Jump to content

We are a young team


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, hunter49 said:

yes, our offense sucks. Frost unwilling to change things up, IMHO.

I agree our offense sucks. But we are probably being ignorant because we expect points. 

J-Magic will you tell us how good our offense is based on SP+- the true way to know if you are a good team or not. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In the Big Ten. 

https://huskers.com/sports/football/roster/2021?&sort=class The number of all red shirt or true freshmen on the team is 111.  SF is changing the talent level for the better.

Ah, group think at its finest.   OP makes and optimistic comment. Hey watch me be snarky about it. I can be snarkier than you No wait, watch how clever I can be

4 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I agree our offense sucks. But we are probably being ignorant because we expect points. 

J-Magic will you tell us how good our offense is based on SP+- the true way to know if you are a good team or not. 

 

Our offense was 35th :) . You wouldn't know it based on some of the posters around here who only seem to watch Husker football anymore to get mad it's not the 90s. Have a nice evening!

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

Some people here have made it clear they are only going to evaluate the quality of football teams based on the binary of their win-loss records with no other context or information. I think that is extremely stupid (and probably being used to make a variety of bad-faith arguments), but if you'd like to, more power to you. But by almost every advanced ratings system we would have been a double-digit favorite against K-State last year, and both of their wins against OU the past two years OU had an 80%+ postgame win expectancy. They are not indicative of anything other than catching the right breaks at the right time.

 

Statistical models have a degree of value, but let's not overvalue their importance.  Moreover, an objective eye can clearly see that our record under this coaching staff is the result of penalties, turnovers, and undisciplined play.  While this may not be advanced statistical modeling, these are time-tested methods of evaluating progress.  Wins / Losses are merely the result of these components and not the metric itself.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

Rather than statistical models, we need this team to venture back to the fundamentals.  Father Iggy McPartland (of St. Cecelia) described practices under Coach Lombardi.  He would bring out a football on the first day of practice and say, "Men, this is a football and this is the last you will see of it for two weeks."  Blocking, tackling, running and most especially, maximum effort.

 

Sounds boring, right?  No athletic logos, hype videos, or cutting edge equipment.  I have seen 20 years of hype; from reporters, podcasts, and apparel companies.  I am ready once again to see on-field results.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
50 minutes ago, All Hail Herbie said:

Rather than statistical models, we need this team to venture back to the fundamentals.  Father Iggy McPartland (of St. Cecelia) described practices under Coach Lombardi.  He would bring out a football on the first day of practice and say, "Men, this is a football and this is the last you will see of it for two weeks."  Blocking, tackling, running and most especially, maximum effort.

 

Sounds boring, right?  No athletic logos, hype videos, or cutting edge equipment.  I have seen 20 years of hype; from reporters, podcasts, and apparel companies.  I am ready once again to see on-field results.

 

I think you'd be disappointed in the on field results if we went back to 1940s practice methods - the game has changed and we've learned a lot about S&C since then. I agree the fundamentals need to be stressed, but that's pretty much what the coaches have been talking about. 

Link to post

1 minute ago, Husker in WI said:

 

I think you'd be disappointed in the on field results if we went back to 1940s practice methods - the game has changed and we've learned a lot about S&C since then. I agree the fundamentals need to be stressed, but that's pretty much what the coaches have been talking about. 

This is a refrain I hear often; that the game is too complex and that coaching / practice methods of the past will not work.  I just disagree.  Blocking is about position and leverage, not simply nutrition and S&C.  Essentially, without focus on the first, we have great athletes who are consistently out of position and out of sync with their teammates.

 

Coaching is about teaching.  This point has been lost.  Consider this, Coach Lombardi knew nothing about basketball (never played or coached) prior to being named his High School's basketball coach and yet managed to win a state title in basketball after studying the subject.  Teaching.  He knew how to teach and how to motivate.  

 

In this complicated world of football, I guess the good news is that we at least have 24/7 access to 4 win seasons...

 

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, All Hail Herbie said:

This is a refrain I hear often; that the game is too complex and that coaching / practice methods of the past will not work.  I just disagree.  Blocking is about position and leverage, not simply nutrition and S&C.  Essentially, without focus on the first, we have great athletes who are consistently out of position and out of sync with their teammates.

 

Coaching is about teaching.  This point has been lost.  Consider this, Coach Lombardi knew nothing about basketball (never played or coached) prior to being named his High School's basketball coach and yet managed to win a state title in basketball after studying the subject.  Teaching.  He knew how to teach and how to motivate.  

 

In this complicated world of football, I guess the good news is that we at least have 24/7 access to 4 win seasons...

 

I hear you, but on the other hand I don't think the hype videos have much to do with practice itself. They're not taking time out of practice to make them, they're just cutting up practice footage that exists. And the first practice was today, so they can't have been focusing on technique very much. You need both, but a lot is being made of nutrition and S&C because that's all they've been allowed to do, for the most part. With practice starting the emphasis switches to technique and teaching.

 

 

Link to post
21 hours ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

Our offense was 35th :) . You wouldn't know it based on some of the posters around here who only seem to watch Husker football anymore to get mad it's not the 90s. Have a nice evening!

Can you link where we are 35th? Football Outsiders crunched the analytics and had us at 84th in the country offensively. 

 

We we're 101st in scoring offense, 63rd in yards per game, 100th in points per play, and 69th in yards per play.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

2 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Can you link where we are 35th? Football Outsiders crunched the analytics and had us at 84th in the country offensively. 

 

We we're 101st in scoring offense, 63rd in yards per game, 100th in points per play, and 69th in yards per play.

 

In SP+ we were 35th in offensive efficiency, 38th in defensive efficiency, and 93rd in special teams efficiency to finish 32nd in overall efficiency. The link to the final stats is below but its behind the ESPN+ paywall.

 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/30699420/college-football-sp+-rankings-truly-historic-season-alabama-crimson-tide

 

I have no real interest in debating the qualities of SP+ again as I've done it already in a couple other threads, but generally I find it better because it adjusts for pace and quality of opponent whereas scoring offense, yards per game, points per play, and yards per play do not.

Link to post
6 hours ago, All Hail Herbie said:

This is a refrain I hear often; that the game is too complex and that coaching / practice methods of the past will not work.  I just disagree.  Blocking is about position and leverage, not simply nutrition and S&C.  Essentially, without focus on the first, we have great athletes who are consistently out of position and out of sync with their teammates.

 

Coaching is about teaching.  This point has been lost.  Consider this, Coach Lombardi knew nothing about basketball (never played or coached) prior to being named his High School's basketball coach and yet managed to win a state title in basketball after studying the subject.  Teaching.  He knew how to teach and how to motivate.  

 

In this complicated world of football, I guess the good news is that we at least have 24/7 access to 4 win seasons...

 

 

 

That point hasn't been lost at all, some are just better at it than others, as with anything.  I don't think coaching has changed, but what you coach has, & the complexity of the game requires you to be very efficient with your time.

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

In SP+ we were 35th in offensive efficiency, 38th in defensive efficiency, and 93rd in special teams efficiency to finish 32nd in overall efficiency. The link to the final stats is below but its behind the ESPN+ paywall.

 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/30699420/college-football-sp+-rankings-truly-historic-season-alabama-crimson-tide

 

I have no real interest in debating the qualities of SP+ again as I've done it already in a couple other threads, but generally I find it better because it adjusts for pace and quality of opponent whereas scoring offense, yards per game, points per play, and yards per play do not.

Honest question if Nebraska's win-loss record continues to suck but they rank well in the SP+ would you be content with losing records going forward?

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, Lightfighter214 said:

So 35th is worthy of 3-5?

 

Thats quite a curve.

 

We finished 32nd. Our opponents finished: 2 (Ohio State), 30 (Northwestern), 18 (Penn State), 89 (Illinois), 11 (Iowa), 42 (Purdue), 34 (Minnesota), and 101 (Rutgers).

 

Against that schedule we'd be projected to comfortably lose three games (OSU, PSU and Iowa), comfortably win two games (Illinois and Rutgers), and play three toss-up games (Northwestern, Purdue, and Minnesota).

 

So 3-5 tracks. Especially considering that in one of our comfortable wins our coaches decided to start a freshman wide receiver at quarterback who turned the ball over five times.

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, LumberJackSker said:

Honest question if Nebraska's win-loss record continues to suck but they rank well in the SP+ would you be content with losing records going forward?

 

Honest question, can you show me where I've suggested anything otherwise? I have stated about a million times that the staff needs to start winning games. The numbers would say that the team has been better than its record and that the wins are coming. 

 

Here is how this goes: People come on here and drop a bunch of nonsense about how the team is an abject disaster and has never been worse. I post the numbers to say that there's some pretty solid, objective evidence that we're not that far away from being a top 25ish team and that things are improving. Then a bunch of knuckleheads reply "tHeY dOn'T hANd OuT TrOPhIeS fOr sP+." It's getting kind of old to have to keep doing this, homies!

  • Plus1 7
  • Haha 2
Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...