2009 NU D vs 2013 MSU D

[lo country]

Just looked back at our 2009 schedule W-L. We lost 3 extremely close games and 1 pretty poorly. (actually lost 3 and got jobbed by the refs at UT)

My point being, we lost to ISU with like 15 TO's, VT in the last minute and UT with the addition of :01 to the clock. I think our D then, was better than MSU's D now yet we still lost 4 games (no offense). 2 were ranked, UT (3) and VT (13). I think our O is now much better than our O was in 2009. I stellar D will get you so far, but a better O in 2009 could have gotten us the MNC that year.

Looking at how we did that year, I like our chances tomorrow. Our O is vastly better than in 2009. We play a solid 4 quarters of O, even against a stellar D we have a great chance of winning. Our D in 2009, did a great job, but opposing O, several times scored 1 more point than we did. Our O in 2013 is more prolific than MSU's O. Limit TO's ie Iowa State and our D plays like it has the past 2 games, we win. TT was no where near our D that year (we had several huge mistakes), but still won with a much better O. Same tomorrow.

Hope this makes sense. In my head it does.

 

[Landlord]

I'm convinced.

 

[True2tRA]

So the defense against Michigan and Northwestern = 2009 Nebraska? Or am I missing your point?

Then my next question. Our offense that barely beat Northwestern and Michigan is > 2009 offense?

I'm just trying to grasp where you are coming from. Unfortunately, I've felt that way all week. I believe this will be a good game. Nebraska could win a close one, but I wouldn't be surprised at a loss. Yet, I think I've read more threads about how we will dominate MSU. I didn't see these threads about dominating Michigan, or Northwestern or Minnesota, but now, our best opponent to date...yep well kill em?

 

[Landlord]

Teams scored 1 more point than us because our offense couldn't score any points.

If you're going to compare our 09 defense to Michigan State's, you have to compare offenses as well, because the two are inextricably linked. Their offense is much, much better than our 2009 offense was.

 

[lo country]

Teams scored 1 more point than us because our offense couldn't score any points.

If you're going to compare our 09 defense to Michigan State's, you have to compare offenses as well, because the two are inextricably linked. Their offense is much, much better than our 2009 offense was.

Correct, but or 2013 O is WAY better than our 2009 and IMO, better than MSU's O this year.

I am comparing our 2009 D to the stats of MSU's D now. Not ours. A solid D is great, and won games for us in 2009, an anemic O let us down. I think that a good O (us 2013) going against a lesser O (MSU now) can win against a much better D as evidenced by our losses in 2009.

I like our chances as our O has the ability to move the ball. We limit mistakes and get a TO or 3 and we are in this game to the end. A stellar D will only get you so far.

Bottom line, our stellar D in 2009, possibly the one of the best we have fielded got beat 4 times. MSU is not invincible. Limit TO's, create TO's and we can win.

It will be a very close game either way IMO. In 2009 we lost 3 of the 4 by only 4 points.

No way do I think we lay the wood to them. It will be a 4 quarter brawl.

 

[Landlord]

Teams scored 1 more point than us because our offense couldn't score any points.

If you're going to compare our 09 defense to Michigan State's, you have to compare offenses as well, because the two are inextricably linked. Their offense is much, much better than our 2009 offense was.

Correct, but or 2013 O is WAY better than our 2009 and IMO, better than MSU's O this year.

I am comparing our 2009 D to the stats of MSU's D now. Not ours. A solid D is great, and won games for us in 2009, an anemic O let us down. I think that a good O (us 2013) going against a lesser O (MSU now) can win against a much better D as evidenced by our losses in 2009.

I like our chances as our O has the ability to move the ball. We limit mistakes and get a TO or 3 and we are in this game to the end. A stellar D will only get you so far.

Bottom line, our stellar D in 2009, possibly the one of the best we have fielded got beat 4 times. MSU is not invincible. Limit TO's, create TO's and we can win.

It will be a very close game either way IMO. In 2009 we lost 3 of the 4 by only 4 points.

No way do I think we lay the wood to them. It will be a 4 quarter brawl.

Frankly, I don't think what you are saying makes any sense.

Comparing our 2013 offense to our 2009 offense? Why? What does it matter.

Yeah, our stellar defense in 2009 got beat 4 times -- because our offense sucked.

Thus, if we would have had our stellar defense and a decent to good offense, we would have lost less games.

Guess what?

Michigan State has a stellar defense plus a decent to good offense.

I know what point you're trying to make, but I don't know how exactly you're trying to make it and it hurts my head trying to make sense of your comparisons all over the place that don't have much to do with each other.

 

[lo country]

Teams scored 1 more point than us because our offense couldn't score any points.

If you're going to compare our 09 defense to Michigan State's, you have to compare offenses as well, because the two are inextricably linked. Their offense is much, much better than our 2009 offense was.

Correct, but or 2013 O is WAY better than our 2009 and IMO, better than MSU's O this year.

I am comparing our 2009 D to the stats of MSU's D now. Not ours. A solid D is great, and won games for us in 2009, an anemic O let us down. I think that a good O (us 2013) going against a lesser O (MSU now) can win against a much better D as evidenced by our losses in 2009.

I like our chances as our O has the ability to move the ball. We limit mistakes and get a TO or 3 and we are in this game to the end. A stellar D will only get you so far.

Bottom line, our stellar D in 2009, possibly the one of the best we have fielded got beat 4 times. MSU is not invincible. Limit TO's, create TO's and we can win.

It will be a very close game either way IMO. In 2009 we lost 3 of the 4 by only 4 points.

No way do I think we lay the wood to them. It will be a 4 quarter brawl.

Frankly, I don't think what you are saying makes any sense.

Comparing our 2013 offense to our 2009 offense? Why? What does it matter.

Yeah, our stellar defense in 2009 got beat 4 times -- because our offense sucked.

Thus, if we would have had our stellar defense and a decent to good offense, we would have lost less games.

Guess what?

Michigan State has a stellar defense plus a decent to good offense.

I know what point you're trying to make, but I don't know how exactly you're trying to make it and it hurts my head trying to make sense of your comparisons all over the place that don't have much to do with each other.

Bottom line, a stellar D can get beat. Our 2013 O is good enough to put up points. IMO, our D, if they play like the past 2 weeks will be able to hold MSU to less points. It will be a slug fest and come down to TO's and ST play to decide the game.

They run an O that Bo seems to excel at beating. This is the same O we have beat twice. Granted last year, we benefitted from some questionable calls, but Bo and our D has done well against this style O. I like our chances.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Teams scored 1 more point than us because our offense couldn't score any points.

If you're going to compare our 09 defense to Michigan State's, you have to compare offenses as well, because the two are inextricably linked. Their offense is much, much better than our 2009 offense was.

I cant agree with that whatsoever. Our '09 offense scored considerable amount of points againt the non con pushovers. Michigan St? They needed multiple defensive scores-PER GAME-to avoid an 0-3 start. Nebraska's 'offense was a better, and, in my opinion, it's not even close.

 

[Landlord]

Bottom line, a stellar D can get beat.

If they have a really poor offense...

I cant agree with that whatsoever. Our '09 offense scored considerable amount of points againt the non con pushovers. Michigan St? They needed multiple defensive scores-PER GAME-to avoid an 0-3 start. Nebraska's 'offense was a better, and, in my opinion, it's not even close.

Our offense was pretty good in the non-conference, with Zac Lee healthy and a full playbook. But during conference play they were absolutely worthless by design - it's not that we were a bunch of jv third-stringers, but they produced nothing, because the coaches consciously decided to completely shut down any attempts of attack.

Michigan State is kind of the opposite really. They used their first three games and the safety of their elite defense to experiment and find out what worked on the offensive side of the ball, namely at quarterback. They've been quite decent since the start of conference play.

 

[whateveritis1224]

Bottom line, a stellar D can get beat.

If they have a really poor offense...

I cant agree with that whatsoever. Our '09 offense scored considerable amount of points againt the non con pushovers. Michigan St? They needed multiple defensive scores-PER GAME-to avoid an 0-3 start. Nebraska's 'offense was a better, and, in my opinion, it's not even close.

Our offense was pretty good in the non-conference, with Zac Lee healthy and a full playbook. But during conference play they were absolutely worthless by design - it's not that we were a bunch of jv third-stringers, but they produced nothing, because the coaches consciously decided to completely shut down any attempts of attack.

Michigan State is kind of the opposite really. They used their first three games and the safety of their elite defense to experiment and find out what worked on the offensive side of the ball, namely at quarterback. They've been quite decent since the start of conference play.

It's hard to call MSU's offense decent. If anything their just on the side of OK. You can't be decent and score only 7 against Purdue (pretty sure they got a defensive TD).

 

[Landlord]

Bottom line, a stellar D can get beat.

If they have a really poor offense...

I cant agree with that whatsoever. Our '09 offense scored considerable amount of points againt the non con pushovers. Michigan St? They needed multiple defensive scores-PER GAME-to avoid an 0-3 start. Nebraska's 'offense was a better, and, in my opinion, it's not even close.

Our offense was pretty good in the non-conference, with Zac Lee healthy and a full playbook. But during conference play they were absolutely worthless by design - it's not that we were a bunch of jv third-stringers, but they produced nothing, because the coaches consciously decided to completely shut down any attempts of attack.

Michigan State is kind of the opposite really. They used their first three games and the safety of their elite defense to experiment and find out what worked on the offensive side of the ball, namely at quarterback. They've been quite decent since the start of conference play.

It's hard to call MSU's offense decent. If anything their just on the side of OK. You can't be decent and score only 7 against Purdue (pretty sure they got a defensive TD).

Our 2010 offense was better than decent and scored 6 points against Texas A&M.

 

[skersfan]

Their dismal offense has outscored the last four opponents by a measily 90 points. How many has our dynamic offense put up? Give the credit, they are not a bad football team, better than ours currently. Not saying we can not win the game, but it is going to be a hard fought battle to do so. Our OC is going to have to call his best game EVER!!!! and the D that has played the last 6 quarters needs to show, and maybe be a little better.

 

[admo]

Woh Woh Woh. So you think that our defense from years ago is better than MSU, even though we lost 4 games that year as you noted. But we have a better offense therefore we have a great chance of winning as you mention? I don't understand. Maybe a defense that is near the best in the country is something to overlook with kool aid. It's not like field position, forcing punts, causing turnovers, disguising coverage, stopping the run, and even scoring from the defense is ok to brush off because they do not have names of Suh/Amukamara/Gomes, etc. Wow okay then.

 

[admo]

I'm a big Cornhusker fan too. I'm just saying a win is awesome. Until it happens, they deserve to be the favorite to beat us. No shame in that man.

 

[lo country]

Woh Woh Woh. So you think that our defense from years ago is better than MSU, even though we lost 4 games that year as you noted. But we have a better offense therefore we have a great chance of winning as you mention? I don't understand. Maybe a defense that is near the best in the country is something to overlook with kool aid. It's not like field position, forcing punts, causing turnovers, disguising coverage, stopping the run, and even scoring from the defense is ok to brush off because they do not have names of Suh/Amukamara/Gomes, etc. Wow okay then.

No. I think their D is incredible. Ours, IMO, in 2009 was better, YET we still lost 4 games. That is my point. A stellar D can be beat. Our D should be able to stop their O. Their system (less mobile QB) is one that BO has proven time and time again to be able to beat. If our O can score, limit TO's and Beck calls his a$$ off I like our chances in a brawl at home. I do think we have a great chance of winning. We need to have the O play the best game of their season.

I also agree with your above. They are the favorite and for a reason. regardless of their competition, you don't put up those type of defensive stats without being good. I am hoping, with all of our young guys, we will look like their D in a year or two.