I’ve heard stories of one that scored pretty easily against a defense that played three yards off the LOS.
9:50 mark of this video to see Michael Whitehead's '87 goaline stop of Mark Higgs w/ John Ward's radio call.
According to Ubben, you called it—the 3rd and 4 play was a called rollout pass and JG tucked and ran because neither receiver was open
That was clear by the TE looking back for the pass as he was rolling, then transitioning to blocking once JG tucked it.
It's a perfect play call in that position, roll out, if the receiver is open, hit him if not extend the play as far as you can to draw defenders off the receivers, if they dont bite, just run for it. Great decision by JG to just tuck it and pick it up.
I thought for sure when he cut back and i saw a guy diving at him that his helmet was going to hit the ball and shoot it straight to the endzone.
I know that people are a bit skeptical of Bill C and his fancy proprietary stats, but I was curious how his advanced box score would look, given the massive contrast in styles. A couple features: One stat he measures is success rate, which basically measures which percentage of a team’s plays meet the threshold to be considered a successful play. If it’s third or fourth, do you convert? If it’s first or second, do you put yourself ahead of the chains? The national average is 41%, and his figuring had UK at 42% and UT at 37%. He also measures explosiveness, and I have no idea how on earth his formula works, but UT came out well above average and UK came out well below average. The thing I was most curious about was what he calls postgame win expectancy, which is his attempt to create a Pythag win stat for football. Again, I don’t know how the formula works, but the idea is if you play that same game 100 times, bringing the same quality they did in the real thing, how often does the result go the same way? (For instance, Illinois’ game from this weekend only beats Michigan State 14 out of 100, but Minnesota’s game beats Penn State 74 out of 100). His postgame win expectancy was 84% for Tennessee. I’ve seen a lot of articles write this up as a game that Kentucky was controlling and Tennessee made a couple big plays to luck out a win (which honestly is not how I saw it at all). But Bill’s numbers seem to indicate that Kentucky was fortunate to get as close as they did and that Tennessee clearly deserved the win. Tl;dr fancy stats say Tennessee’s explosiveness advantage was a whole lot bigger than Kentucky’s consistency and that the Vols had a decided edge overall.