Your 2023 Nebraska Cornhuskers

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, floridacorn said:

 

It's an interesting way to analyze running games, but USC's presence as an outlier tells me he should just leave it at contact and not make the leap to scheme/OL.  USC is an Air Raid offense that seemingly only runs counter gt outside of short yardage and they finished 90+ in rushing.  

Then, that would indicate that the scheme worked to have a successful running side to their offense.  Yes, it was probably set up with the pass.  Pass constantly, then make a nice big run because the defense is defending the pass.  It's no different than back in the 80s and 90s when we didn't pass very much, but when we did, it was pretty effective lots of times.  Teams weren't defending it, and we capitalized on it.

 

No single statistical analysis is fantastic all by itself.  You have to look at a team in a multitude of ways to really get the big picture.  This just happens to be one way you could look at it.

[Undone]

37 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then, that would indicate that the scheme worked to have a successful running side to their offense. 

 

But it really didn't, as they ranked 87th in rushing yards per game. Hence floridacorn's point.

[Husker in WI]

Just now, Undone said:

 

But the point is that it didn't, as they ranked 87th in rushing yards per game. Hence floridacorn's point.

 

They were 30th in yards per carry though. Not really wanting to run the ball is different than not being able to (only 5 teams had fewer carries per game) - it was an effective running game when used. Whether using it more would have tanked their numbers isn't answered by the graph.

[Undone]

Just now, Husker in WI said:

They were 30th in yards per carry though.

 

Ok - really good clarification there.

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

But it really didn't, as they ranked 87th in rushing yards per game. Hence floridacorn's point.

 

13 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

They were 30th in yards per carry though. Not really wanting to run the ball is different than not being able to (only 5 teams had fewer carries per game) - it was an effective running game when used. Whether using it more would have tanked their numbers isn't answered by the graph.

Thus, my comment that you can't look at just one statistic and make a judgment.  

[floridacorn]

34 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then, that would indicate that the scheme worked to have a successful running side to their offense.  Yes, it was probably set up with the pass.  Pass constantly, then make a nice big run because the defense is defending the pass.  It's no different than back in the 80s and 90s when we didn't pass very much, but when we did, it was pretty effective lots of times.  Teams weren't defending it, and we capitalized on it.

 

No single statistical analysis is fantastic all by itself.  You have to look at a team in a multitude of ways to really get the big picture.  This just happens to be one way you could look at it.

I understand and to his credit Riley leans on a run concept that compliments his tendency of having his OT's in a 2 point stance.  In other words, they don't tip their plays.  Their scheme is clearly a factor in their efficiency running the ball, but the claim was made it's a "better scheme" for running the ball.  That's akin to claiming draws are the best running play in football.

[Mavric]

 

[Akees]

Probably in line to be DC in 2025? 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I know the world of analytics has exploded, but how do you numerically grade position coaches? 

[swmohusker]

33 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I know the world of analytics has exploded, but how do you numerically grade position coaches? 

Good question. Maybe a compilation of their position unit grades. Could factor in returning starters improving grades from prior year. Maybe number of starts and production. 

[Red Five]

We're number 68, almost had a nice season.

 

 

 

[Mavric]

 

[lo country]

On 1/8/2024 at 12:14 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

I know the world of analytics has exploded, but how do you numerically grade position coaches? 

The best way I know to explain it is if the rating paints NU in a good light, it is as accurate as a Swiss watch.  If painting NU in a bad light, they are complete BS and half a$$ed at best.

[Mavric]

 

[ZRod]

3 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Would not have thought that watching him through the season.