Your Predictions For The West

[jager]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If we are 8-4, we are not in the top 25.  We maybe would be there at some point in the season, but not at the end.  

 

8-4 sounds good especially if the losses are like last year's where we had a chance against those better teams.  If we have blowout losses, the feeling is different.

I disagree. If NU is 8-4, without blowout losses, they will get the benefit of doubt and be in the top 25. Even though they have performed poorly the last 5 years, the powers that be would like them ranked. I know most of us say that ESPN (and others) don't like Nebraska, but they want traditional powers ranked.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, jager said:

I disagree. If NU is 8-4, without blowout losses, they will get the benefit of doubt and be in the top 25. Even though they have performed poorly the last 5 years, the powers that be would like them ranked. I know most of us say that ESPN (and others) don't like Nebraska, but they want traditional powers ranked.

You might be right if we end up 9-4 or 10-4 after the bowl game.  But, you're basically saying we are going to be ranked while not beating any of the good teams on our schedule.  I think that's going to be pretty tough.

[Mavric]

14 minutes ago, jager said:

I disagree. If NU is 8-4, without blowout losses, they will get the benefit of doubt and be in the top 25. Even though they have performed poorly the last 5 years, the powers that be would like them ranked. I know most of us say that ESPN (and others) don't like Nebraska, but they want traditional powers ranked.

 

Eh, it's possible but we'd have to look really good. 

 

Last year the only 8-4 teams that were ranked were Arkansas and Texas A&M. 

Arkansas had losses to three Top 10 teams plus a Top 25 win over Texas A&M and a win over a Mississippi State team just out of the Top 25.

Texas A&M lost to a Top 25 team in Arkansas plus Mississippi State but they also had beaten Alabama.

 

I'm not sure we can put together that type of resume at 8-4.  Maybe if we beat one of the best teams and lose to a second-tier team.

[Dogs In A Pile]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

If we are 8-4, we are not in the top 25.  We maybe would be there at some point in the season, but not at the end. 

 

I was referring to admo's mention of being in the top 25. For the record I don't see us being 8-4 or being in the top 25.

[Hooked on Huskers]

9 hours ago, KingBlank said:

6 - 6 and Frost should absolutely be fired the day after the season.  He will be playing in a 75 percent stadium at that point

 

Nope, sellout streak continued .... (for some reason)

 

But you're right, SF 6W-6L will be fired because mainly easy-peasy 2022 schedule. Last year, kinda tough .... Buckeyes & Spartans foes.   2022 .... now Rutgers & Hoosiers

 

 

Hey, rehire Bo at HC job .... with whole bunch of Valium pills in Pelini's sideline games 

 

If NW beat NU, watch out.

[Undone]

8 minutes ago, Hooked on Huskers said:

Nope, sellout streak continued .... (for some reason)

 

It's mainly because there's not much else to do here.     

[gossamorharpy]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

If we are 8-4, we are not in the top 25.  We maybe would be there at some point in the season, but not at the end.  

 

8-4 sounds good especially if the losses are like last year's where we had a chance against those better teams.  If we have blowout losses, the feeling is different.

This isn't necessarily true.  Iowa finished in the top 25 last year with 4 losses and zero notable wins when it was all said and done.

 

a 9-4 nebraska team is 100% ending int he top 25 so long as those 4 losses arent all in november... IE, if we somehow start 8-0 and crater in november and lose 4 in a row, sure perhaps we drop out.

 

But if we go 2-2 or 1-3 and end up 9-4, I think without a doubt we are top 25 headed into a bowl game

[Mavric]

23 hours ago, Red Five said:

I'll believe that they are taking STs seriously after 1) I see how many starters are on each unit and b) if they have any scheme around returns besides "fair catch everything". 

 

In the past we've heard lip service that starters are going to see time on STs, but when you look at each unit it has 1, maybe 2, starters and the rest are walkons and 2nd/3rd teamers.

 

Eh, I think the insistence on starters playing on special teams is one of those things that people like to complain about when they don't like the results but it has much less meaning than people want it to have.

 

For starters (no pun intended), there are far fewer "starters" that you even want on special teams (for the most part).  Once you take out the QB, OL and DL, that's about half of the "starters".  And unless you're going to have those starters play on every special team (kickoff, kick coverage, punt and punt coverage for this discussion), you probably take those 11 guys and divide them up among those four units and you only fill four or five spots on each.  Which means you have to have over half of each unit NOT be starters.

 

Then it's not really the case that the same skill set that makes them a starter on offense or defense is the exact same skill set that makes them a good fit for special teams.  Maybe a defensive back isn't quite as good in coverage so he's not a starter but he's fast and a good tackler.  Do that mean that we don't care about special teams because he's out there?  Maybe a linebacker isn't as good at diagnosing plays so he's not a starter.  Does that make him an inferior special teams player?  Maybe the RBs and WRs aren't as good at tackling or blocking.  Does that mean we don't care about special teams because they're not out there?

 

I think it's pretty overblown.

[Red Five]

37 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I think it's pretty overblown.

 

Yes, obviously you can't have your entire special team units be starters.  But you can have 4-5 starters on each unit between DBs, LBs, and WRs. I remember seeing Tony Ortiz, Eric Johnson, Carlos Polk, Mike Brown, and Ralph Brown on kick coverage back when they starters.  Kenny Bell was an awesome gunner on punt coverage.

 

Here is who was on the field for the Wisc kick return TD

 

3rd string WR 4 Alante Brown 

3rd string CB 12 Marquis Buford

not on depth chart 16 Zack Weinmaster

3rd string ILB 22 Eteva Mauga Clements

2nd string Nickel 23 Issac Gifford

not on depth chart 29 Cooper Jewett

2nd string ILB 31 Chris Kolarevic

not on depth chart  35 John Bullock

3rd string Nickel 37 Phalen Sanford

3rd string WR 85 Wyatt Liewer

kicker 92 Bendan Franke

 

2 2nd stringers

5 3rd stringers

3 guys not on a depth chart

 

This isn't taking special teams seriously.

[gossamorharpy]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

Yes, obviously you can't have your entire special team units be starters.  But you can have 4-5 starters on each unit between DBs, LBs, and WRs. I remember seeing Tony Ortiz, Eric Johnson, Carlos Polk, Mike Brown, and Ralph Brown on kick coverage back when they starters.  Kenny Bell was an awesome gunner on punt coverage.

 

Here is who was on the field for the Wisc kick return TD

 

3rd string WR 4 Alante Brown 

3rd string CB 12 Marquis Buford

not on depth chart 16 Zack Weinmaster

3rd string ILB 22 Eteva Mauga Clements

2nd string Nickel 23 Issac Gifford

not on depth chart 29 Cooper Jewett

2nd string ILB 31 Chris Kolarevic

not on depth chart  35 John Bullock

3rd string Nickel 37 Phalen Sanford

3rd string WR 85 Wyatt Liewer

kicker 92 Bendan Franke

 

2 2nd stringers

5 3rd stringers

3 guys not on a depth chart

 

This isn't taking special teams seriously.

Having more starters on the ST units doesnt address an inept punter unable to kick the ball to its intended place.  Having more starters on the ST doesnt address not proper lane coverage on kick offs.

 

I hope having a dedicated ST coach will positively influence the talent, gameplan and execution of said plays/gameplan much more than throwing out first stringers.  

[Undone]

I think maybe the larger point also is that if things aren't working, it's time to change it up. Try something different.

 

Of course Frost would claim that he did do this by turning over some of the special teams stuff to Mike Dawson. But punt & kickoff units struggled on and off all season - sometimes to pretty terrible ends.

 

All of that to say, I think bringing in Busch shows that the team is now prioritizing special teams and everything I've seen from Bill shows that he has very high standards and will bring a higher level of play there. It's up to the players to do their part, but bringing Bill in should really upgrade special teams by quite a bit.

[Mavric]

15 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

Yes, obviously you can't have your entire special team units be starters.  But you can have 4-5 starters on each unit between DBs, LBs, and WRs. I remember seeing Tony Ortiz, Eric Johnson, Carlos Polk, Mike Brown, and Ralph Brown on kick coverage back when they starters.  Kenny Bell was an awesome gunner on punt coverage.

 

Here is who was on the field for the Wisc kick return TD

 

3rd string WR 4 Alante Brown 

3rd string CB 12 Marquis Buford

not on depth chart 16 Zack Weinmaster

3rd string ILB 22 Eteva Mauga Clements

2nd string Nickel 23 Issac Gifford

not on depth chart 29 Cooper Jewett

2nd string ILB 31 Chris Kolarevic

not on depth chart  35 John Bullock

3rd string Nickel 37 Phalen Sanford

3rd string WR 85 Wyatt Liewer

kicker 92 Bendan Franke

 

2 2nd stringers

5 3rd stringers

3 guys not on a depth chart

 

This isn't taking special teams seriously.

 

Eh, you're making assumptions and still not taking anything into consideration from my last post.  

 

Phalen Sanford might be the best athlete on the team and was the #2 Nickel for that game.

Isaac Gifford was actually the starting Nickel for that game.

 

What is the point of having depth if you're not going to use it?  You really want a bunch of starting defensive players running a 70 yard sprint right before going out on the field?

[Lorewarn]

4 hours ago, jager said:

I disagree. If NU is 8-4, without blowout losses, they will get the benefit of doubt and be in the top 25. 

 

2 hours ago, gossamorharpy said:

a 9-4 nebraska team is 100% ending int he top 25 so long as those 4 losses arent all in november... IE, if we somehow start 8-0 and crater in november and lose 4 in a row, sure perhaps we drop out.

 

 

2006 Nebraska was 9-4 with no blowouts and non-november losses and wasn't top 25.

 

2008 Nebraska was 8-4 and then 9-4 with only one november loss and wasn't top 25.

 

2013 Nebraska was 8-4 and then 9-4, not ranked for six weeks before barely squeaking in at #25 after beating Georgia.

 

2014 Nebraska was as high as #11 in November and was 9-4 and didn't end up top 25.

 

2016 Nebraska was 9-4 and didn't end up top 25.

 

 

 

So if the point is that there is a possible scenario that depends on context and circumstances where we might be top 25 at the end of the season with an 8 or 9 win record, sure. But if the point is that one specific set of criteria will absolutely make us top 25, nah, you can look back at our own recent history and see that isn't a guarantee.

[VectorVictor]

2 hours ago, Undone said:

 

It's mainly because there's not much else to do here.     

I keep hearing this tired refrain, and it’s just wrong. There’s plenty to do here, especially if you’re in Lincoln, Omaha, or the Tri-cities area. 

 

 

[Undone]

Just now, VectorVictor said:

I keep hearing this tired refrain, and it’s just wrong. There’s plenty to do here, especially if you’re in Lincoln, Omaha, or the Tri-cities area. 

 

 

 

I was hoping the little emoji conveyed that the comment was mainly tongue in cheek.