Season Predictions

[GBRFAN]

I'm glad you brought up the time of possession in the third quarter. If we had the ball 60% of the time then that should have been a distinct advantage for us... except that it wasn't. Iowa scored 2 touchdowns during the third quarter and we only scored once. What we did do well was take a lot of time off the clock... and Iowa was the beneficiary because they were ahead. Iowa didn't have to run time off the clock... we were doing it for them. Smart coaching and chess playing by Iowa for the whole game.

Yes, it should have been a big advantage for us. It wasn't because they took advantage of the big plays. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. It is entirely possible for one team to be more dominant but come out on the short end of things. We dominated the vast majority of the plays. But we didn't capitalize on that dominance. They took advantage of a few big plays and it made the difference in the game.

We didn't just take time off the clock. We burned over a third of the quarter driving 75 yards for a touchdown. We marched it down the field and scored. Part of the reason they didn't have the ball much was because they scored quickly. I don't think they would have scored that quickly if Gerry was still in the game - again, part of my original argument. Another reason we didn't score is because we threw an interception on Iowa's 4 - again, part of my original argument. But none of that means we wen't "winning" on many more plays than we were losing. The problem is they only got a few "wins" but they were huge. We got a lot of little "wins" but that wasn't enough.

Mavric, thanks for your reply.

So about Gerry.

Football is a team sport. No play depends on only one player to make them succeed or fail.

Both toucdowns scored by Iowa in the third quarter were running plays. That means that Iowa's runner had to first get by the line of scrimmage (our defensive line)... then he had to get by the second level (our linebackers) and thirdly he had to get by our third level (defensive backs and safeties).

That means that multiple Iowa players had to beat multiple Nebraska players on those plays... not just one player... and that multiple Nebraska players had to make mistakes on those plays... not just one player.

Nebraska loosing one player did not make our entire team helpless... but unfortunately it was our entire team that got beat on those plays.

Why did that happen? We (Nebraska) simply were not well coached last year, which was unfortunate because we had lot's of talent on the field last year. Iowa on the other hand was very well coached. It's just that simple.

With that said, HOPEFULLY that type of thing will get turned around this year and we'll be better coached and we'll be the ones winning those games.

Thanks again for your reply. Always great to discuss football with you.

Are you trying to say that if a play is not stopped at the line of scrimmage that it is the fault of all four linemen.

So a toss sweep to the left that gains three yards is the fault of all four lineman and possibly all linebackers as well - man that left defensive end needs to hustle.

Interesting concept of football - I thought the purpose of the option back in the day was that if one defender made the wrong read the play would get 5 yards and if 2/3 players made the wrong play it would go for 80 yards. Didn't know that all those long TD runs were caused by all 11 defenders making mistakes on the same play.

It's pretty common for a safety to be one of the leading tacklers and not just for a team that is getting torched for 8+ yards a play.

 

[hskrfan4life]

I'm glad you brought up the time of possession in the third quarter. If we had the ball 60% of the time then that should have been a distinct advantage for us... except that it wasn't. Iowa scored 2 touchdowns during the third quarter and we only scored once. What we did do well was take a lot of time off the clock... and Iowa was the beneficiary because they were ahead. Iowa didn't have to run time off the clock... we were doing it for them. Smart coaching and chess playing by Iowa for the whole game.

Yes, it should have been a big advantage for us. It wasn't because they took advantage of the big plays. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. It is entirely possible for one team to be more dominant but come out on the short end of things. We dominated the vast majority of the plays. But we didn't capitalize on that dominance. They took advantage of a few big plays and it made the difference in the game.

We didn't just take time off the clock. We burned over a third of the quarter driving 75 yards for a touchdown. We marched it down the field and scored. Part of the reason they didn't have the ball much was because they scored quickly. I don't think they would have scored that quickly if Gerry was still in the game - again, part of my original argument. Another reason we didn't score is because we threw an interception on Iowa's 4 - again, part of my original argument. But none of that means we wen't "winning" on many more plays than we were losing. The problem is they only got a few "wins" but they were huge. We got a lot of little "wins" but that wasn't enough.

Mavric, thanks for your reply.

So about Gerry.

Football is a team sport. No play depends on only one player to make them succeed or fail.

Both toucdowns scored by Iowa in the third quarter were running plays. That means that Iowa's runner had to first get by the line of scrimmage (our defensive line)... then he had to get by the second level (our linebackers) and thirdly he had to get by our third level (defensive backs and safeties).

That means that multiple Iowa players had to beat multiple Nebraska players on those plays... not just one player... and that multiple Nebraska players had to make mistakes on those plays... not just one player.

Nebraska loosing one player did not make our entire team helpless... but unfortunately it was our entire team that got beat on those plays.

Why did that happen? We (Nebraska) simply were not well coached last year, which was unfortunate because we had lot's of talent on the field last year. Iowa on the other hand was very well coached. It's just that simple.

With that said, HOPEFULLY that type of thing will get turned around this year and we'll be better coached and we'll be the ones winning those games.

Thanks again for your reply. Always great to discuss football with you.

Are you trying to say that if a play is not stopped at the line of scrimmage that it is the fault of all four linemen.
So a toss sweep to the left that gains three yards is the fault of all four lineman and possibly all linebackers as well - man that left defensive end needs to hustle.

Interesting concept of football - I thought the purpose of the option back in the day was that if one defender made the wrong read the play would get 5 yards and if 2/3 players made the wrong play it would go for 80 yards. Didn't know that all those long TD runs were caused by all 11 defenders making mistakes on the same play.

It's pretty common for a safety to be one of the leading tacklers and not just for a team that is getting torched for 8+ yards a play.

I don't think he is saying it at all... He is saying that it's the lines fault AND the linebackers AND the defensive backs not the lineman. Not sure how he could be blaming just the lineman.....

 

[Husker Psycho]

I'm glad you brought up the time of possession in the third quarter. If we had the ball 60% of the time then that should have been a distinct advantage for us... except that it wasn't. Iowa scored 2 touchdowns during the third quarter and we only scored once. What we did do well was take a lot of time off the clock... and Iowa was the beneficiary because they were ahead. Iowa didn't have to run time off the clock... we were doing it for them. Smart coaching and chess playing by Iowa for the whole game.

Yes, it should have been a big advantage for us. It wasn't because they took advantage of the big plays. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. It is entirely possible for one team to be more dominant but come out on the short end of things. We dominated the vast majority of the plays. But we didn't capitalize on that dominance. They took advantage of a few big plays and it made the difference in the game.

We didn't just take time off the clock. We burned over a third of the quarter driving 75 yards for a touchdown. We marched it down the field and scored. Part of the reason they didn't have the ball much was because they scored quickly. I don't think they would have scored that quickly if Gerry was still in the game - again, part of my original argument. Another reason we didn't score is because we threw an interception on Iowa's 4 - again, part of my original argument. But none of that means we wen't "winning" on many more plays than we were losing. The problem is they only got a few "wins" but they were huge. We got a lot of little "wins" but that wasn't enough.

Mavric, thanks for your reply.

So about Gerry.

Football is a team sport. No play depends on only one player to make them succeed or fail.

Both toucdowns scored by Iowa in the third quarter were running plays. That means that Iowa's runner had to first get by the line of scrimmage (our defensive line)... then he had to get by the second level (our linebackers) and thirdly he had to get by our third level (defensive backs and safeties).

That means that multiple Iowa players had to beat multiple Nebraska players on those plays... not just one player... and that multiple Nebraska players had to make mistakes on those plays... not just one player.

Nebraska loosing one player did not make our entire team helpless... but unfortunately it was our entire team that got beat on those plays.

Why did that happen? We (Nebraska) simply were not well coached last year, which was unfortunate because we had lot's of talent on the field last year. Iowa on the other hand was very well coached. It's just that simple.

With that said, HOPEFULLY that type of thing will get turned around this year and we'll be better coached and we'll be the ones winning those games.

Thanks again for your reply. Always great to discuss football with you.

Are you trying to say that if a play is not stopped at the line of scrimmage that it is the fault of all four linemen.
So a toss sweep to the left that gains three yards is the fault of all four lineman and possibly all linebackers as well - man that left defensive end needs to hustle.

Interesting concept of football - I thought the purpose of the option back in the day was that if one defender made the wrong read the play would get 5 yards and if 2/3 players made the wrong play it would go for 80 yards. Didn't know that all those long TD runs were caused by all 11 defenders making mistakes on the same play.

It's pretty common for a safety to be one of the leading tacklers and not just for a team that is getting torched for 8+ yards a play.

I don't think he is saying it at all... He is saying that it's the lines fault AND the linebackers AND the defensive backs not the lineman. Not sure how he could be blaming just the lineman.....

Yea !!!! Another smart member.

Hopefully we can have many more smart and informed discussions about football... now and in the future.

 

[cm husker]

Unless off play guys are playing hero ball, they won't be in position to make a play that another guy was supposed to make. So, if a LB or safety has a wrong run fit, or a DL goes the wrong way on stunt, a single player's screw up can certainly go for a huge gain.

Not sure why this is suddenly controversial.

 

[Husker Psycho]

In order for a running play to turn into a touchdown there has to be failure at each of the three layers/levels of the defense... the defensive line layer... the linebacker layer... and the defensive back/ safety layer.

That's what occurred on both of Iowa's touchdowns in the third quarter of that game. The failure of the first two layers to stop the play were just as critical failures... to the two plays turning into a touchdowns... as the failure of the third layer of our defense. All three layers of our defense failed to stop the play... and each of the three layers of our defense was equally responsible for the touchdown.

The two touchdowns and the ease with which they scored those touchdowns...were not the responsibility of failure by only one player... they were the result of multiple failures at all three layers of our defense and poor coaching.

Hopefully we can improve the coaching this year.

 

[GBRFAN]

If a team goes with 5 lineman and two tide ends stacked to the same side against two lineman on that side there is no way you can say it is the fault of the defensive line. Some plays are required to be stopped by the second or third level for a short gain.

Not saying that the Iowa TD runs fit this description - however, to say that every long run has to be a breakdown at ALL 3 levels is not completely true.

 

[Mavric]

If a team goes with 5 lineman and two tide ends stacked to the same side against two lineman on that side there is no way you can say it is the fault of the defensive line. Some plays are required to be stopped by the second or third level for a short gain.

Not saying that the Iowa TD runs fit this description - however, to say that every long run has to be a breakdown at ALL 3 levels is not completely true.

Not sure what to do. I agree with an entire post from GBRFAN. It's getting late. I better go to bed.

 

[cm husker]

In order for a running play to turn into a touchdown there has to be failure at each of the three layers/levels of the defense... the defensive line layer... the linebacker layer... and the defensive back/ safety layer.

That's what occurred on both of Iowa's touchdowns in the third quarter of that game. The failure of the first two layers to stop the play were just as critical failures... to the two plays turning into a touchdowns... as the failure of the third layer of our defense. All three layers of our defense failed to stop the play... and each of the three layers of our defense was equally responsible for the touchdown.

The two touchdowns and the ease with which they scored those touchdowns...were not the responsibility of failure by only one player... they were the result of multiple failures at all three layers of our defense and poor coaching.

Hopefully we can improve the coaching this year.

Bolded simply isn't correct.

But I do hope that we see a better coached team next year, because there's no reason that Iowa should have played that Husker roster close enough where a few plays made that difference. That was a recurring theme throughout the season.

 

[ScottyIce]

I been predicting undefeated since February. Why change now?

 

[Elf]

In order for a running play to turn into a touchdown there has to be failure at each of the three layers/levels of the defense... the defensive line layer... the linebacker layer... and the defensive back/ safety layer.

That's what occurred on both of Iowa's touchdowns in the third quarter of that game. The failure of the first two layers to stop the play were just as critical failures... to the two plays turning into a touchdowns... as the failure of the third layer of our defense. All three layers of our defense failed to stop the play... and each of the three layers of our defense was equally responsible for the touchdown.

The two touchdowns and the ease with which they scored those touchdowns...were not the responsibility of failure by only one player... they were the result of multiple failures at all three layers of our defense and poor coaching.

Hopefully we can improve the coaching this year.

Safeties and corner backs are both defensive backs.

 

[Enhance]

In order for a running play to turn into a touchdown there has to be failure at each of the three layers/levels of the defense... the defensive line layer... the linebacker layer... and the defensive back/ safety layer.

That's what occurred on both of Iowa's touchdowns in the third quarter of that game. The failure of the first two layers to stop the play were just as critical failures... to the two plays turning into a touchdowns... as the failure of the third layer of our defense. All three layers of our defense failed to stop the play... and each of the three layers of our defense was equally responsible for the touchdown.

The two touchdowns and the ease with which they scored those touchdowns...were not the responsibility of failure by only one player... they were the result of multiple failures at all three layers of our defense and poor coaching.

Hopefully we can improve the coaching this year.

I agree with your point about coaching, but I'm not sure your first point is wholly fair. Defensive backs are the "last line of defense," but depending on their assignment and how the offense lines up, they may not be in a position to make a play.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think the team comes together after the loss of Sam Foltz and comes out hot. But the end of the season is rough due to lack of experienced depth along the defensive line and we lose a few games.

9-3 regular season with a Big Ten title game appearance.

Injuries could devastate this team. We aren't deep enough to overcome normal attrition. We need to be healthier than average this year to have a decent record.

Depends on the position but yeah it really could. We need a solid year from key spots without having to plug holes because of injury or lack of production. To finish atop the West, we need a solid team for 12 weeks.

Excuses no's... 10,678,416... 10,678,417.

Excuses... and more excuses... and more excuses... and more excuses... and on and on and on... never ending...

No more excuses !

What on earth are you talking about?

There are a half dozen teams that will have a meaningful season each year, and five of them will be making excuses about not winning the National Championship.

There's a very good chance Nebraska will not achieve a Husker Psycho level of success this year, and there will probably be very good reasons.

You can call them excuses if you want, but actually they will be "reasons."

You can then take the reasons why Nebraska did not win as many games as you would have liked and compare them to the reasons why Nebraska won as many games as they did, and decide if that counts as improvement. You will join the other 120 college football programs that did not win any meaningful championship and decide if you like the way the program is trending. You can be optimistic and realistic at the same time.

Were there exciting games, memorable moments and highlight reel plays by your favorite players?

That counts for something, too. It's an entertainment business.

As much as we might grouse about our last 15 championship-free seasons, it's similar to or far better than the troughs other dynastic football programs have been through. That's not an excuse. Just a reality.

And nobody --- I mean nobody --- is endorsing a losing culture.

Winning is a lot more fun. We are rooting for the team to win.

Some of us just want to give the new coach a second or third year before totally flipping out.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

In order for a running play to turn into a touchdown there has to be failure at each of the three layers/levels of the defense... the defensive line layer... the linebacker layer... and the defensive back/ safety layer.

That's what occurred on both of Iowa's touchdowns in the third quarter of that game. The failure of the first two layers to stop the play were just as critical failures... to the two plays turning into a touchdowns... as the failure of the third layer of our defense. All three layers of our defense failed to stop the play... and each of the three layers of our defense was equally responsible for the touchdown.

The two touchdowns and the ease with which they scored those touchdowns...were not the responsibility of failure by only one player... they were the result of multiple failures at all three layers of our defense and poor coaching.

Hopefully we can improve the coaching this year.

Bolded simply isn't correct.

But I do hope that we see a better coached team next year, because there's no reason that Iowa should have played that Husker roster close enough where a few plays made that difference. That was a recurring theme throughout the season.

That was a much better Iowa team than the unranked Iowa Hawkeyes who crushed Nebraska 38-17 on Senior Day at Memorial Stadium 2013, when the Huskers were supposedly primed and motivated to help Bo Pelini keep his job.

Your recurring theme about Nebraska's outstanding talent and the much less impressive talent of other teams has been duly noted. Along with your selective memory.

 

[Enhance]

A reason involves people taking accountability for why things are the way they are, whereas an excuse involves people placing blame on something else that often times can't defend itself. It's all about how you frame the context.

There are plenty of *reasons* Nebraska may not win the West this year, but, we could also find plenty of excuses if we wanted to.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Talent versus effectiveness are entirely different things.

I just wish some of you would pick a metric and stick to it. People love the hype of recruitniks and generate all of this noise around it. So, meeting on that ground, I looked at the roster rankings based on past recruiting as adjusted for attrition by those reporters. You can find the links on the board. In those rankings, NU far outpaces all but a couple of teams on its slate.

So when recruitnik rankings are not convenient for the excuse layers, they turn to reporter "analysts" and wrongly conflate predictions of effectiveness with judgments about talent levels. Even more attenuated are the Vegas lines, which obviously have to handicap talent matchups with coaching matchups. Your also wrong that 7 and 10 are equally likely in Vegas eyes. We'd have to look at their charge for placing a bet on over versus under. I believe the over is the more expensive bet right now, which implies they believe that 9 wins, and therefore 10 wins, is more likely than 8 and 7.

Speaking of bets, want to place a wager on the rankings of big 10 roster draft picks and NFL roster player from current 2-Deeps? That would be a far better way to judge talent than referring to reporter rankings and Vegas odds.

My final question: where was all of this patience for sub 9 win seasons 3 years ago. Or 13 years ago?

Final answer: There wasn't much patience. We didn't even like 9 win seasons if the four losses were too depressing and the coach had become a poor representative of the state.

You know the firing of Solich was a bit more complicated, but it gets tiresome explaining it to you over and over and over.

Callahan was granted a grumbling benefit of the doubt for one season, showed reason for hope for two seasons, then self-destructed in his fourth and was gone.

Mike Riley has had one season at Nebraska that turned out poorly by all accounts. The only option other than patience would be an immediate firing. Since his reputation as a recruiter was a large part of getting the job -- along with his likable persona -- it seems reasonable to see how he fares with his own recruits and a season to calm the post-Pelini waters and player attrition. People who enjoy Nebraska football and prefer optimism think Riley might be doing an excellent job in recruiting. Hard to say until you see the results on the field.

So let's wait and see the results on the field.

I have every faith that if Mike Riley replicates Bill Callahan's four seasons, or Bo Pelini's seven seasons, he will be granted the same level of patience.