What did we learn?....Northwestern

[huskerfan74]

Let me start by saying that I was never a Boliever or happy with his sideline manners but the players really played hard and wanted to win. He was not a very good coach and was often outclassed but his players left it all on the field. On the other hand, Riley’s team looks completely disengaged from the onset of the game. Just looking at the team come out of the tunnel walk you can see that they are uninspired and do not have any fire in their belly. To them, win or lose seems to make no difference. They will get their ice cream either way..even if the ice cream flavor is SHAME. The difference is so obvious. I do not feel like our husker team really understands husker pride or care if they reach the playoffs ever. The coaches do not understand husker pride so why should the players. 

 

BRING SCOTT FROST HOME...OPEN THE CHECK BOOK AND SAVE HUSKER NATION FROM MORE HUMILIATION. THAT IS WHAT I LEARNED THIS WEEKEND.

[brophog]

Here is a mathematical model from 2007 that would counter what I've been saying in regards to going for it on the first possession (they were specifically looking at the defense first strategy). Perhaps this is another example of conventional coaching wisdom being too conservative? It's hard to say, surprisingly, this situation doesn't occur that often. If anyone can cite anything newer, please do.

 

Quote

It was shown that a team who starts on offense and scores a touchdown
wins over 70% of the time.  The results also provided support that the team on
offense first should not settle for a field goal if at all possible.  Because of this
evidence and the increased winning percentage by scoring a touchdown in the
first possession, coaches should consider being less conservative in their play
calling on the initial possession. This could include more risk-taking in specific
plays, or utilizing all four offensive downs to keep possessions alive.  The micro-
strategy involved is worthy of future investigation. It should be noted that when pressure is three or six
points, and the defense first team is either an underdog or not a huge favorite, they
do win only 60% of the time.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4731867_An_Analysis_of_the_Defense_First_Strategy_in_College_Football_Overtime_Games

Edited November 6, 2017 by brophog

[LaunchCode]

4 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I didn't see the game so maybe some came from the defense, but NWesrtn scored 39points  on MSU in regulation.

 

If all those points were scored vs MSU's defense then no matter where they rank stats wise it would appear our D did a much better job at the  most important stat IMO points allowed.

[DrunkOffPunch]

3 minutes ago, LaunchCode said:

I didn't see the game so maybe some came from the defense, but NWesrtn scored 39points  on MSU in regulation.

 

If all those points were scored vs MSU's defense then no matter where they rank stats wise it would appear our D did a much better job at the  most important stat IMO points allowed.

NW only scored 17 in regulation. The game went to 3 OTs.

[Mavric]

Quote

11: Sacks by Nebraska this season, last among all Power Five teams, and thus last in the Big Ten. Diaco’s scheme favors a three-man rush at times, and rarely brings a blitz, so the low sack numbers make sense. But the 64.6 percent opponent completion rate, which ranks last in the Big Ten and 117th nationally, does not make sense. If you’re playing coverage, you ought to do better than that.

 

OWH

[brophog]

To put 64.6% into perspective, only 10 teams average more than that on offense.

 

 

[Red Five]

19 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

OWH

 

Doesn't UCF have 10 sacks all year?

[Guy Chamberlin]

Most coaches would have gone for the touchdown in OT on the half-yard line, including Riley. 

[Pedro Guerrero]

I learned that Pat Fitzgerald is to Northwestern as Mike Riley was to Oregon State.  

[Husker in WI]

Aside from things we already knew - coaches are bad at both game planning and managing, we lack speed on defense and consistency on offense - there were some things that keep me a little excited for the future with a new coach.

 

- Spielman will be really fun to watch with gameplans that actively try and get him the ball. Same with Lindsey - he's actually a solid blocker, but it's frustrating watching him come in to block and get one (poorly) designed play a game.

 

- The o-line desperately needs a shakeup, but guys like Decker, Jaimes, and Farniok give us some hope for the future. Seems like a lot of the blown up plays were Gates/Foster/Conrad, which should not happen.

 

- Weber will be missed. For all the talk of this being a "block destruction" defense, nobody other than some of the lineman and Weber ever take on a block aggressively. Newby actually played well I thought, although his 'setting the edge' was at times more 'run upfield to give them a seam.' But he looked much better than early in the year.

 

- Lamar Jackson has actually improved, but when he makes mistakes they are really bad. A couple penalties and one tackle attempt where he basically laid down in front of the guy were ugly plays, but outside of those he wasn't bad.

 

I really believe the pieces are there for us to be a division contender, there are just a lot of baffling decisions being made across the board. Hopefully whoever we hire will have enough time to salvage some of the recruiting class and convince current underclassmen to stay and play for him, because I don't think we're far from Pelini territory at least. Obviously the goal is to move past that, but I'll take steps in the right direction at this point.

[lo country]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

 

Doesn't UCF have 10 sacks all year?

10 sacks and 41 TFL, 30 PBU and 10 forced fumbles. 11 INT's ..... NU D is pretty close in all categories except for forced fumbles.  We have 4.

 

http://www.cfbstats.com/2017/team/128/sack/index.html

[Mavric]

 

[brophog]

2 hours ago, Pedro Guerrero said:

I learned that Pat Fitzgerald is to Northwestern as Mike Riley was to Oregon State.  

 

Welcome coach Fitz.

[TGHusker]

22 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

He wanted to be in the top 3 of rushing offenses this year.   I guess I understand why the talk before the season regarding the improved OL and improved D.  Both were bragging about their performances against each other.  The D couldn't stop the run on play 1 so the O looks great and the O couldn't run the ball on play 2  so the D looked good.  Measuring themselves against themselves gives a very false impression.   Reality is they are basically equal 96 and 100 - equally bad against real competition.  Yet their talent is better than most schools (based on recruiting rank) thus this falls on the coaches.

[Mavric]