So You're Telling Me...

[Elf]

See this is where the analytics get screwy and allow everyone to cherry pick.

Let's take those five games where Nebraska threw more than 40 times and lost each time:

 

BYU

41 passes for 319 yards

37 rushes for 126 yards

 

Miami

45 passes for 309 yards

32 rushes for 153 yards

 

Northwestern

48 passes for 291 yards

38 rushes for 82 yards

 

Purdue

48 passes for 407 yards

29 rushes for 77 yards

 

Iowa

45 passes for 296 yards

38 rushes for 137 yards

 

I don't think you can say that 32-38 rushing plays is in any way "abandoning" the run, nor that the passing game was failing.

In Nebraska's two best Big 10 wins, Minnesota and MSU, we ran a comparable 39 and 36 times. Against MSU, the passing game saved our ass.

In the Purdue and Northwestern games, any OC would have to conclude the rushing game had been given a chance and just wasn't cutting it.

Against BYU we had a decent mix and coulda should been in the win column.

Against Iowa we had a decent mix, NU outgained the #5 team in the nation, and killed themselves with 5 turnovers and a couple defensive brain farts. If you want to suggest Tommy wouldn't have thrown 4 interceptions if we'd run the ball more, it's a fair point.

 

In two of Nebraska's losses, Illinois and Wisconsin, we ran the ball more than we passed. 37 rushes to 28 passes against Wisconsin. 34 rushes to 31 passes against Illinois. BTW, in those same horrible conditions, a mediocre Illinois QB threw 45 times against Nebraska and won the game. I would never suggest we lost those games because we depended too much on the running game, or that Illinois should have passed that way all season. Each game unfolds a different way. Each game also requires Nebraska to play defense. A single defensive stand turns at least two of those pass-happy games into wins.

 

Again, when the running game is working, the team wins. That goes for almost every team. It means you're dominating the line (anyone see Baylor last night? Holy crap) It's much easier to say "pound the rock!" then to succeed at it. Those weren't different rushing plays you saw us running against UCLA. They were plays that a more motivated team was executing much better. Making it much easier for the coaches to stick with it. Definitely a hopeful sign. The real problem at the Purdue game was an entire team hitting psychological bottom together. You can certainly blame coaching for that, but the running game hardly looked like our salvation that day. It was a sh#t sandwich all around.

 

There aren't that many hard and fast conclusions we can extrapolate from these stats. It's a very mixed bag from a very weird season.

 

Moot point anyway, as I genuinely believe Riley wants to run the ball more next season. It could easily move from the 50/50 split this season to a 60/40 split, which would put us where the elite NCAA teams typically operate, which is pretty much where we were under Beck and Watson when the complaints were nearly identical.

Seems like the team kept getting worse as the season went on culminating with the Purdue loss. I'm thinking there was some sort of come to Jesus moment in the locker room because the difference after Purdue was huge.

[Red Five]

 

 

 

 

See this is where the analytics get screwy and allow everyone to cherry pick.

Let's take those five games where Nebraska threw more than 40 times and lost each time:

 

BYU

41 passes for 319 yards

37 rushes for 126 yards

 

Miami

45 passes for 309 yards

32 rushes for 153 yards

 

Northwestern

48 passes for 291 yards

38 rushes for 82 yards

 

Purdue

48 passes for 407 yards

29 rushes for 77 yards

 

Iowa

45 passes for 296 yards

38 rushes for 137 yards

 

I don't think you can say that 32-38 rushing plays is in any way "abandoning" the run, nor that the passing game was failing.

In Nebraska's two best Big 10 wins, Minnesota and MSU, we ran a comparable 39 and 36 times. Against MSU, the passing game saved our ass.

In the Purdue and Northwestern games, any OC would have to conclude the rushing game had been given a chance and just wasn't cutting it.

Against BYU we had a decent mix and coulda should been in the win column.

Against Iowa we had a decent mix, NU outgained the #5 team in the nation, and killed themselves with 5 turnovers and a couple defensive brain farts. If you want to suggest Tommy wouldn't have thrown 4 interceptions if we'd run the ball more, it's a fair point.

 

In two of Nebraska's losses, Illinois and Wisconsin, we ran the ball more than we passed. 37 rushes to 28 passes against Wisconsin. 34 rushes to 31 passes against Illinois. BTW, in those same horrible conditions, a mediocre Illinois QB threw 45 times against Nebraska and won the game. I would never suggest we lost those games because we depended too much on the running game, or that Illinois should have passed that way all season. Each game unfolds a different way. Each game also requires Nebraska to play defense. A single defensive stand turns at least two of those pass-happy games into wins.

 

Again, when the running game is working, the team wins. That goes for almost every team. It means you're dominating the line (anyone see Baylor last night? Holy crap) It's much easier to say "pound the rock!" then to succeed at it. Those weren't different rushing plays you saw us running against UCLA. They were plays that a more motivated team was executing much better. Making it much easier for the coaches to stick with it. Definitely a hopeful sign. The real problem at the Purdue game was an entire team hitting psychological bottom together. You can certainly blame coaching for that, but the running game hardly looked like our salvation that day. It was a sh#t sandwich all around.

 

There aren't that many hard and fast conclusions we can extrapolate from these stats. It's a very mixed bag from a very weird season.

 

Moot point anyway, as I genuinely believe Riley wants to run the ball more next season. It could easily move from the 50/50 split this season to a 60/40 split, which would put us where the elite NCAA teams typically operate, which is pretty much where we were under Beck and Watson when the complaints were nearly identical.

Seems like the team kept getting worse as the season went on culminating with the Purdue loss. I'm thinking there was some sort of come to Jesus moment in the locker room because the difference after Purdue was huge.

Agree about something happening after the Purdue game. Didn't TA not travel to it, which was incredibly odd? And didn't Finnin and Stevenson quit right after it?

[Guy Chamberlin]

Tommy Armstrong can make the easy throws. He can also make some incredibly difficult throws. He can will a team to victory with insane last-minute comebacks.

 

Or not.

 

That's the problem with Tommy Armstrong. Too dangerous to leave on the bench. Too dangerous to trust.

 

And he always seems close to turning the corner and figuring it out.

 

His comments after the Iowa game are the first time Armstrong has sounded genuinely concerned about holding onto his starting job. Maybe the UCLA game reflects him turning that corner.

 

Or not.

 

Jesus. It's still January, right?

[cm husker]

People have always held NU QBs to an unfair standard. People tell me that the kid from Iowa is a great QB and all NU needs to be championship level. Then that kid has an awful game against Stanford. Same with Connor Cook, who was by most accounts a great college QB and a 1st round pick.

 

Armstrong did a better than admirable job trying to run a system that was new to the whole offense and which didn't highlight or take advantage of some of his strongest attributes.

[huskerfan2000]

People have always held NU QBs to an unfair standard. People tell me that the kid from Iowa is a great QB and all NU needs to be championship level. Then that kid has an awful game against Stanford. Same with Connor Cook, who was by most accounts a great college QB and a 1st round pick.

 

Armstrong did a better than admirable job trying to run a system that was new to the whole offense and which didn't highlight or take advantage of some of his strongest attributes.

can't disagree with this!

[Enhance]

People have always held NU QBs to an unfair standard. People tell me that the kid from Iowa is a great QB and all NU needs to be championship level. Then that kid has an awful game against Stanford. Same with Connor Cook, who was by most accounts a great college QB and a 1st round pick.

 

Armstrong did a better than admirable job trying to run a system that was new to the whole offense and which didn't highlight or take advantage of some of his strongest attributes.

Very well said, cm.

[Guy Chamberlin]

People have always held NU QBs to an unfair standard. People tell me that the kid from Iowa is a great QB and all NU needs to be championship level. Then that kid has an awful game against Stanford. Same with Connor Cook, who was by most accounts a great college QB and a 1st round pick.

 

Armstrong did a better than admirable job trying to run a system that was new to the whole offense and which didn't highlight or take advantage of some of his strongest attributes.

 

The new offense wasn't much different from the old offense, believe it or not. Langsdorf brought the fullback and tight ends in from the cold, replaced most of the zone read plays with jet sweeps and designed QB draws, which had been familiar to the players for years. Tommy threw about 8 more passes a game, which was too many, but I'm not convinced all those passes were forced upon Armstrong. Given the run/pass option, he chose pass. Highlight reel passes. I think the coaches are on record as saying they wished he'd run more.

 

Tommy's strongest attributes are a strong arm that allows him to pass quick and/or deep on rollouts, and a running ability that allows him to improvise. It makes him very dangerous. This year he lead the Big 10 in total offense. So it's kinda weird to say the system didn't work for him.

 

But every one of Tommy's strongest attributes relies on good decision-making. Which isn't Tommy's strongest attribute. You could certainly tailor an offense to minimize Tommy's decisions. You might get a better game manager and lose your most dangerous play-maker. Or you could keep the offense that made Tommy the most prolific player in the Big 10 and get him to grow up in his decision making. It's not like this is a no brainer. Tommy's a classic risk/reward guy.

[Elf]

 

 

 

 

See this is where the analytics get screwy and allow everyone to cherry pick.

Let's take those five games where Nebraska threw more than 40 times and lost each time:

 

BYU

41 passes for 319 yards

37 rushes for 126 yards

 

Miami

45 passes for 309 yards

32 rushes for 153 yards

 

Northwestern

48 passes for 291 yards

38 rushes for 82 yards

 

Purdue

48 passes for 407 yards

29 rushes for 77 yards

 

Iowa

45 passes for 296 yards

38 rushes for 137 yards

 

I don't think you can say that 32-38 rushing plays is in any way "abandoning" the run, nor that the passing game was failing.

In Nebraska's two best Big 10 wins, Minnesota and MSU, we ran a comparable 39 and 36 times. Against MSU, the passing game saved our ass.

In the Purdue and Northwestern games, any OC would have to conclude the rushing game had been given a chance and just wasn't cutting it.

Against BYU we had a decent mix and coulda should been in the win column.

Against Iowa we had a decent mix, NU outgained the #5 team in the nation, and killed themselves with 5 turnovers and a couple defensive brain farts. If you want to suggest Tommy wouldn't have thrown 4 interceptions if we'd run the ball more, it's a fair point.

 

In two of Nebraska's losses, Illinois and Wisconsin, we ran the ball more than we passed. 37 rushes to 28 passes against Wisconsin. 34 rushes to 31 passes against Illinois. BTW, in those same horrible conditions, a mediocre Illinois QB threw 45 times against Nebraska and won the game. I would never suggest we lost those games because we depended too much on the running game, or that Illinois should have passed that way all season. Each game unfolds a different way. Each game also requires Nebraska to play defense. A single defensive stand turns at least two of those pass-happy games into wins.

 

Again, when the running game is working, the team wins. That goes for almost every team. It means you're dominating the line (anyone see Baylor last night? Holy crap) It's much easier to say "pound the rock!" then to succeed at it. Those weren't different rushing plays you saw us running against UCLA. They were plays that a more motivated team was executing much better. Making it much easier for the coaches to stick with it. Definitely a hopeful sign. The real problem at the Purdue game was an entire team hitting psychological bottom together. You can certainly blame coaching for that, but the running game hardly looked like our salvation that day. It was a sh#t sandwich all around.

 

There aren't that many hard and fast conclusions we can extrapolate from these stats. It's a very mixed bag from a very weird season.

 

Moot point anyway, as I genuinely believe Riley wants to run the ball more next season. It could easily move from the 50/50 split this season to a 60/40 split, which would put us where the elite NCAA teams typically operate, which is pretty much where we were under Beck and Watson when the complaints were nearly identical.

Seems like the team kept getting worse as the season went on culminating with the Purdue loss. I'm thinking there was some sort of come to Jesus moment in the locker room because the difference after Purdue was huge.

Agree about something happening after the Purdue game. Didn't TA not travel to it, which was incredibly odd? And didn't Finnin and Stevenson quit right after it?

 

I'm not sure about Tommy not traveling but we did have two players quit the team that next week. And then we had comments from Nate Gerry about how the team refocused or rededicated themselves to finishing the rest of the season well. (Or something to that effect.)

[Elf]

People have always held NU QBs to an unfair standard. People tell me that the kid from Iowa is a great QB and all NU needs to be championship level. Then that kid has an awful game against Stanford. Same with Connor Cook, who was by most accounts a great college QB and a 1st round pick.

 

Armstrong did a better than admirable job trying to run a system that was new to the whole offense and which didn't highlight or take advantage of some of his strongest attributes.

Unfair standards? When a pass play is called I fully expect the qb (on ANY team) to get the ball into the hands of his receiver far more often than he doesn't. I expect him to manage the game and not turn the ball over.

[skersfan]

cm I agree with your post.

 

But I also think they did make an effort to use Tommy's ability, but were trying to use the other weapons they had. It was a roll the dice deal with Tommy, they saw it in practice as we saw it on the field.

 

Maybe it just took the Iowa game for him to realize he did not have to win the game by himself. I saw a battler in Tommy, but not really a team player. He took too much responsibility on himself, and made decisions that not only made him look like a star or a goat, but the staff as well.

 

I am excited for Tommy. I have never been a great fan of the kid. He showed in the UCLA game if he plays within himself he can be productive and good for Nebraska.

 

We have 8.5 months for him to learn every approach to that, and I would really like to see this board focus more on what this staff and team can do to improve.