huskerjack23 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 2 losses is a down year for them... Quote Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 wasn't 06 sort of a down year for USC? If you count 11-2 and the 2 losses by a combined 6 points a down year then sure they had a down year. Man I wish we had down years like that around here. We did. 1996 was that kind of year. T_O_B Quote Link to comment
Pedro Guerrero Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Since 2002, when their turn around happened, 3 of the 6 been down years then. They had 2 losses in 2002, 2006, 2007 and 1 loss in 2003, 2005. So couldn't you say that 06 was a typical year for USC? Quote Link to comment
Pedro Guerrero Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 wasn't 06 sort of a down year for USC? If you count 11-2 and the 2 losses by a combined 6 points a down year then sure they had a down year. Man I wish we had down years like that around here. We did. 1996 was that kind of year. T_O_B Combined losses 29 points which is almost 6 points. I meant know a days not 12 years ago as well. I'll try to explain better from now on. Quote Link to comment
hack Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Combined losses 29 points which is almost 6 points. I meant know a days not 12 years ago as well. I'll try to explain better from now on. use puppets too. that helps. Quote Link to comment
Ohio Pete Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 USC has improved greatly at the receiver position and at QB with a guy who can actually throw on the run. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought USC had Jarrett and Smith in 06 (I believe the game he was talking about) as well as Fred Davis, so if you ask me they haven't improved at the receiver position because it is pretty hard to improve on those 3 dudes. IMO Ah I thought we were talking about 07. Yes had Jarrett and Smith and Davis, but no running game it seems. In the loss to UCLA they only had a net of 55 yards (and 9 points). Quote Link to comment
Pedro Guerrero Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 USC has improved greatly at the receiver position and at QB with a guy who can actually throw on the run. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought USC had Jarrett and Smith in 06 (I believe the game he was talking about) as well as Fred Davis, so if you ask me they haven't improved at the receiver position because it is pretty hard to improve on those 3 dudes. IMO Ah I thought we were talking about 07. Yes had Jarrett and Smith and Davis, but no running game it seems. In the loss to UCLA they only had a net of 55 yards (and 9 points). I agree with you about their running game that year. Total let down from the years before. Quote Link to comment
Ohio Pete Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 wasn't 06 sort of a down year for USC? If you count 11-2 and the 2 losses by a combined 6 points a down year then sure they had a down year. Man I wish we had down years like that around here. I imagine any year they lose to UCLA is a down year. Quote Link to comment
General Blackshirt Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That game in Southern Cal really should have been a better game than it was too. Andre Jones dropped an INT where he could have walked into the endzone, and Nebraska recovered a fumble and would have walked into the endzone, but it was called back because of a USC false-start. Probably woulda still lost the game, but i thought the gameplan that game was good. Every other team tried to punch USC in the mouth, and got punched back harder...Cally played in conservative, and if execution would have been better, it would have worked. So, not sure why i'm talking about this now, but anyway.. Quote Link to comment
melscott62 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That game in Southern Cal really should have been a better game than it was too. Andre Jones dropped an INT where he could have walked into the endzone, and Nebraska recovered a fumble and would have walked into the endzone, but it was called back because of a USC false-start. Probably woulda still lost the game, but i thought the gameplan that game was good. Every other team tried to punch USC in the mouth, and got punched back harder...Cally played in conservative, and if execution would have been better, it would have worked. So, not sure why i'm talking about this now, but anyway.. we also stuffed them on 3rd and long and the fumbled and it was advanced for a 1st... they went on to score Quote Link to comment
DA CORN ! Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Why dwell on the past??? Someone call coach Carroll. Maybe they will squeeze us in between UCLA and OU?? Quote Link to comment
Ringer02 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Does Missouri ring a bell? On national stage.... Quote Link to comment
DaveH Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Yea. I am not sure what that really has to do with anything Husker football. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'm kinda shocked that myself, or anyone else for that matter, are still replying to this... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.