Lubick to leave?

[Wistrom Disciple]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

I don't think anyone was necessarily expecting that from him either.  I don't think many were expecting that from Ozigbo before he improved significantly his senior year.

 

But it's really hard to plod your way down the field getting 3.something yards per carry all the time.  You have to be able to get some chunk plays.  Mills doesn't do that.  So that's a big reason they offense has been struggling.

 

I agree chunk plays were needed but Mills wasn't expected to be that kind of back. His even his JUCO experience indicated that this plodding style of play was how he plays so I'm not sure what others were expecting. It was much more akin to Frank Gore than it was ever supposed to be Derrick Henry. Therefore, I thought Mills did a solid job based on what was expected from him. Not a great level but a back who could be fed the ball and help the offense control the game. 

 

1 hour ago, Husker in WI said:

That's pretty much what I was typing up - 3 bad games and 3 great games is fine. But I have a different bar I guess and do not consider the 3-4 YPC games good enough either. So from my perspective it was a lot more than 3 bad games. 

 

There's totally room for arguments that the blocking, surrounding cast, and/or playcalling holding Mills back. But I don't think it's really debatable that outside of 3-4 games he did not perform well, regardless of the reasons. I'll miss him because he seemed like a good dude and when he went off he went off, but the backs we have now are better fits and I'm optimistic we'll get more consistent performances. 

@Mavric pointed out some good stats and I can see the argument there. Then again, 3+ yards every play gets you a first down each drive and we often abandoned RB runs for QB scrambles or screen passes which often made first downs even more elusive. I am curious about what makes you think the backs we have now are better fits... 

 

Rahmir Johnson - 30 career carries for 94 yards (3.24 YPC)

Marvin Scott - 24 carries for 62 yards (2.6 YPC)

Ronald Thompkins - 5 carries for 24 yards (4.8 YPC)

**Markese Stepp - 100 carries at USC for 505 yards (5.05 YPC) - did not face a Top 60 defense this past season and only averaged 3.7 YPC

 

I am optimistic that these guys will prove to be valuable players for us in the future but nothing so far has proven that they are better players than Mills. 

[J-MAGIC]

3 minutes ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

I am optimistic that these guys will prove to be valuable players for us in the future but nothing so far has proven that they are better players than Mills. 

 

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Mills wasn't the best back we had last year. I think they're suggesting that Mills wasn't particularly good and the chances of one of the five freshmen backs/Stepp developing to be better than him are fairly high. 

[Husker in WI]

Just now, Wistrom Disciple said:

That was not what you were saying though. You removed the three top games and said he was "mediocre to bad". @Mavric pointed out some good stats and I can see the argument there. Then again, 3+ yards a carry get you a first down and we often abandoned RB runs for QB scrambles or screen passes which often made first downs even more elusive. I am curious about what makes you think the backs we have now are better fits (besides Markese Stepp who I do think will be a good player for us)... 

 

Rahmir Johnson - 30 career carries for 94 yards (3.24 YPC)

Marvin Scott - 24 carries for 62 yards (2.6 YPC)

Ronald Thompkins - 5 carries for 24 yards (4.8 YPC)

**Markese Stepp - 100 carries at USC for 505 yards (5.05 YPC) - did not face a Top 60 defense this past season and only averaged 3.7 YPC

 

I am optimistic that these guys will prove to be valuable players for us in the future but nothing so far has proven that they are better players than Mills. 

 

Right, it's definitely projecting - none of the RBs were good last year. But Mills had a large enough sample size that I am confident that's kind of who he is, a 3.5 YPC back who can occasionally bust out for a lot more. It's not even a huge sample size on Mills, so arguable that I can't know for sure that's what he was. But at <30 carries, we definitely don't know that those guys are exactly what they've been in games. 

 

Stepp's sample size is getting there, and I'll admit last year wasn't great for him. But 100 carries says a lot less about a back then 379, and my optimism is more around the number of backs than one in particular. Stepp seems similar to Mills, but in games with 10+ carries (admittedly arbitrary, but I could actually get better numbers for my point by lowering that to 7-8) he's already 4/6 in averaging 5+ YPC. In Mills UNL career, he was 5/12. Again, too early to say. But Sevion Morrison is probably who I'm most excited about, and Johnson/Scott/Thompkins all have a lot of talent and more speed than Mills (or Stepp). I have no stats to back up that view because they mostly haven't played, but I don't think it's a stretch to say at least Morrison/Johnson/Thompkins are more explosive. Also it's the offseason, I'm drinking the kool-aid.

[Mavric]

15 minutes ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

I agree chunk plays were needed but Mills wasn't expected to be that kind of back. His even his JUCO experience indicated that this plodding style of play was how he plays so I'm not sure what others were expecting. It was much more akin to Frank Gore than it was ever supposed to be Derrick Henry. Therefore, I thought Mills did a solid job based on what was expected from him. Not a great level but a back who could be fed the ball and help the offense control the game. 

 

Expectations don't really mean anything.  He wasn't consistently getting enough yards to move the chains.  And not enough big plays to make up for the bad ones.

 

Quote

Then again, 3+ yards every play gets you a first down each drive

 

No, it doesn't.  Getting *at least* 3 yards every play will get you a first down if you go for it on fourth down when needed.  *Averaging* three yards per play for the entire game does not mean you would get a first down just by running it.

[Wistrom Disciple]

14 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Mills wasn't the best back we had last year. I think they're suggesting that Mills wasn't particularly good and the chances of one of the five freshmen backs/Stepp developing to be better than him are fairly high. 

I can appreciate that. I do think the younger players have higher ceilings. 

 

6 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

Right, it's definitely projecting - none of the RBs were good last year. But Mills had a large enough sample size that I am confident that's kind of who he is, a 3.5 YPC back who can occasionally bust out for a lot more. It's not even a huge sample size on Mills, so arguable that I can't know for sure that's what he was. But at <30 carries, we definitely don't know that those guys are exactly what they've been in games. 

 

Stepp's sample size is getting there, and I'll admit last year wasn't great for him. But 100 carries says a lot less about a back then 379, and my optimism is more around the number of backs than one in particular. Stepp seems similar to Mills, but in games with 10+ carries (admittedly arbitrary, but I could actually get better numbers for my point by lowering that to 7-8) he's already 4/6 in averaging 5+ YPC. In Mills UNL career, he was 5/12. Again, too early to say. But Sevion Morrison is probably who I'm most excited about, and Johnson/Scott/Thompkins all have a lot of talent and more speed than Mills (or Stepp). I have no stats to back up that view because they mostly haven't played, but I don't think it's a stretch to say at least Morrison/Johnson/Thompkins are more explosive. Also it's the offseason, I'm drinking the kool-aid.

I agree, must also consider the defenses Stepp was facing in the Pac-12. Really hoping a return to the Midwest will bring out his best talents. 

 

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

Expectations don't really mean anything.  He wasn't consistently getting enough yards to move the chains.  And not enough big plays to make up for the bad ones.

 

No, it doesn't.  Getting *at least* 3 yards every play will get you a first down if you go for it on fourth down when needed.  *Averaging* three yards per play for the entire game does not mean you would get a first down just by running it.

Expectations play a part. He was never intended to be a homerun back and regrettably, the coaches rarely asked him to be a workhorse back for us (15+ carries). So I'm confused as to what you're expecting from him in Frost's strategy.

 

And yes, three-plus yards a play will get you a first down over four plays. Not pretty but the math checks out. 

[Mavric]

Just now, Wistrom Disciple said:

Expectations play a part. He was never intended to be a homerun back and regrettably, the coaches rarely asked him to be a workhorse back for us (15+ carries). So I'm confused as to what you're expecting from him in Frost's strategy.

 

They didn't ask him to be a workhorse back because you can't waste so many plays getting so few yards.

 

Just now, Wistrom Disciple said:

And yes, three-plus yards a play will get you a first down over four plays. Not pretty but the math checks out. 

 

You obviously don't understand how averages work.

[Husker03]

7 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

You obviously don't understand how averages work.

Also, no back in the history of any league at any level makes a career w/ 3.0 yrds/carry as that is a TERRIBLE average.

 

[Wistrom Disciple]

27 minutes ago, Mavric said:

They didn't ask him to be a workhorse back because you can't waste so many plays getting so few yards.

 

You obviously don't understand how averages work.

Please pass that note along to the coaches. Those screen passes sure seemed to work out well instead ... 

 

Oh I understand how averages work and also how the math checks out. [10 yards to get a first down, four plays to get a first down. Averaging three-plus yards each play will statistically get you a first down every time]. I know what you're getting at... but of all the problems with our offense this year, Mills' play would be one of the least concerning issues. Considering all the hoopla surrounding the QB play, merry-go-round at receivers, penalties, inconsistent blocking, the early season snapping issues and of course, I'd be remiss to ignore the Wandale touch quota as well. Mills doesn't crack the top five of the headaches.

 

TLDR; Mills did a decent job for us this year and was a solid contributor.

 

[Husker in WI]

3 hours ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

Please pass that note along to the coaches. Those screen passes sure seemed to work out well instead ... 

 

Oh I understand how averages work and also how the math checks out. [10 yards to get a first down, four plays to get a first down. Averaging three-plus yards each play will statistically get you a first down every time]. I know what you're getting at... but of all the problems with our offense this year, Mills' play would be one of the least concerning issues. Considering all the hoopla surrounding the QB play, merry-go-round at receivers, penalties, inconsistent blocking, the early season snapping issues and of course, I'd be remiss to ignore the Wandale touch quota as well. Mills doesn't crack the top five of the headaches.

 

TLDR; Mills did a decent job for us this year and was a solid contributor.

 

The italicized is only true if there is no deviation, and that averaging 3 yards means you will always get 3 yards. I don't have the interest to figure out the chances of a given carry being less than 3 yards, but says it's 1/3 less than 3, 1/3 at 3, and 1/3 at more than 3 (which is super oversimplified, but whatever). All it takes is one of your 3 carries on a given set of downs being less than 3 yards (somewhat likely) to mean you need another carry to go more than 3 - and in this fake scenario it's more likely that the next 2 carries would get 3 or less, and you have to punt. Even if you do get 10, considering we were always starting inside our 20 you need to have the same luck 5-6 times in a row to think about a field goal. Averaging 3 per carry over a game or season doesn't mean you will average 3 per carry on 3 consecutive carries. 

 

I think we understand where each other is coming from and I hate to keep this going, but RB was absolutely a top-5 headache for me offensively this year. Even when Mills was on the field. It was better than when he wasn't on the field and we had gimpy freshmen, but it was probably the #2/3 issue for me offensively overall. I'd say biggest issues in my opinion were:

1. No receiver production outside of Wan'Dale
2. Offensive line penalties
3. RBs doing almost nothing
4. QB turnovers
5. OL actual blocking

That's overall, obviously individual games have different issues. TOs were huge in Rutgers sticking with us and losing to NW, Martinez missed throws against Minny, snapping cost us against Iowa. But overall the lack of any significant RB production until Rutgers was one of our bigger issues - again, just my opinion. I understand if people put QB decisions up there, and really 2-4 are very close for me. 

[hskrfan4life]

I don't even think this thread is about Lubick anymore.

[Mavric]

51 minutes ago, hskrfan4life said:

I don't even think this thread is about Lubick anymore.

 

I tried to go through this afternoon and split the last three pages to a separate thread.  But something didn't work right and I haven't worked up the give a s#!t to try again.  

[Wistrom Disciple]

11 hours ago, Husker in WI said:

 

The italicized is only true if there is no deviation, and that averaging 3 yards means you will always get 3 yards. I don't have the interest to figure out the chances of a given carry being less than 3 yards, but says it's 1/3 less than 3, 1/3 at 3, and 1/3 at more than 3 (which is super oversimplified, but whatever). All it takes is one of your 3 carries on a given set of downs being less than 3 yards (somewhat likely) to mean you need another carry to go more than 3 - and in this fake scenario it's more likely that the next 2 carries would get 3 or less, and you have to punt. Even if you do get 10, considering we were always starting inside our 20 you need to have the same luck 5-6 times in a row to think about a field goal. Averaging 3 per carry over a game or season doesn't mean you will average 3 per carry on 3 consecutive carries. 

 

I think we understand where each other is coming from and I hate to keep this going, but RB was absolutely a top-5 headache for me offensively this year. Even when Mills was on the field. It was better than when he wasn't on the field and we had gimpy freshmen, but it was probably the #2/3 issue for me offensively overall. I'd say biggest issues in my opinion were:

1. No receiver production outside of Wan'Dale
2. Offensive line penalties
3. RBs doing almost nothing
4. QB turnovers
5. OL actual blocking

That's overall, obviously individual games have different issues. TOs were huge in Rutgers sticking with us and losing to NW, Martinez missed throws against Minny, snapping cost us against Iowa. But overall the lack of any significant RB production until Rutgers was one of our bigger issues - again, just my opinion. I understand if people put QB decisions up there, and really 2-4 are very close for me. 

I know how probabilities work, it was meant to lighten the chat with Mav by playing devils advocate with the pure numbers. The point was that an average of more than 3 yards per attempt was statistically enough for a first down, no outside factors or other strategic considerations.

 

As for Mills' impact... the three games we got him most involved in 2020 were two wins and the NW loss. Although rushing against NW produced meh results, he was a positive factor in the passing game. Northwestern also happened to turn out to be a top five defense in the country so, with that consideration, not bad. His injuries were certainly a factor throughout the year but when he was given a good amount of work, positive results tended to follow. 

 

Personally, it was more concerning that the coaches failed to use him more. For example, take the Minnesota game when 1/3 of their team was out and they had an awful defense. Instead of a healthy dose of Mills/Scott/Johnson (natural RBs), we tried to force passes and handed the ball to Wandale eight times. Yes, Wandale had one great 47 yard run. But those other seven attempts? 2 total yards. I really hope that game was the turning point for Scott to realize he needed to rely on Lubick and the staff more because that was a terrible performance offensively. I think we're in for a big step forward next year.

[CFHusker]

On 2/3/2021 at 6:13 PM, Mavric said:

 

Um .... I'm not sure you understand what an "outlier" is.

Actually I have a very good understanding.  If looking at YPC your population is carries.  Tossing out a full game of carries is not tossing out an outlier, it is tossing out a large chunk of the population, good, bad and in between.  That would be a terrible statistical error.  If you were looking at yards per game and you had one game where he rushed for 2 yds, and you found out it was due to a torn ACL, then you would right to throw out that game.  But I cannot see what statistical sense it would make to throw out his best game of production even if your population was yds per game.  What would the anomaly be to make that data a possible error?  

 

The reason to toss an outlier is to avoid bad measurement or some sort of data error.  Were any of Mills runs measured wrong?  Was the data miscalculated?  Did the defense lay down which produced greater production?  Nope each run is a pure accurate data point of his production and would not be an outlier.      

 

Now however I do agree that  production data can be misleading.  Ex.  the yr Neb destroyed Fresno St at Fresno.  It was big play after big play that scored points.  But no consistent production.  While the yardage and the score board looked awesome, watching the game, it was obvious there were issues.  Mills eye test did not give the happy feel of his calculated production.  

 

So I know stats very very well.  But you can tell English and writing not so much

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, CFHusker said:

The reason to toss an outlier is to avoid bad measurement or some sort of data error.  Were any of Mills runs measured wrong?  Was the data miscalculated?  Did the defense lay down which produced greater production?  Nope each run is a pure accurate data point of his production and would not be an outlier.      

 

That is not the only definition of an outlier.

[CFHusker]

21 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

That is not the only definition of an outlier.

hmmmm do tell