We've got five rushers
- Thread starter KurtRambis4
- Start date
You think the game yesterday means the o-line played well in the first game? Seriously?? That's just stupid. In the first game our starters ran 29 run plays (not counting TD plays less than 3 yards), and we were stuffed for 1 yard or less on 10 of them by an FCS team. Our o-line starters were not good in the first game. They got better in the 2nd game. Something we all hoped for and expected. This supposed to be a surprise, genius? Especially against a team that got gashed in their first game by a lesser team.
What is it about some posters who just can't get enough getting into pissing matches with other Bulldogs? Thank God there is an ignore feature that allows me to block particularly moronic posters.
ETA - LT's previous opponent, Northwestern State... one of the worst FCS teams, one that hasn't had a winning record in a decade, averaged 4 YPC vs LT. Guess their o-line is really good too, huh?****
What is it about some posters who just can't get enough getting into pissing matches with other Bulldogs? Thank God there is an ignore feature that allows me to block particularly moronic posters.
ETA - LT's previous opponent, Northwestern State... one of the worst FCS teams, one that hasn't had a winning record in a decade, averaged 4 YPC vs LT. Guess their o-line is really good too, huh?****
Last edited:
It's your fault.
You are happy about our team with LSU coming up.
Get yer sackcloth and get in line dude.
You are happy about our team with LSU coming up.
Get yer sackcloth and get in line dude.
Here's another stat for the stat-loving "geniuses" on this thread. That NW State team that averaged 4 YPC vs LT, managed a total of 42 yards, and 1.4 YPC vs Grambling yesterday.
But yeah...let's point to our YPC vs LT as proof our o-line was actually good last week.***
But yeah...let's point to our YPC vs LT as proof our o-line was actually good last week.***
Last edited:
I just like our attitude
If we keep coming with that attitude, our opponent is going to have to play a damn good game to beat us. We play mean. It reminds me of the Gator Bowl team but more skilled.
I hope we establish a short passing game early next week. When defenses have to start using their extra guy to focus on slips and our tight ends, then the run game truly opens up for Fitz, Williams, Hill, etc. Our running game is tricky to defend when we are one dimensional because of the misdirection. If any bit of a pass game is established, we become very difficult to defend.
If we keep coming with that attitude, our opponent is going to have to play a damn good game to beat us. We play mean. It reminds me of the Gator Bowl team but more skilled.
I hope we establish a short passing game early next week. When defenses have to start using their extra guy to focus on slips and our tight ends, then the run game truly opens up for Fitz, Williams, Hill, etc. Our running game is tricky to defend when we are one dimensional because of the misdirection. If any bit of a pass game is established, we become very difficult to defend.
I would love to sit down and watch every play of the first game with you.
Again I didn't re watch past the first quarter bc we were rolling and already subbing a lot.
In the first quarter the line played in the B range.
Again I didn't re watch past the first quarter bc we were rolling and already subbing a lot.
In the first quarter the line played in the B range.
Just check play-by-play on ESPN. BTW, starters stayed in until midway thru 3rd Q'
1st Q rushing yards (not counting TD plays of 3 yards or less) - 5, 0, 5, 1, 7, 1, 1, 0, 19, 1, 19, 8, 7,-1, 5. Seven of fifteen running plays went for 1 yard or less.
2nd Q - 8, -2, -1, 11, -2, 2, 11, 15. 4 of 8 went for 2 or less.
3rd Q with starters - 6, 1, 4, 8, 12. Only 1 of 5 was poor. Probably a combination of our guys playing better, and the smaller d-line of FCS opponent getting tired.
I am not a perennial downer. In fact, I more often get accused of being too optimistic (I predicted a 38 point margin of victory vs LT, very few predicted as much or more), but I'm not a koolaid drinker blind to the truth by my loyalty.
I gave our o-line a C- for the first game, considering the competition.
QUOTE=paindonthurt;1378141]I would love to sit down and watch every play of the first game with you.
Again I didn't re watch past the first quarter bc we were rolling and already subbing a lot.
In the first quarter the line played in the B range.[/QUOTE]
1st Q rushing yards (not counting TD plays of 3 yards or less) - 5, 0, 5, 1, 7, 1, 1, 0, 19, 1, 19, 8, 7,-1, 5. Seven of fifteen running plays went for 1 yard or less.
2nd Q - 8, -2, -1, 11, -2, 2, 11, 15. 4 of 8 went for 2 or less.
3rd Q with starters - 6, 1, 4, 8, 12. Only 1 of 5 was poor. Probably a combination of our guys playing better, and the smaller d-line of FCS opponent getting tired.
I am not a perennial downer. In fact, I more often get accused of being too optimistic (I predicted a 38 point margin of victory vs LT, very few predicted as much or more), but I'm not a koolaid drinker blind to the truth by my loyalty.
I gave our o-line a C- for the first game, considering the competition.
QUOTE=paindonthurt;1378141]I would love to sit down and watch every play of the first game with you.
Again I didn't re watch past the first quarter bc we were rolling and already subbing a lot.
In the first quarter the line played in the B range.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
This is why you should watch every play a couple of times in slow mo.
Really good linebacker play and some mistakes by QB and RB caused every loss.
Now there might be a few plays where they lineman blocked the wrong person, but every play in the first quarter they blocked who they tried to block.
They had a linebacker who read several hand offs and were in the back field almost as they handed off. It wasn't a missed block. If we weren't destroying them anyways, we'd easily have made the guy pay for being so aggressive. We didn't have to do that though.
Like I said let's sit down and watch it. Never mind you are probably an insufferable DB.
Really good linebacker play and some mistakes by QB and RB caused every loss.
Now there might be a few plays where they lineman blocked the wrong person, but every play in the first quarter they blocked who they tried to block.
They had a linebacker who read several hand offs and were in the back field almost as they handed off. It wasn't a missed block. If we weren't destroying them anyways, we'd easily have made the guy pay for being so aggressive. We didn't have to do that though.
Like I said let's sit down and watch it. Never mind you are probably an insufferable DB.
And there you have it. The sign of another weak mind. Can't maintain a debate without resorting to personal insults. Thank you for showing me quickly another on here not worthy of my time.
Haha, he got run off from there. He is going to run out of boards to post on if he doesn't realize that everybody else isn't the problem.
I'm really just trying to aggravate him with the name calling...but the pomposity is very annoying.
Of course I understand that. What you are failing to grasp is that, our o-line should not realize a nearly 40% amount of our rushing attempts to be 1-yard or less vs an over-matched FCS school.
There is the kind of 6 YPC average that has the majority of attempts that go for between 4 and 8 yards, with a few outliers in the -2 to 2 yards + 8+ yards. Then there is the kind of average that comes from a team that gets stuffed on a higher % of plays, but enjoys a 6 YPC because they also had a few 11+ runs.
Average yards per carry is a terrible way to evaluate o-line performance precisely because it's data is vulnerable to outliers. If you want a more accurate measure of how an o-line performed you should plot the rush attempts. You would want a good average based on the vast majority of the plot being near the average you want.
Taken to the extreme as a way to prove the logic consider these two scenarios resulting in 6 YPC:
A) 81 yards x 1 + 1 yard x 15
B) 6 yards x 16
"A" gets you a field goal and a bunch of punts. "B" helps put you in scoring position multiple times. "A" is suggestive of an o-line that is losing at the LOS, but manage to get a back loose on 1 play where the RB then inflated their YPC with a great run. "B" is suggestive of an o-line that is winning big in the trenches because it is highly unlikely even a great RB could get that many yards so consistently without good blocking.
Obviously our performance vs CSU was not as extreme as the above example, but the logic still applies, and we should not consider nearly 40% of our rush attempts as extreme negative outliers (1 yard or less) to be anything less than concerning.
Again, a few big runs by a talented RB or QB can mislead when it comes to YPC because you're then giving extra credit to an o-line when that extra credit is earned by the RB or QB, not the o-line. Sure, the o-line probably opened the hole, but after a certain number of yards, the rest is not due to the o-line, it's due to what the runner was able to do beyond the LB's, with a few exceptions.
But we should be able to admit, if we are honest with ourselves, that having that many plays held for 1 yard or less vs Charleston Southern is troubling, despite the fact we were able to score a bunch anyway.
We should also be able to take things into context, such as not getting too carried away with YPC vs LT because this same LT gave up 4 YPC to one of the worst FCS teams in the nation, who then went out and got 1.4 YPC vs Grambling. Maybe LT is not a good litmus test.
Now I have not taken a detailed look at the LT game carries, so I am not judging our o-line performance vs LT. Rather I'm saying we should perhaps pump-the-brakes a bit on using YPC vs LT as a measuring stick for how good our o-line is or isn't.
What's so bad about that?
There is the kind of 6 YPC average that has the majority of attempts that go for between 4 and 8 yards, with a few outliers in the -2 to 2 yards + 8+ yards. Then there is the kind of average that comes from a team that gets stuffed on a higher % of plays, but enjoys a 6 YPC because they also had a few 11+ runs.
Average yards per carry is a terrible way to evaluate o-line performance precisely because it's data is vulnerable to outliers. If you want a more accurate measure of how an o-line performed you should plot the rush attempts. You would want a good average based on the vast majority of the plot being near the average you want.
Taken to the extreme as a way to prove the logic consider these two scenarios resulting in 6 YPC:
A) 81 yards x 1 + 1 yard x 15
B) 6 yards x 16
"A" gets you a field goal and a bunch of punts. "B" helps put you in scoring position multiple times. "A" is suggestive of an o-line that is losing at the LOS, but manage to get a back loose on 1 play where the RB then inflated their YPC with a great run. "B" is suggestive of an o-line that is winning big in the trenches because it is highly unlikely even a great RB could get that many yards so consistently without good blocking.
Obviously our performance vs CSU was not as extreme as the above example, but the logic still applies, and we should not consider nearly 40% of our rush attempts as extreme negative outliers (1 yard or less) to be anything less than concerning.
Again, a few big runs by a talented RB or QB can mislead when it comes to YPC because you're then giving extra credit to an o-line when that extra credit is earned by the RB or QB, not the o-line. Sure, the o-line probably opened the hole, but after a certain number of yards, the rest is not due to the o-line, it's due to what the runner was able to do beyond the LB's, with a few exceptions.
But we should be able to admit, if we are honest with ourselves, that having that many plays held for 1 yard or less vs Charleston Southern is troubling, despite the fact we were able to score a bunch anyway.
We should also be able to take things into context, such as not getting too carried away with YPC vs LT because this same LT gave up 4 YPC to one of the worst FCS teams in the nation, who then went out and got 1.4 YPC vs Grambling. Maybe LT is not a good litmus test.
Now I have not taken a detailed look at the LT game carries, so I am not judging our o-line performance vs LT. Rather I'm saying we should perhaps pump-the-brakes a bit on using YPC vs LT as a measuring stick for how good our o-line is or isn't.
What's so bad about that?
Last edited:
Nope. I left that board. Had a reputation-rating of 7, which is well above average, and I was a regular poster there from nearly the beginning through late June of this year. When they saw I was posting here, they temp-banned me, then reinstated. Doesn't matter to me, as I just don't post there anymore, and haven't since I told them I was, "out" back in June.
But you just go ahead and troll away if that's what gets you off, buddy. Why should truth matter to a troll?
But you just go ahead and troll away if that's what gets you off, buddy. Why should truth matter to a troll?
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]
Kind of misleading saying our starters played on offense through midway of third quarter. It was just one series in the second half that Fitz and the starters played and after they scored there was around 8:40 left in the third. They never came back in.
A quarter is 15 minutes. If they came out with 8:40 left after the 1 series in the 2nd half, that's pretty much halfway through the 3rd Q. Difference is only 1 minute 10 seconds. We're not really going to split hairs on that, are we?
Last edited:
No but saying starters only played one series in third vs playing midway through the third gives the reader a different perception of how much they may have actually played. Just because both may be factual it does paint a somewhat different picture with full context.
I guess I'm just not following your logic. Our starters played until there were 8:40 seconds left in the 3rd Q. That means they played 6:20 seconds of the 3rd. What does it matter how many series they played in those minutes? They played nearly half the 3rd Q.
Our starters ran 12 plays in the 3rd Q. Our backups then ran 11 plays in the 3rd Q. What am I missing?
ETA - FWIW, the backup o-line came in with 7:30 left in the 3rd Q....exactly midway through. You're really splitting hairs if you're counting the LT possession in your argument to support our starting o-line not really playing 1/2 the 3rd.
Our starters ran 12 plays in the 3rd Q. Our backups then ran 11 plays in the 3rd Q. What am I missing?
ETA - FWIW, the backup o-line came in with 7:30 left in the 3rd Q....exactly midway through. You're really splitting hairs if you're counting the LT possession in your argument to support our starting o-line not really playing 1/2 the 3rd.
Last edited:
You have been discussing offense and rushing. Our offensive starters played one series in the 3rd quarter and kept the ball for 4:02 and scored. The opponent got the opening kickoff to start the second half. That context is different than you saying our starting offense played through midway of the third quarter and sighting the rushing stats under that basis. They only played for 4 min. It's not that hard to follow.
You are WAY over-complicating this. You are trying to not count the fact that CSU started the 3rd Q. That's ridiculous. Our starters played until there was 8:40 left in the 3rd Q. Our second team came into the game when there was 7:30 left to play. Given there are 15 minutes in a quarter, that means our starters stayed in until about midway through the 3rd Q.
That's just a fact. No amount of wiggling about is going to change that. It simply does not matter that they ran just one series. It doesn't matter one bit. Quarters are not quantified by how many series are run...they are quantified by minutes. That is how they are measured...period. If your backups don't come in until 7:30 left in the 3rd quarter, that means the starters played midway through.
I truly cannot fathom how this is an issue for you. On top of that...as I have already pointed out, even if I use the criteria of amount played (which make more sense than "series played", then our starters actually participated in more plays than the backups in the 3rd Q.
By your logic, our backups only played 4:58 in the 3rd Q. Are we supposed to believe we did not participate for a full quarter, starters and backups combined? I mean, that's a combined 9 minutes out of 15. Your logic is completely faulty.
That's just a fact. No amount of wiggling about is going to change that. It simply does not matter that they ran just one series. It doesn't matter one bit. Quarters are not quantified by how many series are run...they are quantified by minutes. That is how they are measured...period. If your backups don't come in until 7:30 left in the 3rd quarter, that means the starters played midway through.
I truly cannot fathom how this is an issue for you. On top of that...as I have already pointed out, even if I use the criteria of amount played (which make more sense than "series played", then our starters actually participated in more plays than the backups in the 3rd Q.
By your logic, our backups only played 4:58 in the 3rd Q. Are we supposed to believe we did not participate for a full quarter, starters and backups combined? I mean, that's a combined 9 minutes out of 15. Your logic is completely faulty.
Do you have any semblance of common sense? You look like a complete dumbass right now.
Seems you were the first to whip out a tiny penis and say hey look how far I can piss.
Here's some more math for you. Take the total number of minutes of the drives from the first of the game through the end of the first series in the 3rd Q, then divide that by the total time of possession of the game and you will get within 1 % point of what the exact midway of the 3rd Q represents.
I'm sorry for you your tiny brain seems incapable of grasping important facts as it relates to the post and the topic. Thank you, too, for exposing yourself as a poster not worthy of debate.
Black I said in my post that CSU got the ball to start the 3rd quarter. Read what I posted.
It is pretty simple, this discussion that you have been posting about is concerning our rushing yards. You know the offensive side of the ball. Why in the world would you include any playing time of our starting defensive players in your essay? Our starting offensive players played exactly one series in the 3rd quarter and kept the ball for 4:02. That's it. Do not add or subtract any more minutes by our defense as they were not running the ball on offense. That is why I posted you were being misleading by saying they played through the middle of the 3rd quarter. The context in that game makes that statement misleading to readers.
It is pretty simple, this discussion that you have been posting about is concerning our rushing yards. You know the offensive side of the ball. Why in the world would you include any playing time of our starting defensive players in your essay? Our starting offensive players played exactly one series in the 3rd quarter and kept the ball for 4:02. That's it. Do not add or subtract any more minutes by our defense as they were not running the ball on offense. That is why I posted you were being misleading by saying they played through the middle of the 3rd quarter. The context in that game makes that statement misleading to readers.
I just don't know how to put it in terms you will accept or understand. A quarter is measured by minutes....15 to be exact. It is not measured by how many minutes, how many plays, how many series your offense plays. It is plain & simple measured by the "15 minutes". When either side of your team, offense or defense, plays until there are 8:40 seconds left in the 3rd Q, they have stayed in the game until approximately the mid-point of the 3rd Q. When your backups don't come in until 7:30 seconds left in the 3rd Q, that is EXACTLY the mid-point of the 3rd Q.
It does not matter that CSU's O played first. It does not matter that the backups got 2 series in compared to 1 for the first team. In fact, total plays run and time-of-possession of both o-lines in the 3rd Q are almost the same. The backups had 2 vs 1 because the 1's had a longer, 12-play drive. The backups did not do as well.
I truly do not understand why this has become a sticking point for you. I'm clearly not going to convince you, regardless of facts, logic, statistics and every measurable that actually applies, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
ETA - I'll try one more tactic. If the offensive starters played 4:02 of the 3rd, and the backups played 4:58, what o-line of ours do you credit having been "in the game" the remaining 6 minutes that CSU's offense was on the field, and why? It's got to be one or the other..so if your main criteria is, "minutes actually played", how do you justify the backups being the ones, when they were only on the field 56 seconds longer?
BTW - even if we allow you to use "total minutes played" rather than what an actual midway point of the 3rd means, then the first team o-line played approximately 62% of the minutes we were on offense. 62% of four 15 minutes quarters puts you at...wait for it....approximately the middle of the 3rd Q.
Last edited:
Dear lord. Look I'm a logical type as well but you have to use some common sense. In general terms saying starters played through midway in the 3rd quarter is fine. But this discussion was not general, you were specifically discussion our offensive rushing totals. In that context, your statement was kind of misleading (which is what I stated that began your graduate thesis worth of explanations to attempt to prove you were not misleading). I didnt really think it was intentional at the time, just gave a reader a possible false idea of what occurred specifically with our offense, personnel and rushing yards which were specifically discussed not general playing time for the whole team.
What does it matter when you are looking at the percentage of successful running plays? And actually list the results for each play?
Because he also qualified the better success in the second half because we wore them down and that the starters played through midway through the third quarter. While close to being factual the way it was worded gives a reader a different perception. Since we are talking rushing yards you can't say our offensive starters, the ones who are responsible for rushing yards, played through midway in the third quarter when they actually only played one series for 4:02 of the 3rd quarter. This was not a discussion about general playing time of the entire starters on the team, it is only offensive specific stats being used. If he had kept the time element out of his point and used only a percentage of actual plays, I wouldn't have said anything about him misleading what actually occurred.
Last edited:
Still waiting for you to explain the logic behind your claim that the backup o-line played way more than 1/2 the 3rd q. Obviously a mix of units on our team were considered "in the game" the entire game, including the 3rd Q. If the 4:02 & 12 plays until just 8:42 was left in the 3rd Q by our starting o-line did not constitute playing nearly mid-way through the 3rd Q, then that must mean you think the backups played the vast majority. So, please tell me why the 4:58 seconds & 11 plays the backup unit played when they came into the game EXACTLY AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE 3RD Q at 7:30 left in it means they played the vast majority of the 3rd, and not just a little over half of it?
And please don't come back with 2 possessions vs 1. That's just stupid on another level when one considers the starters actually ran 1 play more in that Q.
And please don't come back with 2 possessions vs 1. That's just stupid on another level when one considers the starters actually ran 1 play more in that Q.
Last edited:
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Run vs. Run
-
02
Maroon and White Basketball
Mississippi State 79-57 Troy: Bulldogs build big early lead in home win over Trojans
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Kamario Taylor speaks on return to Mississippi State for 2027
-
04
On3 NIL
Kamario Taylor's $7.5M deal sets new bar in college football
-
05
Softball America
2027 Mississippi State Preview