CheeseHusker

Is St. Louis still considered within the footprint (with proximity to Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska) even though Mizzou went to the SEC?

$420 is an interesting number they came up with.

I just tell all my Wisky friends good job for going 1-1 against us this year

So, our favorite stirring agent / divisive hack (depending on your point of view) from the Weird-Herald has made his case that the 9 win benchmark is no longer a valid one. Let's play point/counterpoint... Point: 9 games is a far less meaningful accomplishment now than it was then, because it means you are 9-4 or 9-5 instead of 9-3. And the schedules are padded with extra home games against FCS cupcakes now because the university has to have 7 or 8 home games a season and is less inclined to take on tough non-conference foes. Plus, the B1G is a joke and any mediocre hack should be able to scrape together 9 wins in most years if they load up on cupcakes and get enough conference games at home. Counterpoint: (Jane, you ignorant....) 9 wins is 9 wins and they are arguably just as hard to get now as they were then. While you play one or two extra games a year now compared to 30 years ago, you also play extra conference games in conferences that are much more even from top to bottom than they were. Gone are the days of Oklahoma and everyone else. In the last days of the Big 12, we had KU, K-State, and Missouri all flirting with national titles. That was unthinkable in the 70s. Not to mention the burnt orange and their in-state brethren. What does everyone else think? My feeling is that you can make a case either way pretty easily... I think you do have to look at all the seasons in context. You have to look at the losses in context. There are years where Nebraska won the Big 8 and still went 9-3. There are years where a 10-1 regular season (with one loss to OU) was only enough for second place. Some 9-3 seasons are better than others. 1978 and 1981 were pretty fun years. 1974 and 1990 were both pretty pedestrian.

I thought they were running it up, considering that Ball was in the game (which was pointless really because we couldn't stop the third string dude anyway), and that they were still running all sorts of line shifts late. But I'm not gonna get bent out of shape about it.... play something even remotely close to competent defense and it isn't an issue.

Good.... I might be able to respect Wisconsin again. They should promote the OC. Yeah, the guy who took over in September. Called one of the best games in history.

After the extra point was kicked to turn the 69 into a 70, I told a few of my blubbing Badger friends that "this result will come back to you". Sure didn't think it would take three days.

An 11-1 or even 12-0 regular season is not out of the question. UCLA at home is a revenge game. This team should be 8-0 heading to Ann Arbor. There is also a trip to State Penn College. Get back to Indianapolis, and Wisky or Ohio State will be waiting for us.... but they will have our 100% undivided attention. No one can say the opportunity isn't out there. Put 70-31 on the scoreboard all spring next year if they have to. That worked once before.

This team walks a tighter, finer line between success and failure than any I've ever seen. That's what we need to figure out.... why is there a Grand Canyon-sized chasm between our best and worst efforts?

Dirk is controversial... I suppose his reputation stems from being a general pain in Pelini's gluteus. I think is comment is actually quite apt.... things are not 100% acceptable the way they are, but we aren't gonna fire Bo, and shouldn't.

Maybe Dirk Chatelain was hiding in the studio.

K-State is always going to be the worst, because, called correctly, Nebraska is driving and has a first down on the KSU side of the field.

Look, I don't want Taylor benched. I know he's the best we got. I just want him to get better.... I want coaches that want him to get better. I'd like to see him coached to be a better game manager than he currently is. I don't think a lot of these margins blow out the way they have without a series of mistakes that lead to easy, quick, and cheap touchdowns by the opposition. I thought being 105th in turnover margin would be a bigger point of emphasis than it seems to be here. Everyone says "it's the defense, it's the defense".... you're not wrong. It's because the defense has been so poor that the offense has a responsibility to not put them under even more pressure by putting the ball on the ground. For a moment, try not to isolate the most recent game in a vacuum and look at all the blowouts together. And yeah, it works both ways.... the defense has got to perform better. They flat out quit and laid down late in the second quarter. The TD that made it 42-10 was the most pathetic defensive series I've ever seen. Yeah, you only ask a QB to do so much when that happens.

I'll take back the benching comment.... that was made during the game. We all say stupid things while the game is happening, particularly a disaster like that one. I thought at the time that getting him out for a series and slowing the game way, way down might have stopped the bleeding. It was a suggestion. Know what.... that's why I'm a stooge at a computer and not a division 1 coach.

I can't believe Taylor gave up so many points in those games. He's terrible at defense. Turnovers! Your defense doesn't have much of a chance when you give the opposition 3-4 short fields a game. You honestly think Taylor Martinez' turnovers are the sole reason our defense hemorrhages yards and points in epic fashion? How about this - what if Taylor played out of control because we get in such deep holes so often that he has to take risks? The fumbles, aside from the blindside hits when he's in the pocket, are on him. Some of the INTs are on him, but again, he's forcing the ball trying to play catch-up half the time. But the INT to start Saturday's game wasn't his fault - he put it right on Bell's hands, but Bell slipped on the turf. Boom, pick-six, it's another turnover for Martinez, but that's not on him. Taylor has a problem with turnovers and he needs to fix it. That's a given, even with turnovers that aren't his fault. But the defense is, BY FAR, the biggest problem on this team, and why we lost three games. Not Taylor Martinez, and not turnovers. Nobody said he was the sole reason. I don't disagree that there are HUGE defensive problems with this squad. I just think we should be very concerned that we have a quarterback who spots the opposing team 14-21 points or more in every game, with the timing of those mistakes often having a magnifying effect. I don't think the occasional Crouch-like marathon touchdown is enough to overshadow these things. I also have made great efforts in previous posts to 1) point out that I like him as a player, 2) not blame him for the pick six, and 3) praise his off-season work ethic and his pride, none of which seems to be acknowledged.

I can't believe Taylor gave up so many points in those games. He's terrible at defense. Turnovers! Your defense doesn't have much of a chance when you give the opposition 3-4 short fields a game.

The Sportscenter highlights are great, but he turned it over three times and got sacked six times. He gets a free pass for the fluky pick 6 (although he should have thrown to Jamal who wide open). I guess I would just like to see more of an emphasis on trying to end the mistakes. I'm not convinced that the staff is all that interested in maximizing the effort to reduce the absolute chasm between his best and his worst? Or are they trying and it just isn't happening? I like Taylor..... I know he is not playing defense. I know the pick six wasn't his fault. I don't think Taylor is doing anything wrong himself. I just don't think he's getting enough guidance. Isn't he paying money out of his own pocket for off-season tutelage? That says a lot about his work ethic, but why is he paying for it? Do we have a dedicated QB coach for him? Imagine what Turner Gill would do for Taylor. I don't think it's a coincidence that arguably three best Nebraska quarterbacks or all time (other than himself) were the guys he mentored. Of course, Turner has moved on but it sure is a nice theoretical. I think the thing that seems to be missing the most from the Pelini-era is player development. Why else would there be so many seniors still making freshman mistakes? Taylor probably gets the most criticism (perhaps unfairly) because he's the quarterback and also one of the most visible players. And he's also the poster child for the red hot / ice cold fortunes of the three teams he's led.

I know I hugged my 3-year old son a little tighter today. It's amazing how much more sensitive you become to these stories when you have kids of your own, especially small children. Can't imagine the grief being felt right now.

Well, I certainly noticed that Stafford was beaten to the outside on a good number of those sweeps. And that kind of ties in with the original question - is that a situation where Stafford is supposed to be on an island? That's my worry.... that we have a lot of situations where responsibility falls too much to a single player.

Good post.... I appreciate the confidence some people still have. I don't know where you guys get it. I've already said this in a couple of other threads but I'll repeat it - beating Georgia is not impossible, but it requires Nebraska to play the type of game we haven't seen for a long time, which is one that is clean, mistake free, and fundamentally sound. So that is Bo's challenge. He has to find a way to make these Huskers play clean football. You need to remove every tangible advantage that you possibly can. Give Georgia short fields like we've given pretty much everyone this year and this game WILL be as lopsided as last night.