Blackshirtsguru Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Didnt look too great getting 480 yards put up on them by Brad Smith, or by having UMss WR's beat our LB's down the field almost every play. Bravo genius... Hmmm LB's getting beat covering WR's.... WOW great insight. Oh the humanity! Obviously, NUs coaches were not smart enough to figure that out But then again, look who Im talking to Yeah your right. Who would of thunk it. WR's being faster then LB's! Quote Link to comment
Ross4Ever Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Didnt look too great getting 480 yards put up on them by Brad Smith, or by having UMss WR's beat our LB's down the field almost every play. Bravo genius... Hmmm LB's getting beat covering WR's.... WOW great insight. Oh the humanity! I think our linebackers did what they could, considering we had three of our starters out by the end of the year. I'm not sure Brad Smith would have done as well had Octavien and Bradley been playing. However, injuries are no excuse. The coaches know this and they seem to be building good depth at all three LB positions. Also, Michigan obviously didn't take advantage of that mismatch that you seem to be talking about, considering we won the game...didn't we? Quote Link to comment
Eric the Red Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I couldnt agree more. I loathe the Big 10, and any time one of theirs suffers a loss, I have to crack a smile. The North has represented itself nicely in bowls, too That being said, it looks like NU is moving towards a Big 10 style team (big, slow, "pro style"), which means they will fall short when going up against the elite speed teams from the South. Most of (if not all) of the coaches on this staff have Big 10 roots. Oh for crying out loud do you ever stop No he doesn't. It's like he strives for attention. Maybe he wasn't breast fed as a child! This wasn't really necessary. Too much of this going on. If you have seen this going on in other threads, let the MODS know. Once again I don't care who started it. Besides it's always the second person who gets caught. Isn't that what your third grade teacher used to tell you. Since some of us like to act like that, I'll punish you like that. As I read through the thread it's merely debate, I don't care who says what. Suspension to come. Quote Link to comment
StuckinChicago Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 You are blind former. Do you even watch the games. Michigan had more speed than any team we have played this year, and if you didnt notice, we beat them and our receivers were getting open, and there's were not. They had to rely on the jump ball we covered them so tight. Think before you post, or atleast research. You listed three speed receivers, and since there are three others on the team that actually played, and two of them led the team in receptions and yards, it seems pretty apparant that having all of that speed doesnt do to much good. Quote Link to comment
Huskrz65 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Classy post. Response in the woodshed. Woodshed...yay! Quote Link to comment
NamelessHusker Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 but hell the skill guys are not slow and we damn sure aren't recruiting slow guys! Hmm, the only speed guys at WR are Hardy, Fluellen, and LeFlore. The kids being recruited are bigger slower wr's. Not sure about RB's as they never seem to have room to break a big run. Taylor doesnt have the speed of, well, any past NU qb. As far as DBs, it seems that NU has good speed at DB at this time. (our linebackers are cat-quick moving side to side all over the field) Didnt look too great getting 480 yards put up on them by Brad Smith, or by having UMss WR's beat our LB's down the field almost every play. I could be wrong, but when NU plays one of the elite teams again, we will see how they compare athletically. Lets see what happens vs USC and UT next year. So you mean Texas and USC will be elite teams next year if Reggie, Lendale and Vince all go pro after Matt Leinhart? I am sure you will use the excuse of "well USC/Texas were better last year because they had so and so" if NU beats either of those teams. Quote Link to comment
formerfan Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 So you mean Texas and USC will be elite teams next year if Reggie, Lendale and Vince all go pro after Matt Leinhart? I am sure you will use the excuse of "well USC/Texas were better last year because they had so and so" if NU beats either of those teams. I guess we will see. Havent USC and UT been right up there at the top in recruiting classes, ranked by recruiting "experts??" Obviously, its too early to tell how good any of these teams will be next year, but Im sure that both UT and USC will be pretty decent, at least. Or do you disagree?? Quote Link to comment
formerfan Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Do you even watch the games. As I mentioned previously, I did not have a chance to watch the Alamo Bowl in its entirety, that’s why I havent commented on it much. Michigan had more speed than any team we have played this year, Im not gonna dispute this could be true, could be false, but it is pretty difficult to measure the speed of UM vs other teams on NUs schedule when those teams havent faced each other this year. it seems pretty apparant that having all of that speed doesnt do to much good. So you dont think that speed is important? Quote Link to comment
kc_husker Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Since you didnt watch the bowl game and im guesiing you havent seen Mich play this year how can YOU say they might or might not have the speed we have faced all year long when all of these people have been going to all of the games this year and have seen it first hand? Quote Link to comment
formerfan Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Since you didnt watch the bowl game and im guesiing you havent seen Mich play this year how can YOU say they might or might not have the speed we have faced all year long That is why I havent commented on it. I cant form an honest unbiased opinion since I only caught the last 9 minutes of the game. Like I said, could be true, could be false. Quote Link to comment
StuckinChicago Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 You havent formed an honest unbiased opinion since you have been here, so whats stopping you right now... ih yeah, thats right, the truth is. I hate it when that gets in the way, dont you? Quote Link to comment
StuckinChicago Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 As far as the speed comment, you seem to believe that speed recievers need to be 6'0'' or shorter and run a 4.4. I would take a 6'5'' five star wide receiver that runs a 4.5 and has good hands anyday over a guy who drops half the passes that comes his way. How many "speed receivers" did you see on Texas or USC last night. Last I checked all of their receivers were 6'2'' or taller... 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.