Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alabama Getaway - 2017 College Football Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    That Vikings touchdown linked above is, perhaps, and example of a quick-thinking lateral. And it does happen in other plays. In the Penn State Maryland game, Maryland tried to do a play where the QB passed it backwards to a receiver (so that counts as a lateral) and then the receiver was supposed to pass it downfield. But he was immediately swarmed by two PSU defenders who sniffed out the play. As he was about to be tackled, he managed to throw the ball forward backhanded over his head to another guy on his team. They still lost yards on the play, but not as many as they would have. And because it was a forward pass, if it hadn't been caught it just would have been an incomplete pass. Not a fumble.

    And the example of a lineman trying to return an interception is a good one and happens often enough that it's something they could practice once or twice ahead of time to make have the lineman give the ball to a linebacker or defensive back. And I have seen that sort of thing happen.

    But a turnover is such a huge swing in fortunes, that the team that gets the ball doesn't want to risk giving it up. Because if they try a lateral and fumble and the other team gets it, not only does the other team get the ball, they get a new first down, regardless of what the situation was before the play started. So the lineman who has the ball is just trying to make sure that he doesn't drop it. And those scenarios tend to be chaotic and sufficiently rare that coaches don't want to take up their limited time practicing them.

    Backyard touch/flag football does employ a lot of impromptu laterals. It's one of the reasons why its infinitely more fun to play than "real football."

    But I agree that there's not a always a proper analysis of risk-benefit and that coaches often fall back on conventional wisdom because if doing the unusual thing fails, they'll take more blame then the conservative option. This is true - though less so than it used to be - on decisions on when to punt or go for it and when to try a field goal vs go for it vs punt.* And to some extent, that might be true of the dictum that players need to hold onto the ball for dear life no matter what and never make an impromptu pass. There are cases, as you suggest, when the benefits outweigh the risks, but again, those are fairly rare and hard to predict, so they're hard to prepare for or practice. In rugby, every player on the field is somewhat skilled in handling the ball so they can all be relied on to pass and catch. That's not true in gridiron. In fact, in the old days, the linemen had so much tape and even plaster on their hands that they couldn't really hold a ball in their hands. That's less true now - the lineman have special padded gloves, but more manual dexterity with their hands. But they don't practice doing much with the ball other than falling on it in a fumble situation.

    And its not the only sport where coaches are routinely failing to assess the statistical odds properly. Baseball is plagued with this, which is why the SABRmetrics revolution is such a big deal and why there are t-shirts and what not proclaiming "Stop BUNTING." Because it turns out that bunting is the wrong play in most of the cases where it's usually used. The application of advanced stats have also shown some problems in conventional hockey and basketball wisdom.


    I will also add that killing the play sooner, rather than later, increases the number of downs, which itself increases the risk of losing the ball. How do you measure those comparative risks (risk of improvisation versus risk of losing the ball through prolonging your offence)? I happened to be watching these highlights as you posted your reply. Both offences get turned over quite regularly.
    Generally speaking, prolonging your offense's time on the field is desirable. It's called controlling the clock. For reasons I don't entirely understand, it's more physically taxing to play defense than offense, so it behooves a team to keep it's offense on the field, and its defense off the field, as much as possible, even if it's only progressing slowly up the field, and tire out the opponents defense. I've seen many many games where it looks like one team is running the ball too often and not getting consistent results early. But then late in the game, its running game starts to magically work more effectively. That's because they've worn out the defense. Obviously, if they can score quickly and often, they'll do it and just run up a score, but it's still good to grind the clock sometimes. On the other hand, the no-huddle/hurry-up offense also tires-out the defense so there is a balance to think about there. And you don't want to get into too many third-and-longs or many third downs at all, if you can manage it.

    Keep in mind that running the ball eats up more clock time than passing. Passing plays tend to be shorter and incomplete passes or running out of bounds stop the clock. This is why the Army-Navy game seems to go by quicker (or it would if not for all the commercials). Because both teams hardly ever pass. There's nothing more enjoyable than to see one's team just run it up the gut consistently and then score after a five or seven minute drive. And there's nothing more frustrating if your team is the one giving that up.


    *Some innovative high school coaches in particular have realized that they need to defy the conventional wisdom because the conventional wisdom is mostly based on major college and pro football where the defenses know how to contain, the place-kickers can kick 50 yard field goals, and the punters can kick it far and accurately. But in high school, where the punters and kickers aren't usually that strong, turning it over on downs versus punting is often just a difference of about 20 yards, so rarely or never punting may actually be the best strategy, even if you fail on fourth down about half the time.
    Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 01-12-2017, 18:48.

    Comment


      Squad Numbers I Feel Comfortable With - #6 Baker Mayfield

      Typically nervous w/ a big game on the line, but this impressive overachieving team has done what it has to do.

      C'mon Badgers!

      Comment


        Vs Washington. Fiesta Bowl. Dec 30.

        Comment


          Should be a decent game between two team I like.

          Comment


            Yeah. Only common opponent is Rutgers, which doesn’t reveal much and it was a down year for the Pac-12 in general so I don’t know how good they really are or aren’t.

            I like that we’re finally getting a true neutral site rather than playing USC in SoCal it an SEC team in Florida. It’s a long way to go, but PSU has been to the Fiesta Bowl seven times, IIRC, and usually brings a lot people. As will W, I suspect.

            Comment


              There seems to be very little difference between us. The only divergence that I can see is that while we both agree that improvisation is inappropriate 90+n% of the time, we disagree on the value of n. Yours appears to be quite close to 10 and mine is somewhat lower, though I don't know how to quantify it.

              Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
              In rugby, every player on the field is somewhat skilled in handling the ball so they can all be relied on to pass and catch. That's not true in gridiron. In fact, in the old days, the linemen had so much tape and even plaster on their hands that they couldn't really hold a ball in their hands. That's less true now - the lineman have special padded gloves, but more manual dexterity with their hands. But they don't practice doing much with the ball other than falling on it in a fumble situation.
              We're talking about the basic skill of passing the ball to a team mate just a few metres away. Not a miss pass or a loop or a scissors pass, nothing more than a simple pass, and it really is something that every player should be able to do. It's an odd situation, isn't it? Coaches are devising ever more cunning ways for an offence to defeat a defence, often involving any level of complexity and deception that you care to think of, yet they neglect the most basic skill that any player should have.

              There's a pretty good example of how a lateral can be effective in the down starting at 6:15 in these highlights, though it isn't improvisation. The reaction of the commentators speaks volumes about the expectation of such a play being considered normal.

              Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
              But I agree that there's not a always a proper analysis of risk-benefit ...
              I presume that statistics are available showing how often an offence will cough up the football, how often a defence will score, etc? And the coaches don't always assess these properly? Presumably because they might get conclusions that they don't like and don't fit in with conventional wisdom, as you rightly word it. Sports aren't fixed, they evolve, and coaches that react to that by burying their heads in the sand will very quickly be out of work.

              Finally, another technical question:
              Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
              In the Penn State Maryland game, Maryland tried to do a play where the QB passed it backwards to a receiver (so that counts as a lateral) and then the receiver was supposed to pass it downfield. But he was immediately swarmed by two PSU defenders who sniffed out the play. As he was about to be tackled, he managed to throw the ball forward backhanded over his head to another guy on his team. They still lost yards on the play, but not as many as they would have. And because it was a forward pass, if it hadn't been caught it just would have been an incomplete pass. Not a fumble.
              I'm going to modify that a little bit: everything is the same except that the final pass is incomplete. For the next down (assuming that the previous wasn't a fourth) where will the ball be placed for the snap: at the same place as the previous down or from where the forward pass was attempted?

              Comment


                I presume that statistics are available showing how often an offence will cough up the football, how often a defence will score, etc? And the coaches don't always assess these properly? Presumably because they might get conclusions that they don't like and don't fit in with conventional wisdom, as you rightly word it. Sports aren't fixed, they evolve, and coaches that react to that by burying their heads in the sand will very quickly be out of work.
                There aren't good statistics on a lot of these innovative lateral plays because they are not common enough plays to generate a reasonable sample size. And even if it were, there'd be so many variables - the exact positioning of all 22 players when the innovative pass was made - as to make analysis very difficult.

                Baseball lends itself more to analysis because almost all of the variables can be captured and there are so many games that the datasets are huge.

                As for punting vs not punting in a given situation, there is starting to be a lot more data on that and teams are using it.
                I'm going to modify that a little bit: everything is the same except that the final pass is incomplete. For the next down (assuming that the previous wasn't a fourth) where will the ball be placed for the snap: at the same place as the previous down or from where the forward pass was attempted?
                Unless I'm overlooking something, it would just be like any other incomplete forward pass and the ball would go back to the original line of scrimmage. On that particular play, the guy who caught the ball would have done the team a favor by just batting it down. But he probably thought that he could catch it, break a tackle and run down field for positive yardage. It all happens so fast, it's hard to make those judgements as it's happening.

                However, an incomplete backwards pass/lateral is a live ball and if it's on the ground it's treated like a fumble. If it goes out of bounds, the new line of scrimmage is where it went out.

                Comment


                  Got through three of the conference finals over the weekend, the only annoyance being the Big 10 being played at the same time as the ACC, meaning BT Sport only showed the ACC, would have liked to have seen both.

                  Good match ups in the CFP, and looking forward to bowl time generally, BT show loads of them and I can get through a lot when I'm off work for a week and a bit.

                  Comment


                    The ACC game wasn't close, was it? The BTN was closer.

                    I didn't watch any. I only watch if Penn State or William & Mary are playing, and I don't really care much about the latter, to be honest.

                    I know an awful lot about football for somebody who doesn't really like it that much.

                    Comment


                      Bumping this ahead of bowl season starting in earnest, and also acknowledging the FCS play offs, with North Dakota State and James Madison hammering their respective semi final opponents to set up a predictable but worthy final.

                      I've cleared space on the TiVo to accommodate the deluge of bowl games that BT will deliver over Christmas and New Year, though have deleted some of the less enthralling ones from the recording schedule.

                      Comment


                        ARIZONA BOWL - FINAL

                        NMSU 26, USU 20 AET

                        First bowl watched this year. Sloppy as hell. 57 yr. bowl drought for the NMSU Aggies (BTW, USU also Aggies) and another win against their 1960 opponents.

                        Comment


                          TCU's big comeback against the Junior University was entertaining.

                          Reed's boys are absolutely destroying Washington early on.

                          Comment


                            Huskies Lions not a game of defences it would seem

                            Comment


                              Whisky needs to maintain the Big Ten’s streak here.

                              Currently trailing Miami by four in the second quarter.

                              Given how the PAC 12 have played, I’m glad Cal stayed home.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                                Huskies Lions not a game of defences it would seem
                                PSU outplayed W most of the game, but got unlucky on a few random bounces or slip-up plays that ended up being costly turnovers and on a few third and short plays, our linebackers over-pursued and allowed massive holes which W capitalized on. We had a former walk on playing LB. Manny Bowen was cut from the team for, apparently, academic reasons. And two of our better D players sat out the first half for unknown minor team rule violations.

                                But McSorley had a fantastic game, as did the receivers and Barkley. And made many clutch plays. PSU was, as I recall, 12-12 on third down and converted a key fourth down. Our kicker sucked, so that's a problem. 35 pts against a D that good is a good result.

                                Two 11-win seasons in a row, good recruiting classes, and two major bowl appearances in a row is great. Still progress to be made in developing depth. But the whole athletics program deserves credit for keeping things afloat and reforming a lot of stuff that needed it, without losing what makes the fans here so loyal.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                  Whisky needs to maintain the Big Ten’s streak here.

                                  Currently trailing Miami by four in the second quarter.

                                  Given how the PAC 12 have played, I’m glad Cal stayed home.
                                  Need Michigan to win today for the B1G to run the table in bowls this year.

                                  Comment


                                    I've made a lot of progress in the last couple of days so I can come back on here without fear of spoilers.

                                    Big result for Wisconsin to win that in front of a hostile crowd, particularly coming from behind as they did - although they did get the benefit of a couple of calls at crucial times that could have easily gone the other way.

                                    I fully expected the Fiesta Bowl to go to overtime, I was watching it recorded and my TiVo had added a big chunk of time at the end, so still thought Washington would score on that last play.

                                    I'm watching the Peach Bowl on delay and staying up for at least the first half of the Rose Bowl. I'm off work tomorrow (its my birthday) so I'll finish it off in the morning and get through the Sugar Bowl during the day.

                                    Stadia are getting awfully macho and ostentatious aren't they, by the way? Each new stadium seems to say fuck you, well fuck you too. The Rose Bowl is nice though eh, proper stadium.

                                    Comment


                                      Contemporary gridiron stadia are monuments to Trumpian excess, best exemplified by Jerry World.

                                      South Carolina have rallied from 19-3 down to tie Michigan going to the fourth quarter.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                        Contemporary gridiron stadia are monuments to Trumpian excess, best exemplified by Jerry World.
                                        Oh yes, we've seen that one close up, we did the stadium tour.

                                        On the same trip we saw the Texans play at home, my head was still ringing the next day, everything was ramped up to 11.

                                        The Miami stadium just looks obnoxious, I can't think of a better word.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Walt Flanagans Dog View Post
                                          Oh yes, we've seen that one close up, we did the stadium tour.

                                          On the same trip we saw the Texans play at home, my head was still ringing the next day, everything was ramped up to 11.

                                          The Miami stadium just looks obnoxious, I can't think of a better word.
                                          The Bowls, especially the major ones, are all played in NFL stadiums now. The Fiesta Bowl used to be in Sun Devil Stadium, as I recall, which is ASU's home stadium. In fact, PSU beat ASU in that stadium in one of the first Fiesta bowls in the 70s. I think that one of the reasons why the Peach Bowl was chosen as the sixth "New Years Six" Bowls (it wasn't considered to be in their category of prestige before the creation of the current system) was because they knew the Falcons were building a new stadium that would host it.

                                          The Cotton Bowl is no longer in the Cotton Bowl, but in Jerry World, AKA ATT Stadium. The Orange Bowl wasn't played in the actual Orange Bowl for many years, and now that dump of a stadium is gone. The Marlins new monstrosity is where the Orange Bowl used to be and they play the Orange Bowl at the Dolphins Stadium. I forget what that's called, but it's not new, so I'm surprised that was the one that stood out to you. The Sugar Bowl is still in the Super Dome and I guess the city and the Saints plan to just keep upgrading that rather than build a new stadium.

                                          Bowls are another way to use stadiums that don't get much use outside the NFL season. There are even some in cold places, like that one in Detroit. I suppose Minneapolis could try to put a minor bowl in it's new gargantuan domed stadium. If it's good enough for the Superbowl, it would be good enough for the Target Bowl or whatever. And there's the Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium and the Trop in St. Pete hosts a bowl, as well as some post-season all-star games.

                                          It remains to be seen how long the Rose Bowl will last or if it eventually moves to one of the new NFL stadiums in LA. Certainly, those stadiums will host bowl games of some kind, as will the new one in Vegas. There already is a Las Vegas bowl.

                                          Comment


                                            I'm off to holler for the Sooners. I know there's really nothing that can be done, but the month gap really sucks.

                                            Walt, you'll get no spoiler from me.

                                            And yes, the Rose Bowl seems to be the last, old, college benches stadium for the big bowls. Hope it stays.

                                            Comment


                                              Michigan choked. 23-unanswered points to South Carolina and lost.

                                              But UCF beat Auburn. Went undefeated. Didn't make the playoffs because of the weak schedule, but that's impressive. They deserve to finish top 5, I suppose.

                                              The Pac12 finished the bowls 1-7. Only Utah won.

                                              The ACC hasn't done well either, but I'm not sure of their record yet, and of course Clemson is in the playoffs.

                                              Comment


                                                Good run down Reed, always like hearing your perspective on these things.

                                                I think my issue with the Miami stadium is the roof, which is new - the four pillars and the Hard Rock logos just shout hey look at us, and fuck you at the same time, we've got pillars.

                                                I went to the Rose Bowl in 1988 to see UCLA, who remain my college team of choice, in so far as I have one. I've seen it on TV many times since and know they've made alterations to it, but it's fundamentally unchanged and I like that in any context, but in the context of American sports stadia it's almost staggering.

                                                On the same tip I'll be going back to Dodger Stadium in August, as part of a LA revisited trip - it'll be 30 years almost to the day since I first went, on the same trip I went to the Rose Bowl - and it'll be interesting to see the extent to which that place has changed. Or to put it another way, if I can't buy a frozen malt with a little wooden scoop I'll be complaining to the consulate.

                                                Back to bowls and I always enjoy watching even the bullshit bowls from the weekend before Christmas and the range of venues they are played in. At the Pinstripe Bowl the pitch was frozen solid and the players could hardly stand up, but at least they weren't playing in a half empty stadium in the Bahamas.

                                                The same thing strikes me about the Minnesota stadium, that it would be an ideal place for a bowl with a big local market, and of course they have quite a bit of cost to recover on the project.

                                                And yes, eagerly awaiting a Mayfield master show, flu-like symptoms notwithstanding.

                                                Comment


                                                  I didn't know the Dolphins had a roof. I don't really follow the NFL anymore.

                                                  edit: It appears to be more of a "canopy" than a roof. Not sure why they didn't do this when the Marlins were there, which is when it was really needed.
                                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRFt1YiXpn0

                                                  It's the home of the University of Miami football team, despite being a half-hour's drive away from campus. Google tells me it takes about as long to cycle from one to the other as it would be to take public transit.
                                                  Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 01-01-2018, 22:32.

                                                  Comment


                                                    I know I'm just trying to prove my own point but the look of this game is just fantastic, played in daylight and shadows against the backdrop of a sea of red.

                                                    And the game itself is going at a fair lick, but I'm not mentioning scores.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X