predictions for next year anyone?

[DJR313]

Convenient of you to ignore my POINT which was that when Hicks plays they score more points (34.4 to 28.4).  A player doesn't have to be a world-beater to be important to a team.  The key question is - What do they have to replace him?  In ISU's case it is Greg Coleman, a truly marginal player and Hicks is a marked improvement over him.

I wasn't ignoring your point. I see the point you are trying to make and it is a moot one. They score 6 more points with Hicks in there. He has made a small difference. Your point would be valid if they lost every game he was not playing in and won every game he played.

Sure their defense played better in those games - I never said that the defense didn't play well in winning those games, but their offense played better as well.

Of course they played better, which is why they won.

When you're analyzing the impact of a RB not being on the field defensive statistics probably aren't the first place you got to assess the impact.

Not necessarily, but trying to prove a moot point is, well, pointless.

AGAIN my point holds, the offense plays significantly better when he is on the field.  Nobody has ever claimed that he is an all-america, but it doesn't take a genius to see that they are a better team with him on the field.

AGAIN, your point is moot. I would say the defense giving up 11 less points in their wins and 17 more turnovers vs. their losses is a more telling stat then the offense scoring 6 more points when a guy plays. You said ISU scored 28.4 points without Hicks. Ok, ISU gave up just over 26 points per game in their 3 losses. If your point was a valid one, then ISU should have won at least 1 of those games, based off of those scoring averages. ISU plays better with Hicks, yes, but they win ball games when their defense causes turnovers and keeps teams out of the end zone. And isn't that what really matters after all? :thumbs

 

[HuskerWisdom]

Convenient of you to ignore my POINT which was that when Hicks plays they score more points (34.4 to 28.4).  A player doesn't have to be a world-beater to be important to a team.  The key question is - What do they have to replace him?  In ISU's case it is Greg Coleman, a truly marginal player and Hicks is a marked improvement over him.

I wasn't ignoring your point. I see the point you are trying to make and it is a moot one. They score 6 more points with Hicks in there. He has made a small difference. Your point would be valid if they lost every game he was not playing in and won every game he played.

Sure their defense played better in those games - I never said that the defense didn't play well in winning those games, but their offense played better as well.

Of course they played better, which is why they won.

When you're analyzing the impact of a RB not being on the field defensive statistics probably aren't the first place you got to assess the impact.

Not necessarily, but trying to prove a moot point is, well, pointless.

AGAIN my point holds, the offense plays significantly better when he is on the field.  Nobody has ever claimed that he is an all-america, but it doesn't take a genius to see that they are a better team with him on the field.

AGAIN, your point is moot. I would say the defense giving up 11 less points in their wins and 17 more turnovers vs. their losses is a more telling stat then the offense scoring 6 more points when a guy plays. You said ISU scored 28.4 points without Hicks. Ok, ISU gave up just over 26 points per game in their 3 losses. If your point was a valid one, then ISU should have won at least 1 of those games, based off of those scoring averages. ISU plays better with Hicks, yes, but they win ball games when their defense causes turnovers and keeps teams out of the end zone. And isn't that what really matters after all? :thumbs

Funny, it's always easier to debate when you ignore the primary point the other person was making. Must make life easy for you. Build up a straw man that has nothing to do with your opponent's argument and then dispute it.... At least you've finally admitted that their offense plays better when he's in the lineup and healthy (funny how facts tend to help people along the learning curve)

As far as it being a "moot" point, 6 points seems to be pretty relevant to me. It certainly would have made a difference in the NU game (add 6 pts and OT doesn't happen) and also would have won them the Missouri game. It would be the difference between a 7-3 season or a 9-1 season - even if their defense stats stay the same. Again, doesn't seem so "moot" when put into those terms.

 

[DaveH]

Sorry, I have to say that not turning the ball over and playing great team defense has much much more to do with winning games than a single person being on the field.

There is no I in team.......but I guess there is no We either. :rollin

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

Funny, it's always easier to debate when you ignore the primary point the other person was making.  Must make life easy for you.

Funny how you missed the "primary" fact pointed out that besides Iowa and Colorado they haven't beat anyone with a winning record. Or that in those two wins the defense was responsible for 6-12 points. Maybe the played crappier teams when he was in the lineup so their offense looked better. I'm sure that is a moot point though because it doesn't help your arguement. It must make your life easier. :wacko:

It just also said on the TV that ISU has scored 119 points off of 30 turnovers. That seems like a big difference maker in the outcome of games. They are +15 in the turnover battle.

 

[DJR313]

Funny, it's always easier to debate when you ignore the primary point the other person was making.  Must make life easy for you.  Build up a straw man that has nothing to do with your opponent's argument and then dispute it....  At least you've finally admitted that their offense plays better when he's in the lineup and healthy (funny how facts tend to help people along the learning curve)

As far as it being a "moot" point, 6 points seems to be pretty relevant to me.  It certainly would have made a difference in the NU game (add 6 pts and OT doesn't happen) and also would have won them the Missouri game.  It would be the difference between a 7-3 season or a 9-1 season - even if their defense stats stay the same.  Again, doesn't seem so "moot" when put into those terms.

Last time I checked this was an open forum, not "Husker Wisdom Board". You tried to make a point that was pretty much secondary. I posted the real tell-tale stats. I think the game on tv right now is emphasizing exactly what I have said. Hicks has 10 yards on 7 carries. ISU has forced 3 INT's. They haven't turned the ball over. They are winning 14-3. Yes, your point IS moot. :throw

 

[HuskerWisdom]

explain to me how 6 pts a game is moot when they lost 2 games by less than 6 pts (note that the OT game was even at end of regulation)? If you can do that, I'll bow to your 'rhetorical mastery"

 

[DJR313]

explain to me how 6 pts a game is moot when they lost 2 games by less than 6 pts (note that the OT game was even at end of regulation)? If you can do that, I'll bow to your 'rhetorical mastery"

Prepare to :worship to me. :thumbs

The defense collapsed at the end of the MU game and the NU game. Turnovers killed ISU against Baylor. They lost the games because of that, not Hicks. 6 points a game, yes makes a difference, but you are arguing the wrong issue. The 3 games that ISU lost they gave up 11.5 points more than they did in the 7 that they have won. They had a +15 in the turnover department. Ok, this is where it gets tricky, 11.5 > 6.

Go ahead, buddy :worship away! It doesn't embarass me. :thumbs