Huskers in 2019....

BigRedBuster said:
I really hope Jackson has a great year.  He came in with a lot of hype, didn't live up to that hype....possibly due to bad coaching.  

Last year he showed he can play the position.  Now it would be awesome if he shows he can dominate that position.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to argue against the bad coaching hypothesis.

But I'm pretty sure the biggest problem was we basically promised a starting cornerback spot to a guy who had basically never played cornerback before he got to Lincoln (which, of course, is a form of bad coaching).  Hopefully he takes another step forward this year and it turns out alright but he should never have been at corner the first game of his true freshman year.  He either should have been at safety (the position he was more used to) or redshirted to give him time to adjust.

 
Mavric said:
I'm not going to argue against the bad coaching hypothesis.

But I'm pretty sure the biggest problem was we basically promised a starting cornerback spot to a guy who had basically never played cornerback before he got to Lincoln (which, of course, is a form of bad coaching).  Hopefully he takes another step forward this year and it turns out alright but he should never have been at corner the first game of his true freshman year.  He either should have been at safety (the position he was more used to) or redshirted to give him time to adjust.
Click to expand...


I agree with all that. However, the frustrating thing about it is that one area he struggled the most in was run support. I would think a guy who has played safety, would have been better at that. 

 
Nebraska (30/1): These odds are the most aggressive of anyone on this list. It’s asking a lot for a four-win team to jump into national title contention. It’d require Adrian Martinez to go from exciting to exceptional, new playmakers to emerge after losing a 1,000-yard rusher and receiver and the defense (75th in yards allowed per play) transforming into a strength despite losing thee of the team’s top five tacklers.
Click to expand...

 
the defense (75th in yards allowed per play) transforming into a strength despite losing thee of the team’s top five tacklers.
Click to expand...


I have two real problems with this argument.

First, if by “top tacklers” they mean most total tackles, which is how that’s usually referred, that number isn’t even correct. It’s actually 5 of the Top 6, with Mo being the lone returner.

Second, always be wary of rankings. Just because you ranked ten things doesn’t mean there were ten things worth ranking. In the case of the Top 5 non-returning tacklers (Young, Williams, Gifford, Neal, Reed), only Gifford is really a standout player, and there would be some debate to even that. As much as returning experience matters, new players is one of the primary reasons big improvement is made, especially significant if that team has only won 10 of the last 30 games.

I personally think it’s the mix of quality veterans and exciting new talent that will pave the way for marked defensive improvement.

 
brophog said:
In the case of the Top 5 non-returning tacklers (Young, Williams, Gifford, Neal, Reed), only Gifford is really a standout player, and there would be some debate to even that. 

....

I personally think it’s the mix of quality veterans and exciting new talent that will pave the way for marked defensive improvement.
Click to expand...


+1, couldn't agree more. 

And it's about motivating these guys to take the field with the attitude of pounding the other team into the ground. That alone is worth at a minimum five extra wins this season from a defensive standpoint.

 
suh_fan93 said:
Seems to be a common theme now.  Extra work.
Click to expand...


I've always wondered why you never see kickers practicing field goals with maybe blocking dummies in front of them imitating the mass of linemen they need to get the ball over.  

Practicing extra points wouldn't be that big of a deal.  But, long field goals like this, the angle of lift off (for lack of a better term) is pretty important.

 
A bit skewed because the teams that have been really good recently have more chances to win 10 games in a year but hopefully we start adding to this number again soon.


 
Not sure where to ask this question, so I am going to try here. A lot of the arguments I see against all the off season hype start with "well this was a 4-8 team last year" before talking about bad defense and replacing offensive production. However, teams make big jumps on defense and replace good athletes every year in college football, so it seems a lot of the argument against hype is because of last years record. It's not too out of the box to think that Nebraska could have (should have?) won 3-4 more games last year. So, my question is does the off season hype seem less crazy if Nebraska had gone 7-5 or 8-4 last year? And if so, it seems fair to argue the expectations this year are not that crazy.

 
WyoHusker56 said:
Not sure where to ask this question, so I am going to try here. A lot of the arguments I see against all the off season hype start with "well this was a 4-8 team last year" before talking about bad defense and replacing offensive production. However, teams make big jumps on defense and replace good athletes every year in college football, so it seems a lot of the argument against hype is because of last years record. It's not too out of the box to think that Nebraska could have (should have?) won 3-4 more games last year. So, my question is does the off season hype seem less crazy if Nebraska had gone 7-5 or 8-4 last year? And if so, it seems fair to argue the expectations this year are not that crazy.
Click to expand...
I think based on the statistical analysis of last season's team, the win expectancy would have been a record of 6-6.  NU controlled most of the games against Colorado and Northwestern, and managed to lose those games.  NU also probably beats Troy if Martinez was healthy, if there was a more capable backup QB, or if NU doesn't give up that punt return for a TD.  The record of 4-8 was the worst the record could have been.  Going from a 6-6 team to a 9-3 or 10-2 team is much more plausible than going from 4-8 to 9-3 or 10-2.

Looking at the schedule, I think NU should start out 4-0, as I think NU is better than all of those teams.  After that, I think Northwestern and Maryland are victories.  NU needs to get back winning games they should win.  So that leaves Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa, Ohio State, and Wisconsin as "too close to call".  Doing "average" in those games means NU wins 3 of those 6 games, and goes 9-3 on the season.  If NU is able to great in the "toss up games" then that means at 10 or 11 win season isn't too far-fetched.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
WyoHusker56 said:
So, my question is does the off season hype seem less crazy if Nebraska had gone 7-5 or 8-4 last year? And if so, it seems fair to argue the expectations this year are not that crazy.
Click to expand...




Yes the offseason hype is less crazy if we win three or four more games than we did. The best way to make predictions about the future is by looking at the data and evidence from the past, not by some anecdotal eyeball test and relatively baseless postulating.

I don't know what you mean that the expectations are not that crazy because we could have won several games we didn't last year??? What? 

Way I see it, we are better on paper and more talented than all but one, maybe two teams on our schedule. We were also better on paper and more talented than all but two teams on our schedule last year. But paper and talent rankings don't win games. We lost eight games last year due not to a lack of talent but due to lack of mental buy-in, due to lacking internal motivating belief, due to the snowball momentum of doubt in the back of players minds when one loss turned into two, and so on. The best argument for 9+ wins next season has nothing to do with us being talented; we were talented last year. The best argument is that we showed over the last 6 games last year that something clicked internally in the spirit of the team. They broke through a mental/emotional glass ceiling and that's when the results changed. If we can keep that mental acuity we should win a lot of games.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top