Poor showing against FCS team is bad sign...

[RF2044]

wilson picked up right where hunt left off

Hunt started slow, and needs to be better. No question about it. But we'd scored a TD on the previous possession, and were moving the ball the possession where Hunt pulled a brain fart and got tossed from the game [with the team at midfield]. Was he beginning to heat up? We'll never know, but it sure seems that the offense was beginning to find a groove and starting to move the ball more effectively.

And yes--Wilson came in and struggled. Not surprising, given that he was a redshirt frosh playing in his first ever collegiate game, with zero experience, overcoming the shock of having the starting firmly entrenched QB get unexpectedly tossed from the game. All things considered, Wilson did ok under the circumstances. He didn't WIN the game for us, but he also didn't lose it. We got lucky in that regard--Hunt's outburst could have cost us the season.

 

[Millhouse]

Hunt started slow, and needs to be better. No question about it. But we'd scored a TD on the previous possession, and were moving the ball the possession where Hunt pulled a brain fart and got tossed from the game [with the team at midfield]. Was he beginning to heat up? We'll never know, but it sure seems that the offense was beginning to find a groove.

And yes--Wilson came in and struggled. Not surprising, given that he was a redshirt frosh playing in his first ever collegiate game, with zero experience, overcoming the shock of having the starting firmly entrenched QB get unexpectedly tossed from the game. All things considered, Wilson did ok under the circumstances. He didn't WIN the game for us, but he also didn't lose it.

i wasn't bashing wilson. i'm just saying hunt wasn't good. maybe he would've gotten good. but it's not like they were having their way with villanova before he got tossed.

 

[RF2044]

i wasn't bashing wilson. i'm just saying hunt wasn't good. maybe he would've gotten good. but it's not like they were having their way with villanova before he got tossed.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that Hunt started off poorly. I've criticized him for that in other threads, too. But after two early three and outs, he picked it up and the team started moving the ball. Would that have continued? Would he have finished the game completing 75% of his passes after only completing 58% the first few drives? No way of knowing. But I trust that our offense would have been way more potent with him out there than with a frosh QB who'd never played before. I believe that with the exception of the first drive of the third quarter, where we scored a TD, we pretty much had three and outs the rest of the game [obviously, we picked up a first down or two, but that's about it]. I'm confident that a Hunt-led offense would have been more effective.

Which is why I'm not sweating the OP's conclusion about points scored and what that portends for the rest of the season. I'm way more worried about our tackling, pass rush, coverage in the secondary, inabilty of WRs to get separation, and health of the OL than I am about Hunt.

 

[javadoc]

Why did you choose "points scored" as your measure? The title should be "poor offensive showing" in that case. Despite the problems pointed out by others, I would have been more interested to see "margin of victory" used as an indicator.

 

[TheCusian]

I think assuming there is no difference between a good FCS team and a bad one relative to FBS (us) is the fatal flaw in the data.

There are 124 FCS teams. The elite (let's say top 10) are better than lower FBS teams. Wagner finished 3-8 and were #236 in FBS/FCS Sagarin ratings in 2013. While Villanova was #88 in 21013 - ahead of ACC's Virginia, UCONN, and Rutgers.

EDIT: Source
EDIT #2: We finished #62 in 2013, just 26 spots higher than Nova

 

[sufandu]

It was the beginning of the game--you aren't automatically up multiple touchdowns early in the game. That's like complaining that we're not up 20 over an inferior opponent in basketball at the 10 minute mark of the first half. We might get to that margn over the course of the game, but sometimes it takes a while to get there.

No question--Hunt started slow. But if he doesn't pull that bonehead move, I'm quite confident that we would have would have won handily, by 3 TDs or more. That's only my opinion, but I'm comfortable owning that prediction. Such an outcome would certainly change the data in the OP's graph, as well as the interpretative analysis of what Friday's peformance means vis a vis projected wins in 2014.

Sans Hunt, we struggled. That doesn't mean that our performance [playing essentially three quarters of the game with a completely green frosh QB who'd been thrown to the wolves unexpectedly] correlates to how we'll perform the rest of the year. Nor does it mean that there weren't warts revealed with our collective team performance. But overlooking the Hunt being out factor undermines the analysis and makes it easy to poke holes at the interpretive conclusions.

There were 4 minutes to go in the first half. I don't know exactly when "the beginning of the game" is over but I'm sure 26 minutes in, we've passed that point. Why does our returning starter at quarterback and juniors and seniors at WR take nearly a half to get going? They shouldn't. That's supposed to be the benefit of returning experienced upper classmen. Additionally, did Hunt's absence allow our defense to give up more points in the second half than the first? Did Hunt's absence give up a touchdown in the second OT?

While I agree Friday's performance doesn't necessarily mean anything toward projected wins. We can't just chalk it up as "we won, that's all that matters" either. The team looked far less prepared than they should have, given the returning experience this team has and the familiarity our players and coaches have with each other now. Louisville beat up on a conference opponent despite having an entirely new coaching staff and a brand new QB. Our problems were not all about Hunt's absence. Saying so is sticking our heads in the sand.

 

[RF2044]

There were 4 minutes to go in the first half. I don't know exactly when "the beginning of the game" is over but I'm sure 26 minutes in, we've passed that point. Why does our returning starter at quarterback and juniors and seniors at WR take nearly a half to get going? They shouldn't. That's supposed to be the benefit of returning experienced upper classmen. Additionally, did Hunt's absence allow our defense to give up more points in the second half than the first? Did Hunt's absence give up a touchdown in the second OT?

While I agree Friday's performance doesn't necessarily mean anything toward projected wins. We can't just chalk it up as "we won, that's all that matters" either. The team looked far less prepared than they should have, given the returning experience this team has and the familiarity our players and coaches have with each other now. Louisville beat up on a conference opponent despite having an entirely new coaching staff and a brand new QB. Our problems were not all about Hunt's absence. Saying so is sticking our heads in the sand.

You're right--they shouldn't. They weren't sharp, which was very disappointing for an offensive unit returning so many starters. But they were beginning to move the ball, and playing poorly to start doesn't necessarily mean that it would have continued for the entire rest of the game.

And to answer the question highlighted above--yes, Hunt's absence absolutely was a factor in our defense to give up more points in the second half than the first. How many three-and-outs did we have in the second half after our first possession? I am quite certain that the results would have been different with Hunt. Us having the ball = more TOP in our favor, which means less chances for villanova to score, move the ball, etc. So yes, Hunt's absence certainly factored into our defense giving up points in the second half. While it didn't have anything to do with giving up a TD in 2OT, I'd like to think that it wouldn't have come down to that had Hunt played the entire game.

This whole argument comes down to what people expect or believe about Hunt. If you believe that Hunt's thoroughly mediocre start was how he would perform the rest of the game, and that we wouldn't be able to score more with him at the helm than Wilson, then the OP fits that mindframe. If you believe that we would have scored more points, held the ball longer, that the offense might have gotten rolling etc. and that Hunt's start wasn't necessarily how the rest of the game would have played out, then it is reasonable to extrapolate that we would have scored more points and that the model the OP uses would have yielded different conclusions.

That's why I'm so eager to see how the offensive performs / responds against CMU. If we come out sluggish again, we may be in for a long year. If they get the missing OL back, Hunt comes out sharp, etc. then the Villanova performance was just a one game anomoly.

 

[qdawgg]

Q , you have a promising career ahead of you creating junk data for Big Government.

Don't use my name in vain, please

 

[Chip]

We'll find out a lot about our character the next game. I think we were doing fine with Hunt, considering it was the first couple drives of the season. We should be able to shake this off and beat up on a lesser talented CMU team. I was more concerned about the defensive performance.

CMU's environment will be tame by college football standards, but it will also be their biggest event, so those there will be as loud as they can. Should we start to struggle, will doubt set in?

 

[Pyle]

So basically R^3/2Y = X^4*R^2/6Y^3 right?

If that's the case we can still reach 9 wins.

 

[upperdeck]

You're right--they shouldn't. They weren't sharp, which was very disappointing for an offensive unit returning so many starters. But they were beginning to move the ball, and playing poorly to start doesn't necessarily mean that it would have continued for the entire rest of the game.

And to answer the question highlighted above--yes, Hunt's absence absolutely was a factor in our defense to give up more points in the second half than the first. How many three-and-outs did we have in the second half after our first possession? I am quite certain that the results would have been different with Hunt. Us having the ball = more TOP in our favor, which means less chances for villanova to score, move the ball, etc. So yes, Hunt's absence certainly factored into our defense giving up points in the second half. While it didn't have anything to do with giving up a TD in 2OT, I'd like to think that it wouldn't have come down to that had Hunt played the entire game.

so all the 3 and outs of which we had one with Wilson after he came in and 2 with Hunt while he was in.

 

[RF2044]

so all the 3 and outs of which we had one with Wilson after he came in and 2 with Hunt while he was in.

No, we had two with Wilson and only one with Hunt. We also only had four possessions in the second half--as incredible as that sounds. Villanova dominated TOP in the 2nd half and we didn't slow them down when we got the ball back b/c we couldn't do anything outside of that opening drive when we had the ball.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=400547815&period=4

 

[Millhouse]

No, we had two with Wilson and only one with Hunt. We also only had four possessions in the second half--as incredible as that sounds. Villanova dominated TOP in the 2nd half and we didn't slow them down when we got the ball back b/c we couldn't do anything outside of that opening drive when we had the ball.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=400547815&period=4

don't forget the roughing the kicker

 

[sufandu]

You're right--they shouldn't. They weren't sharp. But they were beginning to move the ball, and playing poorly to start doesn't necessarily mean that it would have continued for the entire rest of the game.

And to answer your quesstion--yes, it is indirectly possible that Hunt's absence allowed our defense to give up more points in the second half than the first. Are you kdding me? How many three-and-outs did we have in the second half after our first possession? I am quite certain that the results would have been different with Hunt. Us having the ball / TOP means less chances for villanova to score, move the ball, etc. So yes, Hunt's absence factored into our defense giving up points in the second half.

Yes, stringing along longer drives could have limited Villanova's offense, but the problem was we only had 4 possessions in the second half, not including the one at the end of the game, because we couldn't get them off the field. Every one of their possessions in the second half was at least 9 plays long with multiple first downs, and the longest was 18 plays long (they had the ball for over 9 minutes). The exception to that was the punt return for a TD. Their lengthy drives had every bit as much to do with our offense being off the field as our own offense's ineptitude. Their offense did more to help their defense than our defense did to help our offense.

And just as the offense's poor play early doesn't mean it would've continued, so to, showing signs of life toward the end of the half, doesn't guarantee it would've continued. Our best drive was the first one of the second half, and Wilson looked solid. One would think that would mean we'd be able to carry that for the rest of the game, but it didn't happen.

 

[RF2044]

Yes, stringing along longer drives could have limited Villanova's offense, but the problem was we only had 4 possessions in the second half, not including the one at the end of the game, because we couldn't get them off the field. Every one of their possessions in the second half was at least 9 plays long with multiple first downs, and the longest was 18 plays long (they had the ball for over 9 minutes). The exception to that was the punt return for a TD. Their lengthy drives had every bit as much to do with our offense being off the field as our own offense's ineptitude. Their offense did more to help their defense than our defense did to help our offense.

PRECISELY. That's the point I've been making about why Hunt's absence was impactful on BOTH sides of the ball.

 

[sufandu]

PRECISELY. That's the point I've been making about why Hunt's absence was impactful on BOTH sides of the ball.

But it's not just Hunt. Hunt's absence didn't allow an 18 play 9 minute long drive. That was the defense. I also don't think it's safe to assume all of the offense's problems were due to Hunt's absence either. If that was the case, we wouldn't have had the drive we had at the beginning of the second half. I hope you're right. I hope he comes back and we drop 45 on CMU.

 

[RF2044]

But it's not just Hunt. Hunt's absence didn't allow an 18 play 9 minute long drive. That was the defense. I also don't think it's safe to assume all of the offense's problems were due to Hunt's absence either. If that was the case, we wouldn't have had the drive we had at the beginning of the second half. I hope you're right. I hope he comes back and we drop 45 on CMU.

Nobody is saying that it is just Hunt. Jiminy Christmas--I've been very clear about that throughout the thread [or so I thought]. But having a better offense would have helped the defense--as you point out above--because we would have potentially scored points and played more from ahead instead of allowing Villanova to shorten the game, given the defense rest instead of having them out there running around on all of those sustained drives, etc.

I'm not trying to be argumentative sufandu, but we seem to be going in circles. And just to make sure that we're not talking past one another, it wasn't all just Hunt--there were many other factors that contributed to our poor performance. In no particular order:

• Our OL was patchwork and didn't peform well
• We couldn't get the ball to Estime
• We tackled like sh-t and missed a bunch of TFLs
• Our coverage sucked
• We gave up an alarming number of third and long conversions
• We gave up a big special teams play.

On top of all that, having our QB make a boneheaded play and get himself tossed didn't help matters. I'm fairly certain that with Hunt, we would have continued to score points and keep the defense off the field for lengthier stints. I obviously can't prove that, but I believe it to be true.

 

[suloyalfan]

Hunt started slow, and needs to be better. No question about it. But we'd scored a TD on the previous possession, and were moving the ball the possession where Hunt pulled a brain fart and got tossed from the game [with the team at midfield]. Was he beginning to heat up? We'll never know, but it sure seems that the offense was beginning to find a groove and starting to move the ball more effectively.

And yes--Wilson came in and struggled. Not surprising, given that he was a redshirt frosh playing in his first ever collegiate game, with zero experience, overcoming the shock of having the starting firmly entrenched QB get unexpectedly tossed from the game. All things considered, Wilson did ok under the circumstances. He didn't WIN the game for us, but he also didn't lose it. We got lucky in that regard--Hunt's outburst could have cost us the season.

They were on the 34 yard line before his 15 yard penalty

 

[Crusty]

They were on the 34 yard line before his 15 yard penalty

and 2nd and 6

 

[KaiserUEO]

we are all getting old...

 

[Bayside44]

But it's not just Hunt. Hunt's absence didn't allow an 18 play 9 minute long drive. That was the defense. I also don't think it's safe to assume all of the offense's problems were due to Hunt's absence either. If that was the case, we wouldn't have had the drive we had at the beginning of the second half. I hope you're right. I hope he comes back and we drop 45 on CMU.

Sure it did - if that drive continues we score, Nova is down. We score to start the second half with our QB who has gotten warmed up they cannot play four corners.

 

[CousCuse]

Sure it did - if that drive continues we score, Nova is down. We score to start the second half with our QB who has gotten warmed up they cannot play four corners.

Here is a scenario from alternate timeline. Hunt and Dillon get up pushing each other , the ref comes over and tells them to cool it or ejections will follow. Next play Orange get a first down. Villanova is off balance on D on Estime takes a bubble screen to the house. 17-7. The crowd ramps and after the kick the D plays hard , Nova goes 3 and out . Nova punts , Syracuses' offense cuts them to shreds in a 2 minute drill. 24-7 half. SU takes the first possession of the second in a long drive for a TD . 31-7 , game over rout ensues.

 

[sufandu]

Sure it did - if that drive continues we score, Nova is down. We score to start the second half with our QB who has gotten warmed up they cannot play four corners.

Hunt remaining in the game doesn't guarantee a score. The only TD we had up to that point was the long one by Gulley. One on that drive wasn't a sure thing. The main point is, and I think you know this, we had all kinds of problems in that game that had nothing to do with Hunt being ejected. Simply getting him back for our next game doesn't solve those problems, especially once we start playing teams that have more than one player on offense. The team has a lot of work to do.

 

[orangefan13]

Nova had a hell of a quarterback, great blocking in the offensive line and fast receivers and running backs that knew their routes. They were a well oiled machine, if it wasn't for the kicker and stupid penalties they may have maxed their potential this year in their first game. And they were a road team up against the biggest crowd they will see this season. Alot of top 100 teams were far from being a well oiled machine in week one and two. We didn't even know the definition of well oiled machine, we were so far away from our ceiling.

 

[reedny]

It was the beginning of the game--you aren't automatically up multiple touchdowns early in the game. That's like complaining that we're not up 20 over an inferior opponent in basketball at the 10 minute mark of the first half. We might get to that margn over the course of the game, but sometimes it takes a while to get there.

No question--Hunt started slow. But if he doesn't pull that bonehead move, I'm quite confident that we would have would have won handily, by 3 TDs or more. That's only my opinion, but I'm comfortable owning that prediction. Such an outcome would certainly change the data in the OP's graph, as well as the interpretative analysis of what Friday's peformance means vis a vis projected wins in 2014.

Sans Hunt, we struggled. That doesn't mean that our performance [playing essentially three quarters of the game with a completely green frosh QB who'd been thrown to the wolves unexpectedly] correlates to how we'll perform the rest of the year. Nor does it mean that there weren't warts revealed with our collective team performance. But overlooking the Hunt being out factor undermines the analysis and makes it easy to poke holes at the interpretive conclusions.

Have to agree with this, from the 3 TW specials/replays I've seen. Hunt and Wilson both looked pretty good. Compared to last year, we have better tight end options and more size in our receiving corps. Lewis showed some speed, and Broyld and West looked good. I didn't a lot of downfield throws from either QB.

The biggest problem I noticed on offense was poor run support by the O-line, most especially the R side in short yardage/goal line situations. I wasn't at the game and hope to hear more from others closer to the action -- but did I see Miller get abused by the Nova front line? And Lasker and Foy both looked clueless in goal line situations. Seems like we have some real problems there, for which I doubt Palmer is going to be a panacea once healthy.