blasted_imposter

I feel now is an appropriate time for everybody to remember that we don't have the same offensive staff as last year.

 

Coaching is the most crucial component of any college football program that exhibits prolonged success.

 

see you in the funny papers!

 

Thanks for avoiding my question.

 

Here you go:

 

since 1883

 

And its not just one or two entities that picked LSU as NC in 1958, it's 15:

 

1958

Iowa 8–1–1 Forest Evashevski FWAA

LSU 11–0 Paul Dietzel AP, B(QPRS), BR, BS, CFRA, DeS, DuS, FN, HAF, L, NCF, PS, SR, UPI, WS

 

See that one entry after iowa? there is your claim. See all the entries after LSU? thats consensus.

 

again, see you in funny papers, dear hickeyes.

I mean really, just stop it. You've got a nice little program over there in iowa somewhere. Just be happy and stop putting on airs, you look a fool.

 

see you in the funny papers!

 

Thanks for avoiding my question.

Here you go:

since 1883

And its not just one or two entities that picked LSU as NC in 1958, it's 15:

1958

Iowa 8–1–1 Forest Evashevski FWAA

LSU 11–0 Paul Dietzel AP, B(QPRS), BR, BS, CFRA, DeS, DuS, FN, HAF, L, NCF, PS, SR, UPI, WS

See that one entry after iowa? there is your claim. See all the entries after LSU? thats consensus.

again, see you in funny papers, dear hickeyes.

So which ONE selector of national champions do you personally feel was legit back in 1958?

i don't need to convince anyone of anything. the facts are in, and my earlier statement stands as is.

however, since you put it like that, i guess the proper response is: whatever scenario best satisfies your need to legitimize the institution you root for.

and certainly don't let things like "consensus" or "facts" get in the way of the football fantasy world that you're bent on inhabiting.

see you in the funny papers!

 

Iowa won (or at least shared) a national title... even though it was back in 1958.

 

Wrong. If the same criteria that iowa fans use to make that paper-thin claim were applied across the board, any number of teams could claim the MNC any given year since the very beginning of college football. U.S.C. @ 1620 did a piece on this a few months ago, and NU (for example) could claim double digit MNC's using that formula. (I want to say like 12 or 15 or some ridiculous number)

But they don't, because NU actually has won it all, and the supporters of any program that actually has been to the top of the mountain know better.

Bizarre stuff like this simply reinforces the impression that iowa's football program is a joke. It comes off as dishonest and desperate. Cut the BS and actually win something once.

The OL is probably the position hurt most by the mix-and-match draft selection. Hard to judge much at a spring game, especially the OL.

agrees. chemistry is a huge component of any great OL.

I'm not sure where the "Martinez had a bad game" talk is coming from. I didn't see a bad game. I saw a decent, but not great game. Both Martinez and Green were victimized by drops. Martinez had an INT that went into the hands of his WR, out, and into the hands of the DB. Anyone blaming Martinez for his poor passing performance probably didn't watch the game. He did NOT look fundamentally sound, he still throws without a proper base, and he shotputs the ball sometimes, but overall, he was tolerable. He has a lot of work to do, though.

 

Martinez rolled to his left, threw on the run, and hit his WR. So much for the theory that he "can't" roll out. Ran for a first down on his first carry, got the edge. His worst-looking throw was an obvious dump into the only open spot on the field. I suppose if you didn't see what was happening you'd think he just threw the ball into the dirt, but he was throwing it away intentionally.

 

Green is going to be a TE someday. Or he'll ride the bench. He's not progressing, and it's frankly sad to see him go out there, lock onto one WR, and ignore the rest. Or run the "zone read" play without making a read.

 

Carnes looked quite good. His throwing motion, while long, looked the best of anyone - save RK3. He threw some darts, looked through his progressions, and he hit his targets reasonably well. He is definitely our #2 QB, and he'll be pushing Martinez for that #1 spot.

 

We ran several "zone read" plays which weren't read plays, just like last year. Many times the handoff was made while the DE was crashing down on the RB, and overall it was just an ugly play today. I really hope we scrap it. The way we're running it right now, it's ugly, slow and often not a true "read." I'm not sure what the point of it is, honestly.

 

Ron Kellogg III was fine today. He is probably the best pure passer we have, and he moved the offense reasonably well, I thought. I was pleasantly surprised with him.

 

Jamal Turner is the real deal. I cannot wait to see him light up opponents. His career is going to be quite fun to watch. He looked good in just about every phase of the game today. Not sure what I'd criticize if I had to find something.

This.

1. Tressel

2. Pelini

3. Bielema

4. Hoke

5. Ferentz

Seems like Brady Hoke is pretty high for not having done anything yet. Also, I'd put Pat Fitzgerald of Northwestern higher than #9. Maybe #5 or #6 or so.

yup.

I too get so tired of hearing that BS. The other one that keeps getting stated 10,000 times is the "power football/option can't work anymore because the defenses are too fast".

Implying the defensive players have got faster but not the offensive players. Makes sense to me.

 

Heck, some of Frank's teams averaged over 40 points a game. TO's teams frequently too. But now we're seven full years into fluffball, we're struggling to score 20. Real progress right? Nevertheless, the mantra is "balance". Who cares what TO or even Frank did without "balance"? Results be damned, we gotta have it because....because.....because!

 

Yep. But don't take my word for it - take the word of most any coach in the country, who'll tell you that you HAVE TO be able to run the ball, at will, to win a championship.

 

Texas Tech is a great example of how fluffball only gets you so far. So is Missouri. So was Kansas circa 2007. Throw the ball up and down the field all you want, but when your opponent takes away your passing game and you can't run, you're done.

 

Look at USC - spread the ball all over the field during their championship years, but when crunch time hit, they could RUN THE BALL. LenDale White and Reggie Bush behind that ridiculous O Line. That's how they won, not simply throwing the ball.

absolutely, but you can't just rely on one damn thing, this or that, offensively. you have to be able to do both to win the MNC. every single championship team over the last ten years has been able to beat teams throwing the ball, on more than one occasion, and that is what nebraska has not been able to do when it needed it, all the way up till this past season. Having a run of teams that are so physically dominant that you can simply Run Over Them all season long is not a reasonable expectation, if your expectation is a championship season.

Now, beck's offense will be throwing the ball more often and with more effect while still maintaining the ability to run it down your throat, and beat you to the places big lumbering linebackers, and other slower more vulnerable defenders, are not.

Anybody remember how OU beat NU by going at grixby all game?

Cosgrove could never seem to protect him or adjust enough through the course of several contests.

This is what beck is installing. Find a weak point and squeeze.

Also, all power football pundits will find out this very season that:

Teams that simply try to line up and run at this years Huskers will not be able to score points. You can take that to the bank.

I will fight any one of you.

:bonesflag: :bonesflag:

bing bang boom. look the f*ck out.

And let's put one crazy notion to rest right now - Nebraska didn't go away from the Power Run game because it doesn't work anymore. Nebraska left the Power Run game for the WCO when Solich was fired. Different coach, different offensive philosophies, plain and simple.

 

There is zero reason why a Power Run game can't work today. Athletes are not so much faster today than they were 15 years ago that we couldn't win with Osborne's offenses. We're talking fractions of a second on skill players, nothing more.

 

On the money, knapplc.

 

I too get so tired of hearing that BS. The other one that keeps getting stated 10,000 times is the "power football/option can't work anymore because the defenses are too fast".

Implying the defensive players have got faster but not the offensive players. Makes sense to me.

 

Heck, some of Frank's teams averaged over 40 points a game. TO's teams frequently too. But now we're seven full years into fluffball, we're struggling to score 20. Real progress right? Nevertheless, the mantra is "balance". Who cares what TO or even Frank did without "balance"? Results be damned, we gotta have it because....because.....because!

Obviously people forget how texas and texas a&m owned us at the line of scrimmage ever since the big 12 formed basically, and sure, the "power run game" worked against kansas and iowa state, but who cares? and that's precisely why solich got fired in the first place.

anybody who doesn't think that's the case simply is in a state of denial, and chooses to forget the tailspin of the early 2000's, when it was patently obvious to everyone bleeding red that the "way things were" wasn't going to get NU over the OU and UT and TA&M hump, and helped us all to excuse Petey's moves away as necessary and inevitable if success in the future was to be ensured.

power

football

is

dead

Wise up.

.

Dude, its not a theory, it's physics.

I think it's more about the defenses we'll be facing, and what they might be more susceptible to.

Hey, we got a new WR coach! Give him a chance.

Prediction: our passing game will score more points this season than our running game.

I heard he's 10 feet tall.

So then, generalizing that logic, any team that has a running back that can break a tackle is a power running team?

Nope, not unless they utilize them that way.

But, if you do have a big back that can break tackles and you don't have a power running game, it's probably because you have lineman that can't move people off the line.

If you have both of those and you can make the defense bring the safeties up to stop the run, you've just beaten 99% of the teams in college or pro football.

 

But what if you have several smaller running backs that can: break tackles AND make people miss AND out run defenders to the edge, have linemen that can move people off the line, and also generate about 1/2 of your offense via the pass?

 

 

 

 

I'm not getting this whole "power running team" thing. Moar explainin pleez.

Honestly this whole "big ten" thing with "big running backs breaking tackles" is just silly. The size of the athlete has little to do with their ability to break tackles unless you're talking about the difference between a 1 yard gain and a 0 yard gain in a static line contest. Tommie frazier didn't seem to have much problem breaking tackles, and etc.

By that logic why not load up a 330 lb running back? or a 600 lb running back? Because they can't move. Acceleration is a measurable physical factor that multiplies mass into force, which can do work, and so on, meaning that a smaller running back with greater acceleration can actually deliver more force, and apply more work, to any given instant, than a larger *less dynamic* running back.

 

But what if you have several smaller running backs that can: break tackles AND make people miss AND out run defenders to the edge, have linemen that can move people off the line, and also generate about 1/2 of your offense via the pass?

Then you'd have one of the best offenses of all time.

Aha! A target for the offense!

I lure you into my trap.

13.) The last part of the scrimmage saw the #1 offense (with Brion Carnes at QB) get the ball six consecutive times on the #1 defense's 2½ yard line. The plays were right in front of me and you could feel the leather popping. The offense never did get in and the defense celebrated by yelling and chest-bumping each other.

I don't think it means much, there will be a lot of offenses struggling to get anything at all going against this defense.

So then, generalizing that logic, any team that has a running back that can break a tackle is a power running team?

Nope, not unless they utilize them that way.

But, if you do have a big back that can break tackles and you don't have a power running game, it's probably because you have lineman that can't move people off the line.

If you have both of those and you can make the defense bring the safeties up to stop the run, you've just beaten 99% of the teams in college or pro football.

But what if you have several smaller running backs that can: break tackles AND make people miss AND out run defenders to the edge, have linemen that can move people off the line, and also generate about 1/2 of your offense via the pass?

I'm not getting this whole "power running team" thing. Moar explainin pleez.

So then, generalizing that logic, any team that has a running back that can break a tackle is a power running team?

People who think Iowa's program is so far ahead of Colorado's have a short memory.

 

Colorado in the 90s (the height of our rivalry): 74.17% winning + 1 MNC

Iowa in the 00s (Iowa's new golden age/the Ferentz era): 64.00% winning + jack squat

fixed it.

 

Doesn't matter how fast your defense is... if it takes 3 guys to get a ball carrier down, it's gonna be a long day. Trust me.. we experienced it against Wisky last year.

 

If it takes 3 of your teams defenders to tackle some other teams running backs, then your team doesn't tackle very well.

I dont think he meant all at once. If your RB can run behind his pads and lay down some hits at the line, by the time anyone moves up to stop him, there is usually two of them. Beat one at the line, take your 7 or so yards and get met by two more. Thats 3.

I stand by my original statement regardless.

 

Doesn't matter how fast your defense is... if it takes 3 guys to get a ball carrier down, it's gonna be a long day. Trust me.. we experienced it against Wisky last year.

If it takes 3 of your teams defenders to tackle some other teams running backs, then your team doesn't tackle very well.

I'm counting on immediate rival = penn st., given the guaranteed annual scrum, & they have the tradition and rabid fan base to compete annually, but they don't have to re-build defensively ala michigan....although I expect michigan to develop into a fantastic matchup down the road.

vs. iowa does feel contrived, and IMO under no condition is this manufactured "rivalry" anything but equivalent to KSU, or missouri, a team NU has no business losing to, but does occasionally. Once every decade or so.