FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[02 Warhawk]

I agree with Skunks on this one.  I saw Salisbury play twice, the loss to Wesley and the win against Fisher.  They are a nice team and will beat most teams based on the triple option.  A team needs the athletes and discipline to stop it, UWW has both.  If the weather is bad they will be limited to running.  They hit 1 big pass play and 1 big run against Wesley.  They gave up plenty of yards to Fisher and the game would have been much closer had Fisher scored when they were in the red zone.  So if UWW has as good a defense as Wesley, stats say yes, and as good an offense as Fisher, stats say better, then this game will likely not be close.  Salisbury will need to play a near perfect game and UWW will have to make some mistakes which it sounds like they have not done in some time for the game to be close.  I would love to see the Gulls give the Warhawks a game and so would the Warhawk fans more than likely, but just dont see it happening.

I would like to settle my nerves with a big Whitewater half-time lead myself.

Close games are a killer on my finger nails.

[oshfb]

I see UWW pulling out a convincing victory. UWO seemed to have caught UWW off guard when they went to the option game (ala O'Grady and his former UWRF formations) in the first half of that game this season. If I remember correctly, the first play out of the double-wing, double-WR formation UWO ran a dive for almost 80 yds. After having some success in that formation the majority of the 1st half, UWW held that formation VERY well in check the 2nd half not giving up much of anything.

UWW will be prepared for the option attack similar to the 2nd half of the UWO vs UWW game and doubt they yield much yardage at all...let alone points.

[Bombers798891]

I've read a couple different places that Salisbury either leads the nation in passing efficiency or would if they threw enough passes to qualify.  I maintain their passing game isn't all that efficient regardless of that ranking.  They can certainly hurt a team when they do compete a pass because they throw it down the field to the tune of 23.3 yards per completion and 13.3 yards per attempt.  But that doesn't make them particularly efficient. 

Part of efficiency (not in the ranking, but in reality) is to avoid the negative play. I'll take the efficiency of Blanchard and the Hawks offense myself:

Salisbury
# of times QB dropped back to pass: 102
% of times the play resulted in a completed pass: 50%
Ratio of times the play resulted in either a sack or interception: 1 out of every 8.5 pass plays.

UW-W
# of times QB dropped back to pass: 303
% of times the play resulted in a completed pass: 66.3%
Ratio of times the play resulted in either a sack or interception: 1 out of every 30.3  pass plays.

The figures don't include drop backs that resulted in a positive run by the QB, but I would think Matt would hold his own in that category. 

Not pointing this out to dis Salisbury. I know they are an option team that makes it's living on the ground and has an ability to hurt a defense by striking deep.  IMO, that doesn't mean they are particularly efficient at it, that's all.

That's misleading in a couple of ways though.

First, Salisbury's INT ratio was basically identical to UWW's. In fact, their only interception was thrown by their backup QB. Combining it with sacks may make it easier to look at the "negative" play rate, but it creates an impression that those occur much more frequently than they do. You're probably not going to make a living picking off Salisbury, and if you do, it's probably because the game is out of reach anyway and they've had to abandon their run offense and do something they don't excel at more than they want.

Second, in 102 dropbacks, Salisbury got 16 passing touchdowns. Roughly, one every seven dropbacks. Whitewater, by comparison, threw one every twelve. Salisbury also got a first down on about 40% of their dropbacks, compared to Whitwater's ~34%. So, they're quite efficient in certain areas of the passing game.

None of this means Salisbury will win of course. I don't think a traditional heavy-option team can beat a UWW-MUC. I think you have to (homer alert) be like a 1991 Ithaca team that ran the veer option predominantly, but had one great wide receiver, who (I think) still holds the record for most receiving yards in a single playoff year. The passing game can be a clear second option, but you have to be able to go up against a good team and say "We can complete a dozen passes by design if need be." Teams like UWW are way too well-coached to play the, "They'll never see this pass coming" game.

Whitewater 34
Salisbury 13

[pg04]

34-13 sounds like an  appropriate score for the game.  Although if Salisbury does everything perfectly, There could be some drama.  Their offense is so explosive at times that it's hard to completely rule them out. 

[dlippiel]

34-13 sounds like an  appropriate score for the game.  Although if Salisbury does everything perfectly, There could be some drama.  Their offense is so explosive at times that it's hard to completely rule them out.

There is no question the possible outcomes of this game leave a lot to the imagination. To dlip, UWW will win somewhat convincingly. This is absolutely no slight on the Gulls, whom dlip really likes (everyone who knows dlip, knows he has a HUGE man crush issue with option offenses. ****, he still has a ****ing Chris Sharpe poster on his wall...well not really ), believes the Gulls are a very good, top 10-15, football team. U-Dub just seems on such another level in regards to consistency and execution, not to mention depth and talent, that he just doesn't think Salisbury will win. dlip does think that the Gulls may put an early scare into Dub, but they just won't be able to bottle up LC. On top of this, their O won't be able to get into much of a rhythm, as a result of U-Dub not allowing the Gulls to have sustained drives. Not going to pick a score here, just going to hold close to dlip's thoughts on the overall direction and outcome of the game. Good luck to both teams and let's hope for an injury free football game!

[02 Warhawk]

Whitewater 34
Salisbury 13

I can live with that score....

[bleedpurple]

Our boys shouldn't be reading this stuff, don't you think?     

Oh and I'm sure.........none of them ever do!

Besides, the jinx is on just by saying the words.  It is negative energy being put into the atmosphere.
Geeze, I sound like a hippie nutcase.     Well, just to be safe, everyone repeat after me:

"Protect the ball......protect the ball............protect the ball!!"

Never believed in jinxes and never will.  But I do have a question regarding the whole positive/negative energy worldview.  How is stating the positive aspects of a football team, backed by statistics, releasing negative energy into the atmosphere?  Are you sure it isn't the "reaction" of those who fear jinxes that releases said negative energy? Just wondering...

Am i going to really regret asking these questions? 

[bleedpurple]

"Securing Success"

www.uwwfootball.com

Another job well done Bleed, thanks for the article.  Reading about that game makes me realize how mentally strong this team is.  I was at that game and the strange thing is, I never really felt that UWW was in trouble- even though the score at the half certainly suggests the game was in doubt.  Over the years this program has consistently overcome the tough challenges and as a team, they just seem to get done what needs to get done for the victory.

This entire line of thinking pretty much nails on the head one of the major reasons I am continually confident and not particularly nervous about this team's chances of winning.  I attribute their mental strength to the character and ability of both the coaching staffs and the players.  They enter every game KNOWING they can win while other teams come into it hoping or wishing they could win.  And it never wavers regardless of what success the other team is having or not having.  They are absolutely unaffected by a big play by the opposing team, falling behind, a bad call by the referee, or even their own mistakes.  They don't whine, showboat, trash talk, show distress in body language, or back down.  They just keep playing fast, hard, aggressive, and usually smart.  I'm sure you sensed all of this in Oshkosh, which is probably why you never felt they were in trouble. 

This is the factor that some overlook when they try to dissect statistics or performance and suggest UW-W is somehow slipping.  When a team is actually able to beat them on the field, let's talk.  Until that happens, no post or reasoning will convince me because I know it certainly won't convince them.   

Thanks, Emma, Dad, and Dr. Bobo, for your kind words! 

So you're saying, they CAN'T be beaten?

No I'm saying that you wanting it to happen doesn't bring it any closer to happening. 

[bleedpurple]

I've read a couple different places that Salisbury either leads the nation in passing efficiency or would if they threw enough passes to qualify.  I maintain their passing game isn't all that efficient regardless of that ranking.  They can certainly hurt a team when they do compete a pass because they throw it down the field to the tune of 23.3 yards per completion and 13.3 yards per attempt.  But that doesn't make them particularly efficient. 

Part of efficiency (not in the ranking, but in reality) is to avoid the negative play. I'll take the efficiency of Blanchard and the Hawks offense myself:

Salisbury
# of times QB dropped back to pass: 102
% of times the play resulted in a completed pass: 50%
Ratio of times the play resulted in either a sack or interception: 1 out of every 8.5 pass plays.

UW-W
# of times QB dropped back to pass: 303
% of times the play resulted in a completed pass: 66.3%
Ratio of times the play resulted in either a sack or interception: 1 out of every 30.3  pass plays.

The figures don't include drop backs that resulted in a positive run by the QB, but I would think Matt would hold his own in that category. 

Not pointing this out to dis Salisbury. I know they are an option team that makes it's living on the ground and has an ability to hurt a defense by striking deep.  IMO, that doesn't mean they are particularly efficient at it, that's all.

That's misleading in a couple of ways though.

First, Salisbury's INT ratio was basically identical to UWW's. In fact, their only interception was thrown by their backup QB. Combining it with sacks may make it easier to look at the "negative" play rate, but it creates an impression that those occur much more frequently than they do. You're probably not going to make a living picking off Salisbury, and if you do, it's probably because the game is out of reach anyway and they've had to abandon their run offense and do something they don't excel at more than they want.

Second, in 102 dropbacks, Salisbury got 16 passing touchdowns. Roughly, one every seven dropbacks. Whitewater, by comparison, threw one every twelve. Salisbury also got a first down on about 40% of their dropbacks, compared to Whitwater's ~34%. So, they're quite efficient in certain areas of the passing game.

None of this means Salisbury will win of course. I don't think a traditional heavy-option team can beat a UWW-MUC. I think you have to (homer alert) be like a 1991 Ithaca team that ran the veer option predominantly, but had one great wide receiver, who (I think) still holds the record for most receiving yards in a single playoff year. The passing game can be a clear second option, but you have to be able to go up against a good team and say "We can complete a dozen passes by design if need be." Teams like UWW are way too well-coached to play the, "They'll never see this pass coming" game.

Whitewater 34
Salisbury 13

Actually it "creates the impression" that a sack or interception happens 1 out every 8.5 times they drop back to pass (as acknowledged, minus the number of positive runs the QB scrambles for).   

I agree with Skunks.  This is kind of paralysis by analysis.  I know we are talking about Salisbury throwing under 10 passes, probably no interceptions, and probably one sack if statistics hold true. 

As I noted, I wasn't trying to disrespect Salisbury with this post. If anything, I am kind of picking on a statistical category being named "Passing Efficiency" when sacks are totally disregarded in the process. 

[footballfan413]

Our boys shouldn't be reading this stuff, don't you think?     

Oh and I'm sure.........none of them ever do!

Besides, the jinx is on just by saying the words.  It is negative energy being put into the atmosphere.
Geeze, I sound like a hippie nutcase.     Well, just to be safe, everyone repeat after me:

"Protect the ball......protect the ball............protect the ball!!"

Never believed in jinxes and never will.  But I do have a question regarding the whole positive/negative energy worldview.  How is stating the positive aspects of a football team, backed by statistics, releasing negative energy into the atmosphere?  Are you sure it isn't the "reaction" of those who fear jinxes that releases said negative energy? Just wondering...

Am i going to really regret asking these questions? 

LOL  Maybe it is but there must be some truth to the, "tempting the fates,' aspect of verbalizing something positive.  Why else would we need to, "knock on wood?"   

[warhawkguard]

Ugh! All this build up and speculation is killing me! Lets get the game started already!!

Bring it Hawks! Show them how the rock is truly pounded!

[retagent]

90% of all stats are 80% hooey!

[Sakman 1111]

Well said Retagent.....

[WarhawkDad]

I agree with Skunks on this one.  I saw Salisbury play twice, the loss to Wesley and the win against Fisher.  They are a nice team and will beat most teams based on the triple option.  A team needs the athletes and discipline to stop it, UWW has both.  If the weather is bad they will be limited to running.  They hit 1 big pass play and 1 big run against Wesley.  They gave up plenty of yards to Fisher and the game would have been much closer had Fisher scored when they were in the red zone.  So if UWW has as good a defense as Wesley, stats say yes, and as good an offense as Fisher, stats say better, then this game will likely not be close.  Salisbury will need to play a near perfect game and UWW will have to make some mistakes which it sounds like they have not done in some time for the game to be close.  I would love to see the Gulls give the Warhawks a game and so would the Warhawk fans more than likely, but just dont see it happening.

I would like to settle my nerves with a big Whitewater half-time lead myself.

Close games are a killer on my finger nails.

WarhawkDad tries to settle his nerves with several Bloody Mary's at the tailgate  , but finds that a couple UWW touchdowns or UWW defensive interceptions or fumble recoveries actually works much better.   

[footballfan413]

I agree with Skunks on this one.  I saw Salisbury play twice, the loss to Wesley and the win against Fisher.  They are a nice team and will beat most teams based on the triple option.  A team needs the athletes and discipline to stop it, UWW has both.  If the weather is bad they will be limited to running.  They hit 1 big pass play and 1 big run against Wesley.  They gave up plenty of yards to Fisher and the game would have been much closer had Fisher scored when they were in the red zone.  So if UWW has as good a defense as Wesley, stats say yes, and as good an offense as Fisher, stats say better, then this game will likely not be close.  Salisbury will need to play a near perfect game and UWW will have to make some mistakes which it sounds like they have not done in some time for the game to be close.  I would love to see the Gulls give the Warhawks a game and so would the Warhawk fans more than likely, but just dont see it happening.

I would like to settle my nerves with a big Whitewater half-time lead myself.

Close games are a killer on my finger nails.

WarhawkDad tries to settle his nerves with several Bloody Mary's at the tailgate  , but finds that a couple UWW touchdowns or UWW defensive interceptions or fumble recoveries actually works much better.   

Always had game day stomach starting the day before the game until the play-offs and then it turned into game week stomach. The only thing I don't miss from my son's playing days.  And I have a 2 TD rule. Can't relax at all until we are up by 2 TD's at least. 
   Get there early, WD.  These noon start times can drastically cut into that tailgating time.   

And 02, hope to finally meet you on Fibby Row.