masthead.jpg

switchconcepts.com, U3dpdGNo-a25, DIRECT rubiconproject.com, 14766, RESELLER pubmatic.com, 30666, RESELLER, 5d62403b186f2ace appnexus.com, 1117, RESELLER thetradedesk.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER taboola.com, switchconceptopenrtb, RESELLER bidswitch.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER contextweb.com, 560031, RESELLER amazon-adsystem.com, 3160, RESELLER crimtan.com, switch, RESELLER quantcast.com, switchconcepts , RESELLER rhythmone.com, 1934627955, RESELLER ssphwy.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER emxdgt.com, 59, RESELLER appnexus.com, 1356, RESELLER sovrn.com, 96786, RESELLER, fafdf38b16bf6b2b indexexchange.com, 180008, RESELLER nativeads.com, 52853, RESELLER theagency.com, 1058, RESELLER google.com, pub-3515913239267445, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
October 25, 2007

As done previously after the game against Virginia, using the play-by-play found here I compiled our first down playcalling and stats into a more visual form to be analyzed. Obviously the win over Cincinnati was in large part due to the way the offense, especially the running game, played. It also looks as though a huge improvement on first downs helped lead to the win.

Against Virginia a few weeks ago, the following happened:

— 58 total yards on first down plays
— 23 first down plays
— 2.5 yard average gain on first down
— 3 three-and-outs and 6 total punts

Not very efficient at all, and it’s really no wonder why we lost the way we did. Saturday’s game against Cincinnati showed that an improvement in those stats increases our shot at winning. The full first-down chart follows…

Note: “—” denotes the drive continued.

Just the length of the chart tells enough. Against Virginia, we moved the ball so much less that the number of first downs was very low. We saw 36 this game compared to 23 in that game. Looking closer, the box in the top right is a good enough summary. We gained almost 200 total yards more on first downs from Virginia to Cinci. Also, and maybe most importantly, is the average gain: 6.78 compared to 2.5. It’s much easier to succeed on 2nd & 4 to go than 2nd & 8.

More words and graphs after the jump.


We had no three-and-out drives and punted four times — very likely attributed to the easy 2nd and 3rd down situations.

The running and passing plays break down like so:

Much more running than passing, but when running the ball it was 4 different players who got touches.

The end-around plays to Porter and Williams help keep the defense on their toes and keeps our offense from being too predictable. Nice job, Cavanaugh.
The passing broke down into three categories:

Notice the absence of getting sacked on first down. Helps stay away from needing 15 (or more) yards on 2nd down, makes things easier for Bostick, etc.

On ten different occasions, we didn’t even see a second down — either a long run or long pass of 10 or more yards gave us another 1st & 10.

Only 11 times did we see a second down with 7+ yards to go. The playbook opens up much more with 6 or less to go on 2nd down. Once again, not having to throw a predictable pass on 2nd/3rd and long makes things much easier.

While going through the play-by-play, it was easy to see we got plenty of help from penalties called against the Bearcats. Still, the offense looked better on the whole compared to the loss at Virginia. Hopefully more of the same against Louisville.





Powered by WordPress © PittBlather.com

Site Meter