I agree they are probably the most physical teams out there today. I still don't think they are as physical as teams in the past. Teams today are more athletic and try to run around other teams not through them.
Martinez and the NFL
- Thread starter MichiganDad3
- Start date
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Here's how I see the difference between the eras:
In Nebraska's Glory Days, our linemen were the rock stars and the so-called "skill" positions benefitted from that. Frazier and Frost wouldn't have become famous on other teams. Everyone looks better on a team where both sides of the line are winning the push.
In the Callahan and Pelini years, we had some genuine flash at the skill positions, but lost our pipeline of linemen. No amount of skill can prevail when both side of the line are losing the push.
Scheme, recruiting and attitude enjoyed a perfect storm between '81 - '83 and again in '93 - '97. But it's hard to pull off. "Offensive Identity" isn't really the problem. But maybe attitude is. For years Nebraska made a commitment to win games in the trenches. Should we decide to pass the ball even more, it's still going to hinge on how well we do in the trenches.
In Nebraska's Glory Days, our linemen were the rock stars and the so-called "skill" positions benefitted from that. Frazier and Frost wouldn't have become famous on other teams. Everyone looks better on a team where both sides of the line are winning the push.
In the Callahan and Pelini years, we had some genuine flash at the skill positions, but lost our pipeline of linemen. No amount of skill can prevail when both side of the line are losing the push.
Scheme, recruiting and attitude enjoyed a perfect storm between '81 - '83 and again in '93 - '97. But it's hard to pull off. "Offensive Identity" isn't really the problem. But maybe attitude is. For years Nebraska made a commitment to win games in the trenches. Should we decide to pass the ball even more, it's still going to hinge on how well we do in the trenches.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree it didn't happen as much as Guy remembers, but it did happen more than Lo thinks it did.
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Uhm....it happened exactly as much as I remember.
I never said the Osborne and Pelini eras were comparable, just countering the assertion that "Tom Osborne may have lost, but was never beaten."
Osborne was beaten - and beaten badly enough to get some of the same grief given Pelini. That's just a fact.
If anyone wants to take a painful trip down memory lane, I'll go fetch the stats.
I didn't take it as you comparing the two eras either so I'm not sure where the ire from others is coming from.
The truth is this - some of TO's teams did get beaten up on and badly. I think the big difference we can all agree on is that many of TO's worst losses came at the hands of very good teams. The losses weren't to a 7 win team to the tune of 70-31. They were to big time opponents. In fact, only one loss of 11 points or more during TO's time came against an unranked Oklahoma. Here's some stats gathered by CleetusVanDamme on 247sports. Losses by only 10 points or more.
45-10 v. Oklahoma in 1990
38-7 v. #3 Oklahoma in 1977
27-0 v. #3 Oklahoma in 1973
35-10 v. #7 Oklahoma in 1975
45-21 v. #2 Georgia Tech in 1990
41-17 v. #5 Florida St. in 1989
22-0 v. #1 Miami in 1991
27-7 v. #5 Oklahoma in 1985
23-3 v. #2 Miami in 1988
19-0 v. #17 Arizona St.
20-3 v. #1 Alabama in 1978
27-12 v. #9 Colorado in 1990
36-21 v. #4 Washington in 1991
29-14 v. #2 Washington in 1992
28-14 v. #6 Oklahoma in 1974
41-28 v. #5 UCLA in 1988
27-14 v. #3 Florida St. in 1992
Notes
17 career losses by 11 points or more
11 career losses by 17 points or more
9 career losses by 20 points or more
6 losses by 24 points or more
2 losses by 31 points or more
Only one loss of 11 points or more occurred v. an unranked team (Oklahoma.)
His 4 worst losses came at the hands of Oklahoma
Oklahoma showed up on this list a total of 6 times
Wash, FSU, and Miami each showed up twice
5 of these losses came in bowl games
The late 80's to early 90's was the worst period
Last edited by a moderator:
Savage Husker
All-Conference
Even Osbornes win in '78 to finally break the ice was a fluke win, unless you don't count 5+ turnovers committed by OU being a fluke, including the most critical one as they were mounting the comeback inside NUs territory and coughing it up for the last time with about a minute to play. Followed that up by choking against Mizzou the following week before OU got a rematch in the bowl game and paid us back in dominating fashion.
It wasnt until '79 that NU consistently played OU competitively before rattling off a streak of wins in the 80s and through the 90s. There were some ugly losses in the 70s during TOs first years, which does raise comparisons of Pelini/TO first 7-8 years.
It wasnt until '79 that NU consistently played OU competitively before rattling off a streak of wins in the 80s and through the 90s. There were some ugly losses in the 70s during TOs first years, which does raise comparisons of Pelini/TO first 7-8 years.
No ire from me. We just have different views of what often is, and yes a lot of his big loses were to OU. Trust me I remember TO's early teams. If I had a nickle for every time my older brother said he wasn't Devaney, I would have a lot nickels. Some of those games were worse than they look also. That 1988 loss to UCLA wasn't even that close. NU scored a couple of late TD to make it look closer. They were down 27 pts at one point in the second half. Terry Donahue called off the dogs.
Last edited by a moderator:
An 11 point loss is not a blowout
Losing to the #1 or #1 - 2-3 ranked team at the time isnt awful
There are some real blue Blood top teams on that list, Bama, Washington at the time, OU, FSU, Miami
Getting blown out by Wisconsin or even by your definition Iowa or Minnesota is awful
NU played in better bowl game- better opponents than Pelini/Callahan
No comparison at all- teams-coaches were night and day apart
NU was a feared National Power more often than not mentioned in the hunt for the National Title at some point in the season- 12 of 25
Under Pelini/Callahan- the National Title talk would have been zero
2 losses by 31 points or more in 307 games- take that all day long
Osbone lost by 31- ,065% of the time
Bo lost by 31+ 5.3% of the time- almost 10X as much as TO
TO lost 17 games of 307 by 11 or more- 5.5 % of the time
Bo lost 15 games of 94 by 11 or more - almost same number of losses in 213 fewer games- 16% of the time- almost 3X as much as TO
No comparison
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said 11 points was a blowout, and as I stated in my post, I agree that there is no comparison between eras.
Again, as Guy stated and as I'm stating, we're simply pointing out TO did lose some bad games. Yes, they often came to far better opponents and yes there are a million other factors at play here. That doesn't change the fact TO still had some bad losses. We can him and hum the specifics and all the variables. A poster said TO lost but was never beaten - this information contradicts that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some bad losses?
2 losses by 31 or more in 307 - games, 25 years isnt worth talking about
ONCE every 153 games
BO OTOH- 5 times in 94 games- ONCE every 19 games or so
Same for 17 losses by 11 or more in 307 games- thats about 1 in every 20 games compared to Bo which was 1 of every 6 games
Like you- I dont agree that an 11 point loss is a blowout
2 losses by 31 or more in 307 - games, 25 years isnt worth talking about
ONCE every 153 games
BO OTOH- 5 times in 94 games- ONCE every 19 games or so
Same for 17 losses by 11 or more in 307 games- thats about 1 in every 20 games compared to Bo which was 1 of every 6 games
Like you- I dont agree that an 11 point loss is a blowout
Last edited by a moderator:
This doesn't change the fact that the losses happened. Someone made a claim and I provided information disputing that claim. Nothing more.
Unless, of course, you're arguing people should be allowed to make claims without providing any factual evidence? I doubt that.
I agree with you. I too think TO's bad losses are largely incomparable to BP's for multiple reasons. But, again, this doesn't change the fact that the claim was simply not true. Using your same analogy - just because the chance of getting struck by lightning is low does not change the fact that people have been struck by lightning.
The weight or attention that should be paid to TO's losses is an argument for someone else. That wasn't my intention for posting the data.
I guess the end result is it happened once every 153 games
So when it did happen, you knew it was a complete aberration- like when someone getting hit by lightning- not common place like Bos teams
Under TO I never thought to myself- well it looks like we lose this one by 30+
With Bo- all the meltdowns his teams had- I felt that way often- Here we go again are we going to get blown out yet again? You just never knew
So when it did happen, you knew it was a complete aberration- like when someone getting hit by lightning- not common place like Bos teams
Under TO I never thought to myself- well it looks like we lose this one by 30+
With Bo- all the meltdowns his teams had- I felt that way often- Here we go again are we going to get blown out yet again? You just never knew