Does it matter how we win?

[GoSU96]

That is absolutely a fair question.

If I had to guess, they still play fast. I think that two of the advantages of the base 12 personnel package are the mismatches it creates and how it limits the opponents DC substitution options. To me...it's a far better fit for our roster than running a spread-style offense.

For the record, NFL teams that employ the "12 personnel" package pass the ball over 47% of the time on first down. IMO, we'll be a power running team that passes the ball close to 50% of the time.

HMMM, I think I saw that offense here not so long ago.

 

[javadoc]

I don't give a about the current roster. i don't care if we suck for a year. we usually suck anyway. if you stink and are worried about your current roster, you're never going to do what you want to do

shotgun spread no huddle one back offense with 3 (if we have a WR in a TE's body like Texas Tech has) or 4 WR. leach has gone off the rails trying to continue to be different from everyone that copied him but i still like the air raid as done at TCU, aTm, even WVU, and oklahoma state most years

Slight change of topic. If you were an AD hiring a head coach, it seems clear that you would prefer a HC whose offensive philosophy ensured an air-raid-like system, whether or not the coach had an offensive background and planned to handle it himself. My question is, do you have any criteria for how the defense is handled?

 

[Millhouse]

Slight change of topic. If you were an AD hiring a head coach, it seems clear that you would prefer a HC whose offensive philosophy ensured an air-raid-like system, whether or not the coach had an offensive background and planned to handle it himself. My question is, do you have any criteria for how the defense is handled?

not really because against good teams, you're most likely pretty screwed. which is why i think scheme matters more on offense. instead of hiring a recruiter as your OC, have system guys there and put your recruiter at DC and hope for the best with athletes. the indifference a lot of people have towards offensive system, that's where i am the other way

gambling on turnovers is essential. i don't expect that to be sustainable year after year. will be volatile. but as offenses continue to get more efficient, turnovers will have more relative importance

 

[TheCusian]

Ugh, the movement of the offensive players is hampered by the field conditions too, they just know where they're trying to go.

And then the defensive player is reacting, slowly. Have you never tried to cut in reaction to another players movement on a field. It's obvious.

 

[TheCusian]

we know that qbs throw for more yards per attempt in domes. so javadoc needs to show that defenses defend the run better in domes for it to be a wash. there's no reason to think that http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2012/01/weather-effects-on-passing.html if teams run more when the weather is bad, that must mean they throw more when the weather is good the weather is good for SU more than other northeast teams. we should throw more than other northeast teams. but #hardnose

If you agree with the premise that the offense is always at an advantage and that the defensive is always reactive - it just means both sides aren't hampered by the conditions in a dome.

This is still advantageous for the offense, as you've said (easier to throw).

That all said you could make the case that a defense that is used to playing in the dome and hindered by slower reaction times have some small advantage over an offense that's used to a playing a defense hindered by a slow sloppy field (ie. Defender gets there quicker than the QB thought)

 

[OttoinGrotto]

And then the defensive player is reacting, slowly. Have you never tried to cut in reaction to another players movement on a field. It's obvious.

Sweet jeebus. What advantage exactly are you envisioning the defensive player has here that the offensive player does not in controlled conditions?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If you agree with the premise that the offense is always at an advantage and that the defensive is always reactive - it just means both sides aren't hampered by the conditions in a dome.

This is still advantageous for the offense, as you've said (easier to throw).

That all said you could make the case that a defense that is used to playing in the dome and hindered by slower reaction times have some small advantage over an offense that's used to a playing a defense hindered by a slow sloppy field (ie. Defender gets there quicker than the QB thought)

This is a 'uuuuuuge stretch.

 

[TheCusian]

This is a 'uuuuuuge stretch.

It would be hard to distinguish between that and any natural home field advantage you might have - but I don't think it's that crazy.

 

[Crusty]

Guys, the offensive player always has the advantage of knowing where he is trying to go - in any sport. The questions is - do dome conditions exaggerate that advantage? If so, is it significant enough to make a meaningful difference.

I can't see how this can be proved or disproved with stats. Too much noise.

 

[TheCusian]

Sweet jeebus. What advantage exactly are you envisioning the defensive player has here that the offensive player does not in controlled conditions?

You've tied your brain in knots.

The defender is always at a disadvantage because they are primarily reactive. In bad weather, not only are they hampered just like the offensive player - but their reaction times are slower (it takes longer to adjust/readjust/react).

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It would be hard to distinguish between that and any natural home field advantage you might have - but I don't think it's that crazy.

I suspect it is hard to distinguish because it doesn't exist.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Guys, the offensive player always has the advantage of knowing where he is trying to go - in any sport. The questions is - do dome conditions exaggerate that advantage? If so, is it significant enough to make a meaningful difference.

I can't see how this can be proved or disproved with stats. Too much noise.

It doesn't need to be. The advantage is that the QB can throw without wind or wetness. Cusian has been trying to make a different case. I don't understand why.

 

[TheCusian]

It doesn't need to be. The advantage is that the QB can throw without wind or wetness. Cusian has been trying to make a different case. I don't understand why.

Because this "offense is better in a dome" argument is played out and obvious. I don't know why you think this is a novel position to take and why you feel the need to bring it up monthly. We get it - Syracuse should throw more because of the dome. Most everyone agrees. It's basic.

I was attempting to take the conversation on an interesting direction. Where brain power is actually involved.

But go ahead - carry on. Here, I'll help: OttoinGrotto, why is a dry ball easier to throw than a wet one?

 

[TheCusian]

It doesn't need to be. The advantage is that the QB can throw without wind or wetness. Cusian has been trying to make a different case. I don't understand why.

I can tell you're not an athlete.

So defensive positioning doesn't matter? Reaction times of a defender doesn't matter?

If offensive player cuts and the defender falls down because it's muddy - the QB has to throw a wet ball in the wind - but maybe to a wide open player. You're more likely to fall or move slowly when you're reacting because you're making quick movements without the predetermined knowledge of the route. This may be why scoring doesn't dip that much in cold weather games.

It also might be noted that while it makes sense to use an offense that throws it all over the place - a dome team that travels to cold weather outside team (BC? PITT?) are at a distinct disadvantage.

 

[RMH44]

I suspect it is hard to distinguish because it doesn't exist.

I'll assume you're talking from experience...right?

Because if you are, it's completely contrary to anything I've been part of.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I can tell you're not an athlete.

So defensive positioning doesn't matter? Reaction times of a defender doesn't matter?

If offensive player cuts and the defender falls down because it's muddy - the QB has to throw a wet ball in the wind - but maybe to a wide open player. You're more likely to fall or move slowly when you're reacting because you're making quick movements without the predetermined knowledge of the route. This may be why scoring doesn't dip that much in cold weather games.

It also might be noted that while it makes sense to use an offense that throws it all over the place - a dome team that travels to cold weather outside team (BC? PITT?) are at a distinct disadvantage.

I don't even understand how and why you're drawing these conclusions.

Hey, what if the QB is Steve Young in his prime, and the defensive back is in 5th grade? And Young stumbles as he throws, and the 5th grader pukes in his helmet?

 

[TheCusian]

I don't even understand how and why you're drawing these conclusions. Hey, what if the QB is Steve Young in his prime, and the defensive back is in 5th grade? And Young stumbles as he throws, and the 5th grader pukes in his helmet?

The point is this: while we should pass more because most of the best offenses in CFB do AND we play half our games indoors - you're vehemence and persistence in the matter has over inflated the advantages - and subsequently your point.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The point is this: while we should pass more because most of the best offenses in CFB do AND we play half our games indoors - you're vehemence and persistence in the matter has over inflated the advantages - and subsequently your point.

Well, that's progress at least. You've acknowledged the advantages.

If an advantage exists, we should be taking it. Our record the past 15 years suggests we need every advantage we can get. It's an advantage that we're not utilizing - thus, to answer Crusty"s initial question, yes, it does matter how we win.

 

[Millhouse]

I can tell you're not an athlete. So defensive positioning doesn't matter? Reaction times of a defender doesn't matter? If offensive player cuts and the defender falls down because it's muddy - the QB has to throw a wet ball in the wind - but maybe to a wide open player. You're more likely to fall or move slowly when you're reacting because you're making quick movements without the predetermined knowledge of the route. This may be why scoring doesn't dip that much in cold weather games. It also might be noted that while it makes sense to use an offense that throws it all over the place - a dome team that travels to cold weather outside team (BC? PITT?) are at a distinct disadvantage.

Teams run better in bad weather and throw worse. So they run more and score the same

We are in good weather and play like it's bad weather. All else equal shouldn't we want to differentiate ourselves more from Pitt psu bc and ru who have less choice about run vs pass?

 

[TheCusian]

Well, that's progress at least. You've acknowledged the advantages. If an advantage exists, we should be taking it. Our record the past 15 years suggests we need every advantage we can get. It's an advantage that we're not utilizing - thus, to answer Crusty"s initial question, yes, it does matter how we win.

So weird. That's been my take from the beginning. In fact part of the reason I think it's annoying that it keeps being brought up is that I've always just thought it was understood.

But I don't think it matters short term how we win (like this year and next) - but long term I think we need both a top 30 D and O.

 

[TheCusian]

Teams run better in bad weather and throw worse. So they run more and score the same We are in good weather and play like it's bad weather. All else equal shouldn't we want to differentiate ourselves more from Pitt psu bc and ru who have less choice about run vs pass?

Must not have read the links. They do run more but it doesn't make that much of a difference overall.

The second link points out that as a dome team we'll be at a disadvantage on the road in cold weather (presumably because we're built for perfect dome conditions and not inclement weather). I think it's worth that risk.

 

[Millhouse]

Must not have read the links. They do run more but it doesn't make that much of a difference overall. The second link points out that as a dome team we'll be at a disadvantage on the road in cold weather (presumably because we're built for perfect dome conditions and not inclement weather). I think it's worth that risk.

If teams throw worse and run more and score the same ... Think it through

We don't play in cold weather much. Pitt or bc

 

[TheCusian]

If teams throw worse and run more and score the same ... Think it through

"It would seem obvious that playing outdoors as winter sets in makes the passing and kicking games especially hard. Indeed, if you compare stats like field-goal percentage and pass-completion percentage in outdoor versus indoor stadiums as the season progresses (see details in the graphic above), this theory is borne out, at least in small measure."

Hmm. Small measure. Again the passion at which you guys go after this idea is disproportionate to the actual stats. But - that's besides the point, we all agree we need every advantage. (Side note: Another syracusefan.com meme - why do we have bad FG%?! Crazy. Here's to Sterling H. becoming a FG legend)

"Seeing those numbers, you'd probably expect overall scoring to drop as the mercury drops.

Surprisingly, that's not the case. As Brian Burke at Advanced NFL Stats determined after analyzing scoring during the 2002-2006 seasons, "It doesn't appear that cold weather reduces scoring." Cold weather does, however, seem "to slightly enhance the spread between winner and loser by depressing the score of the loser. This is likely due to the 'dome at cold' effect."

So even though it's a bit harder to complete passes and kick field goals in colder weather, NFL teams end up scoring just about the same number of points. Why? One good reason might be technology: Players' gear and uniforms, field surfaces, and toasty benches probably help compensate for the harsh natural conditions."

No way! Advances in technology (and deflated balls?) make the difference negligible.

"Focusing on run defense, we see that the team with the superior run stopping ability only won 48.8% of the 118 games played in cold weather. This rate is very close to the overall rate of 50.0% for all regular season games. This suggests that it is not the weather but some other factor in the playoffs that may enhance the importance of run defense."

And it's not because they run more or better in bad weather either.

Too much noise to say one or the other. But my "crazy" take from earlier (that while it's harder to throw a wet ball in the elements - the DB is at more of a disadvantage - and thus makes up some of the gap between dome and bad weather passing stats - doesn't seem as implausible.)

We don't play in cold weather much. Pitt or bc

That's why I said it's worth the risk.

 

[Millhouse]

"It would seem obvious that playing outdoors as winter sets in makes the passing and kicking games especially hard. Indeed, if you compare stats like field-goal percentage and pass-completion percentage in outdoor versus indoor stadiums as the season progresses (see details in the graphic above), this theory is borne out, at least in small measure."

Hmm. Small measure. Again the passion at which you guys go after this idea is disproportionate to the actual stats. But - that's besides the point, we all agree we need every advantage. (Side note: Another syracusefan.com meme - why do we have bad FG%?! Crazy. Here's to Sterling H. becoming a FG legend)

"Seeing those numbers, you'd probably expect overall scoring to drop as the mercury drops.

Surprisingly, that's not the case. As Brian Burke at Advanced NFL Stats determined after analyzing scoring during the 2002-2006 seasons, "It doesn't appear that cold weather reduces scoring." Cold weather does, however, seem "to slightly enhance the spread between winner and loser by depressing the score of the loser. This is likely due to the 'dome at cold' effect."

So even though it's a bit harder to complete passes and kick field goals in colder weather, NFL teams end up scoring just about the same number of points. Why? One good reason might be technology: Players' gear and uniforms, field surfaces, and toasty benches probably help compensate for the harsh natural conditions."

No way! Advances in technology (and deflated balls?) make the difference negligible.

"Focusing on run defense, we see that the team with the superior run stopping ability only won 48.8% of the 118 games played in cold weather. This rate is very close to the overall rate of 50.0% for all regular season games. This suggests that it is not the weather but some other factor in the playoffs that may enhance the importance of run defense."

And it's not because they run more or better in bad weather either.

Too much noise to say one or the other. But my "crazy" take from earlier (that while it's harder to throw a wet ball in the elements - the DB is at more of a disadvantage - and thus makes up some of the gap between dome and bad weather passing stats - doesn't seem as implausible.)



That's why I said it's worth the risk.

dome teams are .4 yards per attempt better in the NFL. this is a fact. that means defenses are .4 yards per attempt worse. you guys keep pretending like it maybe it helps dbs as much as it helps qbs throw.

this is zero sum. if scoring is unchanged and passing is worse in bad weather, it must be that rushing is better. not that hard.

 

[TheCusian]

dome teams are .4 yards per attempt better in the NFL. this is a fact. that means defenses are .4 yards per attempt worse. you guys keep pretending like it maybe it helps dbs as much as it helps qbs throw. this is zero sum. if scoring is unchanged and passing is worse in bad weather, it must be that rushing is better. not that hard.

You're oversimplifying and conflating yards per attempt with scoring.

Like maybe they throw a few less bombs in the cold and more short passes? And that it's mostly just as effective?! And maybe short throws go for more yac because the defender is at a disadvantage due to slow reaction times?