ESPN Stat

HuskerBCS said:
Malth said:
Stats like this are absolutely meaningless.

Correlation does not imply causation etc
Click to expand...
Im not so sure I completely agree with this. I will say that most of the time I think stats are a little skewed and should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I dislike how our offense RARELY uses a lead blocker like we used to out of the I-Formation. I sometimes wonder what would happen if we would get a lead blocker in there to help Martinez get into space easier.

With 6 guys in the box there is no need for additional blockers.

With 7 or more I think you gotta get into a more power set/use a lead blocker to help guys get in space.

I think this directly relates to the stats mentioned.
Click to expand...

That is why Bo and Carl do not pay much attention to stats.

 
mnhusker said:
Looks to me like the other team is screwed with 6 or 7 guys. I'll take 5.7 pc avg all day from the QB
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don't understand all the talk about "put 7 in the box, we need tmart to make the throws." Last i checked 4 ypc is very exceptable... 5.7? Terrific! Keep running until they put 8 in the box, then you can throw!

 
how on earth do they come up with these stats. most defense try to disguise blitz packages and dont do so until the ball is snapped. Does espn have alittle man pausing every play and counting the number of players in the box. retarded stat

 
I am I said:
Remember the 4th down play that was actually HUGE and a big time call to go for against OSU? they faked a run up the middle to Burkhead and martin-ez followed him right up the gut and got like, 6 yds. It really fooled me and certainly fooled the defense. It looked like Rex had been tackled for about a 3 yd loss, then BAM martin-ez actually had the ball and got the 1st.

it was the first time ALL YEAR (to me at least) that it looked like Watson used our formation and tendencies to gain an advantage. And lo and behold, it was sending a back, ie blocker, through the hole first. I would love to see some misdirection with 2 backs in shotgun or under center, send one through the hole 1st and counter back the other way with a lead blocker.
Click to expand...
We ran the same or very similar play against KSU right before the end of the 1st half. TM went for about a 50 yard scamper. The RB (I think it was Helu) made a great block on the play to spring TM. Not sure if we've run the play much outside of those 2 times though.

 
Malth said:
Stats like this are absolutely meaningless.

Correlation does not imply causation etc
Click to expand...
Correction... Correlation does not ALWAYS show causation.. Correlation does give a reason to dig into something more. Often times, correlation leads to a proof of causation. This would seem to be one of those times. The whole correlation does not prove causation thing is something used in stats classes and things that deal with stats to show that just because the amount of cereal being purchased in an area went up and the crime rate went up doesn't mean that the purchase of more cereal caused more crime... Because that makes no sense. Something like this makes a TON of sense and very possibly could be true.

 
huskerswrkhavoc said:
Malth said:
Stats like this are absolutely meaningless.

Correlation does not imply causation etc
Click to expand...
Correction... Correlation does not ALWAYS show causation.. Correlation does give a reason to dig into something more. Often times, correlation leads to a proof of causation. This would seem to be one of those times. The whole correlation does not prove causation thing is something used in stats classes and things that deal with stats to show that just because the amount of cereal being purchased in an area went up and the crime rate went up doesn't mean that the purchase of more cereal caused more crime... Because that makes no sense. Something like this makes a TON of sense and very possibly could be true.
Click to expand...
You're still disregarding every single other variable, which is why stats like this are nonsense.

Is it possible that it's true? Sure. But there's a LOT more going on in football than the amount of players within a certain area.

 
Malth said:
huskerswrkhavoc said:
Malth said:
Stats like this are absolutely meaningless.

Correlation does not imply causation etc
Click to expand...
Correction... Correlation does not ALWAYS show causation.. Correlation does give a reason to dig into something more. Often times, correlation leads to a proof of causation. This would seem to be one of those times. The whole correlation does not prove causation thing is something used in stats classes and things that deal with stats to show that just because the amount of cereal being purchased in an area went up and the crime rate went up doesn't mean that the purchase of more cereal caused more crime... Because that makes no sense. Something like this makes a TON of sense and very possibly could be true.
Click to expand...
You're still disregarding every single other variable, which is why stats like this are nonsense.

Is it possible that it's true? Sure. But there's a LOT more going on in football than the amount of players within a certain area.
Click to expand...
by simply giving the stat, yes. but if you look at it, it makes a LOT of sense. including when you put the other variables into play.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top