THIS is what you can do with a highly efficient QB!

Four games into the season. Baylor is 4-0. The FEWEST points they have scored in a game is 69!



Their QB's PER for the season is 229.60.



He's averaging 14.7 yards per attempt and 20.1 per completion.



When you throw the ball efficiently, you score a TON of points and win. It's pretty simple.



http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/480746/bryce-petty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpiffCoug wrote:



When you throw the ball efficiently, you score a TON of points and win. It's pretty simple.



http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/480746/bryce-petty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When you throw the ball ?????( 17-25 347 yards) How about the 468 yards rushing on 62 carries. Thats 7.2 yards per carry. When your that efficient rushing there is no reason to pass. Baylor and Oregon are good models for the cougs to look at. They run to set up the easy passes.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=332780239

Baylor with 864 yards AND they had 100 yards in penalties.. That's video game numbers

Baylor's first three games were pansies. WVU is way down this year. Still those are prodigious numbers.

Pansies or not, no-one has ever scored like this. They're putting up amazing numbers.



Big rushing numbers doesn't lead to big points with the same correlation as big passing efficiency numbers do.

Dont forget the additional variable of a coach who doesn't put his foot on the brake.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Dont forget the additional variable of a coach who doesn't put his foot on the brake.

What's that? Aren't you supposed to shut down your offense once you're up 20 points? I thought you should bring in the backups so they can just run the ball up the middle with no attempt made at running your offense. Isn't the purpose of a blow out to get your backups in to kill off the game as quickly as possible? That'd just be weird if you let your backups run the offense they actually practice during the week.

stgeorgefan wrote:

When you throw the ball efficiently, you score a TON of points and win. It's pretty simple.



http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/480746/bryce-petty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When you throw the ball ?????( 17-25 347 yards) How about the 468 yards rushing on 62 carries. Thats 7.2 yards per carry. When your that efficient rushing there is no reason to pass. Baylor and Oregon are good models for the cougs to look at. They run to set up the easy passes.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=332780239

It's still about throwing.



5 of the top 10 PER offenses are also in the top 10 of scoring.



Only 2 of the top 10 rushing offenses are in the top 10 of scoring - and those two also happen to be in the top 10 of PER.



8 of the top PER offenses score more than the top 10 rushing teams (other than Baylor & Oregon which top 10 in both).



The top 10 in PER are combined 46-4 (.920). The top 10 in rushing are a combined 34-14 (.708).



The top 10 in PER average 48.9 points per game. The top 10 in rushing average 41.5 points per game.



It is ALWAYS better to throw than run the ball efficiently.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Dont forget the additional variable of a coach who doesn't put his foot on the brake.

What's that? Aren't you supposed to shut down your offense once you're up 20 points? I thought you should bring in the backups so they can just run the ball up the middle with no attempt made at running your offense. Isn't the purpose of a blow out to get your backups in to kill off the game as quickly as possible? That'd just be weird if you let your backups run the offense they actually practice during the week.

Heaven forbid your backups actually get any real game experience! :whistle:

runbyu1 wrote:

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Dont forget the additional variable of a coach who doesn't put his foot on the brake.

What's that? Aren't you supposed to shut down your offense once you're up 20 points? I thought you should bring in the backups so they can just run the ball up the middle with no attempt made at running your offense. Isn't the purpose of a blow out to get your backups in to kill off the game as quickly as possible? That'd just be weird if you let your backups run the offense they actually practice during the week.

Heaven forbid your backups actually get any real game experience! :whistle:

Yeah. That's just crazy talk!

SpiffCoug wrote:
Four games into the season. Baylor is 4-0. The FEWEST points they have scored in a game is 69!



Their QB's PER for the season is 229.60.



He's averaging 14.7 yards per attempt and 20.1 per completion.



When you throw the ball efficiently, you score a TON of points and win. It's pretty simple.



http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/480746/bryce-petty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this is what you can do with a great Offensive line.

I agree to a point. You still need a QB who can throw the ball efficiently. A great OL does help that, but it still comes down to the QB.

Spiff, i have read your posts over the years with a passing interest, but I can't pretend to understand PER ... for those of us who are still mere pedestrians at this could you explain PER (which I seem to recall is a formula you developed over a period of time as compared to the traditional qb rating) and what the formula is?

Thanks

mtnradio wrote:
Spiff, i have read your posts over the years with a passing interest, but I can't pretend to understand PER ... for those of us who are still mere pedestrians at this could you explain PER (which I seem to recall is a formula you developed over a period of time as compared to the traditional qb rating) and what the formula is?

Thanks

PER seemed to appear without any explanation. You probably did define it but I don't remember.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I agree to a point. You still need a QB who can throw the ball efficiently. A great OL does help that, but it still comes down to the QB.

Chicken or egg right? You can't have an efficient QB without a good offensive line. When a defender is in the face of the QB the second the ball hits his hands, it blows up the play right then. BYU's offense hasn't been able to throw the ball efficiently this year because the offensive line simply hasn't been able to give Taysom time to make his reads and throw the ball. The offensive line blocked better against USU than it has all year and that is why he threw the ball better than he has all year. Baylor and Oregon have been developing their offense for years now and their offensive lines are playing well, that is why they are so efficient. BYU fans need to have some patience this year and allow this to develop. The offense this year will be as good as the oline can take them, so lets all hope they continue to improve.

PER aside, Hill still needs to up his completion rate a bit, even against tough competition. 50%ish is going to lead to a lot of stalled drives and bluezone field goals in the GFGH scheme and will leave a lot of points on the field. 60-65% should be the goal for every game.

nuk13 wrote:

Spiff, i have read your posts over the years with a passing interest, but I can't pretend to understand PER ... for those of us who are still mere pedestrians at this could you explain PER (which I seem to recall is a formula you developed over a period of time as compared to the traditional qb rating) and what the formula is?

Thanks

PER seemed to appear without any explanation. You probably did define it but I don't remember.

PER is short for Passer Efficiency Rating. It's not my formula. I became convinced of it's importance from an article written for Total Blue Sports back in the day. It was written by the guy who manages CougarStats.com. (I still have the article - the data is about 10 years old - but the theory is the same, and if you want to read it, send me a PM and I'll email it to you).



But suffice it to say that throwing the ball efficiently is the single best predictor of who will win a football game. No other single stat (other than the obvious points scored/allowed). I've got PER data going back to 1984. The team with the better PER in those 376 games has won 86.1% of the games. You won't find any other stat with a higher correlation to winning.



The formula for it is in my signature block.

SpiffCoug wrote:

mtnradio wrote:
Spiff, i have read your posts over the years with a passing interest, but I can't pretend to understand PER ... for those of us who are still mere pedestrians at this could you explain PER (which I seem to recall is a formula you developed over a period of time as compared to the traditional qb rating) and what the formula is?

Thanks

PER seemed to appear without any explanation. You probably did define it but I don't remember.

PER is short for Passer Efficiency Rating. It's not my formula. I became convinced of it's importance from an article written for Total Blue Sports back in the day. It was written by the guy who manages CougarStats.com. (I still have the article - the data is about 10 years old - but the theory is the same, and if you want to read it, send me a PM and I'll email it to you).



But suffice it to say that throwing the ball efficiently is the single best predictor of who will win a football game. No other single stat (other than the obvious points scored/allowed). I've got PER data going back to 1984. The team with the better PER in those 376 games has won 86.1% of the games. You won't find any other stat with a higher correlation to winning.



The formula for it is in my signature block.

I've always wondered about the coefficients in the formula. How were they arrived at? Are there tweaks to the coefficients that can be made that increase the correlation with victory? If only I had a giant, comprehensive football stats database going back 100 years, I could answer that question myself...

I have no idea, redneck.

SpiffCoug wrote:

mtnradio wrote:
Spiff, i have read your posts over the years with a passing interest, but I can't pretend to understand PER ... for those of us who are still mere pedestrians at this could you explain PER (which I seem to recall is a formula you developed over a period of time as compared to the traditional qb rating) and what the formula is?

Thanks

PER seemed to appear without any explanation. You probably did define it but I don't remember.

PER is short for Passer Efficiency Rating. It's not my formula. I became convinced of it's importance from an article written for Total Blue Sports back in the day. It was written by the guy who manages CougarStats.com. (I still have the article - the data is about 10 years old - but the theory is the same, and if you want to read it, send me a PM and I'll email it to you).



But suffice it to say that throwing the ball efficiently is the single best predictor of who will win a football game. No other single stat (other than the obvious points scored/allowed). I've got PER data going back to 1984. The team with the better PER in those 376 games has won 86.1% of the games. You won't find any other stat with a higher correlation to winning.



The formula for it is in my signature block.

Related, but I've read an article that the most significant estimator of winning a football game is not just PER, it's actually PER differential. The difference between your own PER and the opposition's PER takes into account of how well your offense and defense play.



It's also interesting to compare the difference between NCAA PER and NFL passer rating. Here are the top 5 PER seasons in BYU history (includes bowl games):



1. McMahon ('80) 175.7

2. Detmer ('89) 173.4

3. Beck ('06) 169.1

4. Sarkisian ('96) 168.0

5. Detmer ('91) 166.0



And Here are the top 5 passer rating seasons in BYU history (includes bowl games):



1. Beck ('06) 116.2

2. McMahon ('80) 116.1

3. Sarkisian ('96) 112.6

4. Nielsen ('77) 111.8

5. Young ('83) 111.7



NFL's passer rating has a higher penalty for throwing interceptions, which is why Beck ('06) and Sarkisian ('96) move up the list.