Shatel's Article
- Thread starter Frida's Boss
- Start date
Exactly, Iosing by a big margin or giving up a lot of yards doesn't always mean a team wasn't ready to play.
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Starting off well, then falling flat on your face when the other team throws a couple of haymakers at you doesn't indicate, to me, that the team was ready to play.
This is a 60 minute game. That's why the guys used to hold four fingers up when the fourth quarter rolled around. They sure weren't doing that against UCLA, OSU, Wiscy or Georgia.
This is a 60 minute game. That's why the guys used to hold four fingers up when the fourth quarter rolled around. They sure weren't doing that against UCLA, OSU, Wiscy or Georgia.
Junior
Banned
As I said, the players are held accountable to the coaches, and if the coaches don't/can't correct the mistakes, then there's a problem. Yes, it is the coach's responsibility to fix the problems. Do you think that Bill Callahan should have been fired in 2007?
JJ Husker
Assistant Coach
Wrong! A team doesn't get "ready" to play part of a game. If they're truly ready to play, they are ready to play a complete game. The only two instances where you can say a team was ready to play but lost by a big margin and/or gave up a lot of yards would be if they got totally and majorly jobbed by the refs or if the other team was just that far superior and we clearly should not have been on the same field with them. Neither of those conditions apply to any game we played last year.
EZ-E
All-American
I think you are a bit off here. Looking back at how good our defense was in 09 and how we had literally the best DT who has ever played here, I don't think it's unreasonable to think we would take a slight step back in terms of where we were defensively the year after.
Really having a hard time identifying where that's too outlandish of a statement. Unless you are Jason Peter and you think we should be running for 500 yards a game and giving up less than 100 yards.
IMO that has nothing to do with being ready to play the game. It does have to do with resiliency and being about to handle adversity. In the MSU, NW, and Wisky I, games NU was able to handle the adversity. In 2 of the 4 loses NU was not. That is what is so perplexing. You can say and feel what ever way you want about the UCLA game and Georgia game. I don't think they folded up in those games. With 2 minutes left in the game NU could have won the UCLA game. NU went toe to toe with Georgia for the better part of the game.
gbr93
Special Teams Player
I can see both sides of this but my terminology would line up more closely with NUinID. Being "ready to play" means starting the game out playing well. If you're competitive for a couple quarters then end up getting blown out, I would file that in a different category than "not being ready to play."
I wouldn't term the 2011 games with Wisconsin or Michigan "not ready to play" as we were competitive for some time, especially Wisconsin. I would say our defense wasn't ready to play against UCLA, tOSU and Wiscy last year. Our offense didn't come "ready to play" in several game last year but usually recovered, thus all the comeback victories (not that the defense was great in those games, either).
EZ-E
All-American
The King
Starter
I think a few people expressed concern along the DL when Suh left. Granted, a lot of people also thought Crick would step up and be the force Suh was - but Suh and Crick are clearly not the same.
For instance, I have a hard time believing South Carolina thinks their defense will be better with the loss of Jadeveon Clowney - granted, they won't be significantly worse, ala Nebraska, because they've recruited much better than we have.
For instance, I have a hard time believing South Carolina thinks their defense will be better with the loss of Jadeveon Clowney - granted, they won't be significantly worse, ala Nebraska, because they've recruited much better than we have.