Nebraska is the best team in the North

[knapplc]

Doc, you're wasting your breath.

There are a couple logical Husker fans here, but the majority (95%) can't be reasoned with.

Homeslice, I have yet to see you roll up your sleeves and seriously discuss football. Then ins and outs of the game, the intricacies of interacting offenses and defenses - these are all lacking from your posts. Sure, you'll chat about the vino and I for one appreciate that, but the bottom line is, you do a lot more smack chit-chat than actual factual football discussion, and because of this, you're hardly in a position to judge here. You want to talk about wasting breath, fine. Yours is an unqualified opinion at this point. Doc is willing to dig deep and discuss the game. Pretend I'm from Missouri and Show Me that you're willing to do the same. Until then, these diatribes you're launching against Husker Fan ring hollow.

 

Speaking of vino and hollow, let's imagine for a second you watched some reasonably competent show on FoodNetwork or A&E or wherever it was, and you got a hankering to try that somewhat new non-alcoholic wine, Fre, because you saw how it was made and it seemed intriguing. Let me save you the trouble - no matter how much time it's spent in an oak barrel, no matter what alchemy they do to remove the alcohol, at the end of the day it's just grape juice. Don't waste your time.

[Husker_x]

this thread is exactly what slays me about mizzery... a few winning seasons and suddenly they are the team to beat. win something, something worth bragging about. until that happens, its just gum flappin on mizzery's part , literally.

 

Why wouldn't we be the team to beat? Two straight north titles, and really a bularkey holding call in the final seconds of the ISU game in 2006 (which the league apologized for) would have made it 3 straight. We have the best record by nearly every measure of success for the last 2, 3, 4 even 5 years of anyone in the North. And even if you don't like our competition, I think you'd agree that the predictions of Missouri's demise without Daniel and Maclin are grossly overstated.

Doc, you're wasting your breath.

There are a couple logical Husker fans here, but the majority (95%) can't be reasoned with.

 

And yet here you are. Is it masochism? Don't get me wrong, we love having you guys, but let's hold the insults.

 

On some level all football talk is from the gut. I've got about four or five good reasons I think Nebraska is the logical victor in the upcoming match. But does that make me right? Does it make me a homer? Does it make me unreasonable? No. It's a bit instinct matched with some thought. But the fact of the matter is the game is going to happen in a little over a week, and probably it won't go exactly the way I expect, because football isn't a sport that's broken down to stats and what's happened so far this season. We do the best we can with what we have to make a prediction, but it's all blather once kickoff starts.

 

That said, I don't like chest-beating on message boards. It's boring. Missouri trolls come out of the woodwork this time of year and armchair quarterbacks in Lincoln fire back all day and night. Part of the game, but let's not pretend that the Missouri fans are doing long division on the chalkboard while Nebraska fans are reading tea leaves.

[knapplc]

So I ask you again, what did you learn about your team?

From FAU, AR State and ULL? Very little, as you well know. We learned they can whoop up on lesser talented squads and when they get their dander up they can shut out a team that's played an already difficult schedule. That and $5.99 will get you a crappy bottle of alcohol free "wine" at the local Hy-Vee. And if you're like me, you'll want your money back after tasting that swill. But I digress.

 

The real thing we learned this year is, against weaker opponents, this Husker team can put the hammer down. And do it well. They throttled three Sunbelt opponents, as they should, and let them score a combined 12 points. At the same time, they racked up a boatload of meaningless yards and points, and generally worked the kinks out of their game left over from practice.

 

But the good news is, we didn't just play a non-con that gave us an SOS averaging somewhere near 100. We also sprinkled in a salty, experienced, well-coached team on their home turf, whose specialty is defense and special teams. We went to their house, stood toe to toe with them for four quarters, and left the game knowing that we should have won. That confidence is invaluable. It overshadows every other non-con game we played like Everest overshadows a molehill. It showed particularly when we played a Spread offense the very next week after suffering a crushing defeat and throttled them without mercy.

 

That's where Nebraska and Missouri differ. Missouri's first stern test will be when Nebraska comes to town. They'll learn who they are and what they can become from that game. They'll find out the mettle of their team like no other opponent has allowed them to discover.

 

But Nebraska has already had that "come to Jesus" moment. They already know who they are, and what their potential is. They know what they can do, what they can't, and what they can get away with in between. That knowledge alone is an advantage that Missouri cannot boast, no matter how much you or the team or the coaches wish to insist that Illinois was a "defining" game. That is where I draw my confidence - that and the knowledge that Missouri's defense is not close to as good as VT's, yet we moved the ball handily on the Hokies, and that Missouri's offense is statistically marginally better than those we faced from the Sunbelt who earned a total of a dozen points over three games.

 

You can pretend those non-con games meant nothing. I hope you and Mr. Pinkel and the Tigers in general think this. Because it's an errant conclusion to draw from what we've seen, and such ideas can only help the Huskers come October 8th.

[RedDenver]

And Nevada is a good team this year. They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou. If you watched the game as you say you did, you know that.

Umm, what? You're making excuses for Nevada? NEVADA?!?!? Right now they're 116th nationally in scoring offense and 109th in scoring defense. They were 7-6 last year. Who exactly respects and even remotely fears Nevada? This is the same team that NU's terrible 2007 squad whipped 52-10.

 

You've made reasonable, if unconvincing, arguments to this point, but that last one is unbelievable.

 

I'm not making excuses for them. I'm telling you, they're a good team. That's not an excuse, it's evident in what I saw on the field. Could they self destruct the rest of the year like they did the first two games and make me look like a fool? Sure. But as I said before, I know two bad teams playing when I see it, and that wasn't it.

Ok, I'll use your argument. I saw Nevada play both ND and Mizzou, and I know a crappy team when I see one. Nevada is a crappy team. So are you convinced? Well, now you see why your same approach carries no weight. At least base your argument on some sort of fact or stat from somewhere. And that's really the problem - Nevada has been so putrid thus far there's really not much to hang your hat on.

 

If you're really looking to defend your SOS, then I'd start with Bowling Green followed by Illinois and pretend Nevada and Furman didn't happen. Or you could simply admit (as I do about our 3 Sunbelt opponents) that the teams you've played so far are pretty poor. That certainly doesn't mean Mizzou won't beat NU, it's just a more reasonable approach IMO. If I were a Mizzou fan, I'd be talking about the advantage of a home game on Thursday night at a place NU hasn't fared well.

 

P.S. This is making excuses: "They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou."

[DocNice]

So I ask you again, what did you learn about your team?

From FAU, AR State and ULL? Very little, as you well know. We learned they can whoop up on lesser talented squads and when they get their dander up they can shut out a team that's played an already difficult schedule. That and $5.99 will get you a crappy bottle of alcohol free "wine" at the local Hy-Vee. And if you're like me, you'll want your money back after tasting that swill. But I digress.

 

The real thing we learned this year is, against weaker opponents, this Husker team can put the hammer down. And do it well. They throttled three Sunbelt opponents, as they should, and let them score a combined 12 points. At the same time, they racked up a boatload of meaningless yards and points, and generally worked the kinks out of their game left over from practice.

 

But the good news is, we didn't just play a non-con that gave us an SOS averaging somewhere near 100. We also sprinkled in a salty, experienced, well-coached team on their home turf, whose specialty is defense and special teams. We went to their house, stood toe to toe with them for four quarters, and left the game knowing that we should have won. That confidence is invaluable. It overshadows every other non-con game we played like Everest overshadows a molehill. It showed particularly when we played a Spread offense the very next week after suffering a crushing defeat and throttled them without mercy.

 

That's where Nebraska and Missouri differ. Missouri's first stern test will be when Nebraska comes to town. They'll learn who they are and what they can become from that game. They'll find out the mettle of their team like no other opponent has allowed them to discover.

 

But Nebraska has already had that "come to Jesus" moment. They already know who they are, and what their potential is. They know what they can do, what they can't, and what they can get away with in between. That knowledge alone is an advantage that Missouri cannot boast, no matter how much you or the team or the coaches wish to insist that Illinois was a "defining" game. That is where I draw my confidence - that and the knowledge that Missouri's defense is not close to as good as VT's, yet we moved the ball handily on the Hokies, and that Missouri's offense is statistically marginally better than those we faced from the Sunbelt who earned a total of a dozen points over three games.

 

You can pretend those non-con games meant nothing. I hope you and Mr. Pinkel and the Tigers in general think this. Because it's an errant conclusion to draw from what we've seen, and such ideas can only help the Huskers come October 8th.

 

Absolutely, playing VT is a valuable experience. It's too bad you couldn't hold on and really have that feather in your cap. I guess my problem is, you also exposed a lot of weaknesses. Hey, so did Missouri. On both sides, are those things you can fix? What I learned from your VT game is that you can be physical on offense. That's pretty nice, but it's not likely enough to beat Mizzou. The pass offense didn't look good and the pass defense didn't get tested. The rush defense appears to be your strength, but it's easier when your opponent can't pass. Right now, my honest, but admittedly underinformed opinion is that you hit really hard, and have some talent, but you lack the speed, playmaking, and overall talent of the teams that used to beat up on Missouri.

 

Maybe you'll have a really good defense this year, I just don't think you've convinced me yet. I do think you're improved, and stats bear that out, but look back at previous years, like 2005-2006, where you stomped weak competition and struggled with the rest.

 

I'm also not ready to surrender anything to VT's defense just yet. I know that will make you laugh, but VT, statistically, benefits from playing in an offensively challenged conference. They're very good and have been better historically, and I certainly wouldn't claim we're better. My point is not so much to compare VT and Mizzou. It's just that I think Mizzou's has a bit of potential as well, and we're playing much better under our new defensive coach. We certainly don't lack athletes or hitters. These guys fly and lay the lumber. And we're top 25 so far in scoring defense. I know you'll say we've played patsies, but we have not played a single offensively-challenged team.

[DocNice]

Let's just dispense with the notion that Illinois is in any way a good team. They're ranked below 85 (out of 120) in scoring offense, passing defense and scoring defense. So they can't stop anyone with even a competent passing game, and they can't keep their opponents out of the end zone, and they can't score much themselves.

 

The good news is, they're mediocre at rushing defense - ranked right in the middle of the pack at 59. They are, however, #35 in the nation at their specialty, running the football.

 

Illinois' problem is quite simply Juice Williams. When he plays well, they're unstoppable. When he doesn't teams force the short throws and hope the run can't beat them on its own. They have so much talent on offense it's insulting that they've scored so little. But part of that is a decent MU defense and an excellent Ohio State defense, which shutout a pretty good Toledo offense the week before. I think the trip to Penn State will be painful for the Illini, but if they don't collapse into disarray by then, they'll start pulling out some wins.

I think the Virginia Tech game gives testiment to how physical of a team we have become. From what I have seen from Missouri this year, they will more than likely have trouble with our physical line play on both sides. Also I think some Missouri fans have forgotten that Bo Pelini is our coach it's not Callaclown anymore boys.

 

i can see where they are coming from with regard to the coaching situation. when they played us last season bo was still installing his schemes and we looked like a piss poor team. after that game it really started to click and i really think by the end of the season we would have beaten MU, but i do understand why they think that the coaching change does not matter...

 

I think it's likely Nebraska will be more physical between the tackles. I don't think it will win you the game. I also don't think you haven't been winning as much lately because your team didn't understand the scheme. Yes, Callahan was a crappy coach. We've been telling you that for years. Yes, Pelini seems competent. He'll have his players in the right place and make you beat them instead of beating themselves. That only goes so far.

[Enhance]

I think it's likely Nebraska will be more physical between the tackles. I don't think it will win you the game. I also don't think you haven't been winning as much lately because your team didn't understand the scheme. Yes, Callahan was a crappy coach. We've been telling you that for years. Yes, Pelini seems competent. He'll have his players in the right place and make you beat them instead of beating themselves. That only goes so far.

 

This is actually my key to the game, is just how effective can Nebraska be on the lines. Nebraska has proven this season that they can physically dominate both less than average lines and a Top 10 teams lines, and Suh has also proven that nothing is going to stop him no matter what tier of talent is lined up across from him.

 

Secondly, Nebraska is going to score points. Roy Helu is arguably the best if not Top 2 or 3 back in the Big 12 right now. Lee had a tough game against VaTech, partly due to his injured non-throwing hand. While Columbia can be a harsh environment, I don't think it is going to affect this team more than a small amount. Not a knock on the fans down there by any means, but the game is played with 22 guys on the field at once and nothing else. Execution is all that matters.

 

My other match up I"m looking at is the Nebraska secondary vs. Gabbert. The secondary has looked very good so far this off season. They have shut down the Sun Belt Pre-Season Offensive Player of the Year (big OO's and AH's..I know...) and they shut down VaTech's WR's with the exception of two plays. Gabbert and the MU receivers are going to make plays, because that's what they do. The key will be if the secondary can play as well as they have been so far this season.

[walksalone]

Let's just dispense with the notion that Illinois is in any way a good team. They're ranked below 85 (out of 120) in scoring offense, passing defense and scoring defense. So they can't stop anyone with even a competent passing game, and they can't keep their opponents out of the end zone, and they can't score much themselves.

 

The good news is, they're mediocre at rushing defense - ranked right in the middle of the pack at 59. They are, however, #35 in the nation at their specialty, running the football.

 

Illinois' problem is quite simply Juice Williams. When he plays well, they're unstoppable. When he doesn't teams force the short throws and hope the run can't beat them on its own. They have so much talent on offense it's insulting that they've scored so little. But part of that is a decent MU defense and an excellent Ohio State defense, which shutout a pretty good Toledo offense the week before. I think the trip to Penn State will be painful for the Illini, but if they don't collapse into disarray by then, they'll start pulling out some wins.

 

Juice Williams is in the same boat as Baylor QB Robert Griffin. They're both great atheletes but mediocre QB's.

[DocNice]

Ok, I'll use your argument. I saw Nevada play both ND and Mizzou, and I know a crappy team when I see one. Nevada is a crappy team. So are you convinced? Well, now you see why your same approach carries no weight. At least base your argument on some sort of fact or stat from somewhere. And that's really the problem - Nevada has been so putrid thus far there's really not much to hang your hat on.

 

If you're really looking to defend your SOS, then I'd start with Bowling Green followed by Illinois and pretend Nevada and Furman didn't happen. Or you could simply admit (as I do about our 3 Sunbelt opponents) that the teams you've played so far are pretty poor. That certainly doesn't mean Mizzou won't beat NU, it's just a more reasonable approach IMO. If I were a Mizzou fan, I'd be talking about the advantage of a home game on Thursday night at a place NU hasn't fared well.

 

P.S. This is making excuses: "They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou."

 

Actually no, it's not equal, because we have the tape on the field for us to see. That you don't know the difference is not my fault. You want stats? Fine. Nevada is top 20 in yards per carry, and opened with a brutal schedule with 3 quality opponents, 2 of them top 25 and two on the road. They outgained a good CSU team, the same CSU team that outgained BYU on the road.

[knapplc]

Actually no, it's not equal, because we have the tape on the field for us to see. That you don't know the difference is not my fault. You want stats? Fine. Nevada is top 20 in yards per carry, and opened with a brutal schedule with 3 quality opponents, 2 of them top 25 and two on the road. They outgained a good CSU team, the same CSU team that outgained BYU on the road.

 

The exact same thing can be said about ULL, yet they're dismissed as a patsy. Either both ULL and Nevada are patsies, or both are good teams.

[RedDenver]

Actually no, it's not equal, because we have the tape on the field for us to see. That you don't know the difference is not my fault. You want stats? Fine. Nevada is top 20 in yards per carry, and opened with a brutal schedule with 3 quality opponents, 2 of them top 25 and two on the road. They outgained a good CSU team, the same CSU team that outgained BYU on the road.

I don't understand the bolded part at all. I've seen every game both teams have played (except MU vs Furman), so we've got the tape on the field too. Whatever that means.

 

Those stats are at least a reason for your argument. And it's not that I don't "know" the difference; it's that I disagree with the difference. Simply stating that you "know" something does not make it true.

 

The exact same thing can be said about ULL, yet they're dismissed as a patsy. Either both ULL and Nevada are patsies, or both are good teams.

Exactly. Thanks, knapplc. This is where I don't understand the logic. How are Illinois, Bowling Green, and Nevada that much different from FAU, Ark. St., and UL-Lafayette? And that's without considering that VT is very likely a much better team than any of them. And the whole argument is that Mizzou has struggled at times with these teams while NU has not because Mizzou's opponents are better. I just don't see much difference, and even if there is a slight difference, it's not enough IMO to account for Mizzou struggling.

[cscott2win]

A fact that may disturb some of those MU, CU, and KU fans that have enjoyed their brief moments of winning against the Huskers is the fact that the North is a little sister to the south. Why is this? I'm excluding K State for now as they are probably............ K state again. CU had it's moment in the sun in this early decade but the Huskers still played for the national title that year. Don't forget the Huskers beat the Sooners earlier that year while CU had 2 losses. KU has never been to the title game and MU has had their butts handed to them the last 2 years with their "greatest team in school history" and whether they like it or not tied the Huskers for 1st in the north last year. The fact is the north has been a doormat to the south because of one thing. The demise of Nebraska under Callahan. But still Callahan got NU into one title game and they looked better than MU has the past 2 years or CU against Texas a few years back. History has showed us that the Oklahoma's, Texas's and Nebraska's of football have their low periods from time to time but they seem to rebound from struggling seasons faster than say the aforementioned programs and remain more consistant from year to year. The basic truth is Nebraska is head and shoulders above any football team in the north as far as fan base, support, potential, history, stadium and practice facilities, $$$, educational support and on and on. Nebraska invented the weight room. Call it history or call it the future but while teams like MU, Cu, and KU strive to not regress Nebraska is getting better in leaps and bounds. The Huskers are trying to catch teams like Oklahoma, Texas, USC, and Florida. I doubt they are setting their goals as being as good as Missouri!!! And that is the cold hard truth whether you like it or not. Regardless of the outcome this year or of the past few years. Nebraska still owns you and will again. Enjoy your time in the sun.

[Tiger of the Corn]

potential, practice facilities, $$$, educational support and on and on.

 

 

Potential? LMAO.

I'll take the knapp stance on this one.

Give me some facts.

What do you mean potential.

 

It's arrogance like this that drives me nuts.

Where does it state that Nebraska will continue to 'own us'.

 

I can only report on what I have heard from friends down at Mizzou, but their practice facilities and weight rooms are second to none.

 

And do you have facts on $$$$'s and educational support?

 

Come on dude...come back down to earth.

[knapplc]

potential, practice facilities, $$$, educational support and on and on.

 

 

Potential? LMAO.

I'll take the knapp stance on this one.

Give me some facts.

What do you mean potential.

 

It's arrogance like this that drives me nuts.

Where does it state that Nebraska will continue to 'own us'.

 

I can only report on what I have heard from friends down at Mizzou, but their practice facilities and weight rooms are second to none.

 

And do you have facts on $$$$'s and educational support?

 

Come on dude...come back down to earth.

Do you? I would love to see you post some facts rather than just shoot your mouth off without anything to back it up. Several of your compatriots have come here and been cordial, informative, forthcoming with facts and respectful. You, on the other hand, seem intent only on casting aspersions. I gave you the benefit of the doubt several times. I have been far more respectful of you than you have of me and the rest of the Husker fans here, yet time and time again you choose to stoop to the lowest rung, often disproportionately to the tone of the conversation.

 

Do something other than flapping your yap and provide some real, verifiable stats to back up your words. If you cannot or will not, I think we've reached the end of your welcome here.

[carlfense]

potential, practice facilities, $$$, educational support and on and on.

 

 

Potential? LMAO.

I'll take the knapp stance on this one.

Give me some facts.

What do you mean potential.

 

It's arrogance like this that drives me nuts.

Where does it state that Nebraska will continue to 'own us'.

 

I can only report on what I have heard from friends down at Mizzou, but their practice facilities and weight rooms are second to none.

 

And do you have facts on $$$$'s and educational support?

 

Come on dude...come back down to earth.

 

Ummm . . . actually he does have the facts to back it up.

 

1.Nebraska leads the nation in academic-all americans (that would go towards academic support). Also . . . from todays ESPN blog (scroll down to "College Notes" http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=nfl ) Hmmm . . . seems ESPN is impressed by our academic support.

 

2. Nebraska trails only Oklahoma and Texas in football revenue in the Big 12. http://newsok.com/article/3166059

http://www.fanblogs.com/big12/005324.php

(I've seen a more recent article, but can't find it now. Go figure.)

 

Tiger Tim . . . for someone who is always calling for the facts . . . you seem seriously short on them yourself. Maybe you should sit a couple plays out.