Longtime fans of this blog (which from 2005-2011 appeared here) know that I've always been interested in how QB's do on 3rd and 4th down. A big part of knowing just how good a QB is comes from looking at what he does as a passer and runner on those downs.
So how did Joe Green do on the clutch downs this year?
Well, it's complicated.
When you look at the stats below, Green's pretty decent completion percentages and good TD-INT ratio will stand out as the good news. The extremely low yards per attempt numbers and low percentage of passes for 1st downs will stand out as the bad news.
(On YPA: seven yards and higher is excellent and between six-seven yards is pretty good)
What's complicated is that what jumped out at me as I combed through the stats is that Green simply wasn't called on to show his talents enough. Columbia ran the ball many times on 3rd and long this season, and it was clear in other ways that Green was being held back way too often.
Another stat that jumps out is that only 40.3% of the passes Green COMPLETED on 3rd down went for 1st downs. Throwing behind the sticks on most of your 3rd down passes isn't aggressive enough.
The 4th down numbers were a little better, but the percentage of 1st downs on 4th down passes completed is also too low.
Now, we should be willing to excuse a lot of this considering Green's lack of any in-person work with the CU coaches until training camp, etc. But this is something Green and the coaches need to focus on for next season.
What we saw from Green this year transcends just the numbers, (which is why analytics in football is not as helpful as it can be in baseball). Columbia has a QB who can make all the throws, roll out and scramble with great effectiveness, and practice fantastic ball security throughout.
What we don't want to see is Green wasted as Sean Brackett '13 often was, especially by the Mangurian coaching regime that didn't let him run or roll out much during his senior season.
And as much as we all loved seeing Green throw just three interceptions this season, the downside of that was that he probably wasn't throwing the ball enough. A more aggressive passing attack would have likely made a difference in the Princeton game for one thing, and that's something the coaching staff is probably considering this offseason.
With the graduation of Ryan Young and likely departure of Dante Miller, (though I think he'd be wisest to stay at CU for another year), I still think Columbia's running back corps looks pretty good with guys like Ty'Son Edwards and Nicolas Nesbitt ready to go. And of course, dual-threat QB Gabriel Hollingsworth is a special weapon on the ground too.
But for Columbia to really contend for a championship in 2022, the passing game needs to step it up. Luckily, we have the QB and the receivers to do it.
Joe Green 3rd Down Passing
Completions: 52
Attempts: 89
Completion Percentage: 58.4%
Yards: 519
YPA: 5.83
Passes for 1st Downs: 21 (23.5% of attempts, 40.3% of completions)
TD: 4
INT: 1
Sacks: 4
Joe Green 3rd Down Running
ATT: 5
Yards: 23
Avg: 4.6
1st Downs: 2
TD: 0
Fumbles: 0
Joe Green 4th Down Passing
Completions: 6
Attempts: 9
Completion Percentage: 66.6%
Yards: 44
YPA: 4.88
Passes for 1st Downs: 3 (33.3% of attempts, 50% of completions)
TD: 1
INT: 0
Sacks: 0
Joe Green 4th Down Running
ATT: 2
Yards: 9
Avg: 4.5
1st Downs: 2
TD: 0
Fumbles: 0
20 comments:
Green’s unfavorable stats more accurately reflect the consistently dismal play calling of the OC and not the performance of Green. Going forward, the OC is the one who needs to significantly improve his performance if the Lions hope to contend for title next season. Green has all the weapons to deliver on his end.
Love all the trolls second guessing a Hall of Fane coach and his staff. Fabish and Al are joined at the hip and Al is very involved in the offensive game plan
I suspect there was some reluctance on the coaching staff's part to having Joe Green run the ball early in the season given that he had incurred a broken collarbone at San Diego. In the last couple of games the coaching staff clearly allowed Green to run the ball more often and he demonstrated that he is a quite capable runner as well. Peter is correct in stating that Green should have an excellent receiving corps next year with nearly all of his wide receivers likely to return along with a couple of incoming studs at least one of whom has already committed to Columbia. However we do need more production from the tight ends and unless Dante Miller returns there is an obvious need to recruit at least one or two outstanding running backs to replace him and Ryan Young in the backfield. So much the better if one or two of the young back-up running backs this year are ready to step in, but it goes without saying that Columbia must recruit a couple of standout running backs anyway. Finally, as the anonymous contributor noted, it is a safe bet that Coach Al Bagnoli and Coach Mark Fabish are already designing together something very, special for Joe Green, Gabriel Hollingsworth and friends next year as the Lions seek a long overdue Ivy League Championship for Columbia Football Fans and Hall of Fame Coach Al Bagnoli.
Stan Waldbaum
Hey anonymous, this shtick is growing tiresome. Since Jake has been one of the people saying we need to improve our offensive game plan, I would imagine you're including him in your reference to trolls (since I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're consistent in how you level criticism).
He, Peter Stevens, and all the others who have made similar observations are correct: the playcalling on the offensive side is too conservative, doesn't make the best use of the talent we have, and needs improvement. It's as simple as that, and if the Pope himself ran this offense, that wouldn't change. I'm of the opinion that Coach Bagnoli would be the first to say that he and his staff are responsible for the decisions they make, and that they welcome feedback, whether positive or not, and for what it's worth, I don't believe he would be bothered by anything we've said.
In any event, I think we can all reject the conclusion you're trying to draw, which seems to be that we should fully support the offensive gameplan--without any reservations whatsoever--simply because our coach is a HOF'er, and he may be signing off on it. The reality is that we can have both a HOF coach and a clearly deficient offensive gameplan. It's a mystery to me why you consider it an impossibility for these conditions to co-exist, but the fact is that they do.
This reminds me of the scene in the movie Friday Night Lights, when all the locals are in the head coaches ear, telling him what schemes he should use and how he should use his players better. Just laughable!
Trolls are going to troll. Writing strictly as a fan, Jake is absolutely right that it was frustrating to see so many third down passes clearly short of the first down marker. Two thoughts, was there just a lack of confidence in our tight ends? And maybe Joe's one weakness is the little pass into the flat that could get Miller into open space. That could have helped on third down, getting Miller the ball facing upfield. Troll away, anonymous!
Tight ends had stone hands and wr were mediocre at best. You guys are too busy reading the bios of players with the fake accolades and recruiting offers. Al and Fabish worked a miracle this year to finish 7-3. Talent is not yet on par with the big boys in the league. Al and the staff know this. Just appreciate what Al and his staff have done in the plast 4 years please.
Jake, please ban anonymous. He hates Columbia and preys on this board to denigrate the program.
Whoa. When have I denigrated Columbia. I am DEFENDING the coaches!!!!!!
Now on to the substance. Green is excellent. He had not played in a game in two years, did not have the dome, did not have Spring ball, and had all of a handful of practices before the season to win the starting job and acclimate himself to the team. Did he succeed? You bet! He was rookie of the year and is a good bet to be first team all Ivy before he finishes. Yes he threw some swing passes and screens into the ground but that can be fixed. His touch on the deep ball is excellent. The TE Painton is a great blocker and with a full offseason he will earn to catch. The WRs? I honestly would not trade Canty for any WR in the league. And our talent level? Just take a look at the total number of all Ivy players. And ask Buddy Teevens what he thinks of our roster.
With a defense like that I would cop a plea
Valmas definitely has you pegged correctly
The DEFENSE is the reason Columbia won 7 games.
Fabish needs to be REPLACED. He never uses the clock to his advantage, why are we passing on 2nd and 1?!?!? Saw that multiple times this season!
For what it's worth, the All-Ivy results support what Steve Morrison is saying: across the first and second teams, we had only two players on offense (Miller and Worrell), whereas we had four on defense (Mathiasmeyer, Akere, Dillon, and Valentas).
For those of you more interested in Columbia's actual IL statistics than glib references to Friday Night Lights, here are the numbers for the offense:
1) Scoring (6 out of 8 at 24.9 ppg, ahead of only Cornell and Penn)
2) Total Yards (7 out of 8 at 323.0 YPG, ahead of only Penn)
3) Rushing (2 out of 8 at 162.7 YPG, behind only Dartmouth, who led the IV with 193.7 YPG)
4) Passing Yards (8 out of 8 at 160.3 YPG) Wow! So our QB is the ILROY, but our passing game was the worst in the Ivies as measured by passing yards per game, yards per pass, and total passing yards. By other metrics, such as passing completions, attempts, and touchdowns, we didn't fare much better and were second-worst in the Ivies.
5) Offensive Efficiency (6 out of 8 at 113.0)
6) Time of Possession (8 out of 8 at 28:01 per game) So much for burning the clock with the ground-and-pound, eh?
7) Red Zone Offense (5 out of 8, with fewer TDs than everyone besides Cornell and Penn)
8) First Downs (7 out of 8 at 17.1 per game, better than only Penn)
9) Third-down Conversion Rate (8 out of 8 at 29.2%)
10) Fourth-down Conversion Rate (3 out of 8 at 63.6%)
So for the ten metrics for offense that I shared above, we were fifth or worse in all but two (viz., rushing yards per game and fourth-down conversion rate), and we were dead last in passing yards per game, third-down conversion rate, and time of possession. Yet Anonymous considers all criticism of the offense illegitimate and unfounded, and what's more, s/he goes so far as to suggest that the offense was the reason we won 7 games! Both are truly astounding claims, and arguments from authority aside, neither one is supported by any evidence that I've seen.
The more likely story is that we did "just enough" on offense, and we actually won 7 games through a combination of our defense, generally good special teams (with lots of FGs), and our "just enough" offense.
Note that the statistics above are from ivyleaguesports.com and reflect our performance in the Ivy campaign only. While we were better on offense in non-conference games--especially against Marist and Georgetown, I should mention that we struggled on offense against CCSU, and across those three wins out of conference, our defense held the opposition below 20 ppg on average.
One correction to my comment above: the stats from ivyleaguesports.com are actually for the full (ten-game) campaign. All non-conference games are included, which in some ways makes our shortcomings on offense even more apparent.
We have a lot of returning talent -- on both sides of the ball -- so let's use the weapons we have. Let's open up the offense next year with more imaginative playcalling, including more deep balls, fewer runs on first down, multi-back sets, passes out of run formations, different looks for Hollingsworth, designed bootleg and/or option plays for Green, and so on. And let's not forget that the rest of the league won't stand still.
Simple question .... on a team that finished in 4th place in the IL, went 7-3 overall and 4-3 in the IL, scored 30 points in a loss to Yale, was down 10-7 late in the 3rd Q versus Princeton, and had a game where the O and D both were totaally out-of-sink (Harvard) .... Why the dour talk ??? .... ok, believe me, I'd like us to score 30 pts/gm (Brown averaged 29+ ppg and finished 7th in the IL ), but I'd rather be 7-3 (4-3) versus 2-8 (1-6) ....
Prior to a game, the OC/DC must develop a game plan based on the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent ... once the game starts, it's up to the offensive and defensive players to execute the game plan .... a good game plan won't win a game if the players don't execute, but if the players execute their responsibilities on each play they can still win even with a less-than-good game plan .... In the end, it's a players game .... Coaches can help, but they can't block and tackle ...
You're welcome to your opinion, and this is mine ...
Totally agree. Well said, sir!
I live too far away to attend games, so I listen on the radio. I listen to the opposing team's station mostly because I feel it gives an unbiased picture of what CU is doing. Many times this year those announcers have questioned specific calls by the offense. For example, they kept wondering why Columbia was running into the teeth of the Harvard line with little to show for it, generally setting up unsuccessful 2d/3rd and longs, and ultimately giving away field position on the punt exchange. Coach Bagnoli took responsibility for lack of preparation in that game but I don't think answered why he decided on the game plan he chose to use. There is nothing wrong with specifying, at least in general, why a specific game plan was used or why it was followed when it was clear it was not working (unless he thinks he is giving away information to future game coaches on how he thinks)
In response to the comment above, a game plan is based on the opponent's strengths and weaknesses and your team's strengths and weaknesses. Jake does an excellent job of describing both in his pre-game comments. Once the game starts the game plan may need in-game adjustments (scheme and player utilization), not just player execution. Jake also addresses those adjustments, or lack thereof, well in his post-game comments.
There are at least two ways to look at the stats above. We game-planned poorly and/or made less than optimal in-game adjustments or the players, while outstanding, were not as good as we might think relative to the opposition and they had to perform well, or perhaps better than expected, in order to get to the stats they achieved. Only the coaches really know that answer.
The pros throw on 2d and 1 consistently. It is more a passing down than is 3rd and 1. Fabish is copying the pros if he does this. But it's a matter of style and control. Woody Hayes would run on 2d and 1, Tom Brady's OCs would pass on 2d and 1. If CU's pass on the 2d and 1 were incomplete, they would till have had Miller/Young for the 3d and 1 run.
Throwing consistently short on third downs could be due to any manner of things - defensive scheme, offensive scheme, receiver ability, QB ability, O-line ability (keeping Dline hands down). It might even change by game although the outcome, and therefore the problem, seems for the same reason. Perhaps someone could ask Coach Bagnoli why that seems to occur regularly.
What were the announcers saying during the Dartmouth game? Or what were they saying about the Offense during the Yale game? Hmmmm. I have complete respect for Jake and I love his blog. But I don’t believe Jake has ever put together an offensive game plan or coached at the D1 level. Also, maybe they didn’t have success vs Harvard because Harvard had the best defensive talent in the league.
Dartmouth and Yale announcers were more concerned about why their team was not responding well to CU's plan rather than complimenting CU on its plan and execution. Harvard may have had the best defensive talent in the league or the best use of their defensive talent, I wouldn't know, but the question would be why CU would continue to run the same type of play, in this situation, ineffectual runs up the middle until the game was out of hand? Why would anyone stick with something not working and at least not try something else? There may be a good answer but when any coach at any level does that s/he leaves her/himself open to valid questions from fans of the team as to why. The Fabish play-calling comments here reflect that. I imagine the coaches don't want to engage in that type of discussion for many reasons but I think they do themselves a disservice when they don't find a way to talk about it.
Post a Comment