[stupac2]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=8599.msg71220#msg71220 date=1381716892]
I don't think the missed FG mattered

Of course the missed FG mattered. If Williamson hits the FG:

1) we go up 17-7 and the momentum is much different.

2) But if we hit the FG and everything else proceeds the same way (which it wouldn't, but assume with me), instead of going for it on fourth-and-two, we have an opportunity to kick the FG for the tie and go to OT.

Yes, obviously you'd prefer to score touchdowns than field goals. But sometimes you're going to stall, and in those sometimes I'd prefer to have 3 points than 0.

Again, I recognize that there were a number of unsightly problems on offense, but the picture on a play-by-play basis is not so bad. Moreover, it doesn't appear to me that there's a persistent strategic or personnel problem on offense. Defensively, however, we've been exploited by the exact same play for two seasons now; you'd think the defensive coaches -- who, by the way, have been virtually untouched by attrition -- would be able to figure out a counter to a simple play outflanking them. That they have no answer is a damning indictment. (To say nothing of their inability to develop another defensive lineman.)
[/quote]

I don't really understand why you're so on this. If that was such a glaring weakness, why was Utah's YPP a "not so excellent" 5.6? It seems to me that you're trying to have this both ways, that the offense is fine because it's YPP was good, but we got unlucky with swingy things (turnovers, missed FG, etc) while the defense was bad because we didn't do well on some plays, despite yielding a decent YPP. Which is it, is YPP a good statistic or a bad one?

[stupac2]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=8599.msg71220#msg71220 date=1381716892]
I don't think the missed FG mattered

Of course the missed FG mattered. If Williamson hits the FG:

1) we go up 17-7 and the momentum is much different.

2) But if we hit the FG and everything else proceeds the same way (which it wouldn't, but assume with me), instead of going for it on fourth-and-two, we have an opportunity to kick the FG for the tie and go to OT.

Yes, obviously you'd prefer to score touchdowns than field goals. But sometimes you're going to stall, and in those sometimes I'd prefer to have 3 points than 0.

Again, I recognize that there were a number of unsightly problems on offense, but the picture on a play-by-play basis is not so bad. Moreover, it doesn't appear to me that there's a persistent strategic or personnel problem on offense. Defensively, however, we've been exploited by the exact same play for two seasons now; you'd think the defensive coaches -- who, by the way, have been virtually untouched by attrition -- would be able to figure out a counter to a simple play outflanking them. That they have no answer is a damning indictment. (To say nothing of their inability to develop another defensive lineman.)
[/quote]

I don't really understand why you're so on this. If that was such a glaring weakness, why was Utah's YPP a "not so excellent" 5.6? It seems to me that you're trying to have this both ways, that the offense is fine because it's YPP was good, but we got unlucky with swingy things (turnovers, missed FG, etc) while the defense was bad because we didn't do well on some plays, despite yielding a decent YPP. Which is it, is YPP a good statistic or a bad one?