Few thoughts from OU v NU

[StuckinChicago]

Watch any of Billy C's games from last year former, show me just one where we lined up with two tightends and had both of them stay in and block. There arent any, and they sure as hell werent doing it on 80% of the passing plays that they ran. This offense looks entirely different than it did last year. There are less verticle routes (no fluellen). There are more crossing routes (Swift and Mulkey seeing more time), and more deep outs (Taylor has arm strength that Dailey didnt have) Alot more passing (Oline cant run block) Alot more max protect (Oline cant pass block) Our offensive scheme is not responsible for top, or not putting up points, that can be accredited entirely to poor play on our oline, and by the way, Seppo played right tackle last year as well, tried to transition to left during spring, didnt adjust very well and ended up BACK at right tackle. You swing and miss again.

 

[Hunter94]

i agree with stuckin.......it is a player issue for the most part, the coaches are on the O linemen's asses to improve, which causes then to seek any edge (false starts, penalities, etc.) to try to outman their opponent and until we get some damn talent up front we will struggle........we have the QB's and running backs lined up, those are tough skill positions to fill......we need to get some athletes for the O line positions and some DB's and receivers......we will get there, we will slowly improve, leave the coaches to do their job.......remember Coz held Mizzou to 3 points last year, so when he changed things up he obviously saw something he thought was a better approach....he may have used the same defense against OU, but except for another slow start, we were in the game to the end...remember we are trying to stay competitive and have a chance to win ball games and for the most part we are doing that, to improve we need better play from the O line and we are not getting that........all things equal (and no i do not accept mediocrity) we are about where most realistic people expected us to be.......we should beat KU and KSU and will probably fall to CU.........7-4 and a little bowl bid.....and hopefully some new guys to play upfront next year.....waiting sucks, but we will have to be patient........stay positive and be a FAN!!

hunter

 

[Husker_fan_in_KC]

Also keep in mind that Texas always seemed to be in the "Top 10" or so in recruiting and I believe this is the first year they appear to have done anything with it.

2001: 11-2

2002: 11-2

2003: 10-3

2004: 11-1

2005: 8-0

Those records look pretty good to me. They have finished in the Top 12 each one of those years.(I know this year isn't over yet)

2001: Lost the Big 12 match to Colorado (No titles)

2002: 2nd in the South (tied with OU for #1 but lost to them in the season) (No titles)

2003: 2nd in the South (No titles)

2004: 2nd in the South (No titles)

2005: 1sth in the South and will pry take the Big 12 and play in NC

I believe this is accurate, correct me if I am wrong please. With all the high level "talent" they recruit they have very little hardware to show for it, which was my point. If its nothing but win/loss records we are looking for then that is fine but I thought we wanted titles? Even though Texas does well year in, year out they still have very little to show for it besides the w/l records, which is a damn fine record but what have they done with it?

 

[DJR313]

2001: Lost the Big 12 match to Colorado (No titles)

Holiday Bowl TITLE

2002: 2nd in the South (tied with OU for #1 but lost to them in the season) (No titles)

Cotton Bowl TITLE

2004: 2nd in the South (No titles)

Rose Bowl TITLE

I believe this is accurate, correct me if I am wrong please. With all the high level "talent" they recruit they have very little hardware to show for it, which was my point. If its nothing but win/loss records we are looking for then that is fine but I thought we wanted titles? Even though Texas does well year in, year out they still have very little to show for it besides the w/l records, which is a damn fine record but what have they done with it?

:dis

This is the equivalent of saying Nebraska had a complete failure of a season if they went 11-1 with the one loss being to OU and not winning the conference championship. I think it has been shown that everything needs to click in order for a team to make a National Championship run, and I think this is Texas' year. Other years, they are just a play here or there short. You are correct though, Conference titles do matter, but I just think that Texas shouldn't be slammed for not being able to get over the hump a la Osborne not being able to beat Switzer for years.

 

[Husker_fan_in_KC]

2001: Lost the Big 12 match to Colorado (No titles)

Holiday Bowl TITLE

2002: 2nd in the South (tied with OU for #1 but lost to them in the season) (No titles)

Cotton Bowl TITLE

2004: 2nd in the South (No titles)

Rose Bowl TITLE

I believe this is accurate, correct me if I am wrong please. With all the high level "talent" they recruit they have very little hardware to show for it, which was my point. If its nothing but win/loss records we are looking for then that is fine but I thought we wanted titles? Even though Texas does well year in, year out they still have very little to show for it besides the w/l records, which is a damn fine record but what have they done with it?

:dis

This is the equivalent of saying Nebraska had a complete failure of a season if they went 11-1 with the one loss being to OU and not winning the conference championship. I think it has been shown that everything needs to click in order for a team to make a National Championship run, and I think this is Texas' year. Other years, they are just a play here or there short. You are correct though, Conference titles do matter, but I just think that Texas shouldn't be slammed for not being able to get over the hump a la Osborne not being able to beat Switzer for years.

Sorry when I said titles I ment Division/NC titles, my fault I should have specified which titles I ment.

I am not trying to insult Texas nor say that 10+ win seasons are anything to sneeze at and I know it directly reflects Nebraskas history.

This all started because I was wondering how people define a "good" recruiting class, it just seems that people are using some arbitrary template to argue what is a "good" recruit and what is a "bad" recruit. I used Texas as an example of a team who year after year gets statistically "great" recruiting classes but doesn't do as much with it as others within their division who may have not had as strong of a recruiting classes. Its a basic flaw in the "talent level" arguement that I am trying to understand the other side of.

 

[DJR313]

Sorry when I said titles I ment Division/NC titles, my fault I should have specified which titles I ment.

I am not trying to insult Texas nor say that 10+ win seasons are anything to sneeze at and I know it directly reflects Nebraskas history.

This all started because I was wondering how people define a "good" recruiting class, it just seems that people are using some arbitrary template to argue what is a "good" recruit and what is a "bad" recruit. I used Texas as an example of a team who year after year gets statistically "great" recruiting classes but doesn't do as much with it as others within their division who may have not had as strong of a recruiting classes. Its a basic flaw in the "talent level" arguement that I am trying to understand the other side of.

Understood, but the teams that have been ahead of Texas in recruiting during the time period is USC, Oklahoma, Miami, LSU and possibly Florida and Tennesse. I think the last 2 teams have done far less than Texas in the past 5 years, at least year in year out and have less to show for it as well. Just my .02. You are right though, it is hard to tell what is a good recruit and what is a bad one. It may be 4-5 years before it shows. There were SEVERAL people that were still calling Carson Palmer a bust 3 games into his 5th year Senior season. Now look at him. Chris Simms was a 5 :star prospect, Dorsey was a 2 :star , which one had the better college career? Simms committing to Texas in 99 instead of to Miami gave Texas the #1 recruiting class and Miami fell into #3. But that Miami class proved much more fruitful. One thing I do know, focusing no energy on recruiting for 1/3 of the year is suicide and results in recruiting classes in the 40's, see 01 and 02.

 

[clone]

NU was not outcoached. Stoops implimented his fake when the score was 24-17. No coach in his right mind would go for a fake with only a 7 point lead when they were leading 24-3 to begin with and the other team came back from the deficit.
OU simply outscored Nebraska, plain and simple.

<_< Exactly.

I keep reading stuff on these boards that makes me wonder if we watched the same game. OU won by just 7 points. The run back interception was the only difference in the score. The NU kids climbed out of a 21-3 hole and competed with an OU team that was considered an elite program just two months ago! A team that got their HEISMAN TROPHY RUNNER-UP back in action just for this game. My God folks, it's not the end of the world. You'd think that they lost 77-0! They played hard out there against one of the best defenses in college football.

No running game, sacked nine times and hung in there to lose by only seven points! I don't believe in "moral victiories" and losing just sucks. But, damn it! That is a gutsy performance! :box

Why they keep starting in 14-21 point holes is another matter. I don't want to go there. :bang

They are definitely better than last year and I bet ya that next year they'll be better than this year, and the next year... well you get the picture.

BTW the huskers will win at KU next week. :cheers

 

[hack]

BTW the huskers will win at KU next week. :cheers

if anything, just to really make things messy in the Big 12 North.