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!

Colorado's Offensive Staff - Performance v Pay?

Darth Snow

Darth Snow

Hawaiian Buffalo
Club Member
Junta Member
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com/20...ver-and-under-paid-offensive-staff-in-college

Basically, our offense had good #s, but wasn't efficient and turned the ball over a lot. As a result, in the P12 we were only better than Utah and Washington on offense according to the S&P metric. Also one of the most overpaid staffs versus production.

Weird how much the 'advanced' stats hated CU's offense this year despite all the production.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Great idea to put this in an open forum during recruiting season. Gold star!
Click to expand...
I think it's fair to discuss CU Football performance in a CU football forum. It's an interesting topic. And we've never shied away from valid discussions, good or bad, about CU stuff. Feel free to come up with some counterpoints!
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Great idea to put this in an open forum during recruiting season. Gold star!
Click to expand...

Maybe you are on to something here....can we blame Slider, Syko, and Duff for the horrible recruiting results? If only they had focused on the positives, we would have a top 10 class this year.
 
I'd assume that what's hurting the advanced stats is the low number of explosive plays (20+ yards) CU made last season. Yards per play were pretty low due to that. They did a nice job of moving the ball and scoring points, but the way they did it is the hard way. Got to be more explosive in 2015.
 
Buffnik said:
I'd assume that what's hurting the advanced stats is the low number of explosive plays (20+ yards) CU made last season. Yards per play were pretty low due to that. They did a nice job of moving the ball and scoring points, but the way they did it is the hard way. Got to be more explosive in 2015.
Click to expand...

Which I tie directly to the loss of P Rich.
 
pcbuff said:
Which I tie directly to the loss of P Rich.
Click to expand...

Major factor. But there were also a lot of missed opportunities with the RBs not making something happen at the 2nd level or Sefo either not finding someone down field or the OL not giving time for deeper pass plays to develop.
 
Buffnik said:
Major factor. But there were also a lot of missed opportunities with the RBs not making something happen at the 2nd level or Sefo either not finding someone down field or the OL not giving time for deeper pass plays to develop.
Click to expand...

I think most of the issues are at RB. Not enough big plays or scoring plays from that group. Only conference team with fewer rushing TDs was Wazzu.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Great idea to put this in an open forum during recruiting season. Gold star!
Click to expand...

I see comments like this on the VT boards too, and respectfully disagree with the sentiment.

Fan based message boards are supposed to be places for fans to talk about their favorite (and least favorite) teams. IMO, topics like this are totally "fair". Boards like AB aren't supposed to be sanitized PR stops for recruits.
 
filter by conference.

every P5 conference has a positive sloped trend line EXCEPT the ACC. well, fucjk.
 
Duff Man said:
I think most of the issues are at RB. Not enough big plays or scoring plays from that group. Only conference team with fewer rushing TDs was Wazzu.
Click to expand...


I agree, not only rushing but catching the ball and making big plays ala oregon rb's. I know our backs have nowhere near the speed as them but....
 
hokiehead said:
I see comments like this on the VT boards too, and respectfully disagree with the sentiment.

Fan based message boards are supposed to be places for fans to talk about their favorite (and least favorite) teams. IMO, topics like this are totally "fair". Boards like AB aren't supposed to be sanitized PR stops for recruits.
Click to expand...

Good idea. We need to start these kinds of threads on other teams boards
 
the "O" put up nice yardage numbers but i agree for the most part it always took a 12 play drive to score... must have some big plays next year .... sooner or later a holding call, sack or in cu's case a turnover stalls these long drives
 
So, I'm not overly well versed in advanced football stats. What does this mean? We just weren't efficient because we didn't score long TDs and turned it over too much? Are there any future implications that can be drawn from them?
 
Buffnik said:
I'd assume that what's hurting the advanced stats is the low number of explosive plays (20+ yards) CU made last season. Yards per play were pretty low due to that. They did a nice job of moving the ball and scoring points, but the way they did it is the hard way. Got to be more explosive in 2015.
Click to expand...

Rick George said:
There were no proverbial moral victories in coming close (four Pac-12 losses by a combined 15 points); we hope to convert those narrow losses into wins next season. But the signs are there; this team set or tied 107 school records, most of them on offense, and that could not happen if positive strides weren’t made.
Click to expand...

Sure Nik. Sure.
 
Don't most TD drives need at least one play of 20+? It's so hard to drive the field every game.

If pac12 defenses get better next year we could be hurting. Again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
White_Rabbit said:
So, I'm not overly well versed in advanced football stats. What does this mean? We just weren't efficient because we didn't score long TDs and turned it over too much? Are there any future implications that can be drawn from them?
Click to expand...
Basically, there are five factors that have a strong correlation to wins. According to Football Study Hall,

  • If you win the explosiveness battle (using PPP), you win 86 percent of the time.
  • If you win the efficency battle (using Success Rate), you win 83 percent of the time.
  • If you win the drive-finishing battle (using points per trip inside the 40), you win 75 percent of the time.
  • If you win the field position battle (using average starting field position), you win 72 percent of the time.
  • If you win the turnover battle (using turnover margin), you win 73 percent of the time.
Click to expand...

Above was results from the 2013 season, but they still paint a good picture.

Explosiveness: #87
Efficiency: #59
Drive-Finishing Battle:
Field Position Battle: #118
Turnover Battle: #115

I couldn't find the drive-finishing stat (it's out there, just couldn't find an isolated version). So we were efficient, but lacked explosive plays, had bad field position, and didn't do well in the turnover battle.
 
'Tini said:
Basically, there are five factors that have a strong correlation to wins. According to Football Study Hall,



Above was results from the 2013 season, but they still paint a good picture.

Explosiveness: #87
Efficiency: #59
Drive-Finishing Battle:
Field Position Battle: #118
Turnover Battle: #115

I couldn't find the drive-finishing stat (it's out there, just couldn't find an isolated version). So we were efficient, but lacked explosive plays, had bad field position, and didn't do well in the turnover battle.
Click to expand...

Those last two factors (Field Position & Turnovers) show how important the performance of the defense is to offensive success.
 
'Tini said:
Basically, there are five factors that have a strong correlation to wins. According to Football Study Hall,



Above was results from the 2013 season, but they still paint a good picture.

Explosiveness: #87
Efficiency: #59
Drive-Finishing Battle:
Field Position Battle: #118
Turnover Battle: #115

I couldn't find the drive-finishing stat (it's out there, just couldn't find an isolated version). So we were efficient, but lacked explosive plays, had bad field position, and didn't do well in the turnover battle.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks, but none of that surprises me. I was wondering if there was some kind of predictive value that we can take from this, though. Kinda like a FIP for a pitcher. Advanced stats say our offense sucked, but they actually performed decently. Are we looking at a crash back to the norm next year? Or were we just inefficient because of the factors you say which in theory we should lessen next year.

This is kinda why I don't buy into advanced stats in football as much. Baseball stats seem so much more refined and advanced (not to mention based on individual play much more). Or I just don't get them yet, which is probably the most likely :lol:
 
White_Rabbit said:
Ok, thanks, but none of that surprises me. I was wondering if there was some kind of predictive value that we can take from this, though. Kinda like a FIP for a pitcher. Advanced stats say our offense sucked, but they actually performed decently. Are we looking at a crash back to the norm next year? Or were we just inefficient because of the factors you say which in theory we should lessen next year.

This is kinda why I don't buy into advanced stats in football as much. Baseball stats seem so much more refined and advanced (not to mention based on individual play much more). Or I just don't get them yet, which is probably the most likely :lol:
Click to expand...
There may be a predictive value out there, but I'm not aware of it. I'm not sure what the dependent variable would be though, year+1 pythag or wins or something similar? Football is a bitch to measure with advanced stats because of the insane amount of variables in every play, but it's also in its infancy.

Assuming a regression to the mean, and the mean is roughly 60, we should improve on just about everything next year. One glaring omission here though is the lack of experience aspect. I bet if you put that in a model the results would be a little bit different.
 
'Tini said:
Basically, there are five factors that have a strong correlation to wins. According to Football Study Hall,



Above was results from the 2013 season, but they still paint a good picture.

Explosiveness: #87
Efficiency: #59
Drive-Finishing Battle:
Field Position Battle: #118
Turnover Battle: #115

I couldn't find the drive-finishing stat (it's out there, just couldn't find an isolated version). So we were efficient, but lacked explosive plays, had bad field position, and didn't do well in the turnover battle.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff. One would think if we could improve the turnover battle and flip field position, we could see a completely different 2015 season.
 
Third down efficiency also helps with field position. It seemed to me that CU would often get a team into third and six or longer, only to give up a ten yard play. Maybe I saw it more because that kind if thing drives me bonkers. Regular third down stats don't know the difference between giving up a third and two and a third and twelve.
 
sackman said:
Third down efficiency also helps with field position. It seemed to me that CU would often get a team into third and six or longer, only to give up a ten yard play. Maybe I saw it more because that kind if thing drives me bonkers. Regular third down stats don't know the difference between giving up a third and two and a third and twelve.
Click to expand...

agree thats the way it seemed to me ... unless it was 3rd and 25 opposing teams just kept moving the chains
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top