Fuzzy Posted September 6, 2013 Author Share Posted September 6, 2013 Curious if anyone is interested enough to pull up ypc and yards for all of Bo's losses. Put some numbers to the claims. I'm still compiling data. So this isn't finished. 2003 Missouri - 4.8 ypc 211 rush yds 241 pass yds Texas - 6.9 ypc 353 rush yds 131 pass yds K State - 4.7 ypc 248 rush yds 313 pass yds 2008 Oklahoma - 4.8 ypc 193 rush yds 315 pass yds Tex Tech - 6.0 ypc 137 rush yds 284 pass yds Missouri - 5.9 ypc 201 rush yds 261 pass yds V Tech - 3.7 ypc 206 rush yds 171 pass yds 2009 Iowa St - 2.9 ypc 137 rush yds 102 pass yds Tex Tech - 1.0 ypc 25 rush yds 234 pass yds V Tech - 2.3 ypc 86 rush yds 192 pass yds Texas - 0.5 ypc 18 rush yds 184 pass yds 2010 Texas - 4.5 ypc 209 rush yds 62 pass yds TAMU - 3.4 ypc 138 rush yds 172 pass yds Oklahoma - 2.9 ypc 112 rush yds 342 pass yds Wash - 5.2 ypc 268 rush yds 72 pass yds 2011 Wiscon - 4.6 ypc 231 rush yds 255 pass yds Northwest - 3.8 ypc 207 rush yds 261 pass yds Mich - 3.9 ypc 238 rush yds 180 pass yds SoCarol - 3.0 ypc 121 rush yds 230 pass yds 2012 UCLA - 6.1 ypc 344 rush yds 309 pass yds Ohio St - 7.7 ypc 371 rush yds 127 pass yds Wiscon - 10,8 ypc 539 rush yds 101 pass yds Georgia - 4.3 ypc 162 rush yds 427 pass yds There are only 4 wins in which Bo's defense has given up more than 200 yds rushing. Baylor 2008 6.5 ypc 216 rush yds Ohio St. 2011 5.9 ypc 243 rush yds Mich St. 2012 5.5 ypc 238 rush yds Wyoming 2013 7.3 ypc 219 rush yds I looked into Bo's wins as well, and at times we gave up a lot of passing yds but still managed to win. Some games were 200 - 300 yds in the air and still walked out with a win. Non Husker games 2005 LSU (win) and Auburn - 6.1 ypc 230 rush yds 2005 LSU (loss) and Tenn - 2.1 ypc 70 rush yds 2005 LSU (loss) and Georg - 3.3 ypc 138 rush yds 2006 LSU (loss) and Florida - 3.6 ypc 90 rush yds 2006 LSU (win) and Ark - 7.6 ypc 298 rush yds 2006 LSU (loss) and Ole Miss - 2.3 ypc 100 rush yds 2007 LSU (loss) and Kentucky - 3.0 ypc 125 rush yds 2007 LSU (win) and Ole Miss - 7.2 ypc 201 rush yds 2007 LSU (loss) and Ark - 7.3 ypc 385 rush yds 2004 Sooners (loss) and USC - 6.9 ypc 193 rush yds 3 Quote Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I'm not real sure this is a "Bo" issue. Giving up large amounts of rushing yards translates to losses for a high percentage of all coaches. It's a football thing. 2 Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 This is not a Nebraska/Bo issue by the way. I would bet the winning percentage of everyone is significantly lower when giving up 200+ yards rushing. Now, yes it is an issue that Bo needs to fix. The rushing defense is an issue. I just dont wanna see this turn into a discussion that Bo's the only one that cant win when giving up that kind of yardage on the ground. That would be an issue for anyone. 2 Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I'm not real sure this is a "Bo" issue. Giving up large amounts of rushing yards translates to losses for a high percentage of all coaches. It's a football thing. Jeez. You beat me to it by seconds. Quote Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I'm not real sure this is a "Bo" issue. Giving up large amounts of rushing yards translates to losses for a high percentage of all coaches. It's a football thing. Jeez. You beat me to it by seconds. Great minds....... Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 So he loses when they give up 200+ yards and they usually win when they rush for 200+ so what are we trying to say here? Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 So he loses when they give up 200+ yards and they usually win when they rush for 200+ so what are we trying to say here? That simply you cannot divide by zero, but you can multiply by 0 and still wind up with zero. 1 Quote Link to comment
TheSker Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 So he loses when they give up 200+ yards and they usually win when they rush for 200+ so what are we trying to say here? That they need to throw the ball downfield more Quote Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Whomever is playing Saftey just needs to play smart...read thier keys..and improvement is some aspects of run D should get better. Quote Link to comment
Hunter94 Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I saw another board an interesting take from Benning ref Wyoming. To paraphrase, he said that after watching the game and presser he thinks things are "fixable". Bo called a VERY plain and generic D with little complexity. Benning surmises it was done in order to put some things on film in order to see who "got" certain schemes, alignments and calls and who didn't. Put the guys in a position and have them "figure" things out themselves. This will allow Bo to move forward with the guys who "got" it and fix the issues that were observed as it relates to wrong call, communication, alignment etc.... Said we have the speed and athleticism and sees a simplifying of the D moving forward and scrapping the 2 gap, allowing guys to go hat on hat. Also said the D we see in a few weeks will not be remote to what we saw against Wyoming. Again, this was paraphrased and I did not listen to the show. Makes sense if true. BUT, I have heard a lot of the stuff before and am leery. so we couldn't run a simulation like this in practice this fall?..........lots of "theories" out there......... Quote Link to comment
Branno Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I saw another board an interesting take from Benning ref Wyoming. To paraphrase, he said that after watching the game and presser he thinks things are "fixable". Bo called a VERY plain and generic D with little complexity. Benning surmises it was done in order to put some things on film in order to see who "got" certain schemes, alignments and calls and who didn't. Put the guys in a position and have them "figure" things out themselves. This will allow Bo to move forward with the guys who "got" it and fix the issues that were observed as it relates to wrong call, communication, alignment etc.... Said we have the speed and athleticism and sees a simplifying of the D moving forward and scrapping the 2 gap, allowing guys to go hat on hat. Also said the D we see in a few weeks will not be remote to what we saw against Wyoming. Again, this was paraphrased and I did not listen to the show. Makes sense if true. BUT, I have heard a lot of the stuff before and am leery. so we couldn't run a simulation like this in practice this fall?..........lots of "theories" out there......... A real game, even against Wyoming, moves a lot faster than any practice or simulation could. Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Whoa... So, I was doing some research, and I noticed that Bo usually loses when the defense gives up 30+ points. 1 Quote Link to comment
Joe_5700 Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I'm not real sure this is a "Bo" issue. Giving up large amounts of rushing yards translates to losses for a high percentage of all coaches. It's a football thing. Jeez. You beat me to it by seconds. No. actually post #6 was the first to address this... Quote Link to comment
NUinID Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I saw another board an interesting take from Benning ref Wyoming. To paraphrase, he said that after watching the game and presser he thinks things are "fixable". Bo called a VERY plain and generic D with little complexity. Benning surmises it was done in order to put some things on film in order to see who "got" certain schemes, alignments and calls and who didn't. Put the guys in a position and have them "figure" things out themselves. This will allow Bo to move forward with the guys who "got" it and fix the issues that were observed as it relates to wrong call, communication, alignment etc.... Said we have the speed and athleticism and sees a simplifying of the D moving forward and scrapping the 2 gap, allowing guys to go hat on hat. Also said the D we see in a few weeks will not be remote to what we saw against Wyoming. Again, this was paraphrased and I did not listen to the show. Makes sense if true. BUT, I have heard a lot of the stuff before and am leery. I also read this summation. To add to this, Benning actually sat in on the last coaches meeting on Friday night. BP told his staff the game may be closer than normal because of the way he wanted to call it. Instead of sending in specific instructions to his defense he sent in basic stuff that allowed for them to allow for the team to react and figure it out themselves. I don't think Pelini thought they were going to be as good as they were. I think what Benning said could mostly be true, BP seemed very calm after the game and talked about the big jump he expected to make in play from the first to the second game. 2 Quote Link to comment
robsker Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Bo goes on record often expecting all sorts of good things... and they rarely happen. Coach speak. That said, against a garbage team like Southern Miss it makes improvement almost certain. Right?! The unfortunate reality is that when the competition is this low a level, a good performance by NU will mean almost nothing. When you play this weak a team, the only insight that one can gain is if NU struggles... at which point things are bad. Now, with UCLA... that is a reasonable barometer of where the team is. But with teams like Wyoming and Southern Miss one can learn little (except if there is real struggle even against such poor teams). 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.