OWH: Predicting the B1G West

[Landlord]

But since you keep asking and I don't want to be accused of not answering your questions:

 

Cole Pensick was Second Team All-B1G in 2013

Spencer Long was Second Team All-B1G in 2011, First Team All-B1G in 2012 and a likely starter in the NFL this fall

Jeremiah Sirles was Second Team All-B1G in 2012

Mike Caputo was Second Team All-B1G in 2011

Ricky Henry was First Team All-Big XII in 2010

 

So, considering most of those guys started for more than one year:

- In 2010 we had three starters who would eventually make first- or second-team all conference (Henry, Caputo and Sirles)

- In 2011 we had three (Sirles, Caputo and Long)

- In 2012 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

- In 2013 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

 

So for four straight years we had 60% of our starting line that would be named to an All-Conference team.

 

 

Throw in Marcel Jones and Brent Qvale as well, as both are currently on NFL rosters.

[Saunders]

Ahem:

 

I was pretty concerned about NU's line heading into last season; it had performed at a top-50 level but had to replace five players with 125 career starts and entered 2014 with just 15, mostly from guard Jake Cotton.

But while the sack rates ended up iffy, the run stats were great. Granted, you can pin some of the sack issues on Armstrong and some of the run-blocking success on Abdullah, but the line played at the same level despite losing so many starters.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/6/3/8694665/nebraska-football-2015-preview-schedule-roster-mike-riley

[Mavric]

 

But since you keep asking and I don't want to be accused of not answering your questions:

 

Cole Pensick was Second Team All-B1G in 2013

Spencer Long was Second Team All-B1G in 2011, First Team All-B1G in 2012 and a likely starter in the NFL this fall

Jeremiah Sirles was Second Team All-B1G in 2012

Mike Caputo was Second Team All-B1G in 2011

Ricky Henry was First Team All-Big XII in 2010

 

So, considering most of those guys started for more than one year:

- In 2010 we had three starters who would eventually make first- or second-team all conference (Henry, Caputo and Sirles)

- In 2011 we had three (Sirles, Caputo and Long)

- In 2012 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

- In 2013 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

 

So for four straight years we had 60% of our starting line that would be named to an All-Conference team.

 

 

Throw in Marcel Jones and Brent Qvale as well, as both are currently on NFL rosters.

 

 

That would put 2012 up to four and put 2011 and 2010 up to four or five depending on who was starting,

[Mavric]

 

Ahem:

 

Offensive Line Category Adj.

Line Yds

Std.

Downs

LY/carry Pass.

Downs

LY/carry Opp.

Rate Power

Success

Rate Stuff

Rate Adj.

Sack Rate Std.

Downs

Sack Rt. Pass.

Downs

Sack Rt. Team 119.8 3.29 3.79 42.0% 68.5% 16.5% 103.0 6.1% 5.7% Rank 11 24 21 31 58 28 63 91 38

I was pretty concerned about NU's line heading into last season; it had performed at a top-50 level but had to replace five players with 125 career starts and entered 2014 with just 15, mostly from guard Jake Cotton.

But while the sack rates ended up iffy, the run stats were great. Granted, you can pin some of the sack issues on Armstrong and some of the run-blocking success on Abdullah, but the line played at the same level despite losing so many starters.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/6/3/8694665/nebraska-football-2015-preview-schedule-roster-mike-riley

 

 

NO NO NO!!!! NO FACTS ALLOWED!!!!!

[zoogs]

Sam is still really worried about Nebraska losing to Illinois.

 

I don't argue with a prediction that says Nebraska loses two league games. We've lost three in each of the past two years and we have no idea how a team in transition will respond to adversity the first time it has to confront it under the new staff.

 

So first Sam tries to claim that the talent on Nebraska's roster is 7/8/9 win talent but now he says we have the best overall talent in the division and will only lose two conference games.

This seems really nitpicky to me. It's easy to see a 9-win team with 2 conference losses -- or an 8-win team, for that matter.

 

Not 7, sure; they'd have to drop at least 3 conference for that to become viable, but the nature of a prediction is you have to call it with one number. It's not really very inconsistent.

[Landlord]

"Our national rankings in rushing yards per game, rush yards per attempt, and average yards before first contact, as well as the productivity of our runningbacks over the last 5 seasons seem to show that we've had a pretty good offensive line overall. There really aren't any objective rankings that seem to suggest our offensive line has been bad."

 

 

"Our offensive line has sucked. It's below average, we haven't fielded a decent offensive line in ages."

 

 

"Okay but that's not what the available num.."

 

 

"Even though they're directly related you're not allowed to use the runningbacks as evidence."

 

 

"Well... I mean. There's still no evidence th-"

 

 

"NAME ALL OF OUR GREAT OFFENSIVE LINEMEN if our line has been so great."

 

 

"Why..?"

 

 

"Oh my god it was a simple question. See, our offensive line sucks."

[teachercd]

Hmmmm, let me ask this...to those that seem to have hated last years offense. Would you take the final rankings from last year in

 

Points Scored: 12th

Rushing Yards: 17th

Passing Yards: 80th

Completition %: 110th

Total offense: 31st

 

So if you could right now, take those final rankings for this upcoming season, would you? I think that most of us would jump on a total offensive ranking that high in year one.

[zoogs]

Regarding this interestingly intense discussion on how good NU offensive lines have been over the past couple of seasons...

 

You need a few things in some combination to put up good rushing numbers. Good scheme, good backs, a commitment to the run game, a good line. A strong OL can make your RBs look great, although having a strong OL doesn't mean your RBs are bad, either. Having a terrific stable of RB talent can also make an OK line look a lot better. Not that having great RBs means your line is poor.

 

We tend to be pretty rah-rah about how good our offensive lines have been in recent years, but it seems a little exaggerated to me. NU teams of recent years have been blessed in a number of areas, but dominating at the trenches on offense has not seemed like one of its top calling cards. That's just me, though -- opinions vary.

[Saunders]

Look at Rex and Roy's current NFL stats.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, tell me with a straight face that Nebraska's OL had nothing to do with their success in college.

[Moiraine]

Look at Rex and Roy's current NFL stats.

 

 

 

Now, tell me with a straight face that Nebraska's OL had nothing to do with their success in college.

 

I don't agree that Nebraska's OL had nothing to do with it, but I don't see how this in any way would prove Nebraska's OL did have something to do with their success in college. There are lots of good and great running backs in college that amount to nothing in the NFL. It's a different game.

[Landlord]

We tend to be pretty rah-rah about how good our offensive lines have been in recent years, but it seems a little exaggerated to me. NU teams of recent years have been blessed in a number of areas, but dominating at the trenches on offense has not seemed like one of its top calling cards. That's just me, though -- opinions vary.

 

 

That's not really at all the point, or the argument.

 

 

Over and over, people throw out phrases that include things like below average, sub-par, or "NU hasn't fielded a decent line in ages."

 

None of these adjectives are accurate by any measure of dissection or any angle of perspective. People either don't really understand the definitions of the words they're using, or they look back on the performance of our team with exaggerated criticism in hindsight. Either way, it's not accurate and it's not beneficial to the conversation.

 

 

Our offensive line hasn't been dominant. It hasn't been elite. It hasn't been great; at least consistently. What it has been is successful, above average, decent, and a key cog in a top 20 rushing attack every year since 2010.

[zoogs]

 

We tend to be pretty rah-rah about how good our offensive lines have been in recent years, but it seems a little exaggerated to me. NU teams of recent years have been blessed in a number of areas, but dominating at the trenches on offense has not seemed like one of its top calling cards. That's just me, though -- opinions vary.

 

That's not really at all the point, or the argument.

 

 

Over and over, people throw out phrases that include things like below average, sub-par, or "NU hasn't fielded a decent line in ages."

 

I guess so. Sometimes I completely don't see what we are nipping over, or why it's such a big deal. But for what it's worth, those are my 2 cents on the NU O-line

[Red Five]

But since you keep asking and I don't want to be accused of not answering your questions:

 

Cole Pensick was Second Team All-B1G in 2013

Spencer Long was Second Team All-B1G in 2011, First Team All-B1G in 2012 and a likely starter in the NFL this fall

Jeremiah Sirles was Second Team All-B1G in 2012

Mike Caputo was Second Team All-B1G in 2011

Ricky Henry was First Team All-Big XII in 2010

 

So, considering most of those guys started for more than one year:

- In 2010 we had three starters who would eventually make first- or second-team all conference (Henry, Caputo and Sirles)

- In 2011 we had three (Sirles, Caputo and Long)

- In 2012 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

- In 2013 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

 

So for four straight years we had 60% of our starting line that would be named to an All-Conference team.

[Mavric]

Sam is still really worried about Nebraska losing to Illinois.

 

I don't argue with a prediction that says Nebraska loses two league games. We've lost three in each of the past two years and we have no idea how a team in transition will respond to adversity the first time it has to confront it under the new staff.

 

So first Sam tries to claim that the talent on Nebraska's roster is 7/8/9 win talent but now he says we have the best overall talent in the division and will only lose two conference games.

This seems really nitpicky to me. It's easy to see a 9-win team with 2 conference losses -- or an 8-win team, for that matter.

 

Not 7, sure; they'd have to drop at least 3 conference for that to become viable, but the nature of a prediction is you have to call it with one number. It's not really very inconsistent.

 

 

My point was more what I would view as an inconsistency in even bringing up seven wins as a possibility that he directly tied to the talent level on our team and then he says we have the best talent in the division.

[Scratchtown]

My comment was merely tied to the discussion of when games mattered. Abdullah had 50 yards on like 25 carries, vs msu. Why? Cuz the oline isn't that good.

 

In big games. Our running game suffers. That's what I was alluding to in a nut she'll