Nebraska is the best team in the North

[teachercd]

Ummmm last years game has as much input on this game as a butterfly landing on a flower next to the stadium does.

[DocNice]

Nebraska's game at Virginia Tech provided more challenges than all of Missouri's out of conference schedule combined.

 

Time will tell. I'm still of the opinion that Virginia Tech is not that good. I mean, they're top 25, but there's nowhere near top 5. There's a whole bunch of middling teams in the ACC and they're one of them.

Don't forget, you lost to a similar Virginia Tech team last year by 5, and then had a...less than perfect...outing against Mizzou.

 

And if you're right that Va Tech provided more challenges, then don't forget that you didn't meet all of those challenges. And Mizzou hasn't faced chopped liver. So far we've faced 2 of the best dual-threat QB's in the country, and a good methodical passing QB from Bowling Green who is one of their top passers in school history. One of the top returning rushing attacks in the country in Nevada, and the leader in total offense in the Big Ten in Juice Williams.

 

We haven't faced a top defense like you have, but of course, you didn't do so well against that defense. That's not meant to be an insult, just saying that there's nothing to indicate you're clearly the best team in the North.

 

If anything, I'd say Mizzou has claim to that until NU gives evidence otherwise on the field. We've beaten you 4 out of the last 6 and most of them weren't too close. Sure, we lost some talent in last year, but so did Nebraska, and Mizzou clearly has playmakers replacing them. Again, not meant as trash talk, but Mizzou's program has clearly been superior for the last few years. The only thing that's really changed aside from key players on BOTH sides leaving, is Pelini is in his second year.

[husker B-rent]

Nebraska's game at Virginia Tech provided more challenges than all of Missouri's out of conference schedule combined.

 

Time will tell. I'm still of the opinion that Virginia Tech is not that good. I mean, they're top 25, but there's nowhere near top 5. There's a whole bunch of middling teams in the ACC and they're one of them.

Don't forget, you lost to a similar Virginia Tech team last year by 5, and then had a...less than perfect...outing against Mizzou.

 

And if you're right that Va Tech provided more challenges, then don't forget that you didn't meet all of those challenges. And Mizzou hasn't faced chopped liver. So far we've faced 2 of the best dual-threat QB's in the country, and a good methodical passing QB from Bowling Green who is one of their top passers in school history. One of the top returning rushing attacks in the country in Nevada, and the leader in total offense in the Big Ten in Juice Williams.

 

We haven't faced a top defense like you have, but of course, you didn't do so well against that defense. That's not meant to be an insult, just saying that there's nothing to indicate you're clearly the best team in the North.

 

If anything, I'd say Mizzou has claim to that until NU gives evidence otherwise on the field. We've beaten you 4 out of the last 6 and most of them weren't too close. Sure, we lost some talent in last year, but so did Nebraska, and Mizzou clearly has playmakers replacing them. Again, not meant as trash talk, but Mizzou's program has clearly been superior for the last few years. The only thing that's really changed aside from key players on BOTH sides leaving, is Pelini is in his second year.

 

this right here is why i absolutely hate MU fans!

 

two years ago every MU fan would point out that our wins over you in the past were just that...IN THE PAST! now that they have beat us 4 out of the last 6 or 2 out of the last 2, those games matter to this seasons game! if thats the case then we are going to beat you because we beat you in 1983 or 1997 or 2001 or whatever you want to say (there are a hell of a lot!)

 

fact is that you lost skill and replaced it with less skill.

 

fact is we lost skill and replaced it with more skill.

[teachercd]

Look, Mizzo is still the team to beat cause they are the defending north champs. Who cares though, it gets played out on the field.

[husker B-rent]

Look, Mizzo is still the team to beat cause they are the defending north champs. Who cares though, it gets played out on the field.

 

that doesnt make them the current north champs. just like after we win it this year, it wont make us the current north champions when we start next season...

[teachercd]

Look, Mizzo is still the team to beat cause they are the defending north champs. Who cares though, it gets played out on the field.

 

that doesnt make them the current north champs. just like after we win it this year, it wont make us the current north champions when we start next season...

 

 

Well, yeah it does. Since there is no champ yet this year, they are the current champ, just like UF is the current defending champ. Dont you think?

 

Like in baseball, you are the reigning Cy Young winner. You know?

[DocNice]

"fact is that you lost skill and replaced it with less skill.

 

fact is we lost skill and replaced it with more skill."

 

Your QB and receivers are better this year than last? Really? That's news to me.

 

It's funny you say that's what you hate about Mizzou fans. What Mizzou fans hate about Nebraska fans is that they assume they're better because their jerseys say Nebraska. Mizzou has recruited very well recently, and we have a lot of talent. Overall, we might have more talent than even last year, but at different positions.

 

We upgraded at secondary, linebacker, defensive end and running back. OL is about the same. We've gone slightly down at DT and QB, and significantly down at receiver, thought we still have one of the top 4 units in the conference there.

 

And even if you're right, you've got about 35 points to catch up.

 

And while last year's game doesn't predict this year's game, there is some stability year to year in the state of the programs. Some Husker fans always want to point to 10 or 20 years ago whenever Mizzou tries to brag, and that's where we say it doesn't matter. But last year and the last few years say a lot about the talent in the respective programs.

[teachercd]

Nebraska's game at Virginia Tech provided more challenges than all of Missouri's out of conference schedule combined.

 

fact is that you lost skill and replaced it with less skill.

 

fact is we lost skill and replaced it with more skill.

 

Your QB and receivers are better this year than last? Really? That's news to me.

 

It's funny you say that's what you hate about Mizzou fans. What Mizzou fans hate about Nebraska fans is that they assume they're better because their jerseys say Nebraska. Mizzou has recruited very well recently, and we have a lot of talent. Overall, we might have more talent than even last year, but at different positions.

 

We upgraded at secondary, linebacker, defensive end and running back. OL is about the same. We've gone slightly down at DT and QB, and significantly down at receiver, thought we still have one of the top 4 units in the conference there.

 

And even if you're right, you've got about 35 points to catch up.

 

Well see thats wrong too, the skers dont have 35 points to make up, its not a freaking cumulative score, if it was, my guess would be that Mizzo has about 1000 points to make up.

 

The game will be played on the field, the odds makers will give the best indication of what they think and what the people think will happen and it will go from there. Right now NU looks better on defense and running, mizzo looks really good throwing, NU looks better on special teams. But they will play it out.

[Billyball]

Nebraska's game at Virginia Tech provided more challenges than all of Missouri's out of conference schedule combined.

 

Time will tell. I'm still of the opinion that Virginia Tech is not that good. I mean, they're top 25, but there's nowhere near top 5. There's a whole bunch of middling teams in the ACC and they're one of them.

Don't forget, you lost to a similar Virginia Tech team last year by 5, and then had a...less than perfect...outing against Mizzou.

 

And if you're right that Va Tech provided more challenges, then don't forget that you didn't meet all of those challenges. And Mizzou hasn't faced chopped liver. So far we've faced 2 of the best dual-threat QB's in the country, and a good methodical passing QB from Bowling Green who is one of their top passers in school history. One of the top returning rushing attacks in the country in Nevada, and the leader in total offense in the Big Ten in Juice Williams.

 

We haven't faced a top defense like you have, but of course, you didn't do so well against that defense. That's not meant to be an insult, just saying that there's nothing to indicate you're clearly the best team in the North.

 

If anything, I'd say Mizzou has claim to that until NU gives evidence otherwise on the field. We've beaten you 4 out of the last 6 and most of them weren't too close. Sure, we lost some talent in last year, but so did Nebraska, and Mizzou clearly has playmakers replacing them. Again, not meant as trash talk, but Mizzou's program has clearly been superior for the last few years. The only thing that's really changed aside from key players on BOTH sides leaving, is Pelini is in his second year.

 

this right here is why i absolutely hate MU fans!

 

two years ago every MU fan would point out that our wins over you in the past were just that...IN THE PAST! now that they have beat us 4 out of the last 6 or 2 out of the last 2, those games matter to this seasons game! if thats the case then we are going to beat you because we beat you in 1983 or 1997 or 2001 or whatever you want to say (there are a hell of a lot!)

 

fact is that you lost skill and replaced it with less skill.

 

fact is we lost skill and replaced it with more skill.

 

 

While I agree wholeheartedly about "SOME" Mizzou fans, which include my in-laws, they currently have a point. Until we beat them, they will continue to have a point. Success, whether it is the decades of the Big Red or the last few years that the Tiggers have owned us is transitory and is always 'history'. We change that history by WINNING the game a week from Thursday. Until then, they have every right to point out that we have not been as good a football team as Missouri in recent times. I have been bright enough to not claim we were "co-champions" of the North last year. We were B-slapped, plain and simple and I hope we can return the favor Oct 8. But more importantly is a win. None of that VT game "We played better than they did" stuff. A win by a point, a field goal, a touchdown or a landslide. It doesn't matter, it will put the Big Red back in the drivers seat of the North. Until then, it's only words.

 

As far as "facts" you state, we will have to prove that Oct 8 to my inlaws and the world. There is no concrete proof that Missouri is any worse off with Gabbert and their top two recievers and we are better off with Lee and Helu rather than Ganz and Castille .

 

The positive is that on the whole we have been killed the chumps and played a ranked team close while Misery struggled against a suspect team and never blew out the teams the way we did. But they are undefeated and we have to go to their house.

 

I am not going to be talking smack to my in-laws..... probably ever.... <G> but certainly not until the game is well in hand. 2007 sitting there while losing by 35 points after assuring them that the Huskers would TCOB, taught me a lesson in humility that will last a while.

 

A WIN IS WAAAAY OVERDUE....but in no way assured.

[DocNice]

 

Well see thats wrong too, the skers dont have 35 points to make up, its not a freaking cumulative score, if it was, my guess would be that Mizzo has about 1000 points to make up.

 

The game will be played on the field, the odds makers will give the best indication of what they think and what the people think will happen and it will go from there. Right now NU looks better on defense and running, mizzo looks really good throwing, NU looks better on special teams. But they will play it out.

 

How do you figure you look better? I'm just saying, all you have to hang your hat on is a loss to a potentially really good team. You looked good on defense in that loss, but Mizzou has a far superior offense to Virginia Tech. You've played no other good competition, so it's hard to say how that will play out.

 

As for "cumulative score", the response was that we had lost talent and gotten worse, and you had lost talent and gotten better. Not only do I disagree with that, but simply losing talent isn't enough, because you have a lot of ground from last year to this year to make up.

 

Now, to be fair, I know that's a low blow, because NU has improved since that game, even last year. But I just don't understand where the default position is NU got better and MU got worse.

[teachercd]

 

Well see thats wrong too, the skers dont have 35 points to make up, its not a freaking cumulative score, if it was, my guess would be that Mizzo has about 1000 points to make up.

 

The game will be played on the field, the odds makers will give the best indication of what they think and what the people think will happen and it will go from there. Right now NU looks better on defense and running, mizzo looks really good throwing, NU looks better on special teams. But they will play it out.

 

How do you figure you look better? I'm just saying, all you have to hang your hat on is a loss to a potentially really good team. You looked good on defense in that loss, but Mizzou has a far superior offense to Virginia Tech. You've played no other good competition, so it's hard to say how that will play out.

 

As for "cumulative score", the response was that we had lost talent and gotten worse, and you had lost talent and gotten better. Not only do I disagree with that, but simply losing talent isn't enough, because you have a lot of ground from last year to this year to make up.

 

Now, to be fair, I know that's a low blow, because NU has improved since that game, even last year. But I just don't understand where the default position is NU got better and MU got worse.

 

 

1. most teams that lose a Heisman finalist are atleast a bit worse the next year.

2. The cumulative score thing was lame to bring up, its cool that you admit that.

3. I figure that NU looks better so far because Mizzo looked average in two games and great vs IL (I am a huge Illini fan and grew up there and they are freaking terrible). Now I know statistically in the UNR game they looked good but lets face it, they got some great breaks (you make your own breaks for the most part, but still they were great breaks)

4. NU looked pretty good in 3 games and below average on offense in one game, way below!

 

So my guess is vegas lines it at about 2-3 in favor of Mizzo, mostly since its at home.

[Hokieluv]

 

Well see thats wrong too, the skers dont have 35 points to make up, its not a freaking cumulative score, if it was, my guess would be that Mizzo has about 1000 points to make up.

 

The game will be played on the field, the odds makers will give the best indication of what they think and what the people think will happen and it will go from there. Right now NU looks better on defense and running, mizzo looks really good throwing, NU looks better on special teams. But they will play it out.

 

How do you figure you look better? I'm just saying, all you have to hang your hat on is a loss to a potentially really good team. You looked good on defense in that loss, but Mizzou has a far superior offense to Virginia Tech. You've played no other good competition, so it's hard to say how that will play out.

 

As for "cumulative score", the response was that we had lost talent and gotten worse, and you had lost talent and gotten better. Not only do I disagree with that, but simply losing talent isn't enough, because you have a lot of ground from last year to this year to make up.

 

Now, to be fair, I know that's a low blow, because NU has improved since that game, even last year. But I just don't understand where the default position is NU got better and MU got worse.

 

Did the superior D's of Bowling Green or Nevada make you come to that conclusion? I would be shocked if Mizzou scores more than 9 points on the Nebraska D.

[BlackShirt1340]

 

Well see thats wrong too, the skers dont have 35 points to make up, its not a freaking cumulative score, if it was, my guess would be that Mizzo has about 1000 points to make up.

 

The game will be played on the field, the odds makers will give the best indication of what they think and what the people think will happen and it will go from there. Right now NU looks better on defense and running, mizzo looks really good throwing, NU looks better on special teams. But they will play it out.

 

How do you figure you look better? I'm just saying, all you have to hang your hat on is a loss to a potentially really good team. You looked good on defense in that loss, but Mizzou has a far superior offense to Virginia Tech. You've played no other good competition, so it's hard to say how that will play out.

 

As for "cumulative score", the response was that we had lost talent and gotten worse, and you had lost talent and gotten better. Not only do I disagree with that, but simply losing talent isn't enough, because you have a lot of ground from last year to this year to make up.

 

Now, to be fair, I know that's a low blow, because NU has improved since that game, even last year. But I just don't understand where the default position is NU got better and MU got worse.

 

 

Okay... some points to make here.

 

First off, by saying that our defense looked good against Virginia Tech and Mizzou has a far superior offense to Va Tech, you are discrediting yourself. All the statements you have made have been talking about how we can't say anything about Nebraska because we don't know yet. But who has Mizzou played?

 

I'm not sold that Missouri has a FAR superior offense to Va Tech. They may have last year, but that's just what it is, LAST year. This year they have struggled against two of their cupcake (27-20 comeback against BGSU and 31-21 win at Nevada). Now you know as well as I do that the score in that Nevada game is looking a lot better than the game did. Nevada, an average defensive team, absolutely SHUT down your running game and also was able to run all over Mizzou between the tackles. But, as I've stated, I don't believe they are far superior to VT, just different styles, Tech runs a smashmouth on the ground, while Mizzou prefers the air.

 

But by saying that Nebraska isn't tested, you are saying exactly the same about Missouri. But simply by looking at the games they have played, Nebraska has handled business against the cupcakes MUCH better than has Mizzou. And don't discredit the ACC, Virginia Tech puts a solid team on the field EVERY year and looks good against non-conference power houses as well as their own conference.

[Paul in WI]

 

Well see thats wrong too, the skers dont have 35 points to make up, its not a freaking cumulative score, if it was, my guess would be that Mizzo has about 1000 points to make up.

 

The game will be played on the field, the odds makers will give the best indication of what they think and what the people think will happen and it will go from there. Right now NU looks better on defense and running, mizzo looks really good throwing, NU looks better on special teams. But they will play it out.

 

How do you figure you look better? I'm just saying, all you have to hang your hat on is a loss to a potentially really good team. You looked good on defense in that loss, but Mizzou has a far superior offense to Virginia Tech. You've played no other good competition, so it's hard to say how that will play out.

 

As for "cumulative score", the response was that we had lost talent and gotten worse, and you had lost talent and gotten better. Not only do I disagree with that, but simply losing talent isn't enough, because you have a lot of ground from last year to this year to make up.

 

Now, to be fair, I know that's a low blow, because NU has improved since that game, even last year. But I just don't understand where the default position is NU got better and MU got worse.

 

Did the superior D's of Bowling Green or Nevada make you come to that conclusion? I would be shocked if Mizzou scores more than 9 points on the Nebraska D.

 

How many teams will VT have to beat before they get any respect for being a good team??? A little further up they were being dissed as being nowhere near as good as their rating. Well tell me people.....just WHO out there looks awesome this year? How many teams can you name? Struggling to count them on one hand?--you should be, because I can go right down the line and show you that just about every "top" team has sucked wind at some point this year. Sure, the score may not show it at the end of the day, but they had to keep their first string in well into the second half before taking control of their games against second-rate competition. That includes Texas AND Florida. From what I've seen, VT has played about the roughest schedule of anyone. Cut them some slack. They show up to play and they find a way to win.

[husker B-rent]

 

Well see thats wrong too, the skers dont have 35 points to make up, its not a freaking cumulative score, if it was, my guess would be that Mizzo has about 1000 points to make up.

 

The game will be played on the field, the odds makers will give the best indication of what they think and what the people think will happen and it will go from there. Right now NU looks better on defense and running, mizzo looks really good throwing, NU looks better on special teams. But they will play it out.

 

How do you figure you look better? I'm just saying, all you have to hang your hat on is a loss to a potentially really good team. You looked good on defense in that loss, but Mizzou has a far superior offense to Virginia Tech. You've played no other good competition, so it's hard to say how that will play out.

 

As for "cumulative score", the response was that we had lost talent and gotten worse, and you had lost talent and gotten better. Not only do I disagree with that, but simply losing talent isn't enough, because you have a lot of ground from last year to this year to make up.

 

Now, to be fair, I know that's a low blow, because NU has improved since that game, even last year. But I just don't understand where the default position is NU got better and MU got worse.

 

Did the superior D's of Bowling Green or Nevada make you come to that conclusion? I would be shocked if Mizzou scores more than 9 points on the Nebraska D.

 

exactly! MUs O is not as good as they (and the NU fans that have lost their swagger) will have you believe!

 

the only team that MU put up more than 37 points was against freaking FURMAN! correct me if im wrong, but arent they 1AA?! on the other side, NU score less than 38 only once...and that was against freaking Virginia Tech! correct me if im wrong, but arent they currently ranked the #6 team in the country?!

 

I dont give a damn if Gabbert Throws for 400 yards, cuz if they dont score more than 37 points (which they wont) they will lose! MU has shown me NOTHING.

 

ON D, its one good player and 10 other role players for the tiggers and on O its one average QB a couple slightly above average WRs and a 8 other role players!

 

I give them good luck on the 8th and they will need it to stay withing 2 TDs, they do not scare me at all.