Ye Olde Green Wave Forum

The DEFINITIVE Tulane discussion forum
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:43 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 749
Location: River Ridge
mistakenly put this on the recruiting board....

even though it's not quite the EOY, I checked out our team stats. Found these interesting:
3rd down Defense 112th
4th down Offense 4th
fumbles lost 17th
net punting 101st
Had passes intercepted 17th
Defensive passes intercepted 30th
Red zone D 14th
Red zone O 54th
rushing D 110th
rushing O 22nd
defensive sacks 118th
tackles for losses 101st
time of possession 14th
turnover margin 18th
Total D - yards100th
Total )- yards - 75th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:42 pm 
Offline
President's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:45 pm
Posts: 4601
Location: Omnipresent
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages ... al-profile
Up until the FIU game, I noticed that Tulane had the best points scored per trip inside the 40 average in FBS (around 5), and then dipped a bit after that. This was in part because FGs were a non-starter, but yeah.

We also ended up with only the 14th highest run/pass ratio in FBS, after being the highest non-option service academy team last year.

_________________
Banks was in.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 749
Location: River Ridge
that's a cool site for a stat geek like me. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
Breaker Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:45 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Mandeville, LA
3rd down defense and lack of pass rush was especially frustrating.

_________________
"You are unique, just like everyone else"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:07 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 19158
Location: Cincinnati, OH
If we'd had this year's offense - as anemic as it was on occasion - with the 2016 defense, we'd have won 8 or 9 games, maybe 10. The 2016 defense suffered so much from being on the field too much and still was good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:53 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Posts: 20093
Location: North Kenner
So what that tells us is that defense can't really get much worse statistically and offense is progressing better than we thought so we no longer have to worry about defense and just let our improving offense carry us :mrgreen:

As an analytical person, I appreciate the stats too!

_________________
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:47 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 19158
Location: Cincinnati, OH
waverider wrote:
So what that tells us is that defense can't really get much worse statistically and offense is progressing better than we thought so we no longer have to worry about defense and just let our improving offense carry us :mrgreen:

Just like all those Chris Scelfo teams that had good offense and horrible defense. We always won 8 or 9 games that way, didn't we?

Oh, wait.... 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Posts: 20093
Location: North Kenner
PeteRasche wrote:
waverider wrote:
So what that tells us is that defense can't really get much worse statistically and offense is progressing better than we thought so we no longer have to worry about defense and just let our improving offense carry us :mrgreen:

Just like all those Chris Scelfo teams that had good offense and horrible defense. We always won 8 or 9 games that way, didn't we?

Oh, wait.... 8)

We used to say that if we had a defense that could hold teams to 30 or below we'd have won a lot of games those years.

_________________
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:09 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 19158
Location: Cincinnati, OH
waverider wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
waverider wrote:
So what that tells us is that defense can't really get much worse statistically and offense is progressing better than we thought so we no longer have to worry about defense and just let our improving offense carry us :mrgreen:

Just like all those Chris Scelfo teams that had good offense and horrible defense. We always won 8 or 9 games that way, didn't we?

Oh, wait.... 8)

We used to say that if we had a defense that could hold teams to 30 or below we'd have won a lot of games those years.

Yeah, nothing like being bottom 3 in all of FBS in points and yards allowed (I don't know final stats but a couple of those teams had those dubious distinctions for long periods of time) ... Reminds me of when my Reds built home run-friendly Great American Ball Park and loaded up with a bunch of power hitters, neglected pitching, and thought they'd outscore everyone. I suppose if you're gonna lose, losing 15-8 is more fun for the fans than 5-3... But we all know that winning is more fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline
President's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am
Posts: 3338
Location: Wichita
1401973 wrote:
even though it's not quite the EOY, I checked out our team stats. Found these interesting:
3rd down Defense 112th
4th down Offense 4th
fumbles lost 17th
net punting 101st
Had passes intercepted 17th
Defensive passes intercepted 30th
Red zone D 14th
Red zone O 54th
rushing D 110th
rushing O 22nd
defensive sacks 118th
tackles for losses 101st
time of possession 14th
turnover margin 18th
Total D - yards100th
Total )- yards - 75th


It's amazing we could be 17th in interceptions with how much we ran vs threw. I think the army game alone is responsible for the 4th down conversions! With as experienced as our D was, we weren't very good in most aspects, especially considering our time of possession. Obviously need more pressure on the QB to help get off the field on third down.

_________________
#stopbunting


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:51 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 9202
gerryb323 wrote:
1401973 wrote:
even though it's not quite the EOY, I checked out our team stats. Found these interesting:
3rd down Defense 112th
4th down Offense 4th
fumbles lost 17th
net punting 101st
Had passes intercepted 17th
Defensive passes intercepted 30th
Red zone D 14th
Red zone O 54th
rushing D 110th
rushing O 22nd
defensive sacks 118th
tackles for losses 101st
time of possession 14th
turnover margin 18th
Total D - yards100th
Total )- yards - 75th


It's amazing we could be 17th in interceptions with how much we ran vs threw. I think the army game alone is responsible for the 4th down conversions! With as experienced as our D was, we weren't very good in most aspects, especially considering our time of possession. Obviously need more pressure on the QB to help get off the field on third down.

That's 17th fewest INTs thrown, not most. Personally, I think a big help would be getting that net punting number into the middle of the pack...we've been awful there for years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:12 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 749
Location: River Ridge
So comparing the below TU stats to average:

3rd down Defense 112th at 44%. Average 38%.
4th down Offense 4th at 64%. Average at 54%
fumbles lost 17th at 5. Average 7
net punting 101st at 36.5 yards. Average at 37.9 yards.
Had passes intercepted 17th at 6. Average 10.
Defensive passes intercepted 30th at 13. Average 10.
Red zone D 14th at 74%. Average 84%.
Red zone O 54th at 86%. Average 85%.
rushing D 110th at 210.4 yards. Average 164 yards.
rushing O 22nd at 231 yards. Average 166 yards.
defensive sacks 118th at 14. Average at 24.
tackles for losses 101st at 58. Average at 72.
time of possession 14th at 32.6 min. Average 30.
turnover margin 18th at +8. Average 0.
Total D - yards 100th at 436 yards. Average 393 yards.
Total 0- yards - 75th at 392 yards. Average 401 yards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:45 am 
Offline
Trainer

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:22 am
Posts: 49
Looks like special teams improved more than everyone thought this year. The missed FG against Cincinnati killed us though. Really nutted on that one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:46 am 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 am
Posts: 5047
gawave5 wrote:
Looks like special teams improved more than everyone thought this year. The missed FG against Cincinnati killed us though. Really nutted on that one.


Agreed. I'm not checking but 1.5 yards below net punting average is no big deal. Obviously Block wasn't a weapon but he was not much of a drag either.

When was last season Tulane didn't give up an ST touchdown of some type? (If I'm forgetful here, please correct me.)

As you note it was inability to use FG kicking as a normal part of strategy that held back Wave as much as UC very bad miss. With just an "average" D1 kicker (say someone reasonably reliable from 45 and in and ok to use at 50 yards), I would guess Tulane would have had a winning season this year. Just my SWAG.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:36 am
Posts: 17414
Location: Philadelphia, PA & Berlin, MD
Baywave1 wrote:
gawave5 wrote:
Looks like special teams improved more than everyone thought this year. The missed FG against Cincinnati killed us though. Really nutted on that one.


Agreed. I'm not checking but 1.5 yards below net punting average is no big deal. Obviously Block wasn't a weapon but he was not much of a drag either.

When was last season Tulane didn't give up an ST touchdown of some type? (If I'm forgetful here, please correct me.)

As you note it was inability to use FG kicking as a normal part of strategy that held back Wave as much as UC very bad miss. With just an "average" D1 kicker (say someone reasonably reliable from 45 and in and ok to use at 50 yards), I would guess Tulane would have had a winning season this year. Just my SWAG.
You nailed it. Not saying WF would have changed his basic approach but when you have less than confidence in your FG unit, it does color your game plan. We really were spoiled by Eddie, Brad, Seth, and Cairo. Unfortunately for most of those eras, the rest of the offense offered marginal reinforcement.

_________________
A&S 1978


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 9202
Baywave1 wrote:
gawave5 wrote:
Looks like special teams improved more than everyone thought this year. The missed FG against Cincinnati killed us though. Really nutted on that one.


Agreed. I'm not checking but 1.5 yards below net punting average is no big deal. Obviously Block wasn't a weapon but he was not much of a drag either.

When was last season Tulane didn't give up an ST touchdown of some type? (If I'm forgetful here, please correct me.)

As you note it was inability to use FG kicking as a normal part of strategy that held back Wave as much as UC very bad miss. With just an "average" D1 kicker (say someone reasonably reliable from 45 and in and ok to use at 50 yards), I would guess Tulane would have had a winning season this year. Just my SWAG.

While you may be happy to give up 1.5 yards 4-5 times a game, I think the real issue with our punting is not the net average but the extreme variability. Would love to see a standard deviation on those punts...since we can't seem to ever get the ball downfield in the air, we're subject to the bounce of the ball meaning we're continually good for a 24 yarder followed by a 53 yarder (which only goes 30 in the air).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 am
Posts: 5047
Standard deviations matter and can be more informative than means. Even if not analytically supported I think our eyes tell us, Tulane can improve its punting game. However I don't recall any big punt returns this year against Tulane much less a TD. I think there may have been one or at most two partial blocks. (I welcome correction by those with more precise info.) So Block didn't transform field position too often either way. Neither a weapon nor much of a liability. For a coach who generally plays not to lose, I can see why Fritz may keep Block for one more year.

I'm not nuts about any of that but after years of giving up several TDs annually by the punting team. It was a material improvement. Meanwhile 1.5 yards by four or five punts per game equals one offensive holding penalty by your line per game. Better not to have that? No doubt. I think in sum it shows Tulane was an average team with an average record and ultimately average ho hum stats.

Others have reported Fritz is recruiting a punter so we may see a frosh there next year beating out Block if he stays.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:29 am 
Offline
Regent's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Posts: 6684
Location: Charlotte
Baywave1 wrote:
Standard deviations matter and can be more informative than means. Even if not analytically supported I think our eyes tell us, Tulane can improve its punting game. However I don't recall any big punt returns this year against Tulane much less a TD. I think there may have been one or at most two partial blocks. (I welcome correction by those with more precise info.) So Block didn't transform field position too often either way. Neither a weapon nor much of a liability. For a coach who generally plays not to lose, I can see why Fritz may keep Block for one more year.

I'm not nuts about any of that but after years of giving up several TDs annually by the punting team. It was a material improvement. Meanwhile 1.5 yards by four or five punts per game equals one offensive holding penalty by your line per game. Better not to have that? No doubt. I think in sum it shows Tulane was an average team with an average record and ultimately average ho hum stats.

Others have reported Fritz is recruiting a punter so we may see a frosh there next year beating out Block if he stays.


Bay.. there weren't any big punt returns because Bloch's kicks went 20 yards in the air... 15 yards short of the returner... and rolled on 90% of his punts.

_________________
Image
YOGWF - of all the Tulane fans in the world, we're the Tulaniest


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group