marko polo

20 hours ago, Crazyhole said:

I love these types of expectations from the talking heads.   It'll make it that much more fun when we win 10 and go to a new years bowl game next year. 

crazy sounds about right

12 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Oh you guys and your silliness.  All Big Ten teams are all big ten teams.  Being on the All Big Ten Freshman team is a big deal for freshmen and being selected for ANY all Big Ten Team is a pretty nice honor.  

 

I'm not making this stuff up...it's in print. 

 

If you guys want to argue that him getting selected into 2 All Big Ten Teams (All B1G Freshman, and 3rd team All Big Ten) isn't the same just because it's a freshman All B1G Team...I'm afraid it's just semantics.  You're trying to say the Freshman team isn't an All Big Ten team and I'm saying it's in print and that it is.  Being a Freshman all conference is RARE...because not a lot of Freshman start or get playing time.  I'd say being a selection for All Big Ten Freshman is a HUGE honor.

 

As I stated, we can agree to disagree.  This is the last I will comment on this individual subject in this topic.

alright

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 5:02 PM, Sparker said:

 

I never said you were technically incorrect, I said it was a dumb argument. If he doesn't perform SIGNIFICANTLY better in the NFL than he did in '17 he basically just quit football. He is going to have to work out if he wants to perform better.

 

If you can't see that, you're wasting all of our time commenting here, but we already knew that.

 huh how was it dumb?

50 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

It is not a question of which one you need - speed OR power - you need both - period.   Either without the other leads to 9 wins and 4 losses.  You need strong, powerful and quick lines (both offense and defense) and very fast LBs and secondary that can tackle in the open field consistantly and RBs that can break tackles and turn the corner and make people miss and receivers who can catch the ball and run excellent routes and advance the ball after the catch.   It's a bonus to have a receiver who can simply outrun any defender but have elite track speed is rare.   Your fastest players will be DBs and safeties followed closely by RBs.Your RBs need elusiveness more than straightaway speed but both is of course preferential.   I suppose I'd take a lightning fast TE that can beat a LB would be the next priority.  After that, you get receivers that run great routes consistantly and have glue fingers and can catch anything within reach without flinching in the face of hard hitting DBs.   

 

You need a QB who can read defenses and make good decisions and throw the ball accurately.   The QB needs to be 6-3" (taller is better as he must be able to see somewhat over the middle of the field with about 8 - 6'-5" linemen dancing around in front of him.   A 6-1 or shorter QB will simply not be able to see those LBs and safeties moving aorund behind those big guys and interceptions will inevitably happen.  The number will only increase as visibility decreases.  You saw Osborne over the years roll his 6' or shorter QBs out to both shorten the throw as well as improve the QBs chances to find an open receiver and create the opportunity to run if the receiver or receivers are covered.   You make the QBs decision making easier as you reduce the area of the field the QB must focus on just a portion of the field.   You sacrifice a receiver or two away from the ball, but in return you reduce errors and bad plays.

 

I believe that Osborne approached offensive play design by attacking a specific area and or specific defenders.   Offenses that supposedly spread out all over the field and make the defense defend the entire field sound good in theory but the down side of this is that it then requires all eleven offensive players to excecute well vs each and all of the defenders.   By targeting weaknesses (areas and individual players), you create advantages, not just in scheme but in matchups which can be exploited.

 

You want to create mismatches (speed over power or power over speed; height is helpful but speed and power are more essential).   I'd rather have a 6 foot tall receiver that runs 4.4 forty that a 6'4" that runs 4.55.   That height advantage is helpful for those times when you want to throw that fade pattern in the corner of the endzone over a 5-10 DB but the QB still has to throw a near perfectly placed ball to use that 6" height advantage effectively.  A defender can be taller and stronger but if he is not in the right position, it won't matter.

 

Almost every team will have strengths and weaknesses (except the handful of elites which have exellent talent all over the field in their three deep chart).   When faced with such opponents, it will be a real challenge to hang with them (lucky breaks, critical penalties, mistakes, a couple big plays, funny bounces).   Wisconsin demonstrated by going 13-1 that they are very talented and clearly a top ten (maybe even top 6) team.   They may lack the superstars but they are foundamentally VERY sound and play great football (tackling, blocking, schemes, etc).   They are well coached and play hard.   If we win the Big Ten west division, it will be a great accomplishment - contrary to what so many say who want to dismiss the Big Ten west as a bunch of mediocres unworthy of praise.   Ohio State is one of the three most talented teams in the country - hardly debatable.  Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan are also top ten talent level teams.   That is 4 of the top ten in my opinion.  That makes the Big Ten the best conference - overall.   Even the bottom of the Big Ten teams are well above the bottom of of the NCAA top division teams as a group.  

 

There is more parity from top to bottom in NCAA football than ever before.  The success of UCF demonstrates this perfectly.   UCF has talent - probably top 20 in most areas.  Peach Bowl results may not be indicative with the coaching turmoil, etc of this year but we will see I guess.     

 

 

Well put

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Both of you are correct, however, an athletic and strong player put in the wrong position with bad technique that hasn’t practiced enough to have good muscle memory.....is going to look weak and unathletic. 

do you really think that is likely?

you all noticed I said stronger and quicker ( more athletic )

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

No it doesn't.

 

They grab big, strong, fast guys all the time to be offensive linemen. But if they can't develop the necessary footwork and technique, a smaller DL can bullrush the hell out of them.

 

Every coach in football would disagree with you.

 

Nice to see you again, Marko. 

I have missed the hell out of you guy

oh and by the way "yes it does"

the line was weak slow and unathletic

4 hours ago, Xmas32 said:

 

Not if your technique is terrible and you don't understand leverage.  

sorry yes it does

7 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I'll say the same thing here that was said in another thread criticizing the strength training program: this fan base has a history of lauding a strength and conditioning coach early on and then criticizing the slow, un-athletic look of the team years later. Several factors determine how well a line performs and strength/size can sometimes be one of the least relevant. I don't think any one of us here can fully qualify whether strength was a significant issue or not. We just saw a poor overall product on the field.

 

Nebraska flat out couldn't call protections this year, putting them out of position and thus putting their bodies in poor positions to make plays. They also leveraged their bodies poorly at times and had bad footwork. Those are coachable elements that didn't get fixed.

 

I don't want to totally put down that S&C might have been an issue, but, it was not the first thing that came to my mind when they were getting destroyed this year. A tackle out of position trying to arm block a defensive end is not a strength issue, nor is a guard raising his shoulders too high and duck footing and then getting bulled over by a defensive tackle.

Being stronger and faster than your opponent usually wins the day.

15 hours ago, Hilltop said:

I feel our overall talent level is behind much of the B1G.  The lack of NFL drafts doesn't lie...  We do have some good players but are any off them truly great?  Maybe one or two get drafted with different coaching but I feel we need a big recruiting boost to get back on a nationally competitive level.  

This^  The OL is slow and weak overall. bottom third of the big

LB same

DL slightly better bottom half

DB average

WR good to excellent

QB- for this system  ?

1 hour ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

 

 

Funny how even despite Eichorst's ginormous whiff with the Riley hire we still ended up landing Frost.  

 

 

 

Some of us thought we should of hired Frost three yrs. ago and if we had think how much further along we would be now.

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:22 AM, Redux said:

 

No, no it wouldn't.

while it wouldn't be great, it is likely within one game

8 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Idk, I think Michigan will have a rough start but turn it on at the end and beat tOSU

 

Urban is getting burnt out, next year is gonna show it.  Mark it.

right...

54 minutes ago, FTW said:

Riley won't be at the post game presser.

good call sharpie

8 hours ago, BoneyardHusker said:

These work when you're not 4-7....tbh.

exactly, very small minded

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

The LBer's have been horrible, so has the secondary and so has the line...my guess is that out of the 3 the DL has been the least bad?

thats not saying much

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

Isn't it weird how some of the more respected posters who were down on the staff before the year started aren't on here posting over and over about how right they were?  I mean, they were right so they should be in here begging for validation!  Come on everyone, all of us optimists are in here ready to bow down and praise you.

Who decides who"s respected?

7 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I hit the nail on the head in both instances.

 

And "wanting" to be right?  Looks at Redux incredulously.  I didn't realize that being correct was the same as wanting to be correct. 

 

Look, I'm am NOT saying I'm 100% right all the time or that I can NEVER be wrong.

 

But dang...would it kill you (or anyone else who flung pooh on me for those observations) to come back now and admit that my comments had merit?  Nope, that's just too much trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel your pain. I mentioned this all before the season and and all I got was grief

1 hour ago, Hayseed said:

Normally I’d find it hard to believe the Athletic Department is micromanaging the football team, but this is a special coaching staff they drug in here and I could see them wanting to get involved in fixing the obvious mistake.

i get the feeling Diaco was promised the Head Coaching job if he could turn it around and I think we’re seeing the strain between him and whoever is coaching in the Athletic Department.

Knowing the real names of anonymous sportswriters on the boards would clarify a lot.

 errrr right

2 hours ago, grandpasknee said:

So, let's say for argument that Moos and Frost have had talks (or their people have), and Scott has said "Bill, I'd love to coach the Huskers, but I owe it to the people here to finish one more season to finish what we started.  After that, I'm all Nebraska, 100%."  Does Bill say, "Nope, sorry, now or never, thank you very much, we'll find someone else" ?

 

It would suck beyond belief for another year (maybe), but if that were the case, wouldn't most fans like that outcome in the long run?

you think those stars are going to line up, really?

10 hours ago, Herbie87 said:

It would be awesome if we could get the NU-OU game back on thanksgiving day. 

not playing like we have been it wouldn't

13 hours ago, Rike Miley said:

 

Im actually really wondering what goes through your mind when watching this team play? It took me 7 years to fall off the Pelini bandwagon, so Im usually one for giving coaches time, but anyone with a pair of eyes can see that this is NOT good football. And when you break down film its even worse. 

It is mind boggling for sure.

2 hours ago, tmfr15 said:

This season is horrid and the Huskers seem destined for an 5-7 season. So fire the coach. There are certainly plenty of good reasons.

 

But maybe, we should think about this angle.

 

Brian Kelly took over for Charlie Weis in 2010 and recorded back-to-back 8-5 seasons before going on a somewhat magical ride to a 12-0 season. During that year, ND beat quite a few so-so teams just barely, but ended up in the title game, only to get run out of the building by Alabama. Kelly followed that with a 9-4 season and then went back to 8-5. He did get to 10 wins in 2015 but then went 4-8 last year.

 

Notre Dame chose to keep him and the Irish are in the midst of a one-loss season that could land them in the national title game.

 

We have a quarterback who seems to be getting better and better. We have a couple of quarterbacks that seem to be really good. Tristian seems to be more than good.

 

The 3-4 defense is struggling, but Coach Diaco and the squad have been working through growing pains. Maybe this unit could be pretty salty by next year.

 

I know I am probably crazy for saying this, and I have a hard time thinking that Riley will be there next year, but, what if we keep him and things work out?

 

Don't know myself. I am just throwing it out there.

well throw it back

11 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

All that sounds well and good. But you continue to put too much stock in what Riley says, especially since he's not the one calling the plays.  Watching what Langs was actually doing with his scheme/play calling is much more informative.

 

You are mistaking the difference between "more efficient" and "more running plays."

 

We've only really been blown out in two games.  So I don't think being behind is near as much of the reason as simplay having an ineffective rushing attack.

this^