Grading the Team's Performance-Week 3

-23 points allowed was accomplished in regulation.

Win, for defense? I'd say they did that. For fifty minutes they went above and beyond.

Force 5 three and outs.... I don't think that will happen to USc twice all year. Maybe not even once.

Not poking at the process, but giving the defense a ten out of twenty score is harsh.

 

It's not just about regulation. It includes OT if OT is played. We would have been given credit offensively had we hit 35.

Win has to do with the final score

They came within a single play of having it happen tonight

To you it is.

 

To me as well. That was no mediocre/average performance. Although some of that is stuff like the defense having the single hardest benchmark on the chart (shutout or fail), or the 4th quarter win being credited solely to the offense.

Yet another reason college OT blows is the way it makes a mockery of statistics.

 

These are just stats. They aren't wrong. They're stats. Because of the overtime, they aren't 100% comparable to other games, but they are what they are.

It would be cool to see it after regulation.

 

The defense was way above mediocre last night.....statistics are made by whoever decides the formula

 

I do think just a little bit of offense in the first 3 quarters would have kept the ball out of the USC's offense hands more and would have changed the numbers. Not mentioning how tired our D had to be after being on the field so much. Also the 4th timeout missed call by the refs for the last play at half would have helped the Def numbers greatly without that play. What a great effort by our defense.

 

The defense played admirably but until Shawn Watson 2.0 is no longer our play caller, we will see more wasted efforts. The writing is on the wall with a Beck offense, let's kill it now and move on to someone who understands personnel and how to create a mismatch or even the take the radical approach of using the advantage of having a 6'5" WR in the red zone.

 

Who said it was? I've been saying for years now that getting to or over 50% in each phase is enough to win. A defense getting a 10 against an offense like USC is a huge accomplishment especially considering where this unit was 2 weeks ago. Seriously if this offense puts out a 10/20 like its counterpart, this is probably a 17-21 point victory we're discussing.

 

Man do I agree. It'll be interesting to see how Stubborn Tom Terrific proceeds.

 

yep, it's just metrics. Simply black or white. Meet the numbers and pass or do not and fail. No emotion required. The stats are what the stats are.

I agree that the D played their best game in a few years. And I was thinking during the game that if they can continue to play like that and improve (there were some areas to improve on), we are going to be awesome as the offense continues to improve.

Unfortunately, playing their best game and meeting the numbers are not the same thing.

 

Changing OCs won't help, just like replacing Greg Davis did not help. Beck is running the offense Tom tells him to, the new guy would do the same.

 

no....stats are not stats. I could choose different metrics that I deem important, and the final tally would be different. Starts are manipulated by how you decide what you measure

 

Tom is the supposed offensive guru so he should be able to make all offensive adjustments thru Beck. The offensive failures are on this head coach more than they were Strong just as the defensive failures were more on him.

 

the stats that are the stats are manipulated by how you decide what you measure. this is what makes them stats. just a collection of data.

you could choose to take the same data and analyze, interpret, and present as you think is best. that would be cool. i like seeing the stats in different ways.

 

And those are the stats that the chart Hsplugga uses has deemed to be important. IIRC, he does not choose the categories nor how they are scored.

One can argue what the stats show or mean or that they are incomplete but not how he scores it. That's simply a matter of did they meet the criteria or not.

 

Bab...I am not disagreeing,. I was not even disagreeing with his categories. I was disagreeing withy the comment that stats are stats. That comment is not true.

 

So our defensive performance was just barely good enough to be considered good enough to win?

 

The defense played above the final grade except on two plays - the TD pass at the end of the first half and the jump pass at the end of the game. Taken as a whole, the resulting "red" scores involved because of these two plays lowered the final grade. Taken objectively IMHO the grade verifies the process; however the only grade that counts is the final score.

 

Yes. It was a great performance but it wasn't as perfect as some here apparently think it was.

-Our DB's repeatedly got their asses whipped by their WR's on blocks for those WR screen plays that were crucial for them changing the field.

-They gave up two devastating scoring drives at the end of the halves and allowed them to score a TD in OT.

-That handful of sacks were pretty much the only times the front got pressure. That's not to mitigate the helpfulness of said sacks but it's not like they were harassing Darnold all night either.

Despite everything above that I just said, yes the defense's performance was enough for the win, much in the same way the offense's performances last year were enough to win in a number of the losses.

I don't know why that's so hard for some of you.

 

I don't know that most around here considered the defensive performance anywhere near perfect precisely for the reasons you listed.

Most of us aren't professional football coaches like you. If we are so obtuse and stupid, why do you keep banging your head on the wall around here?

I'm an airline pilot, used to be a karate instructor. I don't expect non-professionals in those fields to understand the nitty gritty of those area of expertise. I sure as hell don't talk down to people if they ask me a question about those things.

Again, people are just asking questions to understand.

 

Then perhaps you can help me:

I've been doing this since the 2005 ever since that handful of idiots (I wish I could remember their screen names, but at the same time, I don't want to) were running their mouths off about how Greg Robinson and Dick Tomey were responsible for the 2004 loss to OU.

Ever since that time, about 95-98% of all critiques regarding the metrics are argued on the grounds that there should be additional positive grades. In other words, they say I'm being "too harsh." The other 2-5% have to do with obvious errors on my part in computation, almost always dealing with the "field all fieldable punts" because that's not a stat one can find on a stat sheet and I don't always see every opponent punt, so I naturally assume we accomplished it unless proven wrong after I post this.

So, first question: why is this? Why is it that the near consensus reasons for bitching about metrics relates to giving more positive marks than I gave? Why, for example, was I not told by anyone to give a red box to the offense for "Win" in say the 2009 OU game? We only scored 16 points, looked like ****, etc. I would agree that the defense carried the day, but no one here at all even remotely came close to saying anything to the effect of "you need to not give credit to the offense for a win." Seriously, no one does that...ever. They only do the opposite (and it's overwhelmingly argued in favor of the defense). So is it that I'm being a big meanie bear, or is it that a handful of posters have a serious issue with confirmation bias?

I watched the game with 2 people who haven't coached a day of football in their lives and they saw the exact same things I did, and I didn't need to point it out to them. I don't need to tell these 2 very obviously lay-football fans that our corners were getting pushed out of the play on WR screen after WR screen. I didn't need to tell them that the DL was relatively absent from the pocket in any meaningful vicinity of Darnold. I didn't need to tell them that those 2 scores at the end of each half were absolutely devastating. I didn't need to tell them any of that because they knew.

Obtuse and stupid? No. Stubborn and of the belief that this whole thing is about making us feel good about the team? Yes. As Angus King recently stated in a congressional hearing, "what you feel isn't relevant here."

Same reason when I first started. See, it's not that there's two types of people that watch football (coaches and fans). It's that there's 4 types: those that know, those that aren't sure they know, those that really don't know, and those that really don't know but have convinced themselves in their tiny little minds that they do. It's the last person that concerns me the most because those middle two people can be easily swayed by that kind of a person if there isn't someone to call them out for being the utter ******* frauds that they are. When someone says "Texas' defense lost the 2004 Oklahoma game," that's not just an instance of some-person-has-an-opinion-and-we-have-to-respect-everyone's-opinion-because-we-have-to-make-everyone-feel-good-about-themselves. That's an instance of dishonesty and fakery. Again, one needn't be a football coach to know that if you get beat and the other team scored 12, your offense lost the ******* game. But people can be easily persuaded by ******* liars and idiots that peddle that **** and I'm not ok with that.

I don't either, but one doesn't need to be a pilot to know there's something wrong with either the plane or the pilots when it's going into an uncontrolled vertical dive. No one says "oh but I have an opinion and I'm special and I say that the plane went into a dive because it's a perfect plane and the pilots are perfect, but the plane just didn't execute!" Regarding karate, I don't need to know the precise mechanics of an offensive kick to know that some when a guy gets hit in the temple and isn't responsive, he got the piss knocked out of him.

What questions?

"giving the defense a ten out of twenty score is harsh," isn't a question.

"To me as well. That was no mediocre/average performance" isn't a question.

"I do think just a little bit of offense in the first 3 quarters would have kept the ball out of the USC's offense hands more and would have changed the numbers" isn't a question. It's an opinion (which I happen to share), but it's not a question.

The only person who asked a question was Stat (only after he had already stated an opinion, not the other way around), and I answered it in the affirmative. So when you say "people," to whom are you referring other than him?

 

i find this interesting. i think the long, quick drives don't affect people's perspective as much because they happen so quickly. i think we played pretty great for 29 minutes each half, but when you give up huge drives in the last minute of each half, the stats will look worse than you will normally feel. we're pumped about 94% of their play being great, but the other 6% have to be counted in the stats.

i'd still like to see what this would look like after regulation.

 

@Hpslugga, I can't help with all that. You say since 2005 you have been doing this. I guess it will likely continue, that's just the nature of things. Tiny-minded frauds, liars, and idiots are always going to be around.

 

Well I like the analysis. Just wish we'd won.

 

4 boxes change.

1. 23- points allowed thus far remains orange
2-3 "win" on both obviously go unfilled
4. Green zone 100% is still orange because that didn't go red until Sam's fumble on the last offensive play.

 

So what is your take on the Warren/Porter debate? Seems some are opining Porter gets more time because of his ability to read the defense and pick up blocks. What say you?