Sho'nuff

I slept through the game this last week.

Looks like you slept through maybe more than just last weeks game. Looks like you might have missed entire seasons, possibly part of junior high school too.

Who's the architect here??????

WanderingHusker, on 02 Nov 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

We as Nebraskans have a long history of decorum, demeanor and respect for our opponents, and it took Tom Osborn years of disappointing seasons with alumni calling for his job too!

Maybe this is the main problem. If you suffered through the Osborne years then your expectations are too high. If finishing ranked in the top 25 every year is too brutal of a result to call a season successful then I suggest you find another hobby other than watching college football. I do remember people who didn't like Tom and wanted him fired. I thought they were nuts back then too.

 

 

7. Every single loss has been due to player execution and the defense being unable to stop the winning score. This is not debatable. All the play calls were the right calls. They have to execute the call. Ifs and buts candy and nuts.

 

 

Seems like Saunders45 already said it better than I could. However, I just love it when somebody throws out an "opinion" and tries to shut everybody else up by telling us "this is not debatable". I wish the Huskerboard rules would be more clear about when somebody is or is not allowed to "debate" because I apparently missed reading that rule that says "When certain people say so, all debate is closed."

Can't we just agree that NU needed better than Bo, and "at the moment" it appears to need someone better than Riley.

 

A nickel may be worth more than a penny, but neither is going to buy you a candybar...

 

Unless we step back in time like some people want. Then they will.

Holy crap, that's the best joke I've heard all day.

 

There are actually people that are so uneducated and clueless that they actually believe Bo Pelini is a better coach than Mike Riley. That one has me rolling pretty good. Thanks for that.

 

I wonder what it would be like to be so simple minded that you'd believe that just because one coach won 9 games and one coach has 3 wins, that that automatically means the 9 win coach is the better football coach. Oh, the bliss that comes with absolute ignorance. I wish I could step back in time to a place where I was once immature and didn' t have to use my brain.

Oh, the bliss that comes with absolute ignorance. Sounds like you might know a little bit about this "bliss". Could you enlighten us some more? You make it sound almost Buddha-like. I want to hear more about it.

 

When I first saw this thread I kind of thought it was pointless too. However, ever since Red Machines rant, it's actually gotten quite interesting. I have to say I am thoroughly entertained.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FsqJFIJ5lLs

I would like to know from those who think the players should know the "history" of the football program where they play, just exactly how extensive their historical knowledge should be? Should the Minnesota players know anything about their last national championship team in 1960? Should Harvard football players know anything about their most recent national championship in 1919? Maybe someone with more time than me can look up those teams' message boards and find out if their fan base is all worked up about their starting QB not knowing much about their awesome teams of the past.

Being happy about yesterday's game (or unhappy, I'll leave that up to each individual) is one thing. Wanting a contract extension or a raise???? Well, that's another thing. Some people seem to miss the point and want to group the two ideas together. Just because somebody doesn't think MR deserves a raise at this point doesn't mean they aren't real fans and doesn't mean they aren't happy about the win yesterday. Two different concepts.

Everytime you call people BUGS it really de-legitmizes your argument. Those who can't win an argument based on ideas usually resort to name calling.

 

 

We all knew it would take time for the team to gel, and yesterday they did. They won on the road as an underdog, against a team that had beaten NU 2 straight years. Two years ago we were embarrassed and resoundingly beaten, by a team coached by an asst. coach that had no coaching experience. Not yesterday by seasoned coach that everyone respects.

Yesterday, we witnessed a coaching staff that put together a great gameplan and a team that finally bought in. Maybe part of it was the speech that Lewis gave the team earlier this week. (If so, it proves that Riley handled the matter with him correctly) But the team and coaching staff played to win and put a team away yesterday. They did everything we thought they could do coming into the season. They got everything out of the talent that they had. Its on to bigger and better things.

Lets look at what they did.

 

Put together a great gameplan - A+

Playcalling - A+

Game management - A

Special Teams - B

D-line - A+

Linebackers - A

D-backs - B-

O-line - B+

Qb - A-

Receiver's - A

 

So, if not a contract extension, then maybe a raise! Hip Hip Hooray!

 

Do you smoke crack?

 

The real question is "do BUGS smoke crack"???????????

 

I think ndobney asked a legitimate question that you are avoiding answering. I, for one, would like to know the answer. And please, for the sake of everyone here on the board, make your answer a genuine yes or no so we don't have to repeat the question.

 

 

• There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between early success at a school and sustained future success at that school.

 

 

Great post and awesome job on the research. I'm not going to argue with anything you said, but what I would like to point out is the above quote in your OP. I think that what a lot of us fans (at least those of us older than maybe 25-30) are comparing our ideas of what a successful coach should be to TO. Those of us that lived through that era proably can't help to compare all future coaches to him. And when looking at his record:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/tom-osborne-1.html

then it would seem the above statement is not true. Now TO was one of a kind and I am sure you didn't mean him specifically but meant generally with all coaches. However, unfortunately, a lot of our mindsets even 15 years later still aren't there yet.

 

 

 

 

 

What I meant is that there isn't a discernable trend amongst all data points of all coaches in college football history that makes this a trend. It worked for TO - it doesn't work for a lot of other coaches. The entire point is that nothing this early on means anything, regardless of if we're 5-0 or 0-5 - we're just as likely to spend the next season completely the opposite.

 

I figured that is what you meant. I was just pointing out that his awesomeness as a head coach has an affect on the way our fans judge other coaches. It probably shouldn't, but I think it does.

• There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between early success at a school and sustained future success at that school.

 

 

Great post and awesome job on the research. I'm not going to argue with anything you said, but what I would like to point out is the above quote in your OP. I think that what a lot of us fans (at least those of us older than maybe 25-30) are comparing our ideas of what a successful coach should be to TO. Those of us that lived through that era proably can't help to compare all future coaches to him. And when looking at his record:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/tom-osborne-1.html

then it would seem the above statement is not true. Now TO was one of a kind and I am sure you didn't mean him specifically but meant generally with all coaches. However, unfortunately, a lot of our mindsets even 15 years later still aren't there yet.

I have to say I'm a little surprised about this thread. Not because of the topic. But because I was under the impression that we wouldn't hear from the OP until after Halloween.

One one hand, a single play here or there and we are practically undefeated. On the other, we have seemingly regressed in intensity and relevance. I am not sure where I am and not in the mood to be judged on either belief. Thoughts?

Practically undefeated??? Technically you are correct, however, since "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades so does it really matter?

Sorry, I'm new to the forum and obviously haven't figured out how to put the stats in a nice neat readable format.

 

 

Anyone know how often we run the ball on first-down? I won't mind doing the research once I get the time. Figured I'd throw it out there in case somebody knew, or knew of a good site to just look it up.

We're at 50 - 60 - 7 for rush - pass - penalty, based on what I found below:

 

http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/national/index.html

 

I like that site but I don't think it has anything on what plays are called on first down. Or am I missing it?

 

I may be reading that site wrong also so this may not be accurate but if I am reading it correctly it shows:

 

Rushing Attempts on 1st down: 105 Total yards: 517

Average yards: 4.92

Passing Attempts on 1st down: 69 Completions: 35 Comp. Percentage: 50.7 Total yards: 502 Rushing Attempts on 2nd down: 49 Total yards: 373 Average yards: 7.61 Rushing Attempts on 3rd down: 24 Total yards: 74 Average yards: 3.08 Passing Attempts on 2nd down: 75 Completions: 45 Comp. Percentage: 60.0 Total yards: 522 Passing Attempts on 3rd down: 44 Completions: 23 Comp. Percentage: 52.3 Total yards: 359

I wouldn't mind rewinding the last 5 minutes to avoid reading this thread. Really, what is the point of this question anyway?