Recruiting Forum Football Talk XVIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#9,428
#9,428
Just a simple extrapolation (and yes, I know it's inherently flawed due to oversimplification), let's take Dobb's 13 sacks over six games and double it to reflect a 12-game regular season. That's 26 sacks. Add in an arbitrary few more due to projected bowl/CCG sacks given up.

Last year, the following teams took at least that many:
Clemson (10-3): 27 sacks allowed through 13 games.
South Carolina (they had a very good offense) (7-6): 27 through 13 games.
Boise State (12-2): 28 through 14 games.
Notre Dame (8-5): 28 through 13 games.
Ohio State (14-1): 28 through 15 games.
Kansas State (9-4): 30 through 13 games.
Oregon (13-2): 31 through 15 games.
West Virginia (7-6): 31 through 13 games.
Southern Cal (9-4): 32 through 13 games.
Arizona (10-4) and Arizona State (10-3) each allowed 40 sacks through 13 and 14 games respectively.

Point is, sacks don't tell the whole story on an OL:

2014 National Rakings: Total O/Rush O/Pass O/Scoring O
Clemson: 61/91/39/54
South Carolina: 35/67/21/42
Boise State: 14/31/24/9
Notre Dame: 34/70/19/40
Ohio State: 9/9/52/5
Kansas State: 50/104/17/23
Oregon: 3/22/10/4
West Virginia: 12/45/9/36
Southern Cal: 31/68/15/23
Arizona: 26/47/22/30
Arizona State: 36/58/33/16

Okay, I may have gotten carried away with the stats, and Clemson may be a bad example to include in the bunch, as they got a lot done by their defense last year. Kansas State was a very pass-oriented attack, as were Southern Cal, West Virginia, Notre Dame, and South Carolina.

I had a whole tin-foil case study regarding Butch's time under Rich Rod at WVU, and how Rich Rod's offense at Arizona was effective this year, and yadda yadda, but there are enough differences to throw things off and it's all blind obsession and very basic (flawed) statistical analysis anyway.

The whole purpose of this post is that even while allowing a lot of negative plays, an offense can be not only productive, but pretty darn potent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9,431
#9,431
I know, I know. Looking up the sack totals didn't scratch the itch, I had to delve into how their offenses looked. I'm not at work today, I have a lot of time on my hands right now.
 
#9,440
#9,440
chavisut said:
Boooo
Click to expand...

volatil said:
Boooooo
Click to expand...

e8904c8b71ef36f2ebdc8bf39fb933d93fcc7c0b262558cbf180221ff2742b80.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9,441
#9,441
volatil said:
I think that article is selling our OL short. How many of those sacks recorded last season came with Worley under center?

Dobbs changed the dynamics of our entire offense.
Click to expand...

It's lazy reporting IMO. The number of sacks given up AFTER Dobbs took over was night and day. These guys just look at the total sack count and start questioning the OL and ignore the fact they played much better with a different QB.
 
#9,444
#9,444
Tom Lugi on arky radio saying DL depth for arky and UT is very similar. "Bijon Jackson comes to mind for arky, and Derek Barnett for UT, very similar."

WTF
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,446
#9,446
Oklahoma WRs aren't impressive. Shepard is the only one who can shake free. But we were running them down when they were breaking free. I expect us to be more athletic than the Sooners almost everywhere. I think it will be Cal 2006 all over personally. They've got two returning starters on the O-line.
 
#9,448
#9,448
The Breakerboy said:
Oklahoma WRs aren't impressive. Shepard is the only one who can shake free. But we were running them down when they were breaking free. I expect us to be more athletic than the Sooners almost everywhere. I think it will be Cal 2006 all over personally. They've got two returning starters on the O-line.
Click to expand...

Come ready to eat, 9, 42, and 56.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top