Success vs Failure

[Mavric]

7 hours ago, I am I said:

wut? 
 

I did not invoke either of those schools or their wins or losses. 
my point was…we can have an eye test of progress.  We are all very aware of our deficiencies. Which would be easy for us to determine some progress or success, even if it doesn’t lead to wins. Since we follow our DONU so closely we can see if we are getting better and Rhule is doing a good job. But there must be wins, which have been in short supply for 6+ yrs. 
 

however, if Rhule doesn’t literally get the wins he too will be judged by his losses, not some perceived gains. He needs to win. That’s what counts. 
 

where in the f did you get UCF and Alabama from my post?  
thx for everything you do for this site, Mav, but don’t throw some things in on my post that I literally didn’t bring up.  
cheers 

 

You said wins are all that matter.

 

Thus, undefeated UCF > one-loss Alabama.

[brophog]

20 hours ago, Undone said:

I think it's reasonable to expect that the defense is noticeably better than last year - because last year it was so bad at many points. Winning six games is probably very doable just by:

 

1. The defense being significantly better than last year.

2. Special teams being as good or better than last year.

 

I'm a big fan of White and this defense, and certainly long term I'm more confident on that side of the ball (Satterfield/Rhule are both known for pretty meh offenses).

 

However, there are a lot of unknowns on the defense this year. It may take a while to see how pieces fit and that may limit what this defense can do schematically. I think they brought in a lot of good pieces, both prep and transfers, and some of those will likely have to be key contributors as they transition from a very different defensive philosophy.

 

Syracuse's defenses the last two years ranked 26th and 34th, respectively in total defense, but White's first year they were 111. That improvement shows why we should be very excited, but it should also temper our expectations a little bit.

 

I dont think Nebraska needs to be significantly better to win 6 games because they really weren't that bad last year on a per play basis. 57th in points per play, 64th in yards per play. Not enough to carry a poor offense, but enough to win 6 games if those phases showed improvement.

 

 

[runningblind]

I think the argument that "we only need to be a little better at X or Y to get to 6 wins" is inherently flawed. That assumes you are keeping everything else the same, and improving upon last years failures, when this is a completely new staff. They are installing new systems and trying to do things differently than before.  Some things may be better, some will probably be worse, the sum of which will result in a unique end result that really has a lot less to do with 2022 than folks are saying. 

[thexyz]

I want to see team cohesion consistently on game days. Continuity has been lacking much attributable to not having a clear vision or, team identity. It's like we've had teams with decent players for so long now under-performing, playing somewhat aimlessly. Like an engine that briefly runs well, sputters badly sometimes and everything in between.

 

We want to get to a place where we're functioning well as a whole unit not merely as players desperately attempting to perform individual tasks. With cohesiveness will come flow and sustained momentum. The bonding, chemistry and culture building is going to pay real dividends in this regard translating into a team knowing how to gear down and punch back and win. Sort of like velocity or having torque because all the components are working well together synergistically.

 

Enough of the contributors haven't been being done well enough to cause that to occur as a consequence. A series of different head coaches hasn't helped. 

[thexyz]

"You can win with less talent but you can't win with less attitude"

 

"Are you going to be a fighter or a victim"

 

-Bill Beswick

 

 

[brophog]

2 hours ago, runningblind said:

I think the argument that "we only need to be a little better at X or Y to get to 6 wins" is inherently flawed.

 

I don't see it as being a little better or worse to get to 6 wins, but more looking at what metrics equate to 6 wins and how likely Nebraska is to meet those marks. Last year's data is just a starting point.

 

Don't take this reply as suggesting you're wrong, because I'm not. There is significant debate in the analytics community on how long to keep preseason data in a data model. Everyone recognizes it has flaws, but football just doesn't generate that much data in comparison to other sports. That leaves the problem of getting rid of the preseason data too early giving really sporadic modeling results because of the limited sample size, but if you leave it in too long you're basing X percentage of your data on a different team.

[ndobney]

My expectations are 1 win I don’t want to have a season on our resume where we loose every game on our schedule

[Toe]

12 hours ago, runningblind said:

I think the argument that "we only need to be a little better at X or Y to get to 6 wins" is inherently flawed. That assumes you are keeping everything else the same, and improving upon last years failures

 

And even with the same coaching staff, new problems can arise. I remember in the Bo era, it seemed like every time we'd plug one hole, another would spring up elsewhere, and we'd end up sort of treading water.