Nebfanatic

you missed the slice play and bluff plays on the inside run count and some of those other outside runs would have brought down the YPC which was closer to 30% more successfull than 50%. All in all we had a little more success outside but I wouldn't say a huge amount and you could argue the inside plays were needed for the outside runs to work. That being said we did have a few nice gains on some outside runs as you pointed out and while some others didn't have success, odds are running it 5-7 more times outside would have resulted in probably 2-4 runs of 5 or more yards. They have the Slice and Bluff as Inside Zone plays. You can argue with them if you like. completely misinterpreted how it was broken down I apologize I deleted this original response because I thought I mis-read your statement. You can ignore my first comment in my previous post. I pretty much agree with you. I dont mind running inside as much as we do if we were a bigger threat in the pass game. Even still I'd much prefer closer to 15 outside runs than 5

you missed the slice play and bluff plays on the inside run count and some of those other outside runs would have brought down the YPC which was closer to 30% more successfull than 50%. All in all we had a little more success outside but I wouldn't say a huge amount and you could argue the inside plays were needed for the outside runs to work. That being said we did have a few nice gains on some outside runs as you pointed out and while some others didn't have success, odds are running it 5-7 more times outside would have resulted in probably 2-4 runs of 5 or more yards. They have the Slice and Bluff as Inside Zone plays. You can argue with them if you like. completely misinterpreted how it was broken down I apologize

you missed the slice play and bluff plays on the inside run count and some of those other outside runs would have brought down the YPC which was closer to 30% more successfull than 50%. All in all we had a little more success outside but I wouldn't say a huge amount and you could argue the inside plays were needed for the outside runs to work. That being said we did have a few nice gains on some outside runs as you pointed out and while some others didn't have success, odds are running it 5-7 more times outside would have resulted in probably 2-4 runs of 5 or more yards.

does this overall z score not count strength of schedule? Offense doesn't really have a net gain but man our defense is leaps and bounds ahead of last year

I would say yes and yes

Has our staff shown any interest?

Almost as you would expect the offense and defensive scores for the conferences directly inverted

maybe Langsdorf did call decent plays in OT

Yeah. The fans of Riley applauded our players and coaches for a hard fought, tight game at Camp Randallone of the most hostile environments in college football. Plus, we got the added bonus of a couple of self-proclaimed Pelini lovers who came back from their absence during our unbeaten streak to do a victory dance in all the threads on HB. So there's that. The only thing I find odd is how many people will sift through any outcome to find even the most tenuous evidence that we are further along today than we were before. All while ignoring that this staff has struggled to win (and has lost) against some very poor competition.Did nobody inform you we started a new season?I'm referring to struggling against bad teams this season. Week in and week out, NU has looked ok against bad teams. I get that you can't win every game in blow out fashion and that good teams sometimes struggle. But, NU has not dominated a P5 game this season, particularly offensively. I don't think you understand or watch much football outside of the huskers. Every team, every year, struggles with bad teams. Clemson Tigers say hello

trade LSU for Baylor maybe. The top of the lost makes no sense especially when listing quality wins and losses as an important statistic

doesn't Wisconsin have 2?

This team wins games the same way you win games in NCAA 14 when yiu are trying to win a NC with a sun belt team. Not a knock but hey it works. Defense and ball control is the type of formula I like at Nebraska! And determination. Big ole dose of determination and grit go with that

there is nothing to support this as true This post currently has 27 +1s. That has to be a record, no? I feel honored but this is a collective record as we all knew cm's original post was bullshyte

In Langs defense, we were stellar again on 3rd down Saturday. 9-18 against an opponent only allowing 21% conversion rate

nope, Wisconsin is our Wisconsin only because they play in our division. Didn't have that in the big 12

We also miss Kevin Cosgrove, Barney Cotton, Ross Els, and DeShawn Watson.

Some people have coached and/or played the game. And a little bit of actual football goes a heck of a lot further than running a buisiness or managing a racing team. People are talking about very specific "football" issues. Your experiences don't give you any more knowledge in the intricacies of football than anyone else's. You have NO idea of anyone else's' qualifications to comment on what goes on on the field. All you've done is establish that you don't have any qualifications. Except to bash on everyone else who comments. Guess what, questioning the coaches as been going on since the game started. And all your preaching from your soapbox isn't going to stop it. his point remains the same. you haven't run a high profile college football program, so don't act like you could step in and do so. Doesn't need to know what you have done in your life to know you aren't qualified because more than 99% of the population isn't. There are a very small group of college coaches at that level. It's just a factJust like him, you don't know anyone's qualifications. So in that vein, everyone's opinions should carry the same weight. I just get sick of his bashing on people for voicing their opinions. rethought it and you are right. This is message board not a job interview

Delete

One thing we did continue to do well against Wisconsin was converting 3rd downs. 9-18 on the day is not shabby against a stingy defense

I agree. See also Stanford, FSU, Clemson....... POB had 640 yrds on on 143 carries Junior year. 4.5/carry average..... He's not immobile. Far from it. A QB doesn't have to be a dual threat to be an effective runner. Just have to be a threat to extend plays with your legs. He appears to be quick enough, big enough etc.... to do some designed runs IMO. An accurate, less mobile QB can be just as effective in the running game. One can't crowd the box with a QB capable of throwing all over the place. If you choose to double team receivers, it opens up the running game. A less mobile QB could look like a hypeman in those situations..... We've witnessed that enough............. Stanford's offense is dead last in FBS in total offense this year. Florida State is using a dual threat QB as a freshman. Clemson uses a dual threat QB. Miami, FL is in the 60s in total offense, with a 3rd year starting QB. I will give Jake Browning at Washington, as he is great. Michigan State's offense is always a mess unless they have a future NFL QB there. Look at this year. Boise State is in the Mountain West and just lost to Wyoming. Oklahoma State has a good offense, but so does 3/4 of the Big 12. of the top 30 offenses there are plenty with quarterbacks who aren't dual threat. Offenses can be effective with a dual threat guy or more of a pocket passer. Alot of it has to do with the team around that QB as well

I think it's a great win I'm not sure how you couldn't

Wyoming is starting to look like a quality win also. LOL. Wyoming is a solid team ?

Darlington goes in before POB does

Literally no one would do that... Uh, I would. I have always strongly disagreed with this 'logic' of deferring the choice in OT to have the ball last. The ONLY time I see it works to your advantage is IF the oppoent fails to score (which is not very often actually). Then it becomes easy to simply try to lay up for a good FG kick to win by 3. I think it depends on the game and how both teams match up. In last night's game, I would take the ball first if I am NU and we won the toss and could go on offense first. Why? because I would compare kickers. Obviously advantage Huskers last night as Badgers kicker missed both the game winning FG and his OT extra point kick. Assuming Huskers take the ball first and don't get a first down on our opening OT offensive series, just kick the almost autormatice 3 with Drew Brown. That 3 point lead becomes a serious concern to Wisconsin who then needs to be ultra careful not to blow their field goal option on their opening series. They become cautious playing again not to lose by laying up to get their best shot to match the field goal. Certainly they would like to make a TD but will call plays with the worry that if they do nothing else, they need to get a good FG shot for sure. I always prefer to play with the lead vs the deficit on the score. To me, the mental edge favors the team that is ahead. Any lead feels better than a deficit IMO. I think whoever takes the ball first in OT has the advantage because they are not playing from behind and any score puts pressure on the opponent as opposed to simply giving them some kind of heads up as to what they 'need' to do. Every team 'needs' to score a TD if they can or a FG if not because most teams with a good kicker will get 3. But not Wisconsin presumably. it would be good to see a statistic of which team typically wins in OT

teams dare us to throw because TA is mistake prone and inaccurate mainly due to bad footwork. Tommy has a cannon and when he steps into throws they are usually on the money. Lately he has rarely done this. A QB who isn't an elite athlete is not a death sentence for our offense. Our qb's will be coached in rush avoidance and step up into the pocket instead of Tommy's patented spin out to the sideline move. We can have success throwing to our athletes on time and on target. The key is having a guy who can do that. If we do the passing game will be dangerous and that will open up our running game which I think will be solid we have a few good young backs. We may take a few more sacks but we will make up for that with more consistent play in the passing game