The O line

RoadDawg55 said:

bananasnblondes said:

Yeah, Westover seems to be full on FB. I hope we blow someone out because I'd like to see Culp get some time at that position. He was a RB in high school.

There is a lot of bullshit spewed about Westover because he’s white and was a walk on. He was never healthy in high school and was overlooked. The article in the Seattle Times said he ran a 4.6 and his vert was like 38” which was top 5-10 on the team.

He’s a very good athlete, seems tough, and was a good find. That has nothing to do with Culp, but I thought Westover was decent last year and will end up a good player for us. Not a star, but hopefully a guy that doesn’t everything relatively well and plays his role well.

Oh I love Westover. I think he's a total stud. I'd just be interested to see how Culp would perform at that position since he clearly didn't cut it as a traditional TE.

CallMeBigErn said:

Woof said:

I counted Luciano as an additional TE, so that's the discrepancy on my end. I presumed he was technically eligible, but I don't claim to be an expert on all of this.

In the doldrums of summer, I actually tried to chart the entire 2019 offense to see if some of my memories were correct. Mercifully, the Husky Archive didn't have recordings of the Colorado or Stanford games, so I was forced to stop after 4-5 games.

It seems like this was appreciated, so I'll try to keep this up going forward. There are some good sites that compile the stats, but I'd never been able to find personnel groupings or specific plays/formations (wildcat and 5 wide in particular for the 2019 offense), so that's why I just started doing it myself. I'll have to check out this Sports Info Solutions site, but I'm assuming you have to pay for it and I'm a cheap bastard.

As far as I'm aware, Luciano did NOT false start on the goal line this game. Progress.

I believe he had the crucial hold toward the end of the game when we were in the red zone. It was the cal game 2.0 until the qb threw the ball off his offensive lineman back.

Woof said:

dnc said:

Woof said:

Play by down and distance:
1-3 yards to go - 87% run
3-7 yards to go - 75% run
8+ yards to go - 65% run

That's play by distance not down and distance. If you have it broken down by down and distance that would be chinteresting. Obviously first down is mostly 10 yards to go but second down 1-3 yards to go, 3-7 yards to go etc and same for third down would be chinteresting.

Also this is probably unrealistic but if you have numbers for averages either in CFB or P5 to have a baseline to compare against that would be quite helpful.

Not expecting you to, but ye have not because ye axe not, yada yada.

After being bullied by @dnc here is the revised down and distance.

1st down:
1-3 yards - 1 time (1st and goal), 100% rush
4-7 yards - 2 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 28 times, 75% rush

2nd down
1-3 yards - 5 times, 100% rush
4-7 yards - 8 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 9 times, 77% pass

3rd down
1-3 yards - 7 times, 72% rush
4-7 yards - 7 times, 72% pass
8+ yards - 4 times, 75% pass

I don't love the 2nd down numbers, but it's a small sample. I'm staying fairly optimistic for many of the reasons Gladstone pointed out earlier.

1st down:
1-3 yards - 1 time (1st and goal), 100% rush
4-7 yards - 2 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 28 times, 75% rush

2nd down
1-3 yards - 5 times, 100% rush
4-7 yards - 8 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 9 times, 77% pass

3rd down
1-3 yards - 7 times, 72% rush
4-7 yards - 7 times, 72% pass
8+ yards - 4 times, 75% pass

Based on these numbers, we ran the ball about ~75% on standard downs (First downs, second-and-7 or fewer, third-and-4 or fewer, and fourth-and-4 or fewer)... As of 2018, national average was around 60%.

On passing downs (Second-and-8 or more, third-and-5 or more, or fourth-and-5 or more) we threw ~75%... In 2018 the national average was around 66%.

Relatively orthodox, in terms of pass and run distribution, based on down-n-distance.