Chinander by the numbers

TheSker said:
We were competitive in every game except Michigan this past season.

......and there's no reason to think we won't be better on both sides of the ball next season.
Click to expand...


We weren't exactly stronger on our defensive line over what we saw in 2017, though. And this thread is about Chinander's defensive stats.

When we actually get the physical talent combined with Duvall's strength program, we'll match up against Wisconsin, Iowa, & Northwestern even better. Will that describe 2019? Maybe, maybe not.

In 2020? Yes, I feel confident there. We'll see what happens

 
So how about this prediction. Do we get 10-11 wins this year if this happens. 

Defense improves from 33 allowed per game to 28. 

Offense jumps from 28 scored per game to 42. 

Martinez in year 2, new weapons etc. I dont think 2 extra td's per game is that crazy of an expectation. Especially if we make a jump even remotely similiar to UCF from year 1 to year 2. We had at least 1.5 stale quarters per game where we didnt move the ball or score last year, plus most teams make a big jump from year 1 to 2. Clean that up and I think 10-14 more per game is doable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huskers93-97 said:
UCF went from 28 year 1 to 46 year 2. Same coach. Martinez way better talent than Milton. Why Not?
Click to expand...
My main answer is that the defensive competition that they faced wasn't as good as what we see in the B1G.

But even if we jump to 35 offensive points per game, drop 3 points per game allowed on defense, and play better in special teams like we did in our last four games we probably win the West.

 
This years schedule is pud by Big Ten standards, toughest games at home.  This team hit rock bottom last year and then the lightbulb went off and they started playing like a year 2 team.  The overall production increase is going to make a lot of teams turn their heads.

 
Undone said:
We absolutely win 10 games with those gains.

But the offensive jump is pretty unrealistic in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Here’s why it is realistic:

We should have scored a lot more points last year. Our yards per point metric was horrible, some of that was offense but a lot was special teams and defense. In that metric, you’re striving for about 10 yards per point, though that's more a goal than a realization. 11-12 is closer to the mark for the top teams.

That’s only about 500 yards per game to achieve 42 points per game, well within the average gain this system has historically achieved. Last year Nebraska achieved that mark in about half of the games, coming within 50 yds in a couple more.

Note: I’m not saying we are reaching 42 points per game next year, only stating it is extremely plausible.

 
One thing that really hurt our D line last year was the injury to Stolenburg. I think he would have really helped not just for his talent and depth but on field leadership. 

 
brophog said:
Here’s why it is realistic:

We should have scored a lot more points last year. Our yards per point metric was horrible, some of that was offense but a lot was special teams and defense. In that metric, you’re striving for about 10 yards per point, though that's more a goal than a realization. 11-12 is closer to the mark for the top teams.

That’s only about 500 yards per game to achieve 42 points per game, well within the average gain this system has historically achieved. Last year Nebraska achieved that mark in about half of the games, coming within 50 yds in a couple more.

Note: I’m not saying we are reaching 42 points per game next year, only stating it is extremely plausible.
Click to expand...
I really like the analysis here but I disagree (sort of) on one regard, and thats the amount of blame one unit deserves. The offense flat out sputtered for a quarter and a half every game. The D was not great by any means but they did not get a lot of help by the O. Troy, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Ohio St, and Iowa all come to mind as games where the offense just disappears out of nowhere. Special Teams had a slow start, but quietly became a strength in the latter half of the season. The offense can't go 3 and out 4 drives in a row like it did so much. 

 
I think the offensive stalls were a result of Frost testing the waters a bit in terms of seeing where his team was at that current juncture.  I could be off base with this.

 
Redux said:
I think the offensive stalls were a result of Frost testing the waters a bit in terms of seeing where his team was at that current juncture.  I could be off base with this.
Click to expand...
I think the offense just needs to become more comfortable with what they are doing. Once the first 22 on O know exactly what to do on every play, they will put up 40 pts plus a game. 

 
Vince R. said:
I really like the analysis here but I disagree (sort of) on one regard, and thats the amount of blame one unit deserves. The offense flat out sputtered for a quarter and a half every game. The D was not great by any means but they did not get a lot of help by the O. Troy, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Ohio St, and Iowa all come to mind as games where the offense just disappears out of nowhere. Special Teams had a slow start, but quietly became a strength in the latter half of the season. The offense can't go 3 and out 4 drives in a row like it did so much. 
Click to expand...
It happened in the Purdue game as well

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top