TrueGSU.com

Follow GSUFANS.com on
     
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

  1. #21

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by gsuoption View Post
    Then they have to start throwing screens and attacking the perimeter to open up the dive, instead of going to the dive 50 times a game when it isn't working.
    I would love to see some stats on the dive this season vs last. My impression is that it’s been more effective in 2019. It may be that we’ve had fewer stuffs on that play in 2019, though.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  2. #22

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    I would love to see some stats on the dive this season vs last. My impression is that it’s been more effective in 2019. It may be that we’ve had fewer stuffs on that play in 2019, though.
    According to GATAdb (this is just the run game in general, not dives alone), 2019 is the lowest success rate we've had on the ground since 1998 at 37.7%. 2018 is 7th lowest at 40.7%.

  3. #23

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by kdarnell233 View Post
    According to GATAdb (this is just the run game in general, not dives alone), 2019 is the lowest success rate we've had on the ground since 1998 at 37.7%. 2018 is 7th lowest at 40.7%.
    “Success rate” is not as useful for “dive” plays because getting 4.9 yards on first and ten is technically “unsuccessful” according to the stat. In the real world, that’s a good result for a run-first team. Even two or three yard gains are “ok” in that scenario.

    Our “stuff rate” against non-top-ten-FBS defenses is just 12.4%, which is significantly better than last year’s 15.9%.

    Of course, this is for all runs, not just “dives.” I don’t have time to scan and compare RB stuff rates. I do know that Fields’ stuff rate last season was abnormally high, which speaks to how much trouble we had running inside, especially when defenses expected it.

    What we haven’t done (barring the Maine game) is break many long runs—of any sort.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  4. Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    “Success rate” is not as useful for “dive” plays because getting 4.9 yards on first and ten is technically “unsuccessful” according to the stat. In the real world, that’s a good result for a run-first team. Even two or three yard gains are “ok” in that scenario.

    Our “stuff rate” against non-top-ten-FBS defenses is just 12.4%, which is significantly better than last year’s 15.9%.

    Of course, this is for all runs, not just “dives.” I don’t have time to scan and compare RB stuff rates. I do know that Fields’ stuff rate last season was abnormally high, which speaks to how much trouble we had running inside, especially when defenses expected it.

    What we haven’t done (barring the Maine game) is break many long runs—of any sort.
    Correct... at least just by watching the game, the dive is getting stuffed a lot or gaining small chunks here and there. Basically no big plays are happening with the dive this year, and that is unusual for a DeBesse offense. Once you start hitting that dive, everything else falls in line. Attacking the perimeter starts to hit big plays, you can get big plays in the passing game, but the dive just isn't working well this year.. This offense usually produces a couple of plays per game where they break off a huge run on the dive, because its been effective and then they have to start worrying about option pitches and throws... At New Mexico you regularly saw long TD runs (in fact, they led the nation in them) right up the gut after the offense got into a groove.

    Hopefully they can use the bye week to start patching up the problems and get some things going to open it up... but based on my limited knowledge of this offense, having seen it here and at New Mexico, that dive play absolutely has to work.

  5. #25

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    “Success rate” is not as useful for “dive” plays because getting 4.9 yards on first and ten is technically “unsuccessful” according to the stat. In the real world, that’s a good result for a run-first team. Even two or three yard gains are “ok” in that scenario.

    Our “stuff rate” against non-top-ten-FBS defenses is just 12.4%, which is significantly better than last year’s 15.9%.

    Of course, this is for all runs, not just “dives.” I don’t have time to scan and compare RB stuff rates. I do know that Fields’ stuff rate last season was abnormally high, which speaks to how much trouble we had running inside, especially when defenses expected it.

    What we haven’t done (barring the Maine game) is break many long runs—of any sort.
    Our success rate is also going to be distorted from bad snaps, penalties, and negative plays caused by pitch screw-ups or whatever.
    "Follow the trendlines, not the headlines." -Steven Pinker (?)

    Regarding football Scheduling.

  6. #26

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Rewatching the game, our blocking still needs a lot of work (coaching and players - both sides are failing based on what I see, and I'm a self-proclaimed expert).

  7. #27

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyBob View Post
    Our success rate is also going to be distorted from bad snaps, penalties, and negative plays caused by pitch screw-ups or whatever.
    Yes. And I should clarify; I’m not claiming that we run the dive better than we did last year.

    I’m suggesting there hasn’t been a huge drop off—if any—within four yards of the LoS.

    We obviously need to break more big plays between the tackles. Having Kennedy back might help. I can’t help but think that there are other reasons we aren’t getting big-play lanes, though.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  8. #28

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    Yes. And I should clarify; I’m not claiming that we run the dive better than we did last year.

    I’m suggesting there hasn’t been a huge drop off—if any—within four yards of the LoS.

    We obviously need to break more big plays between the tackles. Having Kennedy back might help. I can’t help but think that there are other reasons we aren’t getting big-play lanes, though.
    I would honestly feel more comfortable converting 4th and 1 this season than last.

    But we are definitely not getting the explosive plays up the middle we did last year, and I think how tightly bunched or OL is has a lot to do with that.
    "Follow the trendlines, not the headlines." -Steven Pinker (?)

    Regarding football Scheduling.

  9. #29

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyBob View Post
    I would honestly feel more comfortable converting 4th and 1 this season than last.

    But we are definitely not getting the explosive plays up the middle we did last year, and I think how tightly bunched or OL is has a lot to do with that.
    I suspect this has something to do with it.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Warner Robins, GA
    Posts
    28,025

    Default Re: IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE?

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyBob View Post
    I would honestly feel more comfortable converting 4th and 1 this season than last.

    But we are definitely not getting the explosive plays up the middle we did last year, and I think how tightly bunched or OL is has a lot to do with that.
    We bunched up like this last year too.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •