The numbers would be more indicative if the scoring was adjusted to take out the non-defended scores (such as all the pick 6s that we had in those really awful Callahan and Riley seasons particularly. Half a dozen TDs were given up by the offense but are being held against the defense presumably), if memory serves me correctly. I don't recall how many TDs opponents got last year when the defense was not on the field but we had too many unfortunate kicking game and offensive miscues that gave opponents short fields, etc.
It seems like there are always some qualifiers that can skew almost any football stats that may tend to mitigate (or not) the interpretation of the raw numbers. For example, many times there is a great deal of weight or emphasis placed on the third down conversion rate with teams either not being able to get off the field because of not stopping successful third plays and or offenses being unable to convert their third downs into first downs. The problem is that third down success is VERY much impacted by what happens on first and second downs. Most teams do better on third and shorts vs third and longs. The problem is that the analysis then needs to focus on what happened on first and second down just as much as what happened on third. Teams with good per play gains on first downs tend to be more likely to get first and tens on second and or third down.
Passing completions need to be broken down by location of the receiver at the time of the catch, for example. It is presumably much easier to complete short (easy) throws such as screens and side line outs, compared to those slants and intermediate balls over the middle, etc.
Comparing punters by simple numberical average of the kick can be really misleading if one or two are partially blocked and or are against a strong head wind. You need to throw out the highs and lows (the outliers) and have a reasonable number to get a more fair measure / comparison.
Defenses have better numbers (total yards yielded, points allowed, etc) when the offense tends to hold the ball forlarger portions of the game in time of possession, etc. Almost any defense will give up fewer yards and points if they have to defend fewer plays. The same applies if the defense is given a longer field to defend. These things are pretty obvious but I think often are overlooked or simply don't get reflected in the stats.
Sometimes, I think, the eye test is just about as good a measure of the quality of a team as any number crunching computer analysis.
Ironically, when our offense is quite effective at moving the ball between the 20 yard lines but struggles to score in red zone opportunities, we are essentially using up game clock time and actually aiding the opponent. Often teams want to use up time and grind out long, methodical drives for TDs. Those are will breakers and successful seasons are filled with those. Big plays are nice but the key is to score. Chunk plays between the 20s actually are less helpful than 4 yards per snap runs and 4 first downs frankly, if you are not going to score at the end of the possession.
I am just trying to point out that statistics are useful but are not the ONLY indicator of what is really going or or who may be 'winning' the game in the end. The '83 Huskers 'Scoring Explosion' was perhaps the most efficient (points per snap) ever and often scored in less than 2 minutes from 80 yards out. But because we scored so quickly, our opponents were given several more possession per game and ultimately the defense faced more snaps and gave up more points etc. That defense was much maligned for being 'bad' but it was not altogether accurate as the stats were not necessarily true measures in my view.
