Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Offensive Line Stats (2004-Present)

[FeelLikeAStranger]

Think maybe because they can actually throw the ball and that might open up some running lanes?




I never said our O-Line was scum, you did. I pointed out that due to a limited passing attack we face more foes in the box play after play. Not only that you negate the fact that Rex was in the top 20 in rushing TD's and had more TD's this year than Helu ever had in a season....but that isn't enough? Sure I'd like more.....but how many redzone attempts did NU have and of those how many were carries / plays to Rex before you can make such a claim as "his" production wasn't good enough?



Clearly your example was a bad one agreed. However again.......lets talk about our team. Who do we currently have that has any more "speed" at RB in the open field much less could even get yards at Rex's current rate with the type of defenses we played against now?

Again, put Rex with their QB, their O-line.......your point is completely invalid as you'll find most will agree Rex's production would go up. Monte Ball's production at NU would've went down compared to his numbers at Wisconsin.



Agreed......I'd personally love to see NU score 5 TD's a game rushing, throwing or rolling into the endzone....I could care less how we do it. We need more scoring...but to base that off of 33 TD's by another guy that was as high of total as Barry Sanders epic season....ludicrous. Compare him to NU's RB's of the last 10 years he is stacking up very, very well.

No, I didn't say our OL was scum. Numerous posters have been grinding that axe for quite some time now.

I'm not sure what/why you are arguing with me. We definitely need better redzone production and more TD's. Better passing, less drops, other 'weapons' to go to, better play-calling, less mistakes...all of these things need to improve. You are arguing with the choir, here.

Your analogy of putting Burkhead behind Wisconsin's OL is only as valid as the converse. Put Ball and Wilson behind our OL last year and, lo and behold, you'd see a lot better stats also, as Wilson/Ball 2011 > Martinez/Burkhead 2011. What's the point of that comparison, other than to try and denigrate our OL performance and somehow claim that Wisconsin is some mythical pinnacle of OL production? As I said, you compare 2010 stats and we are on par or better, and Wisconsin's OL from 2010 was definitely considered "better" than this year's. Too many factors to just say "their OL is great and ours sucks".

You seem to be holding some misconception that I'm trying to run Burkhead down, and you are way off on that.

 

[HuskerRedDread]

Exactly.....this was and is my biggest concern. Without a defense that is dominant or an offense that can actually stay on the field to allow your defense to rest what is the point of a hurry up offense?

Personally watching our defense this year hurt. They weren't that good, but imho our quote "hurry up" offense didn't do us any favors either. Our defense was on the field a lot this year, period.

What is wrong with a team, especially an offense that can:

1.) Sustain drives
2.) Wear out defenses, substitutes or not
3.) Executing by: catching, throwing and NOT fumbling
4.) Winning the time of possession.
5.) Basically, dominating the BALL

The only thing our "hurry up" did to us this year was get our offense off the field faster and put the defense back on.

As for specifically the O-line discussion.....

I wasn't that impressed with the run blocking at all this year and if anyone cares to see just how "OK" it was.......go watch a highlight tape of our RB's continually making cuts behind the line of scrimmage to get positive yards. Again, this is why I go back and laugh at all the calls for a game breaker at RB. We have one, and if not for Rex being as good as he is, that 4.6 would've been a heck of a lot worse guranteed.

Now, in the O-lines defense.....no one is going to do much better than we did considering anyone with half a brain would've and did stack the line of scrimmage all year. Why not I ask. All in all....4.6 is a solid year.

that's the thing, many think we were trying to run a hurry up offense, which is not the case. We were trying to establish a "No Huddle" offense which as pointed out by Miles, keeps the defense from making adjustments to the personnel on the field. You get a Big back (Cross) in there with a Speedster (Green), and you have different things you can throw at a defense that they weren't prepared for. As well as, getting two QBs on the field at a time (Martinez, Turner) and getting creative with that. It's one of the reasons why Beck didn't want Reed being classified as our "receiving" TE and Cotton as our "Blocking" TE. He want good play from them in both aspects because it adds the the weapons and different looks he can throw at the defense.

And you hit it on the nail. The reason our "No Huddle" offense looked more like a "Hurry Up" offense is because they left the field all too soon too many times. Unforced errors and penalties can kill any scheme, no matter how well put together.

And Rex is about as good a back as we have seen here at NU. He isn't the fastest but the style he possesses is the reason we were 4.6 ypc and not 2.8. He is excellent at using his blocks but all too often he had to make something happen sooner than he expected because while following a lead block to the LOS, there was an unblocked DT/RE/CB coming in to blow up the play. Rex Burkhead in 95-96 would have got much clock even with the game breakers we had in Green & Phillips. Take Rex out of the equation this year and what does the season look like?

 

[HuskerRedDread]

When did we use the "check with me" as a bonafide "hurry up" this year? Not very often. Certainly not like OU or Oregon or others have used it.

OU and Oregon has had a consistent coordinator running that style of offense so they knew the scheme enough to run it in that fashion. It was still new to our guys so we aren't as efficient with it. Bo, OOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhh, when it all comes together, we have some weapons to create a game of highlights.

 

[HuskerRedDread]

I don't know how to respond to this, honestly. To imply that Burkhead is anything less than one of college football's 5-10 best RBs is absurd. He was the ENTIRE offense in 2011, despite operating behind an inconsistent and undisciplined line and would probably have exhibited more of the scoot you worship if he wasn't toting the ball for 30+ times EVERY game. Behind Wiscy's line, the guy outperforms Ball and is in the Heisman conversation.

Burkhead is a 2nd/3rd round NFL workhorse with a great future ahead of him.

WHAT? Really, you think the NFL scouts are going to say, look how great that back is behind that terrible line?.......... Please. 2nd or 3rd round? I love Rex Burkhead as much as the next Husker fan, but to think he will be drafted that high without the game breaking speed to a league that puts the ball in the air more 65% of the time. You have to be of the elite at your position to get drafted that high as a RB.

Here's something to ponder. Burkheads longest rushing attempt is 52 yards that happened this season (his third as a Husker). Before that he never had a run longer than 40 yards. Rex ran for 1357 yards (#15 among RBs) this year with 4.8 ydc 15 TDs.

Ahead of him are:

Montee Ball 1923 yds, 6.3 ypc, 33 TDs.....................Wisconsin
LaMichael James 1805 yds, 7.3 ypc, 18 TDs (and he missed 3 games do to injury, WOW).......................Oregon
Ronnie Hillman 1711 yds, 5.5 ypc, 19 TDs...................SDSU
David Wilson 1709 yds, 5.9 ypc, 9 TDs......................Viginia Tech
Bobby Rainey 1695 yds, 4.6 ypc, 13 TDs.......................WKU
Trent Richardson 1679 yds, 5.9 ypc, 21 TDs......................Bama
Robbie Rouse 1549 yds, 4.7 ypc, 13 TDs......................Fresno St
Terrance Ganaway 1547 yds, 6.2 ypc, 21 TDs.................Baylor
John White IV 1519 yds, 4.8 ypc, 15 TDs.....................Utah
Robert Turbin 1517 yds, 6.1 ypc, 19 TDs.....................Utah St
Chris Polk 1488 yds, 5.1 ypc, 12 TDs.....................Washington
Bernard Pierce 1481 yds, 5.4 ypc, 27 TDs......................Temple
Branden Oliver 1395 yds, 4.6 ypc, 13 TDs......................Buffalo
Marcus Coker 1384 yds, 4.9 ypc, 15 TDs......................Iowa


Of these guys, Bernard Pierce, Chris Polk, Robbie Rouse, Ronnie Hillman, Trent Richardson, David Wilson, Robert Turbin, Monte Ball, LaMichael James, & Terrence Ganaway were apart of an offense that was ranked higher than Nebraska's (#58)

Of these guys, only LaMichael James, Monte Ball, Robert Turbin, Bernard Pierce, & Terrence Ganaway were apart of a rushing attack that was ranked higher than Nebraska's (#16)

LaMichael James was 43% of his teams rushing yards (Oregon 4189 yds)
Monte Ball was 58% of his teams rushing yards (Wisconsin 3298)
Bernard Pierce was 44% of his teams rushing yards (Temple 3335 yds)
Robert Turbin was 41% of his teams rushing yards (Utah St 3675 yds)
Terrence Ganaway was 51% of his teams rushing yards (Baylor 3063 yds)
While our own Rex Burkhead was 48% of his teams rushing yards (NU 2824 yds)

What does this say about Burkhead? While he is a valuable asset for the Huskers and our production every game, he by far is not the only RB who is valued by his team as such. So that alone does not give him a nod over the many other back in the nation who outperformed him in every other category. Just because he is a great Husker does not mean his value goes up in the NFL draft (please refer to Joe Ganz or better yet, Tommie Frazier)

Now this also points to the fact that our "horrific" Offensive line, is so horrible in it's production that it has managed to have the Huskers ranked #16 in the nation in rushing yard................here's another fun fact to throw out there, guess who is ranked #15..............(LSU)..............and just for kicks, guess who is ranked #17................(Alabama) which lets me know that we had a line that was serviceable enough to compete for a title, so it is impossible for them to be the "weak link" as you continue to stress they are in every thread you have posted in. If they can get us ranked in the top 20 for rushing yards in the nation and to have as much rushing yards as the two teams that played in the MNC then maybe, just maybe there are other factors that are greater than them that needs to be fixed. It would be nice if you can point those problems out rather than stressing the problem centers around Cotton & what he is/isn't doing with our line.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

I understand the significance, and I also understand that it is nowhere near an insurmountable obstacle. As I said, we're looking at one extra 3rd down conversion per game. Maybe it's a dropped pass. Maybe it's one less penalty. Maybe we can get a better push on short yardage. There are obviously opportunities out there, and we need to take advantage of them.

4th down conversions are a little different, as there are a number of factors involved in that. Where are we at on the field? Can we kick a field goal? Too close to punt? This is a statistic that can really fluctuate significantly. For example, in 2010 we converted on 9 of 14 (64.29%) 4th down attempts.

So laugh all you want, but we're not looking at an overall 20% increase, as you seem to be claiming. You can't just add the percentages together.

Wisconsin's conversion percentage on 3rd and 4th down combined was 50% (90 of 180).
Nebraska's conversion percentage on 3rd and 4th down combined was 41% (87 of 210).

There's always room for improvement, but it's really not as much of a difference as you are trying to make it (20%??). Hopefully we can be more successful on 1st and 2nd down to increase our chances on 3rd down.

If you knew much about math, you would understand that a 10% increase of our 41% 3rd down conversion rate would add 4.1% to our total, and a 20% increase would up the conversion rate by 8.2% (4.1x2). This would bring our conversion rate to 49.2%, still less than Wisco's 50% but greater than a 20% increase in our conversion rate. Moreover, as you make conversions, you continue drives and get even more first downs (which lead to "points")...whether they are converted on 3rd or 4th down or not. This 20% is really HUGE in the largest sense. It is what victories are made of.

 

[Weinosker]

If you knew much about math, you would understand that a 10% increase of our 41% 3rd down conversion rate would add 4.1% to our total, and a 20% increase would up the conversion rate by 8.2% (4.1x2). This would bring our conversion rate to 49.2%, still less than Wisco's 50% but greater than a 20% increase in our conversion rate. Moreover, as you make conversions, you continue drives and get even more first downs (which lead to "points")...whether they are converted on 3rd or 4th down or not. This 20% is really HUGE in the largest sense. It is what victories are made of.

Taking a % of a % reeks of desperation to make your point.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

Taking a % of a % reeks of desperation to make your point.

No desperation, it's just a mathmatical fact and exactly what I said in my post. If you disagree and don't believe that a 20% improvement in our 3rd and 4th down conversion rates would be a huge improvement, go ahead and argue that. Otherwise, perhaps, you should just move on?

 

[huskerator 5000]

87/210 vs. 90/180 isn't a statistically significant difference (p~0.1, two-tailed Fisher Exact Test).

Of course, it's hard to get statistical significance in anything having to do with one season of college football. A 12-0 season record isn't statistically significantly different from 9-3.

So I'm not sure what I'm getting at. What I will say, though, is that Barney RULES.

 

[SOFTCHARGER]

That old saw... "perhaps, you should just move on"...reeks of some of the ITG crap spouted by know-nothings back in the Dark Days '04-'07. Standard, stale, intellectually vacant. Adds squat to the discussion.

 

[Weinosker]

No desperation, it's just a mathmatical fact and exactly what I said in my post. If you disagree and don't believe that a 20% improvement in our 3rd and 4th down conversion rates would be a huge improvement, go ahead and argue that. Otherwise, perhaps, you should just move on?

It's not mathmatical fact. I've had sales people tell me that they improved their sales by 100% because they grew 5% year-over-year in year 1 vs. year 2 and then 10% in year 2 vs. 3. That's BS... They grew by 10%, they didn't double their sales, they doubled their growth rate.

Your numbers mean nothing, because as huskerator correctly states, there's no statistical significance to them. No logical significance either. If I were you, I'd want me to move along too, but, I'm here to stay. Cheers!

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

It's not mathmatical fact. I've had sales people tell me that they improved their sales by 100% because they grew 5% year-over-year in year 1 vs. year 2 and then 10% in year 2 vs. 3. That's BS... They grew by 10%, they didn't double their sales, they doubled their growth rate.

Your numbers mean nothing, because as huskerator correctly states, there's no statistical significance to them. No logical significance either. If I were you, I'd want me to move along too, but, I'm here to stay. Cheers!

Sorry, but facts are facts...no matter what you say. What really rings true is that is no argument being made by you, or anyone else, to dispute my point that if we increased our 3rd and 4th down conversion rate by 20% or more, it would be huge. No argument because you know the facts. Can't waste anymore time on this...unless of course you'd like to actually make a point of contention. Otherwise....move along. LOL

 

[huskrthill]

If you knew much about math, you would understand that a 10% increase of our 41% 3rd down conversion rate would add 4.1% to our total, and a 20% increase would up the conversion rate by 8.2% (4.1x2). This would bring our conversion rate to 49.2%, still less than Wisco's 50% but greater than a 20% increase in our conversion rate. Moreover, as you make conversions, you continue drives and get even more first downs (which lead to "points")...whether they are converted on 3rd or 4th down or not. This 20% is really HUGE in the largest sense. It is what victories are made of.

Wow, no need for the attitude, big fella. It was a simple misunderstanding. I thought you were saying we needed an increase of 20 percentage points. My mistake, professor. Still, when you break it down, we don't need much more to reach Wisconsin's numbers. Eliminate a mistake here or there, and we're right there. I know you don't think such improvements are possible under Bo, so it must seem awfully daunting to you.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

Wow, no need for the attitude, big fella. It was a simple misunderstanding. I thought you were saying we needed an increase of 20 percentage points. My mistake, professor. Still, when you break it down, we don't need much more to reach Wisconsin's numbers. Eliminate a mistake here or there, and we're right there. I know you don't think such improvements are possible under Bo, so it must seem awfully daunting to you.

Well, thanks, at least you admit the facts...unlike some others out here. I do think it's huge, and, you are right...I think it unlikely that such improvement will happen under Bo. Hope is eternal though...I do hope to be wrong on Bo. Sorry, if I was too blunt.

 

[huskerator 5000]

87/210 vs. 90/180 isn't a statistically significant difference (p~0.1, two-tailed Fisher Exact Test).

Of course, it's hard to get statistical significance in anything having to do with one season of college football. A 12-0 season record isn't statistically significantly different from 9-3.

Actually, what I say above about W/L records not being significant is a little silly. When you're talking about W/L records, each win or loss is the result of 100+ plays. So clearly a single win or a loss is a much better measure of team quality than a single converted 3rd/4th down is as a measure of OL quality.

So anyway: the difference between NU's conversion % and Wisc's conversion %, in my opinion, is meaningful but not "huge."

 

[Husker Mort]

WHAT? Really, you think the NFL scouts are going to say, look how great that back is behind that terrible line?.......... Please. 2nd or 3rd round? I love Rex Burkhead as much as the next Husker fan, but to think he will be drafted that high without the game breaking speed to a league that puts the ball in the air more 65% of the time. You have to be of the elite at your position to get drafted that high as a RB.

By your logic, Terrell Owens (UT Chattanooga) would have never gotten a call on draft day and nobody would know about the young man out of Mississippi Valley State who went on to become the best receiver in NFL history. Team rank and success over individual ability? Seriously? Good think the NFL, unlike yourself, can look past team performance. Burkhead will be a solid mid-rounder and have a long and successful career in the league.