Richt assesses Perry after first practice

[The Franchise]

It won't be on Perry to win the FSU game anyway...it'll be on a running game and the front seven defense. As long as he's coming along nicely, you let him start Week 1. When you start a freshman QB, you take the lumps that come with it. Risk aversion is for losers.

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

I tend to think its a pretty straight forward stat...you either run the ball or you don't. We can start to 'yea, but...' or 'whale, actually...' the discussion, but the through line is very straight forward...a conscious effort to run the ball at an adequate volume. Good teams do it. Bad teams do not. Typically, balance will come with the territory as the effort to run the football opens up everything else.

Bottom line, and my take home point, though...we ain't beating Florida State running the football no 27, 29 times...Perry can be (pick any all-time great college quarterback), and not running the football is going to lead us to taking an L in all likelihood versus FSU.

FWIW - Miami's Att/Game (Ranked Nationally) during this atrocious era of Miami football...112, 120, 102, 111, 114, 94, 46, 66, 93...maybe that is one of the many reasons we've sucked...maybe not...but Richt's Att/Gm at UGA was one of the very few concerns I had about him as a hire, and last year didn't exactly ease my thoughts on that.

Another major problem for UM is that we're not getting enough offensive plays per game. If your plays per game are way down, then your rush attempts will go down too. We need to get more plays in. We're wasting too much offensive talent by playing at such a slow tempo.

 

[Gables Canes]

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

I tend to think its a pretty straight forward stat...you either run the ball or you don't. We can start to 'yea, but...' or 'whale, actually...' the discussion, but the through line is very straight forward...a conscious effort to run the ball at an adequate volume. Good teams do it. Bad teams do not. Typically, balance will come with the territory as the effort to run the football opens up everything else.

Bottom line, and my take home point, though...we ain't beating Florida State running the football no 27, 29 times...Perry can be (pick any all-time great college quarterback), and not running the football is going to lead us to taking an L in all likelihood versus FSU.

FWIW - Miami's Att/Game (Ranked Nationally) during this atrocious era of Miami football...112, 120, 102, 111, 114, 94, 46, 66, 93...maybe that is one of the many reasons we've sucked...maybe not...but Richt's Att/Gm at UGA was one of the very few concerns I had about him as a hire, and last year didn't exactly ease my thoughts on that.

Another major problem for UM is that we're not getting enough offensive plays per game. If your plays per game are way down, then your rush attempts will go down too. We need to get more plays in. We're wasting too much offensive talent by playing at such a slow tempo.

this. Slow tempo + numerous 3 and outs will do it.

 

[SmokeyRone]

Just pray Perry is the guy. Nothing else matters.

 

[simplycanes]

In FSU's 3 losses last year, teams averaged 39 rush attempts versus FSU. Louisville, UNC, and Clemson are not I-Form running teams. This isn't 1982, brother. In FSU's 9 wins over FBS competition...33 carries per game (that is a bottom 20 number).

UNC ran it 32 times. FSU ran it 43 times. Yet UNC beat FSU. That doesn't support your theory.

Louisville ran it a lot because Jackson was killing FSU with his legs and they had a gigantic lead by halftime. I'm guessing they did a ton of running once they got a 50 point lead.

Clemson ran it 38 times against FSU for only 133 yards. Clemson threw it 43 times for 378. That is a heavier pass than run distribution, which also doesn't support your theory.

My theory doesn't discuss runass ratio...simply that you need to run the football in volume...~40 is your wheelhouse. Again, you can nitpick an outlier here or there, but again, look at the dominant teams in college football year in and year out and look at their attempts per game. UNC ran the ball 30 times per game last year...ended up 8-5.

Clemson - 40apg
Alabama - 43 apg
USC - 39apg
Washington - 38apg
Oklahoma - 44apg
Ohio State - 45apg
Penn State - 39apg
Florida State - 40apg
Wisconsin - 47apg
Michigan - 44apg

That is your final Top 10. Averaged 42 attempts per game.

FWIW - Louisville ran 22 times in the first half against FSU.

Thing is, he's not nitpicking. This is why they say if you torture the data enough it eventually gives in. What good are rushing attempts if you net virtually nothing off of them?

The attempts per game stat in isolation tells you nothing. I bet there's a fair amount of mediocre to poor teams who run the ball 30 to 40 times. You have to look at yards per attempt as well. And yes, the passing stats matter too.

The difference is most of the teams you're referencing had very credible threats under center in the passing game. Bama is probably the surprising case that didn't, but let's not confuse our OL with Bama just yet.

Whoever we have under center needs to be able to dropback and deliver a strike under duress. That is the defintion of shouldering it. Remeber Matthew Thomas knocking Kaaya's tooth out on the first series? Yeah, that.

If he cannot do that, we can run our 40 attempts to 27-6 loss having earned 1.5 yards per attempt. If he can, then we're in business. The defense backs up and our YPA becomes more respectable.

I will tell you what, if we come out the first few series and go run, run, incomplete/sack, punt, neither of us need to watch the game. You'll get your 40 carries and I already told you the score.

Of the teams avg 40 att/gm+ only 6 of them (out of 65) avg. under 4ypc. Miami avg. 4.5ypc, your scenario wouldn't apply to them on the whole. They run the ball, per clip, in the top half of the nation, and those numbers would only improve with more carries.

"I bet there's a fair amount of mediocre to poor teams who run the ball 30 to 40 times." - that is the difference between being in the bottom 5 in CFB and in the Top half...that is a huge difference.

You're torturing this stat to death, man and it ain't working. What you're implying is that if we keep running, we'll eventually break through. The Russell Athletic Bowl alone debunks your case. We ran the ball 34 times for 81 yards. That's 2.4 ypc. So in your world, the next 6 carries would have to go for unattainable yardage to get over 4 ypc. The number of rushing attempts is completely useless in isolation. There's a reason why, in this series, the team with the most rushing yards, has a significant edge. Again, that's yards, not attempts.

 

[BoxingRobes]

UNC ran it 32 times. FSU ran it 43 times. Yet UNC beat FSU. That doesn't support your theory.

Louisville ran it a lot because Jackson was killing FSU with his legs and they had a gigantic lead by halftime. I'm guessing they did a ton of running once they got a 50 point lead.

Clemson ran it 38 times against FSU for only 133 yards. Clemson threw it 43 times for 378. That is a heavier pass than run distribution, which also doesn't support your theory.

My theory doesn't discuss runass ratio...simply that you need to run the football in volume...~40 is your wheelhouse. Again, you can nitpick an outlier here or there, but again, look at the dominant teams in college football year in and year out and look at their attempts per game. UNC ran the ball 30 times per game last year...ended up 8-5.

Clemson - 40apg
Alabama - 43 apg
USC - 39apg
Washington - 38apg
Oklahoma - 44apg
Ohio State - 45apg
Penn State - 39apg
Florida State - 40apg
Wisconsin - 47apg
Michigan - 44apg

That is your final Top 10. Averaged 42 attempts per game.

FWIW - Louisville ran 22 times in the first half against FSU.

Thing is, he's not nitpicking. This is why they say if you torture the data enough it eventually gives in. What good are rushing attempts if you net virtually nothing off of them?

The attempts per game stat in isolation tells you nothing. I bet there's a fair amount of mediocre to poor teams who run the ball 30 to 40 times. You have to look at yards per attempt as well. And yes, the passing stats matter too.

The difference is most of the teams you're referencing had very credible threats under center in the passing game. Bama is probably the surprising case that didn't, but let's not confuse our OL with Bama just yet.

Whoever we have under center needs to be able to dropback and deliver a strike under duress. That is the defintion of shouldering it. Remeber Matthew Thomas knocking Kaaya's tooth out on the first series? Yeah, that.

If he cannot do that, we can run our 40 attempts to 27-6 loss having earned 1.5 yards per attempt. If he can, then we're in business. The defense backs up and our YPA becomes more respectable.

I will tell you what, if we come out the first few series and go run, run, incomplete/sack, punt, neither of us need to watch the game. You'll get your 40 carries and I already told you the score.

Of the teams avg 40 att/gm+ only 6 of them (out of 65) avg. under 4ypc. Miami avg. 4.5ypc, your scenario wouldn't apply to them on the whole. They run the ball, per clip, in the top half of the nation, and those numbers would only improve with more carries.

"I bet there's a fair amount of mediocre to poor teams who run the ball 30 to 40 times." - that is the difference between being in the bottom 5 in CFB and in the Top half...that is a huge difference.

You're torturing this stat to death, man and it ain't working. What you're implying is that if we keep running, we'll eventually break through. The Russell Athletic Bowl alone debunks your case. We ran the ball 34 times for 81 yards. That's 2.4 ypc. So in your world, the next 6 carries would have to go for unattainable yardage to get over 4 ypc. The number of rushing attempts is completely useless in isolation. There's a reason why, in this series, the team with the most rushing yards, has a significant edge. Again, that's yards, not attempts.

I'm not sure how its "not working"...good teams run the football. Bad teams don't. How effective you are determines much of how good you are. One outlier or anomaly doesn't debunk anything. Trends. Not laws.

 

[BoxingRobes]

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

I tend to think its a pretty straight forward stat...you either run the ball or you don't. We can start to 'yea, but...' or 'whale, actually...' the discussion, but the through line is very straight forward...a conscious effort to run the ball at an adequate volume. Good teams do it. Bad teams do not. Typically, balance will come with the territory as the effort to run the football opens up everything else.

Bottom line, and my take home point, though...we ain't beating Florida State running the football no 27, 29 times...Perry can be (pick any all-time great college quarterback), and not running the football is going to lead us to taking an L in all likelihood versus FSU.

FWIW - Miami's Att/Game (Ranked Nationally) during this atrocious era of Miami football...112, 120, 102, 111, 114, 94, 46, 66, 93...maybe that is one of the many reasons we've sucked...maybe not...but Richt's Att/Gm at UGA was one of the very few concerns I had about him as a hire, and last year didn't exactly ease my thoughts on that.

Another major problem for UM is that we're not getting enough offensive plays per game. If your plays per game are way down, then your rush attempts will go down too. We need to get more plays in. We're wasting too much offensive talent by playing at such a slow tempo.

Yards per play one of the better metrics to look at, but all of this essentially just builds on the general idea that the offense isn't quite where we need it to be...in Richt's best years at UGA, he had a much better pace on offense. Tons of plays. Ran enough. Got yards at a big clip. Maybe he was rusty and he gets his groove back.

Our TOP since Butch has been pretty pathetic, especially when we are in "big games"...we just never control the outcome. We've had plenty of those games over the past 15 years where the "season is on the brink" in late October or early November and this team just can't control the game.

 

[kryptonite]

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

I tend to think its a pretty straight forward stat...you either run the ball or you don't. We can start to 'yea, but...' or 'whale, actually...' the discussion, but the through line is very straight forward...a conscious effort to run the ball at an adequate volume. Good teams do it. Bad teams do not. Typically, balance will come with the territory as the effort to run the football opens up everything else.

Bottom line, and my take home point, though...we ain't beating Florida State running the football no 27, 29 times...Perry can be (pick any all-time great college quarterback), and not running the football is going to lead us to taking an L in all likelihood versus FSU.

FWIW - Miami's Att/Game (Ranked Nationally) during this atrocious era of Miami football...112, 120, 102, 111, 114, 94, 46, 66, 93...maybe that is one of the many reasons we've sucked...maybe not...but Richt's Att/Gm at UGA was one of the very few concerns I had about him as a hire, and last year didn't exactly ease my thoughts on that.

Another major problem for UM is that we're not getting enough offensive plays per game. If your plays per game are way down, then your rush attempts will go down too. We need to get more plays in. We're wasting too much offensive talent by playing at such a slow tempo.

Is it the tempo or is it that we can't convert on 3rd down and give the ball back too quickly? Even our scoring drives are only a few plays.