OWH: Predicting the B1G West

[Dr. Strangelove]

Boy....if talent is a direct translation to wins and losses then Texas, USC, Florida and Michigan are dominating the college football landscape the last four years.

Right? Who cares about the last 15 national champions.

 

Talent is a requirement for long-term success, not a guarantee.

[Scratchtown]

Other than the fact that we have been boat raced by Wisconsin on several occasions in the past, I really don't understand why they are being picked first in the division this year. Their coaching hire was not as great as ours, we have more talent across the board, returning players are about the same, etc. I see the West ending up: 1. NU, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin - Iowa tie.

Really? You think NU has more talent across the board than Wisconsin? Have you seen their offensive line? NU hasn't fielded a decent oline is ages. Thats what Wiscy is praised for year in and year out.

 

Everything you said is completely subjective at this point. You can't even objectively compare the returning players just for the fact alone that we are running different schemes.

 

While wisconsin has a new coach, their will be basically no transition because Chryst was there just 3 years ago. Wisconsin is the favorite because they've shown year after year, that they don't fall off the map.

[DomiNUs]

 

Other than the fact that we have been boat raced by Wisconsin on several occasions in the past, I really don't understand why they are being picked first in the division this year. Their coaching hire was not as great as ours, we have more talent across the board, returning players are about the same, etc. I see the West ending up: 1. NU, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin - Iowa tie.

Really? You think NU has more talent across the board than Wisconsin? Have you seen their offensive line? NU hasn't fielded a decent oline is ages. Thats what Wiscy is praised for year in and year out.

 

Everything you said is completely subjective at this point. You can't even objectively compare the returning players just for the fact alone that we are running different schemes.

 

While wisconsin has a new coach, their will be basically no transition because Chryst was there just 3 years ago. Wisconsin is the favorite because they've shown year after year, that they don't fall off the map.

 

Maybe instead of "across the board," I should of said, "overall talent?" As far as being subjective or objective, I did read the linked article from the OP, and was more or less stating what already was stated there. Nebraska finishing first in 4 out of 7 areas: coaching, talent, returning starters and schedule. Not to mention the fact that I believe he is completely wrong about the defensive playmakers. Nothing I stated seems that extraordinary.

[True2tRA]

You can have all the pieces to a puzzle, it doesn't mean you can put it together.

 

Nebraska does have more talent than anyone in the west but I think we have for some time now. I believe we have recruited better than both Minnesota and Wisconsin recently.

 

 

Nebraska has demonstrated they can have all the pieces and can never find a way to put it all together. That inconsistency and sloppiness has resulted in a loss of respect over the years. The writers aren't just going to give us that automatic spot at the top of their lists. We don't just get that Top 25 AP ranking anymore just because "we're Nebraska".

 

Until we prove otherwise, we are second fiddle, even to lesser talented teams.

[Joe_5700]

You can have all the pieces to a puzzle, it doesn't mean you can put it together.

 

Nebraska does have more talent than anyone in the west but I think we have for some time now. I believe we have recruited better than both Minnesota and Wisconsin recently.

 

 

Nebraska has demonstrated they can have all the pieces and can never find a way to put it all together. That inconsistency and sloppiness has resulted in a loss of respect over the years. The writers aren't just going to give us that automatic spot at the top of their lists. We don't just get that Top 25 AP ranking anymore just because "we're Nebraska".

 

Until we prove otherwise, we are second fiddle, even to lesser talented teams.

In summation...we pooped the bed too many times in the past to deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[True2tRA]

 

You can have all the pieces to a puzzle, it doesn't mean you can put it together.

Nebraska does have more talent than anyone in the west but I think we have for some time now. I believe we have recruited better than both Minnesota and Wisconsin recently.

Nebraska has demonstrated they can have all the pieces and can never find a way to put it all together. That inconsistency and sloppiness has resulted in a loss of respect over the years. The writers aren't just going to give us that automatic spot at the top of their lists. We don't just get that Top 25 AP ranking anymore just because "we're Nebraska".

Until we prove otherwise, we are second fiddle, even to lesser talented teams.

 

In summation...we pooped the bed too many times in the past to deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Haha! Yea that^.

 

I wish I was better at the one sentence response like some of you guys. Haha.

[Landlord]

 

Other than the fact that we have been boat raced by Wisconsin on several occasions in the past, I really don't understand why they are being picked first in the division this year. Their coaching hire was not as great as ours, we have more talent across the board, returning players are about the same, etc. I see the West ending up: 1. NU, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin - Iowa tie.

Really? You think NU has more talent across the board than Wisconsin? Have you seen their offensive line? NU hasn't fielded a decent oline is ages. Thats what Wiscy is praised for year in and year out.

 

Everything you said is completely subjective at this point. You can't even objectively compare the returning players just for the fact alone that we are running different schemes.

 

While wisconsin has a new coach, their will be basically no transition because Chryst was there just 3 years ago. Wisconsin is the favorite because they've shown year after year, that they don't fall off the map.

 

 

 

 

First of all, saying we haven't fielded a decent offensive line in ages seems silly to me, considering the numbers Ameer Abdullah, Rex Burkhead, and Roy Helu have put up over the last 5 seasons, as well as our rushing attack ranking 19, 19, 8, 15, 9 over the last 5 seasons.

 

 

Regardless, Wisconsin's last 4 recruiting classes have been ranked 35, 33, 38, 65 and 39. Nebraska's are 31, 36, 22, 30, and 16. Saying we have more talent across the board is a fair thing to say/think.

 

That being said, Wisconsin deserves the respect and I think they'll be a better team.

[True2tRA]

 

 

Other than the fact that we have been boat raced by Wisconsin on several occasions in the past, I really don't understand why they are being picked first in the division this year. Their coaching hire was not as great as ours, we have more talent across the board, returning players are about the same, etc. I see the West ending up: 1. NU, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin - Iowa tie.

 

Really? You think NU has more talent across the board than Wisconsin? Have you seen their offensive line? NU hasn't fielded a decent oline is ages. Thats what Wiscy is praised for year in and year out.

 

Everything you said is completely subjective at this point. You can't even objectively compare the returning players just for the fact alone that we are running different schemes.

 

While wisconsin has a new coach, their will be basically no transition because Chryst was there just 3 years ago. Wisconsin is the favorite because they've shown year after year, that they don't fall off the map.

 

 

First of all, saying we haven't fielded a decent offensive line in ages seems silly to me, considering the numbers Ameer Abdullah, Rex Burkhead, and Roy Helu have put up over the last 5 seasons, as well as our rushing attack ranking 19, 19, 8, 15, 9 over the last 5 seasons.

 

 

disagrees with statement about subpar offensive line play, proceeds by listing great RB's?

 

 

Not picking on you LOMS, but you and a few others have done this almost every time this discussion comes up. Why when someone says the offensive line was sub par, the response is to name our great RB's every single time.?

 

Now obviously the two are directly related, but those are some great RB's there. All of them in the NFL. For once, just ONCE I'd like to hear you guys respond to those offensive line questions, by naming some of the great offensive linemen we've passed through the program recently.

 

That seems like the even more logical step doesn't it?

 

Yet, I've asked you guys, yourself included and others, in another thread "who are the individual linemen you would say were "above average" or good? (not sure of the exact quote, but it's in another thread and I could find it) The question never got answered. We were talking for a day and a half about whether the offensive line was "above average, average, subpar, etc........and the second I asked a question about the specifics of WHO on the offensive line has been good, the conversation dissolves.

 

So please, when discussing offensive line struggles or successes, can we stop naming RB's? Name some damn OFFENSIVE LINEMEN.

[Mavric]

So you conveniently leave out that he was talking about the numbers (stats) produced by those RBs which is basically what you have to do because there aren't really stats for offensive linemen.

 

Then you admit that they are directly related while you try to discredit it.

 

OK......

[Landlord]

 

 

 

Other than the fact that we have been boat raced by Wisconsin on several occasions in the past, I really don't understand why they are being picked first in the division this year. Their coaching hire was not as great as ours, we have more talent across the board, returning players are about the same, etc. I see the West ending up: 1. NU, 2. Minnesota, 3. Wisconsin - Iowa tie.

Really? You think NU has more talent across the board than Wisconsin? Have you seen their offensive line? NU hasn't fielded a decent oline is ages. Thats what Wiscy is praised for year in and year out.

 

Everything you said is completely subjective at this point. You can't even objectively compare the returning players just for the fact alone that we are running different schemes.

 

While wisconsin has a new coach, their will be basically no transition because Chryst was there just 3 years ago. Wisconsin is the favorite because they've shown year after year, that they don't fall off the map.

 

 

First of all, saying we haven't fielded a decent offensive line in ages seems silly to me, considering the numbers Ameer Abdullah, Rex Burkhead, and Roy Helu have put up over the last 5 seasons, as well as our rushing attack ranking 19, 19, 8, 15, 9 over the last 5 seasons.

 

disagrees with statement about subpar offensive line play, proceeds by listing great RB's?

 

 

Not picking on you LOMS, but you and a few others have done this almost every time this discussion comes up. Why when someone says the offensive line was sub par, the response is to name our great RB's every single time.?

 

Now obviously the two are directly related, but those are some great RB's there. All of them in the NFL. For once, just ONCE I'd like to hear you guys respond to those offensive line questions, by naming some of the great offensive linemen we've passed through the program recently.

 

That seems like the even more logical step doesn't it?

 

Yet, I've asked you guys, yourself included and others, in another thread "who are the individual linemen you would say were "above average" or good? (not sure of the exact quote, but it's in another thread and I could find it) The question never got answered. We were talking for a day and a half about whether the offensive line was "above average, average, subpar, etc........and the second I asked a question about the specifics of WHO on the offensive line has been good, the conversation dissolves.

 

So please, when discussing offensive line struggles or successes, can we stop naming RB's? Name some damn OFFENSIVE LINEMEN.

 

 

 

Why do great individual offensive linemen matter? As long as the unit as a whole is good, who cares? That's not a copout, because we have linemen in the league and have had plenty of good ones, I just think that's a weird request.

 

 

Ignoring how football is a team sport and good players at certain positions affect the perception of players at other positions, BOTH ways, and how your argument wants to keep it's cake and eat it too, there is no metric that exists that points to our offensive line being bad, below average, or even average. There are metrics that exist that seem to point to our offensive line being good, not great, so the burden of proof is on people claiming that our offensive line play has been so lousy.

[True2tRA]

presented with simple question and opportunity to support arguement by simply naming some good recent offensive linemen

 

says whatever the hell that is ^ up there. I can't make sense of it. Ridiculous. I feel like my keyboard is typing in Japanese but it looks like English to me. I couldn't have put it any simpler. Seriously.....I can't .

 

Maybe if I give kind of a spreadsheet, for your opinion on who some good offensive linemen have been that blocked for those 3 RB's [ to avoid confuison] the 3 RB's are:

 

 

1.Ameer Abdullah

2. Rex Burkhead

3. Roy Helu

 

 

Good offensive linemen who blocked for those RB's are:

 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

 

There, now you can just fill in the blanks.

[True2tRA]

OMG, Both of you did it! That's awesome.

[Mavric]

But since you keep asking and I don't want to be accused of not answering your questions:

 

Cole Pensick was Second Team All-B1G in 2013

Spencer Long was Second Team All-B1G in 2011, First Team All-B1G in 2012 and a likely starter in the NFL this fall

Jeremiah Sirles was Second Team All-B1G in 2012

Mike Caputo was Second Team All-B1G in 2011

Ricky Henry was First Team All-Big XII in 2010

 

So, considering most of those guys started for more than one year:

- In 2010 we had three starters who would eventually make first- or second-team all conference (Henry, Caputo and Sirles)

- In 2011 we had three (Sirles, Caputo and Long)

- In 2012 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

- In 2013 we had three (Sirles, Pensick and Long)

 

So for four straight years we had 60% of our starting line that would be named to an All-Conference team.

[Mavric]

Yep. I didn't know all that off the top of my head and had to go do a little bit of research.

 

But place continue laughing as you present no evidence to the contrary other than "I say so"

[Moiraine]

The two of you are like an old married couple.

Keep it up until September.