Offense: Croom vs. Mullen vs. JoMo....

[Strike.sixpack]

Regarding 2016 vs. 2017 offense, we actually averaged 3 ppg more in conference play in 2016 than 2017. So, its not just the advanced stats that show us having a better offense that year. Looking past the horrendous start and Fitz getting his feet under him the first 3 or 4 games, that team ended the year being hell to deal with on offense. Definitely helped to have Fred Ross and Donald Gray over the **** show we are now dealing with. Almost 30 ppg in SEC play. 17ing Sirmon though.

We scored 6 more points vs ranked teams and 5 more points vs teams with winning records in 2017 vs 2016. We could let up more in 2017 vs weaker teams and didn’t have to play in a shoot out vs weak teams in 2017.

 

[Drebin]

If I were you, I'd be more offended at your insistence to question a valid point.


We should have beaten Flarrda, as I've stated countless times. Got out-coached.

When you make a valid point we will discuss it.

As to your Florida comment, then WTF are you arguing about? And the Kentucky loss was worse than that.

 

[Clarence Boddicker]

You'll take anything that buffers your argument.

As a wise man once said, "there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics." You can find a stat or make a stat to support just about any argument in existence.

I recommend you trust what you see instead of digging for something that isn't there.

Did you see us whip Auburn and Texas A&M? Maybe I was imagining those.

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

Wasn't Slay in there as well?

 

[Clarence Boddicker]

When you make a valid point we will discuss it.

As to your Florida comment, then WTF are you arguing about? And the Kentucky loss was worse than that.

All you haters are pointing to 4 games, not just Flarrda.

I saw a couple of Kentucky players just straight whip our ***. I also saw #55 giving look-out blocks all night. I don't think we were beating them no matter what we did.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

You do realize that these stats take into account how good the defense you faced and where you played?

So if you want to use basic stats, this team scored 7 against the #11 scoring defense on the road. Last year we scored 3 points against the same statisical defense. What those stats say is we have played tougher defenses this year. Bama is more an anomaly last year. Everything else is pretty equal. People just can't wrap their heads around UK and UF actually being good this year when they had those as automatic wins.

Actually the S & P and FEI has us playing more difficult defenses in 2017. S & P had us playing 3 in the Top 11 and FEI had us playing 3 in the Top 5.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Derp De Derp Derp

This guy wants some theoretically good offense, rather than one that can perform well against the competition.

Again, you are losing.

Nope. Make a case that Washington State’s passing was 30+ spots worse than our passing in 2017. That’s what the S & P passing, the stat you brought up, states. I won’t wait because you can’t make that case. Understand what this tool is used for

 

[Clarence Boddicker]

Nope. Make a case that Washington State’s passing was 30+ spots worse than our passing in 2017. That’s what the S & P passing, the stat you brought up, states. I won’t wait because you can’t make that case. Understand what this tool is used for

It's called efficiency, and it matters more than pure yardage

 

[msstate7]

I'll take advanced statistics over simple ones any day of the week.

I love stats. I really love advanced stats, but I don't think football advanced stats are in the same hemisphere as baseball's. I think foorball's need a little more refining

 

[Strike.sixpack]

Definitely have to look at what S&P+ was designed to do before trying to compare it to traditional stats. And while it's predictive instead of backward-looking, it does try to get at what teams are playing the best football at any given time. From the horse's mouth:



As for your Wash. St. example, I'm guessing the disparity goes to what people mean when they talk about what makes one team "better" at passing than another team. WSU was 2nd in the nation in total passing yards last year, but all that really means is that they pass the ball more than everyone else, not that they do so better or more efficiently than every other team. While they were 2nd nationally in total passing yards, that makes sense given that they were 1st nationally in total passing attempts. They were also 50th nationally in QB rating, 92 nationally in yards per attempt, 120th in interceptions, 83rd in adjusted sack rate, and 98th in sack rate on passing downs. MSU was likely ranked higher in Passing S&P+ because of efficiency -- we were 62nd nationally on passing downs last year, Wazzu was 106th. (Helps when your O-line is 7th nationally in adjusted sack rate like ours was.)

I agree with that. And the WSU example is what’s great about the analytics. But you have use is it as part of the overall analysis. Luke Falk was rated much higher in passing efficiency rating than Fitz in 2017. Common sense, raw numbers and skill set is not wrong that he is a better passer and that had a much better passing attack than we did in 2017. S & P is good for what it’s designed for but it’s not for ranking who is best.

 

[Drebin]

It's called efficiency, and it matters more than pure yardage

Points are what matters most. And we aren't scoring enough.

 

[cheewgumm]

I’d argue any game we lost where our RBs got the ball lass than 15 times combined was a coaching mistake.

Kentucky
Florida
LSU
Alabama

I don’t know if we would have won those games otherwise. I know that our most explosive ( and I’d argue best) playmakers are Kylin Hill and Aeries Williams and they didn’t get the ball enough. That’s a problem.

I also Don’t care that our offense scores 1000 points against Stephen F Austin, Louisiana Laffeyette and La Tech. Who cares? It’s meaningless.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

It's called efficiency, and it matters more than pure yardage

It’s not just efficiency. Falk was 40 spots higher in passing effiency rating than Fitz. The team S & P also looks as explosive plays, field position, finishing drives, turnovers. Sack rate plays a big factor, first downs inside an opponents 40 is weighed more. And the developer admits that sample size is a big issue with football analytics and adjusting for opponents is very messy.

 

[Clarence Boddicker]

I’d argue any game we lost where our RBs got the ball lass than 15 times combined was a coaching mistake.

Kentucky
Florida
LSU
Alabama

I don’t know if we would have won those games otherwise. I know that our most explosive ( and I’d argue best) playmakers are Kylin Hill and Aeries Williams and they didn’t get the ball enough. That’s a problem.

I would agree.

I also Don’t care that our offense scores 1000 points against Stephen F Austin, Louisiana Laffeyette and La Tech. Who cares? It’s meaningless.

Better than losing to them, like many MSU teams from the past.

 

[Clarence Boddicker]

And the developer admits that sample size is a big issue with football analytics and adjusting for opponents is very messy.

This is an obvious point in regards to football. But you can make the same case with other stats that don't even attempt to take opponents into account.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

A big difference between Croom and Moorhead: Moorhead's offense actually looks really good against bad and decent teams. Croom's offenses never looked good. We either won games because we were playing crap teams, had the defense show up big, or had a great individual performance from a RB. Even 2007 was this way. Croom's teams never scored more than 40 points in a game. Moorhead has already done that 4 times.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

A big difference between Croom and Moorhead: Moorhead's offense actually looks really good against bad and decent teams. Croom's offenses never looked good. We either won games because we were playing crap teams, had the defense show up big, or had a great individual performance from a RB. Even 2007 was this way. Croom's teams never scored more than 40 points in a game. Moorhead has already done that 4 times.

This is in no way defending Croom and his inept offenses. We also have to consider that teams as a whole from 2004-2008 didn’t score as much as this decade. Fewer teams averaged 40 per game back then. That being said, no Moorhead is not Croom bad. It’s just his lows are comparable or even worse. It’s odd, you should see an inept offense have at least a poor game against a weak opponent as well. That’s not really happened. But the bad borders historically bad. Strange season

 

[Go Budaw]

You'll take anything that buffers your argument.

As a wise man once said, "there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics." You can find a stat or make a stat to support just about any argument in existence.

I recommend you trust what you see instead of digging for something that isn't there.

Except for the fact that even the S+P stats don’t say we have a good offense by any means. Check the list, it has us at 10th in the SEC out of 14 teams, which hardly supports us being proficient. It simply supports the notion that we aren’t Croom-level bad.

The truth is that both the pro-JoMo and anti-JoMo groups have statistical options at their disposal to prove their point. If I were pro-JoMo, I’d tell you that our season long stats show we are middle of the pack in the SEC and nationally in scoring offense and total offense. If I were anti-JoMo, I’d tell you that nomconference doesn’t matter and our conference-only stats make us the worst offense in the country and JoMo = Croom. That’s why the S+P is good, because it looks at it from many more angles than just scoring and yards, and you don’t have the same ebbs and flows from having a huge game against a weak opponent or getting shut out by an elite defense. We land at 10th in the SEC there, which is probably pretty accurate (and is probably the median of the two extremes mentioned above).

The polarization craze has everyone trying to put Moorhead into a “Mullen box” or a “Croom box”, and it just isn’t that simple. Too many variables in play, and we won’t know what we have in Moorhead from an offensive standpoint until this time next year at the earliest.

 

[Go Budaw]

2016 was definitely a 7-5 type team with just a marginal defense. The L to USA was avoidable, as was the Ls at Kentucky and BYU. Maybe could have beaten Arkansas too. If I recall, they didn't punt in that game.

I would even argue that we could have been 7-5 (at worst) if we had the 2nd half of the season offense in place in the first 4 games, specifically against BYU and USA. Even without changing a thing on our ****** defense, we could have gotten there.

 

[Drebin]

All you haters are pointing to 4 games, not just Flarrda.

I saw a couple of Kentucky players just straight whip our ***. I also saw #55 giving look-out blocks all night. I don't think we were beating them no matter what we did.

I'm pointing to all the games because I'm not reacting to one outcome. There were alarming trends with Moorhead's offense that have shown up in games that we've won, too - mainly because we could just out-talent those teams. There was one game where we came out and utilized our personnel properly for the entirety of the game and capitalized on it - and that was Auburn, and Moorhead even said after the game that we did that because he took his coaching pills that week.

As for your Kentucky comments, that's just plain stupid. Save RB, we were better than them at almost every position. Their DE had a monster game and is a very good player, but we could have handled him with a better scheme, but we had no answers and made no adjustments, which should alarm all of us. We were standing over the ball for 30 seconds each play and giving Eiland no help. We could have and should have not only won that game, but covered the spread. There's no justification for that loss - and it's the difference between playing for an 8 win season vs. playing for the Citrus bowl. Add Florida to it, and now we're playing for a NY6 bowl. There's no shame in losing to Bama or LSU on the road, but you gotta get those others, especially when you're the better team. If we had played lights out and just lost because they were better, that would be acceptable. We laid turds in those games, and they're the difference in what should have been a historic season for us. So, for all you "he's gotta get his players" folks, understand that it's going to be at least two years before he has his QB, ready to play at this level. In the meantime, he's squandered away the best defense he will ever have.

I don't understand how this is even a controversial take. I was so fired up for this guy, and then I had renewed hope when he actually showed an ability to do something different with the Auburn game - and he has been a disappointment. I've never advocated firing him but I've seen enough to have serious doubts that he ever gets it done here. Like I said earlier, the rest of you will agree at some point down the line.