brophog

After listening to Langs press conference yesterday, I'd have to question if he could get a rat through a maze. I'd be confused, too, if that was my instructor.

And Maryland lost their 2nd QB in that one. That said, UCF did hold them to 1.1 ypc and 3.0 ypp. It's hard to say what any of that means, though, as Maryland these days can't generate any sort of offense against anyone.

It is as sound as any other offense, more than some I'd say. They just don't have the pieces; their receivers can't get off the LOS and they have no one that can take the top off. They end up rarely scoring from outside the red zone, and in the red zone they got no one that can cause a matchup issue. That's if you play them right, of course, which even Brohm hinted at today. We know how to defend them, he knows where they are weak, surely the Nebraska coaches will do what is necessary. I think they're pretty much even, as I explained in the Purdue night game thread. These guys arent exactly world beaters.

We left because we didn't want to become Connecticut.

He's the same guy speculating McElwain will just up and leave Florida to go to Oregon St. IIRC, he is an area guy (Missouri?) so maybe he has heard something on Frost.

Langs press conference summed up (paraphrased badly by me): I have no idea how to call a RB screen vs an odd front, but I'm going to do it anyhow.

I haven't heard/read anything on that side of the equation.

Thats been my worry. Who knows though.

Only because of location. It's about the same scenario, though.

They actually had one of their best games against Rutgers, they just didn't score much off of it. You won't find many games that is further apart between what happened and the final score. Rutgers had 2 plays that accounted for half their yardage, Purdue marched up and down the field all day. It's a strange game sometimes.

We're both sitting here, on a public message board, saying "this is what they do, this is how you stop it".....this is not an opponent that presents a complex problem that can't be solved with 2 weeks preparation. They run what they do because that's what their personnel allows them to. They'll have some trick plays, throwback passes and such but it's mostly shallow crosses, short hooks, screens...lots of underneath routes that can be disrupted at the LOS...and that's what Wisconsin and Michigan did. You won't find an opponent that more clearly says, do this and win the game. But the Riley era hasn't been one of adapting to the opponent and conditions, has it?

No. It's all data modeling, and not much of a secret at this point. Fact is, while the record is the same, they've out scored their opponents and we haven't, and scoring margin is key in many models.

Obviously we've seen too much to suggest they won't. IMO, they make this adjustment and Nebraska wins, and wins fairly easily. This is an offense that gets what you let them get. They don't have the pieces yet to go get what they want.

Thats the prescription. Get physical with those receivers, disrupt their timing. They don't have much for big play potential, but they can move the ball if you let them.

They don't suck, they're decidedly neutral.

I have a problem with this kind of article. I have no problem with acknowledging what Brohm has done as a function of what they've previously done and what they hope to become. He clearly has them on the upswing. But they aren't that team they want to become in future seasons, they're a team with a losing record, projected to have a losing record. We play this team, not next year's team, so let's not pretend they've already made it.

Purdue gained 1 yard in the 3rd quarter vs Michigan

@Toe, that average SOS is interesting, but the deviation by source between the two is even more interesting. I want to do some digging. Edit: In general, Wisconsin has played a schedule whose average is closest to its median opponent, relative to the base method of its ranking system. UCF has played teams that are more on the extremes. GBE is the outlier of both, and while I recognize its methods, I didn't recognize its name. It uses a function of the old opponent and opponents' opponent system, weighting primary opponents twice as much as secondary opponents. This is why UCF's SOS looks so much higher, and Wisconsin's so much lower than other rankings.

It's a great comparison if you realize how much randomness is in the result of a football game.

It's statistical noise. They list these numbers for the same reason the roulette wheel lists what numbers previously hit.

I would never use such a thing as a consideration. You might as well use trends (like KU-TCU). Why? They're contextual. They say something occurred, they don't tell me why it occurred.

Like was talked about in the pre-Rutgers analysis, Nebraska and Purdue are roughly equivalent. The Rutgers game may have pushed some to realize that but it doesn't have an impact on that analysis. Purdue is still who they were.

It's down to 5.5 if that makes you feel better.

I do too. Setting too lofty expectations is unfair to a coach. Don't call him a "genius", don't say he's the next "so and so". There is always the chance of failure. If he's the guys he'll show it.

The smart money is what moves lines.