10.9 points per loss

bball, the implication being made with this stat is that the offense will always disappear when it counts. I think of it as less of an active indictment, so much as a passive reflection that the defense is a much better unit than the offense right now, but I think everyone knows how elite the defense is.

For two years now the Blackshirts almost never seriously get scored on. There have been FOUR games where we had more than 21 points allowed in this time period. FOUR! Amazing statistic. Consequentially, the only times we lose will be the times when we don't score a lot of points on offense.

The opposite case would be if we had a world-beater offense that would put up 30 points on anyone. Then you look at the handful of losses that do happen in that timeframe, and you think, "Hmm, the common theme here is that the defense gives up a ton of points in each loss." Nooooo, really? Doesn't mean the defense is bad. Could be a very good defense, in fact, just not as good as the offense that scores points on everyone. The eliteness of the offense would mean you pull up any loss and it will almost certainly be one where the other team scored a lot, because that was the only way they could win.

Similarly the only way any team (TT aside) has been able to win on Nebraska in two years is to stop the offense. Third alternative - if neither the offense or defense is elite, then you would get some 10-13 losses, some 10-30 losses, and some 30-40 losses. The defense has carried the team largely for two years which is why almost every loss is of the 10-13 variety, but it doesn't mean the offense sucks so much as the defense is the better unit. Again - unremarkable. I would say the offense was pretty bad last year though, and also bad this year after Taylor's injury.

I guess my point is: it's kind of a good thing at the extremes. When the only way a team can beat us, is if they have to completely shut down the offense from scoring any kind of points. Or (if the O and D had their situations reversed) if the only way a team could beat us, is if they have the guns to put up a million points. If either of those scenarios describe a team, it's a pretty good sign that it's a team that is just not going to have a lot of losses.

What do we want this statistic to be? Higher? I bet that is the case for countless middling, average teams out there that don't have an elite unit and lose games every which way. Actually after thinking everything over, maybe the best statistic to look at would be "average margin of defeat." The best teams have that as a low number, and for us, this year especially, it has been.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
bball, the implication being made with this stat is that the offense will always disappear when it counts. I think of it as less of an active indictment, so much as a passive reflection that the defense is a much better unit than the offense right now, but I think everyone knows how elite the defense is.

For two years now the Blackshirts almost never seriously get scored on. There have been FOUR games where we had more than 21 points allowed in this time period. FOUR! Amazing statistic. Consequentially, the only times we lose will be the times when we don't score a lot of points on offense.

The opposite case would be if we had a world-beater offense that would put up 30 points on anyone. Then you look at the handful of losses that do happen in that timeframe, and you think, "Hmm, the common theme here is that the defense gives up a ton of points in each loss." Nooooo, really? Doesn't mean the defense is bad. Could be a very good defense, in fact, just not as good as the offense that scores points on everyone. The eliteness of the offense would mean you pull up any loss and it will almost certainly be one where the other team scored a lot, because that was the only way they could win.

Similarly the only way any team (TT aside) has been able to win on Nebraska in two years is to stop the offense. Third alternative - if neither the offense or defense is elite, then you would get some 10-13 losses, some 10-30 losses, and some 30-40 losses. The defense has carried the team largely for two years which is why almost every loss is of the 10-13 variety, but it doesn't mean the offense sucks so much as the defense is the better unit. Again - unremarkable. I would say the offense was pretty bad last year though, and also bad this year after Taylor's injury.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, maybe it's just late, but I think it's hilarious you went through that entire argument (most of which I wasn't even able to follow) only to concede the point at the very end.

 
I am not really arguing for anything either. I think I conceded as much in the beginning by saying the D is much better than the O, that's just the case right now. I do think the O this year has been pretty capable though before the Taylor injury. In fact I think there is pretty much a world of difference, pre- and post- if you look at the stats.

Do people get what I am saying though? When your D is elite, the only games you lose are the ones where the O doesn't score a lot. When your O is elite, the only games you lose are the ones where the other team scores a lot. When both your D and your O are elite, the only games you lose are the ones that don't exist. Pretty freaking rare for that situation to happen though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the beginning of Nebraska football the offense and the defense have played perfectly only 5 times. 5 times is way above average compared to the rest of college football programs. I am just very happy with a 10-2 (3) season. I would hate to see that momentum stopped because of 3 losses. The offensive staff needs to get stuff fixed. They are all very seasoned coaches. It is very telling when the coordinators are being looked at by other programs. That tells me other people that know football know this is a good staff.

Did Watson make some mistakes, sure. I would think he had a reason for calling the game he did. The passing game was there, it was not executed. I can only imagine what Watson was thinking when Martinez was breaking down. "After the game" play calling is so easy. During the game you have to anticipate shifts and weakenesses to call the right plays. The coaches cannot control how the players step up. Players have to be accountable for their mistakes. Brendan Stai before the CO game talked about how the players stepped up and one those titles. They made a decision as a whole team it was going to happen. I bet if you asked the players why they lost games this year they would blame themselves first. For this team or any team to go from 10-3 to 14-0 it is simply a mental adjustment by the players. This takes players to become leaders and not accept minor mental breakdowns.

Nebraska Football is back. In the next few years they will play for a NC.

 
Its weird to me because guys that want to protect Watson love to use stats. Then when the stats show that he is really good against bad teams and really bad against good times then they fight those states. Stats for many BCS teams (good ones) are inflated on offense because the first 4 games of the year they are usually playing against teams that so simply very over matched. Those 4 games of great stats stick with a team for a long time.

Look, here are the stats again. From the OWH

An examination of those instances shows futility at the most crucial moments of the 2010 season:

Nineteen total drives began with Nebraska trailing or tied after halftime. (Six against Oklahoma, four against Texas A&M, five against Iowa State, four against Texas).

Ten drives ended with a punt, including seven 3-and-outs.

Five ended in a turnover: one interception, one fumble, three failures to convert on fourth down.

Three ended with a field goal.

The only touchdown came in overtime at Iowa State, when Nebraska took possession at the 25-yard line.

Startling numbers.

But take a breath, because the information gets more complicated before it clears up.

The 19 drives consist of 112 plays, about 1½ games worth of work.

In those 112 plays, there were 38 in which Rex Burkhead carried or received the ball. Those plays gained 233 yards, 6.1 per play.

There were 74 plays in which Burkhead didn't carry or receive. Those plays gained 176 yards, 2.4 per play.

Here's another way to look at it:

The 38 Burkhead touches produced 13 first downs and the touchdown at Iowa State.

The 74 other touches produced nine first downs.

That's what Burkhead does under pressure. What about Taylor Martinez?

In the sampling of 19 drives in which NU trailed or was tied after halftime, Martinez was on the field for 12. Keep in mind that 10 of those 12 occurred against Texas A&M and OU.

Martinez's 12 drives produced seven punts, two giveaways, two turnovers on downs and one field goal.

Three points.

And on the field-goal drive against Texas A&M, guess who rushed the ball seven of the 11 plays? Burkhead.

What about Martinez's arm? What happens when the freshman drops back to pass in pressure situations?

The data show 32 plays gaining 68 total yards.

That's 10 incompletions, six sacks, one interception and only three completions of more than 8 yards.

How many of those 32 plays picked up a first down? Three.

So when Martinez dropped to pass, Nebraska's chances of moving the chains were less than 10 percent.

Yes, the sample size here is small. Yes, there are different ways to define a pressure situation.

Statistics never tell the entire story.

But the point is this: Saturday night, during the biggest drives of the year, Nebraska coaches hitched their wagon to a freshman quarterback who has struggled in pressure situations.

A quarterback they'd already benched twice this fall.

A quarterback who couldn't run his bread-and-butter play the zone read because of two gimpy wheels.

A quarterback who'd already made critical mental mistakes in the first three quarters against Oklahoma.

They could've ridden Rex Burkhead to Nebraska's first conference title in 11 years.

Instead, Watson asked Taylor Martinez to mount a rally from the pocket.

The most telling moment of all came on the ultimate play fourth-and-4 at the NU 47, 1:07 left.

Brandon Kinnie lined up wide right and ran a 3-yard slant. Even if Martinez had connected, Kinnie likely would've come up short of a first down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are some stats on Tom Osborne.

Coach Osborne, in his first 7 losses, averaged 13 points per game in the 7 losses. This is as an offensive coordinator under coach Devaney and an offensive coordinator under himself, lol if that makes sense. Anyway, it was his first 7 losses so I would say the numbers are extremely close.

During his 7 straight bowl losses, against teams with superior athletes on the other side of the ball, Nebraska averaged 14 points per game. This is with coach Osborne having close to 20 years of coordinating an offense under his belt.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with the years in question here, but I don't think our offense was really limping back then either. Really, these are just numbers. The games we lost were the games where we didn't score a lot of points.

I think some of this 'big game' stuff is just a stigma, and it's unfair in many instances. If the sample size of what you are looking at are the games where we lost, then you are going to get a large proportion of the team's poorer performances there.

 
teachercd said:
Its weird to me because guys that want to protect Watson love to use stats. Then when the stats show that he is really good against bad teams and really bad against good times then they fight those states. Stats for many BCS teams (good ones) are inflated on offense because the first 4 games of the year they are usually playing against teams that so simply very over matched. Those 4 games of great stats stick with a team for a long time.

Look, here are the stats again. From the OWH

An examination of those instances shows futility at the most crucial moments of the 2010 season:

Nineteen total drives began with Nebraska trailing or tied after halftime. (Six against Oklahoma, four against Texas A&M, five against Iowa State, four against Texas).

Ten drives ended with a punt, including seven 3-and-outs.

Five ended in a turnover: one interception, one fumble, three failures to convert on fourth down.

Three ended with a field goal.

The only touchdown came in overtime at Iowa State, when Nebraska took possession at the 25-yard line.

Startling numbers.

But take a breath, because the information gets more complicated before it clears up.

The 19 drives consist of 112 plays, about 1½ games worth of work.

In those 112 plays, there were 38 in which Rex Burkhead carried or received the ball. Those plays gained 233 yards, 6.1 per play.

There were 74 plays in which Burkhead didn't carry or receive. Those plays gained 176 yards, 2.4 per play.

Here's another way to look at it:

The 38 Burkhead touches produced 13 first downs and the touchdown at Iowa State.

The 74 other touches produced nine first downs.

That's what Burkhead does under pressure. What about Taylor Martinez?

In the sampling of 19 drives in which NU trailed or was tied after halftime, Martinez was on the field for 12. Keep in mind that 10 of those 12 occurred against Texas A&M and OU.

Martinez's 12 drives produced seven punts, two giveaways, two turnovers on downs and one field goal.

Three points.

And on the field-goal drive against Texas A&M, guess who rushed the ball seven of the 11 plays? Burkhead.

What about Martinez's arm? What happens when the freshman drops back to pass in pressure situations?

The data show 32 plays gaining 68 total yards.

That's 10 incompletions, six sacks, one interception and only three completions of more than 8 yards.

How many of those 32 plays picked up a first down? Three.

So when Martinez dropped to pass, Nebraska's chances of moving the chains were less than 10 percent.

Yes, the sample size here is small. Yes, there are different ways to define a pressure situation.

Statistics never tell the entire story.

But the point is this: Saturday night, during the biggest drives of the year, Nebraska coaches hitched their wagon to a freshman quarterback who has struggled in pressure situations.

A quarterback they'd already benched twice this fall.

A quarterback who couldn't run his bread-and-butter play the zone read because of two gimpy wheels.

A quarterback who'd already made critical mental mistakes in the first three quarters against Oklahoma.

They could've ridden Rex Burkhead to Nebraska's first conference title in 11 years.

Instead, Watson asked Taylor Martinez to mount a rally from the pocket.

The most telling moment of all came on the ultimate play fourth-and-4 at the NU 47, 1:07 left.

Brandon Kinnie lined up wide right and ran a 3-yard slant. Even if Martinez had connected, Kinnie likely would've come up short of a first down.
Click to expand...
The interesting part about this article is that there are even more things the writer could have listed/went on about as far as Watson's ineptitude goes. A lot more.

Keeping my fingers crossed that somehow, someway he lands the Vanderbilt position. Great article.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Texas has just announced they are addressing their offensive side problems.

I hope Nebraska has the courage to face the unpleasant facts and do the same

for the long term good of the program.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top