Season Predictions

[cm husker]

cm... occasionally I start to think there's something really wrong with you but then I come back to the occam's razor troll answer. But it may be something else. Either way, pull it together man.

Specifically, what issue do you have with a post of mine in this thread? Can you articulate that?

[Sargon]

My comment is based on hundreds of posts.

 

Anyway....here's one consistent theme of yours that is wrong. You think our athlete talent is considerably higher than it is. Reason's why your opinion on it are wrong have been abundant yet you remain a broken record of incorrectness. Iowa's starting line-up is projected to be better than NU's this year and so is Oregon's. Analysts see it, most serious Husker fans see it, but you don't.

 

Vegas has NU at 8.6 or so wins this year so 8/9 wins are the most likely outcomes and 7/10 are the second most likely. Anybody who says 7 wins is proof that the current staff isn't up to the task doesn't understand what a mean of 8.6 and the associated variance means. This teams has something like a 25% chance (lazy so I'm not going to look at std dev and z-score info to be more accurate) of 7 or fewer wins in the first 12 games.

 

So, I think you consistently argue falsely about NU's starter talent and you seem to ignore downside risk variance.

[cm husker]

Talent versus effectiveness are entirely different things.

 

I just wish some of you would pick a metric and stick to it. People love the hype of recruitniks and generate all of this noise around it. So, meeting on that ground, I looked at the roster rankings based on past recruiting as adjusted for attrition by those reporters. You can find the links on the board. In those rankings, NU far outpaces all but a couple of teams on its slate.

 

So when recruitnik rankings are not convenient for the excuse layers, they turn to reporter "analysts" and wrongly conflate predictions of effectiveness with judgments about talent levels. Even more attenuated are the Vegas lines, which obviously have to handicap talent matchups with coaching matchups. Your also wrong that 7 and 10 are equally likely in Vegas eyes. We'd have to look at their charge for placing a bet on over versus under. I believe the over is the more expensive bet right now, which implies they believe that 9 wins, and therefore 10 wins, is more likely than 8 and 7.

 

Speaking of bets, want to place a wager on the rankings of big 10 roster draft picks and NFL roster player from current 2-Deeps? That would be a far better way to judge talent than referring to reporter rankings and Vegas odds.

 

My final question: where was all of this patience for sub 9 win seasons 3 years ago. Or 13 years ago?

[cm husker]

I don't know that I expect you to answer this, but by what measure is Iowa's lineup better ranked than NU?

 

I'm not willing to hit the I believe button about Oregon, either, especially considering their issues at QB - letting alone their turnover in coaching staff.

[Saunders]

My comment is based on hundreds of posts.

 

Anyway....here's one consistent theme of yours that is wrong. You think our athlete talent is considerably higher than it is. Reason's why your opinion on it are wrong have been abundant yet you remain a broken record of incorrectness. Iowa's starting line-up is projected to be better than NU's this year and so is Oregon's. Analysts see it, most serious Husker fans see it, but you don't.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/7/28/12307100/big-ten-conference-football-2016-projections-rankings

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

Saying the team may do better does not mean it's a more talented roster.

[Mavric]

 

My comment is based on hundreds of posts.

 

Anyway....here's one consistent theme of yours that is wrong. You think our athlete talent is considerably higher than it is. Reason's why your opinion on it are wrong have been abundant yet you remain a broken record of incorrectness. Iowa's starting line-up is projected to be better than NU's this year and so is Oregon's. Analysts see it, most serious Husker fans see it, but you don't.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/7/28/12307100/big-ten-conference-football-2016-projections-rankings

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

Saying the team may do better does not mean it's a more talented roster.

 

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

[Sargon]

 

My comment is based on hundreds of posts.

 

Anyway....here's one consistent theme of yours that is wrong. You think our athlete talent is considerably higher than it is. Reason's why your opinion on it are wrong have been abundant yet you remain a broken record of incorrectness. Iowa's starting line-up is projected to be better than NU's this year and so is Oregon's. Analysts see it, most serious Husker fans see it, but you don't.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/7/28/12307100/big-ten-conference-football-2016-projections-rankings

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

Saying the team may do better does not mean it's a more talented roster.

 

Yeah I know. So?

3 teams including Iowa are projected to have better starting line-ups than NU this year. I hope NU beats out Iowa in the end and they might. Can NU get some sophomores on the all B1G team? We'll see in 4 months.

 

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072516aab.html

 

"Iowa and Northwestern each fielded a pair of honorees on the West Division roster. The Hawkeyes were represented by senior quarterback [/size]C.J. Beathard and senior defensive back [/size]Desmond King, while the Wildcats saw junior running back [/size]Justin Jackson and junior linebacker [/size]Anthony Walker Jr.make the list. Wisconsin senior running back [/size]Corey Clement completed the West Division honorees, joining Jackson as the only standouts to earn Big Ten football preseason honors for the second consecutive season."[/size]

[Sargon]

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

3 dominant plays = 21 Iowa points instead of 7 NU points. 2 LONG runs boom. 14 points. 1 pick 6 for them, should have been 7 for us (play was open for a TD red rather than TD yellow). You are misunderstating Iowa's dominant quotient by about 21 points and NU's anti-dominant terrible plays.

 

(edit this was poorly worded but the following posts should clarify)

[Mavric]

 

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

3 dominant plays = 21 Iowa points instead of 7 NU points. 2 LONG runs boom. 14 points. 1 pick 6 for them, should have been 7 for us (play was open for a TD red rather than TD yellow). You are understating Iowa's dominant quotient by about 21 points and NU's anti-dominant terrible plays.

 

Perhaps it's just too late but I'm not following you.

 

Yes, they got three big plays. That's what I was referring to about our QB and not having our best defender. I think our QB cost us quite a bit and I don't think they get the two long TD runs if Gerry is still in the game.

 

We out-gained them 433 to 250. Without those two long TD runs they only had 153 yards of offense. They were 0-9 on third down. We dominated almost the entire game. Without the three plays listed above, we could have beaten them 20-7. Without the other three picks TA threw it could have been worse. That's anywhere from 3-6 plays out of the 127 plays run in that game that turned a 13+ point win for the Huskers into an 8 point loss. I don't think saying the gamed turned on 3 out of 127 plays is understating Iowa's dominance. We resoundingly outplayed them for about 98% of the snaps. Unfortunately the other 2% was enough to turn the game in their favor.

[Saunders]

 

 

My comment is based on hundreds of posts.

 

Anyway....here's one consistent theme of yours that is wrong. You think our athlete talent is considerably higher than it is. Reason's why your opinion on it are wrong have been abundant yet you remain a broken record of incorrectness. Iowa's starting line-up is projected to be better than NU's this year and so is Oregon's. Analysts see it, most serious Husker fans see it, but you don't.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/7/28/12307100/big-ten-conference-football-2016-projections-rankings

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

Saying the team may do better does not mean it's a more talented roster.

 

Yeah I know. So?

3 teams including Iowa are projected to have better starting line-ups than NU this year. I hope NU beats out Iowa in the end and they might. Can NU get some sophomores on the all B1G team? We'll see in 4 months.

 

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072516aab.html

 

"Iowa and Northwestern each fielded a pair of honorees on the West Division roster. The Hawkeyes were represented by senior quarterback [/size]C.J. Beathard and senior defensive back [/size]Desmond King, while the Wildcats saw junior running back [/size]Justin Jackson and junior linebacker [/size]Anthony Walker Jr.make the list. Wisconsin senior running back [/size]Corey Clement completed the West Division honorees, joining Jackson as the only standouts to earn Big Ten football preseason honors for the second consecutive season."[/size]

 

In what way are the projected to have better starting line ups? Do you have data points? That link is a preseason watch list, and I mean, it's got Corey Clement on it, a guy who hasn't done anything.

[Husker Psycho]

 

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

3 dominant plays = 21 Iowa points instead of 7 NU points. 2 LONG runs boom. 14 points. 1 pick 6 for them, should have been 7 for us (play was open for a TD red rather than TD yellow). You are understating Iowa's dominant quotient by about 21 points and NU's anti-dominant terrible plays.

 

 

Exactly

[Husker Psycho]

 

 

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

3 dominant plays = 21 Iowa points instead of 7 NU points. 2 LONG runs boom. 14 points. 1 pick 6 for them, should have been 7 for us (play was open for a TD red rather than TD yellow). You are understating Iowa's dominant quotient by about 21 points and NU's anti-dominant terrible plays.

 

Perhaps it's just too late but I'm not following you.

 

Yes, they got three big plays. That's what I was referring to about our QB and not having our best defender. I think our QB cost us quite a bit and I don't think they get the two long TD runs if Gerry is still in the game.

 

We out-gained them 433 to 250. Without those two long TD runs they only had 153 yards of offense. They were 0-9 on third down. We dominated almost the entire game. Without the three plays listed above, we could have beaten them 20-7. Without the other three picks TA threw it could have been worse. That's anywhere from 3-6 plays out of the 127 plays run in that game that turned a 13+ point win for the Huskers into an 8 point loss. I don't think saying the gamed turned on 3 out of 127 plays is understating Iowa's dominance. We resoundingly outplayed them for about 98% of the snaps. Unfortunately the other 2% was enough to turn the game in their favor.

 

 

Mavric

 

Do you have the yards gained by both teams broken down by first half - second half ?

 

I'm curious what the difference of total yards gained by both teams was at the end of the first half.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

3 dominant plays = 21 Iowa points instead of 7 NU points. 2 LONG runs boom. 14 points. 1 pick 6 for them, should have been 7 for us (play was open for a TD red rather than TD yellow). You are understating Iowa's dominant quotient by about 21 points and NU's anti-dominant terrible plays.

 

Perhaps it's just too late but I'm not following you.

 

Yes, they got three big plays. That's what I was referring to about our QB and not having our best defender. I think our QB cost us quite a bit and I don't think they get the two long TD runs if Gerry is still in the game.

 

We out-gained them 433 to 250. Without those two long TD runs they only had 153 yards of offense. They were 0-9 on third down. We dominated almost the entire game. Without the three plays listed above, we could have beaten them 20-7. Without the other three picks TA threw it could have been worse. That's anywhere from 3-6 plays out of the 127 plays run in that game that turned a 13+ point win for the Huskers into an 8 point loss. I don't think saying the gamed turned on 3 out of 127 plays is understating Iowa's dominance. We resoundingly outplayed them for about 98% of the snaps. Unfortunately the other 2% was enough to turn the game in their favor.

 

 

Mavric

 

Do you have the yards gained by both teams broken down by first half - second half ?

 

I'm curious what the difference of total yards gained by both teams was at the end of the first half.

 

First Half:

Nebraska - 168 yards on 36 plays, 4.7 ypp

Iowa - 112 yards on 26 plays, 4.3 ypp

 

Second Half:

Nebraska - 265 yards on 47 plays, 5.6 ypp

Iowa - 138 yards on 18 plays, 7.7 ypp; Without the two TD runs: 41 yards on 16 plays, 2.6 ypp

[Husker Psycho]

 

 

 

 

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

3 dominant plays = 21 Iowa points instead of 7 NU points. 2 LONG runs boom. 14 points. 1 pick 6 for them, should have been 7 for us (play was open for a TD red rather than TD yellow). You are understating Iowa's dominant quotient by about 21 points and NU's anti-dominant terrible plays.

 

Perhaps it's just too late but I'm not following you.

 

Yes, they got three big plays. That's what I was referring to about our QB and not having our best defender. I think our QB cost us quite a bit and I don't think they get the two long TD runs if Gerry is still in the game.

 

We out-gained them 433 to 250. Without those two long TD runs they only had 153 yards of offense. They were 0-9 on third down. We dominated almost the entire game. Without the three plays listed above, we could have beaten them 20-7. Without the other three picks TA threw it could have been worse. That's anywhere from 3-6 plays out of the 127 plays run in that game that turned a 13+ point win for the Huskers into an 8 point loss. I don't think saying the gamed turned on 3 out of 127 plays is understating Iowa's dominance. We resoundingly outplayed them for about 98% of the snaps. Unfortunately the other 2% was enough to turn the game in their favor.

 

 

Mavric

 

Do you have the yards gained by both teams broken down by first half - second half ?

 

I'm curious what the difference of total yards gained by both teams was at the end of the first half.

 

First Half:

Nebraska - 168 yards on 36 plays, 4.7 ypp

Iowa - 112 yards on 26 plays, 4.3 ypp

 

Second Half:

Nebraska - 265 yards on 47 plays, 5.6 ypp

Iowa - 138 yards on 18 plays, 7.7 ypp; Without the two TD runs: 41 yards on 16 plays, 2.6 ypp

 

 

There's your answer.

 

The difference in yards gained in the first half was 56 yards.

The difference in yards gained in the second half was 127 yards.

 

That's simply because Iowa... after scoring two touchdowns rapidly in the second half... then went into their "prevent" game. They became more conservative on offense and they became more "prevent" on defense (willing to give up 10-15 yards in order to prevent 30-40 yard plays and touchdowns) and in order to run out the clock.

 

A team can run up a lot of yards playing against a prevent defense but it didn't help Nebraska make up the substantial lead in points that Iowa had.

 

Iowa played that game very, very smart. They won the game by playing smart rather than by running up a bunch of yards. They scored points... we ran up yards against a prevent defense. The difference in yards gained in that game really means nothing... and it certainly did not indicate that we dominated the game. Iowa won that game in a fairly convincing manner despite what the "stats" are.

 

Iowa is very well coached. We're going to have our hands full from now on when we play them.

[marko polo]

 

 

 

 

 

That and the part where we completely dominated them everywhere but at our QB spot and after possibly our best defender got thrown out.

3 dominant plays = 21 Iowa points instead of 7 NU points. 2 LONG runs boom. 14 points. 1 pick 6 for them, should have been 7 for us (play was open for a TD red rather than TD yellow). You are understating Iowa's dominant quotient by about 21 points and NU's anti-dominant terrible plays.

 

Perhaps it's just too late but I'm not following you.

 

Yes, they got three big plays. That's what I was referring to about our QB and not having our best defender. I think our QB cost us quite a bit and I don't think they get the two long TD runs if Gerry is still in the game.

 

We out-gained them 433 to 250. Without those two long TD runs they only had 153 yards of offense. They were 0-9 on third down. We dominated almost the entire game. Without the three plays listed above, we could have beaten them 20-7. Without the other three picks TA threw it could have been worse. That's anywhere from 3-6 plays out of the 127 plays run in that game that turned a 13+ point win for the Huskers into an 8 point loss. I don't think saying the gamed turned on 3 out of 127 plays is understating Iowa's dominance. We resoundingly outplayed them for about 98% of the snaps. Unfortunately the other 2% was enough to turn the game in their favor.

 

 

Mavric

 

Do you have the yards gained by both teams broken down by first half - second half ?

 

I'm curious what the difference of total yards gained by both teams was at the end of the first half.

 

First Half:

Nebraska - 168 yards on 36 plays, 4.7 ypp

Iowa - 112 yards on 26 plays, 4.3 ypp

 

Second Half:

Nebraska - 265 yards on 47 plays, 5.6 ypp

Iowa - 138 yards on 18 plays, 7.7 ypp; Without the two TD runs: 41 yards on 16 plays, 2.6 ypp

 

 

There's your answer.

 

The difference in yards gained in the first half was 56 yards.

The difference in yards gained in the second half was 127 yards.

 

That's simply because Iowa... after scoring two touchdowns rapidly in the second half... then went into their "prevent" game. They became more conservative on offense and they became more "prevent" on defense (willing to give up 10-15 yards in order to prevent 30-40 yard plays and touchdowns) and in order to run out the clock.

 

A team can run up a lot of yards playing against a prevent defense but it didn't help Nebraska make up the substantial lead in points that Iowa had.

 

Iowa played that game very, very smart. They won the game by playing smart rather than by running up a bunch of yards. They scored points... we ran up yards against a prevent defense. The difference in yards gained in that game really means nothing... and it certainly did not indicate that we dominated the game. Iowa won that game in a fairly convincing manner despite what the "stats" are.

 

Iowa is very well coached. We're going to have our hands full from now on when we play them.

 

good point!