Does anyone think we'll be better next year?

[brophog]

If you win with a grind it out offense and stout defense, you're winning because your efficiency is better. The fact you're grinding it out isn't causal to the outcome.

 

That's because in an alternate possession game, such as football, efficiency is all that matters. The idea of limiting possessions against a superior offense, like teams have foolishly tried against Peyton Manning his whole career, is counterproductive. All things being equal, whether you each get 8 possessions, or 10 possessions, you're still getting the same possessions unless an external outcome changes that (turnovers/onside kick/etc). A more efficient offense wins in either case, and an offense will tend to be more efficient the fewer plays it must run. High play count drives increase the probability something bad happens on that drive. TL;dr Time of Possesion is a pretty worthless stat.

 

In terms of this particular thread we need to state a few things:

 

Passing results in a higher turnover risk than running. Hindsight should not be used, however. Just because you have four turnovers passing does not mean you have zero turnovers had you only ever rushed.

 

Fumbles that result in a turnover are conditional to where the fumble occurred. Five yards downfield you have a pretty good chance of recovering. Fumbles behind the line or far downfield have a lower chance. It's all relative to how many bodies are nearby that can jump on the ball.

 

The value of a turnover varies. Fumbles most often occur near the line of scrimmage, so the change in field position is often less than an intercepted pass which is further downfield. However, interceptions are returned far more often for touchdowns.

 

For a generic team, passing results in more yards per play than rushing. This is very key as turnovers are not the only means of changing possession.

 

This is what makes football very interesting. It's a balance between gaining yards, and thereby increased scoring chance and mitigating risk. It's also why you should never evaluate play calling purely on pass vs run without being respective to the clock and score. The bigger your lead, the less valuable yards are and the more valuable mitigating risk becomes.

[JJ Husker]

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

after the purdue game I think Kansas and New Mexico st would be a dog fight with this staff.a 30 year coach who cant manage a clock. he says he hires assistants who know more than he does at their position. take a look at the clowns he brought in. if these guys know more than he does he should feel extremely luck to be doing this as long as he has.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

How could it come down to effort? You attribute nothing to 50 passes by a first time starter?

 

Kid threw two horrible passes. Get over the 50.

 

I'd love to see the angle you take if they ran 70 50 times for 1.8 a carry.

 

Edit: changed # of plays because they would be punting every 3 plays.

 

I have no idea why you even raise that hypo.

 

 

That said, at least if we are running, we are grinding out the game and letting our punter and D work a field position battle. 5 turnovers by the QB over something like 12 possessions crushed our defense in a game we could have ground out and actually gotten a W.

Why that doesn't concern more people, I have no idea.

 

 

I guess for me, it's this:

 

NU may win BIGGER with a "more accurate QB (POB)" but there's no excuse at all for why NU hasn't won at least 3 more games this season by simply grinding their opponents out.

The grind it out running theory that you propose works absolutely fantastic when your defense gives up 14 points a game. However it would be a struggle when you have a D that could give up a touchdown in seconds.

Think you're going to have to step me through that logic.

 

Seems to me that a system that limits possessions by bleeding clock is better than the 3 and out pass routine we've seen.

If you can't move The ball, then you're not bleeding any clock. 2 yards a carry, and a three and out equals about 3 1/2 minutes.

Except that's not the reality of what NU is doing on the ground when you take away sacks. It's more like 4 or more yards a carry with RBs. Good for about 3rd in the B10.

 

But, rather than lean on our OL, we continue to put them at a disadvantage schematically.

[LumberJackSker]

 

 

With 9 conference games starting next year along with no more FCS teams win will be harder to come by. I would imagine more time with these coaches would make them more familiar with the schemes and better at executing them, but with a roster full of guys not meant for this system and only one full recruiting class an improvement from this year still might only be 5-6 wins. I hate to imagine what 9 wins in two years would do to this fan base.

What guys in this system aren't suited for this system?

What guys are currently being recruited that will be suited for this system?

I would imagine the players that were being recruited now by this staff are being recruited because they fit what they want to do. I would also imagine players recruited to other systems would fit very well if they had only one year to adjust to a completely different one.

[huskerfan92]

 

 

 

 

 

How could it come down to effort? You attribute nothing to 50 passes by a first time starter?

Kid threw two horrible passes. Get over the 50.

 

I'd love to see the angle you take if they ran 70 50 times for 1.8 a carry.

 

Edit: changed # of plays because they would be punting every 3 plays.

 

I have no idea why you even raise that hypo.

 

 

That said, at least if we are running, we are grinding out the game and letting our punter and D work a field position battle. 5 turnovers by the QB over something like 12 possessions crushed our defense in a game we could have ground out and actually gotten a W.

Why that doesn't concern more people, I have no idea.

 

 

I guess for me, it's this:

 

NU may win BIGGER with a "more accurate QB (POB)" but there's no excuse at all for why NU hasn't won at least 3 more games this season by simply grinding their opponents out.

The grind it out running theory that you propose works absolutely fantastic when your defense gives up 14 points a game. However it would be a struggle when you have a D that could give up a touchdown in seconds.

Think you're going to have to step me through that logic.

 

Seems to me that a system that limits possessions by bleeding clock is better than the 3 and out pass routine we've seen.

If you can't move The ball, then you're not bleeding any clock. 2 yards a carry, and a three and out equals about 3 1/2 minutes.

 

 

except we average 4.7 yards a carry...

[huskerfan92]

Your season sure reminds me of the Rich Rod debacle at UM. After his 3-9 first season, he promised UM would be back and that was interesting because Carr had won 9 games the year before. He went 5-7 and then 7-5. Riley is similar to RR in that he is loyal to bad assistant coaches. Mediocre head coaches need great staffs or you will just get mediocre.

 

Great comparison. He also brought in Greg Robinson as a defensive coordinator, who has a resume much like Banker....

[huskerfan74]

It is really sad that people still think that this coaching staff can actually turn things around and produce anything other than their .500 record. There is absolutely no shred of evidence that these coaches know what they are doing here in Lincoln, and they have failed to fix a single issue this season. In fact, our team has regressed with every game. These coaches are not a good match for Husker football and will NEVER be. It would be easier if the arrogant Mr. Eichorst admits that he made a horrible mistake and now the state of Nebraska is paying the price.

 

In my opinion, for things to get better we need two main things:

 

(1) An athletic director that understands Nebraska football and what it means to the state. Trev Alberts is a guy who can get the job done because he was part of the great tradition and understands the culture and what it means to the fans.

(2) Either a young talented coach who has proven himself worthy like the HC of Memphis or Houston or a splash hire that will attract the excellent recruits.

 

Lets face it, the last time Nebraska was great, most of the recruits were in diapers. None understand the culture and history of the program because they have never seen us play in any important game. That is exactly why our current players are not that concerned with their miserable record. If our program needs rebuilding brick by brick as our AD is claiming, why bring someone within two years of retirement to do that. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring someone who will be here for a while if successful. Truth of the matter is that hiring a lawyer for an AD was a mistake in its own since lawyers are known to change their statements as they see fit.

 

So, in answer to the question posed in this thread: No, not in a million years will next season be better unless major changes are made, none of which are forthcoming I am afraid!

[GOAT]

The more I think about things, the more I realize that Riley has painted himself into the absolute perfect position. He knows that no matter what happens, he won't be fired after this season. With a 3-9 or 4-8 record, the only place for us to go is up. I'm sure he's telling anyone who will listen, "Just wait till Patrick O'Brien gets here" and because of that, I believe that POB (a spring enrollee) will be thrust into the starting QB position. I'm sure our record will improve somewhat (how could it not? -- I'm thinking 7-5ish and a lower-level bowl) next season leading the AD to declare our "marked improvement" (which some fans sadly will buy in to) and in turn, giving Riley yet ANOTHER year at the helm.

 

It's a scary thought, folks.

Edited November 5, 2015 by NUance
This was the first post in the thread titled "Riley has painted himself into the absolute perfect position." Merged because it's the same topic.

[Dansker]

Or we'll end up with a consecutive poor season such as these:

1997 Oregon State 3–8

1998 Oregon State 5–6

2010 Oregon State 5–7

2011 Oregon State 3–9

2013 Oregon State 7–6

2014 Oregon State 5–7

And if we get blown out by 35 points this Saturday, I'm not sure Patrick O'Brien is going to sign a LOI and come to Lincoln.

[Elf]

 

Or we'll end up with a consecutive poor season such as these:

1997 Oregon State 3–8

1998 Oregon State 5–6

2010 Oregon State 5–7

2011 Oregon State 3–9

2013 Oregon State 7–6

2014 Oregon State 5–7

And if we get blown out by 35 points this Saturday, I'm not sure Patrick O'Brien is going to sign a LOI and come to Lincoln.

 

That could still go either way. Good recruits can still be enticed here with the possibility of early playing time.

[GOAT]

Yep -- I am pretty darn certain that the main reason why POB is coming here is because he's been told he'll start as a true freshman.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Did this really need its own thread? Didnt you already post this garbage in the "does anyone think we'll be better next year?" Thread?

[Hunter94]

So what was new about this thread?

[brophog]

I was just thinking to myself the other day:

 

If I could only find a way to be despised and have people want me gone, then I'd really have it made.