Per possession stats - 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: Per possession stats (/thread-18080.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: Per possession stats (/thread-18080.html)
Per possession stats - BostonCard - 09-06-2019
Note, this is based on the ESPN play-by-play, which is a bit wonky.
| Stanford | Northwestern | Advantage | |
| Starting position | Own 28.1 | Own 31.8 | Northwestern |
| Ending position | Opponents 39.1 | Opponents 49.6 | Stanford |
| Offensive possessions | 11 | 11 (excludes end-of-game possession) | [/td] |
| Yards per possession | 32.8 | 18.5 | Stanford |
| Net Offensive Points per possession | 0.9 | 0 | Stanford |
| Total points per possession | 1.5 | 0.6 | Stanford |
| Scoring possesions | 2 (18%) | 1 (9%) | Stanford |
| Maroon zone trips (opponent 40) | 6 (55%) | 4 (36%) | Stanford |
| Maroon zone conversions | 2 (33%) | 1 (25%) | Stanford |
| Red zone trips | 2 (18%) | 3 (27%) | Northwestern |
| Red zone conversions | 1 (50%) | 1 (33%) |
I was surprised that Northwestern actually had 3 trips to the red zone (ending in a fumble, missed field goal, and touchdown), while we had only two (missed field goal and touchdown). I was also surprised that we had better maroon zone efficiency. Northwestern had a small advantage in starting field position, mostly due to our crappy punting (aided by a missed hold on a big return), but on the per possession yards and points (both total and net offensive points per possession) we had a clear advantage.
BC
RE: Per possession stats - cardcrimson - 09-06-2019
Clearly Stanford won the statistical battle. Yea!
I didn't see much of the game, but when looking over the play by play, it appears that even with only half the time of possession, and twice the turnovers, Northwestern was only down by 3 and on our 44 yard line with 4:30 left. Had I been watching, I would have probably been a little queasy, knowing that the Wildcats had just scored on their previous possession.
After the fact, I guess I'm not seeing the total domination the stats show and certainly don't take comfort in them.
RE: Per possession stats - BostonCard - 09-06-2019
We definitely let Northwestern hang around longer than they should have, given the relative stats. For example, on our first possession, we went for it on fourth and four from the NW 37. Going for it was the right call, but you have to convert those.
We started our second possession in Northwestern territory, after a Pryts interception, but Costello airmailed a couple passes to Parkinson and we wound up going three and out.
The next possession was the most frustrating of the first half. We started on our own 19 and moved the ball methodically to get first and ten from the Northwestern 34. On second and 5, we had an offensive holding. We get many of those yards back on a Maddox run, but Costello got sacked on third and 7 from the 31, and Shaw chose to punt on fourth and 10 from the NW 34. Frustrating because two possessions later, with time running out in the half, Toner nailed the field goal from the exact same spot. The punt sails into the end zone and NW gets a touchback.
Can't complain about execution on the last two possessions in the half; we get a touchdown on a 15 play, 90 yard drive, and a field goal as time expired after getting possession on our own 34 with 40 seconds to go (of course, that FG drive was tainted by the late hit and uncalled targetting that knocked Costello out of the game).
And keep in mind that through the first half, we hold NW to 74 total yards on drives that go: 3 plays, 4 yards, INT; 3 plays, 8 yards, PUNT; 6 plays, 21 yards, PUNT; 9 plays 41 yards, turnover on downs. We probably should have been up by more than 10.
Northwestern can reasonably complain about leaving points on the board the first two possessions of the second half. They fumbled and lost the football on second and goal at the five, and then missed a 38 yard field goal from the 20 after recovering a Mills fumble at our 21 and going nowhere.
A couple possessions later, it's our turn to leave points on the board. An Adebo interception gave us the ball at the Northwestern 38. A 26 yard pass to Parkinson sets us up with first and 10 from the 12. Then it was clear we missed JJ Arcega-Whiteside. The first attempt to score overthrows Parkinson. On the second attempt, the refs don't call a fairly blatant defensive PI. For unclear reasons, we run on third and 10 from the 12, and net one yard. The Jet Toner 29-yard field goal attempt gets tipped at the line of scrimmage and hits the upright and bounces back; no good. Things look very different for us if they call the PI and we have first and goal from the 1 instead of third and 10 from the 12.
We traded punts and the NW got its only score of the day, helped out by a defensive pass interference. Northwestern lucked out when Hunter Johnson fumbled it out of bounds on second and goal from the 3; it was about an inch from grazing the pilon, which would have been a touchback.
On the ensuing possession we get it to the NW 33, and Mills fumbles it on a read option. After a defensive pass interference gives Northwestern first and 10 from midfield down 10-7 you were right to feel a bit queasy. We let them hang around longer than they should have, and were it not for a holding that put them at second and 16 from their own 44, the story of the game might be different.
But, we got the ball back with 2:28 left, got a first down and bled the clock down to 30 seconds before punting. On the next play, Toohill and Fox converge on Hunter Johnson, Toohill strip sacks him and the ball goes to the end zone, where the NW offensive lineman (who had already given up the sack) plays hot potato and can't corral it, so Fox recovers it in the end zone. The final margin of 17-7 is at once deceptively high, given that 3 minutes earlier NW had a shot to at least tie the game, if not take the lead on a TD, and also deceptively low given all the chances we blew.
BC