Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 87
  1. #71
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    16 plays, 82 yards, TD -- time off clock 7:40
    11 plays, 80 yards, TD -- time off clock 6:44
    12 plays, 86 yards, TD -- time off clock 7:00

    3 drives that consumed close to 22 min. That's what they are trying to accomplish with high percentage 1st and 2nd down passing plays. Sunday was a great example of it working out.

    As Nodak, points out, when they are going for a quick score to end a half or a game with limited time, they will not be in their normal offense.
    Love those drives........but....lets not forget.....

    Minnesota Vikings at 0:20 JAC MIN
    1st and 10 at MIN 31 C.Ponder pass deep right to D.Aromashodu to JAX 43 for 26 yards (M.Owens).
    1st and 10 at JAC 43 (Shotgun) C.Ponder pass short right to K.Rudolph pushed ob at JAX 37 for 6 yards (D.Landry).
    2nd and 4 at JAC 37 B.Walsh 55 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-C.Loeffler, Holder-C.Kluwe. 23 23

    He's shown he can do that as well.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #72
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is online now PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,204
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    16 plays, 82 yards, TD -- time off clock 7:40
    11 plays, 80 yards, TD -- time off clock 6:44
    12 plays, 86 yards, TD -- time off clock 7:00

    3 drives that consumed close to 22 min. That's what they are trying to accomplish with high percentage 1st and 2nd down passing plays. Sunday was a great example of it working out.


    As Nodak, points out, when they are going for a quick score to end a half or a game with limited time, they will not be in their normal offense.
    I know & understand why NP excluded the 1st & 2nd down passes when they went for a score at the end of the half when they weren't in their normal offense.

    He's the one missing the forest thru the trees. I simply said, if you're going to do that, you need to exclude them from week 1 & week 2's % as well. He did not. He used 100% of the 1st & 2nd down passes including the ones when they went for a quick score to end a half or the game with limited time when they weren't in their normal offense.

    They helped out the percentage numbers the past two weeks & were included. They didn't help out the percentage numbers yesterday & were excluded.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  3. #73
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,813
    Agreed

  4. #74
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    16 plays, 82 yards, TD -- time off clock 7:40
    11 plays, 80 yards, TD -- time off clock 6:44
    12 plays, 86 yards, TD -- time off clock 7:00

    3 drives that consumed close to 22 min. That's what they are trying to accomplish with high percentage 1st and 2nd down passing plays. Sunday was a great example of it working out.

    As Nodak, points out, when they are going for a quick score to end a half or a game with limited time, they will not be in their normal offense.

    The difference between the first two games and this one were penalties. In the first 2 games we had more penalty calls that stalled drives that could have chewed up more clock and this one we really didn't for the most part.

    The biggest factor in trying to build a ball control, clock eating offense is discipline because more plays= more opportunities for the offense to get called foe a penalty and losing 10 yards on a call just makes it too hard to make up ground when you are gaining it a few yards at a time.

  5. #75
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,599
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    I know & understand why NP excluded the 1st & 2nd down passes when they went for a score at the end of the half when they weren't in their normal offense.

    He's the one missing the forest thru the trees. I simply said, if you're going to do that, you need to exclude them from week 1 & week 2's % as well. He did not. He used 100% of the 1st & 2nd down passes including the ones when they went for a quick score to end a half or the game with limited time when they weren't in their normal offense.

    They helped out the percentage numbers the past two weeks & were included. They didn't help out the percentage numbers yesterday & were excluded.
    LOL. ARGH!

    Fine, you want them excluded - then Ponder went 15/18 in game 1 (83%) and 10/13 (77%) in game 2. And I was being generous by excluding the last two drives in game 2, even though the second to last (the scoring drive) started with 3 minutes left in the game and they were playing their standard offense... Wow, that is WAY different from 85% in game 1 and, uh, well, 77% in game 2... I don't know what I was thinking of by including those drives and inflating the numbers SO badly...

    So what exactly is your point again?

    This isn't about numbers - it is about whether or not Ponder and the offense are being successful in their goal of a high completion rate on first and second down. AND HE IS. You are looking for ticky tack reasons to complain.

    Can`t see the forest for the trees
    Definition: overly concerned with detail; not understanding the whole situation
    Explanation: Used when expressing that a person is focusing too much on specific problems and is missing the point
    can`t see the forest for the trees

    So let's try this again...
    Quote Originally Posted by NodakPaul View Post
    When I looked at his first ans second down completion percentage for this game and noticed it was 58.3%, I was surprised, because during the game it looked to me like he was managing the ball fairly well in early downs. Did he fail at his goal of having a high percentage on first and second? Is this something the OC should look at and either correct or change the scheme? Was his previous success the result of playing poor defenses?

    I was curious, so I looked at the play by play and realized that the completion percentages were skewed by the series at the very end of the first half. The rest of the game he was very close to his stated goal. That made sense to me, which is why I posted BOTH his overall completion percentage as well as some context around it.
    Last edited by NodakPaul; 09-25-2012 at 10:16 AM.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  6. #76
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    The difference between the first two games and this one were penalties. In the first 2 games we had more penalty calls that stalled drives that could have chewed up more clock and this one we really didn't for the most part.

    The biggest factor in trying to build a ball control, clock eating offense is discipline because more plays= more opportunities for the offense to get called foe a penalty and losing 10 yards on a call just makes it too hard to make up ground when you are gaining it a few yards at a time.
    No doubt, penalties take this offense completely off track.

    The more games you see played in the NFL the more you see how closely teams are matched. Mistakes seem to determine the outcome as much as anything else.

  7. #77
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is online now PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,204
    Quote Originally Posted by NodakPaul View Post
    LOL. ARGH!

    Fine, you want them excluded - then Ponder went 15/18 in game 1 (83%) and 10/13 (77%) in game 2. And I was being generous by excluding the last two drives in game 2, even though the second to last (the scoring drive) started with 3 minutes left in the game and they were playing their standard offense... Wow, that is WAY different from 85% in game 1 and, uh, well, 77% in game 2... I don't know what I was thinking of by including those drives and inflating the numbers SO badly...

    So what exactly is your point again?

    This isn't about numbers - it is about whether or not Ponder and the offense are being successful in their goal of a high completion rate on first and second down. AND HE IS. You are looking for ticky tack reasons to complain.

    Can`t see the forest for the trees
    Definition: overly concerned with detail; not understanding the whole situation
    Explanation: Used when expressing that a person is focusing too much on specific problems and is missing the point
    can`t see the forest for the trees

    So let's try this again...
    No need to get your panties in a bunch. I am not complaining nor looking for ticky tack reasons to downplay the 75% on 1st & 2nd downs, unless you are now stating the omission of drives when the goal is to score quickly due to time as ticky tack.

    My point is simple. In weeks 1 & 2 you looked at the completion % & determined, based on 100% of the throws on 1st & 2nd down, that "it was working".

    In week 3, you tried to do the same, only you came up with 58%, (not working) so it prompted you to look at why. You found that during crunch time, when the clock mattered, the pass completions on 1st & 2nd down dropped considerably because it was crunch time & the goal was to score quickly & not simply set up a 3rd & short. Rightfully so & I concur with that assessment.

    With that said then, taking into consideration the big difference in completion % that you found between crunch time & non-crunch time numbers and knowing that in weeks 1 & 2 we had success in drives during those crunch times when the clock mattered, it only seems 100% reasonable to go back & look at weeks 1 & 2, factor out those "crunch time" drives & see how it affected the numbers to verify it was "still working". That way you have an apples to apples comparison as to how he did on those 1st & 2nd throws for setting up a 3rd & short when it wasn't crunch time.

    I didn't know if omitting the crunch time drives in week 1 & 2 would drop him way below the 75%, push him up even higher or if it would stay the same. All I stated was it should be re-evaluated to determine if indeed it really was "working" in weeks 1 & 2 after factoring out those drives.

    Like I said before, the 75% on 1st & 2nd is, in theory, supposed to play out to mean you have 3rd & short. In reality, it doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

    He could complete the first two passes and still be 3rd and long, especially if there's a penalty or passes are thrown down the LOS for little or no gain.

    He could complete a pass on 1st down or 1st & 2nd down & never see 3rd because we already moved the chains.

    There could also be a run on one of those first two downs to go along with one of those passes which could have made it a 3rd & short or a 3rd and long.

    Too many scenarios and why those numbers don't mean a lot other than the completion %, unless you're looking at what the 3rd down distance was when he passed on 1st and 2nd. Was it 3rd and short or still 3rd and long.

    What concerns me more is if we do hit 3rd down are we converting it into another 1st down.

    I'm also more concerned with the significant drop in pass completion you found during crunch time in week 3. It's not to say we did or didn't convert on a 3rd down pass, but during crunch time, when the clock is winding down & we need to score points to win, I want to see the higher completion % to make those drives winning drives.
    Last edited by singersp; 09-26-2012 at 06:45 AM.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  8. #78
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    What concerns me more is if we do hit 3rd down are we converting it into another 1st down.
    YPA, 3rd down %, and the turnover ratio can usually show who won a game without seeing the score.

    One problem I see, that will hurt the Vikings in the long run, is that the offense has too many third downs in a drive. There are not enough first downs gained on first and second down. Even for a great third down team, the odds will catch up to them and stall drives.

  9. #79
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Minniman View Post
    YPA, 3rd down %, and the turnover ratio can usually show who won a game without seeing the score.

    One problem I see, that will hurt the Vikings in the long run, is that the offense has too many third downs in a drive. There are not enough first downs gained on first and second down. Even for a great third down team, the odds will catch up to them and stall drives.
    I agree with issue of having a high number of 3rd downs. Are we seeing this is a high number compared to other teams? I would think that part of the goal with trying to hit 75% on 1st and 2nd down throws is to minimize the number of 3rd downs altogether. Not just attempting to get in 3rd and short situations.

    For the Vikings, I would think the number of 1st downs would be a more direct metric.

    If Ponder is able to hit 75% of 1st and 2nd downs with the YPA where it's currently at, it will lead to more first downs in the first two plays. Factoring in of course run plays that get mixed in at 4 ypc'ish average.

    Best part of this thread is we are getting to see how meaningless stats really are without a lot of context put behind them. A lot of context.

  10. #80
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,599
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Minniman View Post
    YPA, 3rd down %, and the turnover ratio can usually show who won a game without seeing the score.

    One problem I see, that will hurt the Vikings in the long run, is that the offense has too many third downs in a drive. There are not enough first downs gained on first and second down. Even for a great third down team, the odds will catch up to them and stall drives.
    Just some stats for thought:
    [*] Minnesota has a 41% third down completion percentage. That is tied for 12th.[*] Minnesota has seen 39 third downs, tied for 15th.[*] Minnesota has made 64 first downs, tied for 13th.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •