2016 Husker Previews: SBNation

[Saunders]

SBNation: Nebraska can be a Big Ten West contender if it makes 1 fewer mistake per game

In Mike Riley, Nebraska elected to bring in a guy who a) is the opposite of Pelini in demeanor and b) only won more than nine games once in 14 years at Oregon State.

The minuses and pluses (he won 70 games in 10 years at Oregon State; just think of what he could do at a bigger program) of his hire were evident, and that makes it difficult to know what to expect. His friendly grandpa carriage means he will earn a level of goodwill that Pelini never did, and perhaps that means that on-the-field bar won't be as high.

Then again, Solich was a super-nice guy. He got dumped after averaging 9.7 wins.

It was easy to see what Nebraska AD Shawn Eichorst saw in Riley. Pelini was a fiery coach who always won, but never won quite enough. His win percentage (.713) was very close to Frank Solich's (.753), and Solich got fired. It was probably going to happen at some point regardless. Winning nine games each year doesn't keep you gainfully employed in Lincoln forever.

 

2016 projected wins: 7.9

Projected S&P+ ranking: 26 (4 in Big Ten)

5-year recruiting ranking: 24 (4 in Big Ten)

Biggest strength: The receiving corps is deep and exciting.

Biggest question mark: The secondary gave up more big pass plays than almost anyone and now loses half its rotation.

Biggest 2016 game: at Northwestern (Sept. 24). It's the first of many in-conference tossups, and almost every game these teams play goes down to the last snap.

Summary: Nebraska was good enough to stay close in almost every game, but the Huskers were both unlucky and error-prone late in contests. Riley's experienced team has to clean that up.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/7/18/12202452/nebraska-football-2016-preview-schedule-roster

 

 

[huKSer]

1 fewer mistake per game

 

The power of one

 

[Mavric]

This pretty well illustrates our offensive philosophy.

 

The only time we ran more than most people was when we were expected to run. So we were more predictable on when we ran than most teams were.

 

In every other situation we threw considerably more than the average team does. With a team that was #87 in the country in completion percentage and nearly led the country in interceptions.

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Mavric
We didn't quite lead the country in INTs.

[admo]

Pretty in depth. I came away hopeful and worried at the same time.

 

I did some digging by focusing on the losses last year. Since we are looking back at last season and what to expect (or hope) for the new season, I thought that would be a good start. So basically, the Huskers lost 7 games by 29 points combined. So if they plan on doing better, they will have to improve their fourth quarter efforts (scoring) and cut down on the turnovers. IF they do that, the defense will benefit as well as the offense. I think that's why the Huskers look promising to win 9 games or perhaps more.

 

Turnovers killed the offense, got the defense back out on the field to defend, it alters the field position, and provided a momentum swing to their opponent. In those 7 losses, the Huskers had 18 turnovers while the other teams combined for just 2. That's a huge swing! There were 15 INTs and 3 fumbles lost (again, in the 7 games they lost by a combined total of 29 points).

 

Taking care of the football has to be better. It HAS to be done. And it would also help if the defense could do better than what they did (2 INTS) and force more TO's this year.

 

I also mentioned 4th quarter. We can look at valiant comeback attempts against Miami (23 points scored in the 4th) and Purdue (credit them for trying, 29 points in the 4th). But outside of those games (again looking at the losses that they need to improve on), the Huskers were outscored 46-19. And considering who they struggled to score on in the final period, when the game needs to be taken over, it's irritating.

 

And lastly, maybe it was because the Huskers threw it WAY too much? Yes and no. I guess it's surprising to see how similar the other teams threw it around, but with more efficiency and a ton of less turnovers.

 

(ATTS - COMPS - YARDS - INTS)

Huskers 286-144 1856 15

Opponents 270-150 1819 2

 

QUICK EDIT for an interesting stat I found as well. Did you know that 8 of those interceptions by the Huskers came on either the 1st or 2nd play of a drive? Yep, while you returned from commercial break with another piece of fried chicken and cold beverage, they threw 5 INTS on the first play following a punt (or big defensive stop) and 3 on the second play. Yeesh....

[Mavric]

And lastly, maybe it was because the Huskers threw it WAY too much? Yes and no. I guess it's surprising to see how similar the other teams threw it around, but with more efficiency and a ton of less turnovers.

 

(ATTS - COMPS - YARDS - INTS)

Huskers 286-144 1856 15

Opponents 270-150 1819 2

 

QUICK EDIT for an interesting stat I found as well. Did you know that 8 of those interceptions by the Huskers came on either the 1st or 2nd play of a drive? Yep, while you returned from commercial break with another piece of fried chicken and cold beverage, they threw 5 INTS on the first play following a punt (or big defensive stop) and 3 on the second play. Yeesh....

 

Not quite following your passing stats. Were you going for total stats for the year? I think it should be:

 

Huskers - 256/458, 55.9%, 3470 yards, 7.6 ypa, 21 INTs

Opponents - 293/506, 57.9%, 3777 yards, 7.5 ypa, 10 INTs

 

That's a really nutty stat about our INTs. Didn't realize that.

[admo]

No those were stats in the 7 losses. Yeah the TO ratio is ridiculous.

[Mavric]

No those were stats in the 7 losses. Yeah the TO ratio is ridiculous.

 

Gotcha. Over 40 attempts per game and over two picks per. That's not a good recipe for what we have right now.

 

Nice work with the stats.