Two years ago, it was pretty easy to see what was in store for the Big 12 in football.  Colt McCoy was having a monster RSFr season.  Chase Daniel and Graham Harrell were having monster sophomore seasons.  Stephen McGee and Bobby Reid were young and looked like gamers.  Josh Freeman was a true freshman starter, and while he looked it from time to time, his upside was huge.  Even Bret Meyer and Blake "Blizzle Szyzzle" Szymanski had their moments.

Beyond that, the offensive lines (especially Oklahoma's) were young, as were the RBs and WRs.  Oh yeah, and just about every proven defensive end had run out of eligibility.  While there was still defensive talent throughout the conference, it was clear that the next couple of years were going to see some unprecedented offensive continuity and success in the Big 12.

Sure enough, that's what happened.  And it was an even bigger surge than anybody expected.  Todd Reesing and Zac Robinson outshone their promising counterparts (Dylan Meier and Reid) and thrived.  Jeremy Maclin and Michael Crabtree were All-Americans as redshirt freshmen.  Add to that the fact that half the league's starters are of the "3-year" variety, and this run of offense has just been ridiculous.  Josh Freeman is still talked about as a potential first rounder in the 2009 (or 2010) draft, and he's at best the #8 QB in the conference.

But it all changes in 2009.  Daniel and Harrell?  Gone.  Crabtree and Maclin?  Almost certainly gone.  McCoy, Bradford, Freeman?  Possibly gone.  Chase Coffman, Joe Ganz, Marlon Lucky, Nate Swift, Chris Ogbonnaya, Quan Cosby, Jordan Shipley, Shannon Woods and Eric Morris?  Gone.  Even the J-Train, Jorvorskie Lane, has finally exhausted his eligibility.  So many guys who have become household names in the midwest are leaving.

And that says nothing about William Moore, Brian Orakpo, all of KU's linebackers, Nic Harris, and the potential defensive exodus.  Or even Dave Christensen, Matt Eberflus, Brent Venables, Kevin Wilson, and the potential assistant coaching exodus.

The watchword for '08 was "offensive explosion."  For '09?  "New"  Through the clarity of 2007 and 2008 lies the fog of 2009.  We don't yet know all who will return and who will not, but one thing's for certain: everything changes in 2009.

It's still pretty hard to grasp this yet, as we don't know who will be leaving for the draft, but let's take a super-duper early look at who might be good (or not so good) in 2009.  We'll start with the North Division.  To do this, I'm not going to jump into BTBS numbers.  There will certainly be a time and place for that.  Today, we'll simply go unit-by-unit and make some early rankings.  And I'm not even going to think about redshirts or incoming recruits.  Making predictions about how newcomers are going to fit in and/or thrive can drive you crazy.  Plus, you'll probably be wrong.  Remember how Darrell Scott and Jocques Crawford were supposed to be total studs the moment they walked in the door at CU and KU?

In other words, the projections after the jump are strictly from this year's depth chart.

Continue reading this post »

I may have posted the BTBS 'box' yesterday, but there's still plenty to discuss.  Let's look back at last week's preview and see how things shook down.

Nebraska's 46% success rate is pretty solid; Mizzou's 58% success rate (60% in close games) is ridiculous.

Nebraska: 39.7% success rate, 40.9% while the game was close
Missouri: 56.9% success rate, 56.3% while the game was close

So NU held Mizzou a smidge below its season success rate...but still couldn't stop the big play.  Meanwhile, NU didn't have nearly enough offensive consistency.

If you can force Nebraska into passing downs, they're not able to complete them as well as they did last year, back when Marlon Lucky was alive.

Nebraska: 6-for-22 on passing downs.  They were 5-for-11 passing (2 successful passes to Nate Swift, 2 to Todd Peterson, 1 to Menelik Holt) with 1 sack, and they were 1-for-5 rushing. 

They were 2-for-4 in Q1 (that's when the two passes to Swift came), 4-for-18 the rest of the game.

Nebraska is a Q1/Q3 team.  They gameplan well offensively, and they backslide a smidge once the gameplan runs out and they actually have to adjust.

Nebraska Offense

Q1: 50.0% success rate / 0.42 PPP / 0.924 S&P
Q2: 30.0% success rate / 0.18 PPP / 0.484 S&P
Q3: 37.5% success rate / 0.15 PPP / 0.522 S&P

And the game was over in Q4.

They really did gameplan pretty well, with the rollouts and such, but once Mizzou got comfortable (which didn't take long), it was over fast.

Mizzou's offense is disgustingly consistent from Q1 to Q3.  We hear a lot about Mizzou's "fast starts", but a fast start suggests a fall-off.  They start fast and stay fast.

Missouri Offense

Q1: 61.5% success rate / 0.70 PPP / 1.320 S&P (skewed by Maclin's long TD)
Q2: 50.0% success rate / 0.40 PPP / 0.903 S&P
Q3: 72.7% success rate / 1.23 PPP / 1.953 S&P

So a slight dropoff in Q2, but only to 0.903.  That's still good.  I do find one thing ironic, though: remember how NU's coaches bragged about the fantastic gameplan they'd put together?  Well Mizzou was unbelievable in the "gameplan" quarters (Q1/Q3).  That's some good coaching by Nebraska, huh?

The game could be made or broken on third downs.

Mizzou on 3rd downs: 77.8% success rate / 1.487 PPP / 2.264 S&P
Nebraska on 3rd downs: 63.2% success rate / 0.391 PPP / 1.022 S&P

Nebraska was a little too successful on 3rd downs for my taste, but while they were just barely converting (0.391 PPP), Missouri was breaking the Points Per Play chart (1.487).  Again, S&P is a lot like OPS in baseball--anything over 0.900 is pretty good.  A 2.264 S&P is "Barry Bonds in the 2002 World Series" good.

(Correction: Barry Bonds only put up a 1.994 OPS in the 2002 World Series.  My bad.  The Missouri offense on third downs was better than Barry Bonds in the 2002 World Series.)

Continue reading this post »

I was looking back at the first posts made on RMN recently...and it reminded me that last year, along with the BTBS piece, I threw together a unit-by-unit preview of the upcoming game as well.  How's about we try that again?

Oh yeah, and leave your own predictions and/or random comments in the comments below.

QB vs QB

I can honestly say without hesitation that Mizzou would win this category against any team in the country.  This one needs no explanation.  Advantage: Mizzou.

MU RBs vs NU LBs

I'll say this: Cody Glenn has worked out better at LB than I thought he would--you'd figure there would be a one-year transition period, but he's stepped up well and is leading the Huskers in tackles from his weakside LB position.  He's even 3rd on the team in tackles for loss, plus he's broken up three passes and forced a fumble.  Problem is, his counterparts have been underwhelming.  Phillip Dillard is okay, but the strongside LB position has produced next to nothing.  Granted, they'll likely be in a nickel most of Saturday, but regardless, this LB unit is still limited.

Oh yeah, and Derrick Washington is really, really good.  Advantage: Mizzou.

MU WRs/TEs vs NU DBs

NU Secondary = work in progress.  MU receiving corps = best in America.  Advantage: Mizzou.

MU O-line vs NU D-line

This is an interesting matchup; it will probably be where the game is decided.  The starting front four for Nebraska--Zach Potter, Ndamukong Suh, Ty Steinkuhler, and Pierre Allen--has been downright solid for the Huskers.  There are two problems, however.

1) Though we've heard pretty good things about freshman DE Cameron Meredith, there is almost no depth whatsoever with this unit.  Their rotation is small, which means either a) they continue with their small rotation against Missouri and wear down by the third quarter, or b) they open up a big rotation to keep guys fresh, and a lot of guys who are either too inexperienced or not good enough to have earned playing time get a lot of snaps.  Either way, that's a bad thing for Nebraska.

2) Illinois' D-line is likely better than the Husker unit, and Illinois got little to no pressure on Chase Daniel.  Maybe you've heard this once or twice on RMN, ahem, but getting pressure on Chase Daniel with your front four is your only means of survival against the Mizzou offense.  Elvis Fisher and Colin Brown are proving to be a ridiculously good set of bookend tackles.

In other words, Advantage: Mizzou.

NU RBs vs MU LBs

Even though I've never been as high on Marlon Lucky as some, I still always saw him as a solid back, particularly on 3rd down.  He's picking a bad time to not live up to even my expectations.  Granted, there's still a lot of time left in his senior season, but he just hasn't been very dynamic at all.  Sophomore Roy Helu Jr. seems to have passed him in terms of potential and upside, and fellow sophomore Quentin Castille is getting the short-yardage carries.  It's now a three-headed RB attack for Nebraska, and last week's 15-carry, 46-yard performance from the RBs against Virginia Tech didn't exactly fill me with the fear that Nebraska will be able to control the pace and grind out the clock with the running game.  They'll have to rely on the short passing game for that.

Oh yeah, and Brock Christopher and Sean Weatherspoon are freaking fantastic.  Advantage: Mizzou.

Continue reading this post »

To get a better look at what we should expect from Nebraska this weekend, we turned to our colleagues at Corn Nation for a Q&A. My responses to CN are available here.

1. So, four games into the Pelini era, what have we learned about Nebraska so far?

Blankman: This is clearly a rebuilding year for the program as a whole.  There is solid talent but I would argue that there is not the proper staff to coach every aspect of the team and perform other duties.  I think that Bo is finding his head coach identity and it’s going to take a year or two to truly find if it’s simply intensity that defines him.

 

Husker Mike:  Sadly, the coaching change hasn't corrected as many problems as we had hoped.  While our red zone defense has improved significantly, we still struggle with fundamentals.  On offense, we're way too inconsistent and struggle with running the ball.

 

Corn Blight: It’s going to be a tough road back and it isn’t going to happen all in a single season. I knew that already. I fear for the sanity of those who thought that the return of Tom Osborne and hiring Bo Pelini would automatically give us seven points to start the game. 

With regards to the team on the field, I’m disappointed that we’re not more physical than we are, and that particularly is true on the offensive line. I had hoped these guys would be monsters, and so far that’s not been the case. Apparently you can’t flush Bill Callahan’s influence in only a few games. 

 

I figured the secondary would be a work in progress, but I thought that our safeties would be fine.

2. What are the biggest lessons Nebraska took out of the home loss to Virginia Tech? What deficiencies exposed during the game worry you the most when it comes to matching up with Mizzou?

Blankman: If you want to beat Nebraska, put eight men in the box and throw on offense.

 

Husker Mike:  Several times, Nebraska's secondary couldn't cover Tech's young receivers.  Fortunately, Tech's Tyrod Taylor missed those wide-open receivers. Chase Daniel won't.

 

Corn Blight: There’s still a lot of work to do in the secondary, and there’s still a huge problem with consistency. Some of this is due to playing young guys and learning a new defense, but some of it is a lackadaisical attitude that hasn’t yet been cleansed from the program. 

3. The blueprint for slowing down Mizzou's offense is generating pressure with four down linemen. Do you expect Nebraska to be able to generate that kind of pressure?

Blankman: Not unless changes are made. Pierre Allen looked far too slow against Virginia Tech whereas Cameron Meredith appeared to look very fast and capable of playing from a linebacker or lineman’s spot.  If Meredith doesn’t get his fair share of snaps against Mizzou, someone’s got naked pictures.

 

Husker Mike:  One area where there is clear improvement on defense is on the defensive line.  Ndamakong Suh has been living up to his reputation, and Ty Steinkuhler has been a force as well. Zach Potter has continued his strong play from last season.  By that same manner, Nebraska hasn't faced an offense like Missouri's  yet.  But there is a glimmer of hope that the defensive line can get Daniel out of rhythm occasionally.

 

Corn Blight: Yes, I do. Ndamukong Suh has played pretty well (other than a costly penalty against VaTech), coming up with a couple sacks, an interception which was returned for a TD, and a forced fumble. I disagree with Blankman in that I think Pierre Allen has done decently for a young guy taking over for the injured Barry Turner. Allen is third in tackles and has a sack of his own. 

 

We could see more rotation on the front four so they’d stay fresher later in the game.  

(More questions after the jump)

Continue reading this post »

We had a bye week, and there's no game for me to review...so let's go ahead and talk about Nebraska, shall we?

So the NCAA.org site from which I get my play-by-plays is screwing me this week, as half their games from last week aren't in the database correctly yet.  That's preventing me from having the up-to-date '+' numbers I was hoping to have for conference play.  Oh well, I guess.  Instead, what you get is one monster BTBS season box score for both Mizzou and Nebraska.  And after the jump, I'll play with projections the way I have been for the other '08 games so far.

If you have any questions about these numbers, please ask them.  At some point I'll get to the new BTBS Glossary I've promised...but it hasn't happened yet.  And if your eyes glaze over looking at numbers, check out the bullets after the box.

Thoughts...

• Nebraska has actually lost the field position battle (Field Position % = plays you've run in your opponent's territory vs plays they've run in your territory) so far this year.  They've come up with some big plays so far, but that's a little bit alarming.  Some teams are really good at the bend-don't-break thing, but it's a dangerous game.
• Less than 1/4 of Missouri's plays are Passing Downs.  Oh yeah, and they're just about the best in the country at converting Passing Downs.
• Nebraska's 46% success rate is pretty solid; Mizzou's 58% success rate (60% in close games) is ridiculous.
• Mizzou's only giving up 2.23 Line Yards per carry.  I thought it would be higher than that, even against relatively weak competition.  That's a stout run defense right there.
• Nebraska's passing game is downright solid, especially considering Joe Ganz only has one 'shows up every game' weapon at his disposal, Nate "Remember Me?" Swift.
• Oh yeah, and Mizzou's 1.275 Passing S&P is unbelievable.
• If you can force Nebraska into passing downs, they're not able to complete them as well as they did last year, back when Marlon Lucky was alive.
• Mizzou is the poster child for why Turnover Points Margin is so much more telling than Turnover Margin.  What happens when you put up 3 INT's for TD in 4 games?  You average a more than 6-point turnover advantage per game.
  
• Nebraska is a Q1/Q3 team.  They gameplan well offensively, and they backslide a smidge once the gameplan runs out and they actually have to adjust.
• Meanwhile, their defense is pretty stout in Q4.  Don't know if that's because of the competition or not, but let's just go ahead and make sure this game is out of reach in Q3, shall we?
  
• Mizzou's offense is disgustingly consistent from Q1 to Q3.  We hear a lot about Mizzou's "fast starts", but a fast start suggests a fall-off.  They start fast and stay fast.  Their Q4 numbers are down, but put little stock in that--they've only played their starters in Q4 in 2 of 4 games.  They weren't wonderful offensively against Illinois in Q4, but that's a quite small sample size, no?
• Mizzou's offense is RIDICULOUS on first downs.  A 1.623 S&P?  Seriously?
• The game could be made or broken on third downs.  Nebraska is -0.062 S&P on third downs (0.642 on offense, 0.708 on defense), while Mizzou is +0.383.  You have to figure that home field advantage is most apparent on third downs, so Mizzou's advantage will shrink because of that...but that's still pretty significant right there.

Alright, projections after the jump...

Continue reading this post »