10.9 points per loss

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

They are just talking about Watson's ineptitude on 1620. In the losses over the last two seasons the team has only scored 10.9 points per game. Compared to the worst school in the nation Buffalo which in their 10 losses averages 11 points!

 

RED BEACON!!!

[mmmtodd]

hrm...thats 6-7 points better than the blackshirts hold offenses to. must have been playing some killer defenses.

[VA Husker Fan]

They are just talking about Watson's ineptitude on 1620. In the losses over the last two seasons the team has only scored 10.9 points per game. Compared to the worst school in the nation Buffalo which in their 10 losses averages 11 points!

 

RED BEACON!!!

10.9 simply isn't correct. It's higher than that. Go look up scores and see for yourself.

[Enhance]

I got 11.9.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

I got 11.9.

Okay 11.9 over 7 games is still pathetic

[zoogs]

It's a sad statistic but, to be fair: we have had a good defense. Almost every loss you look at when you have an elite defense, you are going to find that the offense didn't score a lot of points. Because for the most part, any time we scored more than however much, we'd win. That's the makeup of this team right now and so any loss you look at, with a few exceptions like TT '09, are going to be low-scoring games.

 

It would be most interesting to see the average score of the entire game on these losses. I think that's the only way to break it down.

 

The average score you have is 11.9 - 17.3. If you throw out the outlier in TT, it's 12.7-15. So most of these losses are just close, defensive struggles that point to what we already know: good defense.

 

If the average score were 10-30, that means: BAD defense with an offense that can't keep pace in a scoring contest.

 

If the average score were 30-35, then it would be bad defense with an offense that will make a shootout of anything.

 

The common denominator in the last two? Bad defense. So we've covered Bad D/Good O, Bad D/Bad O, and Good D/Bad O. What about Good D/Good O?

 

I don't think you will ever draw that conclusion by looking at statistics of losses. Because the average score of Good D/Good O would be something like 20-10.

 

Just an interesting thought here. Not sure it means much of anything. It would be better to look at all games but I won't argue that our losses have also been the games where the O has disappeared, instead of games where the D has disappeared, or games where both have disappeared (minus TT).

[Count 'Bility]

I got 11.9.

 

Correct, however if you take away the 7 the defense was directly responsible for in the texas loss this year, that 13 changes to a 6 and the average changes to precisely 10.85 so that must be the formula they are using.

[PaulCrewe]

In my mind the more telling stat that a listener emailed in was Wats' offense versus teams ranked in the top 25 defenses(scoring and yards I think it was) the last two years. I believe that was Va Tech, Texas, Texas, Mizzou and Boomer. The numbers were ridiculous, but the one that stood out to me was that in those games NU has averaged ONLY 5 points in the second half. And if you take away Roy Helu's four scores and Kyler's two the only other person to score on offense was........Alex Henery

[zoogs]

Good catch, accountability. That was the Hagg return on the punt actually, not the defense.

[GMoose]

I got 11.9.

 

Correct, however if you take away the 7 the defense was directly responsible for in the texas loss this year, that 13 changes to a 6 and the average changes to precisely 10.85 so that must be the formula they are using.

You can't play "if" with these kind of things, "if" goes both ways. I know that's not what you're getting at, I'm just sayin whoever used that is doing a bit of spin doctoring

[zoogs]

GMoose, that's an if that SHOULD be played because the offense didn't score those points, Eric Hagg did on a punt return.

[CFHusker]

In my mind the more telling stat that a listener emailed in was Wats' offense versus teams ranked in the top 25 defenses(scoring and yards I think it was) the last two years. I believe that was Va Tech, Texas, Texas, Mizzou and Boomer. The numbers were ridiculous, but the one that stood out to me was that in those games NU has averaged ONLY 5 points in the second half. And if you take away Roy Helu's four scores and Kyler's two the only other person to score on offense was........Alex Henery

 

and if you take away 50 points in the Washington game Nebraska loses. You can't make a solid argumemnt by taking away the few successes. The reason those defenses were in the top 25 was because they are good at stopping teams from scoring and moving the ball. In the majority of those losses it came down to a few mistakes that cost the game. In all of the games the offense was good enough to win but made mistakes that cost points. Against OU Watson's offense was in position to score 6 to 10 more points. The players on the field made the errors. Against Va Tech they were in position to score TD's but penaties put them in bad situations. This year the difference between 13-0 and 10-3 has less to do with schemes and playcalling and more to do with mental errors. I for one do not blame Watson when you look at the tools he has to work with. This team is very young and the experienced players have only been with this staff for three years, this "new" offense for one year, and the seniors seemed to make more than their share of mistakes. Dropped passes and fumbles are unacceptable by Sr leaders. It shows me they are not willing to put in the effort or they do not truly believe how good this team can be. If all the Seniors approached the game like Henery this team is 13-0.

[bball_backer]

It's a sad statistic but, to be fair: we have had a good defense. Almost every loss you look at when you have an elite defense, you are going to find that the offense didn't score a lot of points. Because for the most part, any time we scored more than however much, we'd win. That's the makeup of this team right now and so any loss you look at, with a few exceptions like TT '09, are going to be low-scoring games.

 

It would be most interesting to see the average score of the entire game on these losses. I think that's the only way to break it down.

 

The average score you have is 11.9 - 17.3. If you throw out the outlier in TT, it's 12.7-15. So most of these losses are just close, defensive struggles that point to what we already know: good defense.

 

If the average score were 10-30, that means: BAD defense with an offense that can't keep pace in a scoring contest.

 

If the average score were 30-35, then it would be bad defense with an offense that will make a shootout of anything.

 

The common denominator in the last two? Bad defense. So we've covered Bad D/Good O, Bad D/Bad O, and Good D/Bad O. What about Good D/Good O?

 

I don't think you will ever draw that conclusion by looking at statistics of losses. Because the average score of Good D/Good O would be something like 20-10.

 

Just an interesting thought here. Not sure it means much of anything. It would be better to look at all games but I won't argue that our losses have also been the games where the O has disappeared, instead of games where the D has disappeared, or games where both have disappeared (minus TT).

zoogies, I respect the way you continue to defend your stance on Watson and present decent arguments, I really do. However, when you have to get this carried away to try and justify numbers, well, there's probably a reason you have to try so hard to present anything resembling an argument.

[bball_backer]

 

and if you take away 50 points in the Washington game Nebraska loses. You can't make a solid argumemnt by taking away the few successes. The reason those defenses were in the top 25 was because they are good at stopping teams from scoring and moving the ball. In the majority of those losses it came down to a few mistakes that cost the game. In all of the games the offense was good enough to win but made mistakes that cost points. Against OU Watson's offense was in position to score 6 to 10 more points. The players on the field made the errors. Against Va Tech they were in position to score TD's but penaties put them in bad situations. This year the difference between 13-0 and 10-3 has less to do with schemes and playcalling and more to do with mental errors. I for one do not blame Watson when you look at the tools he has to work with. This team is very young and the experienced players have only been with this staff for three years, this "new" offense for one year, and the seniors seemed to make more than their share of mistakes. Dropped passes and fumbles are unacceptable by Sr leaders. It shows me they are not willing to put in the effort or they do not truly believe how good this team can be. If all the Seniors approached the game like Henery this team is 13-0.

1 - If they were making mistakes to prevent themselves from scoring, wouldn't that mean they weren't good enough to win that game?

 

2 - This is starting to drive me crazy. It is up to the coaches to prepare their players to execute, and if a player is not executing, they need to find someone who will (i.e. the defensive coaches replacing P.J. Smith and Ricky Thenarse).

 

3 - Isn't it up to the coaches to constantly be developing depth? And your 3 years comment is absurd, if 3 years isn't long enough, then every starter would be a senior or RS junior every year.

 

4 - Henery has a killer instinct, the defense has a killer instinct, the offense...? Bo has a killer instinct, Watson...? Once again, a player flaw that reflects coaching.

[HSKRNOKC]

That number speaks alot about the problem...