When 9 wins a year isn't the whole story.

[Count 'Bility]

Just checked out the DVR. Qvale, Sirles, Rodriguez, Cotton, and Pensick all started the Iowa game. Which 3 starters were out?

 

Bell didn't miss much time at all last season, if I remember right. Turner is a back up and hardly a significant contributor, so what?

I saw that too. I was wrong. But also, Sirles, Cotton and Pensick were all battling injuries and were game time decisions. Turner is not backup. He's a 3rd WR in an offense that primarily runs out of at least 3 WR sets. That's anything but a backup. Bell missed most of the NW game, and was no where near 100% the rest of the way.

[The Dude]

Just checked out the DVR. Qvale, Sirles, Rodriguez, Cotton, and Pensick all started the Iowa game. Which 3 starters were out?

 

Bell didn't miss much time at all last season, if I remember right. Turner is a back up and hardly a significant contributor, so what?

I saw that too. I was wrong. But also, Sirles, Cotton and Pensick were all battling injuries and were game time decisions. Turner is not backup. He's a 3rd WR in an offense that primarily runs out of at least 3 WR sets. That's anything but a backup. Bell missed most of the NW game, and was no where near 100% the rest of the way.

A lot of players aren't 100%, every single team deals with that. You're either healthy enough to go, or you're not. He was.

 

Yes, Turner was #3 behind our 2 starting WRs before the emergence of Westerkamp and Burtch.

[Count 'Bility]

As far as being lucky against against NW and Michigan and Penn St, dont forget that the Minnesota, Mich St, and iowa were still very much in question into the 4th quarter and still couldve been swung on a play or two. With that logic, you could say we were also pretty close to going 11-1 too.

 

Many games are determined by a handful of plays or fewer. It's about who makes the key plays that wins the games. In our losses we didnt. In our wins, we did. End of story.

[Count 'Bility]

Just checked out the DVR. Qvale, Sirles, Rodriguez, Cotton, and Pensick all started the Iowa game. Which 3 starters were out?

 

Bell didn't miss much time at all last season, if I remember right. Turner is a back up and hardly a significant contributor, so what?

I saw that too. I was wrong. But also, Sirles, Cotton and Pensick were all battling injuries and were game time decisions. Turner is not backup. He's a 3rd WR in an offense that primarily runs out of at least 3 WR sets. That's anything but a backup. Bell missed most of the NW game, and was no where near 100% the rest of the way.

A lot of players aren't 100%, you're either healthy enough to go, or you're not. He was.

 

Yes, Turner was #3 behind our 2 starting WRs before the emergence of Westerkamp and Burtch.

The emergence of Westerkamp and Burtch was mainly becuase of the injury to Turner. Their minutes increased dramatically when Turner went down.

[The Dude]

Just checked out the DVR. Qvale, Sirles, Rodriguez, Cotton, and Pensick all started the Iowa game. Which 3 starters were out?

 

Bell didn't miss much time at all last season, if I remember right. Turner is a back up and hardly a significant contributor, so what?

I saw that too. I was wrong. But also, Sirles, Cotton and Pensick were all battling injuries and were game time decisions. Turner is not backup. He's a 3rd WR in an offense that primarily runs out of at least 3 WR sets. That's anything but a backup. Bell missed most of the NW game, and was no where near 100% the rest of the way.

A lot of players aren't 100%, you're either healthy enough to go, or you're not. He was.

 

Yes, Turner was #3 behind our 2 starting WRs before the emergence of Westerkamp and Burtch.

The emergence of Westerkamp and Burtch was mainly becuase of the injury to Turner. Their minutes increased dramatically when Turner went down.

And were arguably just as effective. It's not like we lost much there.

[HuskerNationNick]

but, really, how should we feel for them when they are embarrassed on national tv because their coaches failed to create a viable game plan and prepare them?

How do you figure the coaches failed to create a game plan and prepare them?

 

From my view of the game, we just poorly executed the fundamentals of the game. The basics you know? We couldn't tackle for the first two drives of that Northwestern game. You can have the BEST game plan and prepare your guys all you want, but if your not taking care of the ball, making tackles and creating pressure on the QB, none of that matters. This has been our issue with every game we have lost this year. We were poor at the basic fundamentals of the game.

 

Minnesota, we were poor on both sides of the ball. Defensively, they never really got to rest, and offensively, we never pulled a limp mode Martinez.

 

UCLA, great defensive performance for the first 3 drives, and same for the offense. Outside of that, Mora changed plans and our young defense didn't know what to do. Inexperience or game plan? We had a lot of guys in position, just didn't tackle. Again, the basics.

 

Iowa, we just got manned by an experienced, physical and disciplined defense. 3rd string walk-on QB, depleted OL.... doomed from the beginning. Defense played well, offense just couldn't get anything going and for the life of us, we couldn't even get Iowa to start in their own territory.

[sd'sker]

huskernationnick, that is a pretty good rundown of our losses. little to disagree with, except for the ucla game. i think they just to started play loose and we played tight. pretty sure no one changed any game plans. however, if mora did change their game plan, why would the onus by on our inexperienced defense to adjust? what are the coaches for?

 

however, my problem is that we have struggled to stop the run since 2010, especially mobile qbs (almost odd how good we would be against great teams with immobile qbs and how bad we would be against even terrible teams if their qb could run at all), and we have struggled with turnovers, particularly fumbles, since 2010. and bo is the common denominator in the teams failure to play 4 qtrs. of fundamentally sound and complete football.

 

what part of the process do the players start to execute?

[Ulty]

but, really, how should we feel for them when they are embarrassed on national tv because their coaches failed to create a viable game plan and prepare them?

How do you figure the coaches failed to create a game plan and prepare them?

 

From my view of the game, we just poorly executed the fundamentals of the game. The basics you know? We couldn't tackle for the first two drives of that Northwestern game. You can have the BEST game plan and prepare your guys all you want, but if your not taking care of the ball, making tackles and creating pressure on the QB, none of that matters. This has been our issue with every game we have lost this year. We were poor at the basic fundamentals of the game.

Basic fundamentals are taught. So if the guys can't tackle well or protect the ball, then no, the coaches aren't properly preparing them.

[Count 'Bility]

huskernationnick, that is a pretty good rundown of our losses. little to disagree with, except for the ucla game. i think they just to started play loose and we played tight. pretty sure no one changed any game plans. however, if mora did change their game plan, why would the onus by on our inexperienced defense to adjust? what are the coaches for?

 

however, my problem is that we have struggled to stop the run since 2010, especially mobile qbs (almost odd how good we would be against great teams with immobile qbs and how bad we would be against even terrible teams if their qb could run at all), and we have struggled with turnovers, particularly fumbles, since 2010. and bo is the common denominator in the teams failure to play 4 qtrs. of fundamentally sound and complete football.

 

what part of the process do the players start to execute?

That UCLA game was funky. The inexperience on our team bit us in a way that I dont think the guys knew how to handle the success. It seemed as the lead got bigger, they got tighter. Like they knew that what they were doing and how critical it was to hold on.

[BigRedBuster]

How does constantly concentrating on the negatives on a message board help the program? Are we the ones making the decisions?

 

No, but I have a good question for you:

 

How does constantly concentrating on the negatives hurt the program? Since we aren't the ones making the decisions. I'm sure you could say that, if recruits somehow read this forum, that the kind of negativity displayed could be off-putting; and that, if we talked about the positives it could be beneficial. But then you have to ask yourself about the frequency with which recruits visit this message board. And even if it is more often than we think, if they can't understand that negative thinking is part of every football program in the country, that's on them--that's their distorted view of the world.

 

In a discussion about the football team, or any sports team in general there will be fans who think about the program in a highly varied way. Some will think it's good enough, but could be better. Some will think it needs to be improved. Some will think it's perfect. Then those who think it could be better will have different ways to improve the program than those who think it needs to be improved. Message boards are where we can converse about these issues.

 

To borrow a favorite line from Bo Pelini, at the end of the day, all these players and recruits need to understand and care about is that all of us, no matter our opinion of the current state of the program, want to see all of the players who come to this school succeed. Nobody is ever rooting for them [the players or incoming recruits] to fail. Not one.

 

First, I would like you to point out anyone who thinks the program is "perfect" right now. Heck, I'm interested in knowing who thinks it "good enough". Not sure their are any because all fans I personally know believe the ultimate goal is to win championships so obviously this is not "good enough".

 

I asked this question simply because I find how various people view their fandom differently interesting. I make decisions every day at work and I really don't have a desire to be the decision maker when it comes to the football program as a fan. I said many times on here before the end of the season that I'm perfectly fine if Bo is let go and I also see the method to the madness if he is retained. I follow Husker football because it's entertainment and I love the Huskers. I'm sure that's the same for everyone.

 

So....in your version of entertainment, I don't understand the view of always wanting to concentrate on the negative. Why is it fun to always be negative?

 

And...as for your comment. An argument can be said that fan discontent can result in a drop in recruiting success and interest in assistant coaches either staying or wanting to be hired to come here. So, yes, fans constantly concentrating on the negative without recognizing and celebrating it's accomplishments (at what ever level they are) can affect the program.

[NUinID]

How does constantly concentrating on the negatives on a message board help the program? Are we the ones making the decisions?

 

No, but I have a good question for you:

 

How does constantly concentrating on the negatives hurt the program? Since we aren't the ones making the decisions. I'm sure you could say that, if recruits somehow read this forum, that the kind of negativity displayed could be off-putting; and that, if we talked about the positives it could be beneficial. But then you have to ask yourself about the frequency with which recruits visit this message board. And even if it is more often than we think, if they can't understand that negative thinking is part of every football program in the country, that's on them--that's their distorted view of the world.

 

In a discussion about the football team, or any sports team in general there will be fans who think about the program in a highly varied way. Some will think it's good enough, but could be better. Some will think it needs to be improved. Some will think it's perfect. Then those who think it could be better will have different ways to improve the program than those who think it needs to be improved. Message boards are where we can converse about these issues.

 

To borrow a favorite line from Bo Pelini, at the end of the day, all these players and recruits need to understand and care about is that all of us, no matter our opinion of the current state of the program, want to see all of the players who come to this school succeed. Nobody is ever rooting for them [the players or incoming recruits] to fail. Not one.

 

First, I would like you to point out anyone who thinks the program is "perfect" right now. Heck, I'm interested in knowing who thinks it "good enough". Not sure their are any because all fans I personally know believe the ultimate goal is to win championships so obviously this is not "good enough".

 

I asked this question simply because I find how various people view their fandom differently interesting. I make decisions every day at work and I really don't have a desire to be the decision maker when it comes to the football program as a fan. I said many times on here before the end of the season that I'm perfectly fine if Bo is let go and I also see the method to the madness if he is retained. I follow Husker football because it's entertainment and I love the Huskers. I'm sure that's the same for everyone.

 

So....in your version of entertainment, I don't understand the view of always wanting to concentrate on the negative. Why is it fun to always be negative?

 

And...as for your comment. An argument can be said that fan discontent can result in a drop in recruiting success and interest in assistant coaches either staying or wanting to be hired to come here. So, yes, fans constantly concentrating on the negative without recognizing and celebrating it's accomplishments (at what ever level they are) can affect the program.

 

Good post Buster, I am in the same boat with you. I don't think everything is perfect, it is far from perfect. But with that, I don't understand always being negative about things either. It's suppose to be fun, but if you only see the negative side of things than how can it be fun.

[Saunders]

The admirable thing is winning the Michigan, Northwestern, and Penn State games with the couple of (literally 2) key injuries we had last year. Those games could have went the other way, but didn't.

 

That's one thing.

 

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.

 

You're right. The difference between a healthy Taylor Martinez starting and Tommy Armstrong is zero.

[BigRedBuster]

Anyone claiming we wouldn't have been better being 100% healthy through out the entire season is totally either delusional or purposely not looking at reality in an effort to bolster their argument.

[The Dude]

Anyone claiming we wouldn't have been better being 100% healthy through out the entire season is totally either delusional or purposely not looking at reality in an effort to bolster their argument.

Same goes for every single team in the nation. That's why it's an invalid excuse.

[BigRedBuster]

Anyone claiming we wouldn't have been better being 100% healthy through out the entire season is totally either delusional or purposely not looking at reality in an effort to bolster their argument.

Same goes for every single team in the nation. That's why it's an invalid excuse.

 

That's not what you said.

 

This quote implies that it is delusional to think that we would have been a better team without those injuries. That is just flat out laughable.

 

 

Delusions that we would have been a significantly better team without those injuries is another.