Impressed with the offensive performance

[007]

Actually the data does show that "talent"/"playmakers" isn't the issue. The ingredients are there, and they've been there right along.

Where is the "data" that shows talent and playmaking ability is not the issue? The data very much suggest that offensive efficiency is an issue. Subjective analysis suggests that this conclusively a function of play calling.

 

[Millhouse]

Look at every meaningful measure of offensive efficiency out there, and SU falls far below the norm.

no sherlock

we all agree the offense falls below the norm.

your meaningful measures of offensive efficiency do not show that a lack of playmakers is behind that.

a team with a lack of playmakers should struggle at gaining more than 20 or 30 yards. we don't

unless you can come up with a story where untalented teams are above average at gaining yards in big chunks, i'm going to stick with my measure, thanks

 

[GoSU96]

Where is the "data" that shows talent and playmaking ability is not the issue? The data very much suggest that offensive efficiency is an issue. Subjective analysis suggests that this conclusively a function of play calling.

Uh, I've been the one pointing this out for weeks. The inefficiency of this offense isn't news to me. If they struggled to move the ball or hit on long plays that would point towards a talent issue.

However they are able to move the ball and hit on long plays. The issue has been getting three or four more conversions on third down and converting in the redzone, not moving the ball.

That points towards coaching more than the talent on the field. They are a couple of plays a game away, not a couple of players.

 

[TheCusian]

If you want to see a team with more systemic efficiency combined with a lack of playmakers than us - look no further than Wake Forest.

 

[Millhouse]

If you want to see a team with more systemic efficiency combined with a lack of playmakers than us - look no further than Wake Forest.

more systemic efficiency? can you clarify what you mean?

 

[007]

no sherlock

we all agree the offense falls below the norm.

your meaningful measures of offensive efficiency do not show that a lack of playmakers is behind that.

a team with a lack of playmakers should struggle at gaining more than 20 or 30 yards. we don't

unless you can come up with a story where untalented teams are above average at gaining yards in big chunks, i'm going to stick with my measure, thanks

You seem a little...edgy.

You are the genius making grandiose statements that whatever data YOU choose to look at conclusively proves X (in this case, playmaking) is not an issue. And, only dunces, meatheads, idiots and now "sherlocks" don't agree with this.

This particular "sherlock" is suggesting that your data does NOT conclusively prove anything.

I believe there are multiple factors in play, one of which is a relative lack of talent and play making ability. I also believe that these factors have an interaction effect with, among many things, play calling, field position, strength of opponent, talent, execution, and chance.

 

[TheCusian]

more systemic efficiency? can you clarify what you mean?

Edit- inefficiency.

 

[Millhouse]

You seem a little...edgy.

You are the genius making grandiose statements that whatever data YOU choose to look at conclusively proves X (in this case, playmaking) is not an issue. And, only dunces, meatheads, idiots and now "sherlocks" don't agree with this.

This particular "sherlock" is suggesting that your data does NOT conclusively prove anything.

I believe there are multiple factors in play, one of which is a relative lack of talent and play making ability. I also believe that these factors have an interaction effect with, among many things, play calling, field position, strength of opponent, talent, execution, and chance.

you mentioned offensive efficiency as if I or go were claiming that the offense is good

we weren't

 

[007]

Uh, I've been the one pointing this out for weeks. The inefficiency of this offense isn't news to me. If they struggled to move the ball or hit on long plays that would point towards a talent issue.

However they are able to move the ball and hit on long plays. The issue has been getting three or four more conversions on third down and converting in the redzone, not moving the ball.

That points towards coaching more than the talent on the field. They are a couple of plays a game away, not a couple of players.

I have absolutely no problems with statements like that. Those are reasonable conclusions.

I tend to think that whatever we choose to lump under talent, and whatever we choose to lump under coaching, are not mutually exclusive. There is an interaction effect.

But, no one has proven that it is one over the other, nor to what degree each factor is "loading" on offensive efficiency.

To call out others as dunces or whatever if they don't agree with your "data" (I know that wasn't you), is stupid at best.

 

[Millhouse]

I have absolutely no problems with statements like that. Those are reasonable conclusions.

I tend to think that whatever we choose to lump under talent, and whatever we choose to lump under coaching, are not mutually exclusive. There is an interaction effect.

But, no one has proven that it is one over the other, nor to what degree each factor is "loading" on offensive efficiency.

To call out others as dunces or whatever if they don't agree with your "data" (I know that wasn't you), is stupid at best.

putting quotes around "data" and disagreeing with it is also stupid

 

[007]

you mentioned offensive efficiency as if I or go were claiming that the offense is good

we weren't

I never implied whether I thought you were characterizing the offense as good or not. Besides, That is not illustrative of what we are debating.

The offense clearly is not good, regardless of how many 20+ yard plays you count.

My issue is with your definitive stance that your data prove that play making is NOT an issue. Your data does not "prove" that.

Actually, I don't really have an issue with what you think that data means. It is subjective, and your theory is a good as most.

I have an issue with you using derogatory terms with anyone who might think that there are other possibilities besides what Millhouse thinks the "truth" is.

 

[007]

putting quotes around "data" and disagreeing with it is also stupid

I get it. This is all you have left to dispute. I stand corrected. It was hypocritical to use the quotation marks.

 

[RF2044]

FWIW, I vividly remember the talk here turning to the "lack of playmakers" a few games into the 2012 season. Then we started moving the ball and scoring and we had adequate playmakers, apparently.

We don't have top 25 talent, that's obvious. But we also don't have bottom 40 talent, which is where our offense has been ranked more often than not recently.

Always multiple factors at play.

A few games into the 2012 season, Alec Lemon hadn't played. The offense really took off when we were able to pair him with Sales, after about the fourth game.

 

[Full_Rebar]

SU still lacks play-makers. Play-makers take 20 yard gains and make them 60 yd td's, and they open up the rest of the field so "slower" guys can make one defender miss and be gone.

There is a reason why Ole Miss, Baylor and Miss St are undefeated and it's not all coaching and schemes.

 

[Millhouse]

SU still lacks play-makers. Play-makers take 20 yard gains and make them 60 yd td's, and they open up the rest of the field so "slower" guys can make one defender miss and be gone.

There is a reason why Ole Miss, Baylor and Miss St are undefeated and it's not all coaching and schemes.

it's a little surprising that mississippi has fewer 20+, 30+, 40+ plays than us though

they do have more 50+ plays (5) than us (3)

 

[TheCusian]

SU still lacks play-makers. Play-makers take 20 yard gains and make them 60 yd td's, and they open up the rest of the field so "slower" guys can make one defender miss and be gone.

There is a reason why Ole Miss, Baylor and Miss St are undefeated and it's not all coaching and schemes.

I think you guys are splitting hairs really. We're a team that makes big plays that don't go for TD's. That's what was so shocking about Ishmael's catch and score. He caught it and then made some people miss. That's been missing all season no matter your definition of "playmaker"...

 

[Full_Rebar]

I was thinking Ole Miss' play-makers might be on the other side of the ball this year w/ Nmedichke (sp). I mean imagine if this SU offense had a Freeney on the other side of the ball...

 

[GoSU96]

A few games into the 2012 season, Alec Lemon hadn't played. The offense really took off when we were able to pair him with Sales, after about the fourth game.

Lemon missed the Northwestern game.

That was it.

 

[RF2044]

Lemon missed the Northwestern game.

That was it.

We both know that Lemon was injured and didn't produce much before our fourth game of the 2012 season. He might have played in two of those first three, but had a very limited impact and sat for lengthy stints because he wasn't right physically and just couldn't perform. He bounced back in a big way against Minnesota / game 4 [I was at this game]. After that, when we were 1-3, we had a bye and at that point he was able to return, generally back to being fully healthy.

Lemon's impact on the rest of the season was obvious [for example, he was unstoppable down the stretch in the Missouri game, even though everyone knew the ball was going his way], as was his negligible impact on the first few games of the year. It is amazing how much more effective an offense can be when they have go-to playmakers. Lemon and Sales gave us such players, despite not being classic burners.

 

[GoSU96]

SU still lacks play-makers. Play-makers take 20 yard gains and make them 60 yd td's, and they open up the rest of the field so "slower" guys can make one defender miss and be gone.

There is a reason why Ole Miss, Baylor and Miss St are undefeated and it's not all coaching and schemes.

You are completely missing the point.

Right now, today, SU has enough talent to compete with and win against five of its next six opponents with out adding another player. They should have beaten Maryland.

Nobody is arguing that SU has enough talent to have a winning record in the SEC, but that's really not the point at this moment. They don't have it on defense either.

 

[RF2044]

You are completely missing the point.

Right now, today, SU has enough talent to compete with and win against five of its next six opponents with out adding another player. They should have beaten Maryland.

Nobody is arguing that SU has enough talent to have a winning record in the SEC, but that's really not the point at this moment. They don't have it on defense either.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/impressed-with-the-offensive-performance.81411/#post-1162040

Macro / micro.

 

[GoSU96]

We both know that Lemon was injured and didn't produce much before our fourth game of the 2012 season. He might have played in two of those first three, but had a very limited impact and sat for lengthy stints because he wasn't right physically and just couldn't perform. He bounced back in a big way against Minnesota / game 4 [I was at this game]. After that, when we were 1-3, we had a bye and at that point he was able to return, generally back to being fully healthy.

Lemon's impact on the rest of the season was obvious [for example, he was unstoppable down the stretch in the Missouri game, even though everyone knew the ball was going his way], as was his negligible impact on the first few games of the year. It is amazing how much more effective an offense can be when they have go-to playmakers. Lemon and Sales gave us such players, despite not being classic burners.

You said he hadn't played.

They went for over 400 yds passing and 40 pts in the game he didn't play.

Fact is that nobody on that offense other than Nassib and Pugh have spent more than one season on an active NFL roster. And yet they finished 17th in total offense.

The current roster has more pure "talent" than that one.

 

[RF2044]

You said he hadn't played.

They went for over 400 yds passing and 40 pts in the game he didn't play.

Fact is that nobody on that offense other than Nassib and Pugh have spent more than one season on an active NFL roster. And yet they finished 17th in total offense.

The current roster has more pure "talent" than that one.

Hair splitting.

There is no doubt that Lemon's contributions over the final 8 games of the season were qualitatively much greater than the first four games, and that the reason for the difference was that he was much healthier post-September. Fair enough?

LOL about the pure "talent" -- especially as it pertains to offensive skilled talent. I hope that Ishmael proves you right. I'd love to believe that Custis, Avant, Enoicy, Philips, et al are steps forward, but that is completely unsubstantiated wishful thinking right now. Nobody else comprising the WR rotation on this roster comes anywhere close to Lemon / Sales, and it remains to be seen whether Long can come anywhere close to approximating what Nassib delivered that year.

 

[Crusty]

Hair splitting.

There is no doubt that Lemon's contributions over the final 8 games of the season were qualitatively much greater than the first four games, and that the reason for the difference was that he was much healthier post-September. Fair enough?

LOL about the pure "talent" -- especially as it pertains to offensive skilled talent. I hope that Ishmael proves you right. I'd love to believe that Custis, Avant, Enoicy, Philips, et al are steps forward, but that is completely unsubstantiated wishful thinking right now. Nobody else comprising the WR rotation on this roster comes anywhere close to Lemon / Sales, and it remains to be seen whether Long can come anywhere close to approximating what Nassib delivered that year.

Actually Broyld's reception numbers are/were right up there. Sales caught 132 passes in his 4 year career and Broyld has 7 (RB) , 52 and 11 this year for a total of 70 and 63 as a WR. If healthy, he will probably pass Sales in his 3 years as WR.

 

[Millhouse]

Actually Broyld's reception numbers are/were right up there. Sales caught 132 passes in his 4 year career and Broyld has 7 (RB) , 52 and 11 this year for a total of 70 and 63 as a WR. If healthy, he will probably pass Sales in his 3 years as WR.

good reason to look at yards instead of catches