[mark3k]

I wrote a piece about this over at Cardinal Report. It's behind the pay wall, but here's something I found kind of interesting:

Stanford ran the ball sixteen times when three yards or less were necessary for either a touchdown or a first down. Taylor got six of those carries and was successful half the time, and Wilkerson was oh for four. Fullback Ryan Hewitt was three for three, and Luck was one for one. Backups Jeremy Stewart and Tyler Gaffney each converted an opportunity in the fourth quarter, but that only helped to make the overall success rate look a bit better. It makes no sense for a team that prides itself on its power running game to have its top two running backs convert only three of ten short yardage situations.

If you watched the game that's probably just confirmation of what your eyes told you, but I was still surprised. I expect they'll be a bit more successful in similar situations this week.

So they were 11-for-16 on short-yardage plays for first downs or TDs via the run...  I think 90+% of knowledgeable  football coaches would be pleased with that success ratio on such "tough yardage" plays (including those of as much as 3 yards, and against field-compressed goal-line defenses)!  The fact that these plays represented 16 of our carries clearly illustrates my point above re: the statistical per-carry average compression effect.  This actually makes me feel even better about the "big disappointment" in our first game performance!  Now we're supposed to quibble about who specifically was successful on those plays (and implicitly ignore the aggregate data, including the success that our line had "moving bodies" for Hewitt, for example)?  Really?!?  I'm glad that our coaches aren't satisfied, and want/expect to do better, but I'm thrilled with Saturday's outcome.... all things considered.

[mark3k]

I wrote a piece about this over at Cardinal Report. It's behind the pay wall, but here's something I found kind of interesting:

Stanford ran the ball sixteen times when three yards or less were necessary for either a touchdown or a first down. Taylor got six of those carries and was successful half the time, and Wilkerson was oh for four. Fullback Ryan Hewitt was three for three, and Luck was one for one. Backups Jeremy Stewart and Tyler Gaffney each converted an opportunity in the fourth quarter, but that only helped to make the overall success rate look a bit better. It makes no sense for a team that prides itself on its power running game to have its top two running backs convert only three of ten short yardage situations.

If you watched the game that's probably just confirmation of what your eyes told you, but I was still surprised. I expect they'll be a bit more successful in similar situations this week.

So they were 11-for-16 on short-yardage plays for first downs or TDs via the run...  I think 90+% of knowledgeable  football coaches would be pleased with that success ratio on such "tough yardage" plays (including those of as much as 3 yards, and against field-compressed goal-line defenses)!  The fact that these plays represented 16 of our carries clearly illustrates my point above re: the statistical per-carry average compression effect.  This actually makes me feel even better about the "big disappointment" in our first game performance!  Now we're supposed to quibble about who specifically was successful on those plays (and implicitly ignore the aggregate data, including the success that our line had "moving bodies" for Hewitt, for example)?  Really?!?  I'm glad that our coaches aren't satisfied, and want/expect to do better, but I'm thrilled with Saturday's outcome.... all things considered.