FOOTBALL GAME THREAD Marshall vs FAU
- Thread starter sportsphantom1
- Start date
Great stand by the defense on 4th and 1 and great job by the offense to make FAU pay for that decision.
Life of a Marshall fan. Up 24-7 and I am pacing the floor like it’s tied.
Been there done that. Still a lot of time left. Seems like this 3rd quarter has gone on forever.
I think the announcers are just trying to pump FAU up a little since they are getting dominated. They have given Marshall several compliments throughout the game.
I’d love to see us score again but our offense is so anemic I don’t think we have it in us. The offense has been as bad as the defense has been good.
Our offense reminds me of our 2012 defense.
Our offense reminds me of our 2012 defense.
As much as I would like to see us score again, I think we should take a knee here
Wow Doc must be pissed at Kiffin, by typically not taking a knee with 2 minutes left...
Of course King could have an ingrown toenail or his leg amputated and we wouldn’t have any indication from the staff.
WTM (win turnover margin)
...
Great job today Herd! Close it out!
(Side note - how many owls got hurt today? Herd playing hard ... prayers for the injured on both sides)
...
Great job today Herd! Close it out!
(Side note - how many owls got hurt today? Herd playing hard ... prayers for the injured on both sides)
The sacks came on corner and safety blitzes where the RB missed the blocks both times. The OL played a pretty good game.
Before you AT fans start thumping your chest. Here are his stats:
Alex ThomsonA. Thomson 13/24 102 4.3 2 0
King and the D, basically won the game themselves.
Alex ThomsonA. Thomson 13/24 102 4.3 2 0
King and the D, basically won the game themselves.
thanks negative nellie sometimes you just need to do what you need to do ti win, case in point Baltimore Super Bowl
I like it, very out of character for doc I didn't expect it.
We already had the game won and could have took a knee and ran the clock out. If not for sportsmanship why not run out the clock so we dont take a chance on anymore injuries? We had just lost King to an injury when the game was all but over then you have Thomson running a QB keeper when he could have injured himself on a totally unnecessary play just so we can pad the score with 1:39 left in the game.
King was up walking normal from what I saw, so no idea exactly what happened to him or the extent, hard to tell when in the stands. What did you guys see?
He had to be carried to the locker room. I'd be surprised if he's not done for the year.
The offensive line is terrible. AT has little time to stand in a pocket and throw. That’s seems to be dictating their passing game.
If that is the case, running game is screwed, and so is the rest of the offense, he was almost the only spark we have.
Thomson was serviceable and improving. Look guys, ZERO turnovers. ZERO stupid special teams plays save the tipped fg try. Does the offense need to improve? Absolutely. But I’ll take this win all day long.
Anyone know the condition of Anderson? If he’s not back for a while then maybe we need to start looking at a TE who can run. Just spitballing out loud.
Anyone know the condition of Anderson? If he’s not back for a while then maybe we need to start looking at a TE who can run. Just spitballing out loud.
The defense certainly played a huge part in the win, but Thomson threw 2 TD passes and ran for another while not having any turnovers and is doing a very good job of managing the offense. from what I understand he only missed 1 read on the RPOs in the game. Has he been great? No, but he seems to be improving with each game.
We have two RS-FR RBs in Evans and Knox that have some talent and will still have Davis and Anderson. We won't have the homerun threat if King is out, but we will still have some good RBs to grind out yards.
Right, I haven't seen the young guys run, but I think with our grind style right now, we really need one that is a threat to take it to the house like King gave us. I hope he is ok and recovers.
That's not a very good way to judge special teams. For instance, just looking at the box score shows Marshall's punt unit as averaging 43.8 yards per punt, which is solid from the outside view. However, the box score also makes an error by showing no touchbacks. In reality, there was a touchback- a big one which resulted in only a 19 yard net (punted from the FAU 39, after touchback, FAU got the ball at the 20).
Averages aren't nearly as good as other stats. Unfortunately, those other, far more important stats only exist to a select few. This may bore many of you, but it is some good stuff that I may have touched on earlier on this board:
Example 1:
For instance, if that punt from FAU's 39 yard line had been downed at the 1 yard line, it would have been only a 38 yard punt. From the outside, that is not a good punt. In reality, downing a ball at the 1 yard line would be gaining 100% of the available distance you could have. So even though the punt unit would have been perfect in terms of what it could do, the 38 yard punt would negatively impact their average.
A far better statistic to look at it how much the punt unit netted based on the percentage of available yards that they could have gained on a punt.
Example 2:
Another instance of bad special teams stats: kick coverage coverage. There are two measures of this, one of which is really bad and one of which is slightly less bad.
Assume Team A kicks off from the 35 yard line. The ball lands at Team B's 20 yard line (a sky kick). The return is for only 8 yards. Based on one common statistic used for kick return coverage, that means the kick coverage team would have only allowed an 8 yard return. At that rate, they'd lead the country. However, in reality, they are allowing the opposing offense to start at the 28 yard line, which would put them near the bottom of kick coverage units.
Now, assume another team (Team C) kicks the ball from their 35. It lands at team D's goal line. Team D returns the ball to their 20 yard line. Based on a common statistic to measure kick return coverage, Team C just allowed a 20 yard return. However, the opposing team starts the ball at their 20 instead of the previous example at the 28 yard line.
Which kick coverage team was better? Clearly, it's better to keep your opponent at the 20 yard line than it is the 28 yard line, but a common measure of ranking kick coverage units would show Team A as doing a better job than Team C.
Example 3:
Last year, Marshall's kick coverage unit ranked #13 according to the NCAA stats. According to the NCAA stats, they were 3rd in C-USA behind UTEP and FAU. According to the NCAA, UTEP had the top ranked kick coverage unit in the conference:
http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings
However, if you go to the C-USA website, you will see that UTEP had the worst (#14) ranked kick coverage unit in the conference:
http://conferenceusa.com/stats.aspx?path=football&year=2017
How can one team be ranked as top in the conference according to one reputable source by ranked last in the conference in the same thing according to another reputable source? It's because there are too many morons in this world. And unfortunately, there are just as many morons who are coaches who don't understand this, look at the stats that are illogical, and think their schemes/systems are right because of it.
In the above example, the NCAA stats are ranking a kick coverage team based on how many yards they allow on the return. The C-USA website ranks the same statistic based on the net yardage (how many yards the ball was kicked and how many yards the ball was returned deducted from it).
The C-USA way is far better and more logical but still misses a big hole . . . and this is where the really good shit comes in. The important measure is where the opposition starts their drive. That's the only thing that matters. However, how important is starting from the 15 yard line compared to say, the 19 yard line? We will get to that.
Pretend Team E allows their opponent to start at the 12 yard line after every kickoff. That would be phenomenal, and the defensive coordinator would be cool with giving half of his salary to the kick coverage coach. Now, pretend that Team F allows their opponent to start at the 13 yard line after every kickoff. Again, that would be amazing coverage. Which team would do a better job? The obvious answer, by a yard, is Team E, right? Well, statistics are still missing a huge part of the story.
Pretend that Team E didn't cause a single turnover in kick coverage all year. On the other hand, Team F caused 2-4 turnovers on kick coverage throughout the year. Is getting 2-4 turnovers, especially that close to your opponent's end zone, better than giving up one more yard per kick return on average? I would think so. But you can't simply "think." You have to know. Just how valuable is it to give your offense the ball on your opponent's 10 yard line, 14 yard line, or 20 yard line? I'd think that is pretty damn important. But again, thinking isn't good enough. Show me proof.
I have it.
For every single game between two FBS teams over the last ten years, I have the starting location and results of each drive. Garbage drives (those at the end of a half or game when a team isn't trying to score) are excluded from it. I have the percentages of what happens for every drive that started from your own 1 yard line to your opponent's 1 yard line in terms of any type of score, a field goal, a TD, a punt, etc.
The fact that Marshall's kick coverage unit caused 2-4 turnovers last season resulted in almost automatic points based on where they gave their offense the ball. That pushes their unit over another unit that may have allowed a one yard lower average on opponent's starting field position.
When you take all of the important factors into consideration and take the time to detail all of these drives, Marshall had the best kick coverage unit in the country last year.
In other words, I know that based on tens of thousands of drives, there is very minimal difference in allowing a team to start on their own 28 yard line instead of their own 25 yard line. What does that mean? It means that moronic head coaches who are content kicking a ball deep and allowing the return team to get it at the 25 are doing a disservice to their team. They could sky kick it to a defensive end in the second line, still give up a 13 yard return, and really lose nothing from it in terms of giving the opponent a higher chance of scoring. On the other hand, they could gain a ton by forcing a non-skill player to try to catch a ball, put the ball in the hands of a guy who isn't used to carrying it, and even possibly getting the ball to land on the ground since a defensive end isn't going to have much experience knowing when to catch the ball or let the real returner go after it.
There was a Sun Belt head coach last year who only coached his team's kick coverage unit. It was one of the worst ranked units in the country (his overall special teams was the very last ranked special teams unit due to him not understanding what is important and having bad schemes). On kickoffs, his goal was to lead the Sun Belt in kick coverage based on return yards allowed each kick (we've already gone over why that is illogical). His scheme was to force his kicker to have the ball land in between the 10 yard line and the goal line, to not kick it into the end zone, and to place it outside of the numbers. That is asking quite a bit from a Sun Belt kicker considering Sun Belt teams don't usually get the same talent as P5 teams. But assume your kicker can do it. Without looking at the 2016 Sun Belt numbers, and just going from memory, I believe the top ranked kick coverage unit (based on the illogical stat he used) allowed about 17.4 yards per return.
So if his goal was to lead the conference in that category, his unit could reach all of their goals and still allow numerous balls past the 25 yard line. If the kicker placed the ball at the 10 yard line (which was within the goals) and the unit allowed only a 17.3 yard return (which would lead the conference), that means the opponent is starting at the 27.3. Why not just kick it out of the end zone and give it at the 25? If the kicker was even better and placed it at the 9 yard line, the return team could lead the conference by allowing a 17.3 yard return and still give the offense the ball at the 26.3. Why not a touchback instead? The 8 yard line? The opponent would still have it past the 25.
If there is minimal risk based on a few yards of field position (at least in field position in that region of the field), which I had overwhelming evidence to support, why risk allowing 2-3 TD returns over the course of the season that could greatly impact a win or loss? Just kick it out of the end zone where there is very little difference between an offense getting it at the 25 or the 23. Just as troubling, the directive of where the kicker is told to kick if leaves a high vulnerability of kicking it out of bounds. That gives the ball to an offense at the 35 yard line. There is a big jump in scoring percentages for an offense starting at the 35 yard line compared to the 25 yard line.
The head coach's explanation? That's how Urban (Meyer) did it, and it works for him. If it's good enough for Urban, it's good enough for this Sun Belt school. He didn't realize that 1) Urban has 10 Mandingo Warriors (thanks, Coach Pruett) who simply out talent the opposition 2) Urban has a freak kicker who can place the ball where he wants. On top of that, guess who led the country in kicks going out of bounds last year? Ohio State. It is a high risk scheme (high chance of giving your opponent the ball at the 35 yard line) for little reward (giving an offense the ball at the 22 instead of the 25 isn't that different in scoring likelihood).
Looking at box scores or saying things aren't "stupid" or bad when they really are based off of a simple observation is why so many FBS head coa
So if his goal was to lead the conference in that category, his unit could reach all of their goals and still allow numerous balls past the 25 yard line. If the kicker placed the ball at the 10 yard line (which was within the goals) and the unit allowed only a 17.3 yard return (which would lead the conference), that means the opponent is starting at the 27.3. Why not just kick it out of the end zone and give it at the 25? If the kicker was even better and placed it at the 9 yard line, the return team could lead the conference by allowing a 17.3 yard return and still give the offense the ball at the 26.3. Why not a touchback instead? The 8 yard line? The opponent would still have it past the 25.
If there is minimal risk based on a few yards of field position (at least in field position in that region of the field), which I had overwhelming evidence to support, why risk allowing 2-3 TD returns over the course of the season that could greatly impact a win or loss? Just kick it out of the end zone where there is very little difference between an offense getting it at the 25 or the 23. Just as troubling, the directive of where the kicker is told to kick if leaves a high vulnerability of kicking it out of bounds. That gives the ball to an offense at the 35 yard line. There is a big jump in scoring percentages for an offense starting at the 35 yard line compared to the 25 yard line.
The head coach's explanation? That's how Urban (Meyer) did it, and it works for him. If it's good enough for Urban, it's good enough for this Sun Belt school. He didn't realize that 1) Urban has 10 Mandingo Warriors (thanks, Coach Pruett) who simply out talent the opposition 2) Urban has a freak kicker who can place the ball where he wants. On top of that, guess who led the country in kicks going out of bounds last year? Ohio State. It is a high risk scheme (high chance of giving your opponent the ball at the 35 yard line) for little reward (giving an offense the ball at the 22 instead of the 25 isn't that different in scoring likelihood).
Looking at box scores or saying things aren't "stupid" or bad when they really are based off of a simple observation is why so many FBS head coa
Wow! Most detailed post I have ever read. In college, you must have been the guy in class who jumped up and clapped his hands when the prof said the first paper had to be thirty five pages long. Single spaced.
Similar threads
