Interesting discussion about NU on KU board

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Screw Kansas and the Jayhawk they rode in on

 

[NoKoolAidForME]

I don't agree with the thought that YPG is more important than PPG. I will however agree with one of the posters that Special teams play a significant role. (1st never thought I would agree with a KU fan. 2nd I am not discrediting our defensive effort last year.) I don't think there is anyway you could look at our defensive statistics and not think that having Alex Henery kick 60 and 70 yard bombs pining the opposing offenses inside the 10 didn't help. Beside Adi's kick out of bounds in the Texas game all he did was kick touch-backs last year. An Offenses philosophy changes when they are playing with their backs that close to the end zone.

 

[knapplc]

I think the funniest or the most stupid comment was about a scoring defense vs yards allowed. The one KU fan stated a team is more effective having a defense giving up less yards than having one giving up less points.

The guy explained it and it was a valid point. He basically said that no specific metric is a perfect identifier of how good a defense is. The flaw in Points Allowed is that it encompasses points given up by offensive turnovers as well as run-backs on special teams. The flaw in Yards Allowed is that it doesn't measure the stat most directly related to wins, points.

I thought they had a good discussion.

I don't get some people here bashing the discussions on this site, though. Look at the KU thread - there are rational, well-thought-out posts and a couple of nonsense posts. Holding that up as some paragon of message boards while comparing them to this board... not getting it.

I sometimes wonder why some people are members here when they clearly do not respect the other members. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[northtxhusker]

I didn't read all of that, but if there's hype to be bought, I can't say I'm buying it either. And I don't blame fans of other teams not crowning our asses at this point. Why would they? We finished 14th in the polls, lost by far our best player, and have no evidence that our offense will suddenly become less pathetic. And now we're suddenly supposed to be a top ten team? Doesn't seem to equate. Although there is potential, and the schedule is favorable, I have no problem with any poll that doesn't have us in the top 15 preseason.

Now, if we go to Seattle and dominate a pretty good Washington team, I'll start to be less temperate with the Kool Aid.

:koolaid2:

i agree with most of what you said except for the highlighted portion. i dont think our injuries on the offensive side of the ball can be understated. our line should improve and is getting lots more depth, our RB's should be healthy and our QB should improve(and should be healthy) as long as they stay healthy I think our offense takes a massive step forward.

These are all just assumptions though. That's why I used the word "evidence"... I don't think there is actually any of that regarding an improved offense. We can speculate and say that it should get better or we think it will take a step forward, but I don't see much to back up those feelings. Look at Lee's performance against VT and compare to the one against Texas. Was there improvement there? I sure didn't see any. You can blame the injury, but the problems I saw sure looked more psychological than physical. Regarding the running backs health, well, same thing... why assume they will be healthy when they weren't able to stay that way last year? Helu has struggled with injuries his whole career. And the offensive line, well I guess the Holiday Bowl was promising. As far as "lots more depth", I'm not sure what you mean.

Hey, hopefully something clicks and the offense finally starts to look moderately formidable, but I won't be holding my breath.

We have 4 returning starters 3 or 4 redshirt freshman coming up, add Hardrick and Rodriguez and that makes 9 or 10 quality guys fighting for 5 spots. That can't make the line worse it can only make it better. With an improved offensive line this offense will become a lot better than last year.

 

[jnkyrdoff6]

I think the funniest or the most stupid comment was about a scoring defense vs yards allowed. The one KU fan stated a team is more effective having a defense giving up less yards than having one giving up less points.

The guy explained it and it was a valid point. He basically said that no specific metric is a perfect identifier of how good a defense is. The flaw in Points Allowed is that it encompasses points given up by offensive turnovers as well as run-backs on special teams. The flaw in Yards Allowed is that it doesn't measure the stat most directly related to wins, points.

I thought they had a good discussion.

I don't get some people here bashing the discussions on this site, though. Look at the KU thread - there are rational, well-thought-out posts and a couple of nonsense posts. Holding that up as some paragon of message boards while comparing them to this board... not getting it.

I sometimes wonder why some people are members here when they clearly do not respect the other members. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

You're right. I agree with that 100%, and the author was right when he said that. It's just that it was almost like the author was trying to pick out our two worst statistics and post those, totally excluding all others to back up his point. It didn't make much sense to me. There was a lot less Nebraska bashing on there than I expected though.

 

[Blackshirtsguru]

I think the funniest or the most stupid comment was about a scoring defense vs yards allowed. The one KU fan stated a team is more effective having a defense giving up less yards than having one giving up less points.

The guy explained it and it was a valid point. He basically said that no specific metric is a perfect identifier of how good a defense is. The flaw in Points Allowed is that it encompasses points given up by offensive turnovers as well as run-backs on special teams. The flaw in Yards Allowed is that it doesn't measure the stat most directly related to wins, points.

I thought they had a good discussion.

I don't get some people here bashing the discussions on this site, though. Look at the KU thread - there are rational, well-thought-out posts and a couple of nonsense posts. Holding that up as some paragon of message boards while comparing them to this board... not getting it.

I sometimes wonder why some people are members here when they clearly do not respect the other members. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

But the bottom line is the Defense that keeps the other team from scoring wins. The yards against is just stats (fluff) in my opinion.

 

[Ringer02]

Interesting discussion?, sounded more like ramblings of ill informed retards.....oh sh#t sarah palins coming after me!

 

[hskerprid]

I think the funniest or the most stupid comment was about a scoring defense vs yards allowed. The one KU fan stated a team is more effective having a defense giving up less yards than having one giving up less points.

The guy explained it and it was a valid point. He basically said that no specific metric is a perfect identifier of how good a defense is. The flaw in Points Allowed is that it encompasses points given up by offensive turnovers as well as run-backs on special teams. The flaw in Yards Allowed is that it doesn't measure the stat most directly related to wins, points.

I thought they had a good discussion.

I don't get some people here bashing the discussions on this site, though. Look at the KU thread - there are rational, well-thought-out posts and a couple of nonsense posts. Holding that up as some paragon of message boards while comparing them to this board... not getting it.

I sometimes wonder why some people are members here when they clearly do not respect the other members. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Care to clarify?

 

[NUance]

Naw—this is better than I would have expected from KU *football* fans. You gotta consider, football did not exist in any recognizable form at KU until just a few years back.

Poking around the site, Turner Gill did a fine job on the LOI presser. Gill is more well spoken than any Husker coach I can remember. (I never heard the Bobfather speak.)

 

[junior4949]

I'm having a little trouble figuring how they deem Nebraska finished 4th in the Big 12 last year. I'd say definitely #2 or possibly #3. However, I thought they made some very valid points. We did lose Suh which is huge. We did lose Dillard. We did lose Turner. IMO, those are three huge losses on the D. Turner's speed and athletic ability was huge. Texas ran to the outside on Bama. They didn't have a chance against us because of Turner's speed to get up field and turn everything to the inside. The weak link on our D next year may very well be in the LB corp. If they think we don't have a QB, how do they feel about the rest of the Big 12? Gabbert may very well be the best QB in the Big 12 in 2010 unless Baylor's QB comes back with a vengeance.

 

[Blackshirtsguru]

I think the funniest or the most stupid comment was about a scoring defense vs yards allowed. The one KU fan stated a team is more effective having a defense giving up less yards than having one giving up less points.

The guy explained it and it was a valid point. He basically said that no specific metric is a perfect identifier of how good a defense is. The flaw in Points Allowed is that it encompasses points given up by offensive turnovers as well as run-backs on special teams. The flaw in Yards Allowed is that it doesn't measure the stat most directly related to wins, points.

I thought they had a good discussion.

I don't get some people here bashing the discussions on this site, though. Look at the KU thread - there are rational, well-thought-out posts and a couple of nonsense posts. Holding that up as some paragon of message boards while comparing them to this board... not getting it.

I sometimes wonder why some people are members here when they clearly do not respect the other members. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Care to clarify?

h34r:

 

[zoogs]

We're a bit of a media darling right now and it is a little over the top. We're getting a lot of hype that will be pretty tough to live up for any team - and it's the first time in a while, so a ton of media guys are jumping on it. I think a little resentment from other teams - and the expectation that we won't be able to live up to this (a reasonable probability, I'd say) - is something we'll just have to start expecting.

 

[brophog]

Several of those posts were mine. Those of you that have followed various Husker message boards for the last 10-15 years may recognize the name, and those that have solely called Huskerboard their home, or have only recently followed various boards may not. I've been around a long time, though I post very infrequently anymore.

If you notice, those were my first and only posts on that site, much as this one here is. I felt that some frame of reference was needed for those that don't follow Husker athletics, and some explanation in terms of statistical analysis was also required.

Furthermore, the context of the topic needed some explanation. Even those of us that do follow the team closely can debate all spring on such subjects as who the QB will be, the battle for DE and DT, which receivers will step up, and who will replace the two starting safeties (amongst other topics). Imagine now an outsider looking at these unknowns and then seeing media, bloggers, and even betting sites pronouncing Nebraska as title hopefuls. Some perspective was needed there. The goal was not for me to sell Nebraska, nor give an intimate breakdown of the roster, but to provide reasoning. I was not there to cause a fight, but provide a framework and let them settle the issues themselves.

For those that may not have noticed, that was the site for the Lawrence newspaper. As is the case these days, most such sites have something akin to a message board. However, these should not be mistaken for forums seen on sports network sites (such as the popular recruiting networks) or independent sites such as Huskerboard. Newspaper sites draw a very different demographic than sites specializing in the discourse of sports talk, and therefore the kinds of discussions one sees is also very different.

 

[knapplc]

Several of those posts were mine. Those of you that have followed various Husker message boards for the last 10-15 years may recognize the name, and those that have solely called Huskerboard their home, or have only recently followed various boards may not. I've been around a long time, though I post very infrequently anymore.

If you notice, those were my first and only posts on that site, much as this one here is. I felt that some frame of reference was needed for those that don't follow Husker athletics, and some explanation in terms of statistical analysis was also required.

Furthermore, the context of the topic needed some explanation. Even those of us that do follow the team closely can debate all spring on such subjects as who the QB will be, the battle for DE and DT, which receivers will step up, and who will replace the two starting safeties (amongst other topics). Imagine now an outsider looking at these unknowns and then seeing media, bloggers, and even betting sites pronouncing Nebraska as title hopefuls. Some perspective was needed there. The goal was not for me to sell Nebraska, nor give an intimate breakdown of the roster, but to provide reasoning. I was not there to cause a fight, but provide a framework and let them settle the issues themselves.

For those that may not have noticed, that was the site for the Lawrence newspaper. As is the case these days, most such sites have something akin to a message board. However, these should not be mistaken for forums seen on sports network sites (such as the popular recruiting networks) or independent sites such as Huskerboard. Newspaper sites draw a very different demographic than sites specializing in the discourse of sports talk, and therefore the kinds of discussions one sees is also very different.

Welcome to HuskerBoard. Make yourself at home! :thumbs

 

[husker rob]

even with the unknowns of the up coming season, i still like the fact that Coach Bo thinks that next years defense will be better than this past defense. if anyone should know, he should.

the offense will have to be better because they cant be much worse. even as bad as the offense played last year NU was the proverbial "Pubic Hair" away from a 13-1 season.

due to the injuries on the offense last season, lack of depth at key positions, and inexperience in the back ups, i say NU still had a great year.

i wonder how much the offense changed because of the injury to Lee's elbow and the fact that Green just was not ready to play last year. i think next year is going to be a lot different offensively and more of the same defensively. NU will never replace Suh, but they will reload with Crick and Baker or Moore.

it will be fun to watch