Interesting offensive stats

[MikeInNorman]

2006:
29.3 points per game
183.4 rushing yards per game
180.0 passing yards per game
363.4 total offense per game
37% 3rd down percentage

2005:
26.9 points per game
177.5 rushing yards per game
177.6 passing yards per game
355.1 total offense per game
36% 3rd down percentage

Discuss.

[usmc-sooner]

looks the same except Wilson's offense is slightly better than Chuck's with a WR playing QB

[Widescreen]

Wonder what those #'s would've looked like if Bomar hadn't been such a moran.

[n8v_ndn]

It means that coaches Wilson and Long had some real close battles on the 'ol XBox :confused:

[Pepper]

What about quarterback sacks? It seemed like Bomar was under a lot more pressure.

[MikeInNorman]

looks the same except Wilson's offense is 8 yards better than Chuck's with a player who was a full time WR for 8 months of a five-year career playing QB

Fixed that for you.

[NormanPride]

Efficiency in the red zone. That was the problem with Chuck. Even with Jason we had problems punching it in.

[Boomer.....]

What about quarterback sacks? It seemed like Bomar was under a lot more pressure.
The O-line is a lot better for sure.

[MikeInNorman]

Efficiency in the red zone. That was the problem with Chuck. Even with Jason we had problems punching it in.

Interesting point. 2006 is 94% in the red zone, 61% TDs. Unfortunately, SoonerSports does not have a number for 2005 red zone efficiency. It would be interesting to compare.

[OUstudent4life]

Efficiency in the red zone. That was the problem with Chuck. Even with Jason we had problems punching it in.

What are our current numbers on that so far...scores/red zone trips, and of those scores, what's the td/fg ratio?

I thought, before the game, I heard our scores/red zone trips ratio was damn good...

edit: dang, that was fast. thanks Mike. :D Any idea how that compares nationwide?

[usmc-sooner]

Fixed that for you.


sorry didn't mean to diss Chuck in your presence.

I was just discussing your stats.

[Stoop Dawg]

looks the same except Wilson's offense is slightly better than Chuck's because we don't have a QB trying to play WR anymore.

[Stoop Dawg]

looks the same except Wilson's offense is slightly better than Chuck's because we have a 5th year senior playing QB instead of a freshman.

[Stoop Dawg]

looks the same except Wilson's offense is slightly better than Chuck's because we haven't played as many games this year without our star RB

[usmc-sooner]

Stoop Dawg your discussing too much.


we all get it Wilson is better than Chuck although only slightly, case closed.

MikeinNorman can you go dig us up some more stats so we can have more discussions.

[Stoop Dawg]

Sorry, just discussing the stats.

Or not. ;)

[OUinFLA]

Sorry, just discussing the stats.

Or not. ;)

do you have a lot of discussions with yourself?
:D

[MikeInNorman]

Found better red zone stats:

2006:
Red zone efficiency: 94%
break down
Touchdowns: 61%
Field Goals: 33%
Turnovers: 6%

2005:
Red zone efficiency: 81%
break down
Touchdowns: 62%
Field Goals: 19%
Missed Field Goals: 9.5%
Turnovers: 7.1%
Half expired: 2.4%

The primary difference is that Hartley has not missed a field goal this year, while last year he missed four. 2005 efficiency is over 90% if Hartley doesn't miss 4 gield goals in the red zone.

[usmc-sooner]

Hartley missed FG's under Chuck but makes them under Wilson.

Case closed

New stats

[MikeInNorman]

Actually, it doesn't seem to me that settling for a field goal attempt nearly 40% of the time in either year is very desirable.

Maybe that's good, I don't have anything to compare it with. Who knows?


ETA: It's also interesting to note that we haven't turned the ball over on downs in the red zone either year. If only we would have run up the middle on 4th down at Oregon!

[Harry Beanbag]

The primary difference is that Hartley has not missed a field goal this year, while last year he missed four. 2005 efficiency is over 90% if Hartley doesn't miss 4 gield goals in the red zone.


Not to nit pick, but he missed one in Eugene.

[SoonerinLex]

Not to nit pick, but he missed one in Eugene.

OU wasn't in the red zone for that one.

[Harry Beanbag]

OU wasn't in the red zone for that one.


Yeah, I guess so. That kick was from like the 27 or something.

[MikeInNorman]

Not to nit pick, but he missed one in Eugene.

Good catch. I should have said, "Hartley has not missed a field goal in the red zone this year".

[Harry Beanbag]

Good catch. I should have said, "Hartley has not missed a field goal in the red zone this year".


I've tried to block that game out of my mind too. ;)

[NormanPride]

That's surprising... I don't know what it is, but it just feels like we're more efficient there this year. Maybe because we're scoring in less plays? Who knows...

Another theory is that the last few games have been mostly defensive contests. The A&M game is a perfect example, where we went ultra-conservative and let our D handle the game.

Regardless, I like Wilson's game plans and playcalling. I liked Long's for the most part, but he had a much worse OLine to work with, and that tends to make your playcalling look crappy. To me, he didn't seem to integrate our passing game as well with our running game - something I think Wilson has done an excellent job of doing. I know we haven't been putting up great (even good) passing stats recently, but I think that's because of the gameplan more than an inability to pass.

[Harry Beanbag]

It seems to me the offense is getting some shorter fields to work with due to more turnovers created by the defense this season, but I don't have any numbers that prove it.

It would also be interesting to see time of possession this year compared to last year.

[Scott D]

It seems to me the offense is getting some shorter fields to work with due to more turnovers created by the defense this season, but I don't have any numbers that prove it.

ding ding ding...we have a winner.

Don Pardo, tell Harry what he's won....

[Stoop Dawg]

That's surprising... I don't know what it is, but it just feels like we're more efficient there this year.

Winning feels better than losing.

[Harry Beanbag]

ding ding ding...we have a winner.

Don Pardo, tell Harry what he's won....


I'll settle for a double helping of this year's sponsor gifts. :)

[sooner94]

Here is one reason why the O looks more efficient:

PT
Completion %- 59%
Passing Yards per Attempt- 7.7

The Idiot Kicked off the Team
Completion %- 54%
Passing Yards per Attempt- 6.6

While the numbers don't appear to be that much different, those really are big differences. Especially, the yards per attempt (8 yards per attempt is the benchmark for a good passing game). 6.6 yards per attempt is really bad.

[Norm In Norman]

Any TOP stats? I bet that's why it seems different.

[sooner94]

That's surprising... I don't know what it is, but it just feels like we're more efficient there this year. Maybe because we're scoring in less plays? Who knows...


"Scoring in less plays" got me thinking. What effect do the new clock rules have on the game? FEWER PLAYS. The 2006 offense is generating slightly better total numbers despite fewer plays per game - it actually comes out to 72 plays per game in 2005 compared to 64 in 2006. That's about one scoring drive.

Here are some more #'s that I crunched (for 2006 it is 9 games, for 2005 its for 12 games):

2006 2005
Total Yards 3,277 4,261
Total Plays 579 862
Yards/Play 5.7 4.9
Yards/game 364 355
Adjusted
yards/game 408*

*Reflects adjustment for 2006 yards per game adjusted to a 72 play game for 2005.

Almost a full yard more per play in 2006 than 2005. That is a big difference! If we had the same # of plays in 2006 as 2005, we would be gaining 408 yards per game compared to 355 yards per game in 2005. Not done yet!

Also, applying 72 plays per game to the 2006 offense would result in 32.9 points per game, compared to 26.9 last year. That is almost a TD more. Again, a big difference!

Bottom line- the offense is MUCH improved from last year when you take into account the new clock rules.

[stoopified]

Hartley missed FG's under Chuck but makes them under Wilson.

Case closed

New statsI guess this means Wilson is a better kick coach?