UCLA Game worries

[B.B. Hemingway]

No excuses. UCLA was the better team that night.

That is like bragging about being the smartest person at retard camp. We played absolutely awful and lost by six on the road.

 

Yeah, beating THAT Nebraska team on THAT night is nothing to brag about....

[2ndNnine]

whatever.

[Count 'Bility]

whatever.

Whatever what? They had 200 more yards. Oddumpf more first downs. 15 minutes more time of possession. 2? 3? fewer turnovers. AND (here's the kicker) AND THEY WON THE GAME TOO. How's that NOT being the better team?

 

Not mad but just stickin up for the guy. He stated a pretty legitimate fact.

[skersfan]

There were three other games that we happened to win, that the exact same argument could be made for. UCLA kicked our ass, was the better team period. As stated by Nebraska fans about Northwester, Michigan State and Penn State. You can have one or the other, not both.

 

Brulief stated facts, they won the game, beat our heads in actually with the yardage allowed. Could we have won, like the other three, possibly, but we take them as hard earned, heart driven games, no reason the UCLA bunch can not take this game the same way.

 

 

[HuskerShark]

As usual, Nebraska beat Nebraska more so than UCLA beat Nebraska.

[Bruleif]

No excuses. UCLA was the better team that night.

That is like bragging about being the smartest person at retard camp. We played absolutely awful and lost by six on the road.

 

Yeah, beating THAT Nebraska team on THAT night is nothing to brag about....

Ok, let me see if I can understand your logic. If a team I support beats another team I should not be proud of that victory because the other team did not play at its best and/or did not have the right talent and/or did not have the better coaching? Doesn't that essentially mean that I could NEVER be proud of ANY victory by my team. Doesn't it also mean I could NEVER state that my team was the better team that day? The whole point of the games is to see which team can bring their "A" game that day. It ALWAYS comes down to turnovers, penalties, better execution, better tackling, better play-calling.

 

I submit as my proof that I have never heard a losing college coach say in a post-game presser "Well, we played and coached our absolute best and could not have played better but they were just better than us today." They NEVER say that. They always detail the shortcomings in their team's performance on that day.

 

One of my college football rules is that when my team loses I ALWAYS say "the better team won," because that is exactly what happened. Saying otherwise is just a feeble attempt to make myself feel better. It's nice to say things that make you feel better, but it is not necessarily the same thing as telling the truth.

 

Am I wrong?

[Bruleif]

As usual, Nebraska beat Nebraska more so than UCLA beat Nebraska.

Really? UCLA's speed and play calling had NOTHING do to with it? C'mon, man.

[The Dude]

No excuses. UCLA was the better team that night.

That is like bragging about being the smartest person at retard camp. We played absolutely awful and lost by six on the road.

I'm sure most of the teams we played didn't play their best ball either.

 

Enough with the excuses.

[Ulty]

As usual, Nebraska beat Nebraska more so than UCLA beat Nebraska.

Really? UCLA's speed and play calling had NOTHING do to with it? C'mon, man.

Bruleif, I'm not sure that you're really going to get much further with this conversation. The Huskers played like crap in last year's game, and UCLA was prepared to take advantage of it. On the field that night, UCLA was the better team, but obviously a lot of fans are still bitter about the loss. Hell, so am I. But you're an opposing fan on HuskerBoard, so there you go.

 

At least you are attempting a real discussion here. On the Wyoming thread, there were a couple guys talking $h!t who had no rational basis to do so. At least you have scoreboard. I just hope we can beat the crap out of you next month and wash all of this away!

[NUinID]

UCLA was the better team that night.

 

They clearly played better.

 

Mora had a great game plan and most importantly the element of surprise on his side. Nebraska let them hang around and gain confidence especially on defense.

 

I knew UCLA would be talented. Skippy recruited well, he just couldn't get them to play well.

 

Mora is what impressed me. It is not that often that you see a career NFL coach come to college and really get the game that quickly. Most try to run it like an NFL team, Callahan, Sherman, Weis, and struggle at least in the beginning.

 

This year I think will be different, no surprises, they will be really young in a lot of areas, and the 11:00 AM start time will be a big factor IMO. UCLA does not usually play all that great when heading east. I know their are exceptions, like Texas a few years ago, but that is the exception not the rule. I could be wrong and Mora might have them eating nails and crappy thunder.

 

I just know that Nebraska will be coming into this game with their eyes wide open.

[Landlord]

As usual, Nebraska beat Nebraska more so than UCLA beat Nebraska.

Really? UCLA's speed and play calling had NOTHING do to with it? C'mon, man.

 

 

Nah they definitely had something to do with it. HuskerShark was referring to our own self-inflicted mistakes that likely would have changed the outcome of the game if we would have done "us" right.

 

You guys won and were better. No disagreement here. However, if Tim Beck doesn't abandon the run in the second half I think we win that game by two scores. Your offense was completely shut down in the second half outside of a safety and an interception that got you the ball at the 16 yard line. Our offense was shut down as well, but it's the opinion of most Husker fans that that was more to do with Tim Beck's suspect play-calling.

[Hooked on Huskers]

As usual, Nebraska beat Nebraska more so than UCLA beat Nebraska.

yep, hit the nail

[RedDenver]

As usual, Nebraska beat Nebraska more so than UCLA beat Nebraska.

Really? UCLA's speed and play calling had NOTHING do to with it? C'mon, man.

You make good points. But (in my admittedly biased view) the Huskers really crapped the bad last year in Pasadena. I really give UCLA credit for taking advantage. However, even with home field advantage, 600+ yards of offense, +1 in turnovers, and a safety, the Bruins still only won by 6 points. That's where I get most of mt confidence that the Huskers will win this year; I don't think UCLA will have that many advantages again.

 

All that being said, you should check out the thread about whether Husker fans handle losing well.

[jmfb]

Bruins were better team, hats off to them

If Gerry is playing the LB spot- you wont see a bunch of chasing those "shallow" patterns underneath like we saw from Compton- 10.3 speed vs whatever Compton ran

Great playcalling by Mora to exploit a weakness

Great prep work

They outmuscled us too for much of the game

Having little to go on- of course was a disadvantage

We were "lucky" to even be in the game- with a chance to win it with 3 minutes to go

[HuskerShark]

As usual, Nebraska beat Nebraska more so than UCLA beat Nebraska.

Really? UCLA's speed and play calling had NOTHING do to with it? C'mon, man.

 

I'd probably say that the 8 missed tackles on every other play by NU's defenders had more to do with it, but what the hell do I know?

 

There were tacklers there to make the stop every play, but our guys looked like little girls trying to take down Franklin. Absolute most frustrating game I've seen in my life.