RedDenver

I think that was outlawed. Play action looking deep, check down to Burkhead for 8 yards.

Yes, I agree that would be quite the revelation. However, on the topic of 4th quarter "recent stats show", I don't buy into that at all. There is no context for these statistics. They ultimately attempt to answer a question of strategy as if it were one that could be answered definitively with fact. You can't really compare Expected Value EV(Punting) against EV(Going for it on 4th down)....because ultimately, what is the value? What kind of effect does it have on the game when you routinely give up field position? Let's say you go for it on four 4th downs per game. If you make all four it might be a coup, but what if missing three out of the four seriously lowers your chances for winning? ^ In the end, there are no simple ways to quantify something like this (and the same goes for two point conversions). All the "statistics" show are conversion rates on 2-pt conversions, or 4th down tries. It is then up to opinion and interpretation if a coach is willing to accept that risk or not. I completely agree. I was just using it as a recent topic that runs counter to conventional wisdom. Statistics are generally used to attempt to give simplified answers to scenarios based on conflicting or insufficient data. If there was a single answer, then statistics probably weren't necessary.

You still have to prove whether it's true or false. Without evidence, it's still debatable. Darn, we don't know if that one is true or false? Silly 'every quarterback ever', striving to throw the ball accurately. If they only knew they might possibly have a better chance of completing it, by throwing it off-timing and off-target. I think we're onto a breakthrough here... Imagine if we went back and found that WR's caught more "off-target" throws than "on-target" throws. It'd be similar to the recent stats that show that going for it on 4th down is a more successful strategy than punting. Goes against the conventional wisdom. P.S. I actually agree with your general point: some passes are easier to catch than others.

You still have to prove whether it's true or false. Without evidence, it's still debatable. But I think I've run off-topic for long enough. I think Martinez will have a completion percentage of 60-65% this season.

People really need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. Er, the thing you quoted IS a fact. Most of the rest of the stuff he said (that Martinez nearly always times it improperly or doesn't throw it on the numbers) was not. No. The statement "hard to catch" is subjective and cannot therefore be a fact.

Ouch. That about sums up my thoughts on UCLA-Rice. But I'll refrain from a prediction until I've seen NU play.

100% agree. Those were 2 of the sloppiest teams I've ever seen at the D1 level. Some Pop Warner teams look better prepared than that.

Has a coach ever told you they expected the game to be over by the half? As a player or coach, you should always expect a dogfight. That's just a good approach to the game. As fans, we can have any expectation we feel like. And it won't make any difference to the outcome. I normally agree with your reasoning, knapplc, but you're trying to convince people that your prediction is in some way "more realistic" than theirs. I don't see how that's true. Your basic argument is that NU has played poorly against overmatched foes in the past. But NU has also blown out overmatched foes. So neither opinion looks "more realistic" to me. And when I look at NU's talent, experience, and coaching compared to USM, I just don't think it's likely to be closer than 20 points by the end.

People really need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

Maybe the fans in Montana will get to see the game after all.

It's the same broadcast crew regardless of which channel it's on. I know but the ABC game is being dropped in Montana in favor of the Montana vs South Dakota game. If the Huskers were on ESPN 2 I could have seen it, now I won't get to. That sucks. I'm surprised that they aren't mirroring the game on ESPN2 for that case. Or another of the fifty channels ABC/ESPN seems to have.

It's the same broadcast crew regardless of which channel it's on.

Under. Total sacks by the Blackshirts 3.5 Under, don't think USM will pass enough for that. Total turnovers gained by Blackshirts 3.

Who are you addressing?

I guess finishing better than predicted once and less than predicted twice, but ending in the Top 25 all 3 times is not "never come close" to me. I also see us going 9-4 this season, but I feel me may be a lot better this year.

Hurray!! Thanks, saunders. I've been waiting for this to set my DVR.

Why's that? Compton progressed last season and should be more experienced and therefore better at MLB. Fisher and whoever else was at SLB were ineffective last season. Fisher should be better by experience and maybe by being more healed both physically and mentally. Also, we have more bodies at LB than last season, so competition should be better making the starters better. I also just have a feeling the whole defense is better prepared this year and more experienced top to bottom.

The strong MSU running game thought seems to have permeated the media. Even the BTN guys think Le'veon Bell will be the best RB in the conference. Even though he was mediocre last season with an effective passing game to open up the running game. That defense might be dominant, but that offense is going to cost them. IMO MSU's inability to run the ball will lead to turnovers in the passing game which will ultimately undermine that defense.

Hadn't seen this posted yet. Two Husker related parts: Lars Anderson has us in the Fiesta Bowl against Oklahoma. Mallory Rubin thinks we'll be a flop team: "The 'Huskers keep earning a spot in the preseason Top 25 polls. They also keep underachieving and losing four games a year. The Blackshirts have regressed after their Suh-driven resurgence, and Taylor Martinez has yet to put it all together. This team is too dependent on Rex Burkhead to hang with a conference largely on the rise." Thoughts? IMO Rubin is and has been a terrible judge of teams. So her selecting us to flop probably means we won't.

I agree. I'd maybe put LB as same. Losing Lavonte is impossible to replace, but the other 2 LB spots will be MUCH better than they were last year. And since we played without Crick most of last season, the DL will be better simply by experience.

I'm near Denver so it's a crapshoot whether we get the game on ABC or the alternate. Dish guide doesn't indicate which yet.

Well, when you say "per game" that indicates an average. I think you meant "every game".

Athletes, especially at DE, can kill the zone read. The problem is that the QB portion of the zone read is a backside running play and because of that you have potential free defenders. That's how the scrape exchange works. It takes the 'read' out of the play by having the DE always come down the line, with the backside LB scraping to take the QB. It can be countered in numerous ways, but by taking the quick and dirty method of the zone read out of the equation it killed off most of the reasons that teams put the play in to begin with. What we're talking about with so many options in the backfield is being done. Oregon has used a modern day version of the wishbone. But even with the frontside zone blocking in place, the defense just keys on the heavy flow in the backfield and reads the play. The play devotes so much to backfield distraction that it simply runs out of blockers, so if the DTs can slow down those combo blocks then the backers, both front and back, have little to worry about. It can, however, make for a great passing play because you can freeze both the frontside and backside LBers so easily. The defense, in essence, just parts in the middle for you. Obviously you can throw a lot of screens and such into the play as well to create width that way. Lots of good options, but one has to be careful of them. Like any counter play, the real benefit is to allow your flow to create a number advantage on the backside for you. Adding options to the backfield, or backside receiver options, etcetera doesn't necessarily solve the problem solutions like the scrape exchange have caused for the zone read. It's biggest advantages are that it is a backside complement to the zone packages out of the gun, it's easy to install, and the reads were simple. While we can create these alterations to the play, and it is fun doing it, that's a serious amount of time to devote for any team that doesn't use the zone read as a big time part of its playbook. For most teams, that wasn't the case and as I alluded to above, that's why it's not run as much as it was. I thought the point of the zone read was to read the DE and take him out of the play. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But a DE would need to be *very* athletic to both close off the QBs inside running lane and still make it outside fast enough to lay a hand on the RB. Gholston and maybe a handful of others could do this. Sometimes. /edit: Nice post of yours. +1 As he explains above, the DE takes the outside runner and the backside LB takes the QB. Requires an athletic DE to scrape with the RB.

I think he's having some fun with the media and fans.

Exactly. Besides it's not like having a player leave the game is going to prevent them getting hurt on the previous play when their helmet came off. Can't wait until some players are trying to pop each others' helmets off in a pile.