2023 Key Stats and two stats to watch in 2024 (1 Viewer)

[Blakejc]

Before the season I identified key stats I thought would be integral to a successful season. The benchmarks were listed as “wishful thinking” I.e., top 40 or better nationally and “realistic goals” i.e., progress based on 2022 results, but still not necessarily “good”.

They were listed in order of importance.

Category	Wishful Thinking	Realistic Goal	2023 Season
Turnover Margin	+0.5/game	+0.25/game	-1.42/game LOL
Avg. Starting Field Position	31 YL	28 YL	28.7 yard line
Off PPG	32 ppg	27 ppg	18.0 ppg
Def PPG	20 ppg	24 ppg	18.3 ppg
3rd Down Offense	45%	41%	37.91%
3rd Down Defense	35%	38%	37.22%
Opponents Yard per Rush	3.5 ypc	3.99 ypc	2.97 ypc
Pts per RZ attempt - offense	5.5 pts/rz att	5.25 pts/rz att	4.0 pts/rz att LOL
Pts per RZ attempt - defense	4.25 pts/rz att	4.6 pts/ rz att	4.13 pts/rz att

Lots of good in there, but I want to focus on the two catastrophic failures: rz offense and turnover margin.

I see what Rhule means when he says they’re close, and he’s right, but abysmal performance in two stats undid all the good everywhere else.

Good news, now we have benchmarks for 2024. And more wins can come by improving from “worst in the nation” to simply “bad”.

We had 31 giveaways this year. 2.6/game. Dead last in the country. If that number drops to 18 that’s a huge improvement, even though 1.5 giveaways/game would still only be 80th nationally.

Similarly, we improve the offense a ton if we improve a little bit in the red zone.

NU averaged 2.4 red zone attempts per game and 4pts/rz att. Both 128th in the country. 9.7 rz pts/game might end up being dead last in the country. They were bad at getting in position to score, and when they did, they absolutely sucked at scoring. Whipple’s 2022 offense may have been bad at getting to the RZ (2.7 atts/game), but he was elite when he did get there (5.47pts/rz att).

Progress in 2024 may mean going from 128th in red zone offense to 90th in red zone offense. That would be 3.1 rz att/game and 4.6pts/rz att. 14.25 rz pts/game, or 4.5 pts better per game.

Offense improves from 18.0ppg to 22.5ppg. You probably win 2 more games.

What if we perform like the 40th ranked rz offense? 4rz atts/game and 5.25 pts/rz att. 21 rz pts/game

Offense improves from 18.0ppg to 29.3ppg. You probably win 4 more games.

Imagine how different this season would’ve been if we averaged 1.5 giveaways/game rather than 2.6 and 15 rz pts/game rather than 10? Both are still bad numbers nationally, but they aren’t fatal.

Nebraska is indeed very close, but identifying the problem is a lot easier than fixing it. Satterfield needs to earn his $1.4M and Rhule needs to earn his $12M, and turnovers and red zone scoring is where they need to start.

 

[Lionsfan93]

This is a damn good post! And I agree a ton with what you have to say for stats to keep an eye. However, one thing I think you are overlooking is regression.

I loved our defense this past year, but to ignore that they benefited from playing the Big Ten West offenses means that we aren't looking at the full picture.

An argument certainly could be made that Colorado's offense will take a step back next year. But look at the different offenses we will be playing just in conference. We trade Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan St and Maryland for Ohio St, Indiana, Rutgers, UCLA and USC. Minnesota, Northwestern and Maryland scored a combined 35 points - can we expect to do that to Indiana, Rutgers and UCLA next year?

 

[Blakejc]

This is a damn good post! And I agree a ton with what you have to say for stats to keep an eye. However, one thing I think you are overlooking is regression.

I loved our defense this past year, but to ignore that they benefited from playing the Big Ten West offenses means that we aren't looking at the full picture.

An argument certainly could be made that Colorado's offense will take a step back next year. But look at the different offenses we will be playing just in conference. We trade Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan St and Maryland for Ohio St, Indiana, Rutgers, UCLA and USC. Minnesota, Northwestern and Maryland scored a combined 35 points - can we expect to do that to Indiana, Rutgers and UCLA next year?

The goal doesn’t change. I use top 40 stats as my benchmark because it’s attainable every year and a team that’s top 40 in everything probably makes the CFP or comes damn close. Top 40 in Def PPG is 24ppg. I think Rhule and co. have higher standards on defense, so maybe their goal every year is to be under 20ppg.

We played mediocre offenses, but our offense put our d in horrible spots. We gave up explosive plays to teams that don’t generate a lot of explosive plays. We were good on 3rd down, but bad on 3rd and long. I imagine they’ll correct some of their ailments, but new ones will crop up.

 

[Faux Sean Callahan]

Nebraska is indeed very close, but identifying the problem is a lot easier than fixing it. Satterfield needs to earn his $1.4M and Rhule needs to earn his $12M, and turnovers and red zone scoring is where they need to start.

Felt like if you fix turnovers that should help fix RZ scoring to a large point.

FYI if nebraska gets rz scoring to Whipple level (5.3 points per RZ) it adds 38 points to our offense. Probably a 7 win team with that.

 

[Blakejc]

Felt like if you fix turnovers that should help fix RZ scoring to a large point.

Cutting the giveaways in half would have a ripple effect on a lot of meaningful stats and result in 2-3 more wins.

And really, I should focus more attention on giveaways. Those are largely controllable. Takeaways seem much more random and a product of chance. Top 40 would be above 1.5 takeaways/game (18/season). We were at 1.17/game (14), so not far off.

 

[Lionsfan93]

The goal doesn’t change. I use top 40 stats as my benchmark because it’s attainable every year and a team that’s top 40 in everything probably makes the CFP or comes damn close. Top 40 in Def PPG is 24ppg. I think Rhule and co. have higher standards on defense, so maybe their goal every year is to be under 20ppg.

We played mediocre offenses, but our offense put our d in horrible spots. We gave up explosive plays to teams that don’t generate a lot of explosive plays. We were good on 3rd down, but bad on 3rd and long. I imagine they’ll correct some of their ailments, but new ones will crop up.

Very valid points. Improvement in turnovers and time of possession all help the defense to improve.