Offensive numbers...

[Coug95man2]

So here's some interesting numbers I found, according to ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/87249/pac-12-scoring-is-on-a-sharp-incline

The pac12 averaged 33.5 points per game in 2014.

So where did WSU's average land? 31.8 per game.

So believe it or not… to "out average" the league, we aren't producing enough on the O. Who'd a thunk?! Of all the places I thought we were lacking… NOT on the O.

On the other side of that coin, the common idea that "If our D would just be better, we'd have won!" kinda holds true, as well… But that means we'd need to have a D that's obviously better than the "average" D, also.

Off-Season thoughts and numbers… Way more complicated than this but interesting "surface" numbers.

Other point I almost hate to bring up.. the article outlines the difference in the past 5 years (the whole point of the article)… What happened in 2009 was shameful. Truly embarrassing. Average points for WSU in 2009 was, wait for it… a whopping 12. The closest was UCLA at 22 average points per game. "You Gotta Be Kidding Me!"

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Those numbers are truly offensive.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

2009 was an abomination. Even though things got much better from there (29.8 ppg in 2011), it's hard to forgive the disaster that was created back then. I did have to laugh at the article's insinuation that Leach is responsible for a 20 ppg improvement since 2009. As mentioned, we are really only two points per game better since Leach took over. That aside, I think the biggest reason for the overall increase in scoring in the conference is the offensive mindset of the coaches and the variety of different styles you have to prepare for. We have teams that like to run, pass, spread you out, pack it in, and everything in between. It is incredibly difficult to prepare for the week to week shift and many of the teams do a variety of things well.

 

[Coug95man2]

2009 was an abomination. Even though things got much better from there (29.8 ppg in 2011), it's hard to forgive the disaster that was created back then. I did have to laugh at the article's insinuation that Leach is responsible for a 20 ppg improvement since 2009. As mentioned, we are really only two points per game better since Leach took over. That aside, I think the biggest reason for the overall increase in scoring in the conference is the offensive mindset of the coaches and the variety of different styles you have to prepare for. We have teams that like to run, pass, spread you out, pack it in, and everything in between. It is incredibly difficult to prepare for the week to week shift and many of the teams do a variety of things well.

It isn't worthy for me to re-read the article but going by memory, I didn't read it that way, at all. As I recall the article even outlines how CML's first year numbers went down from the previous, Wulff's last year. Doesn't really matter, I guess. Just amazing how incredibly horrible those 2009 numbers were. And how we are steadily improving.

The article uses the term "sharp incline" but for WSU, and the league, those numbers are based on that 5 year deal. When looking year to year, it's a "slow and steady" kinda thing. I think one of the emphasizing points of the article was, the hiring of coaches over the past 4 years has be the reason for these numbers. And I'd agree. Without Rich Rod, without CML, without Mora, I don't know that these numbers would be on the "incline".

In the next few years, the pendulum will swing the other way. The coaches will realize that the D needs to get beefed up to stop these Offenses. O may, or may not change but the D will, shifting these numbers.

 

[CougEd]

It isn't worthy for me to re-read the article but going by memory, I didn't read it that way, at all. As I recall the article even outlines how CML's first year numbers went down from the previous, Wulff's last year. Doesn't really matter, I guess. Just amazing how incredibly horrible those 2009 numbers were. And how we are steadily improving.

The article uses the term "sharp incline" but for WSU, and the league, those numbers are based on that 5 year deal. When looking year to year, it's a "slow and steady" kinda thing. I think one of the emphasizing points of the article was, the hiring of coaches over the past 4 years has be the reason for these numbers. And I'd agree. Without Rich Rod, without CML, without Mora, I don't know that these numbers would be on the "incline".

In the next few years, the pendulum will swing the other way. The coaches will realize that the D needs to get beefed up to stop these Offenses. O may, or may not change but the D will, shifting these numbers.

 

[CougEd]

They should go back to 08 if they want to see some really horrible numbers, both points scored and given up.

It isn't worthy for me to re-read the article but going by memory, I didn't read it that way, at all. As I recall the article even outlines how CML's first year numbers went down from the previous, Wulff's last year. Doesn't really matter, I guess. Just amazing how incredibly horrible those 2009 numbers were. And how we are steadily improving.

The article uses the term "sharp incline" but for WSU, and the league, those numbers are based on that 5 year deal. When looking year to year, it's a "slow and steady" kinda thing. I think one of the emphasizing points of the article was, the hiring of coaches over the past 4 years has be the reason for these numbers. And I'd agree. Without Rich Rod, without CML, without Mora, I don't know that these numbers would be on the "incline".

In the next few years, the pendulum will swing the other way. The coaches will realize that the D needs to get beefed up to stop these Offenses. O may, or may not change but the D will, shifting these numbers.

 

[CougPatrol]

If we had any semblance of a place kicker, we would have averaged 35pts/game last season. I've been critical of Leach in some areas (namely special teams and defense), but he has shown the ability to field a solid pac-12 offense.

 

[wulffui]

If we had any semblance of a place kicker, we would have averaged 35pts/game last season. I've been critical of Leach in some areas (namely special teams and defense), but he has shown the ability to field a solid pac-12 offense.

That's the thing, though. When you brought Leach in, you weren't thinking "solid PXII offense", you were hoping to blow the doors off, week in and week out. So far, it hasn't played out that way, for numerous reasons. I think this year will be the best offense he's fielded in the years he's been here, just because of all the returning pieces and their increased familiarity with the offense.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

It isn't worthy for me to re-read the article but going by memory, I didn't read it that way, at all. As I recall the article even outlines how CML's first year numbers went down from the previous, Wulff's last year. Doesn't really matter, I guess. Just amazing how incredibly horrible those 2009 numbers were. And how we are steadily improving.

The article uses the term "sharp incline" but for WSU, and the league, those numbers are based on that 5 year deal. When looking year to year, it's a "slow and steady" kinda thing. I think one of the emphasizing points of the article was, the hiring of coaches over the past 4 years has be the reason for these numbers. And I'd agree. Without Rich Rod, without CML, without Mora, I don't know that these numbers would be on the "incline".

In the next few years, the pendulum will swing the other way. The coaches will realize that the D needs to get beefed up to stop these Offenses. O may, or may not change but the D will, shifting these numbers.

Fair enough. I'm still not sold on a two point net gain in three years being meaningful but at least it's improvement. As someone else said, if the special teams weren't a disaster, we would have probably been a few points higher last year. I'm disappointed that we aren't higher, but obviously the OL issues that we've had (starting guys under 280 lbs) can't be overcome with fairy dust. I'm excited to see what our offense looks like this year because it has the potential to be crazy good. Having one of the biggest lines in the conference with a fair amount of experience, prototype Leach running backs and a QB with some time to study film, it should be another bump up. Just hope the defense doesn't torpedo the damned thing.

 

[CougEd]

Fair enough. I'm still not sold on a two point net gain in three years being meaningful but at least it's improvement. As someone else said, if the special teams weren't a disaster, we would have probably been a few points higher last year. I'm disappointed that we aren't higher, but obviously the OL issues that we've had (starting guys under 280 lbs) can't be overcome with fairy dust. I'm excited to see what our offense looks like this year because it has the potential to be crazy good. Having one of the biggest lines in the conference with a fair amount of experience, prototype Leach running backs and a QB with some time to study film, it should be another bump up. Just hope the defense doesn't torpedo the damned thing.

Has size been really the problem? I really hope you are right about the line being the biggest hurdle in not lighting up the score board.

Mike Price's teams, Jim Walden's team all struggled in the red zone. They were a bog play offense for a reason. It was very difficult for them to go yard yards on 8 plays and getting a TD.

The question that eventually be answered is the following: without more balance and no TE/ big body in the redzone, is there enough areas to get open when the opposing team drops 8.

I know what people say, the quick screens are a long hand off, thus a running play. Yes, I would agree it is a safe play, and virtually always a completion, and probably averages 3 to four yards a play. So yardage wise they are correct. But what the actual run play does is make the linebackers honest, it gives them something to think about instead of dropping into coverage. It creates less room for the offensive players to operate. It is like playing 9 on 11 football.

Is this the year with all the pieces that we get to be in the top 3rd of the conference in terms of numbers? And really, the number I want to see is TD's and points scored. Especially in the red-zone.

 

[Coug95man2]

Fair enough. I'm still not sold on a two point net gain in three years being meaningful but at least it's improvement. As someone else said, if the special teams weren't a disaster, we would have probably been a few points higher last year. I'm disappointed that we aren't higher, but obviously the OL issues that we've had (starting guys under 280 lbs) can't be overcome with fairy dust. I'm excited to see what our offense looks like this year because it has the potential to be crazy good. Having one of the biggest lines in the conference with a fair amount of experience, prototype Leach running backs and a QB with some time to study film, it should be another bump up. Just hope the defense doesn't torpedo the damned thing.

Yeah and no. First, if we used your numbers and we were in the SEC, we'd just have won the North…
But lets look at numbers more closely. You said 3 years. Assuming CML's tenure:
Arizona has actually gone down almost 4 points.
ASU has gone down almost 2 points.
CAL has gone up almost 15 points. (shock… not)
Oregon has gone down 4 points
OSU down almost 7 points
Stanford down .7
UCLA down .9
USC up almost 3
UW up almost 6
WSU up almost 11

Don't know where you got 2 point net gain in 3 years… what 3 years? Did you mean 2 years? From one year to the other? And 2 points per game isn't "meaningful" in one year? I'd disagree with that not being "meaningful but improvement". 2 points a year improvement is statistically pretty darn good. But I will say that averages are truly more "meaningful" and unfortunately, we have 2009 on our books.
Where I got these numbers? Pac12 site:
http://pac-12.com/content/football-statistics

 

[wulffui]

Has size been really the problem? I really hope you are right about the line being the biggest hurdle in not lighting up the score board.

Mike Price's teams, Jim Walden's team all struggled in the red zone. They were a bog play offense for a reason. It was very difficult for them to go yard yards on 8 plays and getting a TD.

The question that eventually be answered is the following: without more balance and no TE/ big body in the redzone, is there enough areas to get open when the opposing team drops 8.

I know what people say, the quick screens are a long hand off, thus a running play. Yes, I would agree it is a safe play, and virtually always a completion, and probably averages 3 to four yards a play. So yardage wise they are correct. But what the actual run play does is make the linebackers honest, it gives them something to think about instead of dropping into coverage. It creates less room for the offensive players to operate. It is like playing 9 on 11 football.

Is this the year with all the pieces that we get to be in the top 3rd of the conference in terms of numbers? And really, the number I want to see is TD's and points scored. Especially in the red-zone.

Whether or not it was THE problem, it was A problem- more of those you solve, better off you are.

 

[CougEd]

Whether or not it was THE problem, it was A problem- more of those you solve, better off you are.

So with that problem solved all the other parts in place? So we should see scoring average up to 38 a game?

 

[CougEd]

Yeah and no. First, if we used your numbers and we were in the SEC, we'd just have won the North…
But lets look at numbers more closely. You said 3 years. Assuming CML's tenure:
Arizona has actually gone down almost 4 points.
ASU has gone down almost 2 points.
CAL has gone up almost 15 points. (shock… not)
Oregon has gone down 4 points
OSU down almost 7 points
Stanford down .7
UCLA down .9
USC up almost 3
UW up almost 6
WSU up almost 11

Don't know where you got 2 point net gain in 3 years… what 3 years? Did you mean 2 years? From one year to the other? And 2 points per game isn't "meaningful" in one year? I'd disagree with that not being "meaningful but improvement". 2 points a year improvement is statistically pretty darn good. But I will say that averages are truly more "meaningful" and unfortunately, we have 2009 on our books.
Where I got these numbers? Pac12 site:
http://pac-12.com/content/football-statistics

I guess it goes to expectation. How many points did we average in 2011? I would have thought with Mike Leach at the helm we would be better by 10 points per game. That is one play, and a series where you score a fg. I think that is what is surprising in light of the fact with hindsight you had one player on that line who was just drafted, you had one player on that line who was on a 53 man roster, you had a former Leach recruit at one guard, you had a great athlete in Forbes who was beat out, you had a function tackle in Jacobson, and a center who was good enough to play in 2013 when they did go bowling.

 

[wulffui]

So with that problem solved all the other parts in place? So we should see scoring average up to 38 a game?

They'll be better. Considering you apparently share your brother's concern about not running enough, I'd think you'd note how an experienced OL and more mobile QB is likely to help that.

 

[Coug95man2]

I guess it goes to expectation. How many points did we average in 2011? I would have thought with Mike Leach at the helm we would be better by 10 points per game. That is one play, and a series where you score a fg. I think that is what is surprising in light of the fact with hindsight you had one player on that line who was just drafted, you had one player on that line who was on a 53 man roster, you had a former Leach recruit at one guard, you had a great athlete in Forbes who was beat out, you had a function tackle in Jacobson, and a center who was good enough to play in 2013 when they did go bowling.

Oh dude. Do we have to have the "expectations" thread again? Didn't we just go through this?
We get it. Wulff left the cupboards completely full for CML… Won't argue. Don't agree but won't argue.

 

[wulffui]

I guess it goes to expectation. How many points did we average in 2011? I would have thought with Mike Leach at the helm we would be better by 10 points per game. That is one play, and a series where you score a fg. I think that is what is surprising in light of the fact with hindsight you had one player on that line who was just drafted, you had one player on that line who was on a 53 man roster, you had a former Leach recruit at one guard, you had a great athlete in Forbes who was beat out, you had a function tackle in Jacobson, and a center who was good enough to play in 2013 when they did go bowling.

He said he had three scholly worthy guys when he got here, and they averaged 260 across the line. No matter how you choose to position your player descriptions, that's not good enough.

 

[Coug1990]

Oh dude. Do we have to have the "expectations" thread again? Didn't we just go through this?
We get it. Wulff left the cupboards completely full for CML… Won't argue. Don't agree but won't argue.

Amen brother, amen.

 

[E Jones]

I guess it goes to expectation. How many points did we average in 2011? I would have thought with Mike Leach at the helm we would be better by 10 points per game. That is one play, and a series where you score a fg. I think that is what is surprising in light of the fact with hindsight you had one player on that line who was just drafted, you had one player on that line who was on a 53 man roster, you had a former Leach recruit at one guard, you had a great athlete in Forbes who was beat out, you had a function tackle in Jacobson, and a center who was good enough to play in 2013 when they did go bowling.

What is the scoring average in conference games? That tells a better number for improvement or not. 2011 saw a lot of points scored in the first two games against idaho st and unlv. That could be throwing off the number compared to 2014. Conference games will eliminate the games where the score is run up against 1-AA teams.

 

[CougEd]

Oh dude. Do we have to have the "expectations" thread again? Didn't we just go through this?
We get it. Wulff left the cupboards completely full for CML… Won't argue. Don't agree but won't argue.

Well you wrote gaining two points a game was an accomplishment. I would say with Mike Leach's resume that would have to be considered at the best marginal. That is all. So should I "expect" anything different that 38 points a game this year?

And I didn't say the cupboards were full. I said in hindsight the offensive line had more talent than "we" thought, and maybe that isn't the problem that keeps us from making a greater jump. Again, I am hopeful it was the oline, that we bang out 38 points and WSU lives up to the reputation as an offensive juggernaut. All I did was lay out football reasons outside of the offensive line that could be causing what I think is a lack of production on the offensive side of the ball compared to Leach's resume.

 

[CougEd]

They'll be better. Considering you apparently share your brother's concern about not running enough, I'd think you'd note how an experienced OL and more mobile QB is likely to help that.

My brother and I even differ on this issue. So why bring his name up? Do you differ and think we can go back and chuck it 65 times? What are the linebackers reads? What do they have to take away? They are never coming down hill. Their first step is back because there is zero threat.

When WSU was really good on defense, in 1994, what did they do to almost every team? I think the term was "one dimensional". The one team that was able to assemble some sort of a running game and passed the ball through lanes was USC. They could not make them one dimensional, thus got beat pretty handily for that team. And yes, the game could have been vastly different if the refs didn't blow a ball dead early on and Sasa scored a defensive TD. That was a 14 point swing.

 

[CougEd]

What is the scoring average in conference games? That tells a better number for improvement or not. 2011 saw a lot of points scored in the first two games against idaho st and unlv. That could be throwing off the number compared to 2014. Conference games will eliminate the games where the score is run up against 1-AA teams.

EJ...I don't disagree at all. It is why I say stats lie and don't tell the true story. I don't think the 2011 was a good offensive team.

 

[wulffui]

My brother and I even differ on this issue. So why bring his name up? Do you differ and think we can go back and chuck it 65 times? What are the linebackers reads? What do they have to take away? They are never coming down hill. Their first step is back because there is zero threat.

When WSU was really good on defense, in 1994, what did they do to almost every team? I think the term was "one dimensional". The one team that was able to assemble some sort of a running game and passed the ball through lanes was USC. They could not make them one dimensional, thus got beat pretty handily for that team. And yes, the game could have been vastly different if the refs didn't blow a ball dead early on and Sasa scored a defensive TD. That was a 14 point swing.

For the first two years, the LB's didn't have to read anything- if it was a run play, they could wait, secure in the knowledge they could just chase down the RB, whenever he got the ball. (See: WSU-Stanford @ Clink.)

I think having a more mobile QB, and guys at RB and OL with significantly more measureables than the crew he inherited, and more experience than these same guys last year will HELP the running game. Do you disagree with that?

 

[wulffui]

EJ...I don't disagree at all. It is why I say stats lie and don't tell the true story. I don't think the 2011 was a good offensive team.

Then why do you keep using those exact stats to signpost your disappointment?

 

[E Jones]

Ed- I dont know what the numbers are for conference games. I could look them up and compare 2011 to 2014, but frankly I just dont want to. (i can be pretty lazy)
The eyeball test seems to tell me that last years team was more than 2 points better than 2011. I don't recall the turnovers in 2011, but I know last years D produced very few, and turnovers often lead to points.
Also (once again without researching to confirm this) I recall more points being scored in 2011 after the outcome was already decided than in 2014. The eyeball test once again seems to say leach is doing more against first team defenses.
I agree that stats don't always tell the true story.

 

[CougEd]

He said he had three scholly worthy guys when he got here, and they averaged 260 across the line. No matter how you choose to position your player descriptions, that's not good enough.

You know, I know what Leach said, and I will not argue that there was not enough lineman in reserve roles, and lack of depth hampers an offensive line in case of injury. I guess the problem I have with your line of discussion is WSU didn't have any injuries. Also, they started three walk-ons in 2013 that went to a bowl game. And the oline in 2012 had Jacobson at 290 at one tackle, they had Fullington prob at 280 at a guard (and Green Bays 53), they had Goetz a Tech recruit and probably 280, and Rodgers at least 295. Didn't Bosch start at center? He was probably 260. I guess my question would be if this is on the line in 2012, how did they do better with three walk-ons in 2013?

This year we will find out if it is a "line problem, if that is the cure all because I think we have the receivers to make the offense go, and I think we will always have the receivers to make the offense go. I also think the running backs are adequate or more than adequate. I am curious where should we "expect" the numbers to be for 2015?

 

[Coug95man2]

Well you wrote gaining two points a game was an accomplishment. I would say with Mike Leach's resume that would have to be considered at the best marginal. That is all. So should I "expect" anything different that 38 points a game this year?

And I didn't say the cupboards were full. I said in hindsight the offensive line had more talent than "we" thought, and maybe that isn't the problem that keeps us from making a greater jump. Again, I am hopeful it was the oline, that we bang out 38 points and WSU lives up to the reputation as an offensive juggernaut. All I did was lay out football reasons outside of the offensive line that could be causing what I think is a lack of production on the offensive side of the ball compared to Leach's resume.

You didn't bring up a "2 point gain". If you did, you didn't communicate that, in any way. I'm not going to bring up, nor argue about, your other posts Ed. They always downward spiral into a non-sensical, rabbit-trail (hello. Look at this thread. Just in 26 some-odd posts, we have the "expectations" thread again. That thread we already talked about and everyone answered) of a rambling that beats the dead horse, yet again.

Expectations for 2015… Should I look up that thread again and outline how everyone answered? You could, you know. You don't have to scroll down very far, Ed. You already have, literally, all of our answers.

 

[CougEd]

Ed- I dont know what the numbers are for conference games. I could look them up and compare 2011 to 2014, but frankly I just dont want to. (i can be pretty lazy)
The eyeball test seems to tell me that last years team was more than 2 points better than 2011. I don't recall the turnovers in 2011, but I know last years D produced very few, and turnovers often lead to points.
Also (once again without researching to confirm this) I recall more points being scored in 2011 after the outcome was already decided than in 2014. The eyeball test once again seems to say leach is doing more against first team defenses.
I agree that stats don't always tell the true story.

 

[CougEd]

I think if you looked at them I would bet you would see about 23 points a game in conference in 2011, and probably about 28 points a game in 2014. Yes, it is way more than two points a game. The question becomes is 28 to 30 enough, and will they replicate and or improve on those numbers.

 

[CougEd]

You didn't bring up a "2 point gain". If you did, you didn't communicate that, in any way. I'm not going to bring up, nor argue about, your other posts Ed. They always downward spiral into a non-sensical, rabbit-trail (hello. Look at this thread. Just in 26 some-odd posts, we have the "expectations" thread again. That thread we already talked about and everyone answered) of a rambling that beats the dead horse, yet again.

Expectations for 2015… Should I look up that thread again and outline how everyone answered? You could, you know. You don't have to scroll down very far, Ed. You already have, literally, all of our answers.

95...I am sorry...yes, we improved offensively from 2011 to current. I should have simply agreed with your post. Now what? Is that what the discussion was about? Just an accounting post?

 

[Coug95man2]

95...I am sorry...yes, we improved offensively from 2011 to current. I should have simply agreed with your post. Now what? Is that what the discussion was about? Just an accounting post?

Dude. You literally brought up something that was discussed less than 10 days ago. Scroll down just a little and you'll have the answer to your "expectations" question. YOU asked it and got point-blank answers from a bunch of us. Discuss whatever you'd like. I'm Game! Something new, something intriguing, something that bends the mind a little? GREAT!!!

But I'm begin' ya… Can't we let a few horses live? Do we have to beat them ALL to death… 20 times?

 

[CougEd]

For the first two years, the LB's didn't have to read anything- if it was a run play, they could wait, secure in the knowledge they could just chase down the RB, whenever he got the ball. (See: WSU-Stanford @ Clink.)

I think having a more mobile QB, and guys at RB and OL with significantly more measureables than the crew he inherited, and more experience than these same guys last year will HELP the running game. Do you disagree with that?

My questions I have pointed out. I believe they have to make the linebackers honest. I think they have to make the back 8 honest. Does that mean run five more times a game? I personally don't know the answer to that. I also believe that they need someone in the slot who will take a slant pattern 80 yards.

My other question even if I supported your supposition the 2012 failures were because of the oline (which based on 2 marginal NFL players) I don't buy it. I think teams are willing for WSU to show they can drive the ball 80 yards, without a mistake and punch it in the red-zone. And to do so without a TE. My other question is the difference in oline so vastly different with two walkons starting and another recruit of 9-40 starting so much better to pick up the difference in qb experience.

I hope my concerns are quickly erased, where the offense can carry the defense, make the other team one dimensional by scoring quickly enough that they cause the other team to throw and not be balanced. And take away the read option as a weapon. That's why they play the game.

 

[CougEd]

Dude. You literally brought up something that was discussed less than 10 days ago. Scroll down just a little and you'll have the answer to your "expectations" question. YOU asked it and got point-blank answers from a bunch of us. Discuss whatever you'd like. I'm Game! Something new, something intriguing, something that bends the mind a little? GREAT!!!

But I'm begin' ya… Can't we let a few horses live? Do we have to beat them ALL to death… 20 times?

We talked about scoring expectations ten days ago? I must have blacked out.

 

[CougEd]

You didn't bring up a "2 point gain". If you did, you didn't communicate that, in any way. I'm not going to bring up, nor argue about, your other posts Ed. They always downward spiral into a non-sensical, rabbit-trail (hello. Look at this thread. Just in 26 some-odd posts, we have the "expectations" thread again. That thread we already talked about and everyone answered) of a rambling that beats the dead horse, yet again.

Expectations for 2015… Should I look up that thread again and outline how everyone answered? You could, you know. You don't have to scroll down very far, Ed. You already have, literally, all of our answers.

I saw where people thought we would be 6-6, some felt 7-5, others thought 5-7. Again, very easily I could have forgotten the scoring points expectations.

 

[brettcraycraft51]

I think if you looked at them I would bet you would see about 23 points a game in conference in 2011, and probably about 28 points a game in 2014. Yes, it is way more than two points a game. The question becomes is 28 to 30 enough, and will they replicate and or improve on those numbers.

here's the breakdown for wsu's conference scoring since 2011:

2011: 23.4
2012: 20
2013: 29.3
2014: 30.2

 

[Coug95man2]

We talked about scoring expectations ten days ago? I must have blacked out.

You have "scoring expectations", more so than just "WSU needs to score more than the other guy?" Wow. You're a lot more specific on how we win than I. If that's what you were getting at, OK. I personally have ZERO expectations of any specific number, as long as we score more than the other guy. But to your point, then...

How do you determine each teams Defense (i.e. points allowed) to determine how many points we should expect, per game? WSU right now is pretty "median" in Points Per Game. Is the Pac, thus WSU, so high in PPG a reflection of the poor defense? Or is it an average Defense and the Offense within the Pac, thus WSU, is that good?

I guess my point is, you asked about "expectations". Yet WSU is pretty darn good in this category. It's right there in the middle. EDIT: If we take what you seem to express the 2 or 3 points per game as, dare I say paltry or sparse, do you realize we'd be right behind USC? I'd love that, personally. My next question is, were you expecting more? 2014 PAC average PPG is 33.5. That's UCLA, exactly. We are right behind UCLA. Below is each program from the PAC from highest to lowest.

Oregon 45.4
Cal 38.2
ASU 36.9
USC 35.8
U of A 34.5
UCLA 33.5
WSU 31.8
Utah 31.3
UW 30.2
CO 28.5
Stanford 27.2
OSU 25.7

Like I said in the original post, these numbers are pretty superficial, example look at Utah and Furd, whom we beat in this statistic. It's a complicated issue because I don't think you can talk about this statistic without looking at the average opponents scored, as well. That then leads to a whole Pandora's Box of which is more dominant within each program, O or D?

 

[wulffui]

I disagree with your assessment of the 2012 line, and agree with the current coaches assessment.

Corey Sullivan agrees with your TE critique though, and he's pretty legit.

 

[Whitworth-Coug]

Corey Sullivan agrees with your TE critique though, and he's pretty legit.

Now that is Funny!

 

[YakiCoug]

2009 was an abomination. Even though things got much better from there (29.8 ppg in 2011), it's hard to forgive the disaster that was created back then. I did have to laugh at the article's insinuation that Leach is responsible for a 20 ppg improvement since 2009. As mentioned, we are really only two points per game better since Leach took over. That aside, I think the biggest reason for the overall increase in scoring in the conference is the offensive mindset of the coaches and the variety of different styles you have to prepare for. We have teams that like to run, pass, spread you out, pack it in, and everything in between. It is incredibly difficult to prepare for the week to week shift and many of the teams do a variety of things well.

Well, when you take away the 123 points WSU scored in the first two games of 2011, the vaunted Sturdybaker of an offense averaged just 21.3 points against real teams. Nice try.

 

[YakiCoug]

Amen brother, amen.

SpammED!