Now to see what the Matt Rhule era at Baylor actually looks like

S11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff

Quote:

1- having a different opinion is fine but at least fact check and tell the truth. Worst defense in the history of Baylor football? 2011 & 2012 (the only years Bennett had this young of a back 7) were worse in both total D and scoring D. Simply untrue. They weren't good but why rely on something false?

Finally an intelligent mind to engage with! Total D and scoring D don't take into account pace of play so often it's not a good indicator when one teams is running 100 plays on defense compared to another only running 75. I like using opponents points per play because the number of plays at that point isn't as big factor (although still a factor). Baylor in 2017 was #110 in the country in opp pts per play giving up .501 per play. For comparison sakes, Baylor's often maligned 2012 defense (that gave up 70 points to West Virginia) gave up .455 per play.

Yards and points per play also are less relevant than per-possession stats. For instance Air Force will average a modest 5.5 per play which ranked 77th nationally. However their scheme is entirely based on getting consistent modest gains to put together long drives. Their yards per play would never indicate that they were 17th in yards per possession. They were a very good offense that simply hit few stat skewing plays. Air Force, Navy, and Army are all outside the top 40 in yards per play nationally. Army is 2nd in yards per drive, Navy is 11th, and AFA is 17th. Clearly yards per play got it wrong here as these teams are clearly moving the ball very well while intentionally shortening the game to bail out athletically outgunned defenses.

Also teams that gamble on defense and take risks to get quick stops are disadvantaged in that statistic due to the disproportionate impact of big plays on the stat.

As for points per play? You not only have the quick vs patient style of play skewing but also the disadvantage of non-offensive scores or gifted points scored on "drives" that start deep in opposing territory. I find it to be a very poor statistic that needs a lot of work to get good value out of- possibly worse than the total points per game.

Quote:

2- Total Yards is borderline junk now due to different amounts of possessions per team. Yards per drive is a clearer picture. In terms of yards per drive vs power conference foes (because that's the most extensive set of per-drive stats I have) last year's defense trails only 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2005 in Yards per drive allowed out of the 13 seasons I have data for. When you compare them as a percentage of what other P5's get they only trail those teams and 2016 with 2005 and 2016 only being less than .6% of a difference.

I agree with you on the total yards thing because it doesn't take into account pace of play. I prefer opponent yards per play than yards per drive because (in my opinion) it takes into account pace of play much better overall.

Completely disagree on per play stats.
- Yards per drive DOES account for pace of play unlike total yards. I'd argue it does as good as yards per play with that. You won't accumulate bigger numbers by going fast with per drive stats or per play.

- It introduces problems of it's own with long plays skewing it as well as bias for and against styles of play.

Consider this example:

Offense has 4 three and outs that combine for 20 yards. On drive 5 they have an 80 yard touchdown. Total of 100 yards on 13 plays.

20 yards per drive would be a poor showing which is reflective of what happened but still shows they moved it some.
7.69 is a ridiculously high yards per play figure that if it was a season average would have been second nationally. Clearly they weren't dominating that defense.

Also it ignores STYLE of play as outlined in the service academy example. Once again, yards per drive tells the far more accurate story.

Quote:

The 2017 Baylor defense gave up 6.4 yards per play (#114 in the country). Again for comparisons sake, the 2012 Baylor defense gave up 6.0 yards per play. And they were dead last in total defense that season(again a junk stat, but used her to make a point). The only Baylor defense that compares is the 2011 one that gave up the same 6.4 per drive. Even Guy Morris defenses were better at this. On a side note, we were a much worse defense at home than on the road.


As my example above indicates, yards per play is easily dramatically skewed by long plays and to a lesser extent by style of play by a team and their opponents. I consider it to be a low reliability stat for that reason.

Quote:


3- 2016 allowed 38.7 YPD to power conference foes, 2017 allowed 35.8. Both allowed 2.19 yards more than other P5 teams averaged vs their opponents. This is after losing Blanchard, Levels, Stewart, Reid, and Edwards while losing X Jones and KJ Smith early in the year and constantly shuffling out injured guys. If this defense was all-time horrible- so was the prior year which I highly doubt you'd argue.

Again I'm not sure how much I buy the YPD argument. If you compare the Def S&P rankings used by football outsiders, the 2017 defense was significantly worse than 2016 (28.3 and #58 overall vs 33.2 and #111 overall). Again for comparison, the 2012 defense had a 31.5 rating and #86 overall.

S&P measures play by play success rates. It has value that I feel is more derived from their smaller breakdowns than their attempt to aggregate those into one metric. Some of these sub-metrics are better than others IMO.

For instance things like IsoPPP showing how often you make or give up explosive plays and havoc rate showing how disruptive a defense is, or stuff rate showing how effective you are at stopping runs for short yards play by play. Those are the kind of stats that carry a lot of insight to me and tells something descriptive that may not always be apparent with a typical box score.

I care less about their attempt to aggregate play by play efficiency. I like the idea behind success rate but it seems weaker to me. For instance Air Force in my example above probably doesn't trigger many "success rate" wins on first down but moves it ridiculously well per-possession. In their book a 4 yard gain on first down is success, this arbitrary metric doesn't see it that way.

Also they omit plays in the fourth quarter when the margin is more than 16 points. This clearly sometimes is a good thing but many times omits good data. For instance, Charlie Brewer vs WVU this year, Baylor's first comeback drive vs TCU in 14, etc. Games nowadays like UCLA/A&M that are far from over at 17 point margins with how many teams can go uptempo and get more chances with the ball. They have to draw the line somewhere, I just see any line there as too one size fits all.

I also lean to yards per drive as it's easily comparable, understandable, and is flexible enough to be used to answer multiple questions. It can:

-omit data that is irrelevant due to injury for key players (Very little real predictive value for WVU's upcoming offense with Grier can be gleaned from their bowl vs Utah without him)

-more easily isolate stats against particular styles of play, and it can show how scheme changes at half impact the game. (2016 OkSt vs Pitt is a good example as Pitts half two fire zones caused a dramatic YPD drop)

- It can be paired with field position stats to get a % if available Yards gained

- it can be paired with offensive scoring data to determine % of droves with a TD, FG, punt, turnover, etc.

It also allocates penalty yards among the offense and defense accurately when you take drive data from the drive charts.

I then use an opponent's games against other P5 teams as a fair "par" to measure against assuming they have a mostly P5 schedule. Holding Oklahoma to 30 yards per drive is great, giving that to KU is reason for concern.

Quote:

3- The defense did get better as the year wore on. I expect a better year with more experience and a better understanding of a more versatile scheme.

Agreed here. I just can't see how they could get worse. I actually have more hope for the defense improving than I do for the offense (although that isn't saying much).


Big key is the mental busts giving up explosive plays. That's huge and if they limit that they could take a big step forward. I expect far fewer as Snow didn't get where he is allowing simple busts to happen. The AAC was plenty wide open and they did a good job of bottling up explosive plays at Temple.
forza orsi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
ColomboLQ said:

forza orsi said:

ColomboLQ said:

forza orsi said:

ColomboLQ said:

forza orsi said:

ColomboLQ said:

forza orsi said:

ColomboLQ said:

forza orsi said:

ColomboLQ said:

forza orsi said:

cowboycwr said:

Lance_smith15 said:

"I stopped reading two sentences in when the author clearly has no clue what he was talking about."

Opinion. Also, are you seriously implying that Bill Connelly has no idea what he's talking about? Covering college football is his job, pretty sure he knows what he's talking about..

"7 win team to 1 win team.... that is all anyone needs to know."
Opinion

"First year coaches win ALL THE TIME."

This statement implies that Matt Rhule had a similar situation to another successful first year coach which is a laughable claim.

"And yet everyone wants to give Rhule a pass because he is a nice guy or something. All one has to do is watch his post game pressers to see he is lost and has no clue."

Who's giving Rhule a pass? 1-11 is unacceptable and should never happen again. Also, "he is lost and has no clue" opinion. I didn't think that NFL teams interviewed people that are lost and have no clue

"And of course if he wins 2 games this year he will be called the savior of Baylor Football."

Opinion. If Rhule wins 2 games next season I garauntee you that no one on this board will he applauding him.

Just stop..


I said nothing of the sort. You took it that way. I simply said he had no idea what he is talking about in this one article. He may cover college football but that does not mean he could possibly know and understand everything happening with all 128 teams. This article shows that.

7 wins to 1 win is an absolute fact. Stop trying to pretend it isn't.

First year coaches win all the time. Fact. The situation had little to do with it. You and all the others who want to support a guy who can't even beat LIBERTY want to use it as a crutch. But again it comes back to the 7 win team being lead by such a great coach that he can only beat one team.

7 wins to 1 win IS an absolute fact. You just like to pretend that the drop off was mainly due to coaching. The 7 win year was a pretty crappy year too when you look at it. We started with 6 straight wins, which were 3 nonconference cupcakes, Iowa State, Kansas, and somehow got it together for a win over Okie State. All of that was with Seth Russell at QB. It was then followed by 6 straight losses when we played decent teams, that including complete hammerings from TCU, OU, Tech, and KSU. Most of that without Seth. And we got it together for a bowl game victory over an uninspired Boise State. So pointing to the 7 wins the previous year as an indication of how much worse we were in 2017 is disingenuous, as we were pretty crappy in 2016 too.

From that mediocre at best 2016 team we lost our starting QB, starting RB, our 3 best receivers, 3 starting DBs and 2 contributors, starting LB, starting DT, and starting C to graduation or early to the NFL. Additionally, Sean Muir and Dom Desouza retired and Johnny Jefferson left school. Our 2016 recruiting class basically vanished, and Stidham had transferred, a couple of other guys got in trouble (Hammad, Autry, Faulk), so there was pretty much nothing to replace all the talent that left.

Pretending like Rhule walked into a situation where he had a winner just waiting to be led is ridiculous. We had a team that was lucky to be .500 in 2016 that lost all its best players and replaced them with some half-decent true freshmen. If you take what was left and look at the injuries they had, the 2017 team was set up to lose a bunch of games, regardless.
There are some serious apologetics going on with this one. Not to mention some serious revisionist history.
We weren't very good in 2016. I measure that by the fact that in the regular season we beat one team with a pulse and we got pounded by the majority of the decent teams we played. Going into the season the 2017 team was appreciably less talented than the 2016 team and far less experienced. The 2017 team had a lot of injuries, including many at the beginning of the season that exacerbated the talent issue. Please point out what is revisionist about that.
Uh, how about the fact that you left off the single biggest factor influencing the 2016 season, which was the scandal and Baylor leadership actively trying to derail the season (which they did). Your opinion is that we were "crappy" in 2016 and got "lucky" to win 7 games. My opinion is that we actually WERE a good team until the BOR started their weekly releases and articles that served as a huge distraction and undermined the team itself. There was nothing "lucky" about them winning 7 games in 2016.
To be clear, I'm not saying that we were lucky to win the games we won. I mean that we were lucky that our schedule started with 5 really bad teams in the first six games. We beat Northwestern State, SMU, Rice, Kansas (2-10), and Iowa State (3-9) (by 3 points) in that stretch. For a guy that is so skeptical now you were apparently pretty easily impressed in 2016.
Sorry, when I read "We had a team that was lucky to be .500 in 2016" that doesn't exactly tell me that we were lucky because of the way the schedule was set up as you now indicate was your intent. As to your last comment, given all the team had to endure that year (scandal, no head coach, BOR weekly releases, opposing fan bases calling them all rapists, injuries, etc), I do think it's amazing they won 7 games to be honest.
I've never said that the 2016 team didn't have obstacles. Regardless, I think that 2016 was not nearly as talented a team as the teams of the previous three years, even if it hadn't had those obstacles. The 2017 team was another step down in talent from 2016, it was less experienced, had well less than a full roster, and it had more key injuries. That's the short version of what my original comment said, and I don't think that any of those things are the "revisionist" statements that you allege them to be. My original comment was in response to cowboycwr whose response to the article was "7 win team to 1 win team.... that is all anyone needs to know." Even if you hate the BOR actions, if you're trying to evaluate Rhule objectively, it's not "all anyone needs to know."
Well when you fail to mention by far the biggest obstacle the team faced in 2016, it takes away your credibility for the rest of your post. The story of the 2016 team can't be told without the scandal and weekly BOR releases being involved.

As far as comparing the talent level of the 2016 team to the previous 3 years, I don't believe anyone would (or has) disagree with you on there. Now how much of a talent dip the 2017 team had from the 2016 team has been up for debate (not that there was one, just how much of one). The 2017 team returned 3 OL starters plus another player that was basically a starter during 2016. This is a fact. Considering how Vegas expected us to go to a bowl game and the vast majority of posters on here were expecting the same, I have my doubts just how much the talent had dipped in 2017. Were injuries and lack of depth a factor? Absolutely. The problem is that those things weren't factors until later in the year and can not explain away disasters like Liberty and UTSA.
You're being disingenous if you think team depth was not an issue at the start of the season. There were players, but not much experience. As for injuries not being a problem until later in the year, for the opening game the following were injured either before or during the game: Terence Williams, Grayland Arnold, Jamychal Hasty, Taion Sells, Jameson Houston, Davion Hall, Raleigh Texada, Jordan Tolbert, Tre'von Lewis, Henry Black, Rajah Preciado. That's a lot of guys out at the start, and it got worse just about every game. And you have concerns about my credibility?
So if I'm understanding you correctly, we did not have enough talent and depth at the beginning of the season to beat Liberty and UTSA? That's really what you want to argue? If you really think that is the case, then the the answer to your last question is absolutely.
You said depth and injuries were not an issue until later in the season. I said we were not deep at the beginning and that we had a lot of guys injured even before the season started. Please point out where I said that we didn't have enough talent to beat Liberty. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or do you just like to pretend that you do so that you can act like a d***?
No reading comprehension problems here; I just don't think you like your posts looked at closely and scrutinized. Let me ask you this point blank then. Did we have the talent and depth to beat Liberty and UTSA to start the year, yes or no? I say yes and that is why I said we didn't have talent and depth issues until later in the year.
I have no problem at all with my posts being looked at closely and scrutinized. I do have a problem with you adding your own take to them and trying to say that I'm saying something that I'm not. I was responding to a post and my post was perfectly appropriate and accurate in that context. You decided to pretend that I was saying something else and start a new argument about another topic.

But, ok, I'll continue down this silly discussion a little further. Yes, I think we had the depth and talent to beat Liberty and UTSA, and for whatever reason we didn't get it done on those two days. You and cowboy seem to think that we didn't do it because we hired an incompetent coach. I think that it's not so simple and that other factors were a big part of it, including the talent drop-off, depth, injuries, a new system, players playing new positions, confidence, a new coach, the attitudes of some old players, fan engagement, ongoing off the field stuff, etc. So whether or not we had the talent to beat those two teams, we didn't on those two days. For you and cowboy that's enough. For you guys it's fine to evaluate a coaching staff based on the first two games of their tenure here - that's all you need to know. You act like we were a really good team that just needed a good leader, and it's just not true. We'll see if Rhule works out, but the team clearly got much better and put a scare in a couple of teams that no one thought we'd be competitive with.

You guys simplify everything to "we went from 7 wins to 1, and that's all you need to know." If you believe that, either you don't know much about football or you're agenda-driven. Either way, it's all I need to know about you. It's a complex set of issues that the team had to overcome, despite you wanting to ignore or belittle them all. The team was beaten up and had serious depth issues even at the beginning of the season, although you pretend like they weren't. The team got a lot better, even though you choose to pretend that they didn't. And you can't evaluate a coaching staff fairly based on the first two games after taking over a program in the shape that ours was in, although I gather fairness isn't a thing for you.
TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Thank you sir. Logical and great perspective. That's all we can do with these guys.

I mean Colombo says in one post "I never said defense didn't improve" although he said exactly that 3 different ways. And then he comes back and uses total yards given up in TCU game as evidence of not improving defense. So when S11 checks the thread and head explodes from all of his nonsense and goes to town checking Colombo with film study type post, his response there he said he agreed total yards isn't good measuring stick.

They just move the goal posts. Deflect and twist. Cowboy & DAC are just clowns with their generic hot takes to sound funny. Colombo little more special bc he thinks he is actually smart by citing some stats here and there that eventually get checked and he has to crawfish and then he reverts to deflection and twisting conversation.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Good grief, you dog out Cowboy and Columbo and don't realize you are the other side of the same coin.

They see 1-11 and nothing but gloom, you see 1-11 and are trying to make elaborate excuses.

It's somewhere in the middle guys.

Not all gloom, but there were some losses that should have never happened, under an circumstance.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect 6-6 this year. Rhule is a motivator there is no doubt about that. Within 5 years I expect a 10 win season.

It's not all gloom at all, but then there were some serious lapses, both from players and coaching last year, that caused inexplicable losses.

Deal with it.
forza orsi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Forest Bueller said:

Good grief, you dog out Cowboy and Columbo and don't realize you are the other side of the same coin.

They see 1-11 and nothing but gloom, you see 1-11 and are trying to make elaborate excuses.

It's somewhere in the middle guys.

Not all gloom, but there were some losses that should have never happened, under an circumstance.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect 6-6 this year. Rhule is a motivator there is no doubt about that. Within 5 years I expect a 10 win season.

It's not all gloom at all, but then there were some serious lapses, both from players and coaching last year, that caused inexplicable losses.

Deal with it.
You are completely misreading what I said.
DioNoZeus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
forza orsi said:

Forest Bueller said:

Good grief, you dog out Cowboy and Columbo and don't realize you are the other side of the same coin.

They see 1-11 and nothing but gloom, you see 1-11 and are trying to make elaborate excuses.

It's somewhere in the middle guys.

Not all gloom, but there were some losses that should have never happened, under an circumstance.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect 6-6 this year. Rhule is a motivator there is no doubt about that. Within 5 years I expect a 10 win season.

It's not all gloom at all, but then there were some serious lapses, both from players and coaching last year, that caused inexplicable losses.

Deal with it.
You are completely misreading what I said.
It is intentional, as it is with a good portion of the volume posters here
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
forza orsi said:

Forest Bueller said:

Good grief, you dog out Cowboy and Columbo and don't realize you are the other side of the same coin.

They see 1-11 and nothing but gloom, you see 1-11 and are trying to make elaborate excuses.

It's somewhere in the middle guys.

Not all gloom, but there were some losses that should have never happened, under an circumstance.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect 6-6 this year. Rhule is a motivator there is no doubt about that. Within 5 years I expect a 10 win season.

It's not all gloom at all, but then there were some serious lapses, both from players and coaching last year, that caused inexplicable losses.

Deal with it.
You are completely misreading what I said.
Sorry if I am, but when I see you say "Yes, I think we had the depth and talent to beat Liberty and UTSA, and for whatever reason we didn't get it done on those two days." It doesn't seem like it.

Baylor didn't show up on other days as well, those two day, were not particularly unusual.

First OU came in thinking they could walk on the field and BU would faint. They were way over confident. BU made them pay with a tough never give up effort to the end. WVU forgot the game is 4 quarters, a huge error on their part that had them almost lose a game that should have been a blowout.

OSU was a terrible game, UT was a terrible game, Tech was a bad game as BU should have been able to post a win against a very mediocre opponent.

It wasn't just a situation where they had a couple of days they didn't get it done. They didn't get it done on 11 days. The beat down of KU showed a huge talent gap with them. BU had the talent to take 5 wins last year.

Next year is a new leaf and it can and I believe will happen, last year though was a serious underachievement.
forza orsi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Forest Bueller said:

forza orsi said:

Forest Bueller said:

Good grief, you dog out Cowboy and Columbo and don't realize you are the other side of the same coin.

They see 1-11 and nothing but gloom, you see 1-11 and are trying to make elaborate excuses.

It's somewhere in the middle guys.

Not all gloom, but there were some losses that should have never happened, under an circumstance.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect 6-6 this year. Rhule is a motivator there is no doubt about that. Within 5 years I expect a 10 win season.

It's not all gloom at all, but then there were some serious lapses, both from players and coaching last year, that caused inexplicable losses.

Deal with it.
You are completely misreading what I said.
Sorry if I am, but when I see you say "Yes, I think we had the depth and talent to beat Liberty and UTSA, and for whatever reason we didn't get it done on those two days." It doesn't seem like it.

Baylor didn't show up on other days as well, those two day, were not particularly unusual.

First OU came in thinking they could walk on the field and BU would faint. They were way over confident. BU made them pay with a tough never give up effort to the end. WVU forgot the game is 4 quarters, a huge error on their part that had them almost lose a game that should have been a blowout.

OSU was a terrible game, UT was a terrible game, Tech was a bad game as BU should have been able to post a win against a very mediocre opponent.

It wasn't just a situation where they had a couple of days they didn't get it done. They didn't get it done on 11 days. The beat down of KU showed a huge talent gap with them. BU had the talent to take 5 wins last year.

Next year is a new leaf and it can and I believe will happen, last year though was a serious underachievement.

Saying that we had the talent to beat Liberty and UTSA and but we didn't get it done is the opposite of gloom and doom? All I have said is I think Rhule might work out, that last year had a lot of different issues going on, that I don't think that last year's record alone indicates that Rhule won't win here, and that it was unfair to judge his ability purely based on the won/loss record. If you think that "let's wait and see" means I'm a hopeless Pollyana, so be it.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
forza orsi said:

Forest Bueller said:

forza orsi said:

Forest Bueller said:

Good grief, you dog out Cowboy and Columbo and don't realize you are the other side of the same coin.

They see 1-11 and nothing but gloom, you see 1-11 and are trying to make elaborate excuses.

It's somewhere in the middle guys.

Not all gloom, but there were some losses that should have never happened, under an circumstance.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect 6-6 this year. Rhule is a motivator there is no doubt about that. Within 5 years I expect a 10 win season.

It's not all gloom at all, but then there were some serious lapses, both from players and coaching last year, that caused inexplicable losses.

Deal with it.
You are completely misreading what I said.
Sorry if I am, but when I see you say "Yes, I think we had the depth and talent to beat Liberty and UTSA, and for whatever reason we didn't get it done on those two days." It doesn't seem like it.

Baylor didn't show up on other days as well, those two day, were not particularly unusual.

First OU came in thinking they could walk on the field and BU would faint. They were way over confident. BU made them pay with a tough never give up effort to the end. WVU forgot the game is 4 quarters, a huge error on their part that had them almost lose a game that should have been a blowout.

OSU was a terrible game, UT was a terrible game, Tech was a bad game as BU should have been able to post a win against a very mediocre opponent.

It wasn't just a situation where they had a couple of days they didn't get it done. They didn't get it done on 11 days. The beat down of KU showed a huge talent gap with them. BU had the talent to take 5 wins last year.

Next year is a new leaf and it can and I believe will happen, last year though was a serious underachievement.

Saying that we had the talent to beat Liberty and UTSA and but we didn't get it done is the opposite of gloom and doom? All I have said is I think Rhule might work out, that last year had a lot of different issues going on, that I don't think that last year's record alone indicates that Rhule won't win here, and that it was unfair to judge his ability purely based on the won/loss record. If you think that "let's wait and see" means I'm a hopeless Pollyana, so be it.

Fair enough, I read that line as you thinking we had those 2 bad days against inferior opponents, other than that, we were greatly improved, we had a lot of days we simple didn't show up, whether bad coaching or bad playing. We had a couple of games where we did show up.

Even Steele would do that a couple of times a year. Lost to #2 OU 33-17 and lost to #24 Aggy 16-10 one year where they were 0-8 in conference.

I'm not saying it is all gloom and doom at all, I expect 6 wins next year, but there was coaching deficiency in multiple games AFTER the LIberty and UTSA debacles.

Right now I am in the "show me" stage, not the tell me stage with this coaching staff. I am sure hoping they show me next year.
TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
We might have had the talent to beat Liberty & UTSA. Perhaps although debatable at that point between injury's, deflections, suspensions, true freshman. Factor in the intangibles of remaining players with sour attitudes, new systems, and zero chemistry, so we lost. Both games winnable late but didn't.

If you think any conference game including KU should be considered underachieving based on talent level you are nuts. Tech was not winnable game based on us having more talent than them. We didn't have more talent than anyone last year. Certainly not developed talent. Go back and watch Liberty game, they had 2 best players on field between their QB and WR.

The telling factor was coaching staff took the dumpster fire that was last year - when 20 of 70 suited players (30%) of roster for game 8 of the season are walk-ons - and they played hard each week despite record and demonstrated improvement in nearly every area of football. Additionally, the roster was purged of players with bad attitudes and didn't fit system. The foundation was laid in 2017. Now we can build again.
Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty & UTSA. Perhaps although debatable at that point between injury's, deflections, suspensions, true freshman. Factor in the intangibles of remaining players with sour attitudes, new systems, and zero chemistry, so we lost. Both games winnable late but didn't.

If you think any conference game including KU should be considered underachieving based on talent level you are nuts. Tech was not winnable game based on us having more talent than them. We didn't have more talent than anyone last year. Certainly not developed talent. Go back and watch Liberty game, they had 2 best players on field between their QB and WR.

The telling factor was coaching staff took the dumpster fire that was last year - when 20 of 70 suited players (30%) of roster for game 8 of the season are walk-ons - and they played hard each week despite record and demonstrated improvement in nearly every area of football. Additionally, the roster was purged of players with bad attitudes and didn't fit system. The foundation was laid in 2017. Now we can build again.



You make some great points. But it's almost like you are compelled to counter every post.

No one pumps more sunshine on the football board than your ownself. Are you being paid to sell the dialogue? Are you little Matty, his ownself? Maybe Mrs. little Matty? Are you one of several Doms, or just TheDom? Keep up the good work.

You are to the football board what cinque is to the religion and politics board.
I'm a Bearbacker
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A

Quote:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty............



If you had any credibility, which you didn't,

it was lost with the first statement here.

I sure hope your boys don't defend that, if so they lose all credibility too.

Also, every year really bad teams slip up on someone and beat someone they shouldn't. Happens in HS, happens in college, happens everywhere. Tech had no defense at all last year, that was a prime game to steal a win from a mediocre but better team. They never got it done.


TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Forest Bueller said:


Quote:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty............



If you had any credibility, which you didn't,

it was lost with the first statement here.

I sure hope your boys don't defend that, if so they lose all credibility too.



Tell me Liberty didn't have 2 best players in that game. Saying we should have beat Tech on talent wise is credibility issues partner.
TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Stranger said:

TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty & UTSA. Perhaps although debatable at that point between injury's, deflections, suspensions, true freshman. Factor in the intangibles of remaining players with sour attitudes, new systems, and zero chemistry, so we lost. Both games winnable late but didn't.

If you think any conference game including KU should be considered underachieving based on talent level you are nuts. Tech was not winnable game based on us having more talent than them. We didn't have more talent than anyone last year. Certainly not developed talent. Go back and watch Liberty game, they had 2 best players on field between their QB and WR.

The telling factor was coaching staff took the dumpster fire that was last year - when 20 of 70 suited players (30%) of roster for game 8 of the season are walk-ons - and they played hard each week despite record and demonstrated improvement in nearly every area of football. Additionally, the roster was purged of players with bad attitudes and didn't fit system. The foundation was laid in 2017. Now we can build again.



You make some great points. But it's almost like you are compelled to counter every post.

No one pumps more sunshine on the football board than your ownself. Are you being paid to sell the dialogue? Are you little Matty, his ownself? Maybe Mrs. little Matty? Are you one of several Doms, or just TheDom? Keep up the good work.

You are to the football board what cinque is to the religion and politics board.

Just speaking the truth for all the haters on the board like you. It's actually not that much sunshine and roses. It's really just objective. Rhule has a lot to prove and tons of work to do. I personally do think he man for the job but we could be wrong and it not. However, when it just non stop irrational nonsense it doesn't make the board fun. If ya'll came with some actual good stuff and not just nonsense like I'm Rhule is disguise I wouldn't have to post so much.
S11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
TheDom said:

Forest Bueller said:


Quote:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty............



If you had any credibility, which you didn't,

it was lost with the first statement here.

I sure hope your boys don't defend that, if so they lose all credibility too.



Tell me Liberty didn't have 2 best players in that game.


Completely disagree here. Execution or lack thereof killed that game. Gandy-Golden made a couple contested catches but most of the damage was guys busting assignments despite adequate talent to win matchups.

Quote:

Saying we should have beat Tech on talent wise is credibility issues partner.


I'll mostly agree here.

Tech was certainly the team with more talent after the injuries prior to that game. Fully healthy it's debatable though.
TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Fair enough. You watch way more film and have much more data than me. All I know is their QB and WR had a field day on us and sitting there in the stands of McLane Stadium that night I'm not sure if they had taken names off jersey I could have identified one team to the other. My only point is this idea we had talent all over the field in 2017 is crazy talk. The cupboard was pretty empty.

Btw, I'm sold on the YPD stat. I wasn't at first but looked into it little more and total offense/total defense obsolete stats. To many variables not taken into account.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Ok Dom I will give you some reconcilliation, I should have said BU "could" have beaten Tech, not should have.

I will correct myself when wrong, something virtually nobody else on here is willing to do. Especially you.

Tech had such a weak defense almost any team outside of KU would have a fighting chance.
PacificBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Not to hijack, but..........................

Would anyone be happy with Rhule after the following year end results:

Year 1: 1-11
Year 2: 3-9
Year 3: 4-8
Year 4: 5-7
Year 5: 6-7

Or based on his own prediction of 6 wins next year:

Year 1: 1-11
Year 2: 6-7
Year 3: 7-6
Year 4: 8-5
Year 5: 9-4

Do we keep him based on the two scenarios? Either scenario?

forza orsi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
PacificBear said:

Not to hijack, but..........................

Would anyone be happy with Rhule after the following year end results:

Year 1: 1-11
Year 2: 3-9
Year 3: 4-8
Year 4: 5-7
Year 5: 6-7

Or based on his own prediction of 6 wins next year:

Year 1: 1-11
Year 2: 6-7
Year 3: 7-6
Year 4: 8-5
Year 5: 9-4

Do we keep him based on the two scenarios? Either scenario?


I woudn't be at all happy with scenario 1. Happy is probably too strong a word for scenario 2, but I'd probably be satisfied that he's progressing well.

If that's how it plays out, I don't think you keep him in scenario one and I do think you keep him in scenario two. I'd like to think he'll do better than scenario 2 by a game or two, but I don't think you would dump a 9-4 Big 12 coach that's improving year over year.
CorsicanaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
He'd still be 31-32 after year 5 under scenario 2. But it would be hard for BU to can a 9-4 coach.

Needs to go under scenario 1, probably after year 2. I he only gets to 4-8 in year 3 recruiting will be dead, not quite at Kansas levels, but bad.




Illigitimus non carborundum
Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
TheDom said:

Stranger said:

TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty & UTSA. Perhaps although debatable at that point between injury's, deflections, suspensions, true freshman. Factor in the intangibles of remaining players with sour attitudes, new systems, and zero chemistry, so we lost. Both games winnable late but didn't.

If you think any conference game including KU should be considered underachieving based on talent level you are nuts. Tech was not winnable game based on us having more talent than them. We didn't have more talent than anyone last year. Certainly not developed talent. Go back and watch Liberty game, they had 2 best players on field between their QB and WR.

The telling factor was coaching staff took the dumpster fire that was last year - when 20 of 70 suited players (30%) of roster for game 8 of the season are walk-ons - and they played hard each week despite record and demonstrated improvement in nearly every area of football. Additionally, the roster was purged of players with bad attitudes and didn't fit system. The foundation was laid in 2017. Now we can build again.



You make some great points. But it's almost like you are compelled to counter every post.

No one pumps more sunshine on the football board than your ownself. Are you being paid to sell the dialogue? Are you little Matty, his ownself? Maybe Mrs. little Matty? Are you one of several Doms, or just TheDom? Keep up the good work.

You are to the football board what cinque is to the religion and politics board.

Just speaking the truth for all the haters on the board like you. It's actually not that much sunshine and roses. It's really just objective. Rhule has a lot to prove and tons of work to do. I personally do think he man for the job but we could be wrong and it not. However, when it just non stop irrational nonsense it doesn't make the board fun. If ya'll came with some actual good stuff and not just nonsense like I'm Rhule is disguise I wouldn't have to post so much.


No hating going on here, The. You'll figure out sooner or later I'm just having fun with you. This here is the toy department and I haven't taken anything serious at Baylor athletics since 1956.

I did take it serious when Buddy and Tommye Lou and them knocked down a perfectly good alumni building just cause they wanted to. Baylor people will never forgive them for that and neither will I. That was just meanness and nobody likes that.

I wish little Matty well but I've seen his kind before at Baylor so I'll believe in him when he proves himself. In the meantime he better develop a thick skin cause this a tough crowd.
I'm a Bearbacker
TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
How old are you? 107?
Russell Gym
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
CorsicanaBear said:

He'd still be 31-32 after year 5 under scenario 2. But it would be hard for BU to can a 9-4 coach.

Needs to go under scenario 1, probably after year 2. I he only gets to 4-8 in year 3 recruiting will be dead, not quite at Kansas levels, but bad.




Not Dead Fred
Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
TheDom said:

How old are you? 107?


No. I just started suffering through Baylor football games at an early age I saw em lose to Texas Christian in Fort Worth when I was seven. Haven't missed a season since. It's not hatred, The. Just lots of experience.

What's a Dom, anyway?
I'm a Bearbacker
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Stranger said:

TheDom said:

How old are you? 107?


No. I just started suffering through Baylor football games at an early age I saw em lose to Texas Christian in Fort Worth when I was seven. Haven't missed a season since. It's not hatred, The. Just lots of experience.

What's a Dom, anyway?

You never heard of Dom/Sub relationship?
Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
HuMcK said:

Stranger said:

TheDom said:

How old are you? 107?


No. I just started suffering through Baylor football games at an early age I saw em lose to Texas Christian in Fort Worth when I was seven. Haven't missed a season since. It's not hatred, The. Just lots of experience.

What's a Dom, anyway?

You never heard of Dom/Sub relationship?


The only Dom I ever heard of was Deluise.
I'm a Bearbacker
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty & UTSA.




Just stop. There is no "might." Losing these games was highly unpalatable because we had the talent to beat Liberty. I cannot believe that I had to type that.
DAC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty


You should put that quote in your signature so any newcomers will know you're the village idiot
jbbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Stranger said:

TheDom said:

Stranger said:

TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty & UTSA. Perhaps although debatable at that point between injury's, deflections, suspensions, true freshman. Factor in the intangibles of remaining players with sour attitudes, new systems, and zero chemistry, so we lost. Both games winnable late but didn't.

If you think any conference game including KU should be considered underachieving based on talent level you are nuts. Tech was not winnable game based on us having more talent than them. We didn't have more talent than anyone last year. Certainly not developed talent. Go back and watch Liberty game, they had 2 best players on field between their QB and WR.

The telling factor was coaching staff took the dumpster fire that was last year - when 20 of 70 suited players (30%) of roster for game 8 of the season are walk-ons - and they played hard each week despite record and demonstrated improvement in nearly every area of football. Additionally, the roster was purged of players with bad attitudes and didn't fit system. The foundation was laid in 2017. Now we can build again.



You make some great points. But it's almost like you are compelled to counter every post.

No one pumps more sunshine on the football board than your ownself. Are you being paid to sell the dialogue? Are you little Matty, his ownself? Maybe Mrs. little Matty? Are you one of several Doms, or just TheDom? Keep up the good work.

You are to the football board what cinque is to the religion and politics board.

Just speaking the truth for all the haters on the board like you. It's actually not that much sunshine and roses. It's really just objective. Rhule has a lot to prove and tons of work to do. I personally do think he man for the job but we could be wrong and it not. However, when it just non stop irrational nonsense it doesn't make the board fun. If ya'll came with some actual good stuff and not just nonsense like I'm Rhule is disguise I wouldn't have to post so much.


No hating going on here, The. You'll figure out sooner or later I'm just having fun with you. This here is the toy department and I haven't taken anything serious at Baylor athletics since 1956.

I did take it serious when Buddy and Tommye Lou and them knocked down a perfectly good alumni building just cause they wanted to. Baylor people will never forgive them for that and neither will I. That was just meanness and nobody likes that.

I wish little Matty well but I've seen his kind before at Baylor so I'll believe in him when he proves himself. In the meantime he better develop a thick skin cause this a tough crowd.
So you don't like meanness, but you're ok with blatant disrespect for our coach by calling him little Matty. Got it.
TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
DAC said:

TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty


You should put that quote in your signature so any newcomers will know you're the village idiot
Again, tell me their QB & WR were not the best players in that game. S11 says it was majority of blown coverages that made them look like D1 players so I will take his word. He puts in way more hours on film study than me. So I will concede to him it was more mental mistake than physical talent issue. However, bigger picture we were not some talented group last year. CMR took over dumpster fire with limited talent. Liberty might have been only team we had more talent than.
For the record, UTSA had a player go 1st round. We had zero players drafted. So lets not act like we were some talented bunch that underachieved and was supposed to win many games last year.
DAC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
TheDom said:

DAC said:

TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty


You should put that quote in your signature so any newcomers will know you're the village idiot
Again, tell me their QB & WR were not the best players in that game. S11 says it was majority of blown coverages that made them look like D1 players so I will take his word. He puts in way more hours on film study than me.

Lmao What do you think that means? Heck yeah they were the best players. Why do you think that is?? And you think someone needs to study film to determine if Baylor or Libery had the most talent?? Dang I've heard it all.
TheDom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
DAC said:

TheDom said:

DAC said:

TheDom said:

We might have had the talent to beat Liberty


You should put that quote in your signature so any newcomers will know you're the village idiot
Again, tell me their QB & WR were not the best players in that game. S11 says it was majority of blown coverages that made them look like D1 players so I will take his word. He puts in way more hours on film study than me.

Lmao What do you think that means? Heck yeah they were the best players. Why do you think that is?? And you think someone needs to study film to determine if Baylor or Libery had the most talent?? Dang I've heard it all.
You're going to take position we were some great talented team in 2017 smart guy? Some team that underachieved based on talent?
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
TheDom said:

ColomboLQ said:

TheDom said:

Boom! I knew S11 was lurking with the knowledge! No sir, ColomboLQ, you need to educate yourself on the facts. Take several seats please!
Settle down junior and take a seat. The adults are talking.
I figured you were done for the night bro after getting checked that hard. Guess you are a stubborn one.
You should ask my wife about that. You'd find that she would not disagree with you there.
NoBSU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
ColomboLQ said:

TheDom said:

ColomboLQ said:

TheDom said:

Boom! I knew S11 was lurking with the knowledge! No sir, ColomboLQ, you need to educate yourself on the facts. Take several seats please!
Settle down junior and take a seat. The adults are talking.
I figured you were done for the night bro after getting checked that hard. Guess you are a stubborn one.
You should ask my wife about that. You'd find that she would not disagree with you there.
Why would I ask your wife if you were done for the night?
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
S11 said:


Quote:

1- having a different opinion is fine but at least fact check and tell the truth. Worst defense in the history of Baylor football? 2011 & 2012 (the only years Bennett had this young of a back 7) were worse in both total D and scoring D. Simply untrue. They weren't good but why rely on something false?

Finally an intelligent mind to engage with! Total D and scoring D don't take into account pace of play so often it's not a good indicator when one teams is running 100 plays on defense compared to another only running 75. I like using opponents points per play because the number of plays at that point isn't as big factor (although still a factor). Baylor in 2017 was #110 in the country in opp pts per play giving up .501 per play. For comparison sakes, Baylor's often maligned 2012 defense (that gave up 70 points to West Virginia) gave up .455 per play.

Yards and points per play also are less relevant than per-possession stats. For instance Air Force will average a modest 5.5 per play which ranked 77th nationally. However their scheme is entirely based on getting consistent modest gains to put together long drives. Their yards per play would never indicate that they were 17th in yards per possession. They were a very good offense that simply hit few stat skewing plays. Air Force, Navy, and Army are all outside the top 40 in yards per play nationally. Army is 2nd in yards per drive, Navy is 11th, and AFA is 17th. Clearly yards per play got it wrong here as these teams are clearly moving the ball very well while intentionally shortening the game to bail out athletically outgunned defenses.

Also teams that gamble on defense and take risks to get quick stops are disadvantaged in that statistic due to the disproportionate impact of big plays on the stat.

As for points per play? You not only have the quick vs patient style of play skewing but also the disadvantage of non-offensive scores or gifted points scored on "drives" that start deep in opposing territory. I find it to be a very poor statistic that needs a lot of work to get good value out of- possibly worse than the total points per game.

Quote:

2- Total Yards is borderline junk now due to different amounts of possessions per team. Yards per drive is a clearer picture. In terms of yards per drive vs power conference foes (because that's the most extensive set of per-drive stats I have) last year's defense trails only 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2005 in Yards per drive allowed out of the 13 seasons I have data for. When you compare them as a percentage of what other P5's get they only trail those teams and 2016 with 2005 and 2016 only being less than .6% of a difference.

I agree with you on the total yards thing because it doesn't take into account pace of play. I prefer opponent yards per play than yards per drive because (in my opinion) it takes into account pace of play much better overall.

Completely disagree on per play stats.
- Yards per drive DOES account for pace of play unlike total yards. I'd argue it does as good as yards per play with that. You won't accumulate bigger numbers by going fast with per drive stats or per play.

- It introduces problems of it's own with long plays skewing it as well as bias for and against styles of play.

Consider this example:

Offense has 4 three and outs that combine for 20 yards. On drive 5 they have an 80 yard touchdown. Total of 100 yards on 13 plays.

20 yards per drive would be a poor showing which is reflective of what happened but still shows they moved it some.
7.69 is a ridiculously high yards per play figure that if it was a season average would have been second nationally. Clearly they weren't dominating that defense.

Also it ignores STYLE of play as outlined in the service academy example. Once again, yards per drive tells the far more accurate story.

Quote:

The 2017 Baylor defense gave up 6.4 yards per play (#114 in the country). Again for comparisons sake, the 2012 Baylor defense gave up 6.0 yards per play. And they were dead last in total defense that season(again a junk stat, but used her to make a point). The only Baylor defense that compares is the 2011 one that gave up the same 6.4 per drive. Even Guy Morris defenses were better at this. On a side note, we were a much worse defense at home than on the road.


As my example above indicates, yards per play is easily dramatically skewed by long plays and to a lesser extent by style of play by a team and their opponents. I consider it to be a low reliability stat for that reason.

Quote:


3- 2016 allowed 38.7 YPD to power conference foes, 2017 allowed 35.8. Both allowed 2.19 yards more than other P5 teams averaged vs their opponents. This is after losing Blanchard, Levels, Stewart, Reid, and Edwards while losing X Jones and KJ Smith early in the year and constantly shuffling out injured guys. If this defense was all-time horrible- so was the prior year which I highly doubt you'd argue.

Again I'm not sure how much I buy the YPD argument. If you compare the Def S&P rankings used by football outsiders, the 2017 defense was significantly worse than 2016 (28.3 and #58 overall vs 33.2 and #111 overall). Again for comparison, the 2012 defense had a 31.5 rating and #86 overall.

S&P measures play by play success rates. It has value that I feel is more derived from their smaller breakdowns than their attempt to aggregate those into one metric. Some of these sub-metrics are better than others IMO.

For instance things like IsoPPP showing how often you make or give up explosive plays and havoc rate showing how disruptive a defense is, or stuff rate showing how effective you are at stopping runs for short yards play by play. Those are the kind of stats that carry a lot of insight to me and tells something descriptive that may not always be apparent with a typical box score.

I care less about their attempt to aggregate play by play efficiency. I like the idea behind success rate but it seems weaker to me. For instance Air Force in my example above probably doesn't trigger many "success rate" wins on first down but moves it ridiculously well per-possession. In their book a 4 yard gain on first down is success, this arbitrary metric doesn't see it that way.

Also they omit plays in the fourth quarter when the margin is more than 16 points. This clearly sometimes is a good thing but many times omits good data. For instance, Charlie Brewer vs WVU this year, Baylor's first comeback drive vs TCU in 14, etc. Games nowadays like UCLA/A&M that are far from over at 17 point margins with how many teams can go uptempo and get more chances with the ball. They have to draw the line somewhere, I just see any line there as too one size fits all.

I also lean to yards per drive as it's easily comparable, understandable, and is flexible enough to be used to answer multiple questions. It can:

-omit data that is irrelevant due to injury for key players (Very little real predictive value for WVU's upcoming offense with Grier can be gleaned from their bowl vs Utah without him)

-more easily isolate stats against particular styles of play, and it can show how scheme changes at half impact the game. (2016 OkSt vs Pitt is a good example as Pitts half two fire zones caused a dramatic YPD drop)

- It can be paired with field position stats to get a % if available Yards gained

- it can be paired with offensive scoring data to determine % of droves with a TD, FG, punt, turnover, etc.

It also allocates penalty yards among the offense and defense accurately when you take drive data from the drive charts.

I then use an opponent's games against other P5 teams as a fair "par" to measure against assuming they have a mostly P5 schedule. Holding Oklahoma to 30 yards per drive is great, giving that to KU is reason for concern.

Quote:

3- The defense did get better as the year wore on. I expect a better year with more experience and a better understanding of a more versatile scheme.

Agreed here. I just can't see how they could get worse. I actually have more hope for the defense improving than I do for the offense (although that isn't saying much).


Big key is the mental busts giving up explosive plays. That's huge and if they limit that they could take a big step forward. I expect far fewer as Snow didn't get where he is allowing simple busts to happen. The AAC was plenty wide open and they did a good job of bottling up explosive plays at Temple.
I'm not arguing that points per play or yards per play should be what is used to rate offenses, because I haven't looked enough into it to form an opinion. I'm using these stats to rate defenses. I don't think it's a coincidence that the top 3 defenses in allowing pts per play and yards per play are the same top 3 defenses ranked by S&P and were widely considered the top 3 defenses in CFB this past year (Alabama, Clemson and Wisconsin).

I would agree with your example on the 13 plays if that's all the offense got in a game, but most teams run 65+ plays per game which gives you way more data points. All those data points per game and consequently over the course of the season will help balance out the extreme outliers in terms of plays like the one from your example above. Those skewed plays are not likely to be a big factor when you consider the sheer number of plays that will used in the statistics. By contrast, teams might only get 6 or 7 drives per game and to me, that is a much easier to manipulate that statistic because there are much fewer points of data than there are on a per play basis. A team can be trying to run clock at the end of games or kneeling in victory formations and that will skew numbers on a per drive basis much much more than they would on a per play basis.

I agree with your last point. Fewer busts, particularly by having improved safety play, should make the defense much better. Just how good that is remains to be seen.
Page 6 of 7
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.