Froggish
Active Member
I don't know if anyone here has much interest in analytics but the hot data points in modern football analytics are built around the idea that you can get an idea of what play calls and results are most important to a winning teams offense or defense. The over simplified definition is that statistically, Winning teams excel at "X" on offense and Winning teams excel at "X" on defense..Or another way of saying it is Teams that do "X" have a higher probability of winning.
Much of the analytical narrative is built around a data point termed EPA or Expected Points Per Attempt... This is a way of placing a value on a play call based on a specific TYPE of play call (Run vs pass) and WHEN its called (Field position, down, distance, point in the game..etc).
I'm not analytics guy I just find it particularly interesting so I'll just leave it at this...Most all the data out right now supports that a team wins because they throw the ball well and they stop the pass well. In fact the data is overwhelming that a teams ability to run the ball efficiently is barely relevant to their winning success. How you throw it and how you stop the pass means much more to a teams win/loss record. What makes it even more powerful is that the data actually shows you need to throw it more than run it on 1st and 2nd down as when you complete those passes consistently you should score ore points. Now balance is still important but only because it keeps teams honest and opens passing windows. Your yardage success running the ball isn't real relevant.
So why do I bring this up? Well what have we all been witching about around here...?
1. Offensively We can't throw the ball effectively..(True FR QB + Dropsies + Play calling)
2. Defensively We can't rush the passer worth a damn.. (DE Problem, Deep Balls)
3. We are a good running team (Running isn't near as important to winning in modern football)
4. the 4-2-5 is built to get numbers in the front to stop the run where as young DC's have gone 3-3-5 to get numbers in the back to stop the pass..
- In our two losses SMU Completed 70% of their passes for 8.5 YPA and ISU completed 80% for 10.3 YPA
- In our P5 Wins Purdue only completed 45% of their passes 6.2 YPA and KU completed 40% for 2.9 YPA
If you have a bit of time digest this article...https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/ Yes its NFL based but CFB follows the same results its just not quite as pass heavy favorable. Mainly because the talent gaps in the CFB can be so skewed.
All this to say that this data supports that throwing the ball early in games, on early downs and throwing high % routes will lead to far more points then the RTDB philosophy GP is forcing down Cumbie's throat. None of that is new to anyone that has watched this football team but its interesting that data supports it none the less.
Finally...In some ways this team just isn't built to win a ton of games unless the light comes on in the passing game and the pass rush....YAH..We already knew that...
Much of the analytical narrative is built around a data point termed EPA or Expected Points Per Attempt... This is a way of placing a value on a play call based on a specific TYPE of play call (Run vs pass) and WHEN its called (Field position, down, distance, point in the game..etc).
I'm not analytics guy I just find it particularly interesting so I'll just leave it at this...Most all the data out right now supports that a team wins because they throw the ball well and they stop the pass well. In fact the data is overwhelming that a teams ability to run the ball efficiently is barely relevant to their winning success. How you throw it and how you stop the pass means much more to a teams win/loss record. What makes it even more powerful is that the data actually shows you need to throw it more than run it on 1st and 2nd down as when you complete those passes consistently you should score ore points. Now balance is still important but only because it keeps teams honest and opens passing windows. Your yardage success running the ball isn't real relevant.
So why do I bring this up? Well what have we all been witching about around here...?
1. Offensively We can't throw the ball effectively..(True FR QB + Dropsies + Play calling)
2. Defensively We can't rush the passer worth a damn.. (DE Problem, Deep Balls)
3. We are a good running team (Running isn't near as important to winning in modern football)
4. the 4-2-5 is built to get numbers in the front to stop the run where as young DC's have gone 3-3-5 to get numbers in the back to stop the pass..
- In our two losses SMU Completed 70% of their passes for 8.5 YPA and ISU completed 80% for 10.3 YPA
- In our P5 Wins Purdue only completed 45% of their passes 6.2 YPA and KU completed 40% for 2.9 YPA
If you have a bit of time digest this article...https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/ Yes its NFL based but CFB follows the same results its just not quite as pass heavy favorable. Mainly because the talent gaps in the CFB can be so skewed.
All this to say that this data supports that throwing the ball early in games, on early downs and throwing high % routes will lead to far more points then the RTDB philosophy GP is forcing down Cumbie's throat. None of that is new to anyone that has watched this football team but its interesting that data supports it none the less.
Finally...In some ways this team just isn't built to win a ton of games unless the light comes on in the passing game and the pass rush....YAH..We already knew that...
