Disturbing trend or coincidence?

[mjmartin1970]

Not counting Div I-AA opponents.....

 

In 2004, we trailed after the 1st Quarter in 70% of our games (7/10). Of those, we lost 86% of those gaems (6/7), and they accounted for 100% of our losses.

 

In 2005, we have trailed after the 1st Quarter in 43% of our games (3/7). Of those, we lost 100% of those games (3/3), and they accounted for 100% of our losses.

 

Granted, trailing after the first quarter is never going to result in a lot of wins, but this is disturbing to me.

 

In watching the games, I thought that this team has been good at coming back from a deficit. However, after looking at the stats above, I have realized that we are good at coming back and making a game of it, only to lose the game in the end.

 

What are we doing wrong that we can't come out and take a lead (in the Bill C era, we trail after the 1st Quarter in almost 60% of our games)? Is it really just execution as Bill C states? Why can't we come back from a deficit (in the Bill C era, we have lost 90% of the games where we trailed after the first quarter)? We seem to make a game of these contest - only to lose in the end?

 

I'm concerned that we get behind because we aren't that good. Other teams get a little conservative, and allow us to come back. Only for the other team to get aggressive again and show how bad we are - thus all the loses.

 

Thoughts? Comments?

[indianahusker]

Is this the one and only MJ that I know?

FC

[mjmartin1970]

Yup!

[indianahusker]

I'm not sure if this offense is getting any better. While I like ZT and think he's a tough kid, I doubt if NU will start any faster this weekend. And falling behind like NU has against this defense is gonna suck. I don't see NU scoring more than about 17 against KU...and the rushing attack will be nonexistent again..I don't like NU's chances, but my heart still says they win...

NU 17

KU 14

[clone]

Obviously not coincidence.

 

Sorry. Falling behind in the first quarter in 10 out of 17 games over a season and a half is what we'd call a TREND. Buying beer at the store and seeing your buddy there buying the same brand of beer would be a coincidence.

[indianahusker]

[bigredhusker427]

Well, the offense stuggles in the first half and then we come out and make it a game but the defense falls short. So our offensive attack isn't good unless the defense keeps playing too. Also the defense gives up a lot of points in the first half. It's like the defense just gives up when our opponent scores.

[IlliniHusker]

First - MJ - the statistics are depressing & very revealing at the same time.

Second - the 15 (?) scripted plays that Callahan / Norvell start each game with are just horrible. Usually we are 3 and out after most of these scripped series. That puts extreme pressure on the defense, who has to face opponents with MUCH BETTER scripted game plans. Result - down 2 or 3 TD's before we really make any GAME ADJUSTMENTS.

Finally - what's so sacred about the scripted plays? Why can't we start making offensive adjustments after the first or second series? Doesn't our D make adjustments as soon as they see what the opposition is doing?

I'm just a fan, but maybe some of the football experts on the panel can explain this to me!

[clone]

Um, actually it is.

And I don't appreciate your insinuation.

insinuation?

[IrishAZ]

J-Mar! You Madman!

 

Nice to see ya around.

 

Ok....way OT reply...I'm going back to my Leprechaun cave now...to plot something...or not...

 

IRISH!

GBR!

[hack]

Um, actually it is.

And I don't appreciate your insinuation.

that you have friends? that you like beer? that you have friends that like beer?

 

i'm trying to find out where the insult or insinuation is in all that.

[indianahusker]

Um, actually it is.

And I don't appreciate your insinuation.

insinuation?

Sorry, Clone...I misunderstood your post. My bad...sorry, dude!

Bygones?

[mjmartin1970]

The reason I asked disturbing trend or coincidence is that these stats are very "non-scientific". In other words, these are just the scores at the end of the first quarter (maybe I was not clear on that). Most were either 7 to 3, 0 to 7, 7 to 0, etc. etc. Included in that the fact that someone (either Nebraska or the opponent) could have been driving at the time. So, within in mere seconds, whomever was leading the game at the end of the first quarter could then be trailing, or winning by much more. Because you start the game anew in the second half - half time statistics should be much more telling than almost guaranteeing a loss if you are behind at the end of the first quarter.

 

Regardless, I see two things:

 

First, if we come out and win the first quarter in two of the next three games there would be significant improvement from 2004 to 2005. But nobody wins 1st Quarter Championships.

 

Second, just as important as starting strong is coming back from a deficit AND WINNING. Something BC hasn't been able to do with consistency (lose 90% of the games where we trailed at the end of the first quarter???). I'm not sure how to fix this, as I think this may be a player mentality issue. They have to believe that they are going to win the game, no matter what. Didn't BC get rid of the play psychologist guy/position???

[Steve]

It seems we suck when running the scripted plays. Maybe we need to just come out and throw the ball.