Stewie Mandel's Take On Nebraska

[huskered17]

I didn't make this clear when I posted this, but I also agree with Stewart's assessment of the Huskers. I think that until we prove against decent opposition that we can effectively move the ball and score, and do it more than once (as in, the Holiday Bowl, which I take with a grain of salt), talk of Nebraska being worthy of a top ten ranking and/or a BCS bowl bid are premature.

Since I know you're going to ask, here's why the Holiday Bowl results don't impress me: In 1998 the Huskers played Arizona in the Holiday Bowl. They had a crummy year by the standards of 1994-1997 Nebraska, and they were down because they were in a "lesser" bowl. We played like crap and we lost to a team we should have beaten. Flash forward 11 years and you have a rematch, only this time Arizona is the team feeling more than Nebraska that they were in a lesser bowl than they deserved. Arizona was one or two plays away from a BCS game, and they fully felt they deserved to be there. They were disappointed in playing the Holiday Bowl, and they felt Nebraska was a lesser quality opponent.

Right, wrong or indifferent, no matter how you feel about this, it's a fact that emotion plays a large role in bowl games. Nebraska's defense is definitely better than Arizona's offense, but our offense was not 33 points better than their defense.

So removing the overblown hype we're getting from the Holiday Bowl win and looking mostly at our body of work over the course of the season, we see that we have a HUGE amount of work to do to improve on offense - which we'll need to do to legitimately be a top ten/BCS contending team. That's why I think Mandel's assessment is fair. It jives with my own.

:yeah

Giving 14 pts in the 98 game, hurt...lol

GBR!!!

 

[huKSer]

I didn't make this clear when I posted this, but I also agree with Stewart's assessment of the Huskers. I think that until we prove against decent opposition that we can effectively move the ball and score, and do it more than once (as in, the Holiday Bowl, which I take with a grain of salt), talk of Nebraska being worthy of a top ten ranking and/or a BCS bowl bid are premature.

Since I know you're going to ask, here's why the Holiday Bowl results don't impress me: In 1998 the Huskers played Arizona in the Holiday Bowl. They had a crummy year by the standards of 1994-1997 Nebraska, and they were down because they were in a "lesser" bowl. We played like crap and we lost to a team we should have beaten. Flash forward 11 years and you have a rematch, only this time Arizona is the team feeling more than Nebraska that they were in a lesser bowl than they deserved. Arizona was one or two plays away from a BCS game, and they fully felt they deserved to be there. They were disappointed in playing the Holiday Bowl, and they felt Nebraska was a lesser quality opponent.

Right, wrong or indifferent, no matter how you feel about this, it's a fact that emotion plays a large role in bowl games. Nebraska's defense is definitely better than Arizona's offense, but our offense was not 33 points better than their defense.

So removing the overblown hype we're getting from the Holiday Bowl win and looking mostly at our body of work over the course of the season, we see that we have a HUGE amount of work to do to improve on offense - which we'll need to do to legitimately be a top ten/BCS contending team. That's why I think Mandel's assessment is fair. It jives with my own.

Nebraska was 1 play/ 1 second away from a BCS game, and they fully felt they deserved to be there.

 

[RockyMountainOySker]

I didn't make this clear when I posted this, but I also agree with Stewart's assessment of the Huskers. I think that until we prove against decent opposition that we can effectively move the ball and score, and do it more than once (as in, the Holiday Bowl, which I take with a grain of salt), talk of Nebraska being worthy of a top ten ranking and/or a BCS bowl bid are premature.

Since I know you're going to ask, here's why the Holiday Bowl results don't impress me: In 1998 the Huskers played Arizona in the Holiday Bowl. They had a crummy year by the standards of 1994-1997 Nebraska, and they were down because they were in a "lesser" bowl. We played like crap and we lost to a team we should have beaten. Flash forward 11 years and you have a rematch, only this time Arizona is the team feeling more than Nebraska that they were in a lesser bowl than they deserved. Arizona was one or two plays away from a BCS game, and they fully felt they deserved to be there. They were disappointed in playing the Holiday Bowl, and they felt Nebraska was a lesser quality opponent.

Right, wrong or indifferent, no matter how you feel about this, it's a fact that emotion plays a large role in bowl games. Nebraska's defense is definitely better than Arizona's offense, but our offense was not 33 points better than their defense.

So removing the overblown hype we're getting from the Holiday Bowl win and looking mostly at our body of work over the course of the season, we see that we have a HUGE amount of work to do to improve on offense - which we'll need to do to legitimately be a top ten/BCS contending team. That's why I think Mandel's assessment is fair. It jives with my own.

Completely get what your saying and mostly agree with your points but I highly doubt Arizona looked at Nebraska as a lesser opponent. Arizona was 1 or 2 plays away from a BCS game......and Nebraska was 00:01 away from a BCS game. IMO, this was as important as any bowl game outside of the BCS. Both teams were known for great defenses and were within inches of winning their conferences.

I, however, agree that our offense was not 33 points better than their defense and that we should take the AZ bowl game with a grain of salt. We still have to earn these expectations, which won't happen until we steam roll Washington and get into conference play.

 

[krc1995]

I agree, this is nothing worth getting riled up about. He does make some good points. Me personally, I don't EXPECT us to be in a MNC hunt. If it happens, then paint me ecstatic. I do believe that we have the talent, coaching, etc. to be contenders in the conference. If it comes down to the CCG to determine whether or not we are in the MNC, I actually am a bit afraid. Only because these kids have taken such a huge leap over the last 2 years, I'm not sure that they would be ready. I would hope that I am wrong, I of course would love to see us in that game, but it is just myself not trying to over expect things I suppose.

Finally someone I can agree with. :koolaid2:

 

[sd'sker]

Me personally, I don't EXPECT us to be in a MNC hunt.

I should hope that's the tenor of most fans. Anyone expecting us to vie for the MNC after what we saw from our offense last year is heavily into the kool-aid. We need massive improvements to be in contention. It's possible, but I'm guessing one or two losses, and that's without brain cramp games like ISU.

knapplc, i respectfully disagree. i think we will be in contention for the mnc and my metaphorical diabetes preclude me from swiggin' the kool-aid (metaphor as i am a skeptic, but not a pessimist, and i am not saying you are a pessimist).

here is my argument as simple as can be:

1) our schedule. probably most important factor.

2) our offense does not have to be that good. we should have went 13-1 last season with the 11th ranked offense in the conference. a mediocre offense pushes us over the hump.

3) we will have at least a mediocre offense. our o-line was fraught with injuries and we were missing to healthy backs. a healthy o-line and running backs gets us at lest a mediocre offense.

4) bo knows defense and he can out scheme any offense. his boys are ready to play and know their assignments. why was our defense so stout? confidence. they believed they were the best and they played like the best.

5) our front four will be stout, even without SUH the sum will be greater than the parts. best secondary in the nation. lb's is a question, but again, BO can scheme.

6) it is time. it is our time. now is the time. the 'skers will do work.

 

[junior4949]

Me personally, I don't EXPECT us to be in a MNC hunt.

I should hope that's the tenor of most fans. Anyone expecting us to vie for the MNC after what we saw from our offense last year is heavily into the kool-aid. We need massive improvements to be in contention. It's possible, but I'm guessing one or two losses, and that's without brain cramp games like ISU.

knapplc, i respectfully disagree. i think we will be in contention for the mnc and my metaphorical diabetes preclude me from swiggin' the kool-aid (metaphor as i am a skeptic, but not a pessimist, and i am not saying you are a pessimist).

here is my argument as simple as can be:

1) our schedule. probably most important factor.

2) our offense does not have to be that good. we should have went 13-1 last season with the 11th ranked offense in the conference. a mediocre offense pushes us over the hump.

3) we will have at least a mediocre offense. our o-line was fraught with injuries and we were missing to healthy backs. a healthy o-line and running backs gets us at lest a mediocre offense.

4) bo knows defense and he can out scheme any offense. his boys are ready to play and know their assignments. why was our defense so stout? confidence. they believed they were the best and they played like the best.

5) our front four will be stout, even without SUH the sum will be greater than the parts. best secondary in the nation. lb's is a question, but again, BO can scheme.

6) it is time. it is our time. now is the time. the 'skers will do work.

I agree with everything you say, but then I think back to two games last year: TT and Iowa State. Against TT, we acted like we didn't even want to be playing in that game. Against Iowa State, we had absolutely zero focus. The year before we had games like the Mizzou game and OU. Until we can get through the season playing all games focused and without brainfarts, I just can't see us as being in the "hunt". We are getting a lot closer each and every year under this staff, but I don't think year three puts us quite there yet.

 

[sd'sker]

Me personally, I don't EXPECT us to be in a MNC hunt.

I should hope that's the tenor of most fans. Anyone expecting us to vie for the MNC after what we saw from our offense last year is heavily into the kool-aid. We need massive improvements to be in contention. It's possible, but I'm guessing one or two losses, and that's without brain cramp games like ISU.

knapplc, i respectfully disagree. i think we will be in contention for the mnc and my metaphorical diabetes preclude me from swiggin' the kool-aid (metaphor as i am a skeptic, but not a pessimist, and i am not saying you are a pessimist).

here is my argument as simple as can be:

1) our schedule. probably most important factor.

2) our offense does not have to be that good. we should have went 13-1 last season with the 11th ranked offense in the conference. a mediocre offense pushes us over the hump.

3) we will have at least a mediocre offense. our o-line was fraught with injuries and we were missing to healthy backs. a healthy o-line and running backs gets us at lest a mediocre offense.

4) bo knows defense and he can out scheme any offense. his boys are ready to play and know their assignments. why was our defense so stout? confidence. they believed they were the best and they played like the best.

5) our front four will be stout, even without SUH the sum will be greater than the parts. best secondary in the nation. lb's is a question, but again, BO can scheme.

6) it is time. it is our time. now is the time. the 'skers will do work.

I agree with everything you say, but then I think back to two games last year: TT and Iowa State. Against TT, we acted like we didn't even want to be playing in that game. Against Iowa State, we had absolutely zero focus. The year before we had games like the Mizzou game and OU. Until we can get through the season playing all games focused and without brainfarts, I just can't see us as being in the "hunt". We are getting a lot closer each and every year under this staff, but I don't think year three puts us quite there yet.

i agree with what you say, as well. and that is my greatest fear and what most people retort with when i give them my assessment. this my not be strong enough of an argument to refute your point, but this is what i say: BO has produced a better team on the field each year and this year we will have arguably the most depth. now, he has only coached 2 teams and it is easy to make a lousy team a good team, so he may have plateaued; however, BO is still learning and i get the impression he learns a lot after each and every game. it will be an exciting season, and i think we have as good a chance to make it to the mnc as almost anyone, but we will have to perform at a high level for every game. you could see last season the team played with more intensity against some teams (ou, tu, va. tech) and not so much against others (isu, ttu). if we can play with the intensity every game and our offense can average 17-20 pts. (at the extreme minimum), then i think we have a real good chance. i'll have to remember this and look back at the end of the season.

 

[knapplc]

I highly doubt Arizona looked at Nebraska as a lesser opponent.

That was what we were told at the Arizona forum I visited... at least until they stopped wanting to have rational conversations and just wanted to smack on Nebraska.

 

[dubsker]

I highly doubt Arizona looked at Nebraska as a lesser opponent.

That was what we were told at the Arizona forum I visited... at least until they stopped wanting to have rational conversations and just wanted to smack on Nebraska.

Meh, I went to that site and read some of those same exchanges, and I would chalk it up to the internet having more tools than Home Depot rather than AZ looking at Nebraska like an inferior opponent.

I did think it was pretty awesome though that Bo told the team that AZ said the Big 12 was weak for a little extra motivation.

 

[NUance]

But anyone predicting Nebraska as a BCS title contender is making two considerable leaps of faith: 1) That the defense will remain at or near last year's level despite losing the nation's most dominant defensive tackle (Suh), and 2) The productive bowl performance from Lee and the offense is a better predictor of things to come than their 13 mostly woeful outings before that.

Stewie. Duude. It's offseason. In August, with camp just around the corner. Optimism rules. No need to tip over the Kool-Aid pitcher.

 

[Joe_5700]

Me personally, I don't EXPECT us to be in a MNC hunt.

I should hope that's the tenor of most fans. Anyone expecting us to vie for the MNC after what we saw from our offense last year is heavily into the kool-aid. We need massive improvements to be in contention. It's possible, but I'm guessing one or two losses, and that's without brain cramp games like ISU.

knapplc, i respectfully disagree. i think we will be in contention for the mnc and my metaphorical diabetes preclude me from swiggin' the kool-aid (metaphor as i am a skeptic, but not a pessimist, and i am not saying you are a pessimist).

here is my argument as simple as can be:

1) our schedule. probably most important factor.

2) our offense does not have to be that good. we should have went 13-1 last season with the 11th ranked offense in the conference. a mediocre offense pushes us over the hump.

3) we will have at least a mediocre offense. our o-line was fraught with injuries and we were missing to healthy backs. a healthy o-line and running backs gets us at lest a mediocre offense.

4) bo knows defense and he can out scheme any offense. his boys are ready to play and know their assignments. why was our defense so stout? confidence. they believed they were the best and they played like the best.

5) our front four will be stout, even without SUH the sum will be greater than the parts. best secondary in the nation. lb's is a question, but again, BO can scheme.

6) it is time. it is our time. now is the time. the 'skers will do work.

I agree with everything you say, but then I think back to two games last year: TT and Iowa State. Against TT, we acted like we didn't even want to be playing in that game. Against Iowa State, we had absolutely zero focus. The year before we had games like the Mizzou game and OU. Until we can get through the season playing all games focused and without brainfarts, I just can't see us as being in the "hunt". We are getting a lot closer each and every year under this staff, but I don't think year three puts us quite there yet.

i agree with what you say, as well. and that is my greatest fear and what most people retort with when i give them my assessment. this my not be strong enough of an argument to refute your point, but this is what i say: BO has produced a better team on the field each year and this year we will have arguably the most depth. now, he has only coached 2 teams and it is easy to make a lousy team a good team, so he may have plateaued; however, BO is still learning and i get the impression he learns a lot after each and every game. it will be an exciting season, and i think we have as good a chance to make it to the mnc as almost anyone, but we will have to perform at a high level for every game. you could see last season the team played with more intensity against some teams (ou, tu, va. tech) and not so much against others (isu, ttu). if we can play with the intensity every game and our offense can average 17-20 pts. (at the extreme minimum), then i think we have a real good chance. i'll have to remember this and look back at the end of the season.

I just hope people give Bo time if there are some bumps along the way....and there will be. Remember Oklahoma in 2009. The injuries.... Do you think Stoops was to blame for the amount of losses that they had? They had very high hopes going into the season and some bad luck.