Riley Shelf Life

[True2tRA]

 

Guys, we have 9/10 wins a year worth of "good stats". I don't know that stats tell the entire story of the football progam we've watched over the last seven years.

 

Stats don't tell the whole story. But I doubt many people have watched enough of other teams to say we're significantly better or worse than anyone else. It's easy to say our line is bad, our linebackers are bad, our tackling is bad, or completion percentage is bad, etc., etc., etc. But the only way you can really compare to other teams is to look at the stats. Imperfect? Yes. Pretty good and the best method there is? Also yes.

I think you're right about that for sure. I know I don't follow any other teams like I do the Huskers and Broncos. I'd assume most don't analyze other teams the way we do with our own.

 

I don't think too many people have used the word bad[/bad]. You and Saunders kind of started throwing that word around here.

 

I think below average, or inconsistent maybe is the even better way to describe all of those things you listed.

[Mavric]

I guess if you want to make a distinction between "below average" and "bad". That would seem to be basically the same thing to me, at least in this context.

[Saunders]

Even "below average" is a bad descriptor because of the very definition of the phrase. We're far from "below average" no matter how you try to spin it. We may not be excellent, but to deny that we're above average or good (not great) is just flat out false.

[JJ Husker]

We have a long storied history of dominant offensive line performance. We have high expectations and have been spoiled by the history of meeting those expectations. The Pelini era O lines did not meet those expectations. That doesn't mean they were terrible or even below average but they also sure weren't at the level the average Husker fan would like to see. We can do much better...... we've proven that.

[Mavric]

We have a long storied history of dominant offensive line performance. We have high expectations and have been spoiled by the history of meeting those expectations. The Pelini era O lines did not meet those expectations. That doesn't mean they were terrible or even below average but they also sure weren't at the level the average Husker fan would like to see. We can do much better...... we've proven that.

 

I don't think anyone's arguing that.

 

But, again, that is comparing to an almost unattainable standard. We've consistently been a Top 20 - occasionally Top 10 - rushing team. We've produced four of the Top 10 rushers in Husker history - and this past year was basically the only year where at least two if not three of those players were splitting carries. It would be interesting to see the Football Outsiders stats for previous years but considering last year our rushing stats were down slightly from the previous few years I would think we'd be near the top in the previous 4-5 years as well.

 

Again, I think it's easier to point out the negative when you don't like the overall results. But our rushing attack was a long ways down the list of problems we've had over the last decade.

[JJ Husker]

Agreed Mavric. I think most everyone is on the same page here. The only differences are perception. The typical Husker fan is in the unique position to not be impressed with a top 20 offensive line performance and to refer to it as below average when it is obviously not below average. The only problem is tbat it's simply not up to the lofty standard we expect. Not saying that's right, just saying that's the way it is, even 15+ years removed from anything resembling a pipeline O line. And yeah, that has not been our biggest problem for sure but controlling the LOS has been an issue.

[The Dude]

That's part of it, but not all of it. Go watch the MacNeese, MSU, and Wisconsin film again. Things got pretty bad by any standard.

[Blackshirt96]

 

He'll need to do better than his resume' indicates to be here very long.

You mean have a winning percentage .2-.3 higher than the school's winning percentage the previous 30 years before him?

 

Most would have accepted the 9-10 wins a year had he not been an a$$hole & not got embarrassed several times on national TV. To many blowouts & to many a$$hole comments or incidents.

 

If Riley matches his record it will already be a win for NU.

[BigRedBuster]

The dominating lines from the 80s and 90s is obviously the goal you are striving for if you are a coach and player. You never stop working to be the absolute best you can be.

What leaves me scratching my head are fans who use terms like "below average" or "bad" (yes, I have seen that used before) for what is obviously not a below average O line by looking at stats, play, winning percentage, offensive production...etc. I can live with the term "inconsistent".

 

But, being disgusted and claiming our lines are bad or below average, I believe doesn't give credit to the players that we do have here now giving it their all to win games and entertain us on Saturday afternoons in the fall.

[True2tRA]

Just curious, but who on the offensive line last year stood out as a good/great offensive linemen?

 

This is simply a question, asking others opinions

 

If we want to stand by the stats and claim these guys were actually much better than given credit for, I'm just curious which players you would put in that category?

 

Disclaimer: Not saying they all suck, not saying nobody is worthy, just curious what you folks think

 

 

Alex Lewis is maybe the easy answer, but I got to be honest, I'm not blown away by him. I hope he steps it up a bit.

 

I expect Cavanaugh to get these guys playing more cohesively and I also expect plenty of new faces out there this year.

 

Expect a fresh attitude and a more technical and aggressive group.

 

Maybe the term "below average" was too harsh. Maybe the standard is high around here and I should use the term "below standard" instead?

 

In all reality, I can agree, the offensive line very well may have been "average".

 

If that's what they're striving for, then that's too bad.

 

If that's what Husker fans are striving for, then I think we are taking some steps in the wrong direction.

 

As was said above, Wisconsin has been able to build good/great offensive lines on a consistent basis for quite a period of time now. I'd like to think that Nebraska can compete on the same level as Wiscy, Michigan St. and Ohio St. at some point here.

 

If I had one wish for Nebraska football, one thing I could watch on Saturdays, it would be complete dominance with a ferocious mindset on the front lines again. The big boys need to be the baddest ass dudes on this team. Period.

[TheSker]

The big boys need to be the baddest ass dudes on this team. Period.

That honor typically goes to the DL

[The Dude]

Maybe the term "below average" was too harsh. Maybe the standard is high around here and I should use the term "below standard" instead?

Substandard works for me.

 

As well as unsatisfactory.

[NUinID]

I would say are O- lines have been about a 6.5 on a 10 scale. The blocking for the most part has been decent as Saunders matrix things show. The inconsistent play in the form of penalties and untimely miscues is what most think of and why most downgrade the line.

 

Everyone wants to see 380 yards a game rushing average like it used to be. That's not going to happen nor our they really trying for that.

 

Cut down on the false starts and holding and the line will appear much better. Part of that is the pace of the game they were trying to go at and all the check with me at the sideline stuff they did.

 

Watch Oregon they are very heavily penalized on the O-line because of the pace they play at.

 

Anyone notice a lot fewer miscues by the O-line in the spring game? I did.

[Enhance]

One thing that some fans harp on is the fact that Ameer had to dodge defenders in his face in the back field. That was the scheme more times than not. In a zone read, one defender is not blocked (most of the time). It is up to the QB and RB to make that guy miss. From there, the O line is supposed to have a numbers advantage.

 

Also, our O line (and many around the country) are taught to block way differently than what they were in the 80s and most of the 90s. Rules changes are a big part and changes in offenses are another in making that change.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Yes, specifically in the zone read, one defender (usually the end) is left unblocked for the QB to read.

 

But, in the zone blocking scheme, linemen are either covered/uncovered and often move laterally. So, on a zone blocking play (which we used regularly under Pelini and will use now in the future), the offensive line is not supposed to let a defender go untouched into the backfield and leave it up to the RB to make a guy miss one or two yards behind the LOS. The line is supposed to block a man (if they're covered) or double-team/move to a defender if they're uncovered.

 

Obviously numbers mean a lot here, as does stopping the backside defender from coming in and blowing up the play as the back looks for an opening.

 

But, there's hard evidence of our line either 1) failing to maintain proper technique while blocking or 2) missing assignments. In my opinion, was our line bad? No. Were they great? No. I agree with what someone else said that on a 10 point scale they're probably a 6.5. Or, I'd rate them a B or B-. Slightly above average.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Who's everyone's all-Pelini OL?