Jump to content

alphahydro

Full Members
  • Posts

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alphahydro

  1. little over 20 years ago, you could call up Philippe Dufour, ask him to put your name on a handwritten list, and he'd assemble a watch for you when he got to your name on the list. I don't think he had email. You literally had to call him. And the list was a couple years long. i really wanted to put my name on the list for the platinum/silver dial duality, but i couldn't talk myself into it (I think the list was 2-3 years when I first started thinking about it and maybe 4-5 years by the time I was ready to pull the trigger). frankly, i don't think i knew you could get it with a black dial. if i had known that, it might have pushed me over the edge. Anyway, after waffling for a bit, I compromised with myself and decided to settle on ordering the simplicity instead. but i really didn't like the dial of the simplicity that much. anyway, i literally woke up early one day so I could call him during business hours in Switzerland, dialed his phone number in my phone, practiced what i was gonna say, and at the last second I decided not to hit send on my phone. i knew he was legit, but it annoyed me that i was gonna have to wait a couple years to get the simplicity, i wasn't a huge fan of the dial, what if he died, etc. So I never hit send. i really wish i had placed that order. lol. actually, i wish i had bucked up and ordered the duality. turns out he only made 9 dualities, and i think only 1 with the black dial. SMH. A rose gold dial duality (1 of 3) sold for over $4MM. (FML) anyway, 20 years later, i decided i'd give it another shot to work with a solo watchmaker, but you can't get on PD's list anymore, so i decided to work with pascal coyon (at least you can email Pascal, but it's the same deal, you get on a list and hope for the best). Pascal (along with his wife and daughter) basically polishes and assembles each watch in his work area. and he'll let you customize the watch (though, frankly, it's not that fun to customize). I think the original goal was like 1 year to make the watch and it's already been 2 years since I ordered. Below is the black enamel dial watch i have on order and the black dial duality that i really, really, really wish i had ordered back the day. (also, sidenote, back when i was at UT, Urwerk was just getting started. they had a shitty website, and I almost emailed them and told them i'd redo their website for a ur-101. but i decided i didn't want to upset them. lol.). anyway, moral of the story is i wish i had yolo'd more when i was younger).
  2. I kind understand why some bama fans want kiffin. he's funny as shit. (although frankly, from the outside, it would be funny to have him at bama- but I think for a lot of their fans his schtick would grow old quickly if he couldn't bring home trophies). but from 30,000 feet, this next hire probably isn't going to work. so if I'm a bama fan, I would want a great recruiter as the next hire. at least that way, when the guy-who-follows-saban is fired, the next guy who takes over at least has a good roster to work with.
  3. from what I understand of the UW roster, now is a great time to bounce if I'm deboer. if it's true that deboer isn't much of a recruiter, I would think he might want to try nfl, but idk. if he ends up at bama and hires a top DC and assistants who can recruit, he could be a menace. or at least, I think if he makes the right hires, bama fans would have to say the school did about as well as they could have with the post-saban hire. Otoh, if he just brings along his current staff, I would be a little nervous if I was a bama fan. I am not sure their DC is up to snuff, and he prolly needs some high level recruiters with ties to the south.
  4. My view on this is UW centric, but I think the key to beating UW is to make early adjustments on offense and make UW's offense win in the red zone. UW on defense After watching a few UW games, this is how I think about the UW defense. They know they don't field a great unit on defense. The way I see it, their DC (and DeBoer) is kind of a gunslinger. Against a good offense, they gameplan for what they think you will want to do early and they will over-devote resources to stopping that even if it means there is a gimme somewhere else. Oregon typically wants to hit you underneath to open big shots later. Against Oregon in the second game, they dared Oregon to take deep shots early and smothered everything underneath. Oregon took too long to adjust and basically played 4 offensive drives right into UW's trap. Oregon mounted a comeback, but it was too late. You can't spot UW four drives. Against Texas, UW allowed the backs and tight ends to basically get what they wanted early in the game. IMO, Texas actually adjusted by the second drive, and this probably would have backfired on UW if not for the fumbles and self-inflicted penalties against Texas. UW has some counter-punches (they ran some run blitzes against Texas) but IMO the defense is just trying to steal two or three drives, figuring this will be enough to get a lead and sit on it, given how potent their offense is. I don't really think of Michigan as the best in-game adjusting team (could be wrong here) but if they try to run into early run blitzes and don't adjust quickly enough, UW got what they wanted out of their defense, I think. Will be interesting to see how UW gameplans for Michigan and how Michigan responds. Michigan on Defense Michigan prolly matches up against UW as well as anyone on UW's schedule, but I still think your best defense against the UW offense is let them kill drives with penalties (which they did all regular season and last year in the Alamo bowl) and let them get themselves behind the sticks when they miss one of their shots. Unfortunately, neither of these really happened against Texas. rip. The second best way to stop UW is to make them win in the red zone. When UW had to work in the red zone in the Sugar Bowl, (not counting first down at the 2 after a long pass and another drive where they scored on 1st and 10 from the 19), the results were turnover on downs FG FG FG I think Texas has a better run defense than Michigan, but if UW's RB1 is out or playing injured, UM might have about as much success defending the run as Texas did. Honestly, I know how much Harbaugh cares about sportsmanship, so this might be below him, but i tell my DBs to tackle the WR if I see a pass 20+yards the air, just in case Penix is still locked in. lol. I hate that this is the last game of the season I get to watch, but here we are.
  5. yeah, my bad. i meant building a team that is good enough to be a legit title contender in 8/9 out of 10 years. Just a slightly different ceiling from being able to build a team like 07 LSU. I actually think there are decent odds that Sark has the ability to this next step, given what he's shown so far. *knock on wood* I would say some of the key components are high quality assistants high level recruiting high level understanding of how to address roster needs / build a complete roster over time high level problem solving to address the inevitable deficiencies you'll have on your roster luck w/r/t QB development, injuries, etc. Some guys are brilliant x's and o's coaches, but can't recruit at a high level, or they hire their buddies as assistants, or they are stubborn in their approach to football and get caught flat footed when they are lacking in a position group that is a key component to the offense/defense they want to run. So they can get to 07 LSU quality team, but they can't get to that next step. The hardest step to take, imo, is getting to that next level where you can reload every year. I think it's really just hard to build a successful program and have it shed complacency every year. You prolly have to be a bit of a psychopath. I like your point a lot, though. It helps me articulate why the loss isn't as devastating as it could be. If you had a coach in year 9 the AD was never gonna fire, and it was clear that 07 LSU was your ceiling, a loss like the Sugar Bowl would be a little tougher to take. Because that's it, that's your chance. But if you see more potential for what's being (re)built at your program, and you see the potential for a coach (whether it's Sark or someone who takes the baton) to get to that next level, you can see the Sugar Bowl as a step on the journey. Will be interesting to see how we view that game in 4/5 years.
  6. Yeah, there's a big gap between where we are today and back-to-back national championships, but I see your point. I look at it like this. Year 1, Sark took over someone else's team. Year 2, he showed he can take step one to build a team with a winning record. (not too hard at a school like Texas) Year 3 he showed he can take step two to build a big xii conference champion level team that is probably at worst a 6th-8th best team in any season. (It just so happened this was a rare season where a team that good had a puncher's chance at a national title). The question is - can he take the next step and build a team that is a legit national championship contender? (step three) And after that can he build a program that reloads? Step four. At the end of the season, you have to say this was a scrappy team that overachieved and did a good job of problem solving and improving over the course of the year. (If anyone doubts that, just check where your expectations were after Rice or Wyoming) And so, for now, Sark is at least on the right trajectory. And we will see what additional steps he is able to take. In the meantime, we should celebrate the efforts of the players on this team. Who balled out and overachieved over the course of the season and made it entertaining for the fans, imo.
  7. meant to add. i was bummed that evening and about half the next day. those are the reasons i think i've already started feeling fine about it.
  8. Losses always suck, but sometimes they are more or less painful depending on the context. Obviously the context of this loss was it took us out of a shot at a national championship, but if you take a step back and look more broadly than just 1/1 to 1/8, I think there are a couple reasons why the loss didn't suck as much as it could have. 1) Season overall was enjoyable and exceeded any reasonable expectations Imagine another fanbase of a team that was 8-5 last season, hadn't fielded a top 5 team in a while, but recruits well. They are starting a soph QB, a young OL, and a reasonably young defense. Pick a random blueblood team in your head. And before the season you said, hey, I'm from the future, next year, you guys are gonna win the conference title in your final year in the conference get scoreboard on all your old, annoying ass wannabe rivals who are staying in the old conference beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa by double digits avenge all your regular season losses get to CFP. Draw a tough matchup in semis and unfortunately the opposing QB is going to play absolutely lights out, leaving your team just short on a last minute comeback drive pundits and coaching staff will sum up the season as "a young team that was one play away from playing for a national title" If someone from the other fanbase said, man, what a letdown, you'd think their expectations were a tad high. Expectations are a lot different when the team is building off a top 5/10 finish the year before and the QB/OL/key players at every level of defense are all upperclassmen and headed to the draft after the season ends. Losses in those years hurt more in part because deep down you know there is an ebb and flow to cfb and this is a "ceiling year" for the program/staff. It's always gonna suck to be close to a national championship, but 2023 was more of a holy shit this is a great opportunity to sneak in and win a national championship with a young team sort of years. Yeah it still sucks to lose a shot at a national championship, but the downside just isn't the same as it is in a year like 08/09, because the implications are different. 2) Sounds dumb but the end of game mattered imo In terms of the impact on the program, I know this sounds stupid but I thought it was important that Texas had a shot to win the game at the end. As opposed to a couple more bad swings and Texas loses to UW by 17. It also helped that Penix made so many tip-your-hat throws. From an outsider's perspective, it just wasn't a bad loss. And I'm just saying that makes a difference in terms of what the pundits are gonna say next year, and what the coaching staff can say on the recruiting trail, etc. 3) Next game wasn't a gimme TBH, if Michigan could severely limit the run and get a big rush on Ewers, I'm not sure the next game was a gimme. Yeah, we could have won, but it wasn't like another team with an Okie state profile was waiting in Houston. It's not like we lost the national championship, we lost the chance to play in a game where we prolly would have had all our signs stolen been in another really tough matchup, this time for the offense. All I'm saying is, even if we had won, I wasn't as confident about a Michigan matchup after seeing them in Pasadena. So, again, yes the loss sucks, but the implications aren't as far reaching as they could be. 4) The impact of this season and the Sugar Bowl will be decided next year Someone from the future could have come here in August and said hey, this staff is gonna take an 8-5 team that is still young in key spots and get them one play away from playing in Houston. Then they are gonna build off that and get the program on the right track. I think we all would have taken it. (shit, I would have taken that in October). If the coaching staff problem-solves and the players are motivated and bust their ass during the offseason, 2023 could be a turning point for the program. If not, the loss will sting more over time, i suppose. But i'm not gonna worry about shit that hasn't happened yet. hook em.
  9. it looked to me like Oregon didn't really make adjustments until shortly before halftime. Once they did, they scored 28 and UW scored 14, but it was too late.
  10. I can't imagine that UW's gameplan involves a large dose of running b/t tackles. I think they may try to let our interior line carry themselves upfield and then have Dillon Johnson cut back, depending on what looks we are giving. As far as outside runs, yeah that's where speed and angles come into play. when I first watched the P12CG, I remember thinking that Oregon's LB looked really poorly coached. Lots of missed tackles, hesitation, guarding patches of grass. In retrospect, I think a lot of that was Grubb, and I suspect he game planned around what he saw as their reads and responsibilities. (either that or they're just poorly coached, idk) So even though Oregon is athletic, UW had a lot of success on 3rd down because of what they were able to do near the los on early downs. I think part of it was Oregon's reluctance to load the box, which put a lot of pressure on LB execution. Also, UW will run quick, short plays outside that isolate a DB depending on what they get pre snap. Just a matter of execution and how hard the game planning is making it for the players to execute, imo. Part of that is on Texas to have a good gameplan and to adjust quickly to what is actually happening on field.
  11. Scott Gerlach*, who I really respect, was on EGAT podcast and said something similar to CFBnerds. I think he said his gut feeling is 40% chance comfortable win for Texas, 60% chance it's a cointoss/anyone could win game. Given the injuries that both teams have faced this year, I think you have to assume the teams that show up tomorrow are the UW that beat Oregon x 2 and the Texas that beat Bama and Okie State. At the same time, I think you have to discount all four of those performances a bit. Okie State was a great matchup for Texas, and Bama was a game where most everything went Texas' way (plus, I think Bama trusted its secondary more than UW will, leaving a few key easier reads for Ewers) And Oregon probably would have won both games if they had a better gameplan/in game adjustments. So you still have some pretty big unknowns. I think the big x-factors/unknowns are- 1) Texas defensive coaching staff vs UW's excellent offensive coaching staff. UW's coaching staff was the clear edge against Oregon, and I can't find the quote, but DeBoer said as much after the P12 championship game. I think this is the main issue when UW has the ball: UW can't just throw deep every play, and they know they can't just line up and run the ball. I think a lot rests on the Texas LBers to shore up the run-alternatives in the short/screen game. I'm sure the UW coaching staff spent a lot of time trying to scheme up a run/short passing game using motion/redirection/shifts to get the right matchups and leverage against the Texas edge/slot DB and LB. UW did an excellent job last year (against a different Texas lineup), and it was a huge factor in the outcome. If the UW RB are breaking tackles tomorrow, it's partly because they are good players and partly because their OC did a great job in getting them matchups and angles. (Of course some of this depends on the Texas gameplan and how Texas adjusts over the course of the game). Frankly, not knowing much, I'd probably do what Texas did last year and devote less resources to the short game and hope for the best (at least as my "base" strategy). 2) Will the athleticism and size of Texas make a significant difference in the game? This especially relates to #1. If UW goes with what worked in the pac 12 this season (or what worked in the Alamo bowl), it may not work in the Sugar Bowl, because the leverage that works against smaller, slower teams may not work against this Texas team. It's what Oregon always discovers when they play better teams. I don't think it's a matter of being pac12 soft. UW is a very physical, scrappy bunch on both sides of the ball. It's more about team speed (and size) of the opposing defense. If Texas' athleticism allows it to handle short/underneath stuff with fewer resources (using some dime, dropping nickle into coverage etc) because the solutions that worked for UW all year don't work against Texas, it will allow Texas to devote extra resources to the pass at low cost. Similarly, how will the depth and quality of the Texas DL factor into this game? I think you can put this into 3 categories: 1) it won't matter; UW will move the pocket, get the ball out quickly, and scheme the run game away from the interior DL. 2) it will matter indirectly. The UT DL won't dominate in a way you can see, but their efforts will severely limit what plays UW can run successfully; UW will be running a limited playbook, which will allow Texas to devote extra resources to the plays UW can run. 3) massive pressure up the middle all game. And we all know Penix is a different QB if you can get pressure with 4. The extremes of 3 and 1 are not super likely, but 1 is more likely early in the game and 3 is more likely toward the end of the game, imo, given Texas' depth. But we don't really know how this is going to play out because UW didn't play UCLA this year, and a lot of this depends on flow of the game, who scores early, etc. 3) Will the opposing DC be able to frustrate Ewers or Penix? Each QB has enough weapons that if you give them time and clear pictures, they will pick you apart. 4) How improved is Texas run blocking, actually? If the OL has turned a corner and can open holes, this is going to be big. If they revert to the mean, it's a lot tougher for ewers. Of course the game comes down to execution, and what we will all see is the great moments of execution and/or failure of execution. But what makes this matchup interesting to me is - the gameplan and question marks are going to make it somewhere between really easy to execute or hard for the teams to execute. I think Scott and CFBnerds are guessing that the athleticism of Texas is just going to make it hard for UW to execute. I think that is probably true, but UW's staff is excellent. And it's just a matter of how much they can neutralize Texas' advantages. Plus, the scary thing about UW is even if you play them right, they can still make explosive plays, because their QB and skill players execute at such a high level. *used to post on Barkingcarnival as Longhornscott https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2012/10/12/3492630/longhornscott-west-virginia-video-breakdown
  12. Here is some well thought out analysis of UW from a duck fan, before and after the P12 CG: https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2023/12/1/23983739/duck-tape-film-analysis-update-of-washington-2023 https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2023/12/5/23989039/duck-tape-film-review-of-oregon-vs-washington-2023-pac-12-championship?_gl=1*1kyb3rt* It's hard to make sense of UW this year because their performance fell off against subaverage teams in the middle of the season. This guy thinks it may be due to a few injuries (likely including an undisclosed injury to Penix), and he talks about how UW leaned on the run during that middle stretch. Kinda crazy bc it's not clear what Husky team is gonna show up on Monday. But it may be something closer to early season/P12CG UW.
  13. Will be interesting to see how the reverse plays out when Texas is on defense. From the Horns247 podcast today. Some dude on there has a pff subscription and pulled these stats. Penix WHEN BLITZED 169 dropbacks 59% 13TD 4 INT WHEN PRESSURED WITH 3/4 MAN RUSH 121 dropbacks; 43% 4 TD 3 INT Apparently the guards and left tackle allow the most pressure (reminder, Penix is left handed). I assume WA has plans to move the pocket, and Texas is looking at Penix stats and WA plays when they do that.
  14. I dunno about injuries and opt-outs on AZ's side, but if I was a UW fan, I would be a little concerned about that AZ bowl game. Arizona won (and it was glorious) but they got worked on the ground. OU (sucks) looked considerably more physical and dynamic than AZ to me. After OU took the lead, Arizona had a stretch of consecutive drives of -12 yards 22 yards 0 yards 7 yards -9 yards (including sacks) AZ rushed for 29 yards on 26 carries, while allowing OU to rush for 201 on 34. (AZ and WA each ran for 111 on each other, on 26 and 31 rushes) I don't think there is a transitive property, and UW at full health will presumably be better on defense on 1/1 than they were in the UW/AZ game earlier in the season, but to me, it looked like there was an athleticism gap between OU and AZ that didn't show up in the UW/AZ game. And what you could see on the TV showed up in the stats. If this shows up in the sugar bowl, I think it will be in the run game and short passing game. it may allow Texas more flexibility in play calling and force UW to execute at an even higher level on deeper passes (which, unfortunately, they are capable of). but idk.
  15. Yes, if you watch UW / Washington State, UW looks very beatable, just eyeball test. I couldn't tell you exactly why the offense struggled in that game. And it's not that Texas' offense did poorly against tech or Iowa State, just that they didn't do as well as they did against Alabama or Okie St. I'm just curious if there is a good reason why. My own recollection is that Texas was just uneven against Tech and Iowa State - the offense was out of sorts for a few drives (roughly first half against Iowa State) but performed very well the rest of the game (roughly the second half against Iowa State). So it's not so much that Texas was better against Oklahoma State, just that they performed well for four quarters against OK state and only for two against Iowa State. Maybe it was just bad luck, bad initial gameplan, defense brought surprises that Texas staff wasn't expecting and had to adjust to, etc. That's one answer. Another possible answer is - yes, Texas offense was better against OK State and Bama, but it was more marginal than those stats (which overvalue field position) suggest. You're overthinking this, it's 18-20 year old kids, etc. I'm just curious if anyone sees other answers that I don't see. Like, possibly: Quinn was healthiest against Bama and OK State, and (a) in the middle games, he was hesitant because he was worried about being hit, and it showed in his indecisiveness, which killed several plays with open receivers or (b) his arm status showed in the middle games--he couldn't hit the deep ball, he couldn't hit the out, etc., so the staff neutered the offense for him (I'm just making this up) Tech and Iowa State used xyz strategy, which Texas struggles with due to abc, and UW is definitely going to deploy that strategy - don't expect OK state or Alabama results unless UW commits coaching malpractice. Just curious. Just seeing if anyone saw something I missed. I think at the end of the day, if the offense shows up against UW like it did against OK state and Bama, the maths get hard for UW. If the offense plays well in spots but has dry spells, the door is potentially left open for the huskies. Just curious if there is something to this pattern of offensive output I'm not seeing.
  16. So here's the data - I looked at opposing offenses and defenses ranked in the top 50 and then took out the rivalry games (oh, and I took out Texas' performance against K-State's defense, because Ewers was injured. looking at the data maybe I didn't take out Oregon State after all.) Quantifying the Defensive and Offensive Performance in Each Qualifying Game I got the data from UCFtoys.com. They break down each drive of every game and attribute a point value to the effort from the offense and defense and that drive. I think the theory goes like this. I think they show that, statistically, if an offense only has to drive 1 yard because the defense recovers a fumble on the opponent's 1 yard line, the average offense's expected point total for that drive is let's say 6.8 points (based on historical data). And if that same "average" offense has to drive 99 yards on the next drive, the expected point total for that second drive is let's say .35 points (I just made up those numbers). So if the defense gives the offense the ball on the 1, the defense should get some credit for the TD scored by the offense. And if the offense turns the ball over on their own 10, they should get some of the negative points when the opposing offense scores on the defense. So the people who made up the formulas looked at all this junk with math and stuff and for each drive they try to assign value to the offense and defense based on which side of the ball is doing its job. If you go 3 and out, the site counts -2 points to your offense and +2 to the opposing defense, etc. (By advancing field position, you are reducing the expected points of the opponent, and by not doing so, you are effectively giving the opponent more expected points). If an offense drives 75 yards and scores it gets ~ 5 points. etc. The side then tracks how the offense and defense did over the course of the game. To give an unusual example we can all understand, even though Iowa lost 0-26 to Michigan, the site tracks that game as being -32 points iowa offense, +13 points iowa defense. The site ignores garbage time drives and takes that total point value contributed by offense and defense over the course of the game and divides it by the number of non-garbage-time drives. You end up with an offensive point value per drive and defensive point value per drive for each game. (if this doesn't make 100% sense, that's my bad, it's late and i'm tired). Again, you don't have to agree or disagree with exactly how the site calculates the values, but it's an interesting way of tracking how offenses and defenses do against their competition over the course of the season. And it captures something like the Iowa defense did a pretty decent job against Michigan. Again, I'm not vouching for these exact numbers, I'm only using the data to see if there are any trends. So, what is the data? I wouldn't get hung up on the exact data, except as it may reveal trends. But here it is. I took the value the calculated per drive from each game and multiplied it by 10 to get a hypothetical 10 drive performance against the opposing offense or defense. UW Offense - value generated over 10 drives UW Defense - value generated over 10 drives How do I interpret this Data? If your offense goes 3 and out, it loses something like 2 points, according to their calculations (because, by giving the opposing offense a shorter field on their next possession, your offense is increasing the other team's expected point total on their next drive by 2 points [i guess that's not exactly true but that's a quick and easy way to think about it). If, on the other hand, the offense drives 75 yards and scores, it gets 5 points. In the games against Oregon, Utah, and Oregon State, UW's offense averaged over 1 point per drive. So, over 10 drives against a 15-40th ranked defense, you can expect the UW offense to generate about 10/11 points vs the opposing defense. This doesn't mean UW wins. If the UW defense gave up 13 "points" over their 10 drives, UW would lose. (The site also attributes points to special teams, but I'm ignoring them here). In fact the UW defense was only helping the offense against opposing offenses outside the top 15. Against a top 15 offense, you should expect the UW defense to lose ground each drive (against a top offense, the UW defense gives up long drives more than they cause 3 and outs, etc). Another way to look at it: If (oversimplifying) USC had Oregon State's defense, you would expect USC to win, assuming special teams broke even. But you can see that, even though there are some minor outliers, there is a reasonable trend to the data. And that's probably still the case even, I suppose, if you personally would calculate the values differently. But i'm not a data scientist or even a numbers person. What about Texas? Texas Defense Texas Offense So, you can see that everything basically makes reasonably good sense based on what you would expect from the strength ratings, except for the performance of the Texas Offense against top 50(ish) defenses. The site shows Texas doing much better against Bama And OK state than against Tech and Iowa State (and I think that's consistent with the "eyeball test" - Texas offense ghosted almost the first half of Iowa State, scoring 6 points in the half, and against Tech, Texas was 3-11 on third down, scoring 23 in the first half despite being given 4 short fields by the defense). We can argue about how much better or worse Texas was in these four games. But more curious on if there was anything that you would try to do if you were Washington to try to get a result closer to Tech/Iowa State.
  17. I'm working on something. Here's the punchline, I think. I looked at the performance of the offense and defense for UW and Texas this season, EXCLUDING Games where the opposing offense or defense is outside the top 50 (because I don't care how the teams perform against bad teams - though I snuck in Okie State's 51 ranked defense) Rivalry games (OU and Wash State) Oregon State (weather impacted game with high winds, iirc) I was just looking for trends. If you apply those restrictions, you get about 5 "qualifying" games for each offense and defense (top 50 opposition offense or defense, not including each school's #1 rivalry game and Oregon State). If you look at those "qualifying" games, the Texas Defense, UW Defense, and UW offense performed pretty consistently over the course of the season. You can see a pretty reasonable trend - in general, each unit was less successful against better competition and more successful against easier opposition. The Texas offense, however, was not consistent. There were two versions of the Texas Offense. The version of the Texas offense that took the field against Bama and Okie State (defenses #8 and #51) was markedly better than the version that came out against Tech and Iowa State (defenses #22 and #41). (using F+ rankings, which combine FEI ratings and SP+ ratings). I'll show my work in the next post, but any theories as to why Texas offense did better against Bama and Okie State than it did against Tech and Iowa State? If so, how does this relate to upcoming game against UW?
  18. at least through week 10 (only stats I'm aware of) Penix (23.9%) faced the same percentage of pressures as Ewers (23.2%) Penix just got sacked 1.8% of the time; Ewers 6.7%. Penix is just better at getting rid of the ball, imo. (which is to be expected, given his seniority). https://www.cfb-graphs.com/qb_table
  19. i watched the USC game live, but I don't remember specifics. I just checked the box score and Austin Jones of USC went 11 for 127 with a long of 31(!) Maybe that was when UW was hurting at safety and NT.
  20. Obvious counterpoint would be USC, but USC put up 42. Oregon obviously has a potent offense this year; I just think they got outschemed/coached by UW.
  21. nice. good analysis; thanks. looks like they are 68th in rush defense. https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-rush-attempt Can't recall watching a game where the other team wasn't playing from behind and tried to run on UW/play balanced.
  22. UW is 2nd in the country in avoiding sacks. https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/qb-sacked-pct It's very possible that they are going to have issues with their center bc he hasn't had to block anyone like our interior D line all season, but UW are good at avoiding sacks and a lot of that is (a) they are good at shuffling players presnap to suss out your call and (b) Penix is a 19th year senior and is good at getting rid of the ball when you blitz him. But yeah if we are racing past their interior line all game, it's going to be a long night for Penix. That would be great, but I have no reason to believe we are going to get more sacks against the 2nd best team at avoiding sacks than we have the rest of the season. Having said that, I think later in the game, the texas depth on DL might be an issue for UW. I hope PK has a layered plan that allows for more aggression/press later in the game. Pressures will be more interesting to watch, imo. idk if there is a good set of stats on pressures allowed. Penix will definitely panic and toss a couple errant throws per game if you can disguise your coverage (make him make a second read post-snap), assuming you are getting decent pressure. You do need to get good pressure + disguise because the UW offense presents problems all over the field and Penix is good at checking down. I assume the UW staff is looking at moving the pocket to minimize pressure and the Texas staff is looking at which way they want to try to move him. More than one way to skin the cat Also, if you are curious to watch the games (on youtube) Arizona and Utah both played UW reasonably well this season - Utah brought a lot more pressure. AZ mostly brought 3/4 pass rushers. Both can work. The coaching staffs see the same things we do I think it's going to be a huge chessmatch. I suspect both their OC and our DC are going to try to protect their relative weaknesses (interior OL and safeties). And UW is going to get their 25-35 unless one of the playcallers makes a big mistake in the chessmatch. UW has faced good defenses and we have faced good offenses. The more interesting matchup imo is Texas offense vs UW defense.
  23. Any thoughts on Texas running the ball on UW? Has Texas' run blocking gotten better coordinated lately? Or has success/failure been tied to matchup or something else?
  24. fair enough re caution. And my view is more like - if there is an expectation among some UW fans that, against this end-of-season UW defense, even if everyone at Texas is healthy and Ewers has a good game, UW is going to hold Texas to 28-32 points because the UW defense is suddenly so good with everyone back imo, that expectation is probably too optimistic. But that doesn't mean that Texas easily goes for 42 if Ewers has a good game. Texas' advantage on offense isn't ginormous, imo. Plus, even if Ewers has a good game start to finish, I think UW is really well coached and their staff will do their best to shore up their weaknesses and attack ours. But if a UW fan is thinking their defense is going to hold Texas to 27 (in a game where Ewers plays reasonably well and Texas gets a decent number of drives), their baseline is different from mine. Texas scoring below 27, in my mind means some combination of (a) one or more of the key Texas players had a bad game (big drops, bad reads, fumbles), (b) low scoring game due to pace, or (c) bad luck somewhere, Texas comes in overconfident, or something like that. But yeah, UW defense is still very good and Texas has issues in red zone so 42+ is not the base case and Texas could definitely score 27 or less if key players have a bad game or the ball bounces the wrong way at key moments. It's just that Texas matches up better here than some of the UW fans think, imo. And in any event, Texas still has to worry about the UW offense. Even if the Texas offense has a pretty decent game, they could get outscored. My oversimplified view of the game is - assuming everyone is healthy, Texas O is a bit better than UW D. (matchup issues aside) It's 15th OFEI Texas vs 27th DFEI UW. But those stats include games where Ewers was injured and UW had key injuries on defense. When you "adjust" for both teams being healthy, you prolly get a slightly better adjustment for Texas. And the matchup issues break more Texas' way than UW's. So I think there's more margin for error on the Texas side. it's not a huge mismatch, but Texas' staff and players have a decent starting advantage. IMO, the big risk for Texas, based on past games, is that Ewers has a slow start. Even assuming Ewers has a decent game start to finish, this is not a massive difference; it's the difference between averaging 30 or 34.5 if you play the game 1,000 times, imo. And if Ewers has a bad game, it could be 26 or less. *knock on wood* But there is just a lot for UW's personnel to defend, and I could see things like key plays coming from Ewers' legs or Helm, because there is so much for UW's DC to account for. Texas D (7th ranked DFEI) is about as good as UW O (6th ranked OFEI), (matchup issues aside) when UW has the ball, Texas has an advantage at the line, UW has an advantage in the secondary. But no one really knows how those advantages are going to play out and how big the advantage will end up being. Part of me thinks that both coaches will gameplan to protect where they are at a disadvantage, and the game will come down to something like Texas' LB play. Texas LB could make some great plays, they could come up with key stops in the flat, they could turn the ball over, their athleticism could end drives when other lesser teams wouldn't. Or they could get burned on long, deep crossing routes. Or both. But the advantages we see didn't go unnoticed by the coaching staffs. It's just a matter of how they gameplan and react/adjust to each other's gameplan, imo. And frankly, with all apologies to Blake Gideon, I think UW's offensive staff prolly has the edge here, though hopefully not as a big of an edge as they had against Oregon. If you wanna be optimistic, as announcers like to say, the Texas DBs might get sick of hearing about how they are gonna get burned by Odunze -- and they could actually do something about it. They can spend extra time in the film room, they can be extra motivated and locked in during the game. On the other hand, there's not a whole lot the UW center can do between now and 1/1. Lol.
  25. my pleasure. strongly recommend you don't place any bets on my analysis, but hey, if we are going to spin our wheels for no reason for the next 11/12 days, we might as well be in a cautiously optimistic mood while we do it, right?
×
×
  • Create New...