OWH: Predicting the B1G West

[Scratchtown]

The other thing I've brought up in the past, is that those RB'S have been good despite the talent up front.

 

If those guys ran behind ANY offensive line from Solich era and before, all 3 could have been 2000 yard rushers

[Landlord]

The other thing I've brought up in the past, is that those RB'S have been good despite the talent up front.

 

If those guys ran behind ANY offensive line from Solich era and before, all 3 could have been 2000 yard rushers

 

 

Your second sentence might very well be true (even though Ameer would have been a 2,000 yard rusher with this line, had he not gotten injured), but I don't think the first one is. The chart that Saunders posted and linked to seems to say otherwise, and I know at least at one point last season (I think right before the MSU game), we were leading the nation in yards before first contact.

 

The MSU game was absolutely a nightmare, and I don't even know how to approach looking at blowouts like Wisconsin, but our line seemed like it stepped up pretty well against USC last year, as well as Michigan State and Georgia the year before.

[True2tRA]

Thanks for answering the question. Atleast now I have an understanding of where the hell you two are coming from other than Ameer, Rex, and Roy are great RB's.

 

Clearly many of us stand on varying sides of this argument.

 

Some of those guys you listed were good. Spencer Long, Ricky Henry

 

Some were okay. Sirles, Qvale, Pensick

 

Gotta be honest, don't want to knock the kid too bad cause' for his size, even playing at this level is worthy of applause, but I think Caputo got pushed around quite a bit.

 

I thought Marcel Jones had a lot of back trouble and other injuries? I didn't remember his career as going so well as I guess you remember it LOMS.

 

I haven't viewed our offensive line as a strength of this team for quite some time. I've viewed it more as limiting us. I wonder how the players feel about it? If they feel they've been doing well purely because their RB's numbers have been good? I would hope these guys haven't become "okay" with how they've been performing, I'll put it that way. That would be unfortunate. I think there is a lot of room for improvement.

 

Again, as Power T puts it, we could've done much better. We've got all these numbers and I'm not sure what they mean? 9-4/10-4 is a pretty good win/loss record. 1600-1700 yards are pretty good RB numbers.

 

What good did it do us?

[Mavric]

The other thing I've brought up in the past, is that those RB'S have been good despite the talent up front.

 

If those guys ran behind ANY offensive line from Solich era and before, all 3 could have been 2000 yard rushers

 

This is true. It goes both ways. A good line can help a back look better and a good back can help the line look better.

 

There are a lot of guys who could have been great backs behind the Pipeline. Jay Sims probably could have run for 2500 yards and he was fourth string. That's how good that line was. And, to some extent, how bad - at least relatively speaking - a lot of our competition was.

 

Obviously the MSU game was bad. But pointing out that we didn't do as well in the games that mattered is a pretty specious argument. Every team out there does worse against their better competition. That's how it works. We've definitely had some bad games but so has basically everyone else. You can't just cherry pick a few games to try to prove an argument. Perhaps we've gotten worse to a higher degree than other teams but I've seen nothing to back that up.

 

We put up 525 yards against USC last year. Abdullah ran for 123 against MSU in 2013 and we had nearly 400 yards. Abdullah and Martinez both went over 100 yards on UCLA in 2012 and we had 439 total. Burkhead averaged 8.5 ypc on his way to 119 yards and the offense put up 437 yards when we got blown out by tOSU in 2012. We had 282 rushing yards and 477 total yards in the first Wisconsin debacle. Burkhead ran for 140 and the offense put up 443 against Georgia the first time.

 

There have also been a couple other clunkers. The second half against UCLA in 2013 and Wisconsin last year were bad. And I'm sure a couple others here and there. But most of our problems have not been the offense's fault. They haven't always been great but they've been better - especially the OLine - than many give them credit for.

 

I've said since the early 2000s that our OLine has been our weak link. They could still be better but it's been a lot better the last 6-7 years than it was for most of a decade before that.

[True2tRA]

Maybe we clean up some turnovers, play some better defense and we win the West this year.

[teachercd]

Maybe we clean up some turnovers, play some better defense and we win the West this year.

Ding ding!

[Redux]

I don't know why, I just have this gut feeling Wisconsin doesn't win the West this year. I feel like we beat them here and they drop another division game or two letting us slide in.

[True2tRA]

I don't know why, I just have this gut feeling Wisconsin doesn't win the West this year. I feel like we beat them here and they drop another division game or two letting us slide in.

Those stats on Hank Hughes time at Connecticut have me feeling a lot better about our chances than I felt yesterday.

[Scratchtown]

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.

 

Yes, I would take those numbers, and that's nice and dandy that NU had those numbers. But as True said, where did that get us? No where. Why? Because the offense sputtered in games that were much more important than playing Florida Atlantic, Illinois, Rutgers etc...

 

 

 

and I know at least at one point last season (I think right before the MSU game), we were leading the nation in yards before first contact.

 

 

Well those numbers better have been that high at that point because NU played a 3-9 Florida Atlantic, McNeese (FCS), 4-7 Fresno St, 6-7 Miami, 6-7 Illinois

 

No team with a winning record. And IIRC, in a previous thread you posted each opponents defense against the run or total defense or something, and NONE of the defenses we faced other than MSU and Wiscy, were really any good.

 

 

 

Obviously the MSU game was bad. But pointing out that we didn't do as well in the games that mattered is a pretty specious argument. Every team out there does worse against their better competition. That's how it works. We've definitely had some bad games but so has basically everyone else. You can't just cherry pick a few games to try to prove an argument.

Teams that are good, consistently perform at a higher level against that better competition than NU so while what you are saying is correct, its not necessarily the right angle to take IMO.

 

TCU played against one of the top defenses in the country and still scored 50 points (vs Ole Miss).

[Mavric]

 

Obviously the MSU game was bad. But pointing out that we didn't do as well in the games that mattered is a pretty specious argument. Every team out there does worse against their better competition. That's how it works. We've definitely had some bad games but so has basically everyone else. You can't just cherry pick a few games to try to prove an argument.

Teams that are good, consistently perform at a higher level against that better competition than NU so while what you are saying is correct, its not necessarily the right angle to take IMO.

 

TCU played against one of the top defenses in the country and still scored 50 points (vs Ole Miss).

 

And TCU only beat Kansas - who only beat two FBS teams on the year - by four points while averaging 3.7 ypc against the #104 rushing defense in the country. That's the problem with only looking at one game.

 

I agree that teams that are good consistently perform at a higher level against better competition. That's why I went through most of our games against better competition over the last few years. IMO, our offense did well in 6.5 games and did poorly in 2.5 games - the half game being UCLA two years ago. Most of those games we lost but I would say our offense was performing well fairly consistently (about 3/4 of the time by those numbers). The results weren't very good because of the defense.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

Obviously the MSU game was bad. But pointing out that we didn't do as well in the games that mattered is a pretty specious argument. Every team out there does worse against their better competition. That's how it works. We've definitely had some bad games but so has basically everyone else. You can't just cherry pick a few games to try to prove an argument.

Teams that are good, consistently perform at a higher level against that better competition than NU so while what you are saying is correct, its not necessarily the right angle to take IMO.

 

TCU played against one of the top defenses in the country and still scored 50 points (vs Ole Miss).

 

And TCU only beat Kansas - who only beat two FBS teams on the year - by four points while averaging 3.7 ypc against the #104 rushing defense in the country. That's the problem with only looking at one game.

 

I agree that teams that are good consistently perform at a higher level against better competition. That's why I went through most of our games against better competition over the last few years. IMO, our offense did well in 6.5 games and did poorly in 2.5 games - the half game being UCLA two years ago. Most of those games we lost but I would say our offense was performing well fairly consistently (about 3/4 of the time by those numbers). The results weren't very good because of the defense.

 

Impossible to argue with that.

 

Also, that KU game came right after TCU's starting tailback got hurt for the year. It was either then or a week after the first game the starter was out.

 

Sorry that's worded weird.

[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.

 

 

Apparently not just on the roster:

 

[True2tRA]

"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."

[jsneb83]

 

 

"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."

I don't think any o-line would look good if they had to block 10 people.

[alwayshusking]

Wisconsin is the safe pick. They don't change much even with a new coach plus they've got the easier crossover games.