McKewon: Preview of Opposing QBs

[NUpolo8]

While it's true MSU had a better season last year than Nebraska has managed since probably 2001, they are also the same program that since 2006 has gone 4-8, 7-6, 9-4, 6-7, 11-2, 11-3, 7-6 and 12-1.

 

Certainly several impressive seasons, but they haven't been the model of consistency since Dantonio took over. And, since he did (Nov. of 2006) they've had two 7 win seasons and a 6 win season.

 

This is always an interesting topic for debate, though - if you look at that record for MSU since 2006, would you take that? Would you take a Rose Bowl win and conference title in exchange for three very poor seasons in the same time frame? Or, would you prefer consistency in the form of #9wins and a few conference title trips, but, no trophies?

They're better than us.

[Enhance]

 

While it's true MSU had a better season last year than Nebraska has managed since probably 2001, they are also the same program that since 2006 has gone 4-8, 7-6, 9-4, 6-7, 11-2, 11-3, 7-6 and 12-1.

 

Certainly several impressive seasons, but they haven't been the model of consistency since Dantonio took over. And, since he did (Nov. of 2006) they've had two 7 win seasons and a 6 win season.

 

This is always an interesting topic for debate, though - if you look at that record for MSU since 2006, would you take that? Would you take a Rose Bowl win and conference title in exchange for three very poor seasons in the same time frame? Or, would you prefer consistency in the form of #9wins and a few conference title trips, but, no trophies?

They're better than us.

 

Didn't say they weren't. Merely brought up the comparisons as a point of discussion. There are a lot of people in Nebraska that I've heard on radio, message boards, etc., that would take the consistency and lack of titles without the six or seven win losses. It's fine to disagree with them, just pointing it out.

 

I'd rather have the conference titles myself.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Cook is good but he's certainly not a player that worries me. He completed less than 50 percent of his passes and had a 45.6 QB rating against us last year. He's a player that makes you feel comfortable but isn't going to make a lot of great throws against you.

Except, that is exactly what he did against Nebraska last year. We dug our own grave last year with five TO (many unforced) but looked like we could pull ourselves out of it multiple times in that game. However, Cook was able to make critical throws during the second half to sustain drives and put us away.

 

Admittingly, I did not watch the rest of his season, but he was able to put it together for one game when he needed to.

[lo country]

 

We limit TO's and fix our ST play as it relates to acknowledging a punt can be returned, this could be our year.

For what exactly? This is important.

 

A conference championship and BCS Bowl. A defense similar to 2010 and an O with a pulse that doesn't lead the nation in TO's, could do wonders this year.

[lo country]

 

While it's true MSU had a better season last year than Nebraska has managed since probably 2001, they are also the same program that since 2006 has gone 4-8, 7-6, 9-4, 6-7, 11-2, 11-3, 7-6 and 12-1.

 

Certainly several impressive seasons, but they haven't been the model of consistency since Dantonio took over. And, since he did (Nov. of 2006) they've had two 7 win seasons and a 6 win season.

 

This is always an interesting topic for debate, though - if you look at that record for MSU since 2006, would you take that? Would you take a Rose Bowl win and conference title in exchange for three very poor seasons in the same time frame? Or, would you prefer consistency in the form of #9wins and a few conference title trips, but, no trophies?

 

Three 11 win seasons, two* conference titles, a BCS bowl victory and the #3, 11 & 14 final ranking in exchange for some mediocre seasons? Yes I'd take that.

 

Have to agree. Looking at our record, save for some last minute miracle plays, our record would look significantly worse without all the BCS, conference title etc..........MSU is developing an identity and it is starting to show.

[NUinID]

 

While it's true MSU had a better season last year than Nebraska has managed since probably 2001, they are also the same program that since 2006 has gone 4-8, 7-6, 9-4, 6-7, 11-2, 11-3, 7-6 and 12-1.

 

Certainly several impressive seasons, but they haven't been the model of consistency since Dantonio took over. And, since he did (Nov. of 2006) they've had two 7 win seasons and a 6 win season.

 

This is always an interesting topic for debate, though - if you look at that record for MSU since 2006, would you take that? Would you take a Rose Bowl win and conference title in exchange for three very poor seasons in the same time frame? Or, would you prefer consistency in the form of #9wins and a few conference title trips, but, no trophies?

 

Three 11 win seasons, two* conference titles, a BCS bowl victory and the #3, 11 & 14 final ranking in exchange for some mediocre seasons? Yes I'd take that.

 

Sure you would take that, but Nebraska fans would have been hitting the roof with the up and down seasons. You would be lying if you said otherwise. No one would have been happy with those losing records.

 

We will see how good MSU early when they play Oregon in the 2nd week.

[Saunders]

Dantonio has one real conference title, 2013. If you're going to count a 3 way tie for the B1G when MSU was last in the BCS standings and got blown out in the bowl game 49-7 (and didn't score until there was 5 minutes left)... then let's just stop right now. The up and down seasons would have had fans livid, especially if it was in the B1G of 2007-2012, which was awful.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Dantonio has one real conference title, 2013. If you're going to count a 3 way tie for the B1G when MSU was last in the BCS standings and got blown out in the bowl game 49-7 (and didn't score until there was 5 minutes left)... then let's just stop right now. The up and down seasons would have had fans livid, especially if it was in the B1G of 2007-2012, which was awful.

Which is why I put an asterisk by it, but whether we like it or not they were co-champions that year and beat Wisconsin, then decided not to show up against Iowa that year.

[hskrfan4life]

I hope MSU does beat Oregon, it will be the best for the Big Ten.

[True2tRA]

What world do some of you live in where you just discard every other teams accomplishments because they are not our own achievements. You'd be blaring the horn so loudly if anyone tried to deny Nebraska claim to that Conference title in 2010. MSU went 7-1 in conference that year. They lost only 2 games all season, yes one ugly loss to lowly old Alabama. I know, shameful losing to Bama right? So that one bad loss really erases their Conference Championship....so no, you just stop right now. That's ridiculous.

 

As far as the Big being awful from 2007 to 2012 I think you can keep on going. Most people still consider the Big Ten a pretty weak conference, with only two teams really representing any strength. Ohio St. And Michigan St. But guess what? If Nebraska won the Conference Championship game, you're gonna just toss it aside like its meaningless, much like you're doing to MSU, because the Big is kinda weak? Ha, doubtful.

[Saunders]

What world do some of you live in where you just discard every other teams accomplishments because they are not our own achievements. You'd be blaring the horn so loudly if anyone tried to deny Nebraska claim to that Conference title in 2010. MSU went 7-1 in conference that year. They lost only 2 games all season, yes one ugly loss to lowly old Alabama. I know, shameful losing to Bama right? So that one bad loss really erases their Conference Championship....so no, you just stop right now. That's ridiculous.

 

As far as the Big being awful from 2007 to 2012 I think you can keep on going. Most people still consider the Big Ten a pretty weak conference, with only two teams really representing any strength. Ohio St. And Michigan St. But guess what? If Nebraska won the Conference Championship game, you're gonna just toss it aside like its meaningless, much like you're doing to MSU, because the Big is kinda weak? Ha, doubtful.

Since we can add asterisks and make exceptions for opponents, and not Nebraska, I'm trying figure out how we're measuring accomplishments, or acceptable seasons. And FTR, I never diminished MSU's accomplishments in 2013, it was 2010 where they missed OSU and got abused by a 3 loss Alabama.

 

I'm struggling to keep up with the goalpost moving while folks continue twisting and bending facts to suit their argument. Other teams can have injuries, win/lose close games, have hiccups, etc... Maybe we need a spreadsheet of acceptable arguments?

 

Anyway, this thread got waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy off track from the title post. Probably best it's just moved to the tangent thread.

[LukeinNE]

It's nice that we're up against a crappy slate of quarterbacks this year, but getting thrown on isn't what scares me (we basically never get cut up through the air). Defensively, it's about winning the battle for the trenches and having good gap discipline by the linebackers. Offensively, limit turnovers. Special teams, stop sucking on punt returns (and pray Drew Brown pans out). Limit mistakes, win games.

[sd'sker]

What world do some of you live in where you just discard every other teams accomplishments because they are not our own achievements. You'd be blaring the horn so loudly if anyone tried to deny Nebraska claim to that Conference title in 2010. MSU went 7-1 in conference that year. They lost only 2 games all season, yes one ugly loss to lowly old Alabama. I know, shameful losing to Bama right? So that one bad loss really erases their Conference Championship....so no, you just stop right now. That's ridiculous.

 

As far as the Big being awful from 2007 to 2012 I think you can keep on going. Most people still consider the Big Ten a pretty weak conference, with only two teams really representing any strength. Ohio St. And Michigan St. But guess what? If Nebraska won the Conference Championship game, you're gonna just toss it aside like its meaningless, much like you're doing to MSU, because the Big is kinda weak? Ha, doubtful.

i can only imagine what some haters would be saying if we had beat wiscy in the ccg. plenty of people would have wanted to put an asterisk next to that win given it was against a 7-5 wiscy, third in their division.

[sd'sker]

I'm struggling to keep up with the goalpost moving while folks continue twisting and bending facts to suit their argument. Other teams can have injuries, win/lose close games, have hiccups, etc... Maybe we need a spreadsheet of acceptable arguments?

there is a thread about how good our defense would have been if we removed an entire month.

 

but how are the goalposts moving? ultimately, it comes down to championships. you can dismiss dantonio's however you want to, but he has two. along with some pretty strong seasons and a bcs win. i would take that in a heart beat if it meant a couple down years. last year, they were pretty close to an mnc appearance. but, unfortunately in football you cannot just remove unfavorable months.

 

also, arguing the big 10 is weak, which it is, is pretty counterproductive in justifying a four loss coach.

[Saunders]

 

I'm struggling to keep up with the goalpost moving while folks continue twisting and bending facts to suit their argument. Other teams can have injuries, win/lose close games, have hiccups, etc... Maybe we need a spreadsheet of acceptable arguments?

there is a thread about how good our defense would have been if we removed an entire month.

 

but how are the goalposts moving? ultimately, it comes down to championships. you can dismiss dantonio's however you want to, but he has two. along with some pretty strong seasons and a bcs win. i would take that in a heart beat if it meant a couple down years. last year, they were pretty close to an mnc appearance. but, unfortunately in football you cannot just remove unfavorable months.

 

also, arguing the big 10 is weak, which it is, is pretty counterproductive in justifying a four loss coach.

 

No, that's not what the thread was about. If you'd read the article in that OP, you'd understand the context of the statement.