- Member for
- 5 years 42 weeks
|51 weeks 3 days ago||PER||
<quote>the brutal 7.8 PER McLemore posted last year (the NBA average is 15).</quote>
While average PER is useful, it would also be nice if you could provide the standard deviation of PER, which would really illustrate just how brutal his 7.8 PER is.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||YPA vs YPP||
It seems like you're looking at overall offensive production, i.e. both run and pass plays. Wouldn't the conventional term for that be yards per play (YPP) not yards per attempt (YPA)?
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Very interested||
I'm very interested to see your methodology and data for this. Looking forward to it.
|1 year 36 weeks ago||Seriously, does Al Borges||
Seriously, does Al Borges seriously think 3 times over the top is "enough"?
Do what works and keep doing it until they show they have an answer for it!
They obviously had an answer for tailback runs from under center...
|1 year 42 weeks ago||Great analysis but...||
I don't think that this is what Borges means by having a third play guy. (Also, I wouldn't consider keeping on the option a true third play. Either the audible was called as a pure QB dive with a fake pitch look, or it was called as an actual option where Gardner decided to keep.)
I think what Borges (and Walsh) means is this: e.g: if you have a two-man route combination in the West Coast short passing game, the timing will not be right to routinely find a third receiver on the other side of the field. The great quarterback can still make the third play by buying time, taking off, or otherwise overcoming the limitations of the system.
We saw it many times in Borges' playcalls vs. ND--the defense guessed right or sold out to stop the main option on a play, but Gardner was still able to make them pay despite what should have been an RPS win by the defense. I think this goal line play is more having the right audible installed to get ND lined up completely wrong, combined with great execution by Gardner. It was an RPS win for Borges to begin with.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||28-16 Michigan!||
|1 year 43 weeks ago||35-12||
|2 years 1 week ago||Small correction||
The nerd in me is getting worked up over the phrases "a full 5% greater than his 2000 UCLA passing offense" and "the ground game accounted for 55% of the yards ... 7% more than the 48% from his stinky 2003 offense at Indiana."
Those should be 5 and 7 percentage points, not percent.
Minor quibbles aside, can't wait for part 4.
|2 years 12 weeks ago||Movie Metaphors||
Just have to point out that Blues Brothers and This is Spinal Tap are both from the 80's.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Nickel and Dime packages||
Any guesses as to which linebackers will see the field when we run a nickel/dime?
I think conventional wisdom would say Mouton and Johnson because they are a better fit athletically to drop back or play man on a TE or back. But one is a freshman and the other has a history of unsound play.
Especially with a lot of teams incorporating spread concepts, a lot of teams will run it if they have even numbers in the box. Even conventional teams will occasionally rush it in such situations to keep the defense honest or if they think they can get away with leaving a man unblocked. So I think we could see a lot of Moundros in so-called passing situations if he shows good technique and is stout against the run.
|4 years 44 weeks ago||The Alabama-Tennessee rivalry||
The Alabama-Tennessee rivalry is NOTHING compared to the Iron Bowl...and THAT is always played in late November.
Alabama-Auburn : Michigan-OSU :: Alabama-Tennessee : Michigan-MSU
Poll some Bama fans about what they would think about moving their annual matchup vs Auburn to October and get back to us.
|5 years 20 weeks ago||Well that screenshot looks||
Well that screenshot looks fine to me, although I can't claim that it is representative of their schemes or anything.
If you look at where the offense is lined up, they're on the left hash from the defense's point of view. This gives the offense less space on that side of the field. It's probably a key for the defense pre-snap which may allow Warren to line up a little deeper than usual and perhaps for Williams to line up a little closer to the middle of the field.
Also if you look at Williams' stance, his hips are facing towards the sidelines. This is a good reason to guess that his pass coverage assignment on this call would be flats or buzz (defend against outside curls/out routes).
Also with 3 wide receivers we would probably tend to line the box safety directly over the slot receiver, and we would still have 7 in the box.
|5 years 20 weeks ago||The problem is this could||
The problem is this could perhaps be the perfect motto for the Lloyd Carr era.
Although remembering some of the defenses we had back then maybe it's not a problem at all.
|5 years 20 weeks ago||It's not a change, this||
It's not a change, this article is pointing out that the schemes from last year are probably going to stay the same.
|5 years 20 weeks ago||When you say "WR screens" are||
When you say "WR screens" are you referring to 1) line of scrimmage passes with a block or two in front of the WR, or 2) just a quick throw where the WR is on his own and has to make the CB miss?
Assuming it is run out of a 2 WR under center set like in the screenshot, for 1 we can probably blame our linebackers last year for being very poor in diagnosing plays and shedding blocks.
If it's 2, then this will be a play that you more-or-less give up wheneveryou show a cover-3 look with the corners backed off. This sort of play is used effectively as a pre-snap audible in a lot of NFL offenses for this very reason.