One thing I hate about college statistics is that they count a sack as a running attempt. I guess I get that (it takes the guess work out of "scoring" the game) but it is misleading. The labor of love would be to take those numbers and delete from both the numerator and denominator sacks. Having a fairly immobile QB who has been coached to slide/get out of bounds "hurts" Cal's numbers compared to other sorts of systems. That isn't a knock on JKS but it is to say to fairly evaluate the teams running game you probably need to back out for all 135 teams running attempts by QBs....understanding that this will hurt true dual threat guys.

socaltownie said:

---

One thing I hate about college statistics is that they count a sack as a running attempt. I guess I get that (it takes the guess work out of "scoring" the game) but it is misleading. The labor of love would be to take those numbers and delete from both the numerator and denominator sacks. Having a fairly immobile QB who has been coached to slide/get out of bounds "hurts" Cal's numbers compared to other sorts of systems. That isn't a knock on JKS but it is to say to fairly evaluate the teams running game you probably need to back out for all 135 teams running attempts by QBs....understanding that this will hurt true dual threat guys.

---

I agree with the problem, but not the fix. Designed QB runs should count toward the running game. You need to back out the sacks. Not every QB run.

Alkiadt said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

They apparently had a difference of opinion on offensive strategies.

---

If any of you have ever supervised people, sometimes hard decisions need to be made in the best interest of the organization, and more importantly, as well as the individual.

If you can't figure it out I can't help you.

---

Someone messaged me saying Wilcox let Spavital go because he had "a drinking problem."

Despite that, in his two years at Baylor since then he has delivered two top 20 offenses.

If that was really the reason, it was really dumb. I don't care if the guy smokes weed, gets drunk, whatever, as long as he does his job, which he is clearly doing at Baylor. I used to drink with Tony Franklin in downtown Berkeley bars when we both lived there and Cal had the #6 offense. I have a friend that rose to a 7 figure corporate job that starts every day with an espresso and a bong hit.

Now if he is harming someone else and someone is credibly accusing him of sexual assault, sexual discrimination, being racist, or giving bad health advice to his players counter to your states' public health guidelines during a pandemic when people's lives at at stake, then yeah you can't let someone like that taint your program and you have to ask them to leave.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

One thing I hate about college statistics is that they count a sack as a running attempt. I guess I get that (it takes the guess work out of "scoring" the game) but it is misleading. The labor of love would be to take those numbers and delete from both the numerator and denominator sacks. Having a fairly immobile QB who has been coached to slide/get out of bounds "hurts" Cal's numbers compared to other sorts of systems. That isn't a knock on JKS but it is to say to fairly evaluate the teams running game you probably need to back out for all 135 teams running attempts by QBs....understanding that this will hurt true dual threat guys.

---

I agree with the problem, but not the fix. Designed QB runs should count toward the running game. You need to back out the sacks. Not every QB run.

---

I like counting QB runs and sacks against the quarterback's productivity. Essentially yards per "QB play" vs YPC when handing off to a running back. I agree it doesn't adequately capture designed QB runs and option offenses (then yards per play captures the effectiveness of the QB) but it better captures the effectiveness of your run game and your passing game when a QB "run" is most often a sack or a QB taking off running on a called pass play when no one is open. Most importantly, it can be easily calculated using the existing statistics.

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

One thing I hate about college statistics is that they count a sack as a running attempt. I guess I get that (it takes the guess work out of "scoring" the game) but it is misleading. The labor of love would be to take those numbers and delete from both the numerator and denominator sacks. Having a fairly immobile QB who has been coached to slide/get out of bounds "hurts" Cal's numbers compared to other sorts of systems. That isn't a knock on JKS but it is to say to fairly evaluate the teams running game you probably need to back out for all 135 teams running attempts by QBs....understanding that this will hurt true dual threat guys.

---

I agree with the problem, but not the fix. Designed QB runs should count toward the running game. You need to back out the sacks. Not every QB run.

---

I like counting QB runs and sacks against the quarterback's productivity. Essentially yards per "QB play" vs YPC when handing off to a running back. I agree it doesn't adequately capture designed QB runs and option offenses (then yards per play captures the effectiveness of the QB) but it better captures the effectiveness of your run game and your passing game when a QB "run" is most often a sack or a QB taking off running on a called pass play when no one is open. Most importantly, it can be easily calculated using the existing statistics.

---

Ideally I would attribute sacks and QB runs on designed pass plays to the pass offense and designed QB runs to the run game. I'm sure colleges do that internally. With the stats that we get I would want to definitely attribute sacks to passing. Then I would want both RB's alone and RB's with QB positive runs.

I just don't think you can assume most QB runs are scrambles. For instance, Mendoza had 4 runs last weekend. 1 sack. 2 QB draws. 1 out of the read option. So zero runs were scrambles.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Weird because I don't see our rushing game as the problem for us. We just don't have enough running backs is the issue imho. Our starter has been fairly effective in what we're asking him to do. He's just not a bursty running back that can take it the distance, he's a guy that will find the hole and get you 3 or 4, sometimes bang out a 8-10 yard run. He just can't take 25-30 carries a game, doesn't have the body for that much. If we had another back that could do what he does, our running game would be pretty good.

---

All you do is make excuses. It's insane.There have been 12 RBs in the last TEN YEARS who carried the ball more than 25 time a game. You straight up don't know football.

---

Take your rude reply and shove it up your a**. Go head back to you phil knight vietnamese child labor shoe factory board. I said using 2 backs to make up 25-30 carries/game is very reasonable. You questioning my football knowledge based on what I wrote is weird.

---

You said "he can't take 25-30 carries a game". Your own words are right there. This is idiocy.

---

I'm not sure you know what you're arguing about.

---

If I could type more slowly for you, I would. "nobody" carries the ball 25-30 times a game. It's not hard to grasp. You said something that indicated you don't know CFB, period, end of story. Stop prevaricating.

ducktilldeath said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Weird because I don't see our rushing game as the problem for us. We just don't have enough running backs is the issue imho. Our starter has been fairly effective in what we're asking him to do. He's just not a bursty running back that can take it the distance, he's a guy that will find the hole and get you 3 or 4, sometimes bang out a 8-10 yard run. He just can't take 25-30 carries a game, doesn't have the body for that much. If we had another back that could do what he does, our running game would be pretty good.

---

All you do is make excuses. It's insane.There have been 12 RBs in the last TEN YEARS who carried the ball more than 25 time a game. You straight up don't know football.

---

Take your rude reply and shove it up your a**. Go head back to you phil knight vietnamese child labor shoe factory board. I said using 2 backs to make up 25-30 carries/game is very reasonable. You questioning my football knowledge based on what I wrote is weird.

---

You said "he can't take 25-30 carries a game". Your own words are right there. This is idiocy.

---

I'm not sure you know what you're arguing about.

---

If I could type more slowly for you, I would. "nobody" carries the ball 25-30 times a game. It's not hard to grasp. You said something that indicated you don't know CFB, period, end of story. Stop prevaricating.

---

If you could type more slowly, that would put you in the top 10% of UO grads.

At least we're not last.

bearsandgiants said:

---

At least we're not last.

---