So far so good. Told everyone Pat Laherty was probably the biggest hire they’ve made since Schiano. Hope this continues.
Rutgers: Least amount of sacks allowed in B1G
- Thread starter tico brown
- Start date
Pat Flaherty was the perfect hire and I’m sure Shawn O’Hara highly recommended him. It probably helped that Coach Schiano was a GA for him.
When I first read the thread title, I thought it was "Least Amount of SNACKS" and thought this was going to be about bringing in eggs and outside food.
This is a great reflection on the work of Flaherty, the recruiting and the development of the OL since Greg took over.
It's easy to see that the coaching and the players on OL have improved this year. However I absolutely hate stats like this, because they have the 2nd least pass attempts, so they should have one of the lowest amount of sacks.
Fine.
Sacks per pass attempt as %. Do you want a least squares regression analysis so that we can turn it around to make Rutgers look worse?
Rutgers 1/87= 1.1%
2/125=1.6%
Maryland 3/145= 2.1%
Ohio State 4/141=2.8%
Michigan 3/92=3.2%
Purdue 6/148=4.1%
IU 5/117= 4.3%
Minnesota 5/107=4.7%
Iowa 9/93 =9.7%
Thanks for doing this- when I saw such a positive mention of Rutgers- I was wondering which of our "Fans" would be the first to try to turn it negative. So- least sacks allowed and lowest sacks allowed per pass attempt.
Sort of puts it back into a positive.
I said it from the start- PF was a GREAT hire and amazing to get this level of coach to take an assistant role on a college team. Back when Flood had the OL- the most common thing you would hear in the NFL in regard to our guys- they were prepared, they knew technique, they didn't need to be re programmed to learn how to really play OL- they just had to work on size and strength.
PF will do exactly the same with these kids and if he stays a few years, you would see some of the more highly recruited OL come here.
What has also helped this stat- GW decision making, WR's who have learned routes and breaking off routes to help GW if in trouble and RB's that can pick up blitzers.
By the way I said nothing bad about RU, like I said it is easy to see they have improved.
I was hating on the stat and the rankings that use counting stats without context in any sport. Rate stats and advanced stats that do opponent correlation are so much better.
I was hating on the stat and the rankings that use counting stats without context in any sport. Rate stats and advanced stats that do opponent correlation are so much better.
Piss off man. The only non blue blood with less than 5 sacks is Maryland and Maryland threw 43 of those passes against Towson. Let’s see how many sacks Wagner collects Saturday, ok? And yes - Towson is very much comparable to Wagner. They just lost to Norfolk who Temple blew out of town 41-9 the prior week.
It’s still only 1 sack in 66 passes against Power conference opponents. And that’s not even counting the times Gavin scrambled to avoid the sack.
But but but his completion percentage is too low because he threw the ball out of bounds.
OL has been much improved and Gavin moves extremely well in the pocket. These are signs of a well coached team.
bottom line - its a good sign.
will it continue as the season progresses and we play additional tough teams? we shall see.
but the fact that we have given up 1 sack through 4 games (which included UM) AND have the lowest sack %
good signs. any attempt to discuss otherwise is silly. move on.
will it continue as the season progresses and we play additional tough teams? we shall see.
but the fact that we have given up 1 sack through 4 games (which included UM) AND have the lowest sack %
good signs. any attempt to discuss otherwise is silly. move on.
Domeone will turn this into a negative
I would've thought all CFB teams have roughly 105 sacks per team.
The sample sizes are around 100. Seems like a fine sample size to me.
Most?
That would be what Schiano would refer to as a "lower body injury" in press conferences.
Last year they gave up 8 against roughly similar competition in the first 4 games.
math not your strong suit huh. You know as the attempts go up that number will change right? There should be a minimum attempts clause otherwise it's moving chairs on the deck but YOU KNOW this
that said, he wasn't wrong and you just did what you claimed he was doing.
dumbass
Dear Lord....SMDH...the moment I saw the thread I said to myself "less than 3 posts before someone makes a negative comment." BINGO lol!
some of you haven't a fking clue what you are talking about. southjerseyru is not wrong at all but take the math out for a minute and address the scheme and game components alone would MANDATE we have a low sack number. Doesn't mean we are good or bad, relax
some of you need to grow up and your knee jerk reactions to defend all things RU at the expense of common sense and intelligent discussion is getting old
some of you need to grow up and your knee jerk reactions to defend all things RU at the expense of common sense and intelligent discussion is getting old
Pass blocking looks better but RU is also 124th for passing offense (147 yds/gm) so its not like RU is dropping back for long bombs. RU only averages 6.7 yds per completion. The longer passes are the test.
http://www.cfbstats.com/2023/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category02/sort01.html
http://www.cfbstats.com/2023/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category02/sort01.html
this certainly is on point.
and frankly I dont think SouthJerseyRU was really being as "negative" as some people seem to think. I think his "small sample size" comment was not necessarily "negative" as it was "incomplete" - for example as someone above stated " Last year they gave up 8 against roughly similar competition in the first 4 games" (and I'll add I dont think we were a pass happy offense last year so I think its a roughly apples-to-apples comparision).
8 INTS this time last year vs 1 INT this year 4 games in.
its a good sign.
will it continue as the tough games pile up? will it continue if we suffer injuries (particularly to the OL)? Will it continue when we find ourselves down and are FORCED to air it out more?
all remain to be seen. but, as of now, undoubtedly a good sign.
this whole thread evidences how little our fanbase knows about football
It's like being 9ft and bragging you can dunk in a game
It shows that we are a run first team that doesn't make mistakes when passing. AKA complimentary football. They're coached well and are doing what the coaches have wanted them to do.
As a loooong time Arny fan I've seen many years when Army's poor secondaries where often in top 5 for pass defense because the offense stayed on the field for 40 minutes - opponents offenses had no time to play lol.
Stats are often a Rubik's Cube where a red stat is great because a related yellow stat is weak
careful, you'll be accused of being a hater vs someone that actually has a clue
It's no different than last year and we've been running the ball very well.
Eye test doesn't support this as evidence against Mich last weekend.
I don't understand. It's not like there are a bunch of people on here citing these statistics as proof that Rutgers has the best OL in the Big10. maybe some said that but I didnt see it.
what I have seen is people encouraged that it's an early sign that the OL has improved significantly compared to last year. 8 vs 1 with a similar schedule and a similar run-heavy offense. its a sign of improvement. how exactly is stating that "knowing little about football"
Here's something else to consider:
Rutgers opponents: NW, Va Tech, Temple and Michigan (3 P5 Teams)
Penn State: WVU, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa (3 P5 teams)
Michigan: East Carolina, UNLV, Bowling Green, Rutgers (1 P5 Team)
Maryland: Towson, Charlotte, Virginia, MSU (2 P5 Teams)
Ohio State: Indiana, Youngstown, Western KY, Notre Dame (2 P5 Teams)
Minnesota: (Nebraska, EMU, UNC, NW) (3 P5 teams)
Only RU, Minnesota, and Penn State have played 3 P5 teams so far. Rutgers may have played the toughest defense of all, Michigan (maybe its PSU). But still. . . . can we stop picking nits and freaking celebrate?
The real test comes in Big Ten play. They've beaten bad teams much more easily than last year, which is a sign of improvement, but it might only mean they've improved enough that they can now easily beat bad teams--which would make them worthy of maybe a rank of 70 instead of 99. How they do against a lineup of mid-level P5/P2 teams remains to be seen.
Maybe you have lost your common sense. Put the stat total to the side. Are the balls coming out quicker ? Is Gavin avoiding the sacks better either by stepping up in the pocket or sliding left or right ? Has Gavin had more clean pockets to throw over compared to the last 8-9 years of Rutgers football ? That last one should tell you , if you were using your eyes, that the offensive line is doing a much better job than prior years. But that might be beyond your common sense. Stop posting like an *** all the time. It is exhausting !!!
For those accusing some of us of not knowing football because of our much lower number of passes and shorter passes.
You guys are the ones missing the real point. This is what "Real" coaches do- they create schemes for the talent they have. We often wonder how some much lower level teams can perform better against teams that blew us out- it is exactly this, they out coached us.
Did our OL magically become great- hell no, but they are playing mistake free and the coach knows their limitations and we are coaching to mitigate those weaknesses.
And the fact that it is 1 vs 8 against similar to last year when we were passing either, also shows the improvement.
One more thing for my untrained football and OL eye...They are just playing better. The naked eye and even casual fans can see that.
You guys are the ones missing the real point. This is what "Real" coaches do- they create schemes for the talent they have. We often wonder how some much lower level teams can perform better against teams that blew us out- it is exactly this, they out coached us.
Did our OL magically become great- hell no, but they are playing mistake free and the coach knows their limitations and we are coaching to mitigate those weaknesses.
And the fact that it is 1 vs 8 against similar to last year when we were passing either, also shows the improvement.
One more thing for my untrained football and OL eye...They are just playing better. The naked eye and even casual fans can see that.
A
anon_xekqhstck0ygt
Guest
the guy that insults people and calls them retarded is telling everyone to grow up...it's ironic and laughable, and exhausting yes.
So perhaps this OC is actually running an offense according to the players he has instead of those he wishes he had--although the reel of pass plays shows a lot more passes downfield than we've seen for a long time. I don't have BTN so I can't see but maybe playcalling is clearing the way for that. In any event, it's a desperately needed improvement. We'll see how far it goes.
I do think our OL is not quite as talented as many out there. Neither are our WR's (as groups) we have some very good individuals) - but you hit it- we finally have coaches that came make a plan around areas we may be a little weak.
You’re trying far too hard to be a contrarian
No one is jumping up and down exclaiming that we have a great OL or a dynamic offense
4 games in, with a similar schedule and a similar run-heavy offense, and both objective (8 INTS vs 1) and subjective (the eye test that everyone else sees) comparisons suggest good improvements
That’s all anyone is saying. There’s improvement.
Stop trying so hard. You look silly