|
Replies: 29
| visibility 4175
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Pitt offense last night
5
5
Oct 25, 2024, 4:25 PM
|
|
I see a lot of comments from folks that Pitt had "only" 217 yards of total offense. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but because of the (3) Pick 6s and the fact they just kept turning around and kicking the ball back to SYR, their offense did not get much time on the field.
Pitt Time of Possession: 18:48
Syracuse Time of Possession: 41:12
Essentially, Pitt's 217 yards all came in just over ONE quarter.
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
4
Oct 25, 2024, 4:32 PM
|
|
I responded in the other thread to your same comment.
On an even split, your time of possession is 30 minutes a game.
Pitt had it for 19...that's nearly 2/3 of a typical game, not 1/4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
3
Oct 25, 2024, 4:34 PM
|
|
I guess I am not seeing your point. It wasn't an even split.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
2
Oct 25, 2024, 4:37 PM
|
|
I'm saying 18:48 time of possession is not 1/4 of a typical game's TOP. Their 200 yards last night don't translate to 800 yards in a "regular" game.
They had the ball last night for 2/3 of expected TOP, not 1/4 of expected TOP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
3
Oct 25, 2024, 4:41 PM
|
|
I don't disagree with that, but their offense only had the ball roughly 30% of game time while SYR had it the other 70%. The main point is that their offensive stats were negatively impacted by their lack of possession and probably should not be summarily discounted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
2
Oct 25, 2024, 4:54 PM
|
|
I agree with that. Here is how their yards to TOP maps out for the season against FBS opponents:
vs Kent St: 20.6 yards/minute
@ Cincinnati: 21.1 ypm
vs West Virginia: 13.1 ypm
@ UNC: 17.7 ypm
vs Cal: 12.9 ypm
vs Syracuse: 11.5 ypm
So, even taking TOP into account, last night was their worst offensive output of the season. Now, it's safe to say that is also affected by game ###### since they did not need to be aggressive at all.
For comparison, Clemson's stats:
vs UGA: 6.9 ypm
vs App St: 14.5 ypm
vs NC St: 19.5 ypm
vs Stanford: 15.4 ypm
@ FSU: 16.0 ypm
@ Wake: 15.5 ypm
vs Virginia: 15.8 ypm
We've been very consistent for the past month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
1
Oct 25, 2024, 5:03 PM
|
|
It might be interesting to see what true TOP has been in those games. But either way, I think if you asked Dabo if he would be happy playing games where his offense only had the ball 18-19 minutes/game and his competition had it almost 42 min/game, I don't think he would be too happy 
There is a reason why coaches want to win TOP. Clearly, last nights game did not show TOP as an advantage but when teams are more competitively matched, it is a metric you want to win. No one wants a good offensive team to dominate TOP and have that many more chances to score.
You'd also be wearing out your D by forcing them to spend that much more time on the field which we have certainly experienced in the past.
Message was edited by: slwcu79®
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7142]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
4
Oct 25, 2024, 5:20 PM
|
|
Pitt held it:
21.30 vs Cal
28:52 vs WVU
27:34 vs Kent State
22:31 vs Youngstown State
23:35 vs Cinci
29:19 vs UNC
18:23 vs Cuse
So outside of last night they hold the ball for about 25.5min/game. Which means last night was about 72% of that. If you extrapolate that it would mean their 217yds is more like 301yds if they held the ball like they had in their first 6 games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
2
Oct 25, 2024, 5:22 PM
|
|
Good stuff, thanks for doing that legwork...
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7142]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
2
Oct 25, 2024, 5:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: Pitt offense last night ] |
|
Clemson TOP has been
27:18 vs Georgia
31:38 vs App State
26:49 vs NC State
26:13 vs Stanford
31:13 vs Florida State
36:29 vs Wake Forest
34:03 vs Virginia
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
1
Oct 25, 2024, 5:28 PM
|
|
How quickly one scores also has to be taken into account. If you score fast then your efficiency can offset a lack of TOP. I think this is the point clemsonbluejay was making...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
1
Oct 25, 2024, 5:31 PM
|
|
The point I am making is that Pitt’s offensive output last night was poor. Even taking into account the time of possession.
The insinuation that they had good stats because it was over 200 yards in 1/4 of a game is not statistically accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
1
Oct 25, 2024, 5:32 PM
|
|
I don't think I ever said they had good stats. I believe what I said was the stats they had were not as bad as some were making out.
"I see a lot of comments from folks that Pitt had "only" 217 yards of total offense."
My main point was that TOP had an impact on their total offense. Now, how much of an impact is certainly a worthy discussion as well.
Message was edited by: slwcu79®
Message was edited by: slwcu79®
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7928]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Isn't the more relevent point that...
2
Oct 25, 2024, 5:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: Pitt offense last night ] |
|
More than half of Pitt's points were due to the fact that the 'cuse QB sucks. If we can establish the run game and get some receivers open, we should be able to avoid the kind of outcome we saw last night. I'm not real worried about Pitt pushing us around, or "bullying" us as a previous poster implied. I also don't think playing Pitt in the 'burgh is going to be as easy as smoking Wake in Winston or pounding the wolfpups in Death Valley. We'll have to go up there pyssed off and ready to play from the first snap. "Championship phase" and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1548]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: Isn't the more relevent point that...
2
Oct 25, 2024, 5:21 PM
|
|
McCord certainly sucked last night, but I believe he's considered a pretty decent QB by most NFL evaluators. Last night was unbelievable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7928]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Yeah ok
1
Oct 25, 2024, 5:36 PM
|
|
If you really think that guy is going to play a down in the league...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13399
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Yeah ok
1
Oct 25, 2024, 5:39 PM
|
|
I think his point was the scouts seem to be inclined to believe this guy may have a chance to play based on what is currently being said and written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11432]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 13375
Joined: 2014
|
He had his first bad game of the year! Before this game, I think he had 2 INTs
Oct 26, 2024, 9:54 AM
[ in reply to Yeah ok ] |
|
all year, then 5 in this game...3 in the 1st quarter!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20641]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
2
Oct 25, 2024, 5:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: Pitt offense last night ] |
|
That’s 1/3. 20/60. I get it. Maths is hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
Oct 25, 2024, 7:03 PM
|
|
Not sure who you are responding to. Yes 20/60 is 2/3. But that’s not relevant. No team has 60 minutes TOP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
Oct 25, 2024, 7:03 PM
|
|
Typo. 1/3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [107]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Fuzzy math?
Oct 26, 2024, 1:41 PM
|
|
It’s 2/3 of 30. As in, half a game. An average TOP. Nobody has the ball for 60 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2617]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
Oct 26, 2024, 1:42 PM
|
|
Mine? Not off at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20641]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
2
Oct 25, 2024, 5:36 PM
|
|
Think of it as the Clemson vs FSU game. Pitt had the game in hand as Clemson did. No need to open the playbook when you’re up four scores. Pitt can score. Go look at their stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8583]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
Oct 25, 2024, 7:09 PM
|
|
Against P4 opponents, their offense averages 26 points per game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3369]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
3
Oct 25, 2024, 5:43 PM
|
|
The game last night was highly irregular in that it went off the rails so early and so badly for the cuse that most statistics related to the game should be seen for what they actually are. An outlier.
And if included / grouped with all other games skews the results in a way to make misinterpretation highly likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65079]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 18708
Joined: 2020
|
Re: Pitt offense last night
Oct 25, 2024, 10:18 PM
|
|
Bottom line, Pitts overrated. Slice it however you wish to make it look like we're playing a good team. We're not. Step up from our last 6 teams, yes. But we've essentially played 6 app st team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14636]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23705
Joined: 2004
|
We can account for that by looking at yards per play
Oct 26, 2024, 9:25 AM
|
|
Pitt gained 217 yards on 44 plays for a YPP avg of 4.9. They averaged 6.5 per pass and 3.3 per rush. That's not atrocious (like Cuse averaging 3.5 YPP in the same game), but it is quite bad. You generally aren't going to win many games averaging under 5 YPP, much less win them by 4 TDs. That was quite remarkable and quite unlikely.
Pitt probably won't beat Clemson averaging 4.9 YPP, and I would be very happy with our defensive performance if we were to hold them to similar numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 29
| visibility 4175
|
|
|
50
