Michigan's loss is an embarrassment to the Big 10

[sd'sker]

Not really, considering both Beck and Watson have consistently showed a tendency to run the ball 70 yards downfield and grind it out, then get to the 10 yard line, go to shotgun, and pass it 3 times for a field goal. Borges last night did the same thing.

seems like a lot of oc's, college and pro, like to throw it inside the ten. only way to spread out the defense with a short field. but what is the difference? if they ran it three times inside the ten every time, got stuffed, and had to kick field goals, they would still be terrible oc's.

 

[HuskerShark]

Not really, considering both Beck and Watson have consistently showed a tendency to run the ball 70 yards downfield and grind it out, then get to the 10 yard line, go to shotgun, and pass it 3 times for a field goal. Borges last night did the same thing.

seems like a lot of oc's, college and pro, like to throw it inside the ten. only way to spread out the defense with a short field. but what is the difference? if they ran it three times inside the ten every time, got stuffed, and had to kick field goals, they would still be terrible oc's.

The good ones understand that inside the redzone is where you have to win with physicality to be successful. That has been the achilles heel of Oregon's offense. If they had the ability to run downhill at all, they would have beat Auburn for the NC. But that's the style of their offense.

The identity of our offense is (should be) run first, run second, Play action pass. So trying to throw it in the red zone where passing windows are that much tighter will never equal success for our team.

 

[Glendower]

You done smoked yourself retarded. Your last 2 posts are completely off the wall and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Here, let me connect the dots for you with a crayon: If a team in a major conference plays well for an entire season, then they can (and will) rise above their surroundings.

The Big 8 was often called "the Big 2, Little Six", but that might have been before your time, so I'll give you a pass on that. The point was, (and is) that the reputation and respect afforded Nebraska and Oklahoma wasn't attached to how well the "Little Six" did, because Nebraska and Oklahoma could jump the fence and beat up anyone in the (then) Pac-10, SEC, or Big 10 more often than not...and EVERYBODY knew it.

Here's the modern version of what I said above: Florida State is playing for the National Championship, even though they reside in the ACC...no one is saying they suck because most of their conference has five or more losses...because they can jump the fence and come pay your team a visit...

Hope this is clear enough for you and the guy who likes "wrasslin"...

...bottom line this "our conference sucks so we do too" sounds Texas/Aggie/SEC and beneath us.

Nobody is saying that we're bad BECAUSE the conference is bad. Mathematically, we will be "bad" next year if the conference is weak this year, which will have major implications for the post-season. If we were to go undefeated (haha) next year and have a weak SOS, we could be eliminated from the playoff. Sure, we can feel happy feelings for our good season and not care about the rest of our conference, but we don't get bonus points for being Nebraska anymore.

However, seeing a team we lost to get beat by a garbage team is terrible. No, I'm not saying there is a valid football syllogism here, but that garbage team lost to teams we beat. The implication is that this is a flakey team in Nebraska. It just reveals more deep problems. Ugh.

ETA: So there are really two things at play when we see other Big Ten teams get beaten or smashed in the post season:

1) What this will do to our SOS next season.

2) What does it say about NU as a team when teams we played close or had to scrape one out against lose or get destroyed in the bowl season by barely-qualified-for-bowls teams or teams that did "just okay" in their conferences?

Yes, the first one is a perception issue, but a perception issue that matters. I couldn't care less about what some joe schmo Colorado fan thinks about NU, that's not important; what is important is what the computer machines think about our strength of schedule. That's still perception, but perception that has a real world impact on possible outcomes to the season.

The second is how we, as fans, perceive the performance of the team here at the end of the season and how confident we are for the future and NU's potential standing on a national level.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Shawn Watson's prolific offense on an 18th ranked team sure looked good to me the other night.

 

[I am I]

not sure why we keep insisting on making our oc's the boogeyman when the same problems persist regardless of who is calling the plays.

We can't blame our problems on the head coach, now can we?

Yeah we can.

And we can also give Bridgewater the success Watson thinks he deserves. Lets see after the top QB in 2013 leaves how good Watson looks.

 

[ObamaRocks91]

Not really, considering both Beck and Watson have consistently showed a tendency to run the ball 70 yards downfield and grind it out, then get to the 10 yard line, go to shotgun, and pass it 3 times for a field goal. Borges last night did the same thing.

seems like a lot of oc's, college and pro, like to throw it inside the ten. only way to spread out the defense with a short field. but what is the difference? if they ran it three times inside the ten every time, got stuffed, and had to kick field goals, they would still be terrible oc's.

The good ones understand that inside the redzone is where you have to win with physicality to be successful. That has been the achilles heel of Oregon's offense. If they had the ability to run downhill at all, they would have beat Auburn for the NC. But that's the style of their offense.

The identity of our offense is (should be) run first, run second, Play action pass. So trying to throw it in the red zone where passing windows are that much tighter will never equal success for our team.

With that said, though, Michigan very well could be the worst physically, downhill running football team in the history of football. They were running with a lot of reverses, jet sweeps, misdirection, etc. That stuff doesn't work inside the 10 yard line and if they ran it between the tackles with the RB, they would have literally a negative chance at gaining a single yard.

 

[sd'sker]

The identity of our offense is (should be) run first, run second, Play action pass. So trying to throw it in the red zone where passing windows are that much tighter will never equal success for our team.

well shoot, any high school oc could do that.

but it sometimes equals success for our team:



furthermore, i am pretty sure the reason this team has not been successful goes well beyond just the oc not running the ball enough inside the ten.

 

[HuskerShark]

The identity of our offense is (should be) run first, run second, Play action pass. So trying to throw it in the red zone where passing windows are that much tighter will never equal success for our team.

well shoot, any high school oc could do that.

but it sometimes equals success for our team:

In that situation that you referenced, we HAD to pass the ball because the clock was running out.

Regarding your last sentence, I completely agree. I originally made the comment about Borges crapping his pants in the red zone and compared that to Beck and Watson, which led us here.

 

[sd'sker]

In that situation that you referenced, we HAD to pass the ball because the clock was running out.

Regarding your last sentence, I completely agree. I originally made the comment about Borges crapping his pants in the red zone and compared that to Beck and Watson, which led us here.

i kind of felt like i was arguing just to argue, but mostly because i get tired of the oc's being the scapegoats.

but i will say, pretty impressive that the defense knew we were, without a doubt, going to throw and it was still a successful play. i do agree that beck has called some real head-scratchers (e.g. end of ucla 2012), but i just think there is a lot more sense, overall, to his decision making that we do not see and the failures come from lack of execution.

 

[JJ Husker]

Minnesota, a team that beat us, losing to Syracuse, does say something about us and the B1G conference. Michigan, widely acknowledged as our best victory of the season, getting abused by KSU, does say something about our team and our conference. Problem is that many of us already realized just how poor our team and conference is. Some others just don't realize how bad we are and still others are just tired of having it pointed out. Our team is what it is and so is our conference. Nuff said.

 

[ohiocornhusker]

Michigan, widely acknowledged as our best victory of the season,

I think the reason they are considered our best win isn't necessarily because we beat Michigan, but because we beat them at home, giving Hoke his first loss in the Big House. I thought the ref's would make sure we lost so that Ohio State could give them their first loss, but I was wrong, fortunately.

 

[sd'sker]

Michigan, widely acknowledged as our best victory of the season,

I think the reason they are considered our best win isn't necessarily because we beat Michigan, but because we beat them at home, giving Hoke his first loss in the Big House. I thought the ref's would make sure we lost so that Ohio State could give them their first loss, but I was wrong, fortunately.

i agree that is why it was so meaningful, but i still think it is our best win. if not them, who was our best win?

 

[DomiNUs]

When the conference keeps taking a beating, it certainly does effect us. If the perception is the B1G is weak, then the bowl season turns out bad, our strength of schedule will suffer the next year. Which is a very important factor in determining who will play in the new playoff. The B1G needs to do well, or at least be average. So far though, it's not happening.

I never get the statement, "If the perception is the B1G is weak."

I think the B1G sucks. I believed this before the season began. This has nothing to do with perception.

So you think that the B1G sucks. That's what you believe. . . so that is your perception. It has everything to do with perception.

 

[NUinID]

Michigan didn't even look like they wanted to be there. It looked like they thought, Gardner's hurt so what is the point. Another 5 loss season and Hoke will be gone.

 

[NUance]

Hoke - an incompetent stooge that stands there clapping like one of those toy monkeys with the cymbals. Currently paid like a top 10 coach.

Borges - Hoke's bloated yes man that takes the heat for his boss for doing exactly what his boss wants, then blames the players when things don't work. ("We didn't execute.")

Mattison - maybe the biggest fraud of them all. Three years in, and this was the second worst team in Michigan history in terms of points allowed. Continued the awesome tradition of allowing at least four touchdowns in the bowl game. EVERY single Michigan bowl team except the Sugar Bowl champions of two years ago has given up at least 28 points since the year after Woodson left.

And above all of them, the dictator Brandon, who spends his time counting his money and insulting the fans.

Get used to it, folks. We're just the pitiful sheep operating without 95% of the information. Now pony up and pay for those Appy State tickets for next year!

LINK

^^This from a Mechicken board. It seems the Vulvarine fans are in agreement about that fiasco of a bowl game.