I don't think the offense's problem is lack of playmakers

[Millhouse]

That's your opinion. Here's mine: our current talent base is improved over where it was 5 years ago. It seems on par to what is needed to get the program to the 7 win level, but not much more. If that's the goal, then we're where we need to be with recruiting / playmakers on both sides of the ball.

When we've played top 10 teams these past two years--Clemson, Florida State, Notre Dame--the talent gap has been extraordinarily large [no surprise there]. In at least two [and arguably in all three] of those games, we looked competely overmatched. The only way to close that gap and get into the top 25 is to enhance the talent base top to bottom. The class of 2014 and the class of 2015 we're currently amassing have been steps in the right direction, but the ND game [and probably this Saturday's game] demonstrate that we still have a long way to go.

And yes--improved execution will help, too.

i don't think the team we're watching this year is likely to make it to 7 wins.

i'm talking about how they're below what we expected from them

here's a correlation for 2014 between each of the bucket rankings and yards per game ranking. I changed the buckets so that the 10+ bucket would be between 10 and 19 yards (instead of 10 to 99)

Look at how it goes down down down.

Being relatively good at getting big plays doesn't tell you as much as getting chunks of yardage. Every year we talk about wishing we had guys take it to the house. What we really need is a QB who can complete passes when we need him to.

so many colleges roll up so many yards, there can't be that many playmakers to go around

BucketYPG Rank Correlation
10 79%
20 72%
30 59%
40 59%
50 40%
60 28%
70 17%
80 -13%
90 28%

 

[SoBeCuse]

That's your opinion. Here's mine: our current talent base is improved over where it was 5 years ago. It seems on par to what is needed to get the program to the 7 win level, but not much more. If that's the goal, then we're where we need to be with recruiting / playmakers on both sides of the ball.

When we've played top 10 teams these past two years--Clemson, Florida State, Notre Dame--the talent gap has been extraordinarily large [no surprise there]. In at least two [and arguably in all three] of those games, we looked competely overmatched. The only way to close that gap and get into the top 25 is to enhance the talent base top to bottom. The class of 2014 and the class of 2015 we're currently amassing have been steps in the right direction, but the ND game [and probably this Saturday's game] demonstrate that we still have a long way to go.

And yes--improved execution will help, too.

Agreed. This should be fairly easy to see and a no brainer, frankly. We should frankly be the laughing stock of college football considering the lack of TD passes from the offense and how special teams have arguably generated more big plays. Lack of playmakers has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with this. Execution yes. Playcalling yes. Hunt yes. A combination of these. To say we aren't lacking playmakers though is a fallacy. Or just living in denial. Same thing. How abnormal were those downfield fades against ND? It took an absolutely PERFECT throw in great coverage from an inaccurate quarterback. A freak play.

 

[Millhouse]

Agreed. This should be fairly easy to see and a no brainer, frankly. We should frankly be the laughing stock of college football considering the lack of TD passes from the offense and how special teams have arguably generated more big plays. Lack of playmakers has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with this. Execution yes. Playcalling yes. Hunt yes. A combination of these. To say we aren't lacking playmakers though is a fallacy. Or just living in denial. Same thing. How abnormal were those downfield fades against ND? It took an absolutely PERFECT throw in great coverage from an inaccurate quarterback. A freak play.

why are we middle of the pack in so many categories of long plays then?

how does a team with a terrible playcaller and no playmakers do that?

i trust the numbers more than your eyes, sorry

 

[SoBeCuse]

why are we middle of the pack in so many categories of long plays then?

how does a team with a terrible playcaller and no playmakers do that?

i trust the numbers more than your eyes, sorry

It's not translating into points. Like I said, those downfield plays Hunt made vs ND were freak plays. The long PTG TD vs Villanova...meh. Probably there was something big against a garbage CMU team. Maryland's defense is not good. We know that now. We have some playmakers against 'weak' teams but not much more than that, imo.

 

[Chip]

here's the defensive stats. the defense is fine. they've given up 2 60 yard plays. one was the idiotic uncovered bubble. i'm blanking on the other. maybe that was because an explosive player

The other was ND. Fuller beating our WR just turned CB Winfield deep. No safety help.

 

[Millhouse]

It's not translating into points. Like I said, those downfield plays Hunt made vs ND were freak plays. The long PTG TD vs Villanova...meh. Probably there was something big against a garbage CMU team. Maryland's defense is not good. We know that now. We have some playmakers against 'weak' teams but not much more than that, imo.

you cover all your bases. big plays against bad teams don't count. big plays against good teams are freak plays, don't count. when FSU swallows us up like the #2 defense they were last year, i'm sure you'll say aha.

 

[javadoc]

...
Being relatively good at getting big plays doesn't tell you as much as getting chunks of yardage. Every year we talk about wishing we had guys take it to the house. What we really need is a QB who can complete passes when we need him to.

And that really is the crux. Frustrating as hell that we can't do that one simple bread-and-butter thing reliably. How hard is to find a QB who can contribute at a median level in his 3rd year in the program?

Nassib's senior year it clicked, smarts + accuracy. We didn't torch a lot of people with long TD's but we did throw well (if I recall) in the 10-20 yard range. That last drive against Missouri included at least one 4th down conversion on a mid-range pass, I think.

 

[RF2044]

i don't think the team we're watching this year is likely to make it to 7 wins.

i'm talking about how they're below what we expected from them

here's a correlation for 2014 between each of the bucket rankings and yards per game ranking. I changed the buckets so that the 10+ bucket would be between 10 and 19 yards (instead of 10 to 99)

Look at how it goes down down down.

Being relatively good at getting big plays doesn't tell you as much as getting chunks of yardage. Every year we talk about wishing we had guys take it to the house. What we really need is a QB who can complete passes when we need him to.

so many colleges roll up so many yards, there can't be that many playmakers to go around

BucketYPG Rank Correlation
10 79%
20 72%
30 59%
40 59%
50 40%
60 28%
70 17%
80 -13%
90 28%

Big plays only happen intermittnetly, which probably accounts for the low correlation. But I'll bet if you correlated big yardage plays to whether those plays result in scoring, you'd find that we're getting very little bang for out buck even when we convert those big plays. That we're getting a few long plays isn't a sign of good offense, they actually show our offense's inablity to finish drives--even when we get them.

I also think that in terms of the title of this thread, the definition you're applying to "playmaker" is where you're off target. Playmakers can certainly "take it to the house" as you say, but that's not their only value.

Playmakers turn 5 yard plays into 10 yard gains. Right now, we have players who turn 5 yard plays into 2 yard gains. Wonder why we suck on converting third downs? Re-read the first two sentences of this line.

 

[Millhouse]

Big plays only happen intermittnetly, which probably accounts for the low correlation. But I'll bet if you correlated big yardage plays to whether those plays result in scoring, you'd find that we're getting very little bang for out buck even when we convert those big plays. That we're getting a few long plays isn't a sign of good offense, they actually show our offense's inablity to finish drives--even when we get them.

I also think that in terms of the title of this thread, the strict definition you're applying to "playmaker" is where you're off target. Playmakers can certainly "take it to the house" as you say, but that's not their only value.

Playmakers turn 5 yard plays into 10 yard gains. Right now, we have players who turn 5 yard plays into 2 yard gains. Wonder why we suck on converting third downs? Re-read the first two sentences of this line.

i don't think that's how people around here have defined playmakers when they're pining for them

 

[HeaterCuse22]

The other was ND. Fuller beating our WR just turned CB Winfield deep. No safety help.

And with all of that lack of competitive playmakers if we could have capatilized in the red zone (inside the 5 twice) the score would have been 31-19

 

[HeaterCuse22]

The other was ND. Fuller beating our WR just turned CB Winfield deep. No safety help.

And with all of that lack of competitive playmakers if we could have capatilized in the red zone (inside the 5 twice) the score would have been 31-19

 

[RF2044]

And that really is the crux. Frustrating as hell that we can't do that one simple bread-and-butter thing reliably. How hard is to find a QB who can contribute at a median level in his 3rd year in the program?

Nassib's senior year it clicked, smarts + accuracy. We didn't torch a lot of people with long TD's but we did throw well (if I recall) in the 10-20 yard range. That last drive against Missouri included at least one 4th down conversion on a mid-range pass, I think.

All very true. But don't forget that Nassib's play that year--including that awesome drive at Missouri--was greatly helped by having two WRs who knew how to get open and ran great routes. Neither one of them might have been NFL caliber superstars [and Lemon's story is still being written], and neither one had breakaway speed that people usually attribute to playmakers, but they were practically unstoppable because they did such a great job getting open.

Everyone knew in that Missouri drive that the ball was going to Lemon, and they still couldn't stop us.

 

[RF2044]

And with all of that lack of competitive playmakers if we could have capatilized in the red zone (inside the 5 twice) the score would have been 31-19

And if the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

 

[javadoc]

All very true. But don't forget that Nassib's play that year--including that awesome drive at Missouri--was greatly helped by having two WRs who knew how to get open and ran great routes. Neither one of them might have been NFL caliber superstars [and Lemon's story is still being written], and neither one had breakaway speed that people usually attribute to playmakers, but they were practically unstoppable because they did such a great job getting open.

Everyone knew in that Missouri drive that the ball was going to Lemon, and they still couldn't stop us.

Oh, I know, but there have been enough guys open this year that Hunt has just plain missed for it to be agonizing.

 

[upperdeck]

why are we middle of the pack in so many categories of long plays then?

how does a team with a terrible playcaller and no playmakers do that?

i trust the numbers more than your eyes, sorry

passing yds can be created by several things. I think we have 2-3 good route runners. west/ish/lewis. Good route runners can get open in 20-30 yd windows. when the field shrinks the windows to run/throw into get smaller and we start to struggle. CLoose even sited an example of how West was winning the battle at the line and getting open for 30-40 yd pass plays.. A playmaker takes it to the house.

I think we have seen at least 2-3 hunt runs that should have been TDs, Gulley had 1 long one and probably should have had 5 more. Moore had at least 2, West has had probably 4-5, Lewis 2-3, Estime was just flat out missed on 2-3.

You can go back and find probably 5-8 lost TD passes because our guys lack speed or Hunt missed the throws. Look at the lewis 50 yd pass last week and the West play at the end of the half. Any doubt the Maryland or ND kids dont score on both?

Do we have a RB that is tough to tackle like the UL kid was last week? We have some hard runners but that adds 3-4 yds, they seldom turn into 20-25. Our guys have run to the wrong hole a dozen times this year and turned big plays into tackles. Our YAC is awful, no one other than West breaks a tackle at WR.

 

[RF2044]

i don't think that's how people around here have defined playmakers when they're pining for them

So now the standard is if they don't have Marvin Harrison speed, they're not a play maker? C'mon--that's a cop out.

 

[Millhouse]

I think we have seen at least 2-3 hunt runs that should have been TDs, Gulley had 1 long one and probably should have had 5 more. Moore had at least 2, West has had probably 4-5, Lewis 2-3, Estime was just flat out missed on 2-3.

would you listen to yourself?

you saw 21 TDs that should've happened.

sooooo you think we should be scoring 51 ppg

i can't say that i'm surprised

 

[Millhouse]

So now the standard is if they don't have Marvin Harrison speed, they're not a play maker? C'mon--that's a cop out.

this post makes no sense. reread the post you responded to. i have no idea what you're talking about

 

[RF2044]

this post makes no sense. reread the post you responded to. i have no idea what you're talking about

You said: i don't think that's how people around here have defined playmakers when they're pining for them

Okay, so define what a playmaker means to you. Because your responses in this thread seem to suggest that it is only about scoring TDs every touch.

 

[Millhouse]

You said: i don't think that's how people around here have defined playmakers when they're pining for them

Okay, so define what a playmaker means to you. Because your responses in this thread seem to suggest that it is only about speed / scoring TDs every touch.

playmakers are guys that can get lots of yards in one play. 20+ is a reasonable lower bound for what most people are talking about.

part of the reason I included every 10 yard bucket was so that you could see by whatever standard you want to pick, the problem's not there. you looked at it and decided to define playmaker as someone who gets 10 yard gains that would've otherwise only been 5 yard gains. convenient considering that's the only bucket i didn't show

 

[RF2044]

playmakers are guys that can get lots of yards in one play. 20+ is a reasonable lower bound for what most people are talking about.

part of the reason I included every 10 yard bucket was so that you could see by whatever standard you want to pick, the problem's not there. you looked at it and decided to define playmaker as someone who gets 10 yard gains that would've otherwise only been 5 yard gains. convenient considering that's the only bucket i didn't show

"Convenient?" You're reading way too much into that.

I think you're expending a helluva lot of effort to rationalize that we don't lack playmakers on offense. The data you're providing is aggregated over many games, and normalized by 50/50 games where our talent is roughly equivalent to and can get the job done against peer programs. That's great news. The bad news is that when we play elite, top 10 teams our talent / playmaking gets exposed as lacking. I don't harbor illusions about us every being a consistently elite team, but if we want to get into the neighborhood of the top 25 [and aspire to even more], we need better talent on both sides of the ball. I'm not sure how this can even be legitimately disputed.

And for the record, nobody is suggesting that improved excution, playmaking, yada won't improve offensive performance, too.

 

[javadoc]

playmakers are guys that can get lots of yards in one play. 20+ is a reasonable lower bound for what most people are talking about.

part of the reason I included every 10 yard bucket was so that you could see by whatever standard you want to pick, the problem's not there. you looked at it and decided to define playmaker as someone who gets 10 yard gains that would've otherwise only been 5 yard gains. convenient considering that's the only bucket i didn't show

I've mentioned playmakers a few times, and what I have meant is guys that are just plain fast, so that they score from 40+ out. Guys that a defense has to gameplan against. "You had better tackle him, because if he gets past you, he is going to score." I don't know if we have anyone like that right now. My guess (and it is a guess) is that even if we scheme guys open, they'll get caught from behind rather than break one.

Looking for guys like Walter Reyes.

 

[Millhouse]

I've mentioned playmakers a few times, and what I have meant is guys that are just plain fast, so that they score from 40+ out. Guys that a defense has to gameplan against. "You had better tackle him, because if he gets past you, he is going to score." I don't know if we have anyone like that right now. My guess (and it is a guess) is that even if we scheme guys open, they'll get caught from behind rather than break one.

Looking for guys like Walter Reyes.

you know who led the nation in 70+ plays last year against FBS schools? Wyoming. Army Air Force Ball State were tied for 6th

the correlation between those plays and the yards per game gets weaker and weaker.

aside from baylor, who is amazing in every possible bucket, this stuff gets a little weird. oregon's not as high as you'd expect in any bucket. rutgers had the same number of 50+ plays

i just find it hard to believe that mcdonald is scheming guys open for ok numbers of 40 yard plays but they're not playmakery enough to take them to the end zone.

i don't have long TD play breakdowns though, don't have that data. I would bet PTG's home run percentage is as good if not better than Reyes's but that's just a guess

we have 11 20+ in 5 games runs this year. In 2012, we had 14 in 13 games. In 2011 we had 8 the whole year.

high scoring teams wouldn't be running 100 plays a game if they weren't getting tackled

 

[RF2044]

I've mentioned playmakers a few times, and what I have meant is guys that are just plain fast, so that they score from 40+ out. Guys that a defense has to gameplan against. "You had better tackle him, because if he gets past you, he is going to score." I don't know if we have anyone like that right now. My guess (and it is a guess) is that even if we scheme guys open, they'll get caught from behind rather than break one.

Looking for guys like Walter Reyes.

That's true, and probably the first thing that most people think of when defining "playmaker." But playmakers doesn't haveto only be about burners. They can be guys who are elusive [instead of just fast]. Or QBs who extend plays in the pocket with good footwork in the face of pass rush. Or runners who have an instinctive feel for how to pick up yardage and avoid hits [where have you gone, Doug Womack?].

 

[SoBeCuse]

you cover all your bases. big plays against bad teams don't count. big plays against good teams are freak plays, don't count. when FSU swallows us up like the #2 defense they were last year, i'm sure you'll say aha.

It's all counting. Just not as much production, consistent production to determine we have "playmakers" vs anybody good. Those "freak" plays against ND were just that. Hunt normally is incapable of making that kind of play vs a mediocre team so...