menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Early for Stats to Have Meaning, But Still
Page: 1 of 1
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 9/20/2015 9:31 AM
settings_applications edit_note
http://www.mac-sports.com/custompages/stats/2015FB/confld...

The too conservative Ohio offense leads the MAC in Passing Efficiency.

PASS EFFICIENCY G Comp Att Int Pct. Yards TD Effic.
1. Ohio 3 53 80 2 66.3 786 6 168.5
2. Bowling Green 3 93 151 1 61.6 1367 12 162.5
3. Western Michigan 3 85 119 5 71.4 983 8 154.6
4. Northern Illinois 3 66 98 2 67.3 829 6 154.5
5. Central Michigan 3 91 129 3 70.5 1023 5 145.3
6. Buffalo 3 56 84 2 66.7 565 4 134.1
7. Eastern Michigan 3 59 100 4 59.0 724 5 128.3
8. Miami 3 44 91 4 48.4 649 6 121.2
9. UMass 2 53 97 2 54.6 643 4 119.8
10. Ball State 3 70 113 2 61.9 653 2 112.8
11. Toledo 2 32 66 1 48.5 375 2 103.2
12. Kent State 3 47 94 3 50.0 463 3 95.5
13. Akron 3 31 81 2 38.3 486 2 91.9


PASS EFFICIENCY Cl G Comp-Att-Int Pct. Yards TD Long Effic.
1. VICK, Derrius-OHIO SR 3 34 - 49 - 2 69.4 548 4 67 182.1
2. JOHNSON, Matt-BGSU SR 3 91 - 148 - 1 61.5 1358 12 94 164.0
3. HARE, Drew-NIU JR 3 64 - 95 - 2 67.4 798 6 55 154.6
4. TERRELL, Zach-WMU JR 3 82 - 116 - 5 70.7 947 8 56 153.4
5. KUMMER, Drew-MIAMI SR 3 31 - 58 - 2 53.4 493 5 75 146.4
6. WOODSON, T.-AKRON SO 3 12 - 21 - 1 57.1 207 1 40 146.1
7. SPRAGUE, JD-OHIO JR 2 18 - 30 - 0 60.0 219 2 65 143.3
8. RUSH, Cooper-CMU JR 3 90 - 128 - 3 70.3 983 5 83 143.0
9. NEAL, Riley-BSU FR 2 35 - 47 - 0 74.5 310 1 45 136.9
10. LICATA, Joe-UB SR 3 54 - 81 - 2 66.7 556 4 46 135.7


The too conservative Ohio offense has the receiver with the highest Avg/Catch, 26.6 yds/c.

RECEIVE YDS/GAME Cl G Rec. Yards TD Long Rec/G Avg/C Avg/G
1. LEWIS, Roger-BGSU SO 3 24 510 5 94 8.0 21.2 170.0
2. Sharpe, T.-UMASS SR 2 22 294 0 45 11.0 13.4 147.0
3. BRAVERMAN, D-WMU JR 3 40 398 3 43 13.3 9.9 132.7
4. GOLLADAY, Kenny-NIU JR 3 20 376 2 55 6.7 18.8 125.3
5. DAVIS, Corey-WMU JR 3 18 309 3 56 6.0 17.2 103.0
6. McCORD, Ben-CMU SR 3 16 306 2 83 5.3 19.1 102.0
7. COPE, Brendan-OHIO SO 3 9 239 2 67 3.0 26.6 79.7
8. MOORE, Ronnie-BGSU JR 3 20 238 0 45 6.7 11.9 79.3
9. WILLIAMS, Jorda-BSU SR 3 15 214 1 45 5.0 14.3 71.3
10. Michel, M.-UMASS SR 2 9 125 1 27 4.5 13.9 62.5

Fourth Down Conversion Shows Good Play Calling.

4TH-DOWN CONVERSIONS G Conv. Att. Pct.
1. Ohio 3 3 3 100.0
Central Michigan 3 3 3 100.0
3. Buffalo 3 5 6 83.3
Ball State 3 5 6 83.3
5. Bowling Green 3 6 9 66.7
Toledo 2 2 3 66.7
7. Western Michigan 3 2 4 50.0
Miami 3 2 4 50.0
UMass 2 4 8 50.0
10. Kent State 3 7 15 46.7
11. Eastern Michigan 3 1 3 33.3
12. Northern Illinois 3 1 5 20.0
13. Akron 3 0 1 0.0


The defense is highly rated in many areas.

OPP 3RD-DN CONVERT G Conv. Att. Pct.
1. Ohio 3 13 45 28.9
2. Kent State 3 13 44 29.5
3. Central Michigan 3 11 37 29.7
4. Northern Illinois 3 18 51 35.3
5. Akron 3 17 45 37.8
6. Miami 3 18 47 38.3
7. Eastern Michigan 3 19 45 42.2
8. Buffalo 3 20 47 42.6
9. Bowling Green 3 21 48 43.8
10. Ball State 3 23 49 46.9
11. UMass 2 17 34 50.0
12. Western Michigan 3 21 40 52.5
13. Toledo 2 20 36 55.6


Gained Lost
TURNOVER MARGIN G Fumb Int Total Fumb Int Total Margin Per/G
1. Buffalo 3 4 4 8 0 2 2 +6 2.00
2. Ohio 3 5 4 9 2 2 4 +5 1.67
Northern Illinois 3 2 7 9 2 2 4 +5 1.67
4. Bowling Green 3 1 3 4 1 1 2 +2 0.67
Ball State 3 3 2 5 1 2 3 +2 0.67
6. Toledo 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 +1 0.50
7. Miami 3 3 4 7 3 4 7 +0 0.00
Kent State 3 3 4 7 4 3 7 +0 0.00
Akron 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 +0 0.00
10. UMass 2 1 2 3 2 2 4 -1 -0.50
11. Central Michigan 3 0 2 2 1 3 4 -2 -0.67
12. Eastern Michigan 3 2 0 2 1 4 5 -3 -1.00
13. Western Michigan 3 1 1 2 3 5 8 -6 -2.00


OPP 3RD-DN CONVERT G Conv. Att. Pct.
1. Ohio 3 13 45 28.9
2. Kent State 3 13 44 29.5
3. Central Michigan 3 11 37 29.7
4. Northern Illinois 3 18 51 35.3
5. Akron 3 17 45 37.8
6. Miami 3 18 47 38.3
7. Eastern Michigan 3 19 45 42.2
8. Buffalo 3 20 47 42.6
9. Bowling Green 3 21 48 43.8
10. Ball State 3 23 49 46.9
11. UMass 2 17 34 50.0
12. Western Michigan 3 21 40 52.5
13. Toledo 2 20 36 55.6

OPPONENT 1ST DOWNS G Rush Pass Pen Total Avg/G
1. Kent State 3 11 18 4 33 11.0
2. Central Michigan 3 17 26 2 45 15.0
3. Ohio 3 15 33 6 54 18.0
4. Buffalo 3 23 27 5 55 18.3
5. UMass 2 26 27 3 56 28.0
6. Toledo 2 22 33 2 57 28.5
Western Michigan 3 26 25 6 57 19.0
8. Ball State 3 20 38 1 59 19.7
9. Akron 3 18 34 9 61 20.3
10. Northern Illinois 3 23 35 6 64 21.3
11. Bowling Green 3 35 32 6 73 24.3
12. Miami 3 33 34 9 76 25.3
13. Eastern Michigan 3 48 22 10 80 26.7

SACKS BY G No. Yards
1. Kent State 3 9 69
2. Ohio 3 8 59
3. Ball State 3 7 41
Northern Illinois 3 7 40
Akron 3 7 46
6. Buffalo 3 6 54
7. Central Michigan 3 5 21
Eastern Michigan 3 5 32
Miami 3 5 34
10. Toledo 2 4 24
11. Bowling Green 3 3 19
12. UMass 2 2 10
13. Western Michigan 3 1 9


INTERCEPTIONS G No. Yards TD Avg.
1. Northern Illinois 3 7 106 1 15.1
2. Kent State 3 4 10 0 2.5
3. Ohio 3 4 66 1 16.5
4. Miami 3 4 35 0 8.8
5. Buffalo 3 4 50 1 12.5
6. Bowling Green 3 3 38 0 12.7
7. Ball State 3 2 0 0 0.0
8. UMass 2 2 7 0 3.5
9. Central Michigan 3 2 0 0 0.0
10. Akron 3 2 13 0 6.5
11. Western Michigan 3 1 10 1 10.0
12. Toledo 2 1 0 0 0.0
Eastern Michigan 3 0 0 0 0.0

PASS DEFENSE EFFIC. G Comp Att Int Pct. Yards TD Effic.
1. Buffalo 3 53 108 4 49.1 641 4 103.7
2. Eastern Michigan 3 48 82 0 58.5 410 2 108.6
3. Ohio 3 73 113 4 64.6 577 3 109.2
4. Northern Illinois 3 69 118 7 58.5 746 5 113.7
5. Kent State 3 34 66 4 51.5 397 6 119.9
6. Miami 3 59 103 4 57.3 689 5 121.7
7. Toledo 2 58 96 1 60.4 686 1 121.8
8. Central Michigan 3 52 82 2 63.4 541 3 126.0
9. UMass 2 43 73 2 58.9 559 2 126.8
10. Western Michigan 3 41 76 1 53.9 567 3 127.0
11. Akron 3 59 101 2 58.4 747 4 129.7
12. Ball State 3 75 117 2 64.1 873 7 143.1
13. Bowling Green 3 60 96 3 62.5 776 7 148.2
Last Edited: 9/20/2015 9:33:54 AM by Bcat2
Mark Lembright '85
General User
ML85
Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Highland Heights, OH
Post Count: 2,460
person
mail
Mark Lembright '85
mail
Posted: 9/20/2015 12:36 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio has done well offensively but Bowling Green's pass offense is much better. Ohio has nothing that approaches BG's Matt Johnson-Roger Lewis combination. And they've done it against a tougher schedule (so far). BG's lit up Tennessee (albeit in a loss on the road), Maryland on the road and Memphis. Ohio's success has come against an awful Idaho team, an FCS team and Marshall, obviously a great win. BG's schedule has been much tougher than Ohio's, and I'm very impressed with what they've done so far.

It will be interesting to see what Ohio can do this next week against one of the Big 10's best defenses. It should be a good barometer of where Ohio's offense is so far.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 9/20/2015 2:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Mark Lembright '85 wrote:expand_more
Ohio has done well offensively but Bowling Green's pass offense is much better. Ohio has nothing that approaches BG's Matt Johnson-Roger Lewis combination. And they've done it against a tougher schedule (so far). ...

There is no question that BG has an impressive offense. Their defense, however, continues to be suspect. For what it's worth:
1 Johnson leads all of FBS with 1358 yards passing, and second place is far behind, Dane Evans of Tulsa with 1172. His average/game of 452 ypg just trails the all time FBS record of 467 set by David Klingler in 1990.
2. BG leads all of FBS in passing, at 456 a game. Second place is Texas Tech, far behind at 399.
3. Roger Lewis leads all of FBS with 510 yards receiving. Second place is 454. (Cope is 42d by the way).
4. BG is second behind Baylor in Total Offense, at 609/game.
5. BG is only 29th, however, in points/game at 39.7.
6. BG is 114th in Total Defense, giving up 495 yards/game
7. BG is 120 of 127 in Scoring Defense, giving up 43.3 points/game.
Mark Lembright '85
General User
ML85
Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Highland Heights, OH
Post Count: 2,460
person
mail
Mark Lembright '85
mail
Posted: 9/20/2015 6:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Ohio has done well offensively but Bowling Green's pass offense is much better. Ohio has nothing that approaches BG's Matt Johnson-Roger Lewis combination. And they've done it against a tougher schedule (so far). ...

There is no question that BG has an impressive offense. Their defense, however, continues to be suspect. For what it's worth:
1 Johnson leads all of FBS with 1358 yards passing, and second place is far behind, Dane Evans of Tulsa with 1172. His average/game of 452 ypg just trails the all time FBS record of 467 set by David Klingler in 1990.
2. BG leads all of FBS in passing, at 456 a game. Second place is Texas Tech, far behind at 399.
3. Roger Lewis leads all of FBS with 510 yards receiving. Second place is 454. (Cope is 42d by the way).
4. BG is second behind Baylor in Total Offense, at 609/game.
5. BG is only 29th, however, in points/game at 39.7.
6. BG is 114th in Total Defense, giving up 495 yards/game
7. BG is 120 of 127 in Scoring Defense, giving up 43.3 points/game.
You're correct LC, BG 's defense could very well be their Achilles heel.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 9/21/2015 10:22 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I like this stat:

First Quarter: Ohio 35, Opponents 3.

Not a TD allowed in the first quarter this year; scoring TDs instead of FGs early on.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 9/21/2015 3:38 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Sometimes, I think people forget about the object of the game. Pure and simple the goal is: W-I-N.

So, how do you do that? Well, let's see...if I score 40+ points per game, I think I will WIN some.

And, if I can keep the opponent to say 20 or less, I will probably win some.

If I can do both, I will WIN a LOT of games.

If I do neither, I will win very FEW games.

BG has the approach they will outscore you, plain and simple. It is one way to win games.

All I can say is we better be able to hold them under 40 when we play them or it will be a long day!
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 9/21/2015 4:35 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
Sometimes, I think people forget about the object of the game. Pure and simple the goal is: W-I-N.

So, how do you do that? Well, let's see...if I score 40+ points per game, I think I will WIN some.

And, if I can keep the opponent to say 20 or less, I will probably win some.

If I can do both, I will WIN a LOT of games.

If I do neither, I will win very FEW games.

BG has the approach they will outscore you, plain and simple. It is one way to win games.

All I can say is we better be able to hold them under 40 when we play them or it will be a long day!
BG is only 1-1 in games where they've scored 40+. Their defense is atrocious. If we control the ball like we did against them last year but without the mistakes, we should beat them, even if they score 40. We had more than 500 yds and 40 mins TOP, but put up only 13 pts because of turnovers and not moving the ball on key downs. We beat ourselves last year and can't/shouldn't do that this year.
Last Edited: 9/21/2015 4:35:57 PM by Pataskala
Showing Messages: 1 - 7 of 7
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)