The Huskers Don't Win With Fyfe Under Center Last Night

[Exorbitant]

"Softening up the D" is a myth. Just look at the stats for this year...the average YPC for the top ten rushing teams goes up 0.056 yds/carry from the first half to the second half, or all of about 2 inches per carry.

Try asking someone in the know about this. Maybe someone like Osborne? The statistics you posted here are misleading. Do you remember what Wisconsin did to Nebraska this year? In the second half the Nebraska defense got really tired and then got pummeled on the ground, by a better coached football team.

Tons of times Nebraska under Osborne wore out defenses, and by the 4th quarter, defenses were shredded.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Try asking someone in the know about this. Maybe someone like Osborne? The statistics you posted here are misleading. Do you remember what Wisconsin did to Nebraska this year? In the second half the Nebraska defense got really tired and then got pummeled on the ground, by a better coached football team.

How so? They're facts. Come up with something other than anecdotal evidence, please.

To help you out with that:
an·ec·do·tal
ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective

1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
   "while there was much anecdotal evidence there was little hard fact"

 

[Exorbitant]

How so? They're facts. Come up with something other than anecdotal evidence, please.

To help you out with that:
an·ec·do·tal
ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective

1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
   "while there was much anecdotal evidence there was little hard fact"

You're posting crap just to get me into an argument with you. Again, why do you think Wisconsin ran better on Nebraska later in that game? Maybe the teams you found statistics on played opponents that had better depth than Nebraska does? Facts can be based on observation also.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

You're posting crap just to get me into an argument with you. Again, why do you think Wisconsin ran better on Nebraska later in that game? Maybe the teams you found statistics on played opponents that had better depth than Nebraska does? Facts can be based on observation also.

While I'm not going to go through the play by play to figure out the Wisconsin game specifically, in 2014 Nebraska's rush defense gave up .2 less yards/attempt in the second half compared to the first. You're welcome to observe all you want, but when your observations are disproved by facts, then maybe you need to adjust.

 

[bigred472]

This does happen quite often in that fashion. I'm sure you'll recall how most defenses tended to get tired from relentless running attacks in the past utilized by Osborne who wasn't full blown west coast, and in the second half, by some form of magic, those 1 or 2 yard gains turned into 5 or 10 yard variety gains. A pass here and there complimented those offenses. Riley and Langsdorf for the most part had a good mix of running and passing Saturday, and 33 passes thrown by TA was about the upper limit that should be thrown in ANY game. Now if they'll just keep that formula up, and maybe lower the number of passes thrown earlier in games, to give Nebraska the best chance to win, with minimal risk.

-------
Great analysis and I'm not bs-ing. 33 passes would be sufficient were it not for Armstrongs tendancy for the long ball. It's interesting the first two games this year, he was pretty good at mixing up the types of passes he was throwing quick outs/over the middle/and yes the long ball. He's become allergic to the first two recently and quite frankly I'm surprised we won the MSU game. Passing should be used to make for an effective running game, but it cannot be just long ball after long ball. That's why his int. are high, his completion rate is low and his QBR sucks

 

[Exorbitant]

-------
Great analysis and I'm not bs-ing. 33 passes would be sufficient were it not for Armstrongs tendancy for the long ball. It's interesting the first two games this year, he was pretty good at mixing up the types of passes he was throwing quick outs/over the middle/and yes the long ball. He's become allergic to the first two recently and quite frankly I'm surprised we won the MSU game. Passing should be used to make for an effective running game, but it cannot be just long ball after long ball. That's why his int. are high, his completion rate is low and his QBR sucks

Thanks, and you make a great point about TA being used for throwing MANY long balls. I also wonder what happened to the dump off passes to the backs when TA gets in trouble? Of course contrary to popular belief to a couple of posters here, TA was under extreme pressure the whole game which we know isn't true.

 

[Exorbitant]

While I'm not going to go through the play by play to figure out the Wisconsin game specifically, in 2014 Nebraska's rush defense gave up .2 less yards/attempt in the second half compared to the first. You're welcome to observe all you want, but when your observations are disproved by facts, then maybe you need to adjust.

Seriously, you're using the no identity offense 2014 season as an example for the running game? I was in attendance of MANY Nebraska games during the Osborne years with my folks, a couple of cousins, and friends, and all of us saw Nebraska get stronger in quite a few games with the running game in the second half of games.

I bet you're now going to say it's a different era, and you would be right about that except for one thing... A strong running game, can be quite useful against teams like Purdue, you know the powerhouse that was 1-6 when we played them, and had a weak rush defense that a good coach WOULD HAVE exploited. I have no doubt Nebraska would have won that game by running the ball more than they passed. The Illinois game is another example of not passing late and running the clock down with RUNS instead of west coast garbage play calls. Of course who's to say that if Nebraska had a more run oriented gameplan for Illinois that the game may not have even gone down to the wire like it did, Nebraska may have had a double digit lead by then. I also realize that more now than before, teams have to be able to pass well also. One more thing, not all teams will be worn out after running at them consistently, but most will feel the effects by the 4th quarter.

Our upcoming game weather forecast calls for a very windy day, so if the west coast clan doesn't get tricky with their puss lusty ideas, Nebraska will win by at least ten points. If they go back to their pass happy ways, expect to see another Illinois type of nailbiter.

 

[Red_Alert]

^^^^ LYING RAT LIAR ^^^^^

Still posting in my thread.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Seriously, you're using the no identity offense 2014 season as an example for the running game?

Didn't get past right there. If you would read, I am referring to the NU rushing DEFENSE. You know, the one you brought up with your Wisconsin example?

 

[Red_Alert]

Nebraska's rushing defense is keeping them in games to a fault. They are so focused on stopping the run between the tackles, they aren't getting a good push up-front and LB's are late to react laterally on sweep type plays.

It's had success though. The secondary needs to catch up to be a good unit overall.

Not much they could do against Michigan St. Cook had a lot of time and was good enough to thread the needle in decent coverage many times. Made me shake my head on occasion.

 

[Exorbitant]

Didn't get past right there. If you would read, I am referring to the NU rushing DEFENSE. You know, the one you brought up with your Wisconsin example?

My bad. In my haste, I was trying to post here and I was on the phone at the same time! lol

On the other hand, you were trying to compare apples to oranges, and there isn't no myth about a team being able to wear another team down, it's just common sense that players are human and they do get tired if they're out on the field more than they normally would be.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

My bad. In my haste, I was trying to post here and I was on the phone at the same time! lol

On the other hand, you were trying to compare apples to oranges, and there isn't no myth about a team being able to wear another team down, it's just common sense that players are human and they do get tired if they're out on the field more than they normally would be.

Except that stats show that the impact is minimal at best and the opposite at worst.

 

[bigred472]

I bet you're now going to say it's a different era, and you would be right about that except for one thing... A strong running game, can be quite useful against teams like Purdue, you know the powerhouse that was 1-6 when we played them, and had a weak rush defense that a good coach WOULD HAVE exploited. I have no doubt Nebraska would have won that game by running the ball more than they passed. The Illinois game is another example of not passing late and running the clock down with RUNS instead of west coast garbage play calls. Of course who's to say that if Nebraska had a more run oriented gameplan for Illinois that the game may not have even gone down to the wire like it did, Nebraska may have had a double digit lead by then. I also realize that more now than before, teams have to be able to pass well also. One more thing, not all teams will be worn out after running at them consistently, but most will feel the effects by the 4th quarter.
-------
I'd say it was a different era from this standpoint. I honestly believe that our OL is now proving how average they really are. During the Ameer era, it's now obvious that he got his yardage more due to his own talent rather than getting that much help from the OL. That's one of the reasons IMO why running teams or "old" no longer rely solely on the run. I do not believe OL people are anywhere near being as physical as they were 20 years ago....don't know what has changed but I do feel that we couldn't go back to the triple option because we no longer (as well as other schools) get OL's that are equipped to physically wear down the defense.

 

[Exorbitant]

I bet you're now going to say it's a different era, and you would be right about that except for one thing... A strong running game, can be quite useful against teams like Purdue, you know the powerhouse that was 1-6 when we played them, and had a weak rush defense that a good coach WOULD HAVE exploited. I have no doubt Nebraska would have won that game by running the ball more than they passed. The Illinois game is another example of not passing late and running the clock down with RUNS instead of west coast garbage play calls. Of course who's to say that if Nebraska had a more run oriented gameplan for Illinois that the game may not have even gone down to the wire like it did, Nebraska may have had a double digit lead by then. I also realize that more now than before, teams have to be able to pass well also. One more thing, not all teams will be worn out after running at them consistently, but most will feel the effects by the 4th quarter.
-------
I'd say it was a different era from this standpoint. I honestly believe that our OL is now proving how average they really are. During the Ameer era, it's now obvious that he got his yardage more due to his own talent rather than getting that much help from the OL. That's one of the reasons IMO why running teams or "old" no longer rely solely on the run. I do not believe OL people are anywhere near being as physical as they were 20 years ago....don't know what has changed but I do feel that we couldn't go back to the triple option because we no longer (as well as other schools) get OL's that are equipped to physically wear down the defense.

I think part of the problem is that coaches aren't expending the time running the ball and developing a really strong running game like Osborne did. I still believe if Riley does what he should do, he would strive for more of a happy medium instead of sticking with his high risk west coast offense.

 

[Exorbitant]

Seriously, you're using the no identity offense 2014 season as an example for the running game? I was in attendance of MANY Nebraska games during the Osborne years with my folks, a couple of cousins, and friends, and all of us saw Nebraska get stronger in quite a few games with the running game in the second half of games.

I bet you're now going to say it's a different era, and you would be right about that except for one thing... A strong running game, can be quite useful against teams like Purdue, you know the powerhouse that was 1-6 when we played them, and had a weak rush defense that a good coach WOULD HAVE exploited. I have no doubt Nebraska would have won that game by running the ball more than they passed. The Illinois game is another example of not passing late and running the clock down with RUNS instead of west coast garbage play calls. Of course who's to say that if Nebraska had a more run oriented gameplan for Illinois that the game may not have even gone down to the wire like it did, Nebraska may have had a double digit lead by then. I also realize that more now than before, teams have to be able to pass well also. One more thing, not all teams will be worn out after running at them consistently, but most will feel the effects by the 4th quarter.

Our upcoming game weather forecast calls for a very windy day, so if the west coast clan doesn't get tricky with their puss lusty ideas, Nebraska will win by at least ten points. If they go back to their pass happy ways, expect to see another Illinois type of nailbiter.

Believe it or not, I meant to say pass instead of puss here! lol

 

[bigred472]

I think part of the problem is that coaches aren't expending the time running the ball and developing a really strong running game like Osborne did. I still believe if Riley does what he should do, he would strive for more of a happy medium instead of sticking with his high risk west coast offense.

--------
I think what we are seeing here and it's not just Nebraska, is that most OL's anymore don't have the time to be schooled that well which is why most of the "old" power running teams just don't rely on just the run. Either that or all these schools have stopped serving steroids to their OL for breakfast. We need better pass blocking AND run blocking technique--no doubt--I just don't think coaches teach "mean" anymore which is what Osborne had when he ran the triple option--offensive linemen that were outright mean (physically).