A few statistical tidbits

[Red Five]

Disclaimer: In no way am I saying that going 6-7 is acceptable. It's not. If you want to argue about that or the coaches, do it somewhere else.

 

2015 was the 2nd time since 2000 that we didn't lose a game by 20 or more points (2010 was the other)

 

2015 was the 1st time since 1999 that we didn't lose a game by more than 10 points

 

2015 was the 1st time we have gone 3-1 in our last 4 games since 2009 (we last went 4-0 in 2008)

 

We are currently 8th in rush defense, allowing 108/game. We were last that high in 2009 (finished 8th, allowing 92/game)

 

We averaged 0.8 fumbles/game, which is currently 6th. That is lowest that I can find since 2003 (can't find stats before then). Our previous best from 2003 to 2014 was 1.5 fumbles/game in 2009.

[kchusker_chris]

Crazy how you can go from having a pathetic rush defense and a dominant pass defense to the complete opposite of both in a single year with essentially the same personnel. Anyone that still thinks Pelini's issues with run defense were anything but scheme is out of their minds. That was never going to work in this league. Jury is still out on Banker's pass defense, but at least we aren't getting driven into the ground for 7 yards a carry anymore.

[cm husker]

Disclaimer: In no way am I saying that going 6-7 is acceptable. It's not. If you want to argue about that or the coaches, do it somewhere else.

 

2015 was the 2nd time since 2000 that we didn't lose a game by 20 or more points (2010 was the other)

 

2015 was the 1st time since 1999 that we didn't lose a game by more than 10 points

 

2015 was the 1st time we have gone 3-1 in our last 4 games since 2009 (we last went 4-0 in 2008)

 

We are currently 8th in rush defense, allowing 108/game. We were last that high in 2009 (finished 8th, allowing 92/game)

 

We averaged 0.8 fumbles/game, which is currently 6th. That is lowest that I can find since 2003 (can't find stats before then). Our previous best from 2003 to 2014 was 1.5 fumbles/game in 2009.

 

 

Carry the ball rarely, and you'll find you don't fumble it much.

 

As to all the "margin of loss" arguments, in how many of those close losses should NU have been a big winner? Per Vegas, here were the spreads going into the losses:

 

Opponent -- Spread at game time

• BYU - NU (-7.5)
• Miami - Miami (-3)
• Illinois - NU (-7)
• Wisconsin - NU (-1.5)
• Northwestern - NU (-7.5)
• Purdue - NU (-7.5)
• Iowa - Iowa (-1.5)

 

So, Nebraska lost 5 games this season where they were the favorite, including 4 where they were the favorite by more than a touchdown, which is a wide spread by FBS P5 standards. For example, a much more highly ranked and successful MSU team was only a 4.5 point favorite against the Huskers this year.

 

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

[cm husker]

Crazy how you can go from having a pathetic rush defense and a dominant pass defense to the complete opposite of both in a single year with essentially the same personnel. Anyone that still thinks Pelini's issues with run defense were anything but scheme is out of their minds. That was never going to work in this league. Jury is still out on Banker's pass defense, but at least we aren't getting driven into the ground for 7 yards a carry anymore.

 

A very bad game against Wisconsin skewed the run defense stats last year.

Unfortunately, and what is a legit source of concern, is the fact that no single game was particularly awful in terms of pass defense this year.

[Red Five]

 

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

 

So because a team was favored over us by less than a touchdown a blowout loss is ok?

 

We have been favored and lost many times over the last handful of years. Its nothing new.

 

Minnesota 2014: NU-10 lost by 4

Iowa 2013: NU -3 lost by 21

Minnesota 2013: NU -10.5 lost by 11

UCLA 2012: NU -5 lost by 6

Wisconsin 2012: NU -3 lost by 39

Northwestern 2011: NU -17.5 lost by 3

[cm husker]

So... 6 over 5 years compares to 5 in a single year? Interesting.

[StPaulHusker]

You folks are taking this thread down the same f'ing path as all of the other threads. It's getting old

[Branno]

 

 

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

 

So because a team was favored over us by less than a touchdown a blowout loss is ok?

 

We have been favored and lost many times over the last handful of years. Its nothing new.

 

Minnesota 2014: NU-10 lost by 4

Iowa 2013: NU -3 lost by 21

Minnesota 2013: NU -10.5 lost by 11

UCLA 2012: NU -5 lost by 6

Wisconsin 2012: NU -3 lost by 39

Northwestern 2011: NU -17.5 lost by 3

 

 

Bolded the important part. Riley has essentially lost games we were favored in during his first season as Bo's entire tenure. I get that different people see losses differently, but here's the rub. Pelini had a low floor, but a high ceiling. We traded in a low floor/high ceiling couch for a high floor/low ceiling coach, but at least we competed for championships. Sure we'll have fewer blowouts (Purdue was a blowout no matter how you slice it, Miami was a blowout until they stopped trying), but I just don't see us getting to the next level with Riley. And honestly, I'm fine with that for the most part. We most likely won't win anything of consequence with Riley as coach, but that isn't what he is here for.

 

Pelini left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, and we needed to wash that out and get the team to a stable place. Then when Riley "retires" in 2-3 years (barring another losing season) we go and hire the guy that's gonna get us to the next level.

[alwayshusking]

They did some good things this year. And some bad too. I think this staff could be close to something really good. Need to upgrade the talent at some positions and cut out the turnover problem which has been plaguing us for some time.

 

Riley has only had 1 year. The last 4 games was a good stretch of football. One of the better stretches of football we've seen here in a while unfortunately.

 

This season has similarities to Saban's first season at Bama. We went 6-7, they went 7-6. Neither team was blown out all year and both had a really ugly loss (Purdue, Louisiana-Monroe). I don't expect us to go on a run like Saban has at Alabama but there could be good things in store after the transition year.

 

2015 Nebraska http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=5279&s=279541

 

2007 Alabama http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=74&s=73929

 

[Spooky Tooth]

You folks are taking this thread down the same f'ing path as all of the other threads. It's getting old

 

 

And one bright ray of sunshine is conspicuous by his absence since NU won the bowl game.

[Enhance]

 

Crazy how you can go from having a pathetic rush defense and a dominant pass defense to the complete opposite of both in a single year with essentially the same personnel. Anyone that still thinks Pelini's issues with run defense were anything but scheme is out of their minds. That was never going to work in this league. Jury is still out on Banker's pass defense, but at least we aren't getting driven into the ground for 7 yards a carry anymore.

 

A very bad game against Wisconsin skewed the run defense stats last year.

Unfortunately, and what is a legit source of concern, is the fact that no single game was particularly awful in terms of pass defense this year.

 

But, kchusker_chris has a point. Nebraska's previous four rush defenses (prior to the 2015 season) finished the season ranked 68, 101, 42 and 73.

 

Nebraska has not done a very good job defending the run over the last several seasons.

 

That said, I agree with your point that the pass defense was consistently poor in 2015. It really needs to get better, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel on Banker just yet. He had to play a lot of young guys at times this year. I think year 2 (and if they make it to year 3) should be more telling of the situation.

[NUance]

 

 

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

So because a team was favored over us by less than a touchdown a blowout loss is ok?

 

We have been favored and lost many times over the last handful of years. Its nothing new.

 

Minnesota 2014: NU-10 lost by 4

Iowa 2013: NU -3 lost by 21

Minnesota 2013: NU -10.5 lost by 11

UCLA 2012: NU -5 lost by 6

Wisconsin 2012: NU -3 lost by 39

Northwestern 2011: NU -17.5 lost by 3

 

Bolded the important part. Riley has essentially lost games we were favored in during his first season as Bo's entire tenure. I get that different people see losses differently, but here's the rub. Pelini had a low floor, but a high ceiling. We traded in a low floor/high ceiling couch for a high floor/low ceiling coach, but at least we competed for championships.

 

 

To be fair, Riley has also won about as many big games as Bo did his entire tenure. How many top ten teams did Bo beat? One. Mizzou, 2010. Did Bo ever win a bowl game where we were the dog by 7 points? And speaking of Bo's bowl games, I think that list above missed our loss to Washington in the 2010 Holiday bowl. The year we played Washington twice.

 

 

 

Sure we'll have fewer blowouts (Purdue was a blowout no matter how you slice it, Miami was a blowout until they stopped trying), but I just don't see us getting to the next level with Riley. And honestly, I'm fine with that for the most part. We most likely won't win anything of consequence with Riley as coach, but that isn't what he is here for.

 

Why do people keep saying this? Does the order of scoring matter more than the final score? If you swap around the 3rd and 4th quarter scoring in either the Purdue or the Miami games, would they not be a blowouts by your logic? For example, if we had outscored Purdue 29 to 7 in the 3rd quarter, and then had been outscored 21 to 7 would you not consider it a blowout? So by your logic the UCLA game was a blowout since we outscored them 30-0 from the end of the 2nd qtr through the beginning of the 4th. Woo hoo, Riley blew out a bowl team when we were a touchdown underdog! I don't think your buddy Pelini ever did that, did he?

[Saunders]

 

 

Crazy how you can go from having a pathetic rush defense and a dominant pass defense to the complete opposite of both in a single year with essentially the same personnel. Anyone that still thinks Pelini's issues with run defense were anything but scheme is out of their minds. That was never going to work in this league. Jury is still out on Banker's pass defense, but at least we aren't getting driven into the ground for 7 yards a carry anymore.

 

A very bad game against Wisconsin skewed the run defense stats last year.

Unfortunately, and what is a legit source of concern, is the fact that no single game was particularly awful in terms of pass defense this year.

 

But, kchusker_chris has a point. Nebraska's previous four rush defenses (prior to the 2015 season) finished the season ranked 68, 101, 42 and 73.

 

Nebraska has not done a very good job defending the run over the last several seasons.

 

That said, I agree with your point that the pass defense was consistently poor in 2015. It really needs to get better, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel on Banker just yet. He had to play a lot of young guys at times this year. I think year 2 (and if they make it to year 3) should be more telling of the situation.

 

That's about where I'm at. Year 2 is historically a "jump" year, so I expect a jump from the 60's to at least top 30 in defense. I also expect (especially if we end up with a 5th year Sr. at QB) to win quite a few more games.

[Branno]

 

 

 

People bemoan the blowouts of past seasons, and I get that, but at least those losses were often against teams that were favored to be Nebraska (e.g., Wisconsin last year was -4). I wish there was an easy way to compare NU's records against spreads across each year.

So because a team was favored over us by less than a touchdown a blowout loss is ok?

 

We have been favored and lost many times over the last handful of years. Its nothing new.

 

Minnesota 2014: NU-10 lost by 4

Iowa 2013: NU -3 lost by 21

Minnesota 2013: NU -10.5 lost by 11

UCLA 2012: NU -5 lost by 6

Wisconsin 2012: NU -3 lost by 39

Northwestern 2011: NU -17.5 lost by 3

 

Bolded the important part. Riley has essentially lost games we were favored in during his first season as Bo's entire tenure. I get that different people see losses differently, but here's the rub. Pelini had a low floor, but a high ceiling. We traded in a low floor/high ceiling couch for a high floor/low ceiling coach, but at least we competed for championships.

 

 

To be fair, Riley has also won about as many big games as Bo did his entire tenure. How many top ten teams did Bo beat? One. Mizzou, 2010. Did Bo ever win a bowl game where we were the dog by 7 points? And speaking of Bo's bowl games, I think that list above missed our loss to Washington in the 2010 Holiday bowl. The year we played Washington twice.

 

 

 

Sure we'll have fewer blowouts (Purdue was a blowout no matter how you slice it, Miami was a blowout until they stopped trying), but I just don't see us getting to the next level with Riley. And honestly, I'm fine with that for the most part. We most likely won't win anything of consequence with Riley as coach, but that isn't what he is here for.

 

Why do people keep saying this? Does the order of scoring matter more than the final score? If you swap around the 3rd and 4th quarter scoring would it not be a blowout? I mean, if we had outscored Purdue 29 to 7 in the 3rd quarter, and then had been outscored 21 to 7 would you not consider it a blowout? Was the UCLA game a blowout since we outscored them 30-0 from the end of the 2nd qtr through the beginning of the 4th? Woo hoo, by your logic Riley blew out a bowl team when we were a touchdown underdog! I don't think your buddy Pelini ever did that, did he?

 

 

Purdue hung 55 point on us, and if not for some garbage TDs would have won by at least 30 points (that's what they were leading by going into the 4th). Go ahead and wave a magic wand to try to change facts to suit your goals of defending Riley at all costs, but a blowout is a blowout no matter how many garbage TDs a team gets.

 

Miami was up by 20 until they took their foot off the gas in the 4th quarter. But go ahead and ignore that fact while you make up strawmen arguments about the order of scoring.

 

What were you smoking when you wrote this? Way to take a small portion of my comment unbelievably out of context to make a stupid and pointless argument.

 

 

 

Was the UCLA game a blowout since we outscored them 30-0 from the end of the 2nd qtr through the beginning of the 4th?

 

We can have civilized conversations about the coaching staff, but not when a board moderator resorts to boliever/boleaver bullsh#t, strawmen arguments, etc.

[Bowfin]

You folks are taking this thread down the same f'ing path as all of the other threads. It's getting old

 

Participation is optional in all threads. It's important to note that you are in this one because you choose to be. For example, I rarely poke my head into recruiting thread because it is unimportant to me, and I am not interested in any potential player until he becomes an actual player. But rather than comment in every recruiting thread my thoughts, I mostly don't read them and post in them even less. See how that works?

 

"We folks" are just looking at statistics from both sides, bringing up other statistics, points and counter points, "what ifs ?" etc. I don't know if there is a "right f'ing path" or a "wrong f'ing path", is there?