The Josh Heupel offense took down 8 school records in Year 1

#5

supersmo18

#1 Orange-Lister
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
11,448
Likes
7,395
#5
Weren’t some of those previous records in years that we didn’t play 12 games?

I might be wrong - even if so, it’s still impressive in year 1 coming off the Pruitt disaster
The Roger Maris effect * ;)

But yeah I agree, It is impressive after the previous 3 abysmal years.
 
#9

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
30,928
Likes
20,248
#9
It is all super impressive, and looking at those stats alone, one would think we'd have won 10-11 games.

This defense we have HAS TO improve, dramatically.
Agreed. Hopefully we find immediate help in the portal. We lost the majority of our starting LB's from 2020 on what was a bad defense already, lost our most promising young DB (Lawrence), and our best pass rusher from that team. We've got to find more talent on that side of the ball, fast.
 
#14

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
30,928
Likes
20,248
#14
That's possible, but that 12th game has been around for a pretty good while now.
Plus many of our highest scoring, most prolific offenses in school history, may have played a 12th game anyway due to the SEC championship (I believe it was around prior to the 12th game being added)
 
#15

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
30,928
Likes
20,248
#15
Another key stat here is our yards per play. It's easy to brush some of these things off and try to say "they ran a lot of plays, of course they gained a lot of yards".

But our ypp (yards per play) was 6.49. To put that into perspective Alabama with multiple first round talents (LT, QB, WR) on offense, only averaged 6.54. Ole Miss averaged 6.29.
 
#16
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
15
Likes
19
#16
As noted in another thread points per possession is what matters. If I have 13 possessions and score 40 points it's not the same as doing so with 10 possessions.

Per game figures are meaningless.
 
#17

supersmo18

#1 Orange-Lister
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
11,448
Likes
7,395
#17
Help me with this. I’ve never thought about that. If a mobile Qb and non mobile QB throw the same number of passes, why do you believe the mobile qb will throw fewer interceptions
If he's able to get out of the pocket and can find a open trailing tight end or RB looking for dump off pass, or even a WR that has been lost by the secondary because of how long a play takes to develop, then the QB's completion percentages and interception changes dramatically increase and decrease, respectively, provided there's not a drop by the receiver. It doesn't always mean the play can go for big yards but it does puff up the stats a little bit. Also a mobile QB will scramble for more first downs and goal line scores, thus having lower attempts and in return, lower chance for INTs
 
Likes: Mathman
#18

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
30,928
Likes
20,248
#18
As noted in another thread points per possession is what matters. If I have 13 possessions and score 40 points it's not the same as doing so with 10 possessions.

Per game figures are meaningless.
If you're going to crap on the parade you at least have to be honest about our extremely impressive yards per play and interceptions numbers.

You can't claim "these don't matter because we ran more plays" if we also threw less interceptions and averaged 6.49 yards per play.
 
#19

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
30,928
Likes
20,248
#19
If he's able to get out of the pocket and can find a open trailing tight end or RB looking for dump off pass, or even a WR that has been lost by the secondary because of how long a play takes to develop, then the QB's completion percentages and interception changes dramatically increase and decrease, respectively, provided there's not a drop by the receiver. It doesn't always mean the play can go for big yards but it does puff up the stats a little bit. Also a mobile QB will scramble for more first downs and goal line scores, thus having lower attempts and in return, lower chance for INTs
I'd be interested to see someone like PFF do a study on this. There's a common view in coaching circles that zone coverage leads to more interceptions because everyone is looking at the QB. The better your QB can run, the more zone you will see.
 
#22

VOLINVONORE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
11,962
Likes
8,394
#22
Weren’t some of those previous records in years that we didn’t play 12 games?

I might be wrong - even if so, it’s still impressive in year 1 coming off the Pruitt disaster
Records are records and they are all time records. We have been playing 12 games for number of years and played 13 this year because of the bowl game. I still don't understand why some f our so-called fans always try to find something negative about everything that is posted. Speed records are still recorder when some goes faster than anyone else and I usually don't see someone saying "yea, but but the is the first time they are driving an electric powered vehicle".
 
#23

WoodsmanVol

It requires wisdom to understand wisdom
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
9,672
Likes
5,809
#23
Help me with this. I’ve never thought about that. If a mobile Qb and non mobile QB throw the same number of passes, why do you believe the mobile qb will throw fewer interceptions
Overlooked are important factors. While a mobile QB can be a plus, as proven during the Fran Tarkenton and Roger Staubach era, the supporting cast is just as vital. Give a decent or even adequate QB a good OL and some Jerry Rice, Cris Carter, Randy Moss, Lynn Swain type receivers, along with quality tight ends, and you get big time results. Whether mobile or not. It takes a team. The non-mobile Bart Starr never had the receivers non-mobile Johnny Unitas had, but he had a fine OL and decent receivers. So went an entire season with only three interceptions thrice, 1956, 1966, and again in 1971. Admittedly, his passing attempts were very low, except for 1966. Still, a good OL, quality WRs and TEs is what makes a QB a true success whether he's mobile or not.
 
#24

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
30,928
Likes
20,248
#24
Overlooked are important factors. While a mobile QB can be a plus, as proven during the Fran Tarkenton and Roger Staubach era, the supporting cast is just as vital. Give a decent or even adequate QB a good OL and some Jerry Rice, Cris Carter, Randy Moss, Lynn Swain type receivers, along with quality tight ends, and you get big time results. Whether mobile or not. It takes a team. The non-mobile Bart Starr never had the receivers non-mobile Johnny Unitas had, but he had a fine OL and decent receivers. So went an entire season with only three interceptions thrice, 1956, 1966, and again in 1971. Admittedly, his passing attempts were very low, except for 1966. Still, a good OL, quality WRs and TEs is what makes a QB a true success whether he's mobile or not.
I don't know if I agree with that. Obviously any QB is aided by elite talent around him. But QB talent seems to be the biggest driving factor in winning. Granted any one position is only so valuable, but QB appears to be far more valuable than.

The Vikings example you're giving was a team with a least 3 hall of famers on offense (McDaniel, Carter, Moss) and an elite center and RB. I believe Randall on defense is also a hall of famer from that team (if not he should be). Obviously that would make any QB look better than they are. But an elite QB is still more important than any one of those players alone.
 
#25

WoodsmanVol

It requires wisdom to understand wisdom
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
9,672
Likes
5,809
#25
I don't know if I agree with that. Obviously any QB is aided by elite talent around him. But QB talent seems to be the biggest driving factor in winning. Granted any one position is only so valuable, but QB appears to be far more valuable than.

The Vikings example you're giving was a team with a least 3 hall of famers on offense (McDaniel, Carter, Moss) and an elite center and RB. I believe Randall on defense is also a hall of famer from that team (if not he should be). Obviously that would make any QB look better than they are. But an elite QB is still more important than any one of those players alone.
Well, I didn't say an elite QB wasn't important. I said it takes a team. What good is a QB if there is no center, or receivers, or an OL guarding him? Hooker should have won the Florida game, but the receivers we fielded kept dropping balls. Even the magical Josh Dobbs had just enough of those elements to perform quite well despite the criticism heaped on him while he was here. An elite QB is fine. A mobile QB is fine. Still, it takes a team.
 
Last edited:

VN Store




Top