Best/Worst Case for 2016 Huskers

[Mavric]

NEBRASKA HUSKERS


2015 record: 6-7, 3-5

2016 best case: 9-3, 7-2

Closer look: There are no breaks in this season’s schedule for the Huskers and stepping out of conference to battle Oregon in Lincoln poses a sizable task in September before the start of Big Ten play. The key for Nebraska will be getting to its bye week with early confidence — 3-2 record at worst — before the league campaign kicks into high gear with road games against Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio State over a defining four-week stretch that spills into November. The slate’s well-balanced with as many as five potential matchups against ranked teams, but navigable in the sense the Huskers should be favored in all but one home contest. Ultimately, Nebraska gave away too many games defensively in 2015 and lost five games by a touchdown or less. By solving late-game execution challenges and winning games they’re supposed to win (Illinois, Purdue by example), Riley’s squad could hover around the Top 25 by season’s end.

Worst case (5-7, 4-5): Don’t lose the opener. Riley would feel some serious heat with a loss to Fresno State, a game that could lead the Huskers into an early unwanted spiral if they’re not careful. The Bulldogs were bad last season and Nebraska will be a double-digit favorite. Moving on past the first game, Tommy Armstrong’s continued progression at quarterback is vital toward division title aspirations and he’ll need to play especially well against one of the nation’s toughest road schedules. Nebraska’s regular-season finale at Iowa could determine bowl eligibility should things go south, but the Huskers are hoping a strong finish leads to more. A plethora of returning starters on both sides of the ball means Nebraska should have enough experience to avoid a couple fourth-quarter implosions that would lead to a losing season.

247

 

[Hunter94]

a lot depends on the D and how Tommy performs

 

[cm husker]

I think the best case is way too low. NU should win at least 9 regular season games based on roster talent advantages alone. OSU and Oregon are the only two teams on the regular season schedule who outpaced NU per the recruiting ranking the past few years, right? Wisconsin has fallen far during the past couple of years, especially with the coaching changes (downgrades). Even Oregon is down at this point due to player and coaching turnover.

I'd say the low is probably right. I just can't see this team failing to win at least 6 games this season.

I'd put 9-3 as the reasonable expected value and 11-1 as an amazing accomplishment. 10-2 would be outstanding, too, especially if NU were to split the CCG and bowl.

 

[Redux]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

 

[Scratchtown]

Since when are football games won on talent alone?

In 2008 Clemson was far more talented than NU and NU came away victorious.

I see NU at 8-4. Which would be a good year for them considering the struggles they may have in the trenches on both sides.

 

[NUance]

Yeah, just glancing down the sched I'd put the best case at 10-2 and worst case at 5-7. Wouldn't surprise me to see us go 8-4 or maybe even 9-3. I'd be more bullish if we had a better offensive line, and we hadn't lost a couple of the DL who left.

 

[Mavric]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

 

[Redux]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

This is mostly true, yet my point stands based off the following:
QB play is where your chance of winning games centers around. Our current QB struggled in the his 1st year in this system. The WR targets he has make up fo a lot of his shortcomings, but he is still a square peg in a round hole. It's not his fault either and I expect him to make the most of his final year but a square peg can only do so much to fill a circular hole.

That and, ya know our line play is a bit of a mystery heading into the season. Not that that's specifically a talent issue though, on defense talent is huge but experience is thinner.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

"A plethora of returning starters on both sides of the ball"?

Man, I'm seeing a "work in progress" at best on defense. New and unproven talent is going to have to figure things out quickly. If they give up big plays like they have in recent years, it could force the impatient catch-up offense we're trying to avoid.

Or maybe the new talent is exactly what we need.

Feel good about the direction, but wouldn't put my money on any prediction.

 

[cm husker]

Yeah, just glancing down the sched I'd put the best case at 10-2 and worst case at 5-7. Wouldn't surprise me to see us go 8-4 or maybe even 9-3. I'd be more bullish if we had a better offensive line, and we hadn't lost a couple of the DL who left.

Good point on DL. That's a wild card.

Has the kid from Utah made a decision yet?

 

[Redux]

So concerning Tommy, is it a matter of talent or wrong system? Personally I would say both. He is very talented and experienced but he is perfect in neither area. His talent has weaknesses and his experience includes a lot of mishaps as well as glory. Only perfect practice makes perfect, and this is his swan song.

Now as to what cm alluded to above, we should be able to win 9 on talent alone I disagree which is what my op was indicating. Talent alone should win us maybe half our games. To me, it's more about how our talent has progressed form year 1 to year 2. That and how well we filled empty holes due to departures. If both those things were managed well, we should be able to win 9 games.

 

[cm husker]

To clarify my point, NU will be the more talented, and usually much more talented, team on the field in at least 9 of 12 regular season games. I understand that talent alone doesn't win games, but I would expect NU's coaches to win either al of those 9 games or drop one but pull an "upset" against Oregon or OSU.

That's how I arrived at 9 wins as an expected win total. And would be impressed if they hit 10.

As to "system change" excuses, I don't really buy them. If you can't implement and maximize talent with your system within year 2, then something is flawed in the system or the way you're teaching it.

 

[Mavric]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

This is mostly true, yet my point stands based off the following:
QB play is where your chance of winning games centers around. Our current QB struggled in the his 1st year in this system. The WR targets he has make up fo a lot of his shortcomings, but he is still a square peg in a round hole. It's not his fault either and I expect him to make the most of his final year but a square peg can only do so much to fill a circular hole.

That and, ya know our line play is a bit of a mystery heading into the season. Not that that's specifically a talent issue though, on defense talent is huge but experience is thinner.

I pretty much agree with this.

But it's quite a ways from what you posted the first time. We still have a talent advantage on basically everyone we play. Doesn't matter what system they were recruited for, they're still better than the guy across from them. Plus, how may of the guys on other teams are playing with guys their coaches didn't recruit? It didn't seem to hurt Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue against us last year.

 

[Enhance]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

This is mostly true, yet my point stands based off the following:
QB play is where your chance of winning games centers around. Our current QB struggled in the his 1st year in this system. The WR targets he has make up fo a lot of his shortcomings, but he is still a square peg in a round hole. It's not his fault either and I expect him to make the most of his final year but a square peg can only do so much to fill a circular hole.

That and, ya know our line play is a bit of a mystery heading into the season. Not that that's specifically a talent issue though, on defense talent is huge but experience is thinner.

I pretty much agree with this.

But it's quite a ways from what you posted the first time. We still have a talent advantage on basically everyone we play. Doesn't matter what system they were recruited for, they're still better than the guy across from them. Plus, how may of the guys on other teams are playing with guys their coaches didn't recruit? It didn't seem to hurt Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue against us last year.

I can't really speak for Illinois/Purdue, but one thing Wisconsin seems to do pretty well is stick with a team identity from coach to coach. You know what you're going to get with Wisconsin and that's strong linemen, a heavy focus on the running game and opportunistic passing. Nebraska hasn't had that identity luxury from coach to coach which, in my opinion, can make it difficult to maintain consistency.

I think best case scenario is 10 wins this year. I don't know think we have the right formula for anything more. I think six or less wins would certainly be a disappointment and an unacceptable season. This team is capable of winning at least 8 games even with talent losses they've sustained.