Worth noting....

[HuskerNationNick]

To be fair, we beat Michigan and Ohio State with their backup QBs in the game. I realize it's part of the game, but those injuries really turned the tide in our favor.

 

Who cares if they had their backups in, that just shows the better TEAM won the game. A team shouldn't be based off one individual, and if it is, your setting yourself up for doom. They didn't have a their backups ready, thats their fault. Michigan, we would have won that game with Robinson in, we had him well contained, and our offense would have been way more aggressive than they were when he went out.

 

It seemed that either Michigan's defense answered their coaches pleas to buckle down or our offense tried too hard Texas 2010 style and did not fully capitlize on the injury. We won the game, and that is all that matters. Most of us already had that game as a loss before the first snap.

 

I said many times, we would have this game in the bag, if we came out with the same style of defense we had against Northwestern. We did, and we contained Robinson VERY well. Once he went out, we brought pressure to control the game. Offensively, we were testing out what they were doing defensively, as every team does, and find their weakness'. Unfortunately, they had an injury, but then again, we had one our stars injured. Another case that could be pointed out. Defensively, we were sound, and they won the TOP in the first half, mainly because of a fumble from Martinez, that simply, I am still undecided on, because he even thought he was down. He was telling Pelini to challenge it, thats how sure he was. Tape didn't show the evidence whether it was or wasn't, so it didn't get over turned. Understandable. After the Robinson went out, we played conservative on the offense. Got a comfortable lead, and worked the clock from there.

[kchusker_chris]

Its funny you bring up the OSU game as an example of our failure, but you fail to mention that we had a different scheme coming into the Michigan game, with DIFFERENT players on the field. We had faster, more explosive players, who were given assignments and were well coached. We pressed their WR's, contained rather than bringing pressure, and we used our DB's to stop the run game. Something we did not do against OSU. We relied on our LB's and DL to do the job, with our Safety in zone to help prevent a big run. Same style of defense went into the Northwestern and Michigan game, but the scheme was way different.

same TEAM though. and Robinson was on pace to have a 150+ rushing day. they were one big play from swinging the game. same for ohio state, 1 big play swung the game. fortunately for us, against michigan the big play happened to be robinson ending up on the sidelines. who knows how it would have gone otherwise. it's not like we were dominating them up to that point. we were playing solid...but like I said - we've started game playing solid and fizzed out.

 

Under what math is this true? He had 46 yards in 27.5 minutes of play. That would be exactly 100 yards on the game. We were containing him very well.

 

He averaged 4.6 per carry, with a long of 7 where he got hurt. If they want him to carry 33 times and try to beat us, good luck.

he's been in in the mid-20's a few times before, was certainly on pace to get there against us. had 10 with the rest of that possession left. he had just led them on a 5-6 play 60+ yard drive that i think we can all agree looked like it was going to end up in the end zone w/ us down 3. they were starting to click when he went out. i was relieved that's for sure. you have to admit you were as well. last year mattison came out after half and shut down our offense. that guy is one hell of a d-coordinator.

[HuskerNationNick]

Its funny you bring up the OSU game as an example of our failure, but you fail to mention that we had a different scheme coming into the Michigan game, with DIFFERENT players on the field. We had faster, more explosive players, who were given assignments and were well coached. We pressed their WR's, contained rather than bringing pressure, and we used our DB's to stop the run game. Something we did not do against OSU. We relied on our LB's and DL to do the job, with our Safety in zone to help prevent a big run. Same style of defense went into the Northwestern and Michigan game, but the scheme was way different.

same TEAM though. and Robinson was on pace to have a 150+ rushing day. they were one big play from swinging the game. same for ohio state, 1 big play swung the game. fortunately for us, against michigan the big play happened to be robinson ending up on the sidelines. who knows how it would have gone otherwise. it's not like we were dominating them up to that point. we were playing solid...but like I said - we've started game playing solid and fizzed out.

 

Under what math is this true? He had 46 yards in 27.5 minutes of play. That would be exactly 100 yards on the game. We were containing him very well.

 

He averaged 4.6 per carry, with a long of 7 where he got hurt. If they want him to carry 33 times and try to beat us, good luck.

 

There is no point in even trying to prove your point. He will just keep arguing, no matter what.

[HuskerNationNick]

Its funny you bring up the OSU game as an example of our failure, but you fail to mention that we had a different scheme coming into the Michigan game, with DIFFERENT players on the field. We had faster, more explosive players, who were given assignments and were well coached. We pressed their WR's, contained rather than bringing pressure, and we used our DB's to stop the run game. Something we did not do against OSU. We relied on our LB's and DL to do the job, with our Safety in zone to help prevent a big run. Same style of defense went into the Northwestern and Michigan game, but the scheme was way different.

same TEAM though. and Robinson was on pace to have a 150+ rushing day. they were one big play from swinging the game. same for ohio state, 1 big play swung the game. fortunately for us, against michigan the big play happened to be robinson ending up on the sidelines. who knows how it would have gone otherwise. it's not like we were dominating them up to that point. we were playing solid...but like I said - we've started game playing solid and fizzed out.

 

Under what math is this true? He had 46 yards in 27.5 minutes of play. That would be exactly 100 yards on the game. We were containing him very well.

 

He averaged 4.6 per carry, with a long of 7 where he got hurt. If they want him to carry 33 times and try to beat us, good luck.

he's been in in the mid-20's a few times before, was certainly on pace to get there against us. had 10 with the rest of that possession left. he had just led them on a 5-6 play 60+ yard drive that i think we can all agree looked like it was going to end up in the end zone w/ us down 3. they were starting to click when he went out. i was relieved that's for sure. you have to admit you were as well. last year mattison came out after half and shut down our offense. that guy is one hell of a d-coordinator.

 

7 plays, 14 yards of the 56 yards was from Rushing, only 7 of those Rushing yards came from Robinson. Man he was definitely on his way to that 150 yard rushing mark.

[kchusker_chris]

There is no point in even trying to prove your point. He will just keep arguing, no matter what.

arguing w/ delusional Husker fans still living in the 90's like yourself is half the fun of this board. glad you joined a few weeks ago - before that most of the board had come to the same realization that i have. we're a sporadic team that can not be counted on from week to week, or quarter to quarter. it's nice to have some new blood in here to poor the koolaid.

[HuskerNationNick]

arguing w/ delusional Husker fans still living in the 90's like yourself is half the fun of this board. glad you joined a few weeks ago - before that most of the board had come to the same realization that i have. we're a sporadic team that can not be counted on from week to week, or quarter to quarter. it's nice to have some new blood in here to poor the koolaid.

 

Because of me being a new member here, means I don't know what I am talking about? At least I am not living in the dream land of "What Ifs" or "This would have happened if this didn't happen".

 

Your the one saying we would have lost if Robinson was in. You KNOW that he was going to have a 150+ rushing game. 20 minutes of possession in the first half, and he only got 46 yards rushing. Taking it you think the same would have happened in the second half, but you would be assumming things that didn't happen. Who is the one being delusional?

[kchusker_chris]

arguing w/ delusional Husker fans still living in the 90's like yourself is half the fun of this board. glad you joined a few weeks ago - before that most of the board had come to the same realization that i have. we're a sporadic team that can not be counted on from week to week, or quarter to quarter. it's nice to have some new blood in here to poor the koolaid.

 

Because of me being a new member here, means I don't know what I am talking about? At least I am not living in the dream land of "What Ifs" or "This would have happened if this didn't happen".

 

Your the one saying we would have lost if Robinson was in. You KNOW that he was going to have a 150+ rushing game. 20 minutes of possession in the first half, and he only got 46 yards rushing. Taking it you think the same would have happened in the second half, but you would be assumming things that didn't happen. Who is the one being delusional?

Show me where I said we would have lost. I just think it would have been a very different game. Show me where I said you don't know what you're talking about. You know what you're saying - it's just delusional most of the time. Has nothing to do with you being a new member. I'm sure you've always been this way.

 

and you do live in that land....when it suits you argument. like the offense would have put up more points if Robinson hadn't gone out.

[HuskerNationNick]

OMG you must know everything. I am done. You are giving me a headache.

[Count 'Bility]

 

A move to the shed is as imminent as the zombie apocalypse. Nice work guys.

[Nebula]

Do some people really think OSU 2011 was comparable to last week? I'm really asking. If so, that's a pretty ridiculous assessment.

 

Miller and OSU were gouging us. Right before he got hurt, Miller had scrambled yet again to pick up a first down. (After the David strip. They were driving again, we couldn't stop Miller, and I'd have bet $50 on them scoring on that drive before Miller wrenched his ankle. The strip was a big play, and the score we got out of it was huge too, but we were just about to give it right back. And that would've likely been the ballgame.)

 

We were hopeless against the Buckeyes last year until Miller went down, and their rookie coach Fickell for some reason decided to help our cause by throwing the ball 90% of the time. With a guy struggling to hit his WRs. That was a lucky win, coupled with a couple of big plays from David (redundant) and SJB (who is really coming along, btw) and some nice drives out of the offense. It wasn't totally gifted...we had to make some plays. But if Miller doesn't catch his foot on the turf in a fluke deal, we do not win that game.

 

We had the lead late in the 2nd quarter last week when Denard went down, and they weren't setting the world on fire when he was in the game. I'll be the first one to admit that we beat OSU in 2011 because Braxton Miller got injured, but we absolutely did not beat Michigan because of Robinson's injury. We were winning when he got hurt. The massive contrast in the circumstances surrounding those two games seems self-evident. To me, at least.

[junior4949]

Who knows? It's a lot easier to see how and why we would have lost last year to Ohio State after Miller went down than when Shoelace went down Saturday. The fact of the matter is that it's all subjective, and no one will ever know.

[CornHOLIO]

To be fair, we beat Michigan and Ohio State with their backup QBs in the game. I realize it's part of the game, but those injuries really turned the tide in our favor.

 

Who cares if they had their backups in, that just shows the better TEAM won the game. A team shouldn't be based off one individual, and if it is, your setting yourself up for doom. They didn't have a their backups ready, thats their fault. Michigan, we would have won that game with Robinson in, we had him well contained, and our offense would have been way more aggressive than they were when he went out.

 

I was just telling a Michigan co-worker how much their coaching staff reminded me of ours, not developing a proper back-up with plenty of meaningful snaps should the starter go down.

 

Still trying to figure out how we got TM back in the game at what appeared full strength. Or was the limping on both ankles just to throw off UM?

[HuskerNationNick]

To be fair, we beat Michigan and Ohio State with their backup QBs in the game. I realize it's part of the game, but those injuries really turned the tide in our favor.

 

Who cares if they had their backups in, that just shows the better TEAM won the game. A team shouldn't be based off one individual, and if it is, your setting yourself up for doom. They didn't have a their backups ready, thats their fault. Michigan, we would have won that game with Robinson in, we had him well contained, and our offense would have been way more aggressive than they were when he went out.

 

I was just telling a Michigan co-worker how much their coaching staff reminded me of ours, not developing a proper back-up with plenty of meaningful snaps should the starter go down.

 

Still trying to figure out how we got TM back in the game at what appeared full strength. Or was the limping on both ankles just to throw off UM?

 

I honestly think he was hurting more than what he was showing. He was limping and you could see the pain in his face. I wonder when they re-wrapped his ankle, if that helped it enough to just ignore it, and focus on what was important, managing the clock.

[mwj98]

I understand the agonizing over some of our losses and the roller coaster of performances on a weekly basis.

 

But on the positive side, I think it’s worth noting that just 1 and ½ seasons into the Big 10 conference, we have already defeated ALL of the “traditional” top teams in the league. Ohio St, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan St, Penn St, and Iowa. We also have victories over Northwestern and Minnesota and have yet to play traditional bottom feeders Purdue, Illinois and Indiana.

 

For those who wandered about our ability to compete, I’d say the question is well answered.

 

 

100% agree. I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. Especially when all we used to hear was "Welcome to the BIG" I knew we could compete, but consistency has been our issue. We tighten that up, we can be lethal.

[Comish]

Somehow (perhaps inevitably) this thread moved in a differing direction than what was intended.

 

I have no quibble with those whose stance is that we benefited from some circumstances or with those who argue we win some games regardless. That was not the point.

 

My purpose was that, when you stand back objectively and look at the “Name Teams” that we have defeated in our new conference (regardless of circumstances) it redounds pretty impressively.

 

For comparison, imagine either West Virginia or TCU being able to boast 1 and ½ years into the Big 12 that they have already recorded “W”s over Oklahoma, Texas, K-State, Okie Lite, Texas Tech, Baylor etc.

 

I’d think that would merit some mention.

 

So too, with our situation.