"Guys like myself, that's what we flock to."

[Sargon]

Kenny of course was often the target of the heave it deep offense. Anyone have a feel (or the data) of the success of that specifically with Kenny as the target? I recall he made a great catch at the back of the endzone in the the Iowa game with double coverage. NU would have lost without it (IMO).

 

[Landlord]

At what point do you reel it in, maybe put another blocker on the line (twin TE sets) to help your QB out, and run more short curls, quick outs, slants, or purely design some plays in which you move the pocket and limit the receiving options which would allow Tommy to make quicker reads or use his legs.

I'm no offensive coordinator, but these are things I would think of. It seemed the deep ball was over used, even when we didn't throw it deep, we still had WR's down the field far too often.

You talk a lot about how we had so much miscommunication between our QB and WR's because of route trees, so if that is true, then a lot of this would probably fall on the receivers, wouldn't it?

Regardless, it seemed to work for us. Every voice is critical in hindsight, but we had a good (not great), balanced offense last year. Good for 13th in the nation.

Was NU really 13th overall in offense last year?

How is that relevant?

YPP...NU was 29th at 6.0. tOSU was 5th, wisky 7th, Iowa 65th (5.4 ypp)

Passing is the topic. And the stats would need to be normalized to the strength of defenses opposed rating. Anyway,

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/average-team-passer-rating

NU passer rating: 50th, 132.9

And that is why I asked...I thought it seemed really really high.How is it relevant? I don't know. I did not bring it up.

We were 13th in scoring.

Against who? Football stats are weird.

What were our opponents scoring defense numbers. Have to consider that when talking about that stuff.

Ya know cuz wisconsin had the #1 total defense in the country last year then got trounced when they actually played an offense with a pulse. To the tune of 59 points.

FAU - 111th defense

McNeese - N/A

Fresno - 101st

Miami - 37th

Illinois - 109th

Michigan State - 22nd

Northwestern - 48th

Rutgers - 91st

Purdue - 99th

Wisconsin - 18th

Minnesota - 34th

Iowa - 51st

USC - 46th

lol

 

[BigRedBuster]

At what point do you reel it in, maybe put another blocker on the line (twin TE sets) to help your QB out, and run more short curls, quick outs, slants, or purely design some plays in which you move the pocket and limit the receiving options which would allow Tommy to make quicker reads or use his legs.

I'm no offensive coordinator, but these are things I would think of. It seemed the deep ball was over used, even when we didn't throw it deep, we still had WR's down the field far too often.

You talk a lot about how we had so much miscommunication between our QB and WR's because of route trees, so if that is true, then a lot of this would probably fall on the receivers, wouldn't it?

Regardless, it seemed to work for us. Every voice is critical in hindsight, but we had a good (not great), balanced offense last year. Good for 13th in the nation.

Was NU really 13th overall in offense last year?

How is that relevant?

YPP...NU was 29th at 6.0. tOSU was 5th, wisky 7th, Iowa 65th (5.4 ypp)

Passing is the topic. And the stats would need to be normalized to the strength of defenses opposed rating. Anyway,

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/average-team-passer-rating

NU passer rating: 50th, 132.9

And that is why I asked...I thought it seemed really really high.

How is it relevant? I don't know. I did not bring it up.

We were 13th in scoring.

Which, I don't give a flying pig headed mule about any stat but that one. Nobody has won games just because they passed more yards...etc. You gotta score and it doesn't matter how you do it.

 

[JJ Husker]

At what point do you reel it in, maybe put another blocker on the line (twin TE sets) to help your QB out, and run more short curls, quick outs, slants, or purely design some plays in which you move the pocket and limit the receiving options which would allow Tommy to make quicker reads or use his legs.

I'm no offensive coordinator, but these are things I would think of. It seemed the deep ball was over used, even when we didn't throw it deep, we still had WR's down the field far too often.

You talk a lot about how we had so much miscommunication between our QB and WR's because of route trees, so if that is true, then a lot of this would probably fall on the receivers, wouldn't it?

Regardless, it seemed to work for us. Every voice is critical in hindsight, but we had a good (not great), balanced offense last year. Good for 13th in the nation.

Was NU really 13th overall in offense last year?

How is that relevant?

YPP...NU was 29th at 6.0. tOSU was 5th, wisky 7th, Iowa 65th (5.4 ypp)

Passing is the topic. And the stats would need to be normalized to the strength of defenses opposed rating. Anyway,

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/average-team-passer-rating

NU passer rating: 50th, 132.9

And that is why I asked...I thought it seemed really really high.

How is it relevant? I don't know. I did not bring it up.

We were 13th in scoring.

Which, I don't give a flying pig headed mule about any stat but that one. Nobody has won games just because they passed more yards...etc. You gotta score and it doesn't matter how you do it.

Well, if we really were 13th in scoring offense last year (I doubt this very much) that alone would be grounds for proving how worthless that stat is. If the offense we fielded last year was 13th....I don't even know what to say except that it shouldn't be hard to move up to 12th or better because 13th was not impressive at all.

I agree you gotta score and it doesn't matter how. Even more importantly, you gotta score more points than your opponent, whether that is 7 pts or 49 pts could be up to your defense. So there is more involved than that one stat. I just hope the bar is set higher than what we have been doing the last few years.

 

[BigRedBuster]

At what point do you reel it in, maybe put another blocker on the line (twin TE sets) to help your QB out, and run more short curls, quick outs, slants, or purely design some plays in which you move the pocket and limit the receiving options which would allow Tommy to make quicker reads or use his legs.

I'm no offensive coordinator, but these are things I would think of. It seemed the deep ball was over used, even when we didn't throw it deep, we still had WR's down the field far too often.

You talk a lot about how we had so much miscommunication between our QB and WR's because of route trees, so if that is true, then a lot of this would probably fall on the receivers, wouldn't it?

Regardless, it seemed to work for us. Every voice is critical in hindsight, but we had a good (not great), balanced offense last year. Good for 13th in the nation.

Was NU really 13th overall in offense last year?

How is that relevant?

YPP...NU was 29th at 6.0. tOSU was 5th, wisky 7th, Iowa 65th (5.4 ypp)

Passing is the topic. And the stats would need to be normalized to the strength of defenses opposed rating. Anyway,

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/average-team-passer-rating

NU passer rating: 50th, 132.9

And that is why I asked...I thought it seemed really really high.

How is it relevant? I don't know. I did not bring it up.

We were 13th in scoring.

Which, I don't give a flying pig headed mule about any stat but that one. Nobody has won games just because they passed more yards...etc. You gotta score and it doesn't matter how you do it.

Well, if we really were 13th in scoring offense last year (I doubt this very much) that alone would be grounds for proving how worthless that stat is. If the offense we fielded last year was 13th....I don't even know what to say except that it shouldn't be hard to move up to 12th or better because 13th was not impressive at all.

I agree you gotta score and it doesn't matter how. Even more importantly, you gotta score more points than your opponent, whether that is 7 pts or 49 pts could be up to your defense. So there is more involved than that one stat. I just hope the bar is set higher than what we have been doing the last few years.

We averaged 37.8 points per game. Yea yea yea....I get tired of hearing about...."it was all against cup cakes. BS. In our 4 losses, we averaged 28 points. That should be easily enough to win more games than we did. Sad thing is, our opponents in those 4 losses scored on average 39.75. In other words, our best opponents scored more against us than we averaged our entire year counting in the cup cakes.

In other words, your second paragraph discusses the other most important stat. How many points can your defense prevent? Over the last 7 years, we have seen WAY too many times in big games our defense not being able to stop anyone. When you go against the toughest opponents on your schedule, you HAVE GOT to be able to limit their scoring so your offense can score more points.

On offense, the only stat that counts by far is how many points you score.

 

[Landlord]

Well, if we really were 13th in scoring offense last year (I doubt this very much) that alone would be grounds for proving how worthless that stat is. If the offense we fielded last year was 13th....I don't even know what to say except that it shouldn't be hard to move up to 12th or better because 13th was not impressive at all.

I agree you gotta score and it doesn't matter how. Even more importantly, you gotta score more points than your opponent, whether that is 7 pts or 49 pts could be up to your defense. So there is more involved than that one stat. I just hope the bar is set higher than what we have been doing the last few years.

I think it's just as likely that it proves that you and I don't remember things accurately.

We were the 13th scoring offense in the nation last year, and we had a good offense. Our offense put up 55, 55, 41 and 45 in 4 out of our first five games, as well as 42 against USC. Yes, those first ones were against weaker competition, but that's the same for every school, and yes, we struggled in games (especially when our all-american runningback was injured), but that's also the same for every school.

Oregon only squeaked out 24 points against Arizona and 20 against OSU. OSU only put up 21 against Va Tech and 31 against Penn State and Minnesota. We weren't as good as them, and points per game isn't the whole story, but it's some of it, and we just don't want to admit that our offense was good. 38 points per game is a good offense.

 

[NUinID]

Well, if we really were 13th in scoring offense last year (I doubt this very much) that alone would be grounds for proving how worthless that stat is. If the offense we fielded last year was 13th....I don't even know what to say except that it shouldn't be hard to move up to 12th or better because 13th was not impressive at all.

I agree you gotta score and it doesn't matter how. Even more importantly, you gotta score more points than your opponent, whether that is 7 pts or 49 pts could be up to your defense. So there is more involved than that one stat. I just hope the bar is set higher than what we have been doing the last few years.

I think it's just as likely that it proves that you and I don't remember things accurately.

We were the 13th scoring offense in the nation last year, and we had a good offense. Our offense put up 55, 55, 41 and 45 in 4 out of our first five games, as well as 42 against USC. Yes, those first ones were against weaker competition, but that's the same for every school, and yes, we struggled in games (especially when our all-american runningback was injured), but that's also the same for every school.

Oregon only squeaked out 24 points against Arizona and 20 against OSU. OSU only put up 21 against Va Tech and 31 against Penn State and Minnesota. We weren't as good as them, and points per game isn't the whole story, but it's some of it, and we just don't want to admit that our offense was good. 38 points per game is a good offense.

I think our offense was pretty good, you don't have to convince me. I would rather be ranked 13th in scoring defense than offense though. When you have a good defense you are always in the game, because you keep the game close. I love averaging 39 pts a game, but if we give up 50 pts in that game we lose. Scoring really hasn't been that big of a problem for Nebraska in most big games lately. Stopping the opponent has been the big problem.

 

[2ndNnine]

i heard that the training was mostly running... he ran all night and day.

 

[JJ Husker]

Well, if we really were 13th in scoring offense last year (I doubt this very much) that alone would be grounds for proving how worthless that stat is. If the offense we fielded last year was 13th....I don't even know what to say except that it shouldn't be hard to move up to 12th or better because 13th was not impressive at all.

I agree you gotta score and it doesn't matter how. Even more importantly, you gotta score more points than your opponent, whether that is 7 pts or 49 pts could be up to your defense. So there is more involved than that one stat. I just hope the bar is set higher than what we have been doing the last few years.

I think it's just as likely that it proves that you and I don't remember things accurately.

We were the 13th scoring offense in the nation last year, and we had a good offense. Our offense put up 55, 55, 41 and 45 in 4 out of our first five games, as well as 42 against USC. Yes, those first ones were against weaker competition, but that's the same for every school, and yes, we struggled in games (especially when our all-american runningback was injured), but that's also the same for every school.

Oregon only squeaked out 24 points against Arizona and 20 against OSU. OSU only put up 21 against Va Tech and 31 against Penn State and Minnesota. We weren't as good as them, and points per game isn't the whole story, but it's some of it, and we just don't want to admit that our offense was good. 38 points per game is a good offense.

The points on paper sure do look good for last season. Problem is I watched the games. I will admit our offense was better than I give them credit for but those point totals did get padded against some pretty weak competition. Any opponent with a heartbeat, and a few without, handled us fairly easily. We can brag all we want about hanging points on Florida directional, McNeese, Purdue, Illinois, etc. but until we start competing with the likes of MSU, Wiscy, & tOSU this guy is not going to be impressed. I think we're well on our way to being able to play with those teams however. The biggest obstacle has been replaced and I look forward to a fresh approach that doesn't involve doubling down on what hasn't been working. Should be fun to watch for a change.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Well, if we really were 13th in scoring offense last year (I doubt this very much) that alone would be grounds for proving how worthless that stat is. If the offense we fielded last year was 13th....I don't even know what to say except that it shouldn't be hard to move up to 12th or better because 13th was not impressive at all.

I agree you gotta score and it doesn't matter how. Even more importantly, you gotta score more points than your opponent, whether that is 7 pts or 49 pts could be up to your defense. So there is more involved than that one stat. I just hope the bar is set higher than what we have been doing the last few years.

I think it's just as likely that it proves that you and I don't remember things accurately.

We were the 13th scoring offense in the nation last year, and we had a good offense. Our offense put up 55, 55, 41 and 45 in 4 out of our first five games, as well as 42 against USC. Yes, those first ones were against weaker competition, but that's the same for every school, and yes, we struggled in games (especially when our all-american runningback was injured), but that's also the same for every school.

Oregon only squeaked out 24 points against Arizona and 20 against OSU. OSU only put up 21 against Va Tech and 31 against Penn State and Minnesota. We weren't as good as them, and points per game isn't the whole story, but it's some of it, and we just don't want to admit that our offense was good. 38 points per game is a good offense.

The points on paper sure do look good for last season. Problem is I watched the games. I will admit our offense was better than I give them credit for but those point totals did get padded against some pretty weak competition. Any opponent with a heartbeat, and a few without, handled us fairly easily. We can brag all we want about hanging points on Florida directional, McNeese, Purdue, Illinois, etc. but until we start competing with the likes of MSU, Wiscy, & tOSU this guy is not going to be impressed. I think we're well on our way to being able to play with those teams however. The biggest obstacle has been replaced and I look forward to a fresh approach that doesn't involve doubling down on what hasn't been working. Should be fun to watch for a change.

Our losses averaged 28 points. That's enough to at least account for a couple more wins.
Our offense was not the worst problem on the team.

 

[Landlord]

Well, if we really were 13th in scoring offense last year (I doubt this very much) that alone would be grounds for proving how worthless that stat is. If the offense we fielded last year was 13th....I don't even know what to say except that it shouldn't be hard to move up to 12th or better because 13th was not impressive at all.

I agree you gotta score and it doesn't matter how. Even more importantly, you gotta score more points than your opponent, whether that is 7 pts or 49 pts could be up to your defense. So there is more involved than that one stat. I just hope the bar is set higher than what we have been doing the last few years.

I think it's just as likely that it proves that you and I don't remember things accurately.

We were the 13th scoring offense in the nation last year, and we had a good offense. Our offense put up 55, 55, 41 and 45 in 4 out of our first five games, as well as 42 against USC. Yes, those first ones were against weaker competition, but that's the same for every school, and yes, we struggled in games (especially when our all-american runningback was injured), but that's also the same for every school.

Oregon only squeaked out 24 points against Arizona and 20 against OSU. OSU only put up 21 against Va Tech and 31 against Penn State and Minnesota. We weren't as good as them, and points per game isn't the whole story, but it's some of it, and we just don't want to admit that our offense was good. 38 points per game is a good offense.

The points on paper sure do look good for last season. Problem is I watched the games. I will admit our offense was better than I give them credit for but those point totals did get padded against some pretty weak competition. Any opponent with a heartbeat, and a few without, handled us fairly easily. We can brag all we want about hanging points on Florida directional, McNeese, Purdue, Illinois, etc. but until we start competing with the likes of MSU, Wiscy, & tOSU this guy is not going to be impressed. I think we're well on our way to being able to play with those teams however. The biggest obstacle has been replaced and I look forward to a fresh approach that doesn't involve doubling down on what hasn't been working. Should be fun to watch for a change.

Our losses averaged 28 points. That's enough to at least account for a couple more wins.
Our offense was not the worst problem on the team.

Well. Our losses without Wisconsin averaged 4 points.

 

[BigRedBuster]

What? In our losses we scored 22,24,24,42.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Double post.

 

[NUinID]

What? In our losses we scored 22,24,24,42.

I think he means margin we lost by.

 

[jsneb83]

When our offense was good, it was really good. When it was bad, it was really bad. They were so up and down that they really put pressure on the defense at times.