Numbers Nightmare

[goodnterribles]

Maybe the team didn’t take advantage of all the plays he did make. Pretty much all the facts point to him making most all of the offensive plays.

No they don't. The turnovers, the poor decision making, the missing wide open receivers, the inability to make the safe and right play, etc. His spectacular play was overshadowed by mistakes and poor decision making. It's unfortunate, and I've never wanted a Husker QB to have a huge victory against a great team more than AM, but it never came.

 

[Hville]

No they don't. The turnovers, the poor decision making, the missing wide open receivers, the inability to make the safe and right play, etc. His spectacular play was overshadowed by mistakes and poor decision making. It's unfortunate, and I've never wanted a Husker QB to have a huge victory against a great team more than AM, but it never came.

Yea I’ve never wanted a coach to have a huge victory against a great team more than SF but it never came.

 

[Bigger Ed]

This is pure conjecture, of course, and we'll never know, but I believe if we had had in the last 4 years, a QB like many other teams in the B1G--QBs that aren't flashy but have a good head on their shoulders, manage the game, keep mistakes to a minimum, and are good leaders--we may have had more success.

 

[goodnterribles]

Yea I’ve never wanted a coach to have a huge victory against a great team more than SF but it never came.

You're right, and if it doesn't this year, he's gone. Out of curiosity, which would make you happier: Frost turning this around and having a good season, or AM having a big year in Manhattan?

 

[Redleg]

Maybe the team didn’t take advantage of all the plays he did make. Pretty much all the facts point to him making most all of the offensive plays.

The thing about QBR is that it doesn't measure the impact, timeliness, and momentum swing of turnovers - how did that specific turnover effect the outcome of the game. Not all turnovers are created equal.

2AM was a solid QB who didn't have a performing cast around him. However, teams squander opportunities all the time in games (or fail to take advantage of plays), yet when a great QB has multiple chances throughout a season (or 4) to put the team on their shoulders and go win it, they do. Not every time, but at least a portion of the time.

He was a great athlete back there making some plays, but great athletes don't always equal great QBs.

Back to the article in the OP, if you take out penalties and turnovers, NU should have had a very good year. Unfortunately, penalties and turnovers were a consistent reality for NU.

 

[goodnterribles]

The thing about QBR is that it doesn't measure the impact, timeliness, and momentum swing of turnovers - how did that specific turnover effect the outcome of the game. Not all turnovers are created equal.

2AM was a solid QB who didn't have a performing cast around him. However, teams squander opportunities all the time in games (or fail to take advantage of plays), yet when a great QB has multiple chances throughout a season (or 4) to put the team on their shoulders and go win it, they do. Not every time, but at least a portion of the time.

He was a great athlete back there making some plays, but great athletes don't always equal great QBs.

Back to the article in the OP, if you take out penalties and turnovers, NU should have had a very good year. Unfortunately, penalties and turnovers were a consistent reality for NU.

Heck, if Special Teams improves to just average, that's 1-2 more wins right there with nothing else changing.

 

[Hville]

Heck, if Special Teams improves to just average, that's 1-2 more wins right there with nothing else changing.

And if the line plays better there is 2-3 more wins. If the coaches manage the game better it’s 2-3 more wins. If the defense catches interceptions right in their hands that’s 2-3 more wins. If we establish a run game that’s 2-3 more wins. If we get key defensive stops that allowed the opponents to go ahead before our final drive that’s 4-5 wins.

My point is there is too much focus and blame on our biggest offensive playmaker.

 

[YUENGLING]

Last season the Huskers played hard in every game but had difficulty running the football. The coaching of the offensive line and the running backs seemed to be less than stellar. Basically the opponent didn’t have to respect the running game because so much of the ground game was AM scrambling.
I really don’t like what I am reading about the emphasis on the passing game. If you can run the football you win most games. I am hoping for a running game that defenses have to scheme to stop. Without a running game it’s difficult to see more than six wins.

 

[goodnterribles]

And if the line plays better there is 2-3 more wins. If the coaches manage the game better it’s 2-3 more wins. If the defense catches interceptions right in their hands that’s 2-3 more wins. If we establish a run game that’s 2-3 more wins. If we get key defensive stops that allowed the opponents to go ahead before our final drive that’s 4-5 wins.

My point is there is too much focus and blame on our biggest offensive playmaker.

But AM isn't blameless either, which has been the argument for over a year now. If only AM had this or had that.......I have always said there was plenty of blame to go around, all coaches and players share in that blame.

 

[HuskerBLM]

Cool article. What can statistical simulations tell us, (assuming they are statistically significant)? Seems like an additional good "audit" to infer what Nebraska did well in hindsight and what were the Achilles Heal, which is probably stating the obvious for those who watched all last season. What takeaways could the AD and coaching staff take away from this in hopes to learn what went right and what went wrong.

Given only the Dot Plot of the simulations, it would appear game schemes/plans were generally very solid: i.e statistically we should have won more games, regardless of players, penalties, turnovers and SP. (Speculating that this is maybe what Trev Alberts saw in SF)

Attention to Detail: Penalties, turnovers, special teams.

(Also speculating that Trev also recognized one man can't do it all) Hence, keep your processes, keep your schemes, However, you (SF) must improve your personnel (Coaching staff) to strengthen Position Coach subject matter experts and make significant plans for weak areas (i.e Special Teams attention both coaching, practicing and player personnel)

Makes me want to go watch Moneyball again.

 

[Hville]

Last season the Huskers played hard in every game but had difficulty running the football. The coaching of the offensive line and the running backs seemed to be less than stellar. Basically the opponent didn’t have to respect the running game because so much of the ground game was AM scrambling.
I really don’t like what I am reading about the emphasis on the passing game. If you can run the football you win most games. I am hoping for a running game that defenses have to scheme to stop. Without a running game it’s difficult to see more than six wins.

Nailed it.

 

[Hville]

But AM isn't blameless either, which has been the argument for over a year now. If only AM had this or had that.......I have always said there was plenty of blame to go around, all coaches and players share in that blame.

I don’t disagree and yet AM by name is the only one ever named.

 

[djlhuskerfan]

Maybe the team didn’t take advantage of all the plays he did make. Pretty much all the facts point to him making most all of the offensive plays.

Sounds like the chicken or the egg debate LOL

 

[djlhuskerfan]

This is pure conjecture, of course, and we'll never know, but I believe if we had had in the last 4 years, a QB like many other teams in the B1G--QBs that aren't flashy but have a good head on their shoulders, manage the game, keep mistakes to a minimum, and are good leaders--we may have had more success.

I don't know. Scott Frost coached teams that depended on outstanding qb play. Mariota,, Milton come to mind. He would have to change a lot of his offensive philosophy if he played a different type of qb. Maybe he would have if he had to? Who knows?

 

[Woodhead]

I don’t disagree and yet AM by name is the only one ever named.

An unfortunate element of today's QB driven game. The position pays the best at the next level, and commensurate attention walks hand in hand with that coin. If you don't like the attention, and your name bandied about for good or bad, go out for safety.
AM did much well. One harder to define aspect of QBing is making plays when a team needs them. On a complete team, fewer plays are needed from the QB, thus he needn't show as much as a QB on a haphazzard team such as the Husks have been. So many holes, it was asking a ton from a QB, and it wasn't his fault that so little support came from elsewhere. However, the opportunity to make a name was equally there for the taking.
It might not have been a fair situation, but had AM ever made just one big play to win a game, that well might have changed fortunes for the program. And the manner in which he will be remembered.