Top 5 Cal Football Myths from the 2007 Season
Well, in case you missed it, spring ball has started! For now, we can only direct you to Okane’s blog for spring ball updates. Eventually, CBKWit will begin attending spring practices. Right now he’s on a very long and well deserved vacation in some exotic location after his breaking of the Ben Braun firing to ESPN, FoxSports, CBS Sportsline, SF Chronicle, Sandy Barbour, and the rest of the world. Yes, I swear to BEAST MODE LYNCH himself, that CBKWit told Sandy Barbour that she had fired Ben Braun before she even did the deed. Amazing. And actually, FoxSports, in respect to CBKWit for telling them that Ben Braun had been fired, even put CBKWit’s name on their banner (see for yourself, see the big "CBK"?). You see, CBKWit is deeper than Deep Throat. He’s like in the esophagus. He’s in the Marianas Trench. He’s like that machine that drills to the center of the Earth in the movie The Core. Oh yeah. CBKWit is in deep. Thoroughly entrenched with the Cal administration. CBKWit, are you Sandy Barbour???
Anyways.
With spring ball here, I’d like to dispel a few of the biggest myths from the 2007 season in our attempt to move forward. I’ve had plenty of time to peruse various Cal sports forums on the internet and have heard quite a few myths thrown around as truth.
With that, let’s dig in…
Myth #5: DBs must always turn to look for the ball.
I’ve harped on this many times, but it’s not a display of one’s incompetence if a defensive back does not turn to locate the ball. Below is an explanation that I’ve provided before:
I’d just like to say that it’s not really a big deal that defensive backs don’t "look for" or locate the ball. It doesn’t mean they suck or are clueless. Correct me if I’m wrong, but non-contact face guarding is perfectly legal in college football. Granted, if non-incidental contact occurs between the DB and WR while the ball is in the air, then there is a much greater chance for a pass interference penalty than if the DB were looking for the ball. In fact, believe it or not, but some cutting edge DB coaches (or unusual, depends on how you look at it) teach their DBs NOT to look at the ball but to just play the ball through the receiver. Meaning that they teach the DBs to perfectly time a swat at the WR’s hands as the ball is caught, or face guard. Many DBs will look for the ball through the WR’s eyes, meaning the DB will watch the WR’s eyes. When the WR looks up, and his eyes get big, the DB knows the ball is near. At that moment the DB can either just defend without looking for the ball, time a good swat at the WR’s hands, or turn and attempt to locate the ball last-second and defend it.
And in some instances, it’s completely irrelevant or useless for the DB to turn and locate the ball. If the DB isn’t even in position to swat the ball, why slow yourself down and disorientate your upper body to just see the ball fly over your head? In some situations, it’s just more efficient to forget the ball, concentrate on the WR, and try to make a swat or at least a tackle. Also, let’s keep in mind that the defensive play can dictate the circumstances in which a DB locates the ball. When playing zone, the defensive players are facing forward and towards the QB. Locating the ball is easy and pretty much mandatory. But when the defensive player is playing man, he might have his back to the LOS and the QB. Locating the ball is harder, sometimes not as efficient, and has a lower requirement.
Myth #4: Longshore is at fault for Cal’s 0-21 start in the Bell Helicopter Bowl Game versus Air Force.
I’ve seen a few Cal fans continuously tote around this notion. Unfortunately, it’s a pretty poor argument with a lot of holes in it.
First off, how can Longshore be at fault for Air Force scoring 21 points on our defense? He can’t really. A small argument can be made that he is slightly but indirectly responsible for the defense giving up 21 early points. How so? Because if Longshore doesn’t make a throw, then the offense comes off the field and the defense comes back onto the field without adequate rest. But that argument is still a stretch. Let’s be honest here. Longshore isn’t responsible for Cal’s 0-21 start. Longshore, if anything, is responsible for the zero offensive points. But even that statement is unfair because it attributes responsibility for fault to Longshore for a lot of things behind his control.
To wit, Longshore threw 3 incompletions (he was 5/8 on the day). One of the incompletions was a drop by Desa. So negating that drop, Longshore was 6/8. The second incompletion was a slightly overthrown pass to Stevens due to premature defensive pressure from spotty OL blocking. Sure great QBs will make that throw more often than not, but I don’t think Tedford would attribute more fault to Longshore than the OL for the failure of that play. We’ll say the OL was 60% at fault and Longshore was 40% at fault. Essentially, we’ll say that pass doesn’t really count, thus Lonshore was 6/7 on the day (or I suppose we could say it [roughly] half counts, in which case Longshore was 6.5/8 on the day. Thus Longshore isn’t unfairly penalized for an incompletion for mitigating circumstances, nor is he fully relieved of fault because of those mitigating circumstances). The final incompletion was a deep pass to Cunningham that was fairly broken up by the defensive back. So Longshore was 6/7 on the day (or 6.5/8 on the day, if you prefer).
How is that a bad performance? It’s not. Longshore isn’t at fault for Cal’s 0-21 start. Longshore isn’t really responsible for Cal’s zero offensive points scored.
Plain and simple, the Cal offense as a whole didn’t play that well to start the game. But blanket statements that Longshore is responsible for the 0-21 start in the bowl game is wholly inaccurate.
Myth #3: Coach Daft called the plays for the Bell Helicopter Bowl Game
I will admit I don’t have any inside information to refute this myth. But I’m pretty sure this is merely fan speculation based upon the fact that our offense went from scoring an average of like 14 points the 6 games prior to the bowl game, and then during the bowl game we explode for 42 points. Most fans who believe this myth seem to believe that someone else was behind the wheel of the offensive playcalling. Have we forgotten that Tedford is a great playcaller too? Have we forgot that he called plays from 2002-2004? I don’t think Daft called the plays for the bowl game. Besides, if he did such a great job for the bowl game, how come he didn’t get hired for the OC job this year? You’d think he’d at least get some consideration but I never heard from those "in the know" that Daft was ever considered.
Furthermore, I’ve looked at the game and the playcalling. It’s typical Tedford. Nothing really jumps out at me that somebody else was calling plays. Also, if you watch the game on TV, Tedford still has his big dinner table sized playcall sheet. He’s still looking at it, still marking plays he’s called, etc. Remember last year when Tedford wasn’t calling plays? His playcall sheet was smaller. Significantly smaller (although still much bigger than any other coach in the nation).
Myth #2: Bob Gregory needs to be fired.
I know I’m going to have a lot of people disagree with me no matter what I say, so I’ll keep it short. Gregory has gotten more conservative over the past few years. But put aside your Berkeley liberalism and realize for one second that conservative isn’t always a bad thing. I believe last year’s defensive was a conservative BBDB defense was due to the fact that we didn’t have the secondary defenders to adequate cover receivers while blitzing. I covered this in my Tedford Talk Translated post.
Here is the relevant paragraph:
I think Cal’s defense in 2006 was a good example of a defense where we could blitz because we had the secondary defenders to adequately cover WRs without help. Namely Daymeion Hughes and his uncanny ability to intercept North Korean nuclear missles. With Dante, he essentially completely took 1 WR, and sometimes half a field, away from the offense. Because of that ability, the defense could blitz more without too much added fear of deep completions. But in 2007, Cal only had Syd’Quan Thompson, Brandon Hampton, and Chris Conte. All three have their strengths and weaknesses, but unfortunately all are a little more hit-and-miss when it comes to island defending (playing defense on an island by themselves). Because of their slightly spottier coverage skills (and I mean, most people do have spottier coverage skills when compared to Daymeion Hughes), I think Gregory was less inclined to blitz. I think that Gregory felt that the risk of blitzing outweighed the benefits.
Myth #1: Longshore is at fault for all his INTs/Longshore is utterly incompetent in the 4th Quarter/Longshore sucks/Longshore couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn/Longshore is responsible for the recession/Longshore is responsible for the Holocaust/Longshore is responsible for President Bush/Longshore is responsible for your erectile dysfunction/Longshore is responsible for (insert your current problem here)
Yeah, so how many interceptions did Longshore throw this year? The answer is 13. Let me ask you another question, how many did Longshore throw last year? The answer is 13. Longshore threw just as many INTs this year as last year. In fact, his completion percentage was 60.2% and 59.9% respectively for 2006 and 2007. His completion percentage is only .3% different. But yet his QB rating was 18.5 points lower in 2007 than 2006. Why? Shorter yards per completion! Why? Because teams double (and sometimes triple-teamed) Desean Jackson!
Essentially, Longshore had no more faults this year than last year. So why does every Cal fan and their grandmother hate Longshore? The plain and simple fact that QBs get more fault when things go wrong, and the mistakes they make are more visible than other positions. Everyone sees the QB throw the ball. People don’t always see poor OL blocking. People don’t realize how Cal had to pass a lot in the 4th quarter and that’s why Longshore’s 4th quarter stats are down. People forget that sometimes Longshore has to throw the ball up on a prayer even though he knows it has a 95% chance of getting intercepted (see Cal @ Arizona St. from 2007). Speaking of hail mary prayer passes, that INT doesn’t even count. So essentially Longshore only threw 12 INTs in 2007.
And speaking of the Arizona State game, here’s my analysis of two Longshore INTs which explains how poor OL blocking directly and indirectly lead to both of the Longshore INTs.
Finally, Tedford has explicitly stated that the WRs ran wrong routes last year. While he didn’t say how often that happened, I think it can be inferred that it was probably a continuing problem. Afterall, Tedford did fire former WR coach Dan Ferrigno. But I think that comment was also meant to acknowledge that the WR problems also led to incompletions and interceptions, and that Longshore wasn’t as much at fault as it seemed.
Bottom line: the stats show that Longshore played no poorly this year than last year. Why did nobody hate Longshore in 2006? Because we were winning. People were happy. When we lose, fans find any reason to whine and complain. Fans find scape-goats. Longshore was the scape goat for 2007. He got blamed for WR running wrong routes which made Longshore look like he was throwing to the other team. He got blamed for throwing the ball away or throwing INTs when poor OL blocking let defenders get in his face early. He got blamed for being a quarterback - the one position where more blame falls on your shoulders than it should.
A lot went wrong last year, but in all honesty, the QB problems weren’t as big of a problem as it seemed - it just seems that way because we all see what the QB does.
Good post, bad timing. Don’t forget what day it is.
Comment by Avinash — April 1, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
I’ve always had bad timing. Maybe that’s why my last girlfriend left me.
Comment by HydroTech — April 1, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Actually, Hydro, she left you due to “woefully unsatisfying sexual performance.” Yes, woefully unsatisfying sexual performance. So, there is that.
Comment by TwistNHook — April 1, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Also, Avinash, don’t you have “EVIL!” Stanford bloggers to be fighting off?????
Comment by TwistNHook — April 1, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Longshore’s INT # may not have changed, but you have to look at when they occur - heavily loaded in the 4th quarter. Either he chokes in pressure situations, he doesn’t have the arm strength to carry himself for a full 60, whatever - he throws it away when we need it the most. Relying too heavily on the stats is above your usual level of analysis. As much as I hate to harp on “intangible” factors, because most of the time it’s bunk to throw them out as a blanket excuse, it explains a lot of poor Longshore play. What did Rodgers and Boller have that Longshore doesn’t to make reasonably equal groups of talented people succeed on the field?
PS - I never blogged on 4/1 to prevent the confusion… I assume this is a serious post.
Comment by Slims — April 1, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
They are being huddled into their corner and being branded with huge “C”s on inappropriate parts of their anatomy.
Comment by Avinash — April 1, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
“The second incompletion was a slightly overthrown pass to Stevens due to premature defensive pressure from spotty OL blocking.” I’m not going to say that this is NL’s fault, but I will say I remember a certain other QB who played for the Bears that very same day who, when faced with defensive pressure, bobbed, ducked, ebbed, flowed, moved and threw a kick-ass beautiful 40yd touchdown pass to Tha-1.
And, I think a lot of people were getting on Longshore’s case toward the end of ‘06 when Marshawn basically had to win games on his own.
Kevin Riley should be head of the Federal Reserve! With Brock (the Man with the Name) Mansion as his co-commander.
Comment by CalBandGreat — April 1, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Ya, sorry to burst your bubble but plenty of people were on Nate’s ass the year before too. I remember cause I was defending him at the time (I was likely wrong in that opinion) as his numbers were great, but there was a lot of criticism about his grace under pressure, inability to win the big game, etc.
Comment by timote — April 1, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Hmm… yeah, there were some people who were weary of Longshore in 2006. You’re right, Timote. But I don’t think my point is defeated by that. Longshore received not near the amount of criticism in ‘06 than he did in ‘07 despite having essentially very similar stats. The reason for the extra criticism despite same stats? Cal was winning in 2006. The reason Cal won more in 2006? Cal had a better defense. Opponents weren’t double teaming THA1 24/7. Opponent’s were more concerned about, and game-planned more for Cal’s running game (BEAST MODE LYNCH). I’d also say that I think Cal’s OL in ‘06 was better than ‘07.
Don’t get me wrong guys. I’m not saying Longshore is the next Peyton Manning or even the next Trent Dilfer. But he certainly wasn’t as bad last year as many people perceived him to be, and made him out to be.
Comment by HydroTech — April 1, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Slims, you’re right. The stats don’t lie. Longshore had a lot more INTs in the 4th quarter. Clearly it suggests that he’s got 4th quarter issues. But then again, Cal was tied, or trailing a lot more in ‘07 than ‘06, thus required to pass more in the 4th quarter, and required to pass more in situations where the downs and distance clearly suggested passing plays. Every quarterback faces a higher probability of interceptions when required to pass against a defense that is expecting pass.
Comment by HydroTech — April 1, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
“Opponents weren’t double teaming THA1 24/7″
This isn’t a very good defense for Nate, because Hawkins was much better this year than he was last year, Stevens should have had plenty of catches under Tedford’s power-style offense, etc. Cal underperformed with a more mature receiver base.
Comment by Avinash — April 1, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
I don’t think Hydro would necessarily disagree with your assessment, Avinash, that “Cal underperformed with a more mature receiver base.” I just think that he’s exploring the various reasons why that might be and trying to give a fuller picture than say “LONGSHORE CAUSES AIDS!” Or something.
Comment by TwistNHook — April 1, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
On a completely different subject, y’all see that Indiana hired Tom Crean? So now we’ve got the best open HC position in college B-ball, ya?
Comment by CalBandGreat — April 1, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Well, CalBandGreat, I can’t say that I following college B-ball to the extent that I do college football, but haven’t we always had the best HC position in all of college basketball? Okay, I’m just kidding. Cal’s education is second-rate. The campus is ugly. And Berkeley isn’t for everyone.
Comment by HydroTech — April 1, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Bah?
Comment by CalBandGreat — April 1, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
yeah we also have to compete w/ Marquette for a head coach too. Plus, we can’t rely on our awesome school colours either.
Comment by tommy — April 1, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Why on earth would anyone blame the defensive coordinator for sloppy defense? or a qb for interceptions?
Comment by Nasty Nate — April 1, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
It’s not Longshore’s fault, it’s that darn opposing team. Don’t they understand how mean it is that they intercept balls that were not meant for them!?
Comment by (not nasty) Nate — April 1, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
I cant tell whether Nasty Nate and Not Nasty Nate are the same person? But they are basically saying the same thing. “Player/Entity X did poorly, so let’s blame them.” Again, I don’t think HydroTech is completely absolving Bob Gregory or Nate Longshore of blame for some of the breakdowns this past year. He is merely trying to give a more complete context to the failures.
Further, in regards to sloppy D, I’m not sure how much control Bob Gregory has in regards to drilling the fundamentals into the D players. If your concern is less about the scheming and more about poor tackling etc etc, then your concern might lie with the individual position coaches. If your concern is that Cal ran a terrible scheme on D, then feel free to look in Gregory’s direction. I personally think Gregory was running the best scheme given the talent level. That would still lay some blame at the feet of Gregory for recruiting and talent selection. But again, it’s more than just “I CAN’T BELIEVE HE DIDNT BLITZ MORE!”
And, in regards to blaming QBs for interceptions, there are innumerable examples of interceptions which were in no way the QBs fault. I don’t think we need to get too in depth there. Not saying anything in particular regarding Longshore (although the last Int at UCLA stands out to me). But just that regarding both the failures at the QB and D position, Hydro is trying to give a fuller look as to why they might have come about.
Comment by TwistNHook — April 2, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Avinash, How did Hawkins do vs Furd and how many dropped balls did he have? Better receiver this year? Maybe slightly, but he did have better numbers for sure. Hawkins was the lucky recipient of DJ being double teamed. As for Stevens, he had the same amount of catches as in 2006 and more TDs in 2007. Part of the reason why he wasnt sent out on more routes was because they needed him for run blocking and to protect Nate.
Comment by MysteryFriend — April 2, 2008 @ 9:25 am
TnH - good post in response to sloppy D. There’s a saying that a really good secondary can make a weak DL look really good. Or vice versa: a really good DL can make a weak secondary look really good. To be fair, there was a ton of inexperience and injuries that hit those units last year. However, the lack of progression and production by both units has been addressed with the firings of those 2 position coaches. The new blood will make a difference.
Comment by MysteryFriend — April 2, 2008 @ 9:39 am
When evaluating Longshore’s performance you can’t just look at stats. 6 of 8 in the AFB - big deal!
He does not hit receivers in stride, he rarely - if ever- looks off his first read, and he can’t throw the long ball.
Riley on the other hand looks at more than one read, he was able to avoid pressure and step up into the pocket which led to at least one TD (Nasty Nate would have taken the sack), he hits receivers in stride, and he has the ability to create with his feet - adding another dimension to the offense.
Longshore is horrible. Don’t give me this 6 for 8 crap or this 13 INTs which was on par with last year’s total. He clearly regressed and is not the quarterback we all hoped that he would be.
Comment by Johno — April 2, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Johno, I didn’t just look at stats. I’ve noted how WRs have ran wrong routes. I’ve noted how spotty OL blocking has lead to premature QB pressure. I’ve noted how certain situations require the QB to throw very low probability passes. Last time I checked, those weren’t stats. I’ve looked at circumstances and situations of specific plays all year to show what Longshore’s stats hide. Perhaps your opinion of Longshore is suffering from the very common trend of football fans to remember the uncommon bad plays and forgetting the common good plays.
Comment by HydroTech — April 2, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Johno - As far as Longshore regressing, anybody and any team that loses Marshawn Lynch in the backfield will not be as good the next year unless somebody of equal talent steps in. It’s no coincidence that the long ball disappeared, DJ’s total rec yards went down, Nate’s total yards passed dropped, teams stopped stacking the box frequently vs us, and Nate’s pass attempts went up in 7 less quarters this year. What that translates to is that Lynch was able to put us in favorable 2nd/3rd and short situations - dared other teams to stack the box to stop him, opening up things for everybody else. If you don’t agree with me, break out the film like I did. Having said that, are you sure Longshore regressed?
I agree about Riley’s attributes that he has over Nate - but did you consider in that bowl game that RJ and DJ didn’t play the first quarter when Longshore was “stinking it up?” Probably not, because that would mean being fair to Nate. what’s your screenname on bear insider? i’d like to know so i can click the ignore button on your handle. your analysis of the 2 QBs is exactly the analysis that gets regurgitated on those boards and gets irritating to read.
Comment by MysteryFriend — April 2, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Irritating to read because it is perhaps the truth?
I just don’t understand how you can ignore the game that Riley played and try to dismiss his performance based on the absence of two receivers - albeit to very good receivers. Longshore had those same receivers at his disposal in the second half of the season and did absolutely nothing with them. I don’t want to hear about the drops by Hawkins in the Stanford game - it’s about as tired of an excuse as this debate over who should start is tired.
The bottom line is, Longshore is not effective at hitting his receivers in stride or stretching the field. Riley delivers the ball to his PLAYMAKERS in a manner that allows them to make plays unlike Nasty who tends to deliver the ball that makes a catch, let alone YAC, a monumental achievement.
Appreciate the fact you don’t take time to address any of my arguments regarding Nate’s lack of ability to deliver the ball in stride or deep.
Also appreciate the ad hominem attacks. I don’t post on BearInsider and rarely post on blogs. Attack those you disagree with - makes for constructive debate.
Finally, maybe you are right Nate didn’t regress, but then maybe he was never a great QB to begin with.
Comment by Johno — April 2, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Johno - No problem. Thanks for the props.
I’m not trying to downplay Riley’s abilities and what he has accomplished on the field. The results speak for themselves. What I’m trying to do is be fair to Nate. The QB position is usually given too much praise or too much blame because it’s the most visible one on the field. Often times, many people blast Nate for stuff that isn’t his fault. Was it his fault that the OL couldnt open up a hole big enough for Justin to gain 1 yard for a first down vs an undersized AFA DL? Was it his fault that Taufoou and the OL missed numerous blocks vs Furd allowing defenders to get in his face right when he turned around? Hard to get the long ball going when the running game is not picking up key yardage, defenses are double teaming your fastest WR, and they play more zone. Also, it’s difficult to be accurate when you’re worried about having a defender in your face. I recall many people were praising how great and pretty Nate’s long balls (no pun intended) were in 2006. He didnt all of a sudden start throwing off the mark without reason. Saying Nate can’t throw the ball deep is totally false. I seem to recall a nice long ball TD throw on the mark to Robert Jordan in the Big Game. Did you forget about that one? Apparently so! Selective memory, man.
I agree that Riley adds the extra dimension with his legs and definitely has the advantage there over Nate and that he brings a certain fire and accuracy that Nate struggled with after his injury. I’m a huge Riley fan and can’t wait to see him play.
Is it really necessary to blame Nate for for so many things that weren’t his fault and resulted from other breakdowns on the team? Nate had some big screwups, but not nearly as many as alot of folks like to hound him for. And isn’t it a bit classless to call him “Nasty Nate?” Does it make you feel good belittling a 20 year old that works his ass off to please you?
Comment by MysteryFriend — April 2, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
I always thought Nasty Nate was a compliment for him. At first, at least. He’s Nasty! But then it was used in an ironic manner as people started to view him less and less positively.
Also, MysteryFriend and Johno, I really appreciate the debate you guys are having back and forth there. Let’s just try to focus on the stuff that happens on the field. Making personal attacks won’t help anybody better understand whether Nate was good (or bad) out there. There’s no reason to ruin a perfectly good debate with those sort of lower comments. That said, I look forward to seeing comments from both of you on this here blog in the future. Excelsior!
Comment by TwistNHook — April 2, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Apparently Nasty didn’t work hard enough - I kid.
I’m not criticizing Nate as a person, only his seeming inability to 1) avoid pressure 2) hit receivers in stride 3) throw an accurate long ball 4) look off his first read and 5) act like a leader/command presence in the huddle. Once he demonstrates his ability to do any one of those things consistently he will be a much better QB.
Again, I’m fairly open minded about this and appreciate good debate. I don’t appreciate personal attacks and “Nasty” is taken only the way you want to take it. I’ve referred to Nasty that way since the 06 season. A bit taken back that you presumed Nasty was being used in a derogatory manner.
That being said - Go Bears!
Comment by Johno — April 2, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
As several people (including myself) have said before, few people actually think Longshore is genuinely bad.
…just that Riley is better. Which he is.
Also, I am not Nasty Nate.
Comment by (not nasty) Nate — April 2, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
I haven’t consistently read this blog, so I didn’t know the original intention of the ‘Nasty Nate’ nickname, which is why I took more offense to Johno’s posts and was more aggressive in my responses.
I agree there is definitely truth to some of the 5 things Johno mentioned about Longshore above, but the statements are way too generalized and don’t give Nate a fair shake (imo). For instance, avoiding pressure. First thing that comes to mind is scrambling or completing a pass under pressure. Hands down in this respect, Riley easily has the upper edge in this department with his abilities to make something out of nothing. However, what if you don’t have the opportunity to make a play because a defender is in your grill once you turn around (Longshore vs Furd 2007)? Getting rid of the ball before taking a sack is also avoiding pressure. In 2007, Riley was sacked 4 times in 60 pass attempts or about 6.7% of the time. Longshore was sacked 6 times in 390 dropbacks for 1.5% of the time. If we were to compare the percentages, if Riley dropped back 390 times, he would have been sacked 26 times. That’s a lot of yardage lost, potentially the difference between having to punt the ball instead of a FG attempt, a manageable down and distance situation, and alot more punishment on the QB’s body. The ohhhhs and ahhhhs of Riley are absolutely spectacular and exciting to watch, and thats what most people remember. They don’t really remember the real smart plays that a QB makes to put the team in a better situation.
Comment by MysteryFriend — April 3, 2008 @ 8:32 am
That’s a solid analysis, MysteryFriend. Some small sample sizes for Riley there, but I guess thats all we have to work off of. I have to wonder what the numbers would look like if we were to include other QB-pressure related stats such as “hurries” “hits” etc etc etc.
Certainly, if Longshore was sacked less (relatively speaking), that is good. But that wouldn’t take into account the times he poorly threw a ball because of a hurry. Not saying that Longshore was hurried more or threw more poor balls because of hurries. Just wondering what the numbers would say.
I am not as statistically inclined as you or Johno or HydroTech to be able to figure out such things.
Comment by TwistNHook — April 3, 2008 @ 8:52 am
Good take Mystery Friend! I like the analysis (no sarcasm intended).
One nitpicking detail is it seems you are really focused on the 2007 Furd game. To counter, I’ll focus on the AFB game in which Riley stepped up/sidestepped a ‘would be sacker’ and hit de sean in the end zone. Nate simply doesn’t make that play. He either throws it away (which is good) or takes the sack. That is the one play that really sold me on Riley. Also the fact that he looks off his primary read which Longshore has a horrible tendency of NOT doing makes Riley my QB for 08. Re-watch the ASU game and pretty much any other game and you’ll see Nate’s laser like focus on one receiver, the first receiver. If that receiver is double teamed it doesn’t matter. Nate will either throw into the double or throw it away. It’s frustrating to watch.
Twist - I am most DEFINITELY NOT statistically inclined. Just thought I’d let you know.
Comment by johno — April 3, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Join the club, johno. Join the club.
Comment by TwistNHook — April 3, 2008 @ 10:44 am
Bottom line - command of the offense and huddle is critical. Waiting for the play call, breaking the huddle, fixing alignments, reading the defense, calling the snap count, adjusting to the defense, snapping the ball before the play cock goes to zero, making your reads while avoiding pressure, getting rid of the ball. All in a matter of 30 seconds - imagine having to go through all this after getting your bell rung. My point is there’s a lot more that goes into a QB selection than most people realize or want to admit. If Riley is going to unseat Nate, he needs to show his stuff at practice and take advantage of the opportunities when given to him.
Comment by MysteryFriend — April 10, 2008 @ 12:09 pm