Good grief

[cornstar]

I hate how people talk about T.O. on this board. I love that man. I would've done anything to play for him. I went to the football camps, starting lifting weights when I was 11. Now I'm 40 and my back and neck are all screwed up but I don't care I would do it again. Even before he won championships I was proud of him and our team. We were tough none of this pass happy crap. Maybe some of it was because he is from Nebraska, I dont know. But he is one of the the greatest coaches of all time. A little more respect would be nice. I like Riley as a person, but to compare him to T.O. is silly.

I've read a lot of stuff about Riley that compares him to Osborne. That's not a dis on Osborne, it's a compliment to Riley.
We can still be tough, even with a balanced offense.

No.

It's a dis to Osborne, the hall of famer. There is no real comparison.

Riley will never come close to Osborne's greatness, and to say he will is an insult.

 

[Elf]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

I was around, there was tons of grumbling and finger pointing by fans. In between Steve Taylor and Tommie Frazier, NU had some quarterbacks that were certainly less than stellar as well. Guys like Mickey Joseph and Keithen McCant were adequate but they were by no means elite quarterbacks. Mike Grant's ineptness at throwing the ball is imo, the catalyst that saw Tommie Frazier take the field as a true freshman.
People remember Osborne's 60-3 run and forget about all the blood, sweat and tears that got him there.

Tons of grumbling but also plenty of people pleading patience and giving support to our nice guy coach who represented the state so well.

The more things change.....

Funny how Keithen was "adequate" yet he was all Big 8.

Maybe if he, Crouch, Lord, and Gdowski were "pro style " yet led us to nothing (like Zac Taylor) they'd be thought of as at least good.

It's crazy how Osborne led us to so many Championships without a pro style offense or QB.

Osborne did lead us to conference championships with a pro style offense. He did that in the 70's. It was also his pro style offense that won back to back National titles in '70 and '71 when he was Devaney's offensive coordinator.

I forgot about Gdowski, thanks. He only got to start one year but he was fantastic imo. And that kid could throw the ball in addition to being an excellent runner.

I stand by my statement that Keithen McCant was adequate. I will gladly concede that he was the best of the bunch I mentioned earlier, but he still wasn't an elite quarterback. Back then we were still in the Big 8 and most years that conference could have been called the "Big 2 and the Little 6", and in fact, sometimes it was. Nebraska and Oklahoma put lots and lots of kids on the All Big Eight teams simply because most years we stood head and shoulders above the other 6 teams.

 

[Elf]

I hate how people talk about T.O. on this board. I love that man. I would've done anything to play for him. I went to the football camps, starting lifting weights when I was 11. Now I'm 40 and my back and neck are all screwed up but I don't care I would do it again. Even before he won championships I was proud of him and our team. We were tough none of this pass happy crap. Maybe some of it was because he is from Nebraska, I dont know. But he is one of the the greatest coaches of all time. A little more respect would be nice. I like Riley as a person, but to compare him to T.O. is silly.

I've read a lot of stuff about Riley that compares him to Osborne. That's not a dis on Osborne, it's a compliment to Riley.
We can still be tough, even with a balanced offense.

No.

It's a dis to Osborne, the hall of famer. There is no real comparison.

Riley will never come close to Osborne's greatness, and to say he will is an insult.

No one that I know of, on this board or irl, has ever made that claim.

I will say this, Osborne is not a god but he was one of the very best head coaches of all time and imo that applies to all levels of football. And again, no one I know of here, or irl, would contradict that.

Where the comparisons to Osborne come in is in how Riley conducts himself and in how he does things. Osborne always did his best to do things the right way and so does Riley for example.

 

[Elf]

Not so much. Spend all your time worrying about being balanced.

Who's worried about being balanced? Well, I suppose Riley and Langsdorf are.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

good god! some Husker fans have me wondering what the Eff they are doing on a husker board. everything is doom and gloom at all times. is there anything you guys like about husker football besides the excuse to spout your extreme pessimism all the time? think i will step away and leave you guys to wallow in your own crap...you certainly seem to enjoy it.

sorry after a long enough time you get jaded

Jaded? That is fine, we've all been there at some point.

But honestly, there are some posters on here who can't see the good things happening within the program if it was a sign 10 feet tall with 9,000 point font, if it was right in front of them, and flashing.

Do those good things indicate we will win the conference or even the division in the next 3 yrs! Do they indicate we won't be blown out again on national TV ?

Nebraska was in terrific "position" to win the Big 10 west this year.

We went into Madison ranked 8th nationally if I recall, we were 7-0. If Nebraska beats Wisconsin, what happens then? Do we beat Ohio State? Maybe, maybe not, but I wager if we lose it would have been a helluva lot closer than 59.

We lose close to Ohio State, or do the unthinkable and win, and how does that change the perception of Mike Riley, our talent level, our schemes, etc. While it wouldn't completely shut up the naysayers, they would be really quiet right about now.

Nebraska was incredibly close this season. I cannot see into the future. I do not know what tomorrow's game against Tennessee will turn out like, much less forecasting the entire 2017 season right now.

 

[marko polo]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

And here's the thing about that competition. 40 years ago Nebraska was in the upper tier with Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, USC and perhaps a couple others. Every one of those programs still expects to compete at the highest levels. 30 years ago, Florida, Florida State and Miami entered the elite. Washington, too. They still expect to compete at the highest levels. In the last decade Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Clemson. Va. Tech and pretty much the entire SEC expects to compete at the highest levels. And if you're looking for a patsy, you can't count on beating Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Boise State, Utah, Houston or Louisville anymore. For that matter, you better watch your a$$ against North Dakota State and Appallacian State.

At least for continuity, Kansas still sucks.

But the college football landscape has more legitimate programs fighting over the same limited resources with the same level of fan expectation.

We had one rough patch of bowl games between 88-93 but other than that we were beating the top teams in the land or losing very close games to the best teams in the land. maybe that is why we would always be ranked at the end of the yr and usually in the top ten.. Other than this yrs. little faux stint in the top 10 I don't look for us to reside there much.

There is a huge diff between then and now.

 

[fb30]

Usually during that rough patch we were playing the best team in the nation. So it really wasn't even a rough patch just a bad match up. We actually played respectfully in those games.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

It is true that TO was criticized for 'not winning the big ones' at times because we didn't win those big games vs OU on Thanksgiving in the Switzer era. OU was the best in the country (like Bama today) and we were a notch to big and slow in the LBs and DEs mostly. That darned Sooner Wishbone was unstoppable for the most part - a big reason why Osborne adopted many of its features when he turned to the option oriented approach dubbed "the Osbone" by the late 90s.

Ultimately, recruiting a notch or two higher enabled Tom to finally climb the mountain (along with OU's scandals and coaching mis-hires that followed Barry's move to Dallas which opened the door to our ascendency to the throne. Osborne proved, when OU got in trouble, that with enough talent, he could outcoach them all and he was the nation's best in the 1990s. He could have stayed on top for another decade had he elected to stay. His retirement (the timing anyway) remains the biggest unsolved mystery of Husker football in the past 50 years! Why then? Many theories and I suppose I have some myself but suffice it to say that during Tom Osborne's tenure, the teams remained nationally relevant at all times and rarely dropped out of the top twenty rankings. I believe his teams may have been ranked at year's end EVERY year for his 25 year reign. I am not sure but I suppose Nebraska has not been in the top 25 many times in the 20 years since despite the best efforts of Solich, Callahan, Pelini and Riley!

There really is not debating the facts: Nebraska used to be better than we are today and the 'mediocrity' which we all so desperately wanted to avoid continues to hang over us like those late June thunder clouds, ready to dump all over us once again.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.

Yeah. It's too much to ask.

It's not just Nebraska getting squeezed out over the last 20 years. There are a lot more football programs demanding excellence and competing for what may be a dwindling number of game-changing recruits.

You know all the unsatisfying 9 win seasons we've had of late? Tom Osborne had them, too, for the first 20 years of his career. They were still good enough to keep the Huskers ranked because the competition wasn't as deep as it is today. By your standards we should have been tired of Tom Osborne's weak sauce around his fifth season. A lot of people were.

I think there are 128 teams out there. Some years nobody wins them all. Not even Alabama. Every team we think we'd like to be has a fan board bitching about what they'd do differently and who they should have hired and fired. Everybody's goal is to win them all, but 127 teams will go away disappointed.

Well ol wise sage it was alot easier to swallow those 9 win seasons when you show up in the big games and represent and then usually wind up in the top 10 at the end of the yr. That is a far cry from the black hole of mediocrity we are circling now. Oh and btw the competition was plenty tough back then. I know I was around.

Are you sure you were around in those days? Nebraska was famous for not showing up in big games. Tom Osborne had a reputation for not being a big game coach. Barry Switzer owned him -- many of those Oklahoma games were nationally televised humiliations -- and Osborne had a terrible bowl record for years. Combined with the Oklahoma losses, it appeared to most that the Husker's could physically dominate weaker teams, but the power game got exposed late in the season when the competition was elite. If you're saying that was still better than what we have today....sure. But if you think those 9 win seasons -- with the two late losses -- didn't create the same grumbling heard on this board, you weren't around.

And here's the thing about that competition. 40 years ago Nebraska was in the upper tier with Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, USC and perhaps a couple others. Every one of those programs still expects to compete at the highest levels. 30 years ago, Florida, Florida State and Miami entered the elite. Washington, too. They still expect to compete at the highest levels. In the last decade Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Clemson. Va. Tech and pretty much the entire SEC expects to compete at the highest levels. And if you're looking for a patsy, you can't count on beating Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Boise State, Utah, Houston or Louisville anymore. For that matter, you better watch your a$$ against North Dakota State and Appallacian State.

At least for continuity, Kansas still sucks.

But the college football landscape has more legitimate programs fighting over the same limited resources with the same level of fan expectation.

We had one rough patch of bowl games between 88-93 but other than that we were beating the top teams in the land or losing very close games to the best teams in the land. maybe that is why we would always be ranked at the end of the yr and usually in the top ten.. Other than this yrs. little faux stint in the top 10 I don't look for us to reside there much.

There is a huge diff between then and now.

Yet nothing in my post isn't true.

 

[junior4949]

I'm almost 42, and I vividly remember the jokes about Nebraska when I was in grade school and high school about this time of year. What's the difference between cheerios and Nebraska? Cheerios belong in a bowl. You could interchange Nebraska with Denver Broncos around this time also when Dan Reeves was the coach.

It is complete revisionist history to imply Nebraska was hanging with the elite teams throughout TO's career. In the late 80's and early 90's, we were getting boat raced in just about every bowl game we played against those teams. Heck, the 91' season we never even scored a single point in the bowl game against Miami.

For most of my years that I remember Husker football, the Big 8 was comprised of two good teams with the rest being very average. It was us and OU until they got beat like a redheaded stepchild by the NCAA. Then, it was us and Colorado. TO's record against Barry Switzer was a whopping 5-12. When it was us and OU, we usually ended up on the losing end of the stick. When Bill McCartney became HC at CU, he had a bit of rebuilding to do considering it had been a half dozen years or so since CU had even won enough games to be bowl eligible. Once the rebuilding process was over, the Big 8 had was pretty much down to CU and us. This is when CU handed us a couple losses and a tie.

Around the 90'-91' seasons, we were struggling. The 90' season we finished just barely ranked coming in at #24 after getting throttled our last two games by unranked OU and eventual NC Georgia Tech. The 91's season produced a three score loss at home to Washington capped off with a total beatdown in the bowl game against Miami where we never even put a single point on the board. Whether any of the rumblings during this timeframe had legs or not, there were rumblings and rumors that TO's job was in serious jeopardy. It was around this time where the program was in similar shape to where we are now. In 1990, we played only two ranked teams. We lost both of them plus an additional game. We were not competitive at all with the elite programs. It is eerily similar to the 2016 season. Heck, it was eerily similar to the 2003 season.

 

[fb30]

Most of those teams we played in bowls in that time period were national champions. We shouldn't even been playing them. Losing by 2 or 3 touchdowns to most of those teams wasn't getting blown out and was respectable for the teams we had at that time. The program now is nowhere close to what it was back then.

 

[junior4949]

Most of those teams we played in bowls in that time period were national champions. We shouldn't even been playing them. Losing by 2 or 3 touchdowns to most of those teams wasn't getting blown out and was respectable for the teams we had at that time. The program now is nowhere close to what it was back then.

Um, wasn't it said we were hanging with and sometimes beating elite teams? Wouldn't a NC be considered an elite team? The rules have changed definitely favoring offenses. Losing by 2 or 3 TDs then is comparable to losing by 4 to 5 TDs today. Whether you want to admit it or not, we were losing to almost every ranked team we played during the 90' and 91' seasons. We lost in 90' 45-10 against unranked OU. Try to spin it any way you like, but we were very comparable in that time frame to where we are right now. It's very comparable to exactly where we were in 03'.

 

[fb30]

Marco polo said we had a rough patch from 88-93 in bowls. Off and on before that we were competing with and beating elite teams. Getting beat by 2 to 3 touchdowns is getting beat by 2 to 3 touchdowns not 4 to 5 I don't care what has changed. And it really isn't comparable we were a few good recruits and a defensive philosophy change away from being elite. We are not that close right now. 03 yes is comparable.

 

[marko polo]

Most of those teams we played in bowls in that time period were national champions. We shouldn't even been playing them. Losing by 2 or 3 touchdowns to most of those teams wasn't getting blown out and was respectable for the teams we had at that time. The program now is nowhere close to what it was back then.

Um, wasn't it said we were hanging with and sometimes beating elite teams? Wouldn't a NC be considered an elite team? The rules have changed definitely favoring offenses. Losing by 2 or 3 TDs then is comparable to losing by 4 to 5 TDs today. Whether you want to admit it or not, we were losing to almost every ranked team we played during the 90' and 91' seasons. We lost in 90' 45-10 against unranked OU. Try to spin it any way you like, but we were very comparable in that time frame to where we are right now. It's very comparable to exactly where we were in 03'.

1969 Sun Georgia 45-6 W 1970 Orange LSU 17-12 W 1971 Orange Alabama 38-6 W 1972 Orange Notre Dame 40-6 W 1973 Cotton Texas 19-3 W 1974 Sugar Florida 13-10 W 1975 Fiesta Arizona State 14-17 L 1976 Bluebonnet Texas Tech 27-24 W 1977 Liberty North Carolina 21-17 W 1978 Orange Oklahoma 24-31 L 1979 Cotton Houston 14-17 L 1980 Sun Mississippi State 31-17 W 1981 Orange Clemson 15-22 L 1982 Orange LSU 21-20 W 1983 Orange Miami (Fla.) 30-31 L 1984 Sugar LSU 28-10 W 1985 Fiesta Michigan 23-27 L 1986 Sugar LSU 30-15 W 1987 Fiesta Florida State 28-31 L 1988 Orange Miami (Fla.) 3-23 L 1989 Fiesta Florida State 17-41 L 1990 Citrus Georgia Tech 21-45 L 1991 Orange Miami (Fla.) 0-22 L 1992 Orange Florida State 14-27 L 1993 Orange Florida State 16-18 L 1994 Orange Miami (Fla.) 24-17 W 1995 Fiesta Florida 62-14 W 1996 Orange Virginia Tech 41-21 W 1997 Orange Tennessee 42-17 W 1998 Holiday Arizona 20-23 L 1999 Fiesta Tennessee 31-21 W

Better think again JUNIOR!!! blow out my a$$ Us boat raced you sir are full of sh#t!

 

[Elf]

Usually during that rough patch we were playing the best team in the nation. So it really wasn't even a rough patch just a bad match up. We actually played respectfully in those games.

Not always. In fact, during that '87-'93 stretch I'd say our play was only respectable in '87 with a 28-31 loss to Florida St and again in '93 when we lost to Florida St. 16-17.

'88 We lost to Miami, 3-23

'89 We lost to Florida St. 17-41

'90 We lost to Georgia Tech 21-45

'91 We lost to Miami 0-22

'92 We lost to Flrida St 14-27

If I counted right, Osborne's overall bowl record is 12-13 including 7 straight losses from '87 to '93.

*Edit* I'd say we got boat-raced from '88-'91 in bowl games. We were NOT competitive in those games.