Everybody just needs to settle down and...

[marko polo]

6 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

I think there is a better chance of him winning the lottery than of you posting something positive.

blitz after what seems like an eternity you get that way

[marko polo]

5 hours ago, 2ndNnine said:

 

wow thanks for posting that.

[Crusader Husker]

7 hours ago, 4skers89 said:

It's understandable if watching N has made you miserable.  OSU, Clemson, Alabama, Wisconsin are teams to watch if you like good football.  Obviously you don't have to root for them but I get more enjoyment watching their games than my favorite team.  I guess being a Husker fan all of my life got me used to watching a well coached, prepared team full of players that play with a lot of pride so that's what I'm drawn to.

I don't know if I would had OSU, they have vastly under performed given their talent level.

[marko polo]

1 hour ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

If that's how you get, you need to stop watching football.  It's unhealthy and it influences others to become the same way you are.

sorry care to much for that to happen and there are many others that do to

 

[Red_Payne]

13 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

My own personal opinion - which I have numbers to back up - is that Riley's first two classes were basically average classes that Bo put together.  They were better than Bo's last couple classes but definitely not as good as a couple of his middle classes.

 

Now, since Bo's last couple classes were not as good, it's fair to say that the upper-classmen we've had haven't been our best.  However, it's equally fair to say that Riley's three years have followed a steady patter when it comes to roster talent - one team on our schedule (probably two this year) have more talent than us, one team has about the same talent we have and we have noticeably more talent than the rest of our schedule.  So it's not like we have a huge hill to climb to be competitive in most all our games.

 

I've always thought that judging "player development" is really just in the eye of the beholder.  If you think a coach is under-performing, it's because they're not developing talent.  If they have good success, they're great at developing talent.  And there could be some of that.  But you're always going to have under-rated players who shine (Ameer Abdullah) and higher-rated players who "bust" so it's really hard to know.  

 

I put a lot more value in schemes - mainly because we can actually get a look at them to get a little better idea if the players are being put in a position to succeed.  For as critical as I sometimes am of Langsdorf, I've always said I don't necessarily think he's a bad OC.  I'm just not sure if he's a good fit.  I think he tends to like to throw more than will lead to a lot of success with the players that we have.  He can draw up some great plays - I noted a couple in the "What Did We Learn" thread from this week. But I think he needs NFL-level QB play to really make it go and that's hard to do for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is practice time to implement it.

 

I think by far Riley's biggest failing is being able to find a DC who can formulate a competent game plan.  Banker was just flat terrible all the way around.  I think Diaco's issue is he's trying to be too cute in a basic - albeit contradictory - way.  He appears to be convinced that he can play his base package all the time.  And he's so sure his scheme will work that he doesn't bother to have guys line up in a way that puts them in the best position to succeed.  Basically, he's out-thinking himself.

 

So I think our game planning is definitely lacking, especially on the defensive side.  And game management is also poor.  Diaco has made a couple tweaks in the second half of both games but I can't for the life of me figure out why the tweaks he made against Arkansas State weren't part of the original plan against Oregon when it was obvious from the Arky St game that the base plan doesn't work.  Well, it was obvious to basically everyone but Diaco anyway.  And why could we not make any of those adjustments after their second score - or the third, or the fourth - instead of waiting until after half time?  I don't get it.

 

Agree 100%

Langs is a good OC, and seems to understand that a (pass) balanced offense is the most efficient offense in today's football with all the rule modifications and the ways players are being developed all the way down to the big HS football programs. That simply, won't fit for us, though (it "seems" like, but you never know). We can't seem to recruit the top tier linemen needed to run that type of offense, first of all; secondly, we haven't been able to bring in a Pro-caliber QB, ever.

Defensively, I, personally, don't believe 3-4 or 4-3 make a huge difference; considering most teams have multiple nickle and dime package groups ready to run on/off the field when a situation arises... Diaco hasn't seemed to implement that (yet, hopefully). I've noticed most teams don't get too cute on D. They rely on their front 6/7 (depending on package) to stop the run, they rely on their front 4 to collapse the pocket; and they typically keep two safeties back and just man up, or run cover 2/3. Wish Diaco would just do this, as our front 7 actually doesn't look too bad against the run... every-time Diaco decided to bring up a safety to help against the run, Oregon went deep on-on-one; and we don't have the CBs to do that.

[zoogs]

57 minutes ago, marko polo said:

sorry care to much for that to happen and there are many others that do to

 

This might be one of those times where "care too much" is at intervention levels. Enjoy it, get frustrated, be disappointed, etc, etc. End of the day it's the sport we love and the team we love to hope for. 

[MichiganDad3]

22 hours ago, dtbugeater said:

I was pissed during the game and am not pumping any sunshine but...

 

you are are exactly right. Almost everyone not on a husker message board figured we would be 1-1 right now.  The coaches have to feel ok about their next three games which gives them a chance to breathe and figure out how this defense is going to work for them this season.  4-1 sounds pretty good to me. 

This is a major problem. If the Huskers cannot be expected to beat a 4-8 team with a new staff, then changes must be made.

[MichiganDad3]

17 hours ago, olddominionhusker said:

Think about how crazy it is that Nebraska fans are relieved they don't have to face Indiana. This has to be rock bottom right?

Truth. We should be annoyed that the game would be too boring.

[marko polo]

1 minute ago, zoogs said:

This might be one of those times where "care too much" is at intervention levels. Enjoy it, get frustrated, be disappointed, etc, etc. End of the day it's the sport we love and the team we love to hope for. 

I don't know how old you are but I think there are a whole lot of sub 40yr olds that are on here where you either didn't experience when we were good so there is no reference point or maybe it is a generation thing idk

[zoogs]

@marko polo, I remember the good times but they were early in my childhood. Some of my first memories.

 

There are a lot of CFB programs out there. Few are as lucky as Nebraska to have had such a lengthy time in the sun. We might catch a slice of that again, we might not, but I mean, what can you do if it doesn't shake out? 

 

A lot of factors went into that success. But the most special, most enduring thing about Husker football has always been that it's "more than winning". That ethos, we keep forever.

 

 

[Undone]

9 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

This is a major problem. If the Huskers cannot be expected to beat a 4-8 team with a new staff, then changes must be made.

 

That just isn't how it works. Last season was last season. Wait until you see Oregon's record at the end of this season to make a judgment call to that extent. 

 

Oregon very well could be a better team than Wisconsin. We just don't know yet.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

23 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Last year we averaged the exact same amount of yards per game as Wisconsin did.  They got a significantly higher percentage of their yardage running the ball.  That has a lot to do with how effective your offense in in the B1G in November.

 

Just because some of the things we do look the same doesn't mean we use them the same way.

Wouldn't a more appropriate gauge of an offense's effectiveness in the B1G in November be a comparison of those offenses in the month of November rather than the entire year?

 

Your hunch is probably correct - Wisconsin's offense is probably more effective than Nebraska's in November, mainly because they run the ball. But I'd be curious to see what the data say.

[Landlord]

43 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

This is a major problem. If the Huskers cannot be expected to beat a 4-8 team with a new staff, then changes must be made.

 

Oregon isn't a 4-8 team. They're a 2-0 team just outside the Top 25. Can we knock this crap off? The Huskers DID beat 4-8 Oregon. Last year. Can't we wait and let this year's Oregon team speak for itself? And this year's Nebraska team, for that matter?

 

 

37 minutes ago, marko polo said:

I don't know how old you are but I think there are a whole lot of sub 40yr olds that are on here where you either didn't experience when we were good so there is no reference point or maybe it is a generation thing idk

 

Maybe it's a maturity thing. Maybe some of us aren't so emotionally dependent on A) a bunch of boys throwing a ball around and hitting each other, B) something we have no control over, and C) something that by it's nature is unpredictable and has no guarantees of a positive ending. Sports are supposed to be fun, entertaining, community building, and character developing.

 

Not the victory but the action; In the deed the glory.

[BoNeyard]

35 minutes ago, zoogs said:

@marko polo, I remember the good times but they were early in my childhood. Some of my first memories.

 

There are a lot of CFB programs out there. Few are as lucky as Nebraska to have had such a lengthy time in the sun. We might catch a slice of that again, we might not, but I mean, what can you do if it doesn't shake out? 

 

A lot of factors went into that success. But the most special, most enduring thing about Husker football has always been that it's "more than winning". That ethos, we keep forever.

 

 

Good points. But we are getting to a point in time where all of the younger fans and the future of Nebraska football fans won't know of the glory days and just know Nebraska football as 8-4, 9-3, 10-4 type seasons. There are players on the team that weren't even around for the '94-'95 seasons and too young to remember 1997. This goes on long enough and fans become complacent with the 8-4 type years and less and less money gets dumped into the program and 25 years from now Nebraska is Minnesota.

[Landlord]

1 minute ago, BoneyardHusker said:

This goes on long enough and fans become complacent with the 8-4 type years and less and less money gets dumped into the program and 25 years from now Nebraska is Minnesota.

 

 

Most of the players on the team right now were not even born in '97. 

 

None of the students at the university were old enough to remember anything other than the most basic childhood memories of 90's dominance.

 

Yet, our program is making massive amounts of money - way more than we ever have. We're essentially printing our own cash.