Offensive fragility - 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: Offensive fragility (/thread-15184.html)
+- 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: Offensive fragility (/thread-15184.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Offensive fragility - washingtonismoney - 12-07-2017
(12-07-2017, 02:22 PM)Card Fan in OR link Wrote:Somebody earlier post some ideas/definitions of successful plays. Dont remember exactly, but they were something like 4 yards on first down, 4 yards on second down, and conversions on third and (nonpunting) fourth downs. My suspicion is by that metric, we had a (much?) lower than usual share of successful plays: e.g. three and out, three and out, a first down, then Love busting out for six. How many successful plays in those series? Maybe 2, 3 of around 11. Thats what it looked like to me this season.
Bill Connelly has a successful plays metric. Here's how he defines it:
50% of needed yardage on first down
70% on second
100% on third and fourth
By this standard, over the course of the entire year, Stanford had was not terribly efficient: 39.9% of plays were successful, 89th in the country. Stanford made up for that with outstanding explosiveness (#8 by Connelly's reckoning), though of course you'd like to be explosive *and* efficient.
Still, as I think various data shows, the offense really did perform better in games Costello started or played the majority in. So I suspect many more plays were "successful" then. (I calculated that Costello's successful plays rate on pass plays was 45% against ASU and UCLA, IIRC. That was a good bit above the season-long average of 40.7%, which was 65th in the country.)
Re: Offensive fragility - teejers1 - 12-07-2017
Well, CTC, if we're parrying back and forth, will you at least acknowledge that when you put a premium on fewer possessions - which Stanford inexplicably appears to do - that when the D scores or puts the O in a great position to score, that such instances make the O look far better on a PPP basis than it would with a team that actually, you know, likes to have a lot of offensive possessions and plays with a little more pace?
Or is there something there I'm missing (which is entirely possible).Â
Another bottom line: it's a good thing we had otherworldly Bryce Love this year. He single-handedly made the offense look decent, especially early in the year.
Re: Offensive fragility - washingtonismoney - 12-07-2017
(12-07-2017, 03:33 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Well, CTC, if we're parrying back and forth, will you at least acknowledge that when you put a premium on fewer possessions - which Stanford inexplicably appears to do - that when the D scores or puts the O in a great position to score, that such instances make the O look far better on a PPP basis than it would with a team that actually, you know, likes to have a lot of offensive possessions and plays with a little more pace?
Returns aren't counted on offensive points per drive metrics.
Re: Offensive fragility - BostonCard - 12-07-2017
(12-07-2017, 04:00 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18310.msg217424#msg217424 date=1512686010]
Well, CTC, if we're parrying back and forth, will you at least acknowledge that when you put a premium on fewer possessions - which Stanford inexplicably appears to do - that when the D scores or puts the O in a great position to score, that such instances make the O look far better on a PPP basis than it would with a team that actually, you know, likes to have a lot of offensive possessions and plays with a little more pace?
Returns aren't counted on offensive points per drive metrics.
[/quote]
But in raw point per drive metrics, field position isn't considered. So, if we get an interception that gives us the ball at the opponent's 20, that would make it much easier for the team to get some points (you almost expect to at least get a field goal out of it), as opposed to a bad return game that leaves us pinned at our own end. Our points per drive stats may have benefitted from good starting field position. FEI, as I understand it, overcomes that by calculating the offensive value added in terms of field position.
You've mentioned before that we seem to have had positive turnover luck this season. My sense is that the luck has been more in the turnover avoidance category (a fair number of should-have-been interceptions that were dropped), rather than lucking out in terms of turnovers gained, but I haven't done the math.Â
BC
Re: Offensive fragility - CTcard - 12-07-2017
(12-07-2017, 04:00 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18310.msg217424#msg217424 date=1512686010]
Well, CTC, if we're parrying back and forth, will you at least acknowledge that when you put a premium on fewer possessions - which Stanford inexplicably appears to do - that when the D scores or puts the O in a great position to score, that such instances make the O look far better on a PPP basis than it would with a team that actually, you know, likes to have a lot of offensive possessions and plays with a little more pace?
Returns aren't counted on offensive points per drive metrics.
[/quote]
I am not sure if I don't understand teejers point or simply don't agree.
As WIM notes, defensive scores don't count. Short field scores do count (as BC noted), but presumably those things also occur on a per possession basis, i.e. if you give the defense more opportunities, they'll make more TOs or if you give the return guys more opportunities they'll give good returns more often.
Like most choices anywhere, there are strengths and weaknesses that go along with deciding to huddle and let the play clock run. I am not quite sure whether I think the strengths or weaknesses win out in Stanford's case, but there is no question that Stanford does so and thus pointless to ignore it in considering what has been good or bad about the Stanford offense.
Re: Offensive fragility - Snorlax94 - 12-08-2017
I hust have to say I disagree with the term fragility to refer to any part of Stanfords football team.
I think of something that is fragile as something that is weak or can break easily. Glass is fragile. And win or lose, I never think of Stanford as fragile. They are tough, strong, and physical and always give their best. I think of the oline pancaking opponents or Bryce Loves superhuman toughness in obvious pain and I could never use fragile to describe this offense.
Perhaps the word inconsistent, or even vulnerable, would be better. Even Achilles had a vulnerability. I think its fair to say Stanfords offense had some vulnerabilities this year: they struggled without their superstar Love (lack of depth), they struggled when their qb was having a bad day (as I think almost every team), they struggled in poor weather like a rainy Palouse (an issue for many years now), and they seem to drop off too much on the road vs at home (a common weakness in the Pac 12, but a bit too pronounced these days. I wish I knew why...)
But please, nothing about the team is fragile.