Just a few little things - Fun With Statistics

[buffaholic]

Rewatched the NU game and special teams lost that game for us. NU couldn't move the ball AT ALL vs. our Defense, and then after we missed two straight scoring opportunities with missed Field Goals, their offense suddenly marches right thru us like wet Kleenex to seal the game.

That's the problem I've had with our Defense. They played great and we went back and forth with them. Our offense outgained theirs all night and then our Defense had a big let down. I know it's hard to blame them as they had a good night, but you could just see the air come out of them after our offense missed the 2nd scoring opportunity in the 2nd half to tighten up the margin. I have a hard time excusing them since they were better than NU's pathetic offense. Effort.

Every single facet of the game was weak. I saw great improvement in the offense, but not really so much in the O-line. Really questionable that will improve without a coaching change. 4 coaches in 5 years... So that's a tough one.

DiLallo was the worst punter in school history.

Goodman is the worst kicker in school history. He has to be done.

These are two positions that have been very strong since I came here. Who doesn't want to kick/punt at altitude? This has to get fixed.

Penalties (mostly offensive line false starts, WR's in illegal formations, and play-clock).

The offense and defense have a chance to be much better. The offense will really improve if the O-line somehow can come together and figure it out.

There's some big IFs there, but for the first time since 2001, I never felt like we were outmatched against the top teams. I felt like if we'd figure some of these little things out we'd be right in there with Texas, OSU, etc. Texas put some huge beatings on us during those Big-12-North champion years.

I still think the offensive upside with a Maturing line, maturing Hansen, 3-6 WR's who can make plays..... I haven't seen an offense that could flat out do these things since I started watching in '96.

 

[buffaholic]

Special teams killed us all year, but it wasn't just the 3 points on the missed FG. It was loss of momentum. Really deflating to march 60 yards and get no points. Plus it seemed like our opponents started at the 50 all year long, while we started inside the 15. Return game and kick coverage were awful.

Penalties were also drive killers. So many false starts on the Oline. I love Beatty's enthusiasm, but he seemed to have an offsides streak going there for awhile on D too.

Fortunately, all of these things can be "cleaned up". I suspect Grossnickle will be a better punter than Dillalo. The FG competition will be opened up with Aweida plus hopefully a scholly frosh kicker.

B Lock should return kicks for us next year. Maybe Orms.

Offsides penalties should subside with more experience on both lines.

Is Grossnickle no longer kicking? just punting?

 

[BlackNGold]

Let me say up front that I didn't set out with any particular point to make, but I was thinking about the statement that "it's just the little things" and that we were about 10 plays away from a bowl game.

So I pulled out some random statistics to see what I could shake out.

Now I happened to pull out missed kicks (easiest stat to add up), and interceptions and sacks, but granted, if someone wanted to go back through the games and find dropped passes, or penalties, or any other stat, you could make your own case one way or the other.

These stats below are ONLY for lost games in 2009, and only for the random stats I could find easily -- just a couple categories.

But here's what stands out:
we were not shut out in any games.
our biggest losses were against the two highest ranked opponents
overall, we were a couple bounces or two scores away from winning any games except Texas (lost by 24 points) and Missou (lost by 19 points.) With 8 sacks in that game, we are lucky it wasn't a bigger difference.

This isn't meant to pick on Goodman or Cody Hawkins, just pointing out that the team really was only a few plays away from winning a lot more games. Yes, you could argue that we were a few plays away from LOSING a couple more games as well.

But take a look. Just adding in the missed kicks to the lost games we would have changed the stats in these games:

vs Toledo 38 to 54. Add in 3 missed FGs it becomes 47 to 54. One touchdown away from a tie.
vs. WVA 24 to 35. Add in 3 missed FGs it becomes 2 point game.
vs. Okie State 28-31. Add in the missed FG and it's a tie game.
Even against NU, the six points in missed FGs bring us to 26-28, so close. So very close.

Of course, this shows that we would have STILL lost those games except OSU, but the point is, maybe if we tweak a few things, if we CAN fix a few things like too many penalties, short punts, etc. the team looks a whole lot better.

I'm not sure if this is a "make lemonade" type of post, but I can see where Hawkins comes off with the "10 plays and we are in a bowl" statement and believes it to be true. There were few teams that dominated us, and often we -- our own players and plays -- caused the losses, just mistakes that were made, and missed opportunities.

As I said, you could go back and do this with any statistic and see if there would have been an opportunity to change the outcome of the game.

Sometimes the excuse makers make me want to puke...

3 missed FGs against Toledo and you want to say then we would of been within one score. Totally ignoring the fact that Toledo was up by 30 points in the second half and called off the dogs for CU to score 2 meaningless touchdowns at the end of the game.

I count 6 games that we lost by more than one score...so how is that one play away from winning a lot more...the CSU game was only they close because they allowed a late touchdown when they went into a prevent defense...the game was never close. How about the fact that OSU had 5 TOs and did not have their starting QB and we still lost.

How about this trying this on...it is either a W or an L...nothing else matters.

Don't you understand that when you start going down the path of one play here or there...that is excuse making only to justify a losing mentality. Everyone wants to win but the really good teams cannot stand losing.

CU wasn't shut out for over 200 games before Hawkins got here so not being shut out is no great accomplishment.

If you want to support Hawkins and say he is going to turn it around - that is fine but to try to justify this season is pathetic.

 

[BlackNGold]

You are wrong about DiLallo. Punt coverage was a problem not so much the punter. He had 13 kicks inside the 20 with only one touchback.

 

[Buffsoldier]

With the exception of Texas, there was no championship caliber team on our schedule this year. And hell, even Texas isn't 100% perfect. All teams make mistakes in every game. So I put this question to Alferd: To give the sense of balance, can you also go back through the games and find the mistakes by the other teams that would turn our W's into L's, and our close games into blowouts?

If you're going to "what if" in one direction, you should "what if" in the other, in order to provide a better picture of where exactly you are at.

Not trying to sound like an ass, just trying to put a "neither an optimist nor a negativist, just a realist" perspective on things.

 

[Darth Snow]

I sense a **** ton of koolaid in this math.

 

[HornBuff]

You could say this for most Losing teams, that they are just a few plays away.

You could also say that CU was just a few plays away from getting blown out in many games. You could say that CU was just a few plays from being winless (a&m game is exhibit a)

I hate this talk from coaches. The team that "should have" won was the team that won, period. Would, should, could, if, but.....

Listen, if hawk was in a position to hilight solid fundamentals that were being exhibited on the field then I'll buy that argument. Solid fundamentals turn into wins eventually. But this team had piss poor fundamentals and you can start with the penalties.

 

[AlferdJasper]

With the exception of Texas, there was no championship caliber team on our schedule this year. And hell, even Texas isn't 100% perfect. All teams make mistakes in every game. So I put this question to Alferd: To give the sense of balance, can you also go back through the games and find the mistakes by the other teams that would turn our W's into L's, and our close games into blowouts?

If you're going to "what if" in one direction, you should "what if" in the other, in order to provide a better picture of where exactly you are at.

Not trying to sound like an ass, just trying to put a "neither an optimist nor a negativist, just a realist" perspective on things.

Absolutely. (I'm just not going to do the math.)
We could have lost every game - without changing much.

But we also didn't have a game that was a total blowout, although there were a couple that had huge margins. CU was doing a few things right.

Hawkins got slammed for saying we were ten plays away from a winning season, or a bowl game. He may be right. But someone still has to figure out what the areas are where CU MUST MAKE PROGRESS and figure out how that progress will be made. It's not just the handful of categories I pulled out of thin air because they are the easiest to calculate.

We need to improve. I'm just mulling over if/how it can be done. I think we may have the talent on the team. It needs better coaching. Maybe different coaching. It needs experience. It needs to practice smarter. But I keep getting the feeling the talent is there.

 

[HornBuff]

If the team is playing clean, solid football and is just getting beat by excellent play from the opposition then that's one thing. I think most people could feel better about that and feel better about prospects for next year.

 

[Dunken]

Sometimes the excuse makers make me want to puke...

3 missed FGs against Toledo and you want to say then we would of been within one score. Totally ignoring the fact that Toledo was up by 30 points in the second half and called off the dogs for CU to score 2 meaningless touchdowns at the end of the game.

I count 6 games that we lost by more than one score...so how is that one play away from winning a lot more...the CSU game was only they close because they allowed a late touchdown when they went into a prevent defense...the game was never close. How about the fact that OSU had 5 TOs and did not have their starting QB and we still lost.

How about this trying this on...it is either a W or an L...nothing else matters.

Don't you understand that when you start going down the path of one play here or there...that is excuse making only to justify a losing mentality. Everyone wants to win but the really good teams cannot stand losing.

CU wasn't shut out for over 200 games before Hawkins got here so not being shut out is no great accomplishment.

If you want to support Hawkins and say he is going to turn it around - that is fine but to try to justify this season is pathetic.

I have to agree with you on this.....I hate excuses, it comes down to TWO things WINS and LOSSES, and we filled more check marks in the losses box.

 

[leftybuff]

It just seems plausible to me that with some changes in either coaches or coaching -- whatever it takes -- we COULD clean up some little things and be competitive.

If many of our games were lost on player mistakes, mistakes that are CORRECTABLE with player personnel changes, or maybe coaching the players on where the mistakes seem to congregate ... there is hope.

With these guys, these players, this team in 2010. There is hope.

But someone has to make the changes that are needed. We can see where there are breakdowns, do something about it.

CU has good players, but I have seen virtually nothing over the last four years that leads me to believe this staff can get them to their potential.

We never got rolled this season. That tells me we are good enough to win and that the coaches never lost the team.

I probably don't think there's as much to fix as other people do. Some of it will fix itself by virtue of being an older, more experienced football team. And while we will definitely miss some of our seniors, every single one we lose is replaced by a better overall athlete.

Sorry, Mizzou most definitely rolled CU. CU was out of that game by halftime. The same could be argued about Toledo. CU was in the game at UT...until UT decided they would play the second half.

I have to agree with you on this.....I hate excuses, it comes down to TWO things WINS and LOSSES, and we filled more check marks in the losses box.

Bottom line...CU lacks that winning edge. IMO, this staff has failed to drill a competitive edge into the team. Penalties are a pretty good indicator of that symptom. I've head DH say "losing is a part of winning" enough to think he has taught the team losing is OK, and might actually be a sign of progress. That shows in how flat the team looks at times, and how they seem to take losing, repeatedly, in stride.

These things are not likely to be changed by this staff since this staff created the atmosphere the Buffs limp around in now.

 

[HornBuff]

Bottom line...CU lacks that winning edge. IMO, this staff has failed to drill a competitive edge into the team.

I think the winning edge—especially for a program that will never be loaded three deep with four and five star players—comes from doing the little things well. It comes from simplicity. It comes with execution, competence and discipline.

 

[absinthe]

I would buy this argument if we could actually show the coaches knew how to tweak things to avoid mistakes. Did Aric Goodman suddenly become a bad kicker this season? No. Did Cody Hawkins suddenly start throwing too many interceptions this season? No.

that happened last year.

 

[leftybuff]

I think the winning edge—especially for a program that will never be loaded three deep with four and five star players—comes from doing the little things well. It comes from simplicity. It comes with execution, competence and discipline.

CU appears to have all of these qualities, except three.

 

[leftybuff]

that happened last year.

Hey abs, he's somebody's kid and he's trying real hard.....


Happy belated B-Day BTW.

 

[absinthe]

Hey abs, he's somebody's kid and he's trying real hard.....


Happy belated B-Day BTW.

thanks man.

 

[Buffarino]

Where this analysis comes up short, IMO, is that it does not factor in garbage time points. I don't know if I've ever seen a team score so many points after the result of the game has been decided. A lot of those games were not nearly as close as the score would indicate. Let me illustrate:

CSU - scored TD with 1:57 left
Toledo - Scored 2 TDs inside the last 3 minutes
WVU - scored TD with 3 seconds left
ISU - scored TD with 3:17 left
NU - scored TD with no time remaining

Take away the garbage time TDs above (other team had at least a 2 score lead when the Buffs scored them), and you can see that they weren't really just a few plays away from winning those games. The late scores just made it look that way.

 

[Duff Man]

You are wrong about DiLallo. Punt coverage was a problem not so much the punter. He had 13 kicks inside the 20 with only one touchback.

I agree with your other post in this thread, but this post is simply not true IMO. DiLallo had the most punts of any punter in the Big 12 this season and still finished dead last in average, by nearly a yard too.

 

[leftybuff]

Where this analysis comes up short, IMO, is that it does not factor in garbage time points. I don't know if I've ever seen a team score so many points after the result of the game has been decided. A lot of those games were not nearly as close as the score would indicate. Let me illustrate:

CSU - scored TD with 1:57 left
Toledo - Scored 2 TDs inside the last 3 minutes
WVU - scored TD with 3 seconds left
ISU - scored TD with 3:17 left
NU - scored TD with no time remaining

Take away the garbage time TDs above (other team had at least a 2 score lead when the Buffs scored them), and you can see that they weren't really just a few plays away from winning those games. The late scores just made it look that way.

Exactly. Hawk left his starters in the whole game very nearly every game to make it look close. I don't necessarily fault him for that. But to use that as some measuring stick that they are close just because they can score againt the other team's second D, or the opponent's prevent is pretty weak.

 

[Duff Man]

Where this analysis comes up short, IMO, is that it does not factor in garbage time points. I don't know if I've ever seen a team score so many points after the result of the game has been decided. A lot of those games were not nearly as close as the score would indicate. Let me illustrate:

CSU - scored TD with 1:57 left
Toledo - Scored 2 TDs inside the last 3 minutes
WVU - scored TD with 3 seconds left
ISU - scored TD with 3:17 left
NU - scored TD with no time remaining

Take away the garbage time TDs above (other team had at least a 2 score lead when the Buffs scored them), and you can see that they weren't really just a few plays away from winning those games. The late scores just made it look that way.

Agree with this post. At least with the CSU games, you could say the those two TDs at least gave us slight hope. In the other games, however, it was truly just garbage time points.

 

[absinthe]

Exactly. Hawk left his starters in the whole game very nearly every game to make it look close. I don't necessarily fault him for that. But to use that as some measuring stick that they are close just because they can score againt the other team's second D, or the opponent's prevent is pretty weak.

this is also a good point, although I dont think enough credence is being given to what a killer a missed filed goal is from a momentum stand point its about as bad as a fumble or pick. Basically we had 5 TO's against the nubs and lost by 8.

 

[leftybuff]

I agree with your other post in this thread, but this post is simply not true IMO. DiLallo had the most punts of any punter in the Big 12 this season and still finished dead last in average, by nearly a yard too.

I watched Grossnickle warm up before aTm. He was standing beside DiLallo as they punted. Grossnickle's punts were consistently 5-7 yards deeper and had more hang time. I didn't have a stopwatch, but you could definitely tell the difference on both counts. FWIW.

 

[HornBuff]

When Muschamp first came to Texas I remember a point he made along these lines. I personally think it applies to all areas of life and in any sport.

He was talking about his work with the defensive linemen. He was saying that many of the players had been coached to do too much. The linemen had all of these different moves and techniques spinning in their heads. Muschamp said he was changing that philosophy. He said, as a defensive linemen, you need to have only one or two good moves and then be REALLY GOOD with those moves. Otherwise you’re thinking too much, you’re confused, you’re not playing free, you’re not flowing, you’re not loose.

I love this philosophy. Keep it simple, go for mastery of a few things instead of being mediocre with many and always having to think instead of playing loose. By game time you should have enough reps that you’re not thinking but reacting…muscle memory…instinctive…flowing…playing without hesitation, etc.

 

[Darth Snow]

When Muschamp first came to Texas I remember a point he made along these lines. I personally think it applies to all areas of life and in any sport.

He was talking about his work with the defensive linemen. He was saying that many of the players had been coached to do too much. The linemen had all of these different moves and techniques spinning in their heads. Muschamp said he was changing that philosophy. He said, as a defensive linemen, you need to have only one or two good moves and then be REALLY GOOD with those moves. Otherwise you’re thinking too much, you’re confused, you’re not playing free, you’re not flowing, you’re not loose.

I love this philosophy. Keep it simple, go for mastery of a few things instead of being mediocre with many and always having to think instead of playing loose. By game time you should have enough reps that you’re not thinking but reacting…muscle memory…instinctive…flowing…playing without hesitation, etc.

fair enough. However, what does he do when he doesn't have the most athletic (or top 5 at least) Dline in the country? Those guys are so quick and strong they can get away with playing simple...

 

[HornBuff]

fair enough. However, what does he do when he doesn't have the most athletic (or top 5 at least) Dline in the country? Those guys are so quick and strong they can get away with playing simple...

Personally, I think that applies no matter what the situation. If you have better talent then you'll be just that much better, but the fundamentals remain the same. That's just my opinion.

I think when you look at teams (in any sport) that are doing well with less talent you'll typically find that they're doing the little things well, not that they have some overly complex system where they're outsmarting or outschemeing their opposition. Typically those teams have a clear vision of what they're trying to do. Clarity, simplicity, mastery.

Again, that's just my take on things.

 

[HornBuff]

fair enough. However, what does he do when he doesn't have the most athletic (or top 5 at least) Dline in the country? Those guys are so quick and strong they can get away with playing simple...

I'd be inclined to turn that statement 180. I think if you have more talent you can "get away" with beign more complex.

 

[HornBuff]

Look at Barnett when CU crushed Nebraska and beat Texas. Look at the offense, simple. Texas knew damn well what was coming but Brown and CU’s offensive line had mastery in what they were doing. CU pounded the rock. Do a few things really well and good things tend to happen.

 

[leftybuff]

I agree with the simplicity thing. Many coaches, including Hawk IMO, get caught up in this "I want to be the innovator" mentality. They all too often end up getting bogged down in teaching an overly complicated version of the game that ends up confusing the players and causing them to play slow.

Remember the never ending "simplify the play book mantra" from GB and Watson? They were going to use the WCO, but with the 20 hour a week practice limits, you aren't going to get a college team to run that O like the pros IMO. Hawk's offense du jour seems to rely on complicated passing reads similar to the WCO. Simmons didn't have a chance to get all that down in so short a time, for instance.

Most successful cllege O' either have a. superior athletic talent (USC, Ala, UT), or b. use some form of option (zone read, WVU's or UF's spread option) or c. a true spread the field approach (Mizzou, Cincy, TT) or d. full bore triple option (Navy GT).

You probably won't see a 2 TE I formation downhill attack by a team that isn't loaded with NFL caliber OL. ALA still does that a lot, but look a the OL they get. Power football can be a component of an offense. Look at NU v. CU this year. The game was on the line and NU ran power FB at the CU D on one drive, ate up a ton of time and scored. It can be doen as a part of your O, but not many teams have the OL to line up and run downhill 40 times a game anymore.

 

[Buffarino]

Ok then. I'll bet you really hated Texas on 12/3/05.

and also on...

10-30-2004
10-15-2005
10-04-2008
10-10-2009

So why do you have the name Buff in your title? Clearly you are a UT fan.

 

[HornBuff]

So why do you have the name Buff in your title? Clearly you are a UT fan.

• Horn grad living in CO and loving CO.
• CU is my #2 team and I don't have a number three.
• Family ties to CU.
• Long history with CO.
• I go to a lot of games in Boulder and even wear my Buff gear.
• My kids will likely go to CU when the day comes.