22 - 9 - 58%

[StPaulHusker]

1 minute ago, GBRFAN said:

 

Actually a higher completion % is  take care of this more than bumping up the amount of attempts -  Hitting closer to 2 out of 3 passes will catch every defenses attention.

No sh#t?  Completing 66% of your passes will get the attention of a defense?

[Mavric]

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is faulty thinking.

 

Last year TA threw for 51.4%  with 14TDs and 8 INTs.....2180 yards. (11 games)

 

This was on 294 attempts.  That means he completed only 13.7 out of 26.7 passes.  

 

Now, let's raise that to the 60% completion percentage.  That means we will have more successful plays.  Probably more first downs that keep drives going.  Add to that more TDs through the air and that means we have more defenses on their heals trying to stop it.

 

Now.....where this is going to go bad is if we can not complete these passes with WRs being defended one on one.  I firmly believe we have a QB and WRs to make that not happen.

 

Not really.  Raising it to 60% would be two more completions per game.  That's 15 more yards per game at last year's rate.  That's not going to change anything significantly.  If you're going to say that it leads to more plays being run that would be possible but I don't think two more good plays per game is going to be a significant increase.

 

Like I said, you're going to have to do it more significantly to make defenses do anything differently.

[Mavric]

5 minutes ago, GBRFAN said:

Actually a higher completion % is  take care of this more than bumping up the amount of attempts -  Hitting closer to 2 out of 3 passes will catch every defenses attention.

 

Yep.  And if we're completing 67% percent of our passes don't you think it would make sense to do that more?  That would have been Top 10 in the country last year.

[DrunkOffPunch]

I also think a problem Langs has with the run game is getting too cute. I don't remember the specifics but in one of the games Wilbon gets one of his very limited carries, busts off a nice run for 3rd and short, and he gets pulled for Ozigbo and they run an outside pitch to the left side. Why? The RB rotation at times is also questionable.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Yep.  And if we're completing 67% percent of our passes don't you think it would make sense to do that more?  That would have been Top 10 in the country last year.

Not necessarily. 

[StPaulHusker]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Not necessarily. 

.667 % would have been Top 11 last year 

[Mavric]

I absolutely love the "our coaches are so smart they could have a Top 10 efficiency passing game and want to pass less than when we were #122 in the country" argument.

 

It might be my favorite.

[StPaulHusker]

Just now, Mavric said:

I absolutely love the "our coaches are so smart they could have a Top 10 efficiency passing game and want to do it less" argument.

 

It might be my favorite.

#Runtheball

[ColoradoHusk]

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I absolutely love the "our coaches are so smart they could have a Top 10 efficiency passing game and want to pass less than when we were #122 in the country" argument.

 

It might be my favorite.

That's why I wouldn't be opposed to them going full hog and passing the ball 40-45 times a game.  If that's what they do best (and if Lee and the WR's are as good as advertised), they might as well do it more.

[StPaulHusker]

If we do something and win games-Do that a lot

 

If we do something and lose games-Don't do that so much.

[BigRedBuster]

15 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I absolutely love the "our coaches are so smart they could have a Top 10 efficiency passing game and want to pass less than when we were #122 in the country" argument.

 

It might be my favorite.

Who said that?

[Mavric]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Who said that?

 

Well, technically you didn't because you gave the non-answer "not necessarily" but that's the only argument to support your "not necessarily."

[Mavric]

12 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

If we do something and win games-Do that a lot

 

If we do something and lose games-Don't do that so much.

 

Generally speaking, absolutely.

 

The caveat is it's possible to do things that win a lot of games against lesser competition but don't lend themselves well to beating the good teams.  Oregon has been accused of that over the years, right or wrong.

[yort2000]

33 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Not really.  Raising it to 60% would be two more completions per game.  That's 15 more yards per game at last year's rate.  That's not going to change anything significantly.  If you're going to say that it leads to more plays being run that would be possible but I don't think two more good plays per game is going to be a significant increase.

 

Like I said, you're going to have to do it more significantly to make defenses do anything differently.

 

Nebraska Passing against:

Wisconsin 12-31 38.71% 2 int.

OSU 9-33 27.27% 2 int.

Iowa 14-37 37.84% 0 int.

Tenn 19-42 45.24% 0 int.

 

Hopefully, that is where we see the improvement

 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

 

Generally speaking, absolutely.

 

The caveat is it's possible to do things that win a lot of games against lesser competition but don't lend themselves well to beating the good teams.  Oregon has been accused of that over the years, right or wrong.

Osborne was accused of that for most of his career.  A lot of fans and critics would say that his running game was only good against the lesser teams, and then it would fail against the tougher opponents.