The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-27-2018 02:39 PM)GullLake Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:02 PM)Stampede your face!! Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 07:42 PM)WMUPorter Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:24 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 07:38 AM)WMUPorter Wrote:  How can you possibly know how good the Bronco defense will be in March, 6 months before the season begins?

Based on last years results and some pretty significant losses in terms of personnel & depth (Phillips, Turner, A. Brown, Spillane, Clark, Bailey, Boyd, Matich, etc.), what makes you think our defense will be good? I'm genuinely wondering.

We've got some great young talent, no question. But I'm not exactly expecting defense to be our strong suit in 2018.

All I'm saying is that you can't determine how good a defense will be on paper. The Bronco defense last season was supposed to be awesome with all they were returning from the season before that had a pretty good defense and they didn't perform very well at all, even before they started losing players to injury. Therefore, with all the talent they have, if they can stay relatively healthy, I truly believe that this defense may be better than many are giving them credit for.

They played pretty well against SC and MSU. If we had an offense at MSU, would have been a decently close game. Lewerki killed us running the ball.

Only lost by two scores, thanks to Phillips, so it already was a "decently close game." If WMU had an offense (including better play calling - RB's were wide open in the flat and MSU's outside LBs struggled to cover, and tackle in open space, all season) the Broncos would have been closer, or even won.

I agree Lewerki's running was the difference.

This was still a wet behind the ears QB in his second game of the season. He did well to manage the game but in no way was he creating plays with his arm in that game.

(03-23-2018 12:23 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:39 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  A lot of unknowns with our front seven, and even in our secondary to a degree. You guys are way more confident than me, that's for sure.

I am not confident. I said we should win, not that we will win. I, unfortunately, think Lester & Co will continue to follow the mainstream-conservative-old-school-coaches-handbook, which works if you have the old Washington Redskins Hogs making holes for John Riggins, but doesnt work in college. I may be very wrong though, and if they do learn from mistakes and change philosophy, we will be a very good team.

We did lose a lot of very good players, and frankly I think those losses are more significant than losing Davis and ZT the year before. We still have a ton of players who, by all estimations, are very talented. As always, I am excited for the season to start. Our schedule couldn't be better from a competitive standpoint.

What does that mean?

(03-27-2018 09:57 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 12:23 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:39 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  A lot of unknowns with our front seven, and even in our secondary to a degree. You guys are way more confident than me, that's for sure.

I am not confident. I said we should win, not that we will win. I, unfortunately, think Lester & Co will continue to follow the mainstream-conservative-old-school-coaches-handbook, which works if you have the old Washington Redskins Hogs making holes for John Riggins, but doesnt work in college. I may be very wrong though, and if they do learn from mistakes and change philosophy, we will be a very good team.

We did lose a lot of very good players, and frankly I think those losses are more significant than losing Davis and ZT the year before. We still have a ton of players who, by all estimations, are very talented. As always, I am excited for the season to start. Our schedule couldn't be better from a competitive standpoint.

What does that mean?

Means a lot of things which for years constituted "conventional wisdom" in football. If you watch a game where Matt millen is the commentator, it is usually what he suggests coaches should do. Things like, better punt the ball on 4th and 1/2 yard on the 50 yard line, and trust your D, or that teams need to "establish the run" as a prerequisite to being successful on offense, and before throwing the ball. These are the valued maxim's in football, but when actually applied make a team very predictable and easy to defend. Football fans for generations have been brainwashed to believe that first down is primarily for running the ball, because it is safe (also a misnomer) and sets things up for second and third down. But in reality, the goal in that way of thinking is to gain three or four yards, when really it is a down when the defenses are generally leaving themselves vulnerable for a pass play. While four yards may be "acceptable" on first down, 8-15 yards is better, and the goal is to move the ball and score. The strategy shouldn't be to make ten yards in three plays. It should be to make as many yards the easiest and most logical way, given the circumstances, be that in one down, two, three , or four. More importantly, the predictability of running on first down makes it less likely that you are going to be successful even at gaining three or four yards.

Too many average coaches get stuck in this old school way of thinking. The most successful coaches at any level are those who disregard conventional wisdom, and apply logic. Cybermetrics has grown in popularity, even in football, but I am not suggesting we strictly apply cybermetrics. Just that we abandon the old school football way of doing things.

(03-28-2018 05:24 AM)brovol Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:57 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 12:23 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:39 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  A lot of unknowns with our front seven, and even in our secondary to a degree. You guys are way more confident than me, that's for sure.

I am not confident. I said we should win, not that we will win. I, unfortunately, think Lester & Co will continue to follow the mainstream-conservative-old-school-coaches-handbook, which works if you have the old Washington Redskins Hogs making holes for John Riggins, but doesnt work in college. I may be very wrong though, and if they do learn from mistakes and change philosophy, we will be a very good team.

We did lose a lot of very good players, and frankly I think those losses are more significant than losing Davis and ZT the year before. We still have a ton of players who, by all estimations, are very talented. As always, I am excited for the season to start. Our schedule couldn't be better from a competitive standpoint.

What does that mean?

Means a lot of things which for years constituted "conventional wisdom" in football. If you watch a game where Matt millen is the commentator, it is usually what he suggests coaches should do. Things like, better punt the ball on 4th and 1/2 yard on the 50 yard line, and trust your D, or that teams need to "establish the run" as a prerequisite to being successful on offense, and before throwing the ball. These are the valued maxim's in football, but when actually applied make a team very predictable and easy to defend. Football fans for generations have been brainwashed to believe that first down is primarily for running the ball, because it is safe (also a misnomer) and sets things up for second and third down. But in reality, the goal in that way of thinking is to gain three or four yards, when really it is a down when the defenses are generally leaving themselves vulnerable for a pass play. While four yards may be "acceptable" on first down, 8-15 yards is better, and the goal is to move the ball and score. The strategy shouldn't be to make ten yards in three plays. It should be to make as many yards the easiest and most logical way, given the circumstances, be that in one down, two, three , or four. More importantly, the predictability of running on first down makes it less likely that you are going to be successful even at gaining three or four yards.

Too many average coaches get stuck in this old school way of thinking. The most successful coaches at any level are those who disregard conventional wisdom, and apply logic. Cybermetrics has grown in popularity, even in football, but I am not suggesting we strictly apply cybermetrics. Just that we abandon the old school football way of doing things.

Personally I thought Fleck's insistence on dumping Cubit's pass-happy offense and establishing the run on first down was one of his three key changes that made us so successful, the others being recruiting and a general can-do attitude. We lived off of play-action passing. There's nothing more pathetic than seeing the post-Barry Lions run play-action passes and see nobody on defense flinch as they deliver a Rock Bottom to Stoney Case.

RTB: Run The Ball!!!

Last year your offensive preference would have not been successful in most games, as we did not have the personnel to execute an effective intermediate passing game.

But I don't think you have to worry about Lester not liking to wing the ball moving forward. He has also said he is a huge numbers guy, too. I just don't want him to go all Mike Martz on us. With an aggressive defense it's good to have a ball-control offense that can free them up to wreak havoc.

Fleck did not run predictably on first down. His OC mixed it up and took advantage of the opportunity to throw on first. He had lots of success running the ball BECAUSE he didn't do so predictably. If you abandon the "run on first down" mandate the running game actually opens up in a huge way, because eventually the defenses back off loading the box, after getting burned with early down passes. Once that happens you can actually run on first, second or third downs with good success.

Lester and Co forced the run on early downs throughout the year. It does just the opposite of protecting a young QB; it puts him in third and long over and over. And it puts the RB's in tough spot, expecting them to run through cement walls.

Fleck had a great mix on first down. Lester not so much.

(03-28-2018 11:57 AM)brovol Wrote:  Fleck did not run predictably on first down. His OC mixed it up and took advantage of the opportunity to throw on first. He had lots of success running the ball BECAUSE he didn't do so predictably. If you abandon the "run on first down" mandate the running game actually opens up in a huge way, because eventually the defenses back off loading the box, after getting burned with early down passes. Once that happens you can actually run on first, second or third downs with good success.

Lester and Co forced the run on early downs throughout the year. It does just the opposite of protecting a young QB; it puts him in third and long over and over. And it puts the RB's in tough spot, expecting them to run through cement walls.

Fleck had a great mix on first down. Lester not so much.

I’m wondering if there are any statistics available on play choices on first and other downs? My recollection of Fleck is that he ran almost exclusively on first down. And of Lester’s first year that they threw quite a bit on first down. But my recollections mean nothing. Is there a source for what actually happened?

(03-28-2018 02:13 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 11:57 AM)brovol Wrote:  Fleck did not run predictably on first down. His OC mixed it up and took advantage of the opportunity to throw on first. He had lots of success running the ball BECAUSE he didn't do so predictably. If you abandon the "run on first down" mandate the running game actually opens up in a huge way, because eventually the defenses back off loading the box, after getting burned with early down passes. Once that happens you can actually run on first, second or third downs with good success.

Lester and Co forced the run on early downs throughout the year. It does just the opposite of protecting a young QB; it puts him in third and long over and over. And it puts the RB's in tough spot, expecting them to run through cement walls.

Fleck had a great mix on first down. Lester not so much.

I’m wondering if there are any statistics available on play choices on first and other downs? My recollection of Fleck is that he ran almost exclusively on first down. And of Lester’s first year that they threw quite a bit on first down. But my recollections mean nothing. Is there a source for what actually happened?

Bottom-line is Fleck had more talent and depth at the so-called "skill positions" than Lester had (including a game-breaking 1st round NFL pick at WR and a solid senior QB), giving him many more options. That does not mean Lester was not guilty of bad play calling (what is wrong with throwing to RB's like Franklin who have proven they can catch & run?), but this fall will answer and address a lot of our concerns and criticisms. No more breaking-in a new QB.

(03-28-2018 02:13 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 11:57 AM)brovol Wrote:  Fleck did not run predictably on first down. His OC mixed it up and took advantage of the opportunity to throw on first. He had lots of success running the ball BECAUSE he didn't do so predictably. If you abandon the "run on first down" mandate the running game actually opens up in a huge way, because eventually the defenses back off loading the box, after getting burned with early down passes. Once that happens you can actually run on first, second or third downs with good success.

Lester and Co forced the run on early downs throughout the year. It does just the opposite of protecting a young QB; it puts him in third and long over and over. And it puts the RB's in tough spot, expecting them to run through cement walls.

Fleck had a great mix on first down. Lester not so much.

I’m wondering if there are any statistics available on play choices on first and other downs? My recollection of Fleck is that he ran almost exclusively on first down. And of Lester’s first year that they threw quite a bit on first down. But my recollections mean nothing. Is there a source for what actually happened?

I wish there were too, because it would not only confirm that Flecks teams mixed it up on first down, but also that the effectiveness of first down runs in general (at college and pro) is terrible, and that the best offensive teams pass as often, or almost as often, as they run. Running on third and long ain't a bad thing either. Take what the defense is giving.

**Also, the best statistics should come from the first half of games, or at least not the fourth quarter, when a team may either be running the ball primarily to run down the clock because they have the lead, or passing each down to preserve clock because they are behind. Those regular situations would distort the numbers either way.

(03-28-2018 05:24 AM)brovol Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:57 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 12:23 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 10:39 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  A lot of unknowns with our front seven, and even in our secondary to a degree. You guys are way more confident than me, that's for sure.

I am not confident. I said we should win, not that we will win. I, unfortunately, think Lester & Co will continue to follow the mainstream-conservative-old-school-coaches-handbook, which works if you have the old Washington Redskins Hogs making holes for John Riggins, but doesnt work in college. I may be very wrong though, and if they do learn from mistakes and change philosophy, we will be a very good team.

We did lose a lot of very good players, and frankly I think those losses are more significant than losing Davis and ZT the year before. We still have a ton of players who, by all estimations, are very talented. As always, I am excited for the season to start. Our schedule couldn't be better from a competitive standpoint.

What does that mean?

Means a lot of things which for years constituted "conventional wisdom" in football. If you watch a game where Matt millen is the commentator, it is usually what he suggests coaches should do. Things like, better punt the ball on 4th and 1/2 yard on the 50 yard line, and trust your D, or that teams need to "establish the run" as a prerequisite to being successful on offense, and before throwing the ball. These are the valued maxim's in football, but when actually applied make a team very predictable and easy to defend. Football fans for generations have been brainwashed to believe that first down is primarily for running the ball, because it is safe (also a misnomer) and sets things up for second and third down. But in reality, the goal in that way of thinking is to gain three or four yards, when really it is a down when the defenses are generally leaving themselves vulnerable for a pass play. While four yards may be "acceptable" on first down, 8-15 yards is better, and the goal is to move the ball and score. The strategy shouldn't be to make ten yards in three plays. It should be to make as many yards the easiest and most logical way, given the circumstances, be that in one down, two, three , or four. More importantly, the predictability of running on first down makes it less likely that you are going to be successful even at gaining three or four yards.

Too many average coaches get stuck in this old school way of thinking. The most successful coaches at any level are those who disregard conventional wisdom, and apply logic. Cybermetrics has grown in popularity, even in football, but I am not suggesting we strictly apply cybermetrics. Just that we abandon the old school football way of doing things.

I remember our Potato Bowl year, we hosted NIU in the snow and went for it on 4th and short instead of kicking a FG. Many believe kicking it might've won us that game.

But I agree: Lester so far has shown signs of being too conservative and too predictable. Hoping I'm wrong. :)

(03-28-2018 09:12 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  Personally I thought Fleck's insistence on dumping Cubit's pass-happy offense and establishing the run on first down was one of his three key changes that made us so successful,

Definitely!

Here are the numbers from last season, and the offenses ranked from top to bottom. They list the total first down play calls for each team, runs vs passes. Check out the numbers for the best or top offenses as compared to the rest. They pass more often than run. WMU middle of the pack, and clearly run more than pass, by a lot. As noted earlier, numbers are somewhat deceiving, as all teams pass more often if and when they are losing late in a game.

NCAA run/pass first down

....I looked up NFL stats for first downs, and the most efficient offense was New England. Bill Belichick passes on first down more than twice as much than he runs it. The guy never follows the old-school-coaches-handbook. Always takes advantage of common sense.

Belichick has one of the greatest passers in NFL history.

Talent always trumps theory.

(03-29-2018 07:13 AM)brovol Wrote:  Here are the numbers from last season, and the offenses ranked from top to bottom. They list the total first down play calls for each team, runs vs passes. Check out the numbers for the best or top offenses as compared to the rest. They pass more often than run. WMU middle of the pack, and clearly run more than pass, by a lot. As noted earlier, numbers are somewhat deceiving, as all teams pass more often if and when they are losing late in a game.

NCAA run/pass first down

When Northwestern (NU) was in the midst of its epic 35-game losing streak in the early 1980's, it had one of the Big Ten's top pass defenses. Problem was, NU couldn't stop the run. Teams did not have to pass, and generally didn't, so that inflated pass defense numbers.

So you are correct that statistics can be as deceiving as they are interesting.

(03-29-2018 07:29 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Belichick has one of the greatest passers in NFL history.

Talent always trumps theory.

Right..what were his statistics prior to Tom Brady? Lets face it, he's a great defensive mind who happened to luck into the greatest QB of all time, perfect scenario. Of course you throw more when you have Tom freakin Brady! Doesn't work with newbie Wassink or Reece Goddard. Once Wassink gets some chemistry going with a few receivers I think we will see more of it.

(03-29-2018 07:20 AM)brovol Wrote:  ....I looked up NFL stats for first downs, and the most efficient offense was New England. Bill Belichick passes on first down more than twice as much than he runs it. The guy never follows the old-school-coaches-handbook. Always takes advantage of common sense.

You have likened the philosophy you dislike and disagree to the old ‘Skins Hogs and Riggins.

Is this only regarding the play calling or also a likening to WMU’s strength (OL and RB’s)?

(03-29-2018 07:20 AM)brovol Wrote:  ....I looked up NFL stats for first downs, and the most efficient offense was New England. Bill Belichick passes on first down more than twice as much than he runs it. The guy never follows the old-school-coaches-handbook. Always takes advantage of common sense.

Its hard to hang your hat on a passing offense when you don't have any proven wideouts and brand new QB's taking the help in an offense that was as new as the coaching staff that installed that offense less than 6 months before the first game of the season... thats a tough ask.

Now if we see Lester, who now is DIRECTLY involved in play calling, lean on running the ball into the teeth of a defense over and over and punt over and over and generally seem stuck in this vacuum of old school philosophy as you call it.... well then we can have a legit discussion about the WMU modus operandi...

(03-29-2018 07:13 AM)brovol Wrote:  Here are the numbers from last season, and the offenses ranked from top to bottom. They list the total first down play calls for each team, runs vs passes. Check out the numbers for the best or top offenses as compared to the rest. They pass more often than run. WMU middle of the pack, and clearly run more than pass, by a lot. As noted earlier, numbers are somewhat deceiving, as all teams pass more often if and when they are losing late in a game.

NCAA run/pass first down

Hey, thanks for finding those stats. But those aren't quite the stats we're looking for. Those statistics are for the number of first downs each team got, and whether they were by running, passing, or penalties. Those include any down.

I was about to put them into Excel and run a scatterplot lol.

I have a feeling we're going to miss Franklin big time this season. They don't come more durable than him.

So, how about a report-out on how Wassink looked this spring? I think his upside is very high.

(03-29-2018 11:35 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  I have a feeling we're going to miss Franklin big time this season.

Not on 1st Down though - we'll be passing then.

(03-29-2018 07:29 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Belichick has one of the greatest passers in NFL history.

Talent always trumps theory.

.....because he puts him in a great position to be successful by passing when the defenses are playing for a run. Every other QB in the NFL would love to have the same opportunity.