22 - 9 - 58%

[alwayshusking]

32 minutes ago, agibson95 said:

My prediction is 33-8-73%

 

 

Typically Riley's offenses like to take a fair amount of shots down the field, so 73% seems really high. 65% maybe though.

 

Depends on the defense as well, if they are good the offense can be more conservative.

[Enhance]

Only two quarterbacks in the country last year sniffed above 70 percent completions: Baker Mayfield (.709) and Luke Falk (.700). And, since 1956, only six quarterbacks have ever gone above 73 percent. I don't see that happening with Lee.

[BIG ERN]

To have over the top passing numbers usually takes an NFL receiver to be on your team - and a good one at that. The only time Oregon State achieved this was with Brandin Cooks on their team who had 1,730 receiving yards and 16 TD. Both would crush our school records.

[ADS]

15 hours ago, yort2000 said:

 

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

 

I mean it can't get much worse.  So anything better than that would be a win.

[StPaulHusker]

13 hours ago, GBRFAN said:

 

do you understand that if a play is setup for a QB to run and then you want to do something similar, however not use the QB that the most likely candidate would be a RB?

I guess I have to break it down for you.

 

The question was raised if people would be happy with Tanner Lee's numbers being 22TD, 9INT, 58%.  Which is what Clayton Thorson from NW had last year.

 

I said I would not be happy with those numbers if we didn't get better production from a RB like Justin Jackson's 1500 yards and 15 TD's last year.

 

Mavric brought up that Nebraska had a better rushing game than Northwestern last year

 

That's true when you compare it as a whole.  But Thorson is not a running QB and Armstrong was.  But if you remove the QB rushing stats NW is a better running team than NU by 40 yards a game.

 

So now that we have a "typical" QB that will likely throw as opposed to run, I will not be happy with those numbers if there aren't better numbers from RB's

 

And based on this offense, and the QB we have now, there is literally no evidence to support that a designed QB run last year will translate to a hand off to a RB this year.  It can just as easily be a throw.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

This has been said many times, but, many passes to RBs out of the backfield is basically a running play.

 

It's not much less of a running play than our old option pitches to the RB.

 

Yes...it's still a pass and that's where the stat should end up.  But, they have the same affect in an offense as many outside runs or option pitches.

[Mavric]

Not really but I expect this to be a popular anthem this year.

[BigRedBuster]

OK.....how is it not?

 

How is an RB running a flair route much different than an option pitch to an RB to the outside?  It gets the ball to the RB out of the backfield quickly in the flats.  It also takes advantage of an overly aggressive defense to the inside.

[Mavric]

I would say that one route in particular would be a pretty close approximation of the running game.  However, it depends on what the receivers are doing.  If they're blocking all the way, then yes.  If they're running the DBs  off, the defense would have to be playing it like a pass so I don't get how that would be much similar to the running game.  I don't remember us running a lot of them in the last couple years though we did "fumble" one against Oregon last year.

 

The other one would be a shovel pass but I don't remember us running those in the last couple years.

 

But I think a lot of people will just say "Look!  Our RBs caught five passes this game but those are really like running plays."  And I don't think that will be very accurate.

[StPaulHusker]

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I would say that one route in particular would be a pretty close approximation of the running game.  However, it depends on what the receivers are doing.  If they're blocking all the way, then yes.  If they're running the DBs  off, the defense would have to be playing it like a pass so I don't get how that would be much similar to the running game.  I don't remember us running a lot of them in the last couple years though we did "fumble" one against Oregon last year.

 

The other one would be a shovel pass but I don't remember us running those in the last couple years.

 

But I think a lot of people will just say "Look!  Our RBs caught five passes this game but those are really like running plays."  And I don't think that will be very accurate.

I agree.  

 

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I think that most of the RB receptions will be due to Lee checking down to the safer route.  Now, that may be the smart play, but that's not the same thing as a designed run play.

 

Yes, there will be a few instances as Mavric comments above, but I don't think it will be a significant part of the offensive plays going forward.

[BigRedBuster]

17 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I would say that one route in particular would be a pretty close approximation of the running game.  However, it depends on what the receivers are doing.  If they're blocking all the way, then yes.  If they're running the DBs  off, the defense would have to be playing it like a pass so I don't get how that would be much similar to the running game.  I don't remember us running a lot of them in the last couple years though we did "fumble" one against Oregon last year.

 

The other one would be a shovel pass but I don't remember us running those in the last couple years.

 

But I think a lot of people will just say "Look!  Our RBs caught five passes this game but those are really like running plays."  And I don't think that will be very accurate.

As for your last sentence, I'm not saying that.  I am saying that there are some passes to the RB that is similar to a running play to the outside.  You have a good point with the WR blocking.  But, even in this post, you seem to agree that there are some that are similar to a running play....for which, that's what I said.  

 

Also, did you see TA trying to throw to a flair route in the flats?  That may have played a major factor in not seeing them the last couple of years.

 

I never said ALL passes to the RB is similar to a running play.

[GBRFAN]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This has been said many times, but, many passes to RBs out of the backfield is basically a running play.

 

It's not much less of a running play than our old option pitches to the RB.

 

Yes...it's still a pass and that's where the stat should end up.  But, they have the same affect in an offense as many outside runs or option pitches.

 

Please don't say this.... You know this is Nebraska and that doesn't count - all future post need to be proofed by Mavric before hitting submit.

[GBRFAN]

13 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

If you're completing 67% of your passes, you don't have to bluff anything.  You do what's working.

 

This is only true when you can tell the defense that we are running a certain play and then do it.  Your team needs to be far superior to their opponent and this hasn't been the case since NU was playing the iowa states of the big8.

[Enhance]

Agreed with @Mavric - it would be situational as to whether or not they're somewhat equivalent to a running plays. Anybody who brandishes "our backs caught five passes out of the backfield and those were running plays" this season could end up wielding an over-simplified opinion.

 

(Also, I'm not saying anybody is actually saying that here and now.)