brophog

Its about play tendencies. That NIU quote is very interesting when you think about it. He hasn't watched 3 years of tape on this offense, probably hasn't watched 3 games worth. He watched what someone prepared for him. Nebraska doesnt really run that many bubbles, but they are run out of very similar receiver splits....and he jumped that route with maximum conviction because he had to close a pretty considerable distance to make that play. That wasn't one of those interceptions where you're just in the general area.....someone showed him exactly what to look for in the presnap alignment.

I won't deny the argument Nebraska could lose to anyone in the Big Ten after what we've seen in the first three weeks, but I'm not exactly impressed with much in the West outside of Wisconsin and Purdue. Minnesota has done what is necessary but is really untested.

Number of plays is a silly stat. It's an alternate possession game. You get the ball, they get the ball. Drive efficiency is what really matters, not how many plays you run or how long you have the ball. They may be means to an end, but they're simply overrated counting stats. The only stat in the box score more useless is run pass/ratio. That whole "balance" idea is really silly when you think about it. You know what those balanced 50/50 teams do? They run on first and pass on second. But sometimes they get creative and pass on first and run on second. Ooh, outlandish. How many times do they run 14 times in a row? Not many, their goal is being balanced, as if that's the holy ratio. (They confuse balance with being multiple). Enter Langs, who takes it to another level. 2nd and 10, something conservative and predictable like a RB Screen or draw. Last year he had a fetish for running weak side out of trips. Over and over. He throws out what appears to be a lot of looks, but he has these little patterns he clings to like an old teddy bear. It doesn't take long for the opposing graduate assistant to chart his patterns that year.

You know what TOP really is? How many minutes you had the ball without scoring.

I think I've said it before, but I hate this offense, and I despise the play calling. Even more than that, though, I hate the execution. Time is the biggest constraint in coaching, you just don't have enough time to put everything in and practice it to the degree necessary. Regardless of offensive type, the best college offenses usually do something really well. Some set of plays that can be their bread and butter. Maybe something as simple certain passing concept, mesh for example is a primary concept in many air raid systems. I cannot think of anything in this tenure that fits that description. It's like a kitchen sink offense.

Offense is so often highlighted in these recruiting discussions, but it is really overblown. It's not that hard to recruit to an offense because the offense can dictate. Defense is the side of the ball where recruiting really gets reflected. If you don't have it, they can attack it. Defense is where the real force multipliers exist. You can drop a lot more into coverage with some stud DLs. You can play man across the field? All of a sudden your defensive coordinator looks like a genius. You can do a lot more schematically to hide deficiencies on offense. Run where they ain't. Can't recruit speed and size at receiver? You can do a lot with a small guy out of the slot. A big reason so many teams utilize the shotgun and 4 receiver sets is talent neutralization. It takes less time to teach less techniques, and you can use spacing and angles to dictate numbers. The teams that are good at stopping those schemes, though.....they make up those numerical mismatches with talent.

That will change absolutely nothing in the positive. Every disgruntled fanbase in the country says the same thing...without such a sellout streak. A lot of times, even when attendance drops, it's associated with something else....marketing, for instance. You may be voting with your wallet because you think it's too expensive, they may think their commercials have too many pink elephants. At this point, one of the biggest remaining selling points to recruits and coaches are the fans and our enthusiasm for this program. Take away the most outward sign of that and you risk further removing this programs place amongst the special programs in the nation. That's not going to help things one bit. In the never ending arms race that is college athletics, why give up one of our unique advantages?

Yes. I have no idea why. Then again, I have no idea why he was here for the first three years, so maybe it makes sense.

We'll just join the Big Ten.....

Sunk cost fallacy.

How many can Tre Bryant play the rest of the way?

I was one that did know very much who Riley was and very much didn't like this hire. That sentence don't mean a damn today.

The argument was made following the game that this was the worst home loss in school history. I'm not here to debate that one way or another, but many of those other games one could put in that list I did feel that they were while watching the game. Someone had to mention the possibility this could be one for it to register, because it just felt so....normal.

It was all my fault. I was stuck on 666 posts.

Wont be anywhere near that close. This is the false hope game.

What was the stated goal of this coaching change?

The groundhog day version.

Given the stated goals at the time of the last coaching change, how has sufficient progress been shown to warrant this?

I don't see how it's strange. Happens every year. Winning is not about whose better, it just means you scored more points than the other team.

But there is always those glimmers of hope, like the result (not so much performance) in the second half of the Oregon game. There is always that little tiny amount of hope that this isn't what the vast majority thought it would be the day he was hired.

You just dont get it. For every example you try to critique, we can list 10 more. Big stadiums, little stadiums. Marquee programs, also rans. Coast to coast. There is no rhyme or reason to it. It simply shouldn't happen.

The real issue isn't the decision to run him that much. That certainly makes sense, in terms of wanting to win the game. He was playing well and he was creating holes that maybe others would not have created. At times, he made his line look very good. He wasnt seeing a giant hole and just falling forward. The real issue is that you were in the position in such a game where you felt like that had to be a decision.

I think their chances are much better than 20%. I'm dubious of that point spread, to say the least. I also think this is a game that can give a false positive. Certainly winning is better than losing, but Oregon at this point is the very definition of a paper tiger. Coming off a bad season, new staff, and not a great performance in their opener, despite some very gaudy stats. It's very easy to pump them up to more than they probably are at this point. I saw a lot of issues in their opener that had nothing to do with their opponent. Its hard to say where Oregon really ranks given so little real data, but the Big 10 is off to a pretty good start, and we'll probably see at least a handful of games tougher than this one.

Nebraska did it at Notre Dame, of all places. It's absolutely uncanny how such a small state has a fan base that does this from coast to coast.

I'd agree that 30+ in one game isn't a huge deal. It's gets more interesting when it's game one against the Sun Belt All Stars.