BRV920

God you're dense. We did it with much higher rated recruiting classes also. Maybe you should take a look at what our coach did during that time frame at Oregon State.

You should look it up. Probably not at high as Purdue or Illinois.

It's means they averaged 8.5 wins a year for the last 8 years while having recruiting classes ranked from 87 to 127th. Is that clear enough for you GBR?

Thanks Count. This is why I would prefer a run based attack as opposed to a balanced attack. When a team like Michigan state gets great QB play the sky is the limit but when the QB play isn't lights out they drop back to .500 ish teams unless they have a top 10 defense.

I said I like Michigan State but we will see if they come back to earth without Cook.

Navy is in the discussion for me because the cards are stacked against them and yet because of their system the are able to compete at a high level. Imagine if they were landing to 20 recruiting classes. I also like Michigan State but they aren't exactly a model of consistency under Dantonio either. 07 7-6 08 9-4 09 6-7 10 11-2 11 11-3 12 7-6 13 13-1 14 11 -2 15 12-2

The point I was trying to make about Navy had nothing to do with Michigan State at least on my part. My point is that when people on this board say you have to throw the ball to be successful I don't agree. Not saying you don't need to be able to throw the ball. If you take the time to look up Navy's recruiting classes then compare that to their record on the field I'd say their system is pretty successful

When is this thread did I say the option running game was the only way to win at Nebraska? Pretty sure I've been pretty consistent in saying a run first team. I would however prefer Osbornes offensive system over a balanced attack.

Actually I played on highly successful highschool teams and yeah I did feel a since of personal accountability my senior year. But shouldn't that be the case with every senior class? So when you say Nebraska changed everything from 90 to 94 that is false.

What exactly is urgency Count? The they give them half the time to lift? Pretty vague.

So urgency is what you got? That's a pretty drastic overhaul of the weight problem.

The point is that Navy does more with less. They accomplish this goal by having a identity on offense. Do you think it's a coincidence that the service academies run the offenses they run? None of them run a balanced offense. Why do you think that is?

The difference is that Osbornes valleys were 9 win seasons because his offense didn't need his QB to be a NFL caliber player to make it work.

Please list all of these exact changes? Did the training table start having steak on Tuesday instead of Wednesday? Not sure why you guys keep moving the goalposts here. Osbornes offense didn't change between 90 and 94. We ran the same basic stuff

You can't be serious about that Elf. Trying to compare Devaney and Osbornes offenses to Callahans is a joke. You try to make it sound like we were airing it out all over the place when in actuality we ran it at least 70% of the time.

The only thing that changed between 90 team and the 94 team was the defense. Very little changed on the offensive side of the ball. Also why do you guys always imply that I don't want to pass the ball? I want to, but not as the foundation of my offense.

I love the whole times have changed argument. I remember when they said the the game has passed Osborne by while we were in the midst of a 7 game bowl losing streak. We all know how that turned out. Navy is a great example of what can be accomplished when you establish a identity for you team and then build and recruit for it. They routinely beat teams with far more talent.

You can bash on Wisconsin if you like but the have accomplished more in the last 4 years than we have and until we start taking care of Illinois and Purdue I wouldn't try to compare.

My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.

I think that everybody is aware that coaches make adjustments to their offense and defense. The philosophy of a physical running game stayed throughout. Wisconsin is living proof that it still works in today's college game. Yes I'm aware that Wisconsin throws the ball but the foundation of their offense is physical running with a dominating line. One could argue that outside of Russell Wilson that are getting it done with worse QB play than we are.

Jeremy is right and it happened a lot in the game if you go back and watch. Wyoming was stacking the box when we had certain personnel groups on the field. Then we could come out in the same formation with different personnel and they would play coverage.

Except that games are won and lost in the trenches.

Only problem with that theory is that passing yards don't equal running yards. Running yards wear teams down. Passing yards look good in the stat book.

I looked up the passing stats for the Super Bowl winners from 75 to 80 Elf and one of those teams ran it 70% of the time. So I'm not sure Nebraska was a pro style offense.

I disagree Guy . I believe you have to have a offensive identity. Something to hang your hat on. What exactly is Nebraska trying to be? My opinion. I'm sure you don't agree with it anymore than I agree with yours.