TD Probabilities Based on Red Zone Starting position
- By lcctay
- The West Zone
- 4 Replies
I was trying to make the point that play calling being conservative leads to lower TD probabilities. I found an article that shows the data.
https://phdfootball.blogspot.com/2013/06/field-position-and-scoring.html
Focus on the blue curve:
0-5 yards: TD probability decreases from about 85% to about 63%
5-10 yards: 63% to 48%
10-15 yards: increases and plateaus around 53% (since you can get a first down in the 0-5 yard range)
15-20 yards: decreases again from 53% to 44%
So you really need to be more aggressive from 9-10 yards out and 15-20 yards out in play calling in my opinion.
In the FSU game, after re-watching the film, there are some examples of conservative play calls but also a few lower probabilities plays.
My takeaways are:
1) Add more Mafah runs off tackle instead of inside
2) Need a dimension of RB out in the flat for a reception (I would like to see Jay Haynes in this role), We seem to have plays for TE but not RB.
We did get very conservative on O in Q4 inside the RZ but had many drives stopped before Q4 due to poor execution.
So play calling grade I would rate a "B" if you throw out the Q4.
Login to view embedded media
https://phdfootball.blogspot.com/2013/06/field-position-and-scoring.html
Focus on the blue curve:
0-5 yards: TD probability decreases from about 85% to about 63%
5-10 yards: 63% to 48%
10-15 yards: increases and plateaus around 53% (since you can get a first down in the 0-5 yard range)
15-20 yards: decreases again from 53% to 44%
So you really need to be more aggressive from 9-10 yards out and 15-20 yards out in play calling in my opinion.
In the FSU game, after re-watching the film, there are some examples of conservative play calls but also a few lower probabilities plays.
My takeaways are:
1) Add more Mafah runs off tackle instead of inside
2) Need a dimension of RB out in the flat for a reception (I would like to see Jay Haynes in this role), We seem to have plays for TE but not RB.
We did get very conservative on O in Q4 inside the RZ but had many drives stopped before Q4 due to poor execution.
So play calling grade I would rate a "B" if you throw out the Q4.
Login to view embedded media
Gamecockscoop.com - Alabama: Final Preview, Best/Worst Case Scenario, Prediction
- By Cris_Ard
- The West Zone
- 7 Replies
From our South Carolina site here at Rivals.com:
clemson.rivals.com
Alabama: Final Preview, Best/Worst Case Scenario, Prediction
Final thoughts on the toughest spot of South Carolina's season.
T. Hunter wants $40 m. from Colorado.
- By wbcno4
- The West Zone
- 7 Replies
Travis Hunter Wants $40 Million From the Colorado Buffaloes - NewsBreak
Colorado Buffaloes star cornerback/wide receiver Travis Hunter is among the most likely No. 1 overall picks in the 2025 NFL Draft. Hunter, along with teammate and quarterback Shedeur Sanders, will need a lot if the Buffaloes and head coach Deion Sanders want to keep him around. Travis Hunter...
**New** (Paul) Friday Insider
- By Cris_Ard
- The West Zone
- 40 Replies
Friday Insider
Our Friday update on longtime Clemson 4-star target Jordan Young of Monroe, N.C. Also, we have some details on...
*** Projected BOX SCORE *** CLEMSON @ Wake Forest
- By brettricks
- The West Zone
- 13 Replies
These box scores are still going on pretty scant data points this early in the season - but here it is nonetheless... First results from last week vs FSU.
Without the two missed field goals we would have hit the CU score prediction - and outside of the point deficit we outperformed on first downs and yards gained, which gave our offense a slight IMPROVEMENT from expectations overall. In other words, we did better than we 'should have' based on previous performances (except in points).
Our defense took a much larger jump - outperforming expectations across the board. We need more of these out-performing results for our defense to statistically get to where we need it to be. Going into FSU our defense had a NEGATIVE 23% bonus - as you see below, we are now only NEGATIVE 6%. That's a big change, but not nearly where our historic Coach-V defenses were.
I know there was a lot of angst after the FSU game, but the stats show we are still going in the right direction.
This week:
Vegas predicts Wake will drop 21 points on us - but the computer says 29. Why does the computer think this way?
Wake has played 5 games but we are excluding the non-FBS results of NC A&T - so with the remaining 4 data points - the defenses of those four teams have allowed, on average, 22.66 points per game. Yet, Wake has scored an average of 27 points in those games against the 22.66 avg points allowed defenses - giving them a 19% bonus in the category.
Now Wake will face a CLEMSON defense which has allowed 23.2 points per game avg, which is slightly softer defense than they've faced on average in their other games where they've scored 27 points per game - so the computer looks at that and thinks they will score 28.3 on us, but gives them a bump up to 29 since playing at home gives them a slight bump in stats.
So here's what the "EXPECTATIONS" are based purely on stats performances. With that said, CLEMSON has been on a trend of out-performing expectations - and to be honest, you'd expect them to. Vegas clearly thinks our defense will outperform past performances as they have Wake scoring 21 points against their average of 27 vs FBS opponents.
If that ends up being the case then our defense should take another jump next week - which we really, really need if we want to compete in the playoffs.
IF Cade is ON this week, it's a huge opportunity for our receivers to stack up some yards against a horrible pass-defense which has yielded nearly 100 yards per game over opponent's passing averages.
GO TIGERS!
Without the two missed field goals we would have hit the CU score prediction - and outside of the point deficit we outperformed on first downs and yards gained, which gave our offense a slight IMPROVEMENT from expectations overall. In other words, we did better than we 'should have' based on previous performances (except in points).
Our defense took a much larger jump - outperforming expectations across the board. We need more of these out-performing results for our defense to statistically get to where we need it to be. Going into FSU our defense had a NEGATIVE 23% bonus - as you see below, we are now only NEGATIVE 6%. That's a big change, but not nearly where our historic Coach-V defenses were.
I know there was a lot of angst after the FSU game, but the stats show we are still going in the right direction.
This week:
Vegas predicts Wake will drop 21 points on us - but the computer says 29. Why does the computer think this way?
Wake has played 5 games but we are excluding the non-FBS results of NC A&T - so with the remaining 4 data points - the defenses of those four teams have allowed, on average, 22.66 points per game. Yet, Wake has scored an average of 27 points in those games against the 22.66 avg points allowed defenses - giving them a 19% bonus in the category.
Now Wake will face a CLEMSON defense which has allowed 23.2 points per game avg, which is slightly softer defense than they've faced on average in their other games where they've scored 27 points per game - so the computer looks at that and thinks they will score 28.3 on us, but gives them a bump up to 29 since playing at home gives them a slight bump in stats.
So here's what the "EXPECTATIONS" are based purely on stats performances. With that said, CLEMSON has been on a trend of out-performing expectations - and to be honest, you'd expect them to. Vegas clearly thinks our defense will outperform past performances as they have Wake scoring 21 points against their average of 27 vs FBS opponents.
If that ends up being the case then our defense should take another jump next week - which we really, really need if we want to compete in the playoffs.
IF Cade is ON this week, it's a huge opportunity for our receivers to stack up some yards against a horrible pass-defense which has yielded nearly 100 yards per game over opponent's passing averages.
GO TIGERS!
