Arkansas State Game Report Card

[Ouchyfish 67]

Just now, StatTiger said:

Officially it does.

Okie. Thanks!

[StatTiger 3,188]

18 minutes ago, bigbird said:

What do you consider less than 30 but greater than 15...but it's only less than 30 because they score. For example, Hastings TD. 

Hastings 29-yard reception and Kamryn Pettway's 29 yard run were both FABULOUS impact plays.

[bigbird 60,500]

Hastings TD was the prettiest pass of the night, to me.

[D.sheridanjr 0]

14 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Yep

The reason we are not getting pressure on the quarterback in my opinion... We do have some talented defensive linemen but we are still lacking "fast twitch" defensive ends as in a Stanley McClover or Quentin Groves... excuse the spelling ... Clemson had a couple of them and Texas A&M has a couple.. one  being Miles Garrett. It will be surprising to me if we will ever be able to get a top-notch pass rush with our four d-linemen without blitzing which could bite us! But thankfully the defense is improving... With a really good defense we should have held Arkansas State 230 yards or below so we're not quite there yet...

Edited September 11, 2016 by D.sheridanjr
Misspells

[augolf1716 21,109]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

Hastings TD was the prettiest pass of the night, to me.

It was cute

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

11 hours ago, StatTiger said:

Arkansas State did have 1 return and it was for 25-yds. Yes it is great having a high number of touchbacks but it can be fatal flaw. It caught up with AU in the 2013-14 NC game. Because the players on KRC rarely have to defend a kickoff, they develop bad habits or make the assumption it will be a touchback everytime. This is why I treat the actual returns separately.

I'm not criticizing but just trying to understand.  AU kicked off 10 ten times and of those KOs only 1 was actually returned, and it effectively mimicked a patented Carlson touch-back to the 25-yd line.  And that one return resulted in an overall Fail for all KO returns on your scorecard.  (??)  Pretty harsh.   Your threshold for passing on defending KO return is limiting the receiving team to 21.3 yds or less, but then the same passing grade for returning KOs is averaging over 22.3 yds.   Why the difference? 

What about on-side kicks?  We didn't have any in this game but let's take a look at a reasonably typical result:  on-side KO fails and the receiving team takes over on or about the 50-yd line.  By your scorecard, the kicking team limited the 'return' to zero yards and would receive a passing grade for this KO defense, even though field position is 25-yds greater than if they had kicked it to the goal line and the return team ran it out to the 25 before getting tackled (and getting a Fail.)  

The reason I'm bringing this up is that I was surprised to see an overall 50% Pass grade (3 of 6 categories) for the Special Teams when what was witnessed on the field was certainly an above-average result.  Although it was still an overall Pass grade, your methodology meant that if just one more category had been a fail, the overall grade would've been Fail.  In fact, you counted 'punt return defense' as a pass when we didn't even punt once.  Net field position on KOs (less than opp 25-yd line) might be a better pass/fail indicator of KO return defense.  Just a thought.  

 

[oracle79 3,569]

Anyone know the last game we didn't have to punt?

[StatTiger 3,188]

8 hours ago, oracle79 said:

Anyone know the last game we didn't have to punt?

 

---

The last 2 times it happened was 2013 Western Carolina game and the 2005 Ball State game.

[Strychnine 1,802]

On 9/11/2016 at 4:18 AM, alexava said:

My only complaint was I think we should have saved that fake fg for an SEC opponent.

 

I still think that had more to do with building and/or showing confidence than it did anything else.  Fake FG's are fake FG's.  SEC opponents practice executing and defending them.  Our execution of it was not some groundbreaking way of going about it.

[AU64 10,122]

28 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

I still think that had more to do with building and/or showing confidence than it did anything else.  Fake FG's are fake FG's.  SEC opponents practice executing and defending them.  Our execution of it was not some groundbreaking way of going about it.

And there must be a dozen ways to run them too......it was nice to see that happen after the lost TD earlier.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

I still think that had more to do with building and/or showing confidence than it did anything else.  Fake FG's are fake FG's.  SEC opponents practice executing and defending them.  Our execution of it was not some groundbreaking way of going about it.

That's what I thought, too, after some reflection. At first I thought, "Why waste that in a game we have in control?" But the more I think about it, the more I'm hoping that Gus was just being uncommonly savvy in how he's handling his players on a personal level. Seeing the way they responded after that play, I think it might have been a really good move for the psyche of the team. It was also cool how they rallied around Carlson. And, of course, not many teams have 2 kickers score a touchdown in one game...

[oracle79 3,569]

4 hours ago, StatTiger said:

 

---

The last 2 times it happened was 2013 Western Carolina game and the 2005 Ball State game.

Thanks Stat.  Bodes well for this year.

[Strychnine 1,802]

21 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That's what I thought, too, after some reflection. At first I thought, "Why waste that in a game we have in control?" But the more I think about it, the more I'm hoping that Gus was just being uncommonly savvy in how he's handling his players on a personal level. Seeing the way they responded after that play, I think it might have been a really good move for the psyche of the team. It was also cool how they rallied around Carlson. And, of course, not many teams have 2 kickers score a touchdown in one game...

 

My first thought was the same, "Why waste that?".  I quickly thought about it another way, in the context of last year and the first game, and it seemed like it was a confidence/chemistry builder.  Developing team chemistry, which appeared to emerge in this game, seems like it would be more important than any advantage gained by keeping a fake field goal under wraps.  As you mention, the psyche.

[AuburnSoldier 117]

5 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

My first thought was the same, "Why waste that?".  I quickly thought about it another way, in the context of last year and the first game, and it seemed like it was a confidence/chemistry builder.  Developing team chemistry, which appeared to emerge in this game, seems like it would be more important than any advantage gained by keeping a fake field goal under wraps.  As you mention, the psyche.

I think it also gives opposing defenses something else to think about.  It could slow down the rush and make us less likely to suffer a blocked FG.