Hoosker

Like I said, if it was just this one comment, it would be nothing. But he's been pretty systematic about this for the last year-and-a-half. Coming off winning at least 9 games for seven straight years and firing coaches for not winning more (amongst other things), he promptly announced - specifically - that he thought last year's team had the talent of a 7-9 win team. And that was against basically the exact same schedule that we'd won 9 games the previous year - and only 2 of those games were within 10 points. Now, there is plenty more that goes into winning game other than talent but talent is a large part of it. And he's circled back to the "lack of talent" argument several times since. And - by the way - we had more NFL draft picks in a single year last year than we had since 2011. Not to mention the roster talent showing the same advantage over almost every team last year just like this year. I get what you're saying now. I guess I just don't see it the same way. Thanks for explaining it to me.

Yes, but if was previously said that it was the coaching staff that was holding us back from winning more games. Now Sam has tried to shift the blame to lack of talent. I mean ... how many times were we told that 9 wins were basically built into the schedule? Funny how quickly that disappeared. I think he's saying we have a lack of talent as an excuse for the coaches if they don't win enough and so he can give most of the credit to the coaches if we do. Alright. That's what I was looking for. I guess I just don't think he has this ulterior motive to double down on the lack of talent in order to boost up the coaching staff later on if we have a good year. I suppose I just take his comments as his genuine thoughts on the team and the staff. Perhaps I'm too naive in that regard. Carry on with the Indiana discussion.

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much. I don't understand. He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true? He said we have the edge. Is this not true? Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying? I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway) Yes. http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them. Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point. We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be. I think Sam's assessment is fair. Just because we're closer to them than Ohio State doesn't mean that it's a "decent talent matchup". We're also closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU. Would you try to give the impression that they have similar talent to Nebraska? The top five teams in that metric are quite a ways ahead of the field. Can you explain why it's not a decent talent matchup? If we're closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU, then are you saying the metric is bogus? Is it just based on the eye test? If so, then how can you criticize Sam for his comment? That's all I wanted to understand. It seems like, based on the data that was linked in the previous post, the matchup could certainly be defined as "decent". I'm not trying to argue, I just have a lot of respect for most of Sam's opinions on Husker football and wanted to understand exactly where you were coming from. Obviously it's all going to be in how you semantic "decent." That comment all by itself doesn't mean much. But Sam has been beating the "Nebraska doesn't have enough talent" drum since Riley was hired. And he's not talking about winning national championships. He's talking about winning 10-11 games per year. And that's despite every single objective evaluation of talent showing that tOSU is the only team on our schedule that has any sort of a talent advantage on us. But to answer your question, given the metric linked above, I would say a total rating of within 75 points or so would be pretty comparable. For Nebraska - raked #24 at 697.45 - that would be up to #20 Oregon (748.26) and down to #40 Arizona (628.53). Ohio State would be above that range, Oregon and Wisconsin would be in that range and the rest of our schedule would be below that. According to those rankings, Nebraska has 18 four-star player on the roster (not counting CJax) - 17 with Westy being injured. Indiana has one and he's hurt so they won't be suiting up any Saturday. I would say that is a decided talent advantage for the Huskers. So, since Riley was hired, Sam has been saying that we don't have enough talent to win 10 or 11 games per year. Ok, but this senior class hasn't ever won 10-11 games. We haven't won 10 games since the 2012 season. So do you think he's not giving the current staff enough credit or what? I think Riley is definitely an upgrade, but he hasn't yet proven that the current players are capable of winning 10-11 games, has he?

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much. I don't understand. He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true? He said we have the edge. Is this not true? Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying? I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway) Yes. http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them. responding to this but creating a new thread so as to not taint this one. How did our discussion taint this one? What is the proper criteria for this thread?

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much. I don't understand. He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true? He said we have the edge. Is this not true? Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying? I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway) Yes. http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them. Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point. We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be. I think Sam's assessment is fair. Just because we're closer to them than Ohio State doesn't mean that it's a "decent talent matchup". We're also closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU. Would you try to give the impression that they have similar talent to Nebraska? The top five teams in that metric are quite a ways ahead of the field. Can you explain why it's not a decent talent matchup? If we're closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU, then are you saying the metric is bogus? Is it just based on the eye test? If so, then how can you criticize Sam for his comment? That's all I wanted to understand. It seems like, based on the data that was linked in the previous post, the matchup could certainly be defined as "decent". I'm not trying to argue, I just have a lot of respect for most of Sam's opinions on Husker football and wanted to understand exactly where you were coming from.

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much. I don't understand. He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true? He said we have the edge. Is this not true? Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying? I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway) Yes. http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them. Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point. We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be. I think Sam's assessment is fair.

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much. I don't understand. He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true? He said we have the edge. Is this not true? Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying? I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway)

That thing that J Leman does when Anthony Adams agrees with him should be a gif. Ask and ye shall receive...

My face while listening to these guys: Same

I'd still prefer Nike, but Adidas has definitely improved as of late. I've cooled on Under Armor since Wisconsin has already made the switch. As long as we are their TOP program and reap all the benefits that come with that. Anyone remember this commercial? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GTHdCajEcU If you could pinpoint what I dislike about Adidas, this would be it. I understand the hype around A&M, but we helped make Adidas what they are today in college football. We deserve better than A&M, Miami, and UCLA in that regard.

Quality tweet, Heather Dinich. #LockdownU better bring it.

Blitz you say? Better cue up some well-timed screens to Newby and Pierson-El. I can see De'Mornay breaking through in this game either as a wideout, since Westy and Cethan are down, in the jet sweep game, with Ozigbo hurt and Tommy not at 100%, or in the return game. The Hoosiers special teams aren't anything to brag about.

I'm not sure how often you get told this, but thank you for doing these kinds of threads. I really enjoy going through them each week, even though I don't always comment or give any +1s. Mavric, you're awesome. As for Indiana, I think it's clear that if we lose this game, it won't be because we didn't take them seriously. I don't get a sense that we're overlooking this team from anyone, staff or player. I'll bet it's a close game in the first half, but our knack for 2nd half adjustments and dominating the 4th quarter will kick in and we end up pulling away like we did in these last few games. This time it will be against a better opponent. Some might say the best opponent we've faced thus far.

With 7 straight games to end the season, I think our regular season ceiling is 11 wins. @ Indiana I watched all of their game against tOSU. If they can hang with the Buckeyes for 3 quarters, then they're completely capable of beating us. They have weapons on offense and an improved defense. They were extremely effective at stopping Barrett and the offense on 3rd downs. We will need to get ourselves into manageable situations, especially with Westerkamp and Carter out. Although we haven't exactly shown ourselves to be an elite team yet this season, I have a hard time believing Indiana is going to hang with #2 Ohio State in the Shoe and then follow up that effort with a big win over #12 Nebraska. vs Purdue This is the game we need to hang 50. I don't care if we have injuries. I don't care if Purdue is better than they've been. We need to destroy someone. And they beat us last year ffs. @ Wisconsin Does anyone believe Ohio State is going to lose Wisconsin? No? Me neither. I think Wisconsin drops to 1-2 in the B1G and then trumps Iowa the following week. If that scenario plays out and we're able to exorcise the demons of Camp Randall, we will have essentially won the West. @ Ohio State Keep it close. Don't have a meltdown. vs Minnesota We should be able to handle the Gophers at home. They were the only team from the West that we beat in 2015. However the Ohio State game turns out, you have to worry about the team's psyche after the 2 week road trip from Hell. Don't wanna sleep on Minnesota. vs Maryland Who knows? I think we could blow them out, but I could also see them giving us fits. This would be the one to lose if you had to choose. The only thing that sucks is that it would be on Senior Day. @ Iowa Throw out the records. It's probably going to be 20 degrees and windy. It would feel good to stomp them, but hopefully, come Black Friday, this game is meaningless. In short, best case scenario is 11-1 with a close loss @ Ohio State. Maybe a revenge game in Indianapolis or a chance at Harbaugh. You'd like to see 10-2 with the second loss coming to either Indiana or Maryland. That way your Western Division record isn't harmed. Realistically we're looking at 9-3 with losses coming to Ohio State, Wisconsin/Iowa, and an upset like Indiana or Maryland. I'd be very disappointed with 4 losses.

I would agree with pretty much all of that.

Positive / Positive

Nebraska 42 Illinois 10 Rush 275 Pass 250

I made it about 3 minutes into that video. I think Adam is a good guy, but I just couldn't listen anymore.