- Oct 6, 2016
- 2,019
- 784
One thing we won't have to worry about is a vaunted passing attack. Mullen seldom had one of those. I've noticed the QBs he recruits are great athletes but average passers
Going game by game with the schedule this would get UF to 4800 yards in total offense:
Charleston So: 600 yards
UK: 400 yards
Co State: 500 yards
at UTn: 400 yards
at Miss State: 300 yards
Who cares? Points per game is a more important stat, and so far that is a vast improvement from the previous years.Well here we are 5 games in and so we can look at where UF's offense is compared to where it needs to be to have a decent offense:
Charleston Southern: projected 600 yards, actual 446 yards, difference -154 yards
Kentucky: projected 400 yards, actual 360 yards, difference -60 yards
Colorado State: projected 500 yards, actual 361 yards, difference -139 yards.
at UTn: projected 400 yards, actual 387, difference -13
at Miss State: projected 300 yards, actual 357 yards, difference +57
That works out to UF being 309 yards or slightly more than 60 yards per game below what UF would need to get to 4800 yards this season.
Time of possession is all that really matters. /ChimpI guess I’ve missed all these games where you win if you have more yards.
I guess I’ve missed all these games where you win if you have more yards.
Funny you should say that, my preseason arbitrary number for YPG is right on track. So we’re doing GREAT!I can't believe this was actually bumped to announce that we're off course to being a "decent offense", defined by some arbitrary number. There are so many mitigating circumstances not taken into account, I don't even have it in me to debate this one.
Outside of the 600 yard games, your predictions seem reasonable. I think 600 doesn’t happen because Mullen will likely be deep into the bench if moving the ball is that easy.
That said, total yards, points per game, etc isn’t a great metric for measuring success. Too easily skewed by a limited number of games. Although donk is loathe to admit it, offensive efficiency stats will tell a more realistic story. It removes garbage time and adjusts for opponent strength. Check it out on football outsiders and see what you think.
Couldn't agree more. This was the look on my face when I was unfortunate enough to read it:I can't believe this was actually bumped to announce that we're off course to being a "decent offense", defined by some arbitrary number. There are so many mitigating circumstances not taken into account, I don't even have it in me to debate this one.
I guess I’ve missed all these games where you win if you have more yards.
Even in Mac's BEST games, the offense looked like a disorganized failure. It looked like they had never practiced.By the way on the points issue, five games in Mullen is 4-1 averaging 35.4 points per game. At the same time McElwain was 5-0 averaging 34.4 points per game. We all know how the McElwain tenure turned out.
Even in Mac's BEST games, the offense looked like a disorganized failure. It looked like they had never practiced.
This team looks completely different. That's why there's hope there's going to be actual improvement, like there never was under Chimp and Butters. If you can't see that I have no idea what to say to you.