What did we learn-Wyoming edition

[Count 'Bility]

I know exactly when Turman played. The point was the 95' team was so dominating that it didn't matter who played QB. Turman was on the 95' team, and he could have led us to a NC.

i gottscha. just going along with the fun of the thread where everyone is nitpicking every little detail everyone says.

[junior4949]

This is where the power running guys are coming from. A lot of our success and failure as a team now heavily rests on Armstrong. The power running game guys would like to see an offense where you take a lot of that pressure off of the QB like we did in the 90's and like Bama does now. Unfortunately, it isn't quite that easy. I doubt we ever get the OL like Bama gets and like what we were producing in-state back then. We don't have to run just a certain offense to be successful. We just have to get the best guys we can get and run an offense with a purpose or identity if you will.

[Hayseed]

All I know about Navy is they dress their guys in white and call them seamen. I don't ever want the Huskers to do that.

[fb30]

I don't think anything was proven either way in this thread.

[Elf]

I don't think anything was proven either way in this thread.

You don't think it was proven that Navy's Oline is shorter/smaller than ours?

[admo]

This is where the power running guys are coming from. A lot of our success and failure as a team now heavily rests on Armstrong. The power running game guys would like to see an offense where you take a lot of that pressure off of the QB like we did in the 90's and like Bama does now. Unfortunately, it isn't quite that easy. I doubt we ever get the OL like Bama gets and like what we were producing in-state back then. We don't have to run just a certain offense to be successful. We just have to get the best guys we can get and run an offense with a purpose or identity if you will.

 

Ok just going to throw this out there...

 

A lot of our success and failure as a team now and in recent years, heavily rests on athletic-style quarterbacks (Armstrong, TMartinez), a JUCO (ZLee), a gutsy-gambler (Ganz), a transfer (Keller), another JUCO (ZTaylor), and a Joe Dailey. Plus a few walkons in the mix.

 

And there have been some great running backs to help but in a lesser role.

 

Or something kinda like that.

[GBRFAN]

I'm still waiting to learn what the definition of "more" is in the statement "Navy has done more with less"

[Count 'Bility]

I'm still waiting to learn what the definition of "more" is in the statement "Navy has done more with less"

i already covered that. 9 wins yo

[BRV920]

It's means they averaged 8.5 wins a year for the last 8 years while having recruiting classes ranked from 87 to 127th. Is that clear enough for you GBR?

[Jeremy]

I'll admit, I'm a Run the Ball Guy. But, as much as I love the option/power run-option, it's becoming increasingly clear that won't ever happen at UNL again, unless we went hard after Johnson or Calhoun; very low probability. Even the Golden Boy Scott Frost wouldn't bring the Ozbone back to Lincoln were he hired - his offense would be very Oregon-ish, and maybe that wouldn't be so horrible.

 

Michigan State is pro-style? Eh, maybe. They're pro style in the way the 49ers were under Harbaugh; definitely run-first, downhill stuff. I would agree that if we were to emulate anyone, Michigan State wouldn't be a bad choice - They love their ISOs, pitches, fly sweeps, and good play-action.They love bigger backs that hit gaps hard and break tackles - I think all of us can appreciate that. So, if Riley is trending more in that direction, more power to him. I would have faith that that kind of plan, at least offensively, could bring the Big Red back into National Title Discussion.

[fb30]

I would be happy with a Stanford or Oregon style offense.

[Landlord]

It's means they averaged 8.5 wins a year for the last 8 years while having recruiting classes ranked from 87 to 127th. Is that clear enough for you GBR?

 

 

What are the rankings of the recruiting classes they play against?

[BRV920]

You should look it up. Probably not at high as Purdue or Illinois.

[cm husker]

 

It's means they averaged 8.5 wins a year for the last 8 years while having recruiting classes ranked from 87 to 127th. Is that clear enough for you GBR?

 

 

What are the rankings of the recruiting classes they play against?

 

 

 

Not sure, but most metrics that I've seen rank Navy's coach as being among the top "overachievers" in terms of talent and expected wins. Mavric had a post on it a while back.

 

Navy's Ken Niumatalolo remains the master of squeezing out one more year than expected each year, and fellow spread option master Paul Johnson remains in the 90th percentile.

 

 

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2016/7/15/12200790/second-order-wins-college-football-pat-fitzgerald-kevin-wilson

 

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/7/18/12211730/ncaa-football-coaches-overrated-underrated

 

What would be interesting would be to analyze the % of coaches in the 90th percentile who run a mobile-QB based system versus the % who run a more traditional pro-style QB based system. Conversely, I wonder where they numbers fall in the bottom 10th percentile.

 

As for whether this is relevant to what we learned watching the Wyoming game, I think it actually is because what we learned after our first two games is that we want to try to be all things at all times - personally, I don't see that producing much consistency in the long term.

[cm husker]

 

This is where the power running guys are coming from. A lot of our success and failure as a team now heavily rests on Armstrong. The power running game guys would like to see an offense where you take a lot of that pressure off of the QB like we did in the 90's and like Bama does now. Unfortunately, it isn't quite that easy. I doubt we ever get the OL like Bama gets and like what we were producing in-state back then. We don't have to run just a certain offense to be successful. We just have to get the best guys we can get and run an offense with a purpose or identity if you will.

 

Ok just going to throw this out there...

 

A lot of our success and failure as a team now and in recent years, heavily rests on athletic-style quarterbacks (Armstrong, TMartinez), a JUCO (ZLee), a gutsy-gambler (Ganz), a transfer (Keller), another JUCO (ZTaylor), and a Joe Dailey. Plus a few walkons in the mix.

 

And there have been some great running backs to help but in a lesser role.

 

Or something kinda like that.

 

 

Even if we accept the premise that those guys weren't great QBs (I disagree, but let's accept it for sake of argument), isn't the "pro-mobile QB/Run-Oriented" argument proven correct by the fact that we won .700+ of our games during that period, even including a year when we lost our starting SR and forced a freshman and walkon into action?