When 9 wins a year isn't the whole story.

[NUpolo8]

Nebraska was embarrassed on national tv? I don't think I've read that on this message board before......

You've read it here because it's a bi-annual occurrence. What exactly do you want to read here? Something other than the truth?

Apparently, the truth = belittling.

Probably a bit harsh, yes.

My point was he only reads about it here because it happens. It's like some people want this place to be some Orwellian groupthink about Nebraska athletics.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Yea, this made me laugh. I wasn't aware Abdullah was our 2nd string RB.

Is that crummy according to perception before or after the season?

I think it's safe to say that Michigan St wound up being FAR better than anyone around here predicted. And that Minnesota and Iowa both wound up being significantly better than anyone expected. UCLA was better than us from the get go and predicted as a possible loss all along. I think the Minnesota and Iowa losses shouldnt've happened, but with all the injuries, and Taylor playing on crutches up in Minny, I'm not surprised by them looking back. And the injury excuses are not overblown. We were literally down to our 2nd team offense, and even 3rd guys at some positions, outside of our running backs. We were on the brink of pulling redshirts off Olineman just to be able to field 11 guys. That's pretty drastic. Georgia had injury problems too, and went from NC contender to 5 losses. Florida? 4-8. Injuries are part of the game, but seldom does a team who loses a large amount of their top guys accross the board remain just as good.

Oh hey, look at that. I addressed that part in my original statement.

I stand by what I said. And as far as two losses coming with Taylor as starting qb, well that's a wash. He was never 100% from the opening kickoff against Wyoming and frankly never shoulda been playing from the get go.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Yea, this made me laugh. I wasn't aware Abdullah was our 2nd string RB.

Is that crummy according to perception before or after the season?

I think it's safe to say that Michigan St wound up being FAR better than anyone around here predicted. And that Minnesota and Iowa both wound up being significantly better than anyone expected. UCLA was better than us from the get go and predicted as a possible loss all along. I think the Minnesota and Iowa losses shouldnt've happened, but with all the injuries, and Taylor playing on crutches up in Minny, I'm not surprised by them looking back. And the injury excuses are not overblown. We were literally down to our 2nd team offense, and even 3rd guys at some positions, outside of our running backs. We were on the brink of pulling redshirts off Olineman just to be able to field 11 guys. That's pretty drastic. Georgia had injury problems too, and went from NC contender to 5 losses. Florida? 4-8. Injuries are part of the game, but seldom does a team who loses a large amount of their top guys accross the board remain just as good.

Oh hey, look at that. I addressed that part in my original statement.

I stand by what I said. And as far as two losses coming with Taylor as starting qb, well that's a wash. He was never 100% from the opening kickoff against Wyoming and frankly never shoulda been playing from the get go.

So why was he playing if he shouldn't have been playing?

To everyone: How much different would you have viewed this season had all 4 losses come with Tommy or RK3 under center?

 

[Count 'Bility]

And the injury excuses are not overblown. We were literally down to our 2nd team offense

Thanks for proving the point that is was overblown. Saying we were down to the 2nd team offense is laughable. We lost key players in Martinez and Long (half our losses came when they were still available however), otherwise there wasn't any key players missing substantial time. Most of the lineman that got hurt certainly didn't miss a lot of time. Players on every team miss a couple games here and there every season. So yes, very much so overblown.

There was a time when we were down to 4 non starters on the Oline, including Moudy-a 2nd teamer-being out. Turner was out for pretty much all of conference play. Bell was come and go and never really was 100%. Armstrong went down at Penn St. We were moving guys around on the line to try to save redshirts. Dont give me the "injuries are part of the game, everyone has to deal with this" nonsense. What happened to us is similar to what happened to Georgia and Florida, and they went from title contender to 8-5 and 4-8. And they have a hell of a lot better depth than we do. So dont tell me that kind of dessimation of that side of the ball doesnt effect anything. Your starters are your starters cus theyre your best players. And no, we were'nt LITERALLY down to our 2nd team offense, but it was pretty damn close for a few games late.

Name me a team that has multiple (not just one or two) injuries on one side of the ball and just keep moving forward as if nothing happened, regardless of the strength of schedule. The Patriots this year is about all i can come up with. And that's because it's such a rarity.

The injuries are not excuses. Theyre pretty much full-blown reasons.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Yea, this made me laugh. I wasn't aware Abdullah was our 2nd string RB.

Is that crummy according to perception before or after the season?

I think it's safe to say that Michigan St wound up being FAR better than anyone around here predicted. And that Minnesota and Iowa both wound up being significantly better than anyone expected. UCLA was better than us from the get go and predicted as a possible loss all along. I think the Minnesota and Iowa losses shouldnt've happened, but with all the injuries, and Taylor playing on crutches up in Minny, I'm not surprised by them looking back. And the injury excuses are not overblown. We were literally down to our 2nd team offense, and even 3rd guys at some positions, outside of our running backs. We were on the brink of pulling redshirts off Olineman just to be able to field 11 guys. That's pretty drastic. Georgia had injury problems too, and went from NC contender to 5 losses. Florida? 4-8. Injuries are part of the game, but seldom does a team who loses a large amount of their top guys accross the board remain just as good.

Oh hey, look at that. I addressed that part in my original statement.

I stand by what I said. And as far as two losses coming with Taylor as starting qb, well that's a wash. He was never 100% from the opening kickoff against Wyoming and frankly never shoulda been playing from the get go.

So why was he playing if he shouldn't have been playing?

To everyone: How much different would you have viewed this season had all 4 losses come with Tommy or RK3 under center?

Probably the same answer to this as to the question of why did he play against Minnesota, which the answer would be:

But it was pretty glaring even to start the year, that there just wasnt something right. Then the opportunities he had to run against UCLA that he would normally take, and gash for 20 yards, that he turned down told the whole story.

 

[The Dude]

And the injury excuses are not overblown. We were literally down to our 2nd team offense

Thanks for proving the point that is was overblown. Saying we were down to the 2nd team offense is laughable. We lost key players in Martinez and Long (half our losses came when they were still available however), otherwise there wasn't any key players missing substantial time. Most of the lineman that got hurt certainly didn't miss a lot of time. Players on every team miss a couple games here and there every season. So yes, very much so overblown.

There was a time when we were down to 4 non starters on the Oline, including Moudy-a 2nd teamer-being out. Turner was out for pretty much all of conference play. Bell was come and go and never really was 100%. Armstrong went down at Penn St. We were moving guys around on the line to try to save redshirts. Dont give me the "injuries are part of the game, everyone has to deal with this" nonsense. What happened to us is similar to what happened to Georgia and Florida, and they went from title contender to 8-5 and 4-8. And they have a hell of a lot better depth than we do. So dont tell me that kind of dessimation of that side of the ball doesnt effect anything. Your starters are your starters cus theyre your best players. And no, we were'nt LITERALLY down to our 2nd team offense, but it was pretty damn close for a few games late.

Name me a team that has multiple (not just one or two) injuries on one side of the ball and just keep moving forward as if nothing happened, regardless of the strength of schedule. The Patriots this year is about all i can come up with. And that's because it's such a rarity.

The injuries are not excuses. Theyre pretty much full-blown reasons.

I honestly find it hard to believe we're better than a 9-4 team even if we were the only team in the nation that magically didn't have to deal with injuries. Iowa and Michigan State were just better teams last year, plain and simple. The injuries obvious weren't the full-blown reason we lost to Minnesota and UCLA. That's just roughly where we belonged in the pecking order.

 

[The Dude]

The admirable thing is winning the Michigan, Northwestern, and Penn State games with the couple of (literally 2) key injuries we had last year. Those games could have went the other way, but didn't.

That's one thing.

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.

 

[Count 'Bility]

And the injury excuses are not overblown. We were literally down to our 2nd team offense

Thanks for proving the point that is was overblown. Saying we were down to the 2nd team offense is laughable. We lost key players in Martinez and Long (half our losses came when they were still available however), otherwise there wasn't any key players missing substantial time. Most of the lineman that got hurt certainly didn't miss a lot of time. Players on every team miss a couple games here and there every season. So yes, very much so overblown.

There was a time when we were down to 4 non starters on the Oline, including Moudy-a 2nd teamer-being out. Turner was out for pretty much all of conference play. Bell was come and go and never really was 100%. Armstrong went down at Penn St. We were moving guys around on the line to try to save redshirts. Dont give me the "injuries are part of the game, everyone has to deal with this" nonsense. What happened to us is similar to what happened to Georgia and Florida, and they went from title contender to 8-5 and 4-8. And they have a hell of a lot better depth than we do. So dont tell me that kind of dessimation of that side of the ball doesnt effect anything. Your starters are your starters cus theyre your best players. And no, we were'nt LITERALLY down to our 2nd team offense, but it was pretty damn close for a few games late.

Name me a team that has multiple (not just one or two) injuries on one side of the ball and just keep moving forward as if nothing happened, regardless of the strength of schedule. The Patriots this year is about all i can come up with. And that's because it's such a rarity.

The injuries are not excuses. Theyre pretty much full-blown reasons.

I honestly find it hard to believe we're better than a 9-4 team even if we were the only team in the nation that magically didn't have to deal with injuries. Iowa and Michigan State were just better teams last year, plain and simple. The injuries obvious weren't the full-blown reason we lost to Minnesota and UCLA. That's just roughly where we belonged in the pecking order.

Do you know how many guys on our offense we had hurt down the stretch?

 

[BigRedBuster]

How does constantly concentrating on the negatives on a message board help the program? Are we the ones making the decisions?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

How does constantly concentrating on the negatives on a message board help the program? Are we the ones making the decisions?

No, but I have a good question for you:

How does constantly concentrating on the negatives hurt the program? Since we aren't the ones making the decisions. I'm sure you could say that, if recruits somehow read this forum, that the kind of negativity displayed could be off-putting; and that, if we talked about the positives it could be beneficial. But then you have to ask yourself about the frequency with which recruits visit this message board. And even if it is more often than we think, if they can't understand that negative thinking is part of every football program in the country, that's on them--that's their distorted view of the world.

In a discussion about the football team, or any sports team in general there will be fans who think about the program in a highly varied way. Some will think it's good enough, but could be better. Some will think it needs to be improved. Some will think it's perfect. Then those who think it could be better will have different ways to improve the program than those who think it needs to be improved. Message boards are where we can converse about these issues.

To borrow a favorite line from Bo Pelini, at the end of the day, all these players and recruits need to understand and care about is that all of us, no matter our opinion of the current state of the program, want to see all of the players who come to this school succeed. Nobody is ever rooting for them [the players or incoming recruits] to fail. Not one.

 

[The Dude]

And the injury excuses are not overblown. We were literally down to our 2nd team offense

Thanks for proving the point that is was overblown. Saying we were down to the 2nd team offense is laughable. We lost key players in Martinez and Long (half our losses came when they were still available however), otherwise there wasn't any key players missing substantial time. Most of the lineman that got hurt certainly didn't miss a lot of time. Players on every team miss a couple games here and there every season. So yes, very much so overblown.

There was a time when we were down to 4 non starters on the Oline, including Moudy-a 2nd teamer-being out. Turner was out for pretty much all of conference play. Bell was come and go and never really was 100%. Armstrong went down at Penn St. We were moving guys around on the line to try to save redshirts. Dont give me the "injuries are part of the game, everyone has to deal with this" nonsense. What happened to us is similar to what happened to Georgia and Florida, and they went from title contender to 8-5 and 4-8. And they have a hell of a lot better depth than we do. So dont tell me that kind of dessimation of that side of the ball doesnt effect anything. Your starters are your starters cus theyre your best players. And no, we were'nt LITERALLY down to our 2nd team offense, but it was pretty damn close for a few games late.

Name me a team that has multiple (not just one or two) injuries on one side of the ball and just keep moving forward as if nothing happened, regardless of the strength of schedule. The Patriots this year is about all i can come up with. And that's because it's such a rarity.

The injuries are not excuses. Theyre pretty much full-blown reasons.

I honestly find it hard to believe we're better than a 9-4 team even if we were the only team in the nation that magically didn't have to deal with injuries. Iowa and Michigan State were just better teams last year, plain and simple. The injuries obvious weren't the full-blown reason we lost to Minnesota and UCLA. That's just roughly where we belonged in the pecking order.

Do you know how many guys on our offense we had hurt down the stretch?

How many? Specifically how many were out for, say, the Iowa game?

 

[Count 'Bility]

Thanks for proving the point that is was overblown. Saying we were down to the 2nd team offense is laughable. We lost key players in Martinez and Long (half our losses came when they were still available however), otherwise there wasn't any key players missing substantial time. Most of the lineman that got hurt certainly didn't miss a lot of time. Players on every team miss a couple games here and there every season. So yes, very much so overblown.

There was a time when we were down to 4 non starters on the Oline, including Moudy-a 2nd teamer-being out. Turner was out for pretty much all of conference play. Bell was come and go and never really was 100%. Armstrong went down at Penn St. We were moving guys around on the line to try to save redshirts. Dont give me the "injuries are part of the game, everyone has to deal with this" nonsense. What happened to us is similar to what happened to Georgia and Florida, and they went from title contender to 8-5 and 4-8. And they have a hell of a lot better depth than we do. So dont tell me that kind of dessimation of that side of the ball doesnt effect anything. Your starters are your starters cus theyre your best players. And no, we were'nt LITERALLY down to our 2nd team offense, but it was pretty damn close for a few games late.

Name me a team that has multiple (not just one or two) injuries on one side of the ball and just keep moving forward as if nothing happened, regardless of the strength of schedule. The Patriots this year is about all i can come up with. And that's because it's such a rarity.

The injuries are not excuses. Theyre pretty much full-blown reasons.

I honestly find it hard to believe we're better than a 9-4 team even if we were the only team in the nation that magically didn't have to deal with injuries. Iowa and Michigan State were just better teams last year, plain and simple. The injuries obvious weren't the full-blown reason we lost to Minnesota and UCLA. That's just roughly where we belonged in the pecking order.

Do you know how many guys on our offense we had hurt down the stretch?

How many? Specifically how many were out for, say, the Iowa game?

3 of 5 starting Olineman, which was a trend-sometimes even 4-for the 2nd half of the season.

WR-Bell was not close to healthy and Turner was out for most of conference play.

Obviously the qb position, and a Walkon starting against Iowa.

I do agree that it may not have changed the actuall win/loss outcome of some of these losses, but how can you not help but think it may have been different with a healthy offense. And I know the word healthy is rather subjective becuase everyone has dings and bumps and bruises, but this was a case of multiple starters going down for multiple weeks with significant injuries, only to comeback just in time for someone else too. And by the way, our 4 years starting qb was never healthy and only played in 4 games all year. That side of the ball was never in sink with itself. It affects things. It's very hard for any team to overcome something like that.

 

[The Dude]

Just checked out the DVR. Qvale, Sirles, Rodriguez, Cotton, and Pensick all started the Iowa game. Which 3 starters were out?

Bell didn't miss much time at all last season, if I remember right. Turner is a back up and hardly a significant contributor, so what?

 

[tschu]

We got reeeeeeeally lucky to beat Northwestern and between Michigan and Penn State, I bet our average expectation is 1 loss. We were quite fortunate to not finish 7-6

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

We were lucky to beat NW, but Michigan and Penn State were close, but its not like we relied on a statistical improbability to win.