Interesting numbers from LJS

[RedDenver]

Link

 

Here's some optimism for the coming season:

* 12: That’s what Nebraska would have ranked nationally in total defense last year if September had never existed. It'd be nice if you could really wipe away bad months like that, huh? Can't do it. But it's understandable why some Husker fans are cautiously optimistic about the 2014 defense when you consider the data. After giving up 202 yards to an FCS running back Sept. 21, Nebraska ranked 108th in total defense. After beating Georgia in a New Year's Day bowl game, it ranked 39th (370 yards a game).

Without the nonconference yardage (which included 602 yards by Wyoming, 504 by UCLA and 465 by South Dakota State), the Huskers gave up an average of 329 yards a game, which would have ranked 12th. Now, that can be misleading. For instance, NU’s turnover problems gave opposing offenses such short fields that, in certain cases, chewing up a lot of yards on drives wasn’t even possible. But when someone raises the topic of whether Nebraska can be a top-10 defense, the numbers from the last nine games should tell you it’s not as far-fetched if the parts click.

 

 

[True2tRA]

I like the talent we have. I think we will have success, but I wont ignore Bo's tendency to try to do too much. In games where the opponents have any sort of proficient offense, Bo and his scheme usually get exposed. That will always be in the back of my head no matter how much optimism.

 

here are the total offense rankings for the teams we want to base these September-less phenomenal stats on:

Mich St. 55

Illinois 71

Purdue 122

Michigan 80

Northwestern 82

Iowa 78

Minnesota 94

Penn St. 67

 

Now that's some pretty weak offenses to be getting all uppity about shutting down. Or is it that those offenses are ranked so poorly because Big Ten defense is just lights out. Either way, stats can be manipulated to support any argument. I think we just need to go out and keep playing like we did the second half of last season. Will we? We will see.

[lo country]

I liked the article. Good breakdown using the "facts" of the actual numbers.

 

Ones I liked:

Undefeated since 2011 when winning the field position

200 yrs on the ground resulted in us being 5-0 last year. Over 300 yards under Bo? 15-0. Let that number sit in. We do not need to pass more. We need to be a power team with PA mixed in.

 

What we already know:

We suck at getting TO's, but are awesome at giving them. NEEDS TO STOP

Our punt return is non-existent. I would rather give up the occasional first down to the mythical fake and flip the field and actually have a dog in the fight in all 3 phases.

 

We clean up the TO's, lean on AA and the horses we have at RB, establish a legit attempt at returning punts, we have a great shot at getting to the conference championship.

 

Looking at those numbers, I take my hat off to Bo for getting the 9 wins each year. We have done everything humanly possible to (statistically) have losing seasons, but find a way to win.

[NUpolo8]

Obviously the defense improved last year. One doesn't need to look at the stats to see that. They found an identity, they played downhill, and they played with a purpose. It was obvious. Regardless of the offensive capabilities of who Nebraska played in the back half of the season, the infamous "intangibles" showed up, and anyone could see that. The defense improved.

Which is why I don't see why we have to play the "if" game. It's a defeatist argument. "If you take away September our defense was pretty good". Which sounds suspiciously like "if we don't fumble five times we beat Michigan st". Which can lead to "if my aunt had an Adam's Apple she'd be my uncle".

The bottom line is this: five turnovers in a game is bad. 200+ yards on the ground to an fbs running back is bad. Championship teams do not allow that. Teams with discipline do not allow that.

Improvement is one thing, I don't worry much about 19 year old elite athletes getting better, that happens almost organically. I worry about direction, discipline, and management.

[True2tRA]

Good points Polo, and really I agree. I brought the numbers of the opposing offenses up simply because the numbers in the article seemed to serve their purpose. The numbers can be spun the other direction quite easily. To put it simply though, much like you said, can't we just quit with the numbers games? Let's use our own eyes for once. The things you stated, many of us saw last year. Aggressive, attacking defense. Improvement as the season progressed, which is something we've begged for quite some time. We saw a lot of young talented guys get a chance, and they rose to the occasion. The fact is, if this defense is a ass kickin' Blackshirt defense next year, it will be because these are now some very talented kids, with a year of experience under their belts. Improvement should be an expectation.

[NUpolo8]

Good points Polo, and really I agree. I brought the numbers of the opposing offenses up simply because the numbers in the article seemed to serve their purpose. The numbers can be spun the other direction quite easily. To put it simply though, much like you said, can't we just quit with the numbers games? Let's use our own eyes for once. The things you stated, many of us saw last year. Aggressive, attacking defense. Improvement as the season progressed, which is something we've begged for quite some time. We saw a lot of young talented guys get a chance, and they rose to the occasion. The fact is, if this defense is a ass kickin' Blackshirt defense next year, it will be because these are now some very talented kids, with a year of experience under their belts. Improvement should be an expectation.

 

 

Hey I agree, basically my arguments basically boil down to the eye test.

[RedDenver]

Obviously the defense improved last year. One doesn't need to look at the stats to see that. They found an identity, they played downhill, and they played with a purpose. It was obvious. Regardless of the offensive capabilities of who Nebraska played in the back half of the season, the infamous "intangibles" showed up, and anyone could see that. The defense improved.

 

Which is why I don't see why we have to play the "if" game. It's a defeatist argument. "If you take away September our defense was pretty good". Which sound suspiciously like "if we don't fumble five time we beat Michigan st". Which can lead to "if my aunt had an Adam's Apple she'd be my uncle".

 

The bottom line is this: five turnovers in a game is bad. 200+ yards on the ground to an fbs running back is bad. Championship teams do not allow that. Teams with discipline do not allow that.

 

Improvement is one thing, I don't worry much about 19 year old elite athletes getting better, that happens almost organically. I worry about direction, discipline, and management.

Good post.

 

As for the "if" game, let me pose it slightly differently: "After the September games, the defense got significantly better." The article shows we were ranked 108th after the Sep. games and 12th for the rest of the season.

 

True2tRA, you forgot: Georgia 17

[NUpolo8]

 

Obviously the defense improved last year. One doesn't need to look at the stats to see that. They found an identity, they played downhill, and they played with a purpose. It was obvious. Regardless of the offensive capabilities of who Nebraska played in the back half of the season, the infamous "intangibles" showed up, and anyone could see that. The defense improved.

 

Which is why I don't see why we have to play the "if" game. It's a defeatist argument. "If you take away September our defense was pretty good". Which sound suspiciously like "if we don't fumble five time we beat Michigan st". Which can lead to "if my aunt had an Adam's Apple she'd be my uncle".

 

The bottom line is this: five turnovers in a game is bad. 200+ yards on the ground to an fbs running back is bad. Championship teams do not allow that. Teams with discipline do not allow that.

 

Improvement is one thing, I don't worry much about 19 year old elite athletes getting better, that happens almost organically. I worry about direction, discipline, and management.

Good post.

 

As for the "if" game, let me pose it slightly differently: "After the September games, the defense got significantly better." The article shows we were ranked 108th after the Sep. games and 12th for the rest of the season.

 

True2tRA, you forgot: Georgia 17

 

 

 

I'm not really sure how that's different?

 

I mean, the defense got better. Stats are manipulative.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Obviously the defense improved last year. One doesn't need to look at the stats to see that. They found an identity, they played downhill, and they played with a purpose. It was obvious. Regardless of the offensive capabilities of who Nebraska played in the back half of the season, the infamous "intangibles" showed up, and anyone could see that. The defense improved.

 

Which is why I don't see why we have to play the "if" game. It's a defeatist argument. "If you take away September our defense was pretty good". Which sound suspiciously like "if we don't fumble five time we beat Michigan st". Which can lead to "if my aunt had an Adam's Apple she'd be my uncle".

 

The bottom line is this: five turnovers in a game is bad. 200+ yards on the ground to an fbs running back is bad. Championship teams do not allow that. Teams with discipline do not allow that.

 

Improvement is one thing, I don't worry much about 19 year old elite athletes getting better, that happens almost organically. I worry about direction, discipline, and management.

Good post.

 

As for the "if" game, let me pose it slightly differently: "After the September games, the defense got significantly better." The article shows we were ranked 108th after the Sep. games and 12th for the rest of the season.

 

True2tRA, you forgot: Georgia 17

 

 

 

I'm not really sure how that's different?

 

I mean, the defense got better. Stats are manipulative.

 

I'm arguing against you claiming it's a "defeatist argument". I see it as an "optimistic for next year argument", for lack of a better phrase. Other than that, I agree with what you're saying.

 

And how are stats any more easily manipulative than the eye test?

[NUpolo8]

Ah, I see. (+1)

 

Well the eye test tells us this, I think the defense got better as the year progressed. I think you did too. We agree. This is rare.

 

Your stats tell me that you think that the defense, after September, was the 12th best in the nation. There is no way in the world do I believe that is true even for a second.

 

Now, you can optimistic for next year based on either of those. And sure, the defense might be really good. However, I am of the belief its not a talent issue holding Nebraska back.

 

So we're pretty much on the same page, we're just parsing out the differences why you may expect more than I in 2014.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

We were 110th in opponent starting field position, so the other team generally had less yards to gain. The defense obviously got better throughout the season, with the exception of Minnesota.

[RedDenver]

Ah, I see. (+1)

 

Well the eye test tells us this, I think the defense got better as the year progressed. I think you did too. We agree. This is rare.

 

Your stats tell me that you think that the defense, after September, was the 12th best in the nation. There is no way in the world do I believe that is true even for a second.

 

Now, you can optimistic for next year based on either of those. And sure, the defense might be really good. However, I am of the belief its not a talent issue holding Nebraska back.

 

So we're pretty much on the same page, we're just parsing out the differences why you may expect more than I in 2014.

Yep, we're saying the same things. FYI, I don't think we were the 12th best defense either, just that the stats agree with what we're both seeing on the field.

[hskrfan4life]

I want more turnovers. We did well in the first part of the season, but we didnt play that great of Offense. I hope we get more than 1 turnover in the last 6 games.

[RedDenver]

The only thing the defense lacked after the nonconference slate last year was takeaways. If we can improve that, I'll feel better.

 

 

I want more turnovers. We did well in the first part of the season, but we didnt play that great of Offense. I hope we get more than 1 turnover in the last 6 games.

Good points. Seems like the defense gets fewer takeaways each year.

[STL Husker]

 

 

200 yrs on the ground resulted in us being 5-0 last year. Over 300 yards under Bo? 15-0. Let that number sit in. We do not need to pass more. We need to be a power team with PA mixed in.

 

 

 

I think this number is misleading and it seems to come up every season. We run for 200+ yards because we already have the lead and are shortening the game. You can't keep running the ball when you are down 2 scores in the 2nd half. I'm too lazy to do it, but I would like to see the margin in score when we rush for 0-100, 100-200, and 200+. It's not as simple as saying just keep running the ball.