knapplc Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You mention Jammal a lot, Junior. He must hold a pretty special place in your heart. Quote Link to comment
admo Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Cool, love stats Defensively I can easily see the difference in the Husker's performance when it comes to third down. They are making more stops and drives are ending. Also, there has not been as many broken coverages, missed tackles, that lead to several big plays per game. The bend-dont-break method has been better, and teams are having trouble putting up the points. The stats reflect this. On offense, it has been great seeing one back carrying the load successfully throughout the majority of the game. Helu's stats could be even better if they ran him 25 a game. I havent seen as many three-and-outs as we had last year. This year's offense is a lot better in that category. I would bet those numbers dropped significantly. And even though we lost two solid & experienced possession recievers, the passing game is still looking promising. I havent given up on Lee at all. Can only imagine how much better the passing game would be (and less pressure) if Zac had two guys returning like that... always confident knowing he could hit Swift on the Hot Route or TP on a curl... and count on them when pressured up in the pocket. Ganz had that, Lee doesnt. So that's impressive. But with them gone, it does open up opportunities for other guys, for instance to have speed in Gilly stretching the field. Just need guys like Paul and Meno to step it up a bit. Quite a bit. Because Brooks has been showing that he can be that guy. I wouldnt be suprised to see him get more touches, or Lee looking for him. Quote Link to comment
junior4949 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 He does hold a more special place than the likes of Mickey Joseph, Mike Grant, McCants, etc. However, he was quite a let down from those who immediately preceded him by the likes of Frazier/Berringer, Frost, and Crouch. Lord was a gifted athlete. Unfortunately, he wasn't the most gifted between the ears. When he audibled, you knew 1) it was going to be an option and 2) he was going to keep the ball. Quote Link to comment
clone Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Alright we are 4 games into this season and being the stats geek that I am I was going over the stats to see how much better we are this year compared to last year solely based off of the statistics. you need to get out more.... DAMN good work, lots of effort there.... but with a different schedule, different players.... statistical value... a super stretch seriously. you need to get out more.... Quote Link to comment
Pedro Guerrero Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share Posted September 29, 2009 you need to get out more.... seriously. you need to get out more.... I did it at work and it took all of 15 minutes. Quote Link to comment
Ohio Pete Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you. The assumption being Taylor is a capable passer? I think Miami found out what happened if you just attacked him willy-nilly; so I liked the game plan by the Pelini boys, but it didn't work out in the end. Quote Link to comment
NU41SB Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you. That sack came on a blitz if I remember correctly. DL was still in "contain" mode. I could be wrong though, and if I am, please someone correct me Quote Link to comment
In the Deed the Glory Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you. That sack came on a blitz if I remember correctly. DL was still in "contain" mode. I could be wrong though, and if I am, please someone correct me You're not. Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you. I know what you are saying but lets face it, the defensive gameplan worked great the entire game with the exception of the play you are talking about and even then it took an amazing pass that NU still almost knocked down in the endzone. The game plan was great sometimes the other team is trying to make plays too though and sometimes they do make them. Quote Link to comment
shyndy Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Thanks for the research, statistically we're alot better on pass D, but I think we are still giving up too many rushing yards. A few too many runs of 10+ yards probably has the overall numbers up. I think we're still the best overall defense in the north, maybe even in the B12(OU giving up less than 5 ppg). Not to be contentious or anything, but you can't compare seasons with different opponents. VT was common to both seasons, but the rest of the 2009 OOC opponents were weak sisters. Last year you played a 9 win Western Mich. Face it... the Sun Belt isn't competitive. ???? Okay, well four games into last year's season...western michigan wasn't a 9 win team were they? Do you have some esp ability that allows to you foresee the records of every team? Do you know for a fact that Arkansas St. or FAU won't reach nine wins. Your argument is just as flawed as this one might be. No... the point was that they were a decent team. If Ark. St or FAU win that many, it will be against Sun Belt teams. Overall, the MAC is a tougher conference. Pretty sure FAU beat a MAC team in their bowl game last year, just saying...... --edit-- Just checked and I was right. FAU beat Central Michigan 24-21 Yep and not only that but Central Mich beat Western Mich, the great 9 win team we played last year. I don't think its insane to say that this year's schedule and last years are pretty much the same non-conference. Main difference being that we had to play at VT. Quote Link to comment
junior4949 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you. That sack came on a blitz if I remember correctly. DL was still in "contain" mode. I could be wrong though, and if I am, please someone correct me Yeah, it was a blitz. This is entirely the point. We put pressure on him with the blitz from the 3. We put no pressure on him when they were at the 11. Now riddle me this, if containment is broken do the LB's stand a better chance coming up when he crosses the 3 or the 11. The QB can't legally pass once he crosses the line of scrimmage. I would hope our LB's could come up and get him when he's 11 yards from the goal. I don't think they can when he's only got 3 yards to go, yet we blitzed and put pressure on anyway. It was a gutsy call to blitz when they were at the 3. Quote Link to comment
In the Deed the Glory Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you. That sack came on a blitz if I remember correctly. DL was still in "contain" mode. I could be wrong though, and if I am, please someone correct me Yeah, it was a blitz. This is entirely the point. We put pressure on him with the blitz from the 3. We put no pressure on him when they were at the 11. Now riddle me this, if containment is broken do the LB's stand a better chance coming up when he crosses the 3 or the 11. The QB can't legally pass once he crosses the line of scrimmage. I would hope our LB's could come up and get him when he's 11 yards from the goal. I don't think they can when he's only got 3 yards to go, yet we blitzed and put pressure on anyway. It was a gutsy call to blitz when they were at the 3. One way of thinking, sure. But since we sent a secondary player on that play up the middle I would bet Bo was trying to negate a run pass option since they were so close. That would have been the smart offensive call. Roll out Taylor after a PA fake and then let him throw or run. If he can't find an open guy and can't run it in he throws it away. At the 11, because of the reasons you gave, that wasn't a viable option so you play coverage and wait to bring the heat on 4th down. Quote Link to comment
NU41SB Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you. That sack came on a blitz if I remember correctly. DL was still in "contain" mode. I could be wrong though, and if I am, please someone correct me Yeah, it was a blitz. This is entirely the point. We put pressure on him with the blitz from the 3. We put no pressure on him when they were at the 11. Now riddle me this, if containment is broken do the LB's stand a better chance coming up when he crosses the 3 or the 11. The QB can't legally pass once he crosses the line of scrimmage. I would hope our LB's could come up and get him when he's 11 yards from the goal. I don't think they can when he's only got 3 yards to go, yet we blitzed and put pressure on anyway. It was a gutsy call to blitz when they were at the 3. One way of thinking, sure. But since we sent a secondary player on that play up the middle I would bet Bo was trying to negate a run pass option since they were so close. That would have been the smart offensive call. Roll out Taylor after a PA fake and then let him throw or run. If he can't find an open guy and can't run it in he throws it away. At the 11, because of the reasons you gave, that wasn't a viable option so you play coverage and wait to bring the heat on 4th down. I'm not the coach, simply stating how/why we got a sack when they were at the three. I see both sides of the argument here. All I can say is the game is hindsight. Maybe because of the outcome people say that we should have blitzed. If we had blitzed that play, and they score in 6 secs vs. 12, maybe people say, "Why would we blitz and not have coverage when they hadn't had a successful day passing". Again I do see both sides of the argument and I can't give you a 100% answer. Quote Link to comment
clone Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 you need to get out more.... seriously. you need to get out more.... I did it at work and it took all of 15 minutes. ok. no real effort! I take it back then... seriously... any comparison between the 2008 and 2009 teams with different schedules etc. no correlation. Quote Link to comment
jayhawker Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Alright we are 4 games into this season and being the stats geek that I am I was going over the stats to see how much better we are this year compared to last year solely based off of the statistics. Record wise we all know that we are the same at 3-1 so I wanted to dig in and see if we are showing signs of improvement or if we are keeping a steady pace with what was started last year. These are the individual leaders and team averages through the first 4 games of both seasons. The number listed first is last year. So here you go: NU 2008 2009 Points 37.5 vs. 39.25 First Downs 21.25 vs. 22 Rushing Yards 155.5 vs. 183.75 Passing Yards 265.5 vs. 256.25 Total Offense 421 vs. 440 Turnovers 1.75 vs. 1 OPP 2008 2009 Points 19.5 vs. 7 umm, where are points VT scored? shouldn't it be 19.5 vs 23? or am i missing something? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.