It's crazy that we only have three wins.

[Hedley Lamarr]

1 hour ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Honestly, this, more than anything tells me we are a consistant kicking game, and a right side of the line away from where we want to be. 

 

Martinez is also an issue. He unfortunately gives us the best chance to win or lose the game. 

 

So consistency at the QB postion (which I maintain is a symptom of a faulty line) 2 lineman upgrades, and a kicking game, from undefeated. 

 

I know this post will get all sorts of laughing emojies from the scrap everything dudes, but its the truth. 

 

We were so much better offensively with Benhart on the sidelines. 

This tells me we are the most underperforming team around. Yay coaching! 

[MasterPulverizer]

I was thinking about this same thing on Saturday.  At the end of AM's career, he'll lead every major offensive QB category and will have only won 14 games.  The play designs are still creative and our stud receivers get open.  Manning on the 2nd play of the game, Toure at the end of the half, Betts in the middle and almost ran the wrong way, Allen again and again and again, it goes on and on.  The offensive system works we just have a stooge at QB that can't get the job done.

 

What concerns me is that we don't have any pocket passers with accurate arms that can throw consistently to these open receivers.  As much as we love the running game, you can't really do that with our line right now.  They need to keep a defense honest by throwing the ball down the field. I'm curious about Smothers but like Martinez, he was recruited as a dual threat so that leaves us with Haarberg and the kid from Texas in this recruiting class.  Neither one of them can play right now so I'm afraid that we're stuck in this holding pattern for at least two years.  If that's the case, Frost will default to the run first, pass second type of QB.  The problem with that is it makes us one dimensional and the defenses we play know exactly what to do.  Furthermore, moving the ball down the field now relies only on the QB and that creates a deficit where the other relevant talent on the field is rendered useless.  We're basically playing one against eleven when on offense instead of eleven vs eleven. 

[gossamorharpy]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Look at our company on this chart. 

 

If we could just get out of our own damned way, we'd be ranked right now. Theoretically undefeated.

 

 

 

The challenge w/ EPA is it doesn't take into account the actual end outcome of the plays and series.  

 

I believe EPA tries to put a value on a particular play given situation and yards gained/outcome.  The problem with this is it basically tracks the value of how a team is doing without taking into account if points were actually gained or not.

 

Why does it throw it off for us?  Well I think EPA wouldn't capture dumb as s#!t things such as:

 

• Constant penalties stalling drives and negating progress/chunk plays that occurred earlier in the series
• Doesn't account for atrocious special teams such as a field goal kicker who can't kick a damn extra point or knock in a chip shot field goal for 3 consistently
• It doesn't fairly value the teams that can get to the red zone yet go limp d!(k and not punch it in for 7, or even worse, at least 3.

Why are we ranked in such highly esteemed company?

 

Because we're the dumbest and most inconsistent team in the country with what matters most- getting points and racking up wins.  We literally commit every sin I outlined above, consistently.  Some could say the strongest thing this team is good at is playing losing football when it matters most.

 

We stack up yardage against most teams, really skew it high against the likes of northwestern, but most times (save for northwestern) we do absolutely nothing with said yardage.

[Jason Sitoke]

5 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

Because we're the dumbest and most inconsistent team in the country with what matters most- getting points and racking up wins. 

Bill Callahan is back!  Which means 'We're Back!'....to 2007.

[NebraskaHarry]

27 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

What is your measure of "instantly better" because you seem to be all over the place in the rest of your post.

A bowl game and not getting blown out in the losses. 

[gossamorharpy]

12 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

Bill Callahan is back!  Which means 'We're Back!'....to 2007.

The sad part is callahan never had a year, record wise, as poor as this one is shaping up to be.  

[lo country]

We had the ball the final 4 minutes under Frost in 16 games.  16 times to either win, tie or take the lead.  We only scored once......One time in 16 opportunities....Play calling, scheme, player development.  In the red zone, how many times did we run both AA and Vokolek?  How many times were they targeted?  The rhino package (AA, Vok, Brewington and Teddy) was used against OU at the goal line.  Never to be seen again....Minnie comes to mind.....

 

If look at the metrics, it's not crazy.  It's pitiful....We beat Fordham (5-3 Patriot League), Buffalo (4-4 MAC) and NW (3-5, 1-4 B1G)......

[TGHusker]

16 minutes ago, lo country said:

We had the ball the final 4 minutes under Frost in 16 games.  16 times to either win, tie or take the lead.  We only scored once......One time in 16 opportunities..

I was about to that that this is as unexplainable as losing all of the one score games.  But actually it is very explainable.  It is the coaching.  Once we get it into our heads that Frost is not a head coaching genius, then everything makes sense.  We seemed to have been blinded by the 13-0 UCF team and our corresponding expectations after that season.  Take off the unrealistic expectations and we can easily see that as a head coach (he may be a much better position coach and OC) Frost is a below .400 coach all time. Since that is the case, then nothing should be confusing and everything should be understandable about our current situation.  What is the frustration - nothing about Frost - but living up to our unrealistic expectations as fans.  

 

If we correct our expectations and base it on real data points, then the frustration goes away and then we can look forward to hopefully a new coach search that is more realistic and better match to our needs at Nebraska.  It was said the Frost/NU was a match made in football heaven.  But really not.  As Frost did not have the experience to coach at a high demand/high reward place like Nebraska.  Now is the time to find a coach that matches Nebraska after a 4 year delay.

[ColoradoHusk]

28 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

A bowl game and not getting blown out in the losses. 

I am with you on an improved record, but a non-bowl game in Year 1 wouldn't be that big of a deal for me.  Also, why do so many people make a big deal about "not getting blown out".  I know we want NU to be competitive, but sometimes blowouts happen.  Having a game plan to "keep it close" is lame football.

[lo country]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I was about to that that this is as unexplainable as losing all of the one score games.  But actually it is very explainable.  It is the coaching.  Once we get it into our heads that Frost is not a head coaching genius, then everything makes sense.  We seemed to have been blinded by the 13-0 UCF team and our corresponding expectations after that season.  Take off the unrealistic expectations and we can easily see that as a head coach (he may be a much better position coach and OC) Frost is a below .400 coach all time. Since that is the case, then nothing should be confusing and everything should be understandable about our current situation.  What is frustration - nothing about Frost but living up to our unrealistic expectations as fans.  

I love this odds calculator.  Chance of scoring only once in 16 games?  .024%...........

 

And I agree with your take.  We were blinded by a guy who took over a team that 3 season before was 12-1.  Prior to that 0-12 season they were averaging 9-10 wins.....Teams looking to hire him would look at him like we did Riley.  But Frost has the opportunity to be even worse.  And has been pointed out ad nauseam, when looking at Frost with only his time at NU, is one of the worst coaches in college football history (comparing the entirety of his 4 seasons)

[NebraskaHarry]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I am with you on an improved record, but a non-bowl game in Year 1 wouldn't be that big of a deal for me.  Also, why do so many people make a big deal about "not getting blown out".  I know we want NU to be competitive, but sometimes blowouts happen.  Having a game plan to "keep it close" is lame football.

No way. Getting beat down in a blowout sucks. I'd rather the team be in it until the end and have a chance. Those years where Callahan, Bo, and Riley getting blownout were awful. Even Frost with Michigan the first year. You can't find many positives with getting blownout, but theres always a little glimmer of hope if they can keep it close. 

[lo country]

4 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I am with you on an improved record, but a non-bowl game in Year 1 wouldn't be that big of a deal for me.  Also, why do so many people make a big deal about "not getting blown out".  I know we want NU to be competitive, but sometimes blowouts happen.  Having a game plan to "keep it close" is lame football.

Frost in the presser mentioned "nut cutting time" when referencing guys selling out to make a play.....IMHO, we continually have a mentality of playing not to lose.  Not to win, but not lose.  To your point, we play to keep it respectable. Hey guys in 2018 UM beat us 56-10.  Let's keep this one close....."Bring it in, keep it close on 3".....

[Nebfanatic]

4 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I am with you on an improved record, but a non-bowl game in Year 1 wouldn't be that big of a deal for me.  Also, why do so many people make a big deal about "not getting blown out".  I know we want NU to be competitive, but sometimes blowouts happen.  Having a game plan to "keep it close" is lame football.

Strongly disagree with your last point. You can't win games you aren't in to begin with. Just because we don't win the close ones doesn't mean it isn't a better position to be in. An L is an L at the end of the day I will give you that but having a gameplan to keep it close isn't lame football

[ColoradoHusk]

4 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

No way. Getting beat down in a blowout sucks. I'd rather the team be in it until the end and have a chance. Those years where Callahan, Bo, and Riley getting blownout were awful. Even Frost with Michigan the first year. You can't find many positives with getting blownout, but theres always a little glimmer of hope if they can keep it close. 

I get it, I am probably the odd duck who doesn't take too much out of the random blowout.  Do I want to see blowouts happen all the time?  No.  But, demand of "NO BLOWOUTS" always seemed odd to me.  I think that blowout losses point out the obvious negatives within a team and drastic changes, while a "close loss" can hide the issues within a team and the coach may not make the minor changes because things are "close".

[ColoradoHusk]

16 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Strongly disagree with your last point. You can't win games you aren't in to begin with. Just because we don't win the close ones doesn't mean it isn't a better position to be in. An L is an L at the end of the day I will give you that but having a gameplan to keep it close isn't lame football

My comment about close losses being "acceptable" in my mind is when there is a new head coach in his first year.  For example, in Bo's first year in 2008, he got absolutely smoked by Missouri and Oklahoma.  Yeah, those losses sucked, but IMO those losses make it easier for coaches to get their message to their players or bench underperforming players.  Sometimes teams get smoked by an opponent which is clearly better.  IMO that type of loss gives the new coach a clear indication of the team's shortcomings.