Author
Topic: #15 Wisconsin (2-1, 4-2) at #12 Michigan (4-0, 6-1) Post Game
(Read 21362 times)

Honestbuckeye · « **Reply #56 on:** October 10, 2018, 11:52:38 AM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on October 10, 2018, 11:38:49 AM

Hb were you trying to quote me on that long post about Haskins where it just ended up quoting you?

I think you are misunderstanding the adjusted deep pass rating. Has nothing to do with velocity. It’s just distance. They only look at passes that travel over 20 yards in the air from the LOS and rank that and that alone. They are strictly looking at the accuracy of balls thrown 20+ yards in the air from the LoS.

In reading how they come to their rankings they include how long ball is in the air.
Not disagreeing with how good Patterson has been. Just the false narrative that Haskins isn’t accurate on long balls- he has been nothing short of spectacular. And the narrative that he gets his tds on short passes. He gets a lot, but he has a ton that were bullets thrown perfectly into the end zone.

Temp430 · « **Reply #57 on:** October 10, 2018, 11:53:50 AM »

Sounds like Michigan should be throwing deep while Nelson remains ejected if they ever let ‘em have the ball. Did I read Nebraska passed for 400 yards on the Badgers?

Honestbuckeye · « **Reply #58 on:** October 10, 2018, 11:55:01 AM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on October 10, 2018, 11:51:09 AM

Hb have you charted every single one of Haskins throws?

We’re not talking throws into the end zone. We’re talking throws of 20 yards or more in the air past the LOS. That’s it.

Haskins has been great but he throws a shit ton of short balls his receivers gain YAC on.

Yes he does. It he has a bunch that were well over 20 yards, and into the end zone
Seems like he has a couple every game.

Mdot21 · « **Reply #59 on:** October 10, 2018, 11:57:38 AM »

Hb not disagreeing. Haskins has been phenomenal.

He does get a lot of YAC. But I see that as him being accurate on the shorter passes. Have to be or the WR’s can’t get YAC.

Just a function of the offenses. Urban’s philosophy is smarter than Harbaugh’s. Can’t imagine what Urb would do with a RB like Evans or an Ath like Ambry Thomas. He’d make them playmakers. At Michigan they are after thoughts.

As for how they rate the adjusted deep ball- I’ve looked through everything I can find from PFF and other sources and it only talks about distance. Haven’t seen them mention time or velocity in anything.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #60 on:** October 10, 2018, 11:59:44 AM »

Quote from: Honestbuckeye on October 10, 2018, 11:43:11 AM

Haha. Just go the front page and look at all the current threads. Count how many are OSU? Zero- correct? Now count them for “other schools”. Lol it’s always that way

It's okay to turn the SOC thread into one about France, or the Stirring the Pot thread into one about Whisky. But we have to draw the line at calling into question a chart that says Hornibrook and Patterson are head and shoulders above the rest of the Big Ten QBs.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #61 on:** October 10, 2018, 12:12:16 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous Coward on October 10, 2018, 11:32:04 AM

With McSorley's comp% hovering a centimeter abover 50%, I'm not at all sure any duel with him is guaranteed to have the conference's two best QBs. And so far Haskins, albeit great at it, has been permitted to feast with short throws and enormous YAC (see attached).
Even without PFF grading Hornibrook highest (and here I should admit that their rankings are not opponent-adjusted), I stick with the original claim. We can't know it until the end of the season.
It could easily end up as Haskins-McSorley, Hornibrook-Patterson, McSorley-Hornibrook, Patterson-Haskins, or even Hornibrook-Haskins in a CCG. They are all in striking range and up there and season is 50% (or less) over (depending on schedule).

I mean, I guess. But getting lots of YAC is directly a result of making the right read and making a great throw. How many short throws do we see where the receiver has to stop and can't make much of a play? I'm skeptical of any "rating" that dings a quarterback for making great plays. I'm not skeptical of my eyeballs. Haskins is uber accurate, can wing it all over the field, makes great reads and great throws, and has 25 TD passes. McSorley isn't as accurate, but throws it deeper, and also runs wonderfully and is 6th in the conference in rushing. Who knows how things will shake out, but from what I've seen they are clearly the top two.

Mdot21 · « **Reply #62 on:** October 10, 2018, 12:18:52 PM »

McSorely isn’t anywhere near accurate enough for me to say he’s clearly the best.

I think he’s a really good runner. He leaves a lot to be desired with his throwing. And a lot of his deep balls are freaking arm punt prayers he gets bailed out on. His arm is very weak.

I hate to be that guy who always says OSU or Mich have the best this or that. But my eye test tells me they have the two best QBs in this conference. Michigan’s OL hasn’t been great at pass blocking. Patterson ability to escape and throw accurately on the run has made a pretty trash unit look respectable and better than they actually are.

Wisconsin and OSU meanwhile are in PFF’s top 10 overall OL units. Wisconsin at 2 and OSU at 6. Michigan’s OL will never sniff that list.

And Patterson and Haskins are the two highest rated HS QB recruits starting at QB in the conference. So go figure. Sometimes those guys get it right. Sometimes.

Honestbuckeye · « **Reply #63 on:** October 10, 2018, 12:20:48 PM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on October 10, 2018, 11:57:38 AM

Hb not disagreeing. Haskins has been phenomenal.

He does get a lot of YAC. But I see that as him being accurate on the shorter passes. Have to be or the WR’s can’t get YAC.

Just a function of the offenses. Urban’s philosophy is smarter than Harbaugh’s. Can’t imagine what Urb would do with a RB like Evans or an Ath like Ambry Thomas. He’d make them playmakers. At Michigan they are after thoughts.

As for how they rate the adjusted deep ball- I’ve looked through everything I can find from PFF and other sources and it only talks about distance. Haven’t seen them mention time or velocity in anything.

Yes we are on the same page. Ironically just now on my lunch hour listening to the satellite channel ESPNU they were talking about this very game in these two quarterbacks. Neuheisel said that Shea will be good because he’s consistent but the game will come down to whether Hornibrooke can win the game for Wisconsin. But he does not remember some of Hornibrooks better performances obviously . Then they had some other expert that basically was saying what you just said, that Patterson is limited by Michigan’s offense

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #64 on:** October 10, 2018, 12:50:01 PM »

Quote from: Honestbuckeye on October 10, 2018, 11:52:38 AM

In reading how they come to their rankings they include how long ball is in the air.
Not disagreeing with how good Patterson has been. Just the false narrative that Haskins isn’t accurate on long balls- he has been nothing short of spectacular. And the narrative that he gets his tds on short passes. He gets a lot, but he has a ton that were bullets thrown perfectly into the end zone.

Can you do me a favor and copy/paste where they say that? I can't find it. What I found was this:
"Adjusted completion percentage tracks the number of passes that were only deemed catchable upon release from the quarterback. It takes away passes that are dropped, passes batted at the line of scrimmage, those in which the QB was hit as he threw, spiked balls and throwaways to showcase just how many passes were put in a catchable place for their respective receivers. "
And that image was adjusted completion percentage specifically for passes that traveled more than 20 yards. None of that emphasizes the number of seconds a ball is in the air.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #65 on:** October 10, 2018, 12:58:28 PM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on October 10, 2018, 11:51:09 AM

Simply a false narrative. Haskins has completed more passes of 20 yards into the end zone than either QBs

I don't know about that stat ("more passes of 20 yards into the endzone ... "), but that's different than the graphic I presented.
The one I presented isn't about 20+ yard receptions that go for touchdowns but specifically about receptions [whether or not they include a TD] that travel 20+ yards in the air BEFORE they are even caught.
So it's not a measure of how far the receivers are ultimately going but about how far the ball is going before touching the receiver.
Which is a pretty fair way to judge a deep passing game.
This isn't to ding Haskins. He deserves all the credit for his comp%, yards, and TDs. Those are prolific numbers. But it's fair and emotionless to point out that his numbers so far have required prolific YAC. Again, that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve credit for reading the defense just right to enable that YAC. It's just to point out that his "long passes" have generally been short or intermediate passes with long runs. Maybe he can be equally prolific with true deep balls (here: defined as a ball that travels in the air 20+ yards downfield before touching a receiver), but he hasn't been tasked with consistently showing that yet.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #66 on:** October 10, 2018, 01:03:25 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on October 10, 2018, 11:59:44 AM

It's okay to turn the SOC thread into one about France, or the Stirring the Pot thread into one about Whisky. But we have to draw the line at calling into question a chart that says Hornibrook and Patterson are head and shoulders above the rest of the Big Ten QBs.

Ummmm ... that's not what that chart says. The chart argues that 4 QBs are clustered together at the top.
As for the topic at hand, it has devolved into a lot of sensitivity at the idea that maybe not every metric argues Haskins as the conference's top QB. I figured the much more touchy button would be how I pointed out that McSorely has a season comp% just over 50% and that it would be wise for us to wait a long time before crowning Haskins/McSorely as clearly the best QB battle of the season.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #67 on:** October 10, 2018, 01:08:18 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on October 10, 2018, 11:59:44 AM

It's okay to turn the SOC thread into one about France, or the Stirring the Pot thread into one about Whisky. But we have to draw the line at calling into question a chart that says Hornibrook and Patterson are head and shoulders above the rest of the Big Ten QBs.

SOC threads are unlimited and contain a myriad of topics - as they should. That's what they are for, and have been since ELA started creating them 10 years ago, or so. I love those. The stirring the pot thread was multi-topic from the start. It started as a musing and has morphed into what it is - and it's still ALL pot-stirring if you look closely.

It's not about calling a chart into question. Everything gets called into question around here.

Being all puffy about Haskins' greatness, in a Michigan/Wisconsin game thread? You know, starting a new thread is not illegal here, and it's also FREE!!

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #68 on:** October 10, 2018, 01:11:49 PM »

Quote from: MaximumSam on October 10, 2018, 12:12:16 PM

I mean, I guess. But getting lots of YAC is directly a result of making the right read and making a great throw. How many short throws do we see where the receiver has to stop and can't make much of a play?

Of course.

Quote from: MaximumSam on October 10, 2018, 12:12:16 PM

I'm skeptical of any "rating" that dings a quarterback for making great plays. I'm not skeptical of my eyeballs. Haskins is uber accurate, can wing it all over the field, makes great reads and great throws, and has 25 TD passes. McSorley isn't as accurate, but throws it deeper, and also runs wonderfully and is 6th in the conference in rushing. Who knows how things will shake out, but from what I've seen they are clearly the top two.

I think this conversation is suffering for lack of clarity.
The original graphic (QB ratings) clustered Hornibrook, McSorely, Haskins and Patterson at the top of the conference (in that order), and it was based on grades for every throw (accounting for difficulty, situation, and read). Haskins isn't really getting dinged at all (he's getting praised, albeit less than you seem to like). Also, I doubt YAC dominates that rating.
The last graphic I posted (avg depth of target) does put Haskins toward the bottom of the conference, but why would anyone read a list like that and swear that it's good to be on top and bad to be on bottom. "Average depth per target" isn't a rating. No one's skill is being measured there. It's just posted for context.
What context was it posted for? The point was raised that Haskins is feasting on high YAC plays. Good for him and good for OSU. There's nothing bad about that. However, there is a remaining question - What happens when OSU finally faces a defense capable of taking away short and intermediate passes? And although this "average depth per target" context can't answer that question, it is relevant insofar as it reminds us that we just don't know the answer yet.

Honestbuckeye · « **Reply #69 on:** October 10, 2018, 01:34:48 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous Coward on October 10, 2018, 01:11:49 PM

Of course.I think this conversation is suffering for lack of clarity.
The original graphic (QB ratings) clustered Hornibrook, McSorely, Haskins and Patterson at the top of the conference (in that order), and it was based on grades for every throw (accounting for difficulty, situation, and read). Haskins isn't really getting dinged at all (he's getting praised). Also, YAC doesn't seem to dominate that the rating.
The last graphic I posted (avg depth of target) does put Haskins toward the bottom of the conference, but why would anyone read a list like that and swear that it's good to be on top and bad to be on bottom. "Average depth per target" isn't a rating. No one's skill is being measured there. It's just posted for context.
What context was it posted for? The point was raised that Haskins is feasting on high YAC plays. Good for him and good for OSU. There's nothing bad about that. However, there is a remaining question - What happens when OSU finally faces a defense capable of taking away short and intermediate passes? And although this "average depth per target" context can't answer that question, it is relevant insofar as it reminds us that we just don't know the answer yet.

Success with Short passes with YAC and passes downfield of 20 or more are not mutually exclusive.
I am a big fan of all three of these QBs albeit for different reasons. For example, I marvel at Patterson’s ability to be accurate while scrambling. It’s amazing.
Haskins is far from perfect but he has amazed me with his accuracy, specifically to hit WRs in stride on intermediate routes which cause YAC. But his ability to hit downfield, long passes with uncanny accuracy has been incredible, and plentiful.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: #15 Wisconsin (2-1, 4-2) at #12 Michigan (4-0, 6-1) Post Game

Honestbuckeye

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Temp430

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Honestbuckeye

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Mdot21

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Brutus Buckeye

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

MaximumSam

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Mdot21

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Honestbuckeye

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Anonymous Coward

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Anonymous Coward

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Anonymous Coward

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

847badgerfan

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Anonymous Coward

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week

Honestbuckeye

Re: #15 Wisconsin (2-0, 4-1) at #12 Michigan (3-0, 5-1) Game Week