The Blade has the story of a local NWO player coming to BG to play football. His name is T.J. Fatinikun and he is from Perrysburg.
He had a huge sophomore season, but was injured during his senior year. He's fast (4.6) but small. We'll look to bulk him up, I would assume.
From reading his comments, he wants to play really badly and I like that.
Some other commits, courtesy AZZ.com
Austin Collier, QB
Alex Bayer, TE
Ricky Steele, DB
Paul Swan, OLB
Chris Jones, DT
Ryan's back with his final cross-examination on his Blade Blog, which you can read here.
A few comments. I haven't predicted game by game yet, but I think we could easily lose all four of our non-conference games. I think three are winnable, but four are losable.
I looked it up, and over the last eight years, Boise is 50-2 at home. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I just don't see us winning that game.
Pitt is a good team in a bigger conference, but we have won tougher OOC games than this. On the other hand, we're on the road and they're supposedly improved.
Minnesota is also improved and is likely to be looking for revenge after last season. Tim Brewster is probably not a DI coach. Anyway, its at home, but not a gimmee.
Wyoming--I guess they are decent this year. They are hot and cold. This is a good opponent for us, but its on the road a long way from home. We could win but it will be tough.
Ryan is right--the schedule is very much in our favor. But, it may require a road win against UT, something that has been hard to come by. Falcon fans believe we have the talent to win the MAC. That our really good teams didn't win earlier in the Brandon/Meyer era is a tragedy and is creating the urgency behind winning this year. And, unlike the last two years, this is a senior-laden team which could have a tougher time next year.
Ryan has us winning at the Glass Bowl! And, Toledo as the rising team in the MAC. He's got some confidence.
I have to think some more. I'm worried that the summer doldrums and the GMAC thing are tainting my view. But, as always, I will lay it all on the line before the first kickoff.
The Mid-American conference has decided to update its look. Branding is everything for your basic mid-major conference. Our other logo was a little worn out. The new logos can be found here.
Design is a tough thing to judge. The reaction on AZZ.com was pretty negative out of the box, but I don't mind them. I like the 1946 part, emphasizing longevity, and I kind of like the "retro" shield look. I think it has a classy look. Most people would over do something like this, with too many baubles.
I'm for it.
I have often rambled about how I think 3rd down is the most important part of football, and, at one times, I have rambled even less coherently about the interest I have in statistical analysis.
Of course, the first down is the currency of football. It keeps drives alive, defenses on the bench, helps field position, and creates points. You make up long, game-winning drives with long strings of first down.
Well, one ramble ran into each other when I was randomly perusing some game notes from last season, and saw that the Falcons actually had some unpublished 3rd down data buried in these little reports.
I'm looking now at the data from the Tulsa game notes, which includes the whole season except that game. (Its page 55 of this document, if you want to see).
It details how the Falcons did on 3rd down, on offense and defense, depending on how many yards there were to go.
Control yourself, please.
No, actually, something really amazing is buried in here. Let's look.
First, let's remember that we were 8-4 at the point and had very good, though not great offensive numbers. The first thing I looked at helped bear that out.
We made 30% of our conversions on 3-10 or more. I don't have data on other teams, but our opponents only made 15.6% from that distance. And, 30% is about what Temple did on ALL its 3rd downs. And it seems remarkable by intuition.
Twenty times we converted from more than 10 yards--that's right on the ass of being twice a game. And, we were 43.5% from 7-9 yards to go. That would be third in the MAC on its own. 30 times we faced 3-7+ and converted.
You might also know that we didn't exactly light the world on fire on 3rd down, (4th in the MAC in all games), and if you know anything about the law of averages, you are saying "hey, were's the bad part that balances this out."
The answer is that we converted only about 61% of our chances fom 1-3 yards, a testament to an anemic running game. (I perceive that we have struggled with these short yardage situations since we put the spread in, but I don't have data to support it). By comparison, our opponents converted 74% from 1-3 yards on 3rd down.
The chart below gives us a look at the data:
You don't need too much analytical ability to draw the following conclusions:
1. We could be a real juggernaut if we were better in short yardage.
2. We were way better than most from longer distances.
3. We didn't experience as much fall off from 4-6 to 7-9 as you would expect.
So, that's one thing. Simply put, our team converted well at long distances but less well from what should be gimee territory.
Then, something leaped out at me. Our distribution is completely out of whack. Our our third down attempts, 66, or NEARLY 40% were from more than 10 yards. Are you kidding me? I would guess that if I told you that there was a team that ran 40% of its third down plays from beyond 10 yards and asked you to guess that team's record, you'd go a while before you hit 8-4.
Our opponents, on almost the same total number of third down plays, had only 32 attempts from beyond 10 yards. The converse is also true. We had only 36 attempts from 1-3 yards. Yes, that's right, we had darn close to double the 3rd down attempts from 10+ yards to go than we did 1-3 yards.
The only conclusion I can draw is that we performed poorly on first and second down, something that is pretty obvious. I lay that at the feet of our less than stellar running game, but it has to include some incomplete passes too, especially because it appeared to continue even when the running game stabilized late in the season.
I don't have data, but it seems to me that in the early days of the spread, we were 3 and short bunches of times. We were a ball control machine, and very effective setting up those makeable third downs.
Now, where is this all heading. There are, in fact, two possible conclusions from the data, one optimistic, and one a little chilling.
ESPN has this little thing up called "The Face of the Program," where fans vote on the single guy who most represents their favorite football program.
The Falcon Choices, as seen here are:
Urban Meyer
Josh Harris
Doyt Perry
In a statement about the type of people who vote on these things, at press time, Urban Meyer is winning.
Yes, really.
Urban Meyer will always a role in our program, both because we had him first, and because he jump-started a moribund program. But, come on.
Doyt Perry coached the Falcons for 10 years. During that time, we won 85.5% of our games. Meyer's 74.9% is good, but pales in comparison, and was not carried out over 10 years of continual excellence. Perry also won MAC Championships and once took a team to an undefeated season and small college national title.
I already voted, but there's no doubt in my mind. Doyt Perry is the face of our program. I mean, shoot, Rocket fans know its Chuck Ealey, for heaven's sake.
You can see what Ryan has to say on his bladeblog about the Falcon defense.
First, you'll note that I carried on when I commented on his offensive questions that you couldn't tell much from highlights....in fact, I said this....
Say the words to yourself slowly...highlight reel.
I understand that everyone looks good in highlights, but Morgan showed a combination of size and agility that I didn’t see from every other DB recruit.Anyway, other comments on what is a good post:
Posts
All Comments
