TA Starting Per ESPN

[sd'sker]

zoogs likes to zig and zag.

 

[zoogs]

I'm just too hip for you guys. TA's getting a little mainstream

Ryker Fife 2014

 

[suigeneris]

I'm just too hip for you guys. TA's getting a little mainstream

Ryker Fife 2014

I liked Ryker Fyfe before it was cool to ironically like Ryker Fyfe. All the hip kids are into Tyson Broekemeir now.

 

[jmfb]

I just don't see that much value in a QB's home run threat running ability. It's nice, but it's extra.

100% agree

This offense is designed so it needs a legit QB running threat- it doesnt have to be one to go 50 yards with a tiny crease

Like you I value consistency

OK you have 1 big play for 75 yards, in the meantime you have 15 other plays that went for a grand total of 15 yards

So you had 1 big play and a bunch of plays that didnt allow you to move the chains.

Your average is 5.5 yards, not bad- but when measured another way, not very good

How I used to figure out averages- how many times did we get 5 yards or more on a play (a bread and butter low risk play, higher risk plays had to hit a higher average)

If we got 5 yards or more on say 85% of those plays we might have something like 200 yards on 30 plays

But if we got say 40 yards 2 times and 20 yards another and then 100 yards on the other 27 attempts. Still have that 6.6 ypc average, BUT you had a bunch of 3 and outs too, my guess is you would be by this measurement, getting 5 yards on a play, maybe 20% of the time. I GUARANTEE you we are going to win the game where we can consistently get our 5+ yards we are moving the chains, getting first downs, running the clock. Especially with this team= defense problems.

Obviously we are saying fumbles are constant.

Your overanalyzing an obvious point. We fell in love with TM largely because of a rash of long TD runs his freshman year. Since then we see like 1-2 of those per year, and no consistent run threat at all. You hit the nail on the head at least, we MUST KEEP OUR DEFENSE OFF THE FIELD.

One long scoring drive in the 3rd quarter would have completely changed the complexion of that UCLA game. We couldn't do it, got 4 TDs rained on us, and I blamed the offense almost as much as the D. The D is absurd, but the offense was supposed to be a given. Instead the offense was pathetic, when we could have been up 4 TDs at halftime since defense was doing its part.

I will add that the offenses' stink a thon began about mid second quarter of that UCLA game, we only got 1.5 quarters out of the offense that game which is atrocious.

When my teams scored on a couple of long plays but couldnt sustain drives- it was usually due to huge differences in athleticism or big mistakes by the defense-- combination of luck and genetics, which you cant always rely on from year to year or game to game.

When we were consistently getting our 5 ypc like in the above example- it was because we were dominating the line of scrimmage, had the defense guessing and were that word everyone hates "executing" well. In the former example the game would often times be in doubt, in the latter it rarely if ever was.

 

[RedDenver]

I just don't see that much value in a QB's home run threat running ability. It's nice, but it's extra.

100% agree

This offense is designed so it needs a legit QB running threat- it doesnt have to be one to go 50 yards with a tiny crease

Like you I value consistency

OK you have 1 big play for 75 yards, in the meantime you have 15 other plays that went for a grand total of 15 yards

So you had 1 big play and a bunch of plays that didnt allow you to move the chains.

Your average is 5.5 yards, not bad- but when measured another way, not very good

How I used to figure out averages- how many times did we get 5 yards or more on a play (a bread and butter low risk play, higher risk plays had to hit a higher average)

If we got 5 yards or more on say 85% of those plays we might have something like 200 yards on 30 plays

But if we got say 40 yards 2 times and 20 yards another and then 100 yards on the other 27 attempts. Still have that 6.6 ypc average, BUT you had a bunch of 3 and outs too, my guess is you would be by this measurement, getting 5 yards on a play, maybe 20% of the time. I GUARANTEE you we are going to win the game where we can consistently get our 5+ yards we are moving the chains, getting first downs, running the clock. Especially with this team= defense problems.

Obviously we are saying fumbles are constant.

Your overanalyzing an obvious point. We fell in love with TM largely because of a rash of long TD runs his freshman year. Since then we see like 1-2 of those per year, and no consistent run threat at all. You hit the nail on the head at least, we MUST KEEP OUR DEFENSE OFF THE FIELD.

One long scoring drive in the 3rd quarter would have completely changed the complexion of that UCLA game. We couldn't do it, got 4 TDs rained on us, and I blamed the offense almost as much as the D. The D is absurd, but the offense was supposed to be a given. Instead the offense was pathetic, when we could have been up 4 TDs at halftime since defense was doing its part.

I will add that the offenses' stink a thon began about mid second quarter of that UCLA game, we only got 1.5 quarters out of the offense that game which is atrocious.

When my teams scored on a couple of long plays but couldnt sustain drives- it was usually due to huge differences in athleticism or big mistakes by the defense-- combination of luck and genetics, which you cant always rely on from year to year or game to game.

When we were consistently getting our 5 ypc like in the above example- it was because we were dominating the line of scrimmage, had the defense guessing and were that word everyone hates "executing" well. In the former example the game would often times be in doubt, in the latter it rarely if ever was.

What do you guys think of Oregon's offense? It's primarily designed to get big plays and not long drives (at least IMO).

 

[zoogs]

I don't entirely agree with that. It relies on the zone read which is about making the right read and taking what's there, which often means gaining a few yards and staying on schedule. It's not a boom/bust play, although the idea is if you have the right guys they can spring for big gains.

 

[Mavric]

I just don't see that much value in a QB's home run threat running ability. It's nice, but it's extra.

I don't agree. Perhaps with Newby at RB that would be true. But AA and Cross really aren't home run threats so it's definitely an advantage to have someone in the backfield like that. There is no substitute for an instant six points.

But Ameer is faster than you think!!!!!!!!

Or, at least, thats what I was told to begin the season when I said Newby is quicker, faster, and wouldn't surprise me to see him overtake Ameer next season.

I REALLY like what I see from Newby. And Ameer lacks that last gear. But Newby's going to have to wait. For this year anyway

 

[Treand3]

And to think Taylor will be available as well.