09-08-2014, 11:44 AM
Plus vote just for the nicknames.
Looking at the 2010 - 2013 seasons:
2010 we had 69 plays running for 20+ yards (good for a tie for 14th in the country)
2011 we had 76 such plays (10th in the nation)
2012 we were down to 47 such plays (92nd in the country)
2013 we were back up to 68 (but compared to 2010, it was only good for 38th, which makes me think that other teams have been getting more explosive with time.
So far this year we have 10, good for 41st in the country.
My issue with this analysis is that there is a strong correlation between good offenses generally and explosive plays. Even a team whose bread and butter is ball control and methodically running down the defense will break some long runs. You get around that somewhat by looking at the percentage of plays that go long, but even then, I would argue that there is probably a strong correlation between the median play (I use median because it would not be prone to the distorting effects of long "explosive" plays the way the mean), and proportion of explosive plays. Though we like to think of it as an either/or (you either use ball control to get consistent yardage OR you have high variance offense that can hit the big play but often strikes out), the truth is that the good teams tend to do both, while the bad teams can't really do either well. Take "Derogatory Nicknames" and "Middle of Nowheres", two teams that hired high profile coaches who supposedly could bring pass-happy, big play offenses. They ranked second and third to the last, mostly because they simply sucked. Our "beloveds" was supposed to be a ball control offense, yet we are near the top in percent of 20+ yard play.
The bottom line, good teams get explosive plays, but it is hard to attribute causality.
BC
Looking at the 2010 - 2013 seasons:
2010 we had 69 plays running for 20+ yards (good for a tie for 14th in the country)
2011 we had 76 such plays (10th in the nation)
2012 we were down to 47 such plays (92nd in the country)
2013 we were back up to 68 (but compared to 2010, it was only good for 38th, which makes me think that other teams have been getting more explosive with time.
So far this year we have 10, good for 41st in the country.
My issue with this analysis is that there is a strong correlation between good offenses generally and explosive plays. Even a team whose bread and butter is ball control and methodically running down the defense will break some long runs. You get around that somewhat by looking at the percentage of plays that go long, but even then, I would argue that there is probably a strong correlation between the median play (I use median because it would not be prone to the distorting effects of long "explosive" plays the way the mean), and proportion of explosive plays. Though we like to think of it as an either/or (you either use ball control to get consistent yardage OR you have high variance offense that can hit the big play but often strikes out), the truth is that the good teams tend to do both, while the bad teams can't really do either well. Take "Derogatory Nicknames" and "Middle of Nowheres", two teams that hired high profile coaches who supposedly could bring pass-happy, big play offenses. They ranked second and third to the last, mostly because they simply sucked. Our "beloveds" was supposed to be a ball control offense, yet we are near the top in percent of 20+ yard play.
The bottom line, good teams get explosive plays, but it is hard to attribute causality.
BC