Tangent Thread - December 2015 Edition

[cm husker]

Tom is gone and retired, he had his chance and Nebraska has moved on. I am guessing that Notre Dame does not bring up the vision of Knute Rockne.

Under the leadership braintrust of Perlman, Pederson and Eichorst.

Maybe we should consider WWTD or even WWBD (after buying a fifth of whiskey).

 

[RADAR]

Let me put it simply:

NU played only 4 teams this year with equal or better talent (if that).

If well coached, NU should split those games and maybe lose 1 game to an inferior opponent.

That puts NU at 9 wins on the regular season.

Even if you want to argue we don't have national championship level talent, and I won't disagree, no one can convince me that this team should have finished with less than 8 losses. Finishing worse than 8-4 is reflective of massive coaching failures, and that needs to be admitted before moving forward. Deflecting that basic conclusion by referencing "Mule" players is simply disingenuous.

I don't disagree, but it was a failure of player buyin instead of massive coaching failures The players showed that was true during the Michigan St. game and beyond.

 

[Mierin]

Nope, I am talking about the UCLA game in Lincoln when NU was up big at the half and got smoked in the second half...what that a blowout win for UCLA?

Ya, it's a blowout win. How is that similar to the situations we're talking about? The final score is the most important factor in whether the game was a blowout or not. Being down 21 or 28 in the middle of the game is irrelevant.

 

[Mierin]

Purdon't hangs 55 on the Huskers and then let the Huskers score 29 in the 4th quarter to pull within 10 , and it's not a blowout?

Well put. No. It's not a blowout. The # of points isn't relevant where blowouts are concerned. It's the margin of victory. That's the most important factor by far. 60-50 isn't more of a blowout than 10-0. (And actually, to refute myself I'd say a 10-0 victory is more dominant because the D allowed the O to do nothing). The # of points only matters when you're talking about how terrible our defense or our interception machine QBs are. Or the playcalling that leads to those things.
It also doesn't matter whether Purdue "let" us come back or whether things started clicking for us. The fact is it happened.

 

[cm husker]

Let me put it simply:

NU played only 4 teams this year with equal or better talent (if that).

If well coached, NU should split those games and maybe lose 1 game to an inferior opponent.

That puts NU at 9 wins on the regular season.

Even if you want to argue we don't have national championship level talent, and I won't disagree, no one can convince me that this team should have finished with less than 8 losses. Finishing worse than 8-4 is reflective of massive coaching failures, and that needs to be admitted before moving forward. Deflecting that basic conclusion by referencing "Mule" players is simply disingenuous.

I don't disagree, but it was a failure of player buyin instead of massive coaching failures The players showed that was true during the Michigan St. game and beyond.

I don't buy the "buy in" theory for a number of reasons, but to the extent that's true, that's on the coaches for not properly motivating the team.

I won't say more because that whole argument is based on an invention of imagination and not actual evidence.

 

[ADS]

I would say most people who watch football and know football would say that a ten point loss is not a blowout.

The final score of the game isn't exactly indicative of whether the game was a blowout or not. There is a thing called the "eye test" and actually watching the game.

The final score is what determines a blowout because it's the only thing that matters in the end. No one gives a f#*k about the middle of the game 2 years down the road.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Mike Riley's first season was a serious disappointment.

I don't see any way around that.

But since I also demanded a team that was competitive in every game and looked worthy of ranked competition, I can't declare it a disaster. Just a very weird season.

I'm gonna say that both players and coaches have to get better next year.

Pretty sure they'd agree.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Joe_5700]

The Miami-NU game was 33-10 with 11 minutes left in the game. It could have/should have been even more than that but Kaaya threw a boneheaded INT in the end zone at the beginning of the 4th quarter. By all intents and purposes, it was a blowout.

I give credit to NU for playing hard, and making a miraculous comeback to send it to OT. But, it shouldn't have even gotten to OT. Miami's idiocracy, with a coach who would be fired a month later, was the reason NU got back in the game.

So.....let me get this straight.

If we make mistakes that allows Miami to score 33 points it's because Miami. If we make a come back and score 33 points to tie it, it's simply because Miami made find mistakes and we still suck.

Well ... that's pretty much what a lot of people said about the Michigan State game last year - in reverse of course.

^This. The scoreboard did not reflect it, but we were being blown out in that game...

 

[teachercd]

Nope, I am talking about the UCLA game in Lincoln when NU was up big at the half and got smoked in the second half...what that a blowout win for UCLA?

Ya, it's a blowout win. How is that similar to the situations we're talking about? The final score is the most important factor in whether the game was a blowout or not. Being down 21 or 28 in the middle of the game is irrelevant.

Just trying to get a feel for what some people think a blowout is...or if the blowout is determined by who the coach happens to be.
I agree...the UCLA game was a blowout. Like that MSU game a few years ago...was a blow out. What about the NU game vs MSU that the Husker won, like 21-3...was that a blowout?

What if you are down 49-0 and the other team starts putting in backups and the final ends up 52-38...is that a blowout?

What if the Skers don't score that TD with 28 seconds left vs Purdue...the meaningless one...is it a blowout then?

 

[teachercd]

Come to think of it...does Riley have the most non-blowout losses out of every coach in D1?

 

[Dansker]

I like this thread. It consistently shows the same posters that post off-topic on HB, lol.

 

[74Hunter]

Switzer always said it is about "jimmy's and Joe's" truer words were never spoken!! You might want to look into that.

It's a nice catch phrase, but tell me how Dr. Tom managed to pull off his best run with classes that normally were ranked 3rd or 4th in the Big 8?

Riley will bring in some quality Jimmy's and Joes to go along with the spotty talent Bo brought in and in a couple of years you will not see the travel roster littered with 1/3 walkons.

Link? Cuz it looks like he isn't doing any better than his predecessor. And that's even with the "first year bump" that coaches new to a job normally get.

 

[Mierin]

Nope, I am talking about the UCLA game in Lincoln when NU was up big at the half and got smoked in the second half...what that a blowout win for UCLA?

Ya, it's a blowout win. How is that similar to the situations we're talking about? The final score is the most important factor in whether the game was a blowout or not. Being down 21 or 28 in the middle of the game is irrelevant.

Just trying to get a feel for what some people think a blowout is...or if the blowout is determined by who the coach happens to be.
I agree...the UCLA game was a blowout. Like that MSU game a few years ago...was a blow out. What about the NU game vs MSU that the Husker won, like 21-3...was that a blowout?

What if you are down 49-0 and the other team starts putting in backups and the final ends up 52-38...is that a blowout?

What if the Skers don't score that TD with 28 seconds left vs Purdue...the meaningless one...is it a blowout then?

52-42 would not be a blowout

It would show a great quality in a team that they don't give up when down 49-0.

Yes, the 21-3 MSU game was a blowout.

 

[74Hunter]

Solich was fired because he was banging coeds and could not recruit. the program was in a down hill slide. Bo was fired because he was....lazy at recruiting

Link? Proof?

Facts

Yeah. This doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Mierin]

Come to think of it...does Riley have the most non-blowout losses out of every coach in D1?

Honestly, probably. It's abnormal to play up with and down to every team you play. We've been doing that for a long time but not to the level of the Purdue game. And before we weren't normally losing those games.