If you score on first and second downs, you don't have a 3rd down to convert. If you score from 50 yards out, you have fewer 3rd downs attempts on a drive.
Even rate wise, we're bound to be lower than a team like Army, who is more likely to see more 3rd and shorts than us. However, it is still a HUGE problem that we aren't converting at a higher rate, and more than 3.6 times a game. That's just brutal. If we're going to keep that up, we're going to have to hit our deep passes and score more often. Otherwise we'll never get where we want to be. Our O is designed to hit those plays, and we aren't doing it with enough regularity to ease the 3rd down pain. I don't think we will with Rosier at QB, either.
Until we can consistently gain 3 or 4 yards running the ball on first down, we're going to be terrible on 3rd down. That's just the way it is. 3rd down conversion percentages trend exactly with 3rd down distance to gain. Teams that are good on 3rd down are consistently in 3rd and 3 or less, and teams that struggle are consistently in 3rd and 5 or more. I think we averaged 7 yards to gain on 3rd down.
You know, I can name you a lot of QBs who performed poorly their first 10 snaps. FSU fans were ready to run Charlie Ward out of town, for crying out loud. Ken Dorsey looked like a deer in headlights until he got all the first string reps and game time. Not saying Shirreffs is either one of them, but to act like you know everything about a QB from 7 passes is a bit foolish. Perhaps had he gotten into games that should have been blowouts, he'd have been better prepared when he was needed.
Yep, we'll never know. He did what he thought was best for himself. One thing is for sure, the only team in the country worse at converting 3rd downs is the team he went to. He'll have a **** of a task trying to do anything worth a crap there.
Under Johnson and Erikson we were putting up 40 with 3rd stringers.
