Mavric

Washington -10 Maryland -1 Michigan State -5

They they all do it all game but you're going to claim they don't get taught to do that based on .... what?

I've seen quite a bit of grumbling - both here and from media guys - about our linebacker play this year. I thought it was interesting because I haven't really gotten the sense that they were playing badly - missing tackles, etc. - but they haven't really made a lot of plays either. I was wondering how much of that could be related to the scheme. So I tried to check on the LBs as I rewatched the game tonight. As it turns out, I think a lot - if not most - of their "struggles" is how our defense is set up. Almost every time they read run, they are filling their gap hard. The problem with that is if the run isn't into that gap, they've run themselves up into the line and have no lane to scrape to the play. This seems to be how they are taught to run this defense as they all do it and even Gerry and Aaron Williams are often seen filling a gap hard when they read run as opposed to waiting to see where the play develops. I really only watched that in this one game so I won't really make a blanket statement yet but since we are giving up over 6.6 yards per carry over the last three games, I think it's pretty likely that our linebackers often running themselves out of the play has a lot to do with our poor run defense. We are currently #98 in the country in yards per attempt allowed and that 6.6 ypa over the last three games would be dead last in the country for the season by quite a ways. I think the same scheme issue contributes to the LBs not really making many plays in the passing game either. If there is any play-action look the LBs charge ahead then have to turn and try to get back into the passing lanes. However, by that time the receivers are well into their routes and the LBs have little hope of making up enough ground to be a factor. I've grabbed a couple screen shots to illustrate this. This is Illinois' first play of the game. At the snap, we're in our base defense with MRI splitting the gap out to the slot. The play is a straight ahead run. All three LBs plus Gerry are keying the RB and before the RB even gets to the line Young has filled his gap hard, Bando has come across the formation and filled behind him, Gerry has come from 11 yards off the ball to 4 and into a blocker and MRI has come from a wide left position all the way to over the center. That is all a nice piece of aggressive defense. However the problem is no one is home for the cutback. Three guys (Young, Bando and Gerry) have filled so hard that they are now caught up in traffic and can't scrape back and MRI is unblocked but runs by the RB and can't get back in position to make the tackle. Illinois ends up getting 7 yards on the play. Here's another example. At the snap, we're in our base personnel and base alignment. The play is an inside zone run, straight handoff. Neither MRI nor Young are even blocked on the play. They simply run themselves up into the line - presumably filling their gap - but since the play doesn't come through their gap, they've totally run themselves out of the play. Only a saving tackle by Gerry keeps this from being a touchdown. When you don't even have to block two linebackers and they are non-factors on a straight ahead run, that's an issue. Now, you can say our LBs should be playing it differently and I agree. However, when they are all doing the same thing on most running (and play-action) plays, that has to be how they are being coached to do it. Why we're doing it that way I have no idea but I think it is costing us.

Also, I didn't pick up on this live but rewatching the game I noticed that part of the reason we were able to run the ball so well in the forth quarter was because we were working to get to the outside more rather than just running straight ahead. According to Huskers.com, of Newby's fourth quarter carries, seven of them were "up middle" for 28 yards and 8 of the carries were to the outside for 84 yards. He also caught a swing pass for 21 yards so when we got him to the outside he gained 105 yards on 9 touches. Obviously one 63 yards gain boosts the average but Newby has the speed and quickness to get big chunks like that. He just hasn't had many chances to do it.

And 3 TDs

Great work again. YPA doesn't seem to vary a whole lot. Wyoming first half on the high end, Oregon first half on the low end but the rest fairly similar (mostly between 7.0 and 10.1).

Lewis - 33% - I'd really like to go 50% because I think he has legitimate interest but I think USC being just down the street wins out. Sarrell - 20% - Kind of the same as Lewis in that I think he's interested but we're no better than third on his list right now (Stanford & Washington) Holmes - 15% - A couple months ago I would have gone a lot higher but I think he's moved on (UCLA trending hard) Jackson - 5% - He's claimed he will visit but until he actually sets up a date I don't get too excited Peoples-Jones - 2% - I think we're down his list a ways

Awesome work. You would expect that more attempts would lead to more rushing yards but it's a pretty solid trend that more attempts also correlates to a higher YPA as well. Now that's a bit of a chicken and the egg - did we run it more because it was working or did we wear them down by running more so we got bigger chunks later - but the trend is pretty obvious. Wyoming was definitely the outlier but it was also the game where Newby barely got any carries (4) and we spent almost 80% of the time running Ozigbo and Newby straight into the middle of the line. So we weren't giving ourselves much of a chance by who we were giving the ball to and what plays were being called.

He had a good, tough series and a big run but Ozigbo was injured. I'd say they're still even. Really the only reason Ozigbo is still "better" or even "even" to people is because they like the way he runs. And it is fun to watch him get a couple extra yards with how hard he runs. But Newby has more yards on 17 fewer carries (22% fewer carries than Ozigbo). His YPC is 1.3 higher than Ozigbo's. He has several runs longer than Ozigbo's longest run. Ozigbo still only has one game all season where his YPC is higher than Newby's worst YPC game. Ozigbo is a good back and definitely has a role on the team. But Newby is much more productive.

We definitely have a chance but I think we're at least third right now behind Stanford and Washington.

Saw a couple comments about that. Decker seemed to be right in the mix this spring. However he was apparently away from the team for awhile an unspecified reason this summer and now hasn't seemed to really be in the mix since fall camp started. Not sure what the story is. However, they seem to really like Utter at center and I don't think you really want to change the center unless you absolutely have to.

Sounds terrible.If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes. Terrible. The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in? If we had 8 equal conferences (listed in OP) and an 8 team playoff, it would be beyond stupid to select more than one from any conference over an actual conference champion. Even with the way things are set up right now I think it's total BS a non champion can get in. "Hey great job going 12-1 and winning your league, buuuuuuuuut ya see Auburn played a bunch of tough games we deemed tough in July and they only lost to Alabama by 25 points who won the SEC, so we're choosing them over you. Sowwy!" (Edit: It's just an example, don't read too much into it. I'm just in the win your league to earn your spot camp.) So you think it would be "beyond stupid" to select a 11-1 team over an 8-5 team because the 8-5 team "deserved" to be there because they won a poor conference?

How do you propose to determine who the eight best teams are? Opinion polls by sportswriters & coaches (*cough* graduate assistants *cough*). Computer rankings that are unable to predict the outcome of past games? Magic? I rather like the committee approach that is now in place. Give them access to whatever data they want and let them decide. There are too many teams to have any perfect system but that's a pretty good one. Though most of this discussion is pretty pointless because there isn't any way to get back to eight conferences unless you're including the AA, MW and WAC or something like that. My personal preference - given the current conference setup - is the five Power 5 champions are in (with some caveat that the have to be in the Top 15 or so for the same reason mentioned above) and then the committee selects three teams at large, no more than two per conference.

How would you prove that those are the facts?

Sounds terrible. If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes. Terrible. The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in? There is no way to know what the best eight teams are, there are not enough inter-conference games. It only seems fair that if you want to be national champion, you must win your conference. I also think it would be a big advantage to get into the playoffs without winning your conference. Imagine finishing 2nd your division, and not playing a conference championship game. One less game, more time for players to heal, and all other playoff teams are playing the toughest team in their conference and getting beat up. And the biggest advantage to eight conference champions in the playoffs, is the pools become meaningless. That may be fair on one level but not in the bigger picture. For example, it's quite possible that Michigan could go 11-1 - losing only to an undefeated Ohio State. But you think it would be more "fair" to take - say - an 10-3 West Virginia team just because they won the "Northeast Conference" against the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, Temple, Pitt and Boston College. I don't buy it. IMO, that is preferable to an 11-1 Michigan team that couldn't win its division or conference becoming national champion. The worst MNC game in history was the LSU-Alabama game. Nothing will be fair when pollsters are picking the participants. I guess we'll disagree on this. I'd rather have the eight best teams. I don't want to be forced to take the 20th best team just because they happened to be the best of the worst.