McKewon: Carry on

[BigRedBuster]

Not sure what article you guys read, but that actually eroded even more of my confidence in Riley. This says it all:

It doesnt mean Riley, when reviewing the 2015 season, is satisfied. When asked if he thought Nebraska would finish 5-7, Riley said, Probably not.

"Probably not"?!?! How about, "Hell f'ing no!" Jesus, this guy went into the 2015 season thinking 5-7 was a real possibility. Nebraska is going to go anywhere until Charmin pulls his head out of his a$$, starts benching malcontents, and shifts to a power-run offense that relies on the run to setup the pass, not the other way around.

Nebraska doesn't have a ton of depth. A 5-7 season for a team with very little depth is ALWAYS a possibility if key players get hurt. Teams with little depth are similar to NFL teams. Look what's happened to the Patriots since Gronkowski got injured.

Nebraska's depth is as good or better than almost every team in the conference.

MSU had 3 true freshmen playing DB a lot of this year. People are flat wrong if they think NU wasn't talented enough to continue winning 9 or 10 games, at least, per year.

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Okay, which games did they buy in for...which games did they not buy in?

Every game before Michigan St. Did you see any effort against Purdue, no me neither

So Riley basically went 3-0, because all the games before MSU are blamed on the players because they were still poisoned by Bo. Then the Iowa loss is really a win because NU would have won by 4 TD's if it weren't for Tommy Armstrong, who had a relapse of Bo poisoning for 1 final game. #RiledUp

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "buy in" motherhood statement even means. And I'm not sure what changes, if any, the staff made after the Purdue debacle. But you have to admit that the Huskers looked like a different team for the last three games of the season. They played at a much higher level against stiffer competition.

The "buy in" statement is an simple deflection argument to absolve the coaches of everything, and place the blame on the players. It's not surprising people pull this out when they call the players stupid.

As for playing better, we've seen incremental improvement, but the D still got torched by Sparty, and we've been massively turnover prone the last 4 games. We're going to need a monumental jump this offseason, because as of today, the team is no better than December of last year.

While I can't judge if we are better or worse than last December, we have had these same turnover and mental breakdowns for so very long that I can't even recall when these bad habits started? 7 - 10 years ago?

Been needing addressed for a very long time. If they are not fixed, expect the same results! Pretty black and white!

IIRC, in Dirk's article on turnovers, it was 2002... That's a long damn time.

And, that is why I have said that, at this point in time, it is a cultural issue within the program and that will take time to work itself out. It sure as heck might take longer than one fall camp or one season.

 

[RADAR]

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Oh, ok.

“I never sensed that they weren’t trying,” Riley said. “The kids had a strength of character. It was a strength within the group that kept us afloat. It has to be collective if it’s going to work. I will say I appreciate people like Maliek Collins, who’s been around awhile and had success, and Maliek never wavered in how he practiced or how he played. When your good players are like that, others follow. There are obvious names — like Jordan Westerkamp, Alonzo Moore and Tommy — if there’s a sense that people like that are wavering, then you could have a flood.”http://www.omaha.com/huskers/mckewon-husker-football-coach-riley-carries-on-trying-to-translate/article_5b45146e-52db-5381-983d-14f4442df631.html

Just pillow talk for guys who think like you, he is too nice of a guy to throw the players under the bus.

If that's what he's doing, then maybe you should take a page from his book.

When players play sucks like Gerry's did against Purdue, I point it out, when players step it up like Gerry did against Iowa, I give them their due.

So you have no problem saying the players suck, but won't do it about the coaches? Ok then...

I really haven't seen where other than a play here and there, that I question many decisions that were made. There was progress made and we are definitely a better team now then in September (except maybe at Qb)

 

[ColoradoHusk]

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Oh, ok.

“I never sensed that they weren’t trying,” Riley said. “The kids had a strength of character. It was a strength within the group that kept us afloat. It has to be collective if it’s going to work. I will say I appreciate people like Maliek Collins, who’s been around awhile and had success, and Maliek never wavered in how he practiced or how he played. When your good players are like that, others follow. There are obvious names — like Jordan Westerkamp, Alonzo Moore and Tommy — if there’s a sense that people like that are wavering, then you could have a flood.”http://www.omaha.com/huskers/mckewon-husker-football-coach-riley-carries-on-trying-to-translate/article_5b45146e-52db-5381-983d-14f4442df631.html

Just pillow talk for guys who think like you, he is too nice of a guy to throw the players under the bus.

If that's what he's doing, then maybe you should take a page from his book.

When players play sucks like Gerry's did against Purdue, I point it out, when players step it up like Gerry did against Iowa, I give them their due.

So you have no problem saying the players suck, but won't do it about the coaches? Ok then...

Players = Bo, so it's easy to say the players suck. The new coaches are nice and friendly so they get a free pass on everything they do.

 

[RADAR]

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Oh, ok.

“I never sensed that they weren’t trying,” Riley said. “The kids had a strength of character. It was a strength within the group that kept us afloat. It has to be collective if it’s going to work. I will say I appreciate people like Maliek Collins, who’s been around awhile and had success, and Maliek never wavered in how he practiced or how he played. When your good players are like that, others follow. There are obvious names — like Jordan Westerkamp, Alonzo Moore and Tommy — if there’s a sense that people like that are wavering, then you could have a flood.”http://www.omaha.com/huskers/mckewon-husker-football-coach-riley-carries-on-trying-to-translate/article_5b45146e-52db-5381-983d-14f4442df631.html

Just pillow talk for guys who think like you, he is too nice of a guy to throw the players under the bus.

If that's what he's doing, then maybe you should take a page from his book.

When players play sucks like Gerry's did against Purdue, I point it out, when players step it up like Gerry did against Iowa, I give them their due.

So you have no problem saying the players suck, but won't do it about the coaches? Ok then...

Players = Bo, so it's easy to say the players suck. The new coaches are nice and friendly so they get a free pass on everything they do.

Not true, Bo got the benefit of the doubt in his first few years.

 

[TAKODA]

Not sure what article you guys read, but that actually eroded even more of my confidence in Riley. This says it all:

It doesnt mean Riley, when reviewing the 2015 season, is satisfied. When asked if he thought Nebraska would finish 5-7, Riley said, Probably not.

"Probably not"?!?! How about, "Hell f'ing no!" Jesus, this guy went into the 2015 season thinking 5-7 was a real possibility. Nebraska is going to go anywhere until Charmin pulls his head out of his a$$, starts benching malcontents, and shifts to a power-run offense that relies on the run to setup the pass, not the other way around.

Nebraska doesn't have a ton of depth. A 5-7 season for a team with very little depth is ALWAYS a possibility if key players get hurt. Teams with little depth are similar to NFL teams. Look what's happened to the Patriots since Gronkowski got injured.

Nebraska's depth is as good or better than almost every team in the conference.

MSU had 3 true freshmen playing DB a lot of this year. People are flat wrong if they think NU wasn't talented enough to continue winning 9 or 10 games, at least, per year.

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Okay, which games did they buy in for...which games did they not buy in?

Every game before Michigan St. Did you see any effort against Purdue, no me neither

So Riley basically went 3-0, because all the games before MSU are blamed on the players because they were still poisoned by Bo. Then the Iowa loss is really a win because NU would have won by 4 TD's if it weren't for Tommy Armstrong, who had a relapse of Bo poisoning for 1 final game. #RiledUp

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "buy in" motherhood statement even means. And I'm not sure what changes, if any, the staff made after the Purdue debacle. But you have to admit that the Huskers looked like a different team for the last three games of the season. They played at a much higher level against stiffer competition.

The "buy in" statement is an simple deflection argument to absolve the coaches of everything, and place the blame on the players. It's not surprising people pull this out when they call the players stupid.

As for playing better, we've seen incremental improvement, but the D still got torched by Sparty, and we've been massively turnover prone the last 4 games. We're going to need a monumental jump this offseason, because as of today, the team is no better than December of last year.

While I can't judge if we are better or worse than last December, we have had these same turnover and mental breakdowns for so very long that I can't even recall when these bad habits started? 7 - 10 years ago?

Been needing addressed for a very long time. If they are not fixed, expect the same results! Pretty black and white!

IIRC, in Dirk's article on turnovers, it was 2002... That's a long damn time.

Wow, that's ridiculous, even though I knew it was a long time, it is hard to believe.

 

[Enhance]

Not sure what article you guys read, but that actually eroded even more of my confidence in Riley. This says it all:

It doesnt mean Riley, when reviewing the 2015 season, is satisfied. When asked if he thought Nebraska would finish 5-7, Riley said, Probably not.

"Probably not"?!?! How about, "Hell f'ing no!" Jesus, this guy went into the 2015 season thinking 5-7 was a real possibility. Nebraska is going to go anywhere until Charmin pulls his head out of his a$$, starts benching malcontents, and shifts to a power-run offense that relies on the run to setup the pass, not the other way around.

Nebraska doesn't have a ton of depth. A 5-7 season for a team with very little depth is ALWAYS a possibility if key players get hurt. Teams with little depth are similar to NFL teams. Look what's happened to the Patriots since Gronkowski got injured.

Nebraska's depth is as good or better than almost every team in the conference.

MSU had 3 true freshmen playing DB a lot of this year. People are flat wrong if they think NU wasn't talented enough to continue winning 9 or 10 games, at least, per year.

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Okay, which games did they buy in for...which games did they not buy in?

Every game before Michigan St. Did you see any effort against Purdue, no me neither

So Riley basically went 3-0, because all the games before MSU are blamed on the players because they were still poisoned by Bo. Then the Iowa loss is really a win because NU would have won by 4 TD's if it weren't for Tommy Armstrong, who had a relapse of Bo poisoning for 1 final game. #RiledUp

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "buy in" motherhood statement even means. And I'm not sure what changes, if any, the staff made after the Purdue debacle. But you have to admit that the Huskers looked like a different team for the last three games of the season. They played at a much higher level against stiffer competition.

The "buy in" statement is an simple deflection argument to absolve the coaches of everything, and place the blame on the players. It's not surprising people pull this out when they call the players stupid.

As for playing better, we've seen incremental improvement, but the D still got torched by Sparty, and we've been massively turnover prone the last 4 games. We're going to need a monumental jump this offseason, because as of today, the team is no better than December of last year.

Curious on your thoughts, though, Saunders - do you believe it's possible there are "buy in" issues even if they're perhaps a minority or small grouping of players? Can it be there's a confluence of factors when people mention "buy in," and that they're not simply just trying to absolve the coaches?

I do. I look at what Ozigbo tweeted out after Stevenson left the team. I look at the rumors that some players cleaned out their lockers after the Iowa game. I think back to the rumors that former coaches were maintaining communication with current players.

A lot of this is speculation and conjecture and I know that. While the coaches are certainly culpable for mistakes made this year, I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest there may have been and still are some players that weren't/aren't totally on board with the coaches and direction of the program.

 

[cm husker]

Great stats by Buster.

Again - Better execution on the last offensive series (not even drive) against BYU, Illinois, and Wisconsin sees us at 8-4 instead of 5-7.

2 of 3 shoudl never have come down to the final drive.

Stats like that are almost meaningless because they don't capture how games play out and what teams do to achieve wins (rather than produce stats).

and really, 3 of 3 shouldn't have come down to a final drive considering how down Wisky was this year during their own coaching change and because they haven't been recruiting well in a couple of years now.

 

[RADAR]

All good and valid points by 89. Much of it is where I am coming from.

 

[Saunders]

Not sure what article you guys read, but that actually eroded even more of my confidence in Riley. This says it all:

It doesnt mean Riley, when reviewing the 2015 season, is satisfied. When asked if he thought Nebraska would finish 5-7, Riley said, Probably not.

"Probably not"?!?! How about, "Hell f'ing no!" Jesus, this guy went into the 2015 season thinking 5-7 was a real possibility. Nebraska is going to go anywhere until Charmin pulls his head out of his a$$, starts benching malcontents, and shifts to a power-run offense that relies on the run to setup the pass, not the other way around.

Nebraska doesn't have a ton of depth. A 5-7 season for a team with very little depth is ALWAYS a possibility if key players get hurt. Teams with little depth are similar to NFL teams. Look what's happened to the Patriots since Gronkowski got injured.

Nebraska's depth is as good or better than almost every team in the conference.

MSU had 3 true freshmen playing DB a lot of this year. People are flat wrong if they think NU wasn't talented enough to continue winning 9 or 10 games, at least, per year.

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Okay, which games did they buy in for...which games did they not buy in?

Every game before Michigan St. Did you see any effort against Purdue, no me neither

So Riley basically went 3-0, because all the games before MSU are blamed on the players because they were still poisoned by Bo. Then the Iowa loss is really a win because NU would have won by 4 TD's if it weren't for Tommy Armstrong, who had a relapse of Bo poisoning for 1 final game. #RiledUp

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "buy in" motherhood statement even means. And I'm not sure what changes, if any, the staff made after the Purdue debacle. But you have to admit that the Huskers looked like a different team for the last three games of the season. They played at a much higher level against stiffer competition.

The "buy in" statement is an simple deflection argument to absolve the coaches of everything, and place the blame on the players. It's not surprising people pull this out when they call the players stupid.

As for playing better, we've seen incremental improvement, but the D still got torched by Sparty, and we've been massively turnover prone the last 4 games. We're going to need a monumental jump this offseason, because as of today, the team is no better than December of last year.

Curious on your thoughts, though, Saunders - do you believe it's possible there are "buy in" issues even if they're perhaps a minority or small grouping of players? Can it be there's a confluence of factors when people mention "buy in," and that they're not simply just trying to absolve the coaches?

I do. I look at what Ozigbo tweeted out after Stevenson left the team. I look at the rumors that some players cleaned out their lockers after the Iowa game. I think back to the rumors that former coaches were maintaining communication with current players.

A lot of this is speculation and conjecture and I know that. While the coaches are certainly culpable for mistakes made this year, I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest there may have been and still are some players that weren't/aren't totally on board with the coaches and direction of the program.

With a handful of guys? Sure, absolutely. It happens on every single team, and we already had guys leave because of it. But when the season starts, if you know they aren't giving their all, you bench them. By playing them, you're rewarding the behavior.

But do I think it was widespread problem enough to effect the outcome of games because they just didn't care? No, because that's not fair to them, and it's not fair to the coaches either because it means they were implicit in putting guys out there who had no business playing.

 

[Enhance]

Not sure what article you guys read, but that actually eroded even more of my confidence in Riley. This says it all:

It doesnt mean Riley, when reviewing the 2015 season, is satisfied. When asked if he thought Nebraska would finish 5-7, Riley said, Probably not.

"Probably not"?!?! How about, "Hell f'ing no!" Jesus, this guy went into the 2015 season thinking 5-7 was a real possibility. Nebraska is going to go anywhere until Charmin pulls his head out of his a$$, starts benching malcontents, and shifts to a power-run offense that relies on the run to setup the pass, not the other way around.

Nebraska doesn't have a ton of depth. A 5-7 season for a team with very little depth is ALWAYS a possibility if key players get hurt. Teams with little depth are similar to NFL teams. Look what's happened to the Patriots since Gronkowski got injured.

Nebraska's depth is as good or better than almost every team in the conference.

MSU had 3 true freshmen playing DB a lot of this year. People are flat wrong if they think NU wasn't talented enough to continue winning 9 or 10 games, at least, per year.

If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.

Okay, which games did they buy in for...which games did they not buy in?

Every game before Michigan St. Did you see any effort against Purdue, no me neither

So Riley basically went 3-0, because all the games before MSU are blamed on the players because they were still poisoned by Bo. Then the Iowa loss is really a win because NU would have won by 4 TD's if it weren't for Tommy Armstrong, who had a relapse of Bo poisoning for 1 final game. #RiledUp

Yeah, I'm not sure what the "buy in" motherhood statement even means. And I'm not sure what changes, if any, the staff made after the Purdue debacle. But you have to admit that the Huskers looked like a different team for the last three games of the season. They played at a much higher level against stiffer competition.

The "buy in" statement is an simple deflection argument to absolve the coaches of everything, and place the blame on the players. It's not surprising people pull this out when they call the players stupid.

As for playing better, we've seen incremental improvement, but the D still got torched by Sparty, and we've been massively turnover prone the last 4 games. We're going to need a monumental jump this offseason, because as of today, the team is no better than December of last year.

Curious on your thoughts, though, Saunders - do you believe it's possible there are "buy in" issues even if they're perhaps a minority or small grouping of players? Can it be there's a confluence of factors when people mention "buy in," and that they're not simply just trying to absolve the coaches?

I do. I look at what Ozigbo tweeted out after Stevenson left the team. I look at the rumors that some players cleaned out their lockers after the Iowa game. I think back to the rumors that former coaches were maintaining communication with current players.

A lot of this is speculation and conjecture and I know that. While the coaches are certainly culpable for mistakes made this year, I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest there may have been and still are some players that weren't/aren't totally on board with the coaches and direction of the program.

With a handful of guys? Sure, absolutely. It happens on every single team, and we already had guys leave because of it. But when the season starts, if you know they aren't giving their all, you bench them. By playing them, you're rewarding the behavior.

But do I think it was widespread problem enough to effect the outcome of games because they just didn't care? No, because that's not fair to them, and it's not fair to the coaches either because it means they were implicit in putting guys out there who had no business playing.

Fair explanation. I'd just question whether or not it's something the coaches could easily identify. A lack of faith in the coaches could manifest itself in not-so-obvious ways. For example, it could mean spending less time in the film room or honing your own technique. It could also mean reverting to previous techniques they were taught in moments of confusion. So, when that means a player gives up a 30-yard pass because of bad execution, it may look like a small mistake but the roots of that mistake may go much deeper than appearances.

Anyways, I'm mostly just spitballin' here but it's for that reason I think it could've played a role in outcomes this year alongside everything else.

 

[hskrpwr13]

Remember how much discussion we had on that play after the Illinois game? Odd that no one mentioned the same play--run correctly--after the Michigan State game. I guess there's nothing to discuss when things are executed correctly, huh?.

Nobody talks much about icebergs unless they sink a luxury liner. Getting by one iceberg doesn't cancel out hitting one, now does it?

Also, I doubt many saw the TD against MSU and thought, "Huh, isnt that the same play we saw against ILL, but executed correctly?". It was after the ILL game that it was revealed that the play call wasn't supposed to be a pass (ie TA's fault, not DL's). You're spot on, Bowfin, that DL getting a mulligan if you will for the ILL call, it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand.

And this is my point exactly. There was a HUGE uproar when we ran this play against Illinois and Tommy improvised, and botched, a short pass. We had a five page thread in which people castigated the coaches and talked about the sheer incompetence of calling this play. It was an iceberg! But the coaches didn't listen to the collective fan wisdom about that iceberg play. They went over the play in practice, and even went so far as to rename the play in an effort to prevent another miscue. So we pull it out again against a stout Michigan State defense. This time we run it correctly and Tommy takes it to the house. And some fans (e.g., you two) still call this play an iceberg—saying the TD against Sparty doesn't cancel out the first time we ran it.

So I guess what you're saying is that if we run a play and it doesn't work we should just tear that page out of the playbook. So we don't ever hit that iceberg again!

I won't speak for Bowfin, but you completely missed the point of my post, which was relevant as a response to your original post.

:facepalm:

Oh, perhaps I misunderstood your statement that: "it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand." It sounds to me like you're saying that it was a "questionable play call" against Illinois because it was executed poorly and didn't work. But then the same play was a good call against Michigan State when it did work. (Or are you going to argue that Illinois has a better defense than Michigan State?) So if I completely missed the point of your post then what did you mean by "it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand"? It must have been an egregious misunderstanding on my part, given your double facepalm response.

I don't know if forgetting the "h" in "his" is where the confusion lies, but the point of that statement was that I won't hold him responsible for the outcome of that play against ILL, but it doesn't mean that his overall poor (imo) situational play calling throughout the season doesn't get erased simply because the poor result of the particular ILL play in question wasn't actually due to the play call. How I took Bowfin's iceberg analogy: DL may have dodged an iceberg (that ILL play) after it turned out that the result was on TA, but DL hit too many other icebergs throughout the season to absolve him of overall poor situational play calling simply because it turned out that he avoided that particular iceberg.

I appreciate that the issue was forward fixed, but I put myself in the category of not knowing at the time during the MSU game that it was the same play that was run during ILL, only executed properly. And I was also one of the earlier ones to post in one of those threads that it was explained after the game that that particular play WAS supposed to be a run, but TA misunderstood (or whatever). My opinion off DL for that particular play completely changed after the explanation was provided. And lets be perfectly honest, you know as well as I, that for good or bad, people (including me) are going to generally b!^@h more about a poor play than laud a positive one.

Your response seemed snarky to me, hence my response to your face palm.

 

[NUance]

Remember how much discussion we had on that play after the Illinois game? Odd that no one mentioned the same play--run correctly--after the Michigan State game. I guess there's nothing to discuss when things are executed correctly, huh?.

Nobody talks much about icebergs unless they sink a luxury liner. Getting by one iceberg doesn't cancel out hitting one, now does it?

Also, I doubt many saw the TD against MSU and thought, "Huh, isnt that the same play we saw against ILL, but executed correctly?". It was after the ILL game that it was revealed that the play call wasn't supposed to be a pass (ie TA's fault, not DL's). You're spot on, Bowfin, that DL getting a mulligan if you will for the ILL call, it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand.

And this is my point exactly. There was a HUGE uproar when we ran this play against Illinois and Tommy improvised, and botched, a short pass. We had a five page thread in which people castigated the coaches and talked about the sheer incompetence of calling this play. It was an iceberg! But the coaches didn't listen to the collective fan wisdom about that iceberg play. They went over the play in practice, and even went so far as to rename the play in an effort to prevent another miscue. So we pull it out again against a stout Michigan State defense. This time we run it correctly and Tommy takes it to the house. And some fans (e.g., you two) still call this play an iceberg—saying the TD against Sparty doesn't cancel out the first time we ran it.

So I guess what you're saying is that if we run a play and it doesn't work we should just tear that page out of the playbook. So we don't ever hit that iceberg again!

I won't speak for Bowfin, but you completely missed the point of my post, which was relevant as a response to your original post.

:facepalm:

Oh, perhaps I misunderstood your statement that: "it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand." It sounds to me like you're saying that it was a "questionable play call" against Illinois because it was executed poorly and didn't work. But then the same play was a good call against Michigan State when it did work. (Or are you going to argue that Illinois has a better defense than Michigan State?) So if I completely missed the point of your post then what did you mean by "it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand"? It must have been an egregious misunderstanding on my part, given your double facepalm response.

I don't know if forgetting the "h" in "his" is where the confusion lies, but the point of that statement was that I won't hold him responsible for the outcome of that play against ILL, but it doesn't mean that his overall poor (imo) situational play calling throughout the season doesn't get erased simply because the poor result of the particular ILL play in question wasn't actually due to the play call. How I took Bowfin's iceberg analogy: DL may have dodged an iceberg (that ILL play) after it turned out that the result was on TA, but DL hit too many other icebergs throughout the season to absolve him of overall poor situational play calling simply because it turned out that he avoided that particular iceberg.

I appreciate that the issue was forward fixed, but I put myself in the category of not knowing at the time during the MSU game that it was the same play that was run during ILL, only executed properly. And I was also one of the earlier ones to post in one of those threads that it was explained after the game that that particular play WAS supposed to be a run, but TA misunderstood (or whatever). My opinion off DL for that particular play completely changed after the explanation was provided. And lets be perfectly honest, you know as well as I, that for good or bad, people (including me) are going to generally b!^@h more about a poor play than laud a positive one.

Your response seemed snarky to me, hence my response to your face palm.

Fair enough.

:

 

[BigRedBuster]

Great stats by Buster.

Again - Better execution on the last offensive series (not even drive) against BYU, Illinois, and Wisconsin sees us at 8-4 instead of 5-7.

2 of 3 shoudl never have come down to the final drive.

Stats like that are almost meaningless because they don't capture how games play out and what teams do to achieve wins (rather than produce stats).

and really, 3 of 3 shouldn't have come down to a final drive considering how down Wisky was this year during their own coaching change and because they haven't been recruiting well in a couple of years now.

Stats aren't meaningless. If they were, then managers and coaches all over the world wouldn't use them to analyze what is going on.

You say some of the games shouldn't have come down to the last drive.

Wow....that's amazing.

Interesting thing though. We aren't saying different things. There were lots of those games that if we simply didn't have one of the interceptions, we possibly score again and....ding ding ding...it doesn't come down to the last drive.

There possibly were games where if we had one or two less penalties stalling drives, we would have scored again and....ding ding ding.....it doesn't come down to the last drive.

Our yards per play was more than 3 out of the 4 play off teams but our scoring was slightly less than 3 of them. This tells me we were able to move the ball but a few more drives halted for some reason than those other teams.....hmmmm.....that one more INT or penalty per game.

Now, obviously this is just concentrating on the offensive side of the ball and we all know that early in the year, there were problems on the defensive side.