• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks through December. New customers get $30 off.

Misleading Stats

Flat Water said:
I just looked at the team stats for the game on Saturday, and saw that Michigan averaged 4.9 yards per rush and we averaged 5.0 yards per rush. Passing was similarly close with Michigan averaging 8.1 yards per pass and us averaging 8.0 yards per pass. Sounds pretty even, doesn't it?

How is that possible given the beatdown we saw? The answer is that Michigan had no big plays. They just methodically grinded it out, play after play. Conversely, we were generally inept on offense but had the long Fleeks run to avoid a shut out and the long pass to Washington to start the second half.

I think this explains why Nebraska continues to rank as a good rushing team despite the absence of a consistent running threat from the running back position. We've gotten some long QB runs and a couple (but only a couple) of long runs from a running back. However, we have not shown the ability to just line up and run the ball down our opponents' throats the way Michigan did to us. Combine that with a mediocre passing game, and you see why we have had so much trouble consistently moving the ball.
Click to expand...
OK ... so being a glass half-full kind of guy:

1) No big plays by Michigan ... isn't that a good thing defensively? Our defense is limiting explosive plays which against the majority of the B1G should play well - shouldn't it?

2) Getting the ball to guys like Fleeks, Kemp, E. Johnson and Fidone will result in positive results.
 
Flat Water said:
I just looked at the team stats for the game on Saturday, and saw that Michigan averaged 4.9 yards per rush and we averaged 5.0 yards per rush. Passing was similarly close with Michigan averaging 8.1 yards per pass and us averaging 8.0 yards per pass. Sounds pretty even, doesn't it?

How is that possible given the beatdown we saw? The answer is that Michigan had no big plays. They just methodically grinded it out, play after play. Conversely, we were generally inept on offense but had the long Fleeks run to avoid a shut out and the long pass to Washington to start the second half.

I think this explains why Nebraska continues to rank as a good rushing team despite the absence of a consistent running threat from the running back position. We've gotten some long QB runs and a couple (but only a couple) of long runs from a running back. However, we have not shown the ability to just line up and run the ball down our opponents' throats the way Michigan did to us. Combine that with a mediocre passing game, and you see why we have had so much trouble consistently moving the ball.
Click to expand...
You are right in pointing out why the stats are similar from the Michigan game. Our defense did a good job slowing Michigan, but once they jumped out 14 early, they were content to just grind the rest of the game out on the ground. Their O-line is so good that they can get 3-4 yards on the ground whenever they want. That's why the few times we nearly had them stopped they kept things moving. Unless you get them in 3rd and long, they're hard to get off the field.

Our running has been our "strength", but it really hasn't been that great. We've been most effective with QB runs (both Sims and Haarberg). We've had very few runs where we line up and show run, and been successful running the ball. For every run play that we are able to break for 10 yards, we have two where we get stuffed for a minimal gain. Circling back to the Michigan example, we don't get a major push up front where a couple of yards are guaranteed. We don't open up massive holes for our backs to explode through. Some of this is because we've been pretty one dimensional, and some of it is because of our personnel. Until you improve the line and are multi-dimensional enough to have a threat downfield, this will be the result.

Sidenote, I like that you used yards per attempt instead of yards per completion. It is more helpful though to compare McCarthy to Haarberg, as the backups were playing garbage time. McCarthy had nearly 10 yards per attempt.
 

wcbsas said:
I do think Grant is proving to be just slightly better than pedestrian, Washington drops too many balls, and the walk-on WRs are walk-on WRs.
Click to expand...
Grant can play, but he needs room to run. If we can get the option going (where we actually pitch the ball some), I think you'll see some more explosive plays out of him.

We've seen quite a few drops. Kemp has been the most sure handed. Washington has dropped quite a few and Fidone struggled early with them. Dropped passes are some of the self imposed errors that continually kill us.
 
Flat Water said:
I just looked at the team stats for the game on Saturday, and saw that Michigan averaged 4.9 yards per rush and we averaged 5.0 yards per rush. Passing was similarly close with Michigan averaging 8.1 yards per pass and us averaging 8.0 yards per pass. Sounds pretty even, doesn't it?

How is that possible given the beatdown we saw? The answer is that Michigan had no big plays. They just methodically grinded it out, play after play. Conversely, we were generally inept on offense but had the long Fleeks run to avoid a shut out and the long pass to Washington to start the second half.

I think this explains why Nebraska continues to rank as a good rushing team despite the absence of a consistent running threat from the running back position. We've gotten some long QB runs and a couple (but only a couple) of long runs from a running back. However, we have not shown the ability to just line up and run the ball down our opponents' throats the way Michigan did to us. Combine that with a mediocre passing game, and you see why we have had so much trouble consistently moving the ball.
Click to expand...
The only Stat that matters.

Michigan NIL top 5 players 3.5 million....top player 1 million.

Nebraska NIL top 5 players 750,000 .....top player 157000 to a true freshman who has hardly sniffed the field.

Nebraska NIL sucks so Nebraska football sucks.

Michigan NIL awesome Michigan football awesome.

Our cause is hopeless unless we get some big money bag men.
 
Meanfarmer62 said:
The only Stat that matters.

Michigan NIL top 5 players 3.5 million....top player 1 million.

Nebraska NIL top 5 players 750,000 .....top player 157000 to a true freshman who has hardly sniffed the field.

Nebraska NIL sucks so Nebraska football sucks.

Michigan NIL awesome Michigan football awesome.

Our cause is hopeless unless we get some big money bag men.
Click to expand...

This is why I despise NIL. This is not what college football should be about.

I know. I know. Times have changed but it sucks just the same. I knew this is where things would go from the first time it was suggested. One million payouts are just the beginning and this arms race will just keep growing unless some limits are put in place.
 

RedStones said:
This is why I despise NIL. This is not what college football should be about.

I know. I know. Times have changed but it sucks just the same. I knew this is where things would go from the first time it was suggested. One million payouts are just the beginning and this arms race will just keep growing unless some limits are put in place.
Click to expand...
Nebraska is a have not.
 
Meanfarmer62 said:
The only Stat that matters.

Michigan NIL top 5 players 3.5 million....top player 1 million.

Nebraska NIL top 5 players 750,000 .....top player 157000 to a true freshman who has hardly sniffed the field.

Nebraska NIL sucks so Nebraska football sucks.

Michigan NIL awesome Michigan football awesome.

Our cause is hopeless unless we get some big money bag men.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, NIL deals aren't public records. How did you determine these figures? There is no centralized clearinghouse for the data that I've come across. I've seen NIL valuations for players, but those are just speculative. Would love to find a reliable source for this information.
 


Wandering Nebraskan said:
AFAIK, NIL deals aren't public records. How did you determine these figures? There is no centralized clearinghouse for the data that I've come across. I've seen NIL valuations for players, but those are just speculative. Would love to find a reliable source for this information.
Click to expand...
That's right but you know the product on the field and the OBVIOUS talent difference speaks for itself.

Michigan has the money we don't.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Top