Rewatched Game- Defensive Thoughts

[RedDenver]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

Well, that's a conclusion you're drawing based on the analysis. And it's a conclusion that's being hotly debated throughout Husker nation. Only time will tell if that 6 minutes was the trend or the anomaly.

[Enhance]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

As I said, it's just another way to look at the data. I never said it's the only way, but given a situation, it can be applicable.

 

Our defensive performance through three quarters was 21 points, 400 yards. That's about what I expected our entire game to be.

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Nebraska did not plan on Wyoming running the ball as much as they did. Which nobody would if you have watched the Wyoming offense at all in the last couple years. You could see for much of the first quarter the defense was not respecting the run what so ever and Wyoming did a great job of getting matchups they wanted when they wanted to run the ball. It came down to Wyoming's gameplan more than Nebraska's ability to stop the run. In the second half they stuffed a lot more runs and only allowed minimal gains except maybe a couple plays.

Ok, thanks

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Yes. In the first half, MLB Santos was pretty much out on an island. We played nickel & dime mostly with 2-high safeties. In the second half we brought one of the safeties up into the box to help against the run. Not every play though. WYO then adjusted by running when they saw Jackson stay back, and passed when he move up into the box. The corners played soft press. Also when Smith broke his long run in the second quarter, there was absolutely no one in the middle of the field. Same thing for the RB in 1st quarter. In the third quarter we got a big break when they snapped the ball over Smith's head. The inside screen was there with the left half of the field empty. He didn't have enough time to recover and make the throw. That cost them 7 points if not 3.

So, our DTs and DEs are basically useless against the run, reading between the lines..

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

I guess thats why we lost to Wiscy last year: they had a zillion long runs and TMart only had the one. Their 'pure average' was much better.

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

[knapplc]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

Like Mitchell's blitz on the two-point conversion?

[BigRedBuster]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

 

 

Now is the time for over exaggeration.

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

Like Mitchell's blitz on the two-point conversion?

ok, give more examples....

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

 

 

Now is the time for over exaggeration.

Tell that to Brett Smith.

[Count 'Bility]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

Like Mitchell's blitz on the two-point conversion?

ok, give more examples....

Someone compiled or is compiling a list of all the blitzes we used through out the game. Who blitzed, where they came from, the situation, position, etc etc. Cant remember if it's in this thread, but mostly, if not purely, the blitzes were effective. They dont have to result in a sack to be successful.

[Count 'Bility]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

now, see once we got to the second quarter, it appeared to me that the guys had "settled in" and become adjusted to that game speed for the first time. Wyoming scored at the beginning of the 2nd quarter and didnt score again till the end of the third. I thought the D played very well in those middles stages. Even Randy Gregory made his presence very known, even though it will not go into the books.

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Someone compiled or is compiling a list of all the blitzes we used through out the game. Who blitzed, where they came from, the situation, position, etc etc. Cant remember if it's in this thread, but mostly, if not purely, the blitzes were effective. They dont have to result in a sack to be successful.

So if the QB has to just dance a little and run or pass for 20 or more, then it is an effective blitz? Anyway, going back the last few years, what I have observed is our blitz's aren't generally arent that effective. Seems like the LBs usually get picked up by the RB too. Sometimes the CBs/safeties make the play.

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

now, see once we got to the second quarter, it appeared to me that the guys had "settled in" and become adjusted to that game speed for the first time. Wyoming scored at the beginning of the 2nd quarter and didnt score again till the end of the third. I thought the D played very well in those middles stages. Even Randy Gregory made his presence very known, even though it will not go into the books.

I'll have to look at stats or rewatch the game, though I dont particularly want to. Seems like Wyo had more than their share of 8+ yd carries on the ground against us. What I'm getting at, is our DL is not a disruptive, run stuffing force. They were getting pushed around by friggin Wyo. What happens when UCLA rolls into town?