Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I think people just don’t care if he’s a good pass blocker or not because they believe he’s a good enough runner that his other deficiencies don’t really matter that much.
wow. . . over-react much?
You must be new around here - Strickland, Barca and many on the left won't be happy until schools are shut down (again), economy is damaged (again), and all public events are cancelled (unless the protest is for a virtuous enough cause) until their great-great grandchildren come out of the womb wearing a cloth mask
Win expectancy of 57% feels very low in a game that was won by 16 points.Wake post game win expectancy per SP+ at 57.4% with an “expected adjusted margin” Wake winning by 3.4. Dropped a few spots in the ratings to 44th.
@IAppreciateIt
This ignores pretty important context that the majority of those yards came when Wake went jumbo package in order to actually have the numbers to run block. I think he was at around 3 yards per carry before that drive against Elon.Claiborne averaged 2x more yards per carry against Elon
The fumble returned for a touchdown is basically six points from 16 to 10 since that’s not generally replicable so that’s a quick jump start down from 16. Vandy also gained more yards per play than we did (6.71 to 6.54). I do think just looking at “turnover luck” where we were up 3-1 discounts that the other two Vandy picks were just awful plays by the QB and not really any “luck” involved at all (aka those are turnovers that were likely to occur at large because Swann was making bad decisions and that seems to be kinda who he is). Taking one of the picks back inside the 10 also helped “inflate” margin.Win expectancy of 57% feels very low in a game that was won by 16 points.
I understand that Vandy got stopped on the 1 yard line, but we fumbled on the 1 yard line so that basically evens out. Wake outgained Vanderbilt 484 to 423, so I guess that's pretty close?
The thing with Claiborne is his longest run Saturday was 17 yards, which to me make 26 for 165 more impressive. One or 2 long runs didn't make up the bulk of his 165, he was gaining good yards consistently.Claiborne averaged 2x more yards per carry against Elon and went 26 for 165 against Vandy. I'm happy to review all the data and talking points, but I'm not going to ignore what I saw: Claiborne is a bad man. If we want to win, we get Demond and Key Williams the ball as much as we can.
One of our punts also turned into 7 points — for Wake. Much closer game without that complete gift.Win expectancy of 57% feels very low in a game that was won by 16 points.
I understand that Vandy got stopped on the 1 yard line, but we fumbled on the 1 yard line so that basically evens out. Wake outgained Vanderbilt 484 to 423, so I guess that's pretty close?
Yeah. Although at the same time if Vandy just fair catches that punt they were only down 17-14 with a minute to work to go try and tie the game.One of our punts also turned into 7 points — for Wake. Much closer game without that complete gift.
Even with that being the case, it didn’t ever feel like we were losing that one, so 57% does feel low.
I think a fair thing to say in this discussion is that if we get another game like Vanderbilt in which the other team is playing 3 safeties and a light box, Claiborne should definitely get more snaps than Ellison. If Ellison out-carries Claiborne in a game like that, then I will definitely be joining those of you that are concerned.
Yeah, this is all fair enough. That's an interesting thought about turnover luck, do you think the model considers that at all? Some turnovers are certainly a lot "luckier" than others (the punt fumble vs terrible INTs being a good example).The fumble returned for a touchdown is basically six points from 16 to 10 since that’s not generally replicable so that’s a quick jump start down from 16. Vandy also gained more yards per play than we did (6.71 to 6.54). I do think just looking at “turnover luck” where we were up 3-1 discounts that the other two Vandy picks were just awful plays by the QB and not really any “luck” involved at all (aka those are turnovers that were likely to occur at large because Swann was making bad decisions and that seems to be kinda who he is). Taking one of the picks back inside the 10 also helped “inflate” margin.
I figured it would be around 70% and was a little surprised to see sub 60%
I don’t know if Connelly discloses what goes into it but I’d imagine it’s based around the concept that while forcing fumbles is a skill recovering fumbles is basically a coin flip; interceptions somewhere in between? That’s a good question though and worth asking I’ll see if I can find an answer.Yeah, this is all fair enough. That's an interesting thought about turnover luck, do you think the model considers that at all? Some turnovers are certainly a lot "luckier" than others (the punt fumble vs terrible INTs being a good example).
At the end of the day, Wake rushed for >7 yards per carry from RBs in a game in which Wake rushed the ball 39 times. With that stat alone in mind, I struggle to see a world in which the opposing team wins >40% of the time.