Jump to content


Chatelain: Huskers vs. Themselves last half of the season


knapplc

Recommended Posts

Well, Nebraska played good football in Saturday night’s second half. Especially the fourth quarter. It was fun to watch not because it was dramatic, but because it wasn’t. It wasn’t two steps forward, one step back. It wasn’t highlight plays mixed with screw-ups. It was clean, dominant football. One good play, followed by another good play, followed by another good play. The opponent was just a table decoration.

 

That’s a heckuva model for the next six weeks, which have the potential to put you to sleep. The Big Ten West stinks (And Rutgers is, well, Rutgers.) The only way to get ready for a Michigan State rematch is to raise expectations. The Huskers will be fun to watch when they’re playing against themselves more than the opponent.

 

Sounds like coach-speak, doesn’t it. Sometimes coaches are right.

 

LINK

 


 

We've all said it 100 times - often the toughest foe Nebraska faces is between their own ears. If we can replicate the second half of Northwestern for at least one half per game in each of our remaining five games, we're going to Indy. And if we replicate it there...

Link to comment

I really REALLY dont like the lack of respect bein shown to Rutgers. While theyre not great, they're not "Rutgers" either. Theyre not a bad team. Theyre not FAU, and theyre not Fresno. Theyre probably better than McNeese, and on par with Miami. I sure hope the hell the team aint treatin em like the fans and media, or we're just screwed.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

That’s a heckuva model for the next six weeks, which have the potential to put you to sleep. The Big Ten West stinks (And Rutgers is, well, Rutgers.)

I don't like this train of thought. We can't overlook any of these teams, as they all certainly don't "stink."

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I really REALLY dont like the lack of respect bein shown to Rutgers. While theyre not great, they're not "Rutgers" either. Theyre not a bad team. Theyre not FAU, and theyre not Fresno. Theyre probably better than McNeese, and on par with Miami. I sure hope the hell the team aint treatin em like the fans and media, or we're just screwed.

Yeah a couple weeks ago some thought they were a win away from maybe cracking the top 25. I don't think we should be pigeonholing anyone and and we should treat everyone like its a must win regardless of opponent. Because it is. And the way the season is going, anything can still happen.

Link to comment

I really REALLY dont like the lack of respect bein shown to Rutgers. While theyre not great, they're not "Rutgers" either. Theyre not a bad team. Theyre not FAU, and theyre not Fresno. Theyre probably better than McNeese, and on par with Miami. I sure hope the hell the team aint treatin em like the fans and media, or we're just screwed.

 

 

That’s a heckuva model for the next six weeks, which have the potential to put you to sleep. The Big Ten West stinks (And Rutgers is, well, Rutgers.)

I don't like this train of thought. We can't overlook any of these teams, as they all certainly don't "stink."

 

+1 to both of you. We simply cannot take any remaining team lightly. If we play our typical half game for all remaining games, we will suffer at least one additional loss and probably more.

 

What are you thinking knapp? Do you have an inside line on a Husker team that couldn't still screw this up? I sure haven't seen that team.

Link to comment

McNeese this year and Wyoming last year should be enough evidence that any team can beat you if you don't play well.

 

The part of Chatelain's blog I disagree with is this:

 

Two years ago at Northwestern, I basically blasted Nebraska for winning a four-quarter thriller. It’s because they were lucky. It’s because they played poorly most of the night. The standard should be good football, not winning games.

 

 

 

I agree "good football" should be the standard, but one measure of that- arguably the most important measure- is winning games. Kansas State played more "good football" than Auburn but didn't win. Arkansas played more "good football" than A&M but didn't win. I'm not giving back the NW win last year because it was won on a hail mary, and Texas isn't giving back the 2009 Big 12 Championhship because they got lucky at the end. Anything less than winning- moral victories- are not what we're about.

 

Could NU be better? Sure. But let's also not think we're worse than we are.

 

"You are what your record says you are." ~ Bill Parcells

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

McNeese this year and Wyoming last year should be enough evidence that any team can beat you if you don't play well.

 

The part of Chatelain's blog I disagree with is this:

 

 

Two years ago at Northwestern, I basically blasted Nebraska for winning a four-quarter thriller. It’s because they were lucky. It’s because they played poorly most of the night. The standard should be good football, not winning games.

 

 

 

I agree "good football" should be the standard, but one measure of that- arguably the most important measure- is winning games. Kansas State played more "good football" than Auburn but didn't win. Arkansas played more "good football" than A&M but didn't win. I'm not giving back the NW win last year because it was won on a hail mary, and Texas isn't giving back the 2009 Big 12 Championhship because they got lucky at the end. Anything less than winning- moral victories- are not what we're about.

 

Could NU be better? Sure. But let's also not think we're worse than we are.

 

"You are what your record says you are." ~ Bill Parcells

That is a very good analogy.

Link to comment

 

That’s a heckuva model for the next six weeks, which have the potential to put you to sleep. The Big Ten West stinks (And Rutgers is, well, Rutgers.)

I don't like this train of thought. We can't overlook any of these teams, as they all certainly don't "stink."

 

You stink.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just kidding - I love you QMany

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

Rutgers is an okay team but they aren't on par with Miami. Nova has been average his entire career and now without their starting RB and a porous D I'm not too worried. Id put them about the same level as Northwestern.

 

Yes, but they have an offensive coordinator in Ralph Friedgen that I wouldn't sleep on or discount. The man can make things happen on offense that make you scratch your head.

 

We need to respect Rutgers, or we're going to be looking at this game from the wrong end.

 

More worried about Purdue than Rutgers...

I dare say I'm worried about them equally.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...