Week 4 v Michigan - Saturday, September 20: Game Notes, Depth Chart, Etc

[Baron Winnebago]

Seems like a bad number.

Rushing D definitely needs to improve. Just for shits and gigs let's look at Michigan's play by play rush offense.

New Mexico
Drive 1: 3,1,56 (TD)
Drive 2: 1,2,3,5,5,4,4,4,3,5 (TD)
Drive 3: 2,2 (punt)
Drive 4: 3 (punt)
Drive 5: 11,3,0 (FG)
Drive 6: 6,8 (TD)
Drive 7: 3 (FG)
Drive 8: N/A (punt)
Drive 9: 2,3,59,1(TD)
Drive 10: 3,1 (punt)
Drive 11: 0 (downs)

Oklahoma
Drive 1: 4,1,5 (punt)
Drive 2: 7, -6 [WR], 1 (punt)
Drive 3: 2,3 (punt)
Drive 4: 1,3,-2,12,8,1,1,2,6 (missed FG)
Drive 5: 3 (end of half)
Drive 6: 75 (TD)
Drive 7: -3 (punt)
Drive 8: -5 [QB], 7 (punt)
Drive 9: 4,4 (FG)
Drive 10: 4,3,5,4 (FG)
Drive 11: 9 [QB], 4 (punt)
Drive 12: -2 (downs)

What I think I learned just from the stats:
1. They don't really go backwards so far, so their runs are almost always moving them closer to the sticks.
2. But they also don't really rip off runs in 8-15 yard chunks either, but...
3. If you fuck up or they block it exactly right, lights out massive long runs.
4. They don't really run the QB, which has been probably the worst thing for Nebraska's D so far.

I don't know how much of this is the "typical" pattern for rushing in CFB, but I guess I was somewhat surprised given Michigan's recent success RTDB that you didn't see more 8-15 yard chunks.


Just perusing Nebraska games, the run D got gashed pretty bad on a couple drives in the second half against Cincinnati but held up well in the first half, but even Akron occasionally popped a few, hard to say though who was in later in the game.

 

[herbsinator]

Rushing D definitely needs to improve. Just for shits and gigs let's look at Michigan's play by play rush offense.

New Mexico
Drive 1: 3,1,56 (TD)
Drive 2: 1,2,3,5,5,4,4,4,3,5 (TD)
Drive 3: 2,2 (punt)
Drive 4: 3 (punt)
Drive 5: 11,3,0 (FG)
Drive 6: 6,8 (TD)
Drive 7: 3 (FG)
Drive 8: N/A (punt)
Drive 9: 2,3,59,1(TD)
Drive 10: 3,1 (punt)
Drive 11: 0 (downs)

Oklahoma
Drive 1: 4,1,5 (punt)
Drive 2: 7, -6 [WR], 1 (punt)
Drive 3: 2,3 (punt)
Drive 4: 1,3,-2,12,8,1,1,2,6 (missed FG)
Drive 5: 3 (end of half)
Drive 6: 75 (TD)
Drive 7: -3 (punt)
Drive 8: -5 [QB], 7 (punt)
Drive 9: 4,4 (FG)
Drive 10: 4,3,5,4 (FG)
Drive 11: 9 [QB], 4 (punt)
Drive 12: -2 (downs)

What I think I learned just from the stats:
1. They don't really go backwards so far, so their runs are almost always moving them closer to the sticks.
2. But they also don't really rip off runs in 8-15 yard chunks either, but...
3. If you fuck up or they block it exactly right, lights out massive long runs.
4. They don't really run the QB, which has been probably the worst thing for Nebraska's D so far.

I don't know how much of this is the "typical" pattern for rushing in CFB, but I guess I was somewhat surprised given Michigan's recent success RTDB that you didn't see more 8-15 yard chunks.


Just perusing Nebraska games, the run D got gashed pretty bad on a couple drives in the second half against Cincinnati but held up well in the first half, but even Akron occasionally popped a few, hard to say though who was in later in the game.

We’re also currently only giving up 65 yds/game passing with no TDs allowed.

 

[Baron Winnebago]

We’re also currently only giving up 65 yds/game passing with no TDs allowed.

Oh definitely. I just don't really see Michigan having a path through the air after seeing some of Underwood v OU, but maybe we can't generate the level of pressure needed to take him off his game

 

[GNRhusker]

Rushing D definitely needs to improve. Just for shits and gigs let's look at Michigan's play by play rush offense.

New Mexico
Drive 1: 3,1,56 (TD)
Drive 2: 1,2,3,5,5,4,4,4,3,5 (TD)
Drive 3: 2,2 (punt)
Drive 4: 3 (punt)
Drive 5: 11,3,0 (FG)
Drive 6: 6,8 (TD)
Drive 7: 3 (FG)
Drive 8: N/A (punt)
Drive 9: 2,3,59,1(TD)
Drive 10: 3,1 (punt)
Drive 11: 0 (downs)

Oklahoma
Drive 1: 4,1,5 (punt)
Drive 2: 7, -6 [WR], 1 (punt)
Drive 3: 2,3 (punt)
Drive 4: 1,3,-2,12,8,1,1,2,6 (missed FG)
Drive 5: 3 (end of half)
Drive 6: 75 (TD)
Drive 7: -3 (punt)
Drive 8: -5 [QB], 7 (punt)
Drive 9: 4,4 (FG)
Drive 10: 4,3,5,4 (FG)
Drive 11: 9 [QB], 4 (punt)
Drive 12: -2 (downs)

What I think I learned just from the stats:
1. They don't really go backwards so far, so their runs are almost always moving them closer to the sticks.
2. But they also don't really rip off runs in 8-15 yard chunks either, but...
3. If you fuck up or they block it exactly right, lights out massive long runs.
4. They don't really run the QB, which has been probably the worst thing for Nebraska's D so far.

I don't know how much of this is the "typical" pattern for rushing in CFB, but I guess I was somewhat surprised given Michigan's recent success RTDB that you didn't see more 8-15 yard chunks.


Just perusing Nebraska games, the run D got gashed pretty bad on a couple drives in the second half against Cincinnati but held up well in the first half, but even Akron occasionally popped a few, hard to say though who was in later in the game.

Underwood is not a running quarterback at all. Raiola has run more than he has.

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

Underwood is not a running quarterback at all. Raiola has run more than he has.

More of a scheme thing and choice by the Michigan staff IMO. We'll see how that holds up in conference play.

 

[cwessel76]

Oh definitely. I just don't really see Michigan having a path through the air after seeing some of Underwood v OU, but maybe we can't generate the level of pressure needed to take him off his game

“Load the fucking box” is what I read from these stats.

 

[RedSavage]

Underwood is not a running quarterback at all. Raiola has run more than he has.

There's an unsubstantiated rumor that Moore wants to call more QB run plays but Underwood has refused bc he's not "jeopardizing his future"

 

[Havoc34]

There's an unsubstantiated rumor that Moore wants to call more QB run plays but Underwood has refused bc he's not "jeopardizing his future"

If that’s the case I’m sure his teammates really love that… lol. Not much a leader if that’s true

 

[Bootleg11]

Seems like a bad number.

I may agree with this guy...but if he's posting on blue sky I just can't take him seriously.