Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Advanced Stats and CU - 2016 Edition

Darth Snow

Darth Snow

Hawaiian Buffalo
Club Member
Junta Member
I like checking in on these. Right now, CU has some truly eye popping efficiency numbers in certain categories, but they aren't showing up very well in the overall ranking, which is just 74. Why?


http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2016-colorado-advanced-statistical-profile
Basically, cause the model expects us to suck, and won't fully count in season performance until week five. Which makes sense. Bill also noted that the efficiency stats just aren't very reliable yet because of the low amount of data points.

CU: 74
CSU: 93
Michigan: 4
Oregon: 11
OSU: 88 (only game we are favored in rest of the season at the moment)
USC: 12
Stanford: 13
UCLA: 19
Arizona: 61
ASU: 48
WSU: 65
Utah: 38

Now, caveats aside, I like most of the below numbers, so let's take a look:

Early notes: Our offense is still not all that explosive (79), which is better than last year, but obviously not great. However, it is currently the most efficient offense in the nation, and is above average in finishing drives. However, we just don't get explosive running plays. All our scoring plays on the run, except for Sefo's one, have been like 2 yards, putting us last in the nation somehow.

Defense: Extremely good at stopping explosive plays (#11), and is very good at making other teams inefficient (#4). However, it is average at stopping drives that get across our 40. (#66) But the defense has all sorts of good numbers.

In any event, only thing I can say for sure is that the numbers are improved, albeit against crap competition. My concern is that the OL stats, such as they are, are mixed to average in most spots.

And Beau Bisharat is struggling.
Special teams look average. Woot!
 
Darth Snow said:
Defense: Extremely good at stopping explosive plays (#11), and is very good at making other teams inefficient (#4). However, it is average at stopping drives that get across our 40. (#66) But the defense has all sorts of good numbers.
Click to expand...
to the bolded how many drives have gotten past cu's 40... 2? 0-2 aint ****ty hahah
 
Duff Man said:
For a team which struggles in the red zone, explosive plays are vital.
Click to expand...
Explosive running plays are obviously limited by our personnel. I don't know why Lindgren doesn't dial up more long passing plays. Does he not trust Sefo's long ball accuracy or the OL?
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Explosive running plays are obviously limited by our personnel. I don't know why Lindgren doesn't dial up more long passing plays. Does he not trust Sefo's long ball accuracy or the OL?
Click to expand...

We go deep enough. No reliable big receiving targets in the red zone is a problem.
 
FLounder said:
You weren't saying that when we had one receiver over 6'1" a couple of years ago
Click to expand...

Definitely have gotten taller, but it will take time for the newer group to get bigger. Also several guys who need to adjust to this level of play as well. Understand the difference or do I need to walk you through that step by step?
 
Duff Man said:
Definitely have gotten taller, but it will take time for the newer group to get bigger. Also several guys who need to adjust to this level of play as well. Understand the difference or do I need to walk you through that step by step?
Click to expand...

Your points stand with validity. Though while our guys need to definitely bulk up, it's not like we are walking out sticks at wide out. And based on the first two games, downfield blocking has been exceptional, i'm personally not to worried about weight on our WR's this year, just catch the damn ball when it hits you in the hands.
 
CU is now up to 43 overall. http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2016-colorado-advanced-statistical-profile

However, these projections are still based off the preseason to a surprising degree (to me), so you can reasonably argue CU is still undervalued and is somewhere near the top 20. It also makes for some interesting takes on teams falling down the rankings in a big way (cough USC)

CU: 43
CSU: 90 (staying the same)
@Michigan: 2 (they are getting better as the season rolls on - look like the truth)
@Oregon: 20 (falllllllllling)
OSU: 84 (treading water)
@USC: 34 (fallllllllllllllling)
ASU: 57 (treadin)
@Stanford: 9 (improving slightly)
UCLA: 27
@Arizona: 62
WSU: 63 (how are these guys still this high?)
Utah: 32

Favored in all games but USC, Stanford, and UCLA. Projected chance of getting 5-7 or below: 8%. Most likely end result: 7-5 at 28%, followed by 8-4 at 26%.

Other takes: Our running game is holding us back. While it is moderately efficient, it continues to be one of the worst in the country at explosiveness.

passing game is good, really good. Sefo is better at it than montez by a clear step, but montez is a better runner. To be expected.

We are the 8th fastest paced team in the nation.

Defense is good, not great. #33 in the nation at causing havoc. Mostly from the DBs and LBs, as the DL is doing a good job at keeping blockers off them. Samson is doing work.
 
Darth Snow said:
CU is now up to 43 overall. http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2016-colorado-advanced-statistical-profile

However, these projections are still based off the preseason to a surprising degree (to me), so you can reasonably argue CU is still undervalued and is somewhere near the top 20. It also makes for some interesting takes on teams falling down the rankings in a big way (cough USC)

CU: 43
CSU: 90 (staying the same)
@Michigan: 2 (they are getting better as the season rolls on - look like the truth)
@Oregon: 20 (falllllllllling)
OSU: 84 (treading water)
@USC: 34 (fallllllllllllllling)
ASU: 57 (treadin)
@Stanford: 9 (improving slightly)
UCLA: 27
@Arizona: 62
WSU: 63 (how are these guys still this high?)
Utah: 32

Favored in all games but USC, Stanford, and UCLA. Projected chance of getting 5-7 or below: 8%. Most likely end result: 7-5 at 28%, followed by 8-4 at 26%.

Other takes: Our running game is holding us back. While it is moderately efficient, it continues to be one of the worst in the country at explosiveness.

passing game is good, really good. Sefo is better at it than montez by a clear step, but montez is a better runner. To be expected.

We are the 8th fastest paced team in the nation.

Defense is good, not great. #33 in the nation at causing havoc. Mostly from the DBs and LBs, as the DL is doing a good job at keeping blockers off them. Samson is doing work.
Click to expand...

If 30% of our rank is weighed towards last year's S&P (98th) and 70% is rated towards this year, that means we're at ~19th or 20th for this year's S&P.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
If 30% of our rank is weighed towards last year's S&P (98th) and 70% is rated towards this year, that means we're at ~19th or 20th for this year's S&P.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what my gut said, but I don't know how much last year's final ranking is used in this year's projected ranking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top