A Few Realities to Chew On

[Guy Chamberlin]

I remember when we put the team on Rex Burkhead's back his Senior year and....

 

....oh. Right.

[deedsker]

Guess what?

 

I ran through every run play for Nebraska and manually found the times where each run would or wouldn't be able to create a first down if we threw the ball twice and ran once. It was freaking hard, but I did it.

 

Guess what I found?

 

Running the ball once would raise the chances of getting a first down to....Da Dun Da Dunna Duh!!!

 

 

78.7%

 

 

Which brings me back to my original point. Don't go all Beck!

 

(It kills me I had to go here because I really liked the play calling by Beck throughout the Miami and Fresno games and think he had a great plan of attack. However, there is good reason, which I just showed you, that people dislike the come out and gun it around the field play calling whether it is warranted or not.)

 

DONE!

[RedDenver]

Guess what?

 

I ran through every run play for Nebraska and manually found the times where each run would or wouldn't be able to create a first down if we threw the ball twice and ran once. It was freaking hard, but I did it.

 

Guess what I found?

 

Running the ball once would raise the chances of getting a first down to....Da Dun Da Dunna Duh!!!

 

 

78.7%

 

 

Which brings me back to my original point. Don't go all Beck!

 

(It kills me I had to go here because I really liked the play calling by Beck throughout the Miami and Fresno games and think he had a great plan of attack. However, there is good reason, which I just showed you, that people dislike the come out and gun it around the field play calling whether it is warranted or not.)

 

DONE!

Interesting. Did you assume every run resulted in 7.08 yards? BTW if you're using the completion % as part of the passing model, then you should be using the yards per completion (not per attempt) for the yards gained.

 

EDIT: There's still something incorrect in your analysis. You're trying to say that Beck needs to run more, but your model claims that running twice in a row will ALWAYS result in a first down. But passing does not always get a first down. Therefore, using that model, any amount of running will do better than any amount of passing in getting first downs since running is guaranteed to pick up the first. Real game performance shows that sometimes even running three downs in a row does not result in a first down. So your model unrealistically favors running the ball. You've got to incorporate some uncertainty with running the ball if you want to use the model to predict realistic performance. Give me a bit and I'll build some simple Gaussian distributions from the stats.

Edited September 23, 2014 by RedDenver

[Guy Chamberlin]

Guess what?

 

I ran through every run play for Nebraska and manually found the times where each run would or wouldn't be able to create a first down if we threw the ball twice and ran once. It was freaking hard, but I did it.

 

Guess what I found?

 

Running the ball once would raise the chances of getting a first down to....Da Dun Da Dunna Duh!!!

 

 

78.7%

 

 

Which brings me back to my original point. Don't go all Beck!

 

(It kills me I had to go here because I really liked the play calling by Beck throughout the Miami and Fresno games and think he had a great plan of attack. However, there is good reason, which I just showed you, that people dislike the come out and gun it around the field play calling whether it is warranted or not.)

 

DONE!

 

Gotta admit I feel pretty bad because you took a lot of time and your conclusions make no sense. Neither math, nor football, works like this.

 

And since you conclude with the equally faulty and insulting warning "Don't go all Beck!" I feel that all my posts have been in vain.

 

I was really hoping we could wrap it up with "it's all good."

[LJsurf41]

Since 2008 the biggest struggles under Pelini have been that we can't play complete games of football and that our motivation and performance ride waves of inconsistency, especially against lesser opponents.

 

Yet after four games, three (and maybe a half) of them have been relatively consistent, relatively clean, focused football to our potential, from first to final whistle.

 

 

 

 

Generally speaking, we always seem to play the worst at moments where everyone expects us to take care of business easily.

 

Yet despite every single expert picking Nebraska to win by more than one score, instead of faltering under the lights, we didn't play down to our opponent and we took care of business.

 

 

 

 

Tim Beck's greatest criticism is going away from what's working and getting too cute.

 

Yet tonight we only threw the ball 13 times, and ran for over 300 yards at will and with authority, imposing our will play after play, executing when it counted and pounding the sh#t out of Miami.

 

 

 

For a long time it was expected that when bad things happened we didn't have the mental fortitude to keep going and it would often snowball and result in disaster.

 

Yet in games decided by 10 points or less, we have now won 12 straight.

 

 

 

It's a long season but it's also been a long time since we've had this kind of potential and warranted reason for optimism.

 

Stoked on the Miami game, it's always a rush beating up on the Canes...we owed them one. I was ashamed of our Rose Bowl debacle and super bummed how we sent Crouch & Co. out that year. One reality I don't like chewing on is our penalties. Currently ranked #72 in FBS. Just one area for improvement...I mean come on, we can't enjoy this forever, it's been 3 days back to work!

 

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/698/p2

[TheSker]

 

DONE!

[RedDenver]

Well, I don't see a simple source of our run play results or pass play results. And a quick glance at the big plays makes me think a simple gaussian distribution isn't a good model. Maybe I'll make a boot-strap monte carlo simulation when I've got the time and patience to wade through the play-by-play. If someone has run and pass data for each play, it'll only take me a few minutes to set up the simulation once I've got the data.

[deedsker]

 

Guess what?

 

I ran through every run play for Nebraska and manually found the times where each run would or wouldn't be able to create a first down if we threw the ball twice and ran once. It was freaking hard, but I did it.

 

Guess what I found?

 

Running the ball once would raise the chances of getting a first down to....Da Dun Da Dunna Duh!!!

 

 

78.7%

 

 

Which brings me back to my original point. Don't go all Beck!

 

(It kills me I had to go here because I really liked the play calling by Beck throughout the Miami and Fresno games and think he had a great plan of attack. However, there is good reason, which I just showed you, that people dislike the come out and gun it around the field play calling whether it is warranted or not.)

 

DONE!

Interesting. Did you assume every run resulted in 7.08 yards? BTW if you're using the completion % as part of the passing model, then you should be using the yards per completion (not per attempt) for the yards gained.

 

EDIT: There's still something incorrect in your analysis. You're trying to say that Beck needs to run more, but your model claims that running twice in a row will ALWAYS result in a first down. But passing does not always get a first down. Therefore, using that model, any amount of running will do better than any amount of passing in getting first downs since running is guaranteed to pick up the first. Real game performance shows that sometimes even running three downs in a row does not result in a first down. So your model unrealistically favors running the ball. You've got to incorporate some uncertainty with running the ball if you want to use the model to predict realistic performance. Give me a bit and I'll build some simple Gaussian distributions from the stats.

 

SON OF B****!

 

I was thinking the 9 was per completion.

 

Yes, I went through and found each carry result and manually found the percent for each scenario of completion and incompletion...for 9 yards a completion.

 

This is why you look up all stats from scratch and verify sources kids.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

16.5 yards per completion is a pretty good thing, btw.

[The Dude]

Did Bo say Westerkamp ran the wrong route on the INT? Someone said he said that, but I didn't watch the post-game presser.

[jsneb83]

 

 

 

 

Guess what?

 

I ran through every run play for Nebraska and manually found the times where each run would or wouldn't be able to create a first down if we threw the ball twice and ran once. It was freaking hard, but I did it.

 

Guess what I found?

 

Running the ball once would raise the chances of getting a first down to....Da Dun Da Dunna Duh!!!

 

 

78.7%

 

 

Which brings me back to my original point. Don't go all Beck!

 

(It kills me I had to go here because I really liked the play calling by Beck throughout the Miami and Fresno games and think he had a great plan of attack. However, there is good reason, which I just showed you, that people dislike the come out and gun it around the field play calling whether it is warranted or not.)

 

DONE!

Interesting. Did you assume every run resulted in 7.08 yards? BTW if you're using the completion % as part of the passing model, then you should be using the yards per completion (not per attempt) for the yards gained.

 

EDIT: There's still something incorrect in your analysis. You're trying to say that Beck needs to run more, but your model claims that running twice in a row will ALWAYS result in a first down. But passing does not always get a first down. Therefore, using that model, any amount of running will do better than any amount of passing in getting first downs since running is guaranteed to pick up the first. Real game performance shows that sometimes even running three downs in a row does not result in a first down. So your model unrealistically favors running the ball. You've got to incorporate some uncertainty with running the ball if you want to use the model to predict realistic performance. Give me a bit and I'll build some simple Gaussian distributions from the stats.

SON OF B****!

 

I was thinking the 9 was per completion.

 

Yes, I went through and found each carry result and manually found the percent for each scenario of completion and incompletion...for 9 yards a completion.

 

This is why you look up all stats from scratch and verify sources kids.

 

Oh well, it's not like you have anything else to do at work.

[SouthLincoln Husker]

Did Bo say Westerkamp ran the wrong route on the INT? Someone said he said that, but I didn't watch the post-game presser.

I don't remember the players, but there was definitely miscommunication somewhere. The play was right in front of me at the game as the receiver was running the post and the ball was thrown to the out.

[Mavric]

Pretty sure the talk of mis-communication is a bit of covering for the young QB.

 

 

Kenny Bell (at the 42 on the hash) runs a short curl from the inside of the trips. This route would be a check down but also to hold the inside defenders from flowing to the outside too quickly. Moore (on the 38) runs the corner off from the outside of the trips - trying to clear out the outside zone for someone else to come in underneath. Westerkamp (45) runs the wheel route from the middle of the trips.

 

 

The route combo is obviously designed to clear the intermediate outside zone for Westerkamp. But the corner gives enough cushion that he doesn't have to turn and run with Moore so he can see the throw, come off Moore and intercept the pass. The only possible wrong route (if you're going to assume the pass was thrown to the correct spot) would be if Moore was supposed to run an out but then it would make no sense for Westerkamp to be running a wheel route directly into the out. Unless both Moore and Westerkamp ran the wrong route - and happened to both run wrong routes that complimented each other - it was just a poorly thrown ball.

[MichiganDad3]

Here is what's going to happen. Illinois is going to play defense more like Fresno State and McNeese State because they don't have the athletes like what Miami thought they had.

 

So, expect to see more passing in this game.

But...I will guarantee you fans will be on here mad (even with a win) that Beck decided to "get cute" again. After all, he just needs to ride Ameer to a championship.

I love a good running game, but if a team is determined to stop the run, I am happy with the pass. But I want a beat down, Illinois is not that good.

[walksalone]

Yet tonight we only threw the ball 13 times, and ran for over 300 yards at will and with authority, imposing our will play after play, executing when it counted and pounding the sh#t out of Miami.

Tim Beck's greatest criticism is going away from what's working and getting too cute.

 

Watching the offense, took myself, and I imagine, several other geezers on the board, back in time...