What did we learn-Wyoming edition

[Jeremy]

What is up with this 'Run the Ball Guy' stuff? Hasn't he been right? A lot?

 

I'm still tripping to '01, aside from Black Friday and the Rose Bowl Beatdown. The point is, we were IN the Rose Bowl - it's the last time we even sniffed greatness. THAT'S what we miss. 14 seasons removed from a Husker team that played for a title, and we're pretty straight-forward people. What worked back then? Well, let's try that.

 

But, I do agree with whomever said we needed a championship-level defense first. That's the dang truth. Osborne did recruit great athletes for offense, but there are several that ended up playing defense (Tony Veland comes to mind) - I think our best athletes most years were Blackshirts. Watching the ASU vs TTU track meet the other night was a glaring example of using all your best athletes on offense.

 

Osborne kept formations and plays relatively simple and straight forward, and recruited to that simple, yet somewhat unique offense. He didn't have to try to get Peyton Manning, Vinny Testeverde, or Drew Bledsoe. He also didn't need to go after Lemming's top 5 receivers, either. Are we going to beat USC, Florida, and Alabama for all these cogs to Riley's machine? Not very often. So how are we going to beat them on the field?

[1989husker!]

What is up with this 'Run the Ball Guy' stuff? Hasn't he been right? A lot?

 

I'm still tripping to '01, aside from Black Friday and the Rose Bowl Beatdown. The point is, we were IN the Rose Bowl - it's the last time we even sniffed greatness. THAT'S what we miss. 14 seasons removed from a Husker team that played for a title, and we're pretty straight-forward people. What worked back then? Well, let's try that.

 

But, I do agree with whomever said we needed a championship-level defense first. That's the dang truth. Osborne did recruit great athletes for offense, but there are several that ended up playing defense (Tony Veland comes to mind) - I think our best athletes most years were Blackshirts. Watching the ASU vs TTU track meet the other night was a glaring example of using all your best athletes on offense.

 

Osborne kept formations and plays relatively simple and straight forward, and recruited to that simple, yet somewhat unique offense. He didn't have to try to get Peyton Manning, Vinny Testeverde, or Drew Bledsoe. He also didn't need to go after Lemming's top 5 receivers, either. Are we going to beat USC, Florida, and Alabama for all these cogs to Riley's machine? Not very often. So how are we going to beat them on the field?

Bro Tommy Frazier wasn't a slouch, neither was Turner Gill

[Jeremy]

 

What is up with this 'Run the Ball Guy' stuff? Hasn't he been right? A lot?

 

I'm still tripping to '01, aside from Black Friday and the Rose Bowl Beatdown. The point is, we were IN the Rose Bowl - it's the last time we even sniffed greatness. THAT'S what we miss. 14 seasons removed from a Husker team that played for a title, and we're pretty straight-forward people. What worked back then? Well, let's try that.

 

But, I do agree with whomever said we needed a championship-level defense first. That's the dang truth. Osborne did recruit great athletes for offense, but there are several that ended up playing defense (Tony Veland comes to mind) - I think our best athletes most years were Blackshirts. Watching the ASU vs TTU track meet the other night was a glaring example of using all your best athletes on offense.

 

Osborne kept formations and plays relatively simple and straight forward, and recruited to that simple, yet somewhat unique offense. He didn't have to try to get Peyton Manning, Vinny Testeverde, or Drew Bledsoe. He also didn't need to go after Lemming's top 5 receivers, either. Are we going to beat USC, Florida, and Alabama for all these cogs to Riley's machine? Not very often. So how are we going to beat them on the field?

Bro Tommy Frazier wasn't a slouch, neither was Turner Gill

 

Not nearly as fast as Barron Miles, or as quick as Terrell Farley. You may have a point with Gill, though. I believe it was '93 that Osborne and McBride made the switch to the 4-3, which put more speed on the field as opposed to size/strength.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.

 

 

....so?

 

 

So, the contention at one point was that MSU has been recruiting better at QB under Dantonio than Nebraska has.

90%+ of the teams in the B10 and SEC would probably start him if Armstrong was on their roster.

 

That's how good this kid is. And it's on this staff to utilize him properly.

 

 

 

I mean if you want to use recruiting rankings from high school to evaluate seniors in college, that's your prerogative, but I'm guessing the spirit of that contention is that MSU has had better quarterbacks than Nebraska has, which is... pretty hard to argue with. If we are recruiting better quarterbacks, we're doing a worse job of developing them, and that speaks to the previous staff as much as the current one.

 

 

If you stack up the QBs who have played for MSU versus those for Nebraska since 2000, I have a hard time understanding why you think MSU has been more successful at recruiting or developing for college production.

 

The simple fact is, we'll never know how TA may have progressed if he'd finished his career with some continuity in staffing. We do know that Martinez's production was clearly trending upward until he was injured as a senior. No reason to think TA wouldn't have continued along the same path.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

I can do more with less

[Stumpy1]

 

 

 

 

P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.

 

 

....so?

 

 

So, the contention at one point was that MSU has been recruiting better at QB under Dantonio than Nebraska has.

90%+ of the teams in the B10 and SEC would probably start him if Armstrong was on their roster.

 

That's how good this kid is. And it's on this staff to utilize him properly.

 

 

 

I mean if you want to use recruiting rankings from high school to evaluate seniors in college, that's your prerogative, but I'm guessing the spirit of that contention is that MSU has had better quarterbacks than Nebraska has, which is... pretty hard to argue with. If we are recruiting better quarterbacks, we're doing a worse job of developing them, and that speaks to the previous staff as much as the current one.

 

 

If you stack up the QBs who have played for MSU versus those for Nebraska since 2000, I have a hard time understanding why you think MSU has been more successful at recruiting or developing for college production.

 

You can't be serious, right?

[fb30]

Strength and conditioning didn't change from 90 to 94.

[marko polo]

 

 

 

 

P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.

 

 

....so?

 

 

So, the contention at one point was that MSU has been recruiting better at QB under Dantonio than Nebraska has.

90%+ of the teams in the B10 and SEC would probably start him if Armstrong was on their roster.

 

That's how good this kid is. And it's on this staff to utilize him properly.

 

 

 

I mean if you want to use recruiting rankings from high school to evaluate seniors in college, that's your prerogative, but I'm guessing the spirit of that contention is that MSU has had better quarterbacks than Nebraska has, which is... pretty hard to argue with. If we are recruiting better quarterbacks, we're doing a worse job of developing them, and that speaks to the previous staff as much as the current one.

 

 

If you stack up the QBs who have played for MSU versus those for Nebraska since 2000, I have a hard time understanding why you think MSU has been more successful at recruiting or developing for college production.

 

The simple fact is, we'll never know how TA may have progressed if he'd finished his career with some continuity in staffing. We do know that Martinez's production was clearly trending upward until he was injured as a senior. No reason to think TA wouldn't have continued along the same path.

 

What the hell are you smokin dude!

[3rd and long]

I can't believe Navy is being held up as an example for us to emulate. They epitomize "moral victory". Play above their talent level, stay competitive most games, and occasionally pull an upset. But in the end, they they're not a factor in the big picture of college football.

 

It was great when we had the pipeline, they could still dominate against a stacked defense. The Wyoming game proved that won't work now. We ran predominately against Fresno St, all the run happy people were, well, happy. Then Wyoming took the run away.

 

We're not good enough to impose our run game on other teams anymore when they decide to take it away.

[cm husker]

People degrade Navy's top 30 winning % during the past 10 years, but think .500 at Oregon St is a beacon of hope.

 

Fascinating.

[Count 'Bility]

People degrade Navy's top 30 winning % during the past 10 years, but think .500 at Oregon St is a beacon of hope.

 

Fascinating.

it's not a beacon of hope. But it's what we have to deal with for a few years. So most ppl are actually on the "wait and see" side. Whereas you, with all your bitterness and negativity, confuse that for hope. Im as skeptical as the next guy. You'll never see me argue against the what-ifs. But dont confuse that with me pumpin sunshine. All I do is provide facts as to why maybe the wait and see approach is appropriate. You on the other hand, want to give zero chance. God you must be a pissy son a gun at home.

[3rd and long]

People degrade Navy's top 30 winning % during the past 10 years, but think .500 at Oregon St is a beacon of hope.

Fascinating.

I haven't seen anything that is saying that what Oregon St did or was is ideal. Obviously it wasn't. But Navy's system hasn't exactly put them on top of the rankings either. You've seen what Navy's best is going to produce, I thought the aspirations here were for more.

[Count 'Bility]

Strength and conditioning didn't change from 90 to 94.

 

The NET Tom Osborne Documentary

 

 

May wanna do your research before you spout off inaccurate things like this to support or your argument. EVERYTHING changed from 90-94. Had they didnt, we'd still been getting clobbered by the like Oklahoma, Colorado, and Georgia Tech. But I guess that's the problem with folks these days. It's to easy to just spout of differing opinions as facts on a message board with nothing to back it up and no accoutability to worry about. Sure certain aspects of strength and condiitioning probably remained the same. But the changes came with the overall urgency of which it was utilized. The whole mentality changed. Same with Nutrition. Phychology. This is when the Unity council was brought to life. The urgecy displayed after 1990 when Osborne almost had to quit cuz of heart problems, and knowing that he didnt have much time left coaching anyway. Jack Stark telling him maybe the effects could take hold a few years down the road, but TO saying no, it had to be immediately. Things like that. All sorts of intangible behind the scenes stuff that matters a whole hell of a lot more than what play you call on 3rd and 4. Read the books. Watch the films. Know your facts. Then you can come argue with me.

 

I can continue to provide miles of facts to back up what I'm saying. You come at me with "but, no".

[cm husker]

There's a difference between a change tactics and changing strategic principles.

 

NU's strategic principles did not change, especially offensively.

[Count 'Bility]

There's a difference between change tactics and changing strategic principles.

 

NU's strategic principles did not change, especially offensively.

That is correct. But here's the deal.

 

Youve completely missed the whole point of this argument. It has been filled with such bs from folks like you, that the original debate has been sh#t on.

 

The original point was that Osborne overcame vast criticism that the game had passed him by. That his perceived conservative run-based attach with option was out dated and could no longer be successful. There's this thought that since he just made it work, we should be doing it today. Theres this ideal that it's the only way Nebraska can succeed in any era of football. And that's bullsh#t. My point (as proven) is that Osborne offensive principles were probably that only thing that DIDNT change to create that level of success. And with all the changes made to create that run, he probably coulda ran any system he wanted and still had success to that degree. Thta's my whole point. Offensive playcalling isnt the exlusive end all be all to a programs success. But ppl sure act like it is. That's becuase theyre too lazy to investigate things that really make a team hum.

 

You say their strategic principles did not change, "except on offense". LOL. Well they sure changed on defense. And on special team? Special teams stopped being this tunnel used to get walkons playing ttime. all a sudden, the studs were playing on special teams. Like Mike Riley said after he was hired, and did the round table during the NC game and was asked "you play your starters on special teams?" Riley says "if you wanna win you do".

Anyway. Point is, that's 66% of the strategic principles that changed as well. so.......

 

 

Lastly. Thanks for proving me that reading comprehension still lacks around here and that apparently there's a difference between tactics and strategy.