• The KillerFrogs

Practice updates......

Shorty

Active Member
Only Nixon and Turpin finished the season. Did you see where I said "finished the 2015 season"? Finished. Like the last 3 games where we went 2-1 with a one point loss to OU, a CFP participant:
  • OU: Nixon 5-23 yards, Listenbee 4-98; Listenbee, Turpin and Porter had TD catches
  • Baylor: Nixon 2-6, Listenbee 1-5; Turpin and Stewart had TD catch each
  • Alamo Bowl vs. Oregon: Nixon 9-71, Listenbee 1-(-1); Austin and Porter had one TD catch each
Summary of the last three games: Doctson, Nixon and Listenbee combined had 22-202 yards and one TD catch. Receivers who played in 2016 had 32 catches for 451 yards, and 6 of the 7 total TD catches.
QB's were 61-109-5 for 748 yards and 6 TD. Foster Sawyer one of our 2016 QB, contributed 9-19-3 107 yards and 1 TD. Remove him since he played last year and you have 52-90-2 for 641 yards 5 TD's. 57% 5 TD, 2 ints. TD/int = 2.5. Last year:295-495-14(!), 18 TDs. TD/int = 1.28. Once the only difference between the end of 2015 and all of 2016 was the QB play. Not saying it will not be great this year, just saying that was by far the #1 factor last year. We will know soon enough.
Explain the 2016 dropped passes.
 

Chongo94

Active Member
Y'all can debate the dropped passes all you want, and they were definitely an issue, but I'm more concerned with the damned interceptions. Seemed like clockwork at times that an early one would be thrown almost every game.
 

ScottPatrick

Active Member
Only Nixon and Turpin finished the season. Did you see where I said "finished the 2015 season"? Finished. Like the last 3 games where we went 2-1 with a one point loss to OU, a CFP participant:
  • OU: Nixon 5-23 yards, Listenbee 4-98; Listenbee, Turpin and Porter had TD catches
  • Baylor: Nixon 2-6, Listenbee 1-5; Turpin and Stewart had TD catch each
  • Alamo Bowl vs. Oregon: Nixon 9-71, Listenbee 1-(-1); Austin and Porter had one TD catch each
Summary of the last three games: Doctson, Nixon and Listenbee combined had 22-202 yards and one TD catch. Receivers who played in 2016 had 32 catches for 451 yards, and 6 of the 7 total TD catches.
QB's were 61-109-5 for 748 yards and 6 TD. Foster Sawyer one of our 2016 QB, contributed 9-19-3 107 yards and 1 TD. Remove him since he played last year and you have 52-90-2 for 641 yards 5 TD's. 57% 5 TD, 2 ints. TD/int = 2.5. Last year:295-495-14(!), 18 TDs. TD/int = 1.28. Once the only difference between the end of 2015 and all of 2016 was the QB play. Not saying it will not be great this year, just saying that was by far the #1 factor last year. We will know soon enough.


Even using this reasoning Nixon was the leading receiver and Turpin #2. You are wrong either way. Also Hill completed 61.1% of his passes in 2016, up from the 57% in the adjusted numbers you gave.
 
Last edited:

Gunner

Active Member
Worried some about Hill. He does sometimes look terrific, but timing on routes are often terrilble. Last year Turp would get wide open and the pass would be late and even out of bounds. Now, that is a QB problem and for sure, not a OL breakdown.

You must hit those guys when they make the break.




You
 

4th. down

Active Member
"You must hit those guys when they make the break."

Sure, but how about the receiver running the wrong route or the receiver breaking off his route for whatever reason? There was a multitude or reasons on why the passing offense was off. It was not all Kenny. Let's revisit after the Hog game and then we should know what we really have.
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
Quality guy, I guess. But very, very bad QB play. Same WR's that finished the 2015 season, same OL coach. Only change was QB but suddenly WR and coach suck? You gotta be kidding me. Never had any training in experimental design and evaluation, huh?

You conveniently left out losing NFL-quality center and left tackle.
 

Limp Lizard

Full Member
You conveniently left out losing NFL-quality center and left tackle.
Not conveniently. Same coach who developed those players. Hill could not get rid of the ball quickly. Whether this was due to the design of the play or his inability to make quick reads, I don't know. GP said the team's success this year will be based on the play of the QB and the improvement of the defense.
 

Atomic Frawg

Full Member
I think everyone is going to be pleasantly surprised this season. Even with spotty play and youth, we were a good field goal kicker away from having three additional wins. This year, by almost all accounts, we are better. When was the last time we had two losing seasons in a row under CGP? Let me help, never. In fact, the last back-to-back losing seasons were 20 years ago, and after losing seasons we ha e doubled the wins the following year. Get the deed to the farm, and call Vegas.
 
Last edited:

ScottPatrick

Active Member
Not conveniently. Same coach who developed those players. Hill could not get rid of the ball quickly. Whether this was due to the design of the play or his inability to make quick reads, I don't know. GP said the team's success this year will be based on the play of the QB and the improvement of the defense.

Yes you are conveniently adjusting all the stats and making qualified remarks to fit your scenario. You say "with a one point loss to OU, a CFP participant" yet you adjust out the first half stats in that game in your cumulative because they were so bad.

So instead of taking away the worst half, lets take away the best, the second half against Oregon because that was a historic half which is an even more outlier.

So OU game the passing offense was 13 of 29 with 3 TDs, 3Ints and 3 dropped passes. BU game 18-33/148 yds 2 Tds, 1 Int, 3 drops, 1st half Oregon 9 of 19, no TDs, 1 Int, and 2 drops.

Combined 40/81 for 49.4 % completion rate, 5 TDs, 5 Ints (1 to 1 ratio) 446 yds and 8 dropped passes.

Basically with a healthy Docston the passing offense tanked in 2015 and only slightly improved in 2016.

Your premise is incorrect, even with your adjusted figures but worse if adjusting out the one true outlying stat, an occurrence that has happened only once before in over a hundred years.
 
Top