3) Too early to tell without knowing who comes back and who leaves across the conference -- we don't even know the final composition of the recruiting class yet! -- but sans Phillips it feels like a 7-5 season to me.

[washingtonismoney]

Few points, here and there.

1) Re: the boom-and-bust offense, a big part of this is the particular strengths and weaknesses of the principal players. Bryce Love, especially on one ankle, is more a big play guy than a steady gainer. Costello, temperamentally, appears to prefer aggressive strikes downfield to shorter passes. (At least at this point of his career.) He's a sub-60% passer and I think the Stanford offense (generally) works best when the QB is in the mid-60s or above, even if that means sacrificing some explosive plays. The combination, of course, made for a lot of offensive variability. Accentuating this tendency was TCU's big blitzing, which made for either a missed pass from Costello or a big play. It was a bit odd to me that they didn't have, for example, a screen play that was a bit more high-reliability while still keeping some big-play potential. Ah well.

2) While the defense bore a lot of injuries, I'm not sure I accept this as a reason for its poor performance, for a few reasons. First, the defense had a clean bill of health early in the year and nevertheless got garroted by SC. While the first big injury felled Barton against San Diego State, the defense nevertheless got beat pretty good by UCLA and was porous against the run in games against ASU and Utah. (Note that sacks made the running statistics slightly deceptive in both games, but the ASU and Utah RBs and WRs were successful in both games.) Even some of the games it was successful have a significant asterisk: against Oregon, the defense faced a backup QB; against Rice, it faced one of the worst teams in the country; against SDSU, it gave up a game-winning drive. (Yes, I know the defense doesn't deserve primary blame for the SDSU game, but for me, giving up a game-winning drive late isn't a good look. Agree to disagree if we must.)

Second, while a significant number of players went down to injury, if you think that reveals a lack of depth, then you have to acknowledge that that's quite the comedown from preseason expectations. Before the season, we thought Holder's backup, Alameen Murphy, was an experienced guy. He was named captain of the team and started, what, half the games in 2016? Murphy had 36 tackles and 7 PBUs in 2016, which are pretty solid marks for a DB. (To take a random comparison, Alex Carter in 2014 had 41 tackles, 9 PBU, and 1 pick.)

The pattern repeats across positions. Barton may have been injured, but Kevin Palma was an honorable mention linebacker in 2016. Alfieri was a backup for most of the year, so his injury isn't *that* significant. (And only held him out of one game.)

So if you think injuries were really that vicious a scythe, then you should still have significant questions about the quality of the defense. Because there were proven backups across the defense (except, to be fair, at the line), and plenty of highly recruited players. (Curtis Robinson, Treyjohn Butler, Andrew Pryts, and Obi Eboh are guys -- just off the top of my head -- who were highly regarded players coming out of high school who didn't play much of a role during the year.) So I think "injuries" has a certain surface plausibility as an argument but, ultimately, fails to convince me fully. To be fair, other than "the line was very bad," I don't have a satisfying explanation for what went wrong, but I think the coaches have some 'splainin' to do.

3) Too early to tell without knowing who comes back and who leaves across the conference -- we don't even know the final composition of the recruiting class yet! -- but sans Phillips it feels like a 7-5 season to me.

[BostonCard]

WIM, I don't disagree with you.  The defense did disappoint, full stop.  It is fair to point to injuries as a contributing factor; after all, the starters are starters for a reason.  That being said, I agree with you that injuries do not explain the degree to which the defense disappointed.  This really felt like a defense that was less than the sum of its parts, didn't it?

The things that stood out to me: 1) the tackling seemed wanting on many key occasions (too many broken arm tackles), 2) too many players seemed to get caught out of position (witness the number of big plays).  I have a feeling that some of that is guys trying to do too much and not trusting their teammates to be in the right place at the right time and make the play.  The two issues feed off each other; being out of position leads to poor tackling, and when you see guys whiffing on tackles, you press to try to compensate.

I also think that the lack of depth at DL hurt us everywhere; while Phillips was amazing, the other defensive linemen didn't do enough to clog running lanes and pressure the QB.  The result was QB's with too much time to throw (which made our DB's look worse), and running backs that would easily make it 4 to 5 yards downfield before first contact, plus linebackers being blocked out of the play.

I think you are a bit pessimistic on your assessment of next season, even without Phillips.  Obviously, we will have holes, but looking up and down the Pac-12, it is hard to find a team that won't, unless Darnold and Jones decide to both come back for SC.

BC

[BostonCard]

WIM, I don't disagree with you.  The defense did disappoint, full stop.  It is fair to point to injuries as a contributing factor; after all, the starters are starters for a reason.  That being said, I agree with you that injuries do not explain the degree to which the defense disappointed.  This really felt like a defense that was less than the sum of its parts, didn't it?

The things that stood out to me: 1) the tackling seemed wanting on many key occasions (too many broken arm tackles), 2) too many players seemed to get caught out of position (witness the number of big plays).  I have a feeling that some of that is guys trying to do too much and not trusting their teammates to be in the right place at the right time and make the play.  The two issues feed off each other; being out of position leads to poor tackling, and when you see guys whiffing on tackles, you press to try to compensate.

I also think that the lack of depth at DL hurt us everywhere; while Phillips was amazing, the other defensive linemen didn't do enough to clog running lanes and pressure the QB.  The result was QB's with too much time to throw (which made our DB's look worse), and running backs that would easily make it 4 to 5 yards downfield before first contact, plus linebackers being blocked out of the play.

I think you are a bit pessimistic on your assessment of next season, even without Phillips.  Obviously, we will have holes, but looking up and down the Pac-12, it is hard to find a team that won't, unless Darnold and Jones decide to both come back for SC.

BC

[BostonCard]

WIM, I don't disagree with you.  The defense did disappoint, full stop.  It is fair to point to injuries as a contributing factor; after all, the starters are starters for a reason.  That being said, I agree with you that injuries do not explain the degree to which the defense disappointed.  This really felt like a defense that was less than the sum of its parts, didn't it?

The things that stood out to me: 1) the tackling seemed wanting on many key occasions (too many broken arm tackles), 2) too many players seemed to get caught out of position (witness the number of big plays).  I have a feeling that some of that is guys trying to do too much and not trusting their teammates to be in the right place at the right time and make the play.  The two issues feed off each other; being out of position leads to poor tackling, and when you see guys whiffing on tackles, you press to try to compensate.

I also think that the lack of depth at DL hurt us everywhere; while Phillips was amazing, the other defensive linemen didn't do enough to clog running lanes and pressure the QB.  The result was QB's with too much time to throw (which made our DB's look worse), and running backs that would easily make it 4 to 5 yards downfield before first contact, plus linebackers being blocked out of the play.

I think you are a bit pessimistic on your assessment of next season, even without Phillips.  Obviously, we will have holes, but looking up and down the Pac-12, it is hard to find a team that won't, unless Darnold and Jones decide to both come back for SC.

BC

[BostonCard]

WIM, I don't disagree with you.  The defense did disappoint, full stop.  It is fair to point to injuries as a contributing factor; after all, the starters are starters for a reason.  That being said, I agree with you that injuries do not explain the degree to which the defense disappointed.  This really felt like a defense that was less than the sum of its parts, didn't it?

The things that stood out to me: 1) the tackling seemed wanting on many key occasions (too many broken arm tackles), 2) too many players seemed to get caught out of position (witness the number of big plays).  I have a feeling that some of that is guys trying to do too much and not trusting their teammates to be in the right place at the right time and make the play.  The two issues feed off each other; being out of position leads to poor tackling, and when you see guys whiffing on tackles, you press to try to compensate.

I also think that the lack of depth at DL hurt us everywhere; while Phillips was amazing, the other defensive linemen didn't do enough to clog running lanes and pressure the QB.  The result was QB's with too much time to throw (which made our DB's look worse), and running backs that would easily make it 4 to 5 yards downfield before first contact, plus linebackers being blocked out of the play.

I think you are a bit pessimistic on your assessment of next season, even without Phillips.  Obviously, we will have holes, but looking up and down the Pac-12, it is hard to find a team that won't, unless Darnold and Jones decide to both come back for SC.

BC

[JohnR34231]

I think any year we make the CCG has to be considered a fairly successful one.
At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.
So I give the year mixed reviews. Not great, but not bad, either.
Also, has there ever been a year where we were so successful at Stanford Stadium and so unsuccessful outside it? There probably has, but I sure can't remember one.

[JohnR34231]

I think any year we make the CCG has to be considered a fairly successful one.
At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.
So I give the year mixed reviews. Not great, but not bad, either.
Also, has there ever been a year where we were so successful at Stanford Stadium and so unsuccessful outside it? There probably has, but I sure can't remember one.

[JohnR34231]

I think any year we make the CCG has to be considered a fairly successful one.
At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.
So I give the year mixed reviews. Not great, but not bad, either.
Also, has there ever been a year where we were so successful at Stanford Stadium and so unsuccessful outside it? There probably has, but I sure can't remember one.

[JohnR34231]

I think any year we make the CCG has to be considered a fairly successful one.
At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.
So I give the year mixed reviews. Not great, but not bad, either.
Also, has there ever been a year where we were so successful at Stanford Stadium and so unsuccessful outside it? There probably has, but I sure can't remember one.

[Goose]

At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.

I agree completely with this evaluation of the year. We were a good team, but two levels removed from where we want to be. Partly, that just shows how difficult it is to be an elite team. Next year, assuming Love doesn't return, our offense has to somewhat "re-invent" itself. While that is a challenge, it is also an opportunity. The defensive side of the ball is where we will have even more issues. The DL will be a total question mark going forward, at least to us fans. What happens there is critical to our success next year.

[Goose]

At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.

I agree completely with this evaluation of the year. We were a good team, but two levels removed from where we want to be. Partly, that just shows how difficult it is to be an elite team. Next year, assuming Love doesn't return, our offense has to somewhat "re-invent" itself. While that is a challenge, it is also an opportunity. The defensive side of the ball is where we will have even more issues. The DL will be a total question mark going forward, at least to us fans. What happens there is critical to our success next year.

[Goose]

At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.

I agree completely with this evaluation of the year. We were a good team, but two levels removed from where we want to be. Partly, that just shows how difficult it is to be an elite team. Next year, assuming Love doesn't return, our offense has to somewhat "re-invent" itself. While that is a challenge, it is also an opportunity. The defensive side of the ball is where we will have even more issues. The DL will be a total question mark going forward, at least to us fans. What happens there is critical to our success next year.

[Goose]

At the same time, our two losses to U$C and Ohio State's d.omination (My God, is there any word the board software doesn't change these days) of them in the Cotton Bowl shows how far we are away from the elite teams in the nation. I believe our goal is to be one of them, at least some of the time.

I agree completely with this evaluation of the year. We were a good team, but two levels removed from where we want to be. Partly, that just shows how difficult it is to be an elite team. Next year, assuming Love doesn't return, our offense has to somewhat "re-invent" itself. While that is a challenge, it is also an opportunity. The defensive side of the ball is where we will have even more issues. The DL will be a total question mark going forward, at least to us fans. What happens there is critical to our success next year.

[stupac2]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?

[stupac2]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?

[stupac2]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?

[stupac2]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?

[dabigv13]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18456.msg219786#msg219786 date=1514610230]Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?
[/quote]

Is the grass on the field more bouncy over the past several years?

[dabigv13]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18456.msg219786#msg219786 date=1514610230]Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?
[/quote]

Is the grass on the field more bouncy over the past several years?

[dabigv13]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18456.msg219786#msg219786 date=1514610230]Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?
[/quote]

Is the grass on the field more bouncy over the past several years?

[dabigv13]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18456.msg219786#msg219786 date=1514610230]Maybe I'm misremembering, but I believe that our truly great teams coincided with a period of unusually few injuries, when we talked about Turley's magic.  Maybe, like a lot of things, it wasn't magic, but luck, and now we are reverting to the mean.

Lots of good stuff in there, but this mirrors something I've been thinking about too. Without running the numbers it feels like these last two years have had far, far more injuries to key players than the previous 5. I'm not sure how to run these numbers for college, maybe going through pre-game depth charts and noting changes, if those are even available any more. But anecdotally it seems like we're having a lot more trouble, and I wonder which way the regression goes, is this the regression, or should we expect it to get better?
[/quote]

Is the grass on the field more bouncy over the past several years?

[lex24]

Defense spent way too much time on the field. Offense relied on big plays. Did not sustain drives effectively enough. If Lund turns out to be as advertised, that could be a brobdingnagian loss.

More than anything else next year they need to be more efficient offensively. Let’s set coaching aside a second. We will see how Tavita does etc. Breaking down the offensive units:

QB. Costello showed promise. My question is his accuracy. He showed the ability to make big plays. The consistency should improve. He needs to be at about 65%.  Mills is the wild card. Truly a bummer that he will miss Spring. Hopefully he is ready come Fall. I suspect he is the most talented QB on the roster. But he needs to stay healthy.

OL. I’d love the experts to weigh in. My take is the line struggled with speed rushers and blocking in space. The defenses that beat Stanford on the LOS did so with speed. They have a lot of talent coming back. They need to jell early and improve their consistency.

TE:  Smith showed signs of being the next Ertz. He should be a major part next year. Parkinson could use a few lbs. Losing Schultz hurts most in the run game. Not sure they have the in line TE blocker to replace him.

WR.  JJ had a terrific year. He uses his size and strength very well. And he has excellent hands. Irwin is an excellent underneath receiver. Now find some speed.  Wedington if he stays at WR is more of a slot type imo. Give me someone like Rector.  He had his limitations. But he was a legit deep threat. They need that. Who?

RB. Maybe the most interesting question. I suspect Bryce leaves. But if he doesn’t I hope he works on his receiving. Then use him. They need to incorporate their backs more in the passing game. We know it’s in the system. They have done it with Taylor and CMac. If Love leaves, Scarlett is intriguing. He improved markedly. If he is the guy, getting 20 touches a game I think he can be very effective. Not a HR threat. But a guy that can move the chains. Speights showed flashes. But not enough  carries to make any impact. He shows a nice burst and he finishes. And he is a solid blocker. He was used a fair amount in the passing game, but only to protect. All in all I think he will push Scarlett.

Offense has a chance to be very good next year. It will need to be. Losing Harrison and probably Reid is brobdingnagian. If Meeks goes that adds to the pain. Cotton is a loss. He started to play well before going down. I think Okereke indicated he is staying. If so he will be the focal point of the defense. But Lance is going to need to work his magic. And the offense has to help. I think the wear on the defense showed, and not just with injuries. They were on the field an awfully lot in big games. 

[lex24]

Defense spent way too much time on the field. Offense relied on big plays. Did not sustain drives effectively enough. If Lund turns out to be as advertised, that could be a brobdingnagian loss.

More than anything else next year they need to be more efficient offensively. Let’s set coaching aside a second. We will see how Tavita does etc. Breaking down the offensive units:

QB. Costello showed promise. My question is his accuracy. He showed the ability to make big plays. The consistency should improve. He needs to be at about 65%.  Mills is the wild card. Truly a bummer that he will miss Spring. Hopefully he is ready come Fall. I suspect he is the most talented QB on the roster. But he needs to stay healthy.

OL. I’d love the experts to weigh in. My take is the line struggled with speed rushers and blocking in space. The defenses that beat Stanford on the LOS did so with speed. They have a lot of talent coming back. They need to jell early and improve their consistency.

TE:  Smith showed signs of being the next Ertz. He should be a major part next year. Parkinson could use a few lbs. Losing Schultz hurts most in the run game. Not sure they have the in line TE blocker to replace him.

WR.  JJ had a terrific year. He uses his size and strength very well. And he has excellent hands. Irwin is an excellent underneath receiver. Now find some speed.  Wedington if he stays at WR is more of a slot type imo. Give me someone like Rector.  He had his limitations. But he was a legit deep threat. They need that. Who?

RB. Maybe the most interesting question. I suspect Bryce leaves. But if he doesn’t I hope he works on his receiving. Then use him. They need to incorporate their backs more in the passing game. We know it’s in the system. They have done it with Taylor and CMac. If Love leaves, Scarlett is intriguing. He improved markedly. If he is the guy, getting 20 touches a game I think he can be very effective. Not a HR threat. But a guy that can move the chains. Speights showed flashes. But not enough  carries to make any impact. He shows a nice burst and he finishes. And he is a solid blocker. He was used a fair amount in the passing game, but only to protect. All in all I think he will push Scarlett.

Offense has a chance to be very good next year. It will need to be. Losing Harrison and probably Reid is brobdingnagian. If Meeks goes that adds to the pain. Cotton is a loss. He started to play well before going down. I think Okereke indicated he is staying. If so he will be the focal point of the defense. But Lance is going to need to work his magic. And the offense has to help. I think the wear on the defense showed, and not just with injuries. They were on the field an awfully lot in big games. 

[lex24]

Defense spent way too much time on the field. Offense relied on big plays. Did not sustain drives effectively enough. If Lund turns out to be as advertised, that could be a brobdingnagian loss.

More than anything else next year they need to be more efficient offensively. Let’s set coaching aside a second. We will see how Tavita does etc. Breaking down the offensive units:

QB. Costello showed promise. My question is his accuracy. He showed the ability to make big plays. The consistency should improve. He needs to be at about 65%.  Mills is the wild card. Truly a bummer that he will miss Spring. Hopefully he is ready come Fall. I suspect he is the most talented QB on the roster. But he needs to stay healthy.

OL. I’d love the experts to weigh in. My take is the line struggled with speed rushers and blocking in space. The defenses that beat Stanford on the LOS did so with speed. They have a lot of talent coming back. They need to jell early and improve their consistency.

TE:  Smith showed signs of being the next Ertz. He should be a major part next year. Parkinson could use a few lbs. Losing Schultz hurts most in the run game. Not sure they have the in line TE blocker to replace him.

WR.  JJ had a terrific year. He uses his size and strength very well. And he has excellent hands. Irwin is an excellent underneath receiver. Now find some speed.  Wedington if he stays at WR is more of a slot type imo. Give me someone like Rector.  He had his limitations. But he was a legit deep threat. They need that. Who?

RB. Maybe the most interesting question. I suspect Bryce leaves. But if he doesn’t I hope he works on his receiving. Then use him. They need to incorporate their backs more in the passing game. We know it’s in the system. They have done it with Taylor and CMac. If Love leaves, Scarlett is intriguing. He improved markedly. If he is the guy, getting 20 touches a game I think he can be very effective. Not a HR threat. But a guy that can move the chains. Speights showed flashes. But not enough  carries to make any impact. He shows a nice burst and he finishes. And he is a solid blocker. He was used a fair amount in the passing game, but only to protect. All in all I think he will push Scarlett.

Offense has a chance to be very good next year. It will need to be. Losing Harrison and probably Reid is brobdingnagian. If Meeks goes that adds to the pain. Cotton is a loss. He started to play well before going down. I think Okereke indicated he is staying. If so he will be the focal point of the defense. But Lance is going to need to work his magic. And the offense has to help. I think the wear on the defense showed, and not just with injuries. They were on the field an awfully lot in big games. 

[lex24]

Defense spent way too much time on the field. Offense relied on big plays. Did not sustain drives effectively enough. If Lund turns out to be as advertised, that could be a brobdingnagian loss.

More than anything else next year they need to be more efficient offensively. Let’s set coaching aside a second. We will see how Tavita does etc. Breaking down the offensive units:

QB. Costello showed promise. My question is his accuracy. He showed the ability to make big plays. The consistency should improve. He needs to be at about 65%.  Mills is the wild card. Truly a bummer that he will miss Spring. Hopefully he is ready come Fall. I suspect he is the most talented QB on the roster. But he needs to stay healthy.

OL. I’d love the experts to weigh in. My take is the line struggled with speed rushers and blocking in space. The defenses that beat Stanford on the LOS did so with speed. They have a lot of talent coming back. They need to jell early and improve their consistency.

TE:  Smith showed signs of being the next Ertz. He should be a major part next year. Parkinson could use a few lbs. Losing Schultz hurts most in the run game. Not sure they have the in line TE blocker to replace him.

WR.  JJ had a terrific year. He uses his size and strength very well. And he has excellent hands. Irwin is an excellent underneath receiver. Now find some speed.  Wedington if he stays at WR is more of a slot type imo. Give me someone like Rector.  He had his limitations. But he was a legit deep threat. They need that. Who?

RB. Maybe the most interesting question. I suspect Bryce leaves. But if he doesn’t I hope he works on his receiving. Then use him. They need to incorporate their backs more in the passing game. We know it’s in the system. They have done it with Taylor and CMac. If Love leaves, Scarlett is intriguing. He improved markedly. If he is the guy, getting 20 touches a game I think he can be very effective. Not a HR threat. But a guy that can move the chains. Speights showed flashes. But not enough  carries to make any impact. He shows a nice burst and he finishes. And he is a solid blocker. He was used a fair amount in the passing game, but only to protect. All in all I think he will push Scarlett.

Offense has a chance to be very good next year. It will need to be. Losing Harrison and probably Reid is brobdingnagian. If Meeks goes that adds to the pain. Cotton is a loss. He started to play well before going down. I think Okereke indicated he is staying. If so he will be the focal point of the defense. But Lance is going to need to work his magic. And the offense has to help. I think the wear on the defense showed, and not just with injuries. They were on the field an awfully lot in big games. 

[French Rage]

On one hand, the overall accomplishments look good.  A division title (with big wins against UW and ND), a CCG down to the last minute, for a team that had definite weaknesses at a few spots, shows a team that pulled from its strengths and didn't give up a any point during the season.  Hard to be upset about that.  And yet, even greater accomplishments weren't far out of reach.  A couple plays differently in the CCG and we're in a NY bowl, a couple of plays differently in the Alamo Bowl and we win there, and a couple of plays differently against SDSU and Wazzou and we're discussing playoffs going into the last couple games.  It would be one thing if it were like last year and two blowout losses made any of that talk beyond realistic.  But it was a couple of bad play calls or play executions from being even more.  So the question is, to get his far did we make the most of our situations (a couple of our wins could have turned into losses), or did we not make the most of good situations by losing when we did?  I personally believe the former, but I can see how someone might go with the latter.

[French Rage]

On one hand, the overall accomplishments look good.  A division title (with big wins against UW and ND), a CCG down to the last minute, for a team that had definite weaknesses at a few spots, shows a team that pulled from its strengths and didn't give up a any point during the season.  Hard to be upset about that.  And yet, even greater accomplishments weren't far out of reach.  A couple plays differently in the CCG and we're in a NY bowl, a couple of plays differently in the Alamo Bowl and we win there, and a couple of plays differently against SDSU and Wazzou and we're discussing playoffs going into the last couple games.  It would be one thing if it were like last year and two blowout losses made any of that talk beyond realistic.  But it was a couple of bad play calls or play executions from being even more.  So the question is, to get his far did we make the most of our situations (a couple of our wins could have turned into losses), or did we not make the most of good situations by losing when we did?  I personally believe the former, but I can see how someone might go with the latter.

[French Rage]

On one hand, the overall accomplishments look good.  A division title (with big wins against UW and ND), a CCG down to the last minute, for a team that had definite weaknesses at a few spots, shows a team that pulled from its strengths and didn't give up a any point during the season.  Hard to be upset about that.  And yet, even greater accomplishments weren't far out of reach.  A couple plays differently in the CCG and we're in a NY bowl, a couple of plays differently in the Alamo Bowl and we win there, and a couple of plays differently against SDSU and Wazzou and we're discussing playoffs going into the last couple games.  It would be one thing if it were like last year and two blowout losses made any of that talk beyond realistic.  But it was a couple of bad play calls or play executions from being even more.  So the question is, to get his far did we make the most of our situations (a couple of our wins could have turned into losses), or did we not make the most of good situations by losing when we did?  I personally believe the former, but I can see how someone might go with the latter.

[French Rage]

On one hand, the overall accomplishments look good.  A division title (with big wins against UW and ND), a CCG down to the last minute, for a team that had definite weaknesses at a few spots, shows a team that pulled from its strengths and didn't give up a any point during the season.  Hard to be upset about that.  And yet, even greater accomplishments weren't far out of reach.  A couple plays differently in the CCG and we're in a NY bowl, a couple of plays differently in the Alamo Bowl and we win there, and a couple of plays differently against SDSU and Wazzou and we're discussing playoffs going into the last couple games.  It would be one thing if it were like last year and two blowout losses made any of that talk beyond realistic.  But it was a couple of bad play calls or play executions from being even more.  So the question is, to get his far did we make the most of our situations (a couple of our wins could have turned into losses), or did we not make the most of good situations by losing when we did?  I personally believe the former, but I can see how someone might go with the latter.

[Langdude]

Good ideas.

For those who point to TOP as the "one reason" as to why we lost, I think that TOP only tells part of the story. Was the defense tired? Totally. But that wasn't merely because the offense wasn't staying on the field long enough. We did win the TOP battle by a margin not unlike games we win. Of course there were times in the game when we did not have a typical long drive, and I do think the offense was not as productive at crucial times (especially late) as it could have been. (Seems we were effective in the red zone, though!) But another reason the defense was on the field so much was because they couldn't stop TCU; a good way to get off the field is to stop the other team on third down. Did injuries play a part? Of course. But, again, I am less eager to point to that as the "one reason." Injuries happen ALL THE TIME in football, and elite teams have to find a way to keep going. Are we less good when Justin Reid goes out? Yes. He's awesome. If our defense goes from being good to being bad based solely on him, we're in trouble. It seems that a defensive backfield of Murphy, Meeks, Edwards, Simmons, Butler, Antoine should be fine, no? One player is not the reason for TCU just gashing us. It contributes, along with us getting zero pressure on the QB and not stopping the run after 1Q and insufficient coverage by several players.

Lots of reasons why we lost. But I think we are not very talented or deep at some critical positions, I think some of our key players underperformed or made critical mistakes, and I think some of our playcalls were questionable. I wonder about how ready we were? But TCU has something to do with all of these things, of course. They were better.

I could be wrong about any of this. I'm still bummed about the loss.

-m.

[Langdude]

Good ideas.

For those who point to TOP as the "one reason" as to why we lost, I think that TOP only tells part of the story. Was the defense tired? Totally. But that wasn't merely because the offense wasn't staying on the field long enough. We did win the TOP battle by a margin not unlike games we win. Of course there were times in the game when we did not have a typical long drive, and I do think the offense was not as productive at crucial times (especially late) as it could have been. (Seems we were effective in the red zone, though!) But another reason the defense was on the field so much was because they couldn't stop TCU; a good way to get off the field is to stop the other team on third down. Did injuries play a part? Of course. But, again, I am less eager to point to that as the "one reason." Injuries happen ALL THE TIME in football, and elite teams have to find a way to keep going. Are we less good when Justin Reid goes out? Yes. He's awesome. If our defense goes from being good to being bad based solely on him, we're in trouble. It seems that a defensive backfield of Murphy, Meeks, Edwards, Simmons, Butler, Antoine should be fine, no? One player is not the reason for TCU just gashing us. It contributes, along with us getting zero pressure on the QB and not stopping the run after 1Q and insufficient coverage by several players.

Lots of reasons why we lost. But I think we are not very talented or deep at some critical positions, I think some of our key players underperformed or made critical mistakes, and I think some of our playcalls were questionable. I wonder about how ready we were? But TCU has something to do with all of these things, of course. They were better.

I could be wrong about any of this. I'm still bummed about the loss.

-m.

[Langdude]

Good ideas.

For those who point to TOP as the "one reason" as to why we lost, I think that TOP only tells part of the story. Was the defense tired? Totally. But that wasn't merely because the offense wasn't staying on the field long enough. We did win the TOP battle by a margin not unlike games we win. Of course there were times in the game when we did not have a typical long drive, and I do think the offense was not as productive at crucial times (especially late) as it could have been. (Seems we were effective in the red zone, though!) But another reason the defense was on the field so much was because they couldn't stop TCU; a good way to get off the field is to stop the other team on third down. Did injuries play a part? Of course. But, again, I am less eager to point to that as the "one reason." Injuries happen ALL THE TIME in football, and elite teams have to find a way to keep going. Are we less good when Justin Reid goes out? Yes. He's awesome. If our defense goes from being good to being bad based solely on him, we're in trouble. It seems that a defensive backfield of Murphy, Meeks, Edwards, Simmons, Butler, Antoine should be fine, no? One player is not the reason for TCU just gashing us. It contributes, along with us getting zero pressure on the QB and not stopping the run after 1Q and insufficient coverage by several players.

Lots of reasons why we lost. But I think we are not very talented or deep at some critical positions, I think some of our key players underperformed or made critical mistakes, and I think some of our playcalls were questionable. I wonder about how ready we were? But TCU has something to do with all of these things, of course. They were better.

I could be wrong about any of this. I'm still bummed about the loss.

-m.

[Langdude]

Good ideas.

For those who point to TOP as the "one reason" as to why we lost, I think that TOP only tells part of the story. Was the defense tired? Totally. But that wasn't merely because the offense wasn't staying on the field long enough. We did win the TOP battle by a margin not unlike games we win. Of course there were times in the game when we did not have a typical long drive, and I do think the offense was not as productive at crucial times (especially late) as it could have been. (Seems we were effective in the red zone, though!) But another reason the defense was on the field so much was because they couldn't stop TCU; a good way to get off the field is to stop the other team on third down. Did injuries play a part? Of course. But, again, I am less eager to point to that as the "one reason." Injuries happen ALL THE TIME in football, and elite teams have to find a way to keep going. Are we less good when Justin Reid goes out? Yes. He's awesome. If our defense goes from being good to being bad based solely on him, we're in trouble. It seems that a defensive backfield of Murphy, Meeks, Edwards, Simmons, Butler, Antoine should be fine, no? One player is not the reason for TCU just gashing us. It contributes, along with us getting zero pressure on the QB and not stopping the run after 1Q and insufficient coverage by several players.

Lots of reasons why we lost. But I think we are not very talented or deep at some critical positions, I think some of our key players underperformed or made critical mistakes, and I think some of our playcalls were questionable. I wonder about how ready we were? But TCU has something to do with all of these things, of course. They were better.

I could be wrong about any of this. I'm still bummed about the loss.

-m.