Nebraska Preview 2012: Michigan Perspective

[Mierin]

I guess missing Sam Bradford isn't that big of a loss. Man a lot of you lemming aren't very bright are you? If Bradford plays NU gets whipped, it's that simple. OU dominated the game with the exception of the 5 INT's from a freshman QB and are you saying that if Bradford played then it would have ended the same? Suh and Crick played a great game, it had nothing to do with Bo outcoaching anybody. Just look at the stats, NU only had one first down in the first half and 7 for the game. OU had 23 first downs and 325 yards compared to NU who had 180.

Oh and for the guy who said that Green played, yes he did start, but then was pulled after the 1st quarter in favor of Lee. And this was an OU team that ended up at 8-5 becasue of all of the injuries. So it's not like we beat a national title contender.

http://www.huskermax...oklahoma09.html

No, I'm afraid you're the one who isn't very bright, but that's been apparent for awhile now. Please tell me who said we beat a national title contender, because I'm not seeing that. We're not talking about a win over a top 5 team that suddenly lost their quarterback. We beat a 5-3 team who was #20 at the time and hadn't had their quarterback since the 3rd game (and who, by the way, lost their first game with said quarterback). You're an idiot if you automatically assume that just because people are proud of that win, they're remembering wrong and thinking Oklahoma was an excellent team that year. But there is nothing wrong with being proud of that win, regardless.

Now, if you had actually worded your original reply better and stated that you were comparing the 2009 Oklahoma team to the 2008 team, then you might get a bit more slack. But you didn't. And even if you had, your point wouldn't have been well made.

2008: Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009: Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

There is no way in hell that Nebraska would have lost by 34 points even if they'd had Bradford. If Oklahoma had won, say, 24-10, it still would prove the point that the original poster made, that Nebraska improved a great deal in Pelini's second consecutive year in the same conference.

 

[walksalone]

We're just not that into you.

Still bitter about that Crouch guy crucifying touchdown Jesus?

 

['SkersRule]

OU was missing most of their play makers in that game. It was a nice win, but if OU was at full strength, then that would have likely been another double digit loss.

And there's ^^^^ another Husker fan who counts a close win as not only a loss, but a double digit loss to boot.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Because just one emoticon facepalm just isn't enough.

And for the record, OU was missing one player their TE, if I remember correctly. One hardly constitutes most.

I guess missing Sam Bradford isn't that big of a loss. Man a lot of you lemming aren't very bright are you? If Bradford plays NU gets whipped, it's that simple. OU dominated the game with the exception of the 5 INT's from a freshman QB and are you saying that if Bradford played then it would have ended the same? Suh and Crick played a great game, it had nothing to do with Bo outcoaching anybody. Just look at the stats, NU only had one first down in the first half and 7 for the game. OU had 23 first downs and 325 yards compared to NU who had 180.

Oh and for the guy who said that Green played, yes he did start, but then was pulled after the 1st quarter in favor of Lee. And this was an OU team that ended up at 8-5 becasue of all of the injuries. So it's not like we beat a national title contender.

http://www.huskermax...oklahoma09.html

See Moiraine's post above.

You know, it's one thing to say we won a close game, but to count a close win as a double digit loss, is absolutely stupid. And if you're going to go around casting insults then I have a few of my own: Take your pathetic, crybaby, whiny a$$ bullsh** to another board. Or are you too damn stupid to comprehend what I just said? Husker fan my a**. You're about as big of a "Husker fan" as Kirk Herbstriet.

Edit: Apologies to the rest of the board, but I am just fed up with people who think, and I use that word rather loosely, like AFhusker. Nebraska wins a close game and we're lucky because it should have been a loss. But any other team wins a close game and that's "skill" a "great" team, etc.

:rickjames

 

[AFhusker]

I guess missing Sam Bradford isn't that big of a loss. Man a lot of you lemming aren't very bright are you? If Bradford plays NU gets whipped, it's that simple. OU dominated the game with the exception of the 5 INT's from a freshman QB and are you saying that if Bradford played then it would have ended the same? Suh and Crick played a great game, it had nothing to do with Bo outcoaching anybody. Just look at the stats, NU only had one first down in the first half and 7 for the game. OU had 23 first downs and 325 yards compared to NU who had 180.

Oh and for the guy who said that Green played, yes he did start, but then was pulled after the 1st quarter in favor of Lee. And this was an OU team that ended up at 8-5 becasue of all of the injuries. So it's not like we beat a national title contender.

http://www.huskermax...oklahoma09.html

No, I'm afraid you're the one who isn't very bright, but that's been apparent for awhile now. Please tell me who said we beat a national title contender, because I'm not seeing that. We're not talking about a win over a top 5 team that suddenly lost their quarterback. We beat a 5-3 team who was #20 at the time and hadn't had their quarterback since the 3rd game (and who, by the way, lost their first game with said quarterback). You're an idiot if you automatically assume that just because people are proud of that win, they're remembering wrong and thinking Oklahoma was an excellent team that year. But there is nothing wrong with being proud of that win, regardless.

Now, if you had actually worded your original reply better and stated that you were comparing the 2009 Oklahoma team to the 2008 team, then you might get a bit more slack. But you didn't. And even if you had, your point wouldn't have been well made.

2008: Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009: Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

There is no way in hell that Nebraska would have lost by 34 points even if they'd had Bradford. If Oklahoma had won, say, 24-10, it still would prove the point that the original poster made, that Nebraska improved a great deal in Pelini's second consecutive year in the same conference.

Classy, you want to call people names now and then want to hide behind being a "woman" if I respond back in the same fassion that you spoke to me.

So let me lay it out for you since you obivouly don't know squat about what Nebraska football. Yes it was a nice win becaue it was agianst our ex-rival Oklahoma. However, they were listing big wins in Bo's tenure and OU was nice but at NU a big win is a top 10 win and that OU team wasn't ranked.

So you are a fortune teller now by saying that if OU was healthy that they wouldn't have whipped NU again? I don't see it becasue the only reason why NU won was becasue Crick and Suh dominated their injured OL which led their inexperienced QB's to turning the ball over which wouldn't have likely happened if Bradford and Daniel were playing. Both butt kickings that NU recieved in 2008 were while Mizzou had Chase Daniel and OU had Sam Bradford and in 2009 they had Blane Gabbert and Landry Jones in thier first years of their college careers. Do you seriously not think that those made a difference? You really can't compare the two years because they are differnet teams. In 2008 NU had a very good offense (because Bo let Watson run the offense without meddling) and a bad defense. Every since then it's been the opposite which is what you would expect with a defensive minded coach.

In 2009 (and every since then) our offense was pathetic in both of those games, espically the OU game. All we did was try to run the clock out on OU becasue our coaches knew that we didn't have a QB or good enough OL to run a normal offense (only passed the ball 14 times). There was a very good chance that if OU was healthy, that NU would have been taken behind the woodshed just as they were in Norman the year before. And that was with a much better QB in Ganz.

And you act as if I enjoy NU struggling, but I'm just telling the truth. NU's offense under Bo has been terrible to say the least and it's 90% his fault for meddling with both OC's. But why is it bad to state facts that NU was fortunate that OU was beaten up and it helped us win? NU lost a shot at a MNC in 1996 becasue of an injury to Amman Green and the defense catching the flu the day before. the game. If NU was healthy for that game, they likely beat Texass and win another MNC. That's the breaks, but it isn't taking anything away from Bo by saying that we were lucky that OU was missing their Heisman winning QB and maybe the best TE in the country. It also helped that Murry was limited just as Green was in 1996.

 

[AFhusker]

OU was missing most of their play makers in that game. It was a nice win, but if OU was at full strength, then that would have likely been another double digit loss.

And there's ^^^^ another Husker fan who counts a close win as not only a loss, but a double digit loss to boot.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Because just one emoticon facepalm just isn't enough.

And for the record, OU was missing one player their TE, if I remember correctly. One hardly constitutes most.

I guess missing Sam Bradford isn't that big of a loss. Man a lot of you lemming aren't very bright are you? If Bradford plays NU gets whipped, it's that simple. OU dominated the game with the exception of the 5 INT's from a freshman QB and are you saying that if Bradford played then it would have ended the same? Suh and Crick played a great game, it had nothing to do with Bo outcoaching anybody. Just look at the stats, NU only had one first down in the first half and 7 for the game. OU had 23 first downs and 325 yards compared to NU who had 180.

Oh and for the guy who said that Green played, yes he did start, but then was pulled after the 1st quarter in favor of Lee. And this was an OU team that ended up at 8-5 becasue of all of the injuries. So it's not like we beat a national title contender.

http://www.huskermax...oklahoma09.html

See Moiraine's post above.

You know, it's one thing to say we won a close game, but to count a close win as a double digit loss, is absolutely stupid. And if you're going to go around casting insults then I have a few of my own: Take your pathetic, crybaby, whiny a$$ bullsh** to another board. Or are you too damn stupid to comprehend what I just said? Husker fan my a**. You're about as big of a "Husker fan" as Kirk Herbstriet.

Edit: Apologies to the rest of the board, but I am just fed up with people who think, and I use that word rather loosely, like AFhusker. Nebraska wins a close game and we're lucky because it should have been a loss. But any other team wins a close game and that's "skill" a "great" team, etc.

:rickjames

Just keep on puttig your head in the sand and enjoy being a lemming. I put stats from the acual games to back up my claims. What did you put up other than insults? Try to find facts that prove that you are right about anything? Now who is looking like a fool?

Here's a hint, go look in a mirror buddy.

So now I'm not a fan becasue I'm not a blind lemming? Give me a Fing break!

 

[AFhusker]

Double Post

 

['SkersRule]

So now I'm not a fan becasue I'm not a blind lemming? Give me a Fing break!

No. But christ almighty...couldn't you at least cut down on the bs? Counting a close win as a double digit loss is beyond dumb.

Edit: And quite frankly I'm sick and tired of whiny, pathetic Husker fans always bitching about how horrible the state of the program is. Christ, go root for Kansas State if all you want to do is condemn Nebraska.

 

[walksalone]

I guess missing Sam Bradford isn't that big of a loss. Man a lot of you lemming aren't very bright are you? If Bradford plays NU gets whipped, it's that simple. OU dominated the game with the exception of the 5 INT's from a freshman QB and are you saying that if Bradford played then it would have ended the same? Suh and Crick played a great game, it had nothing to do with Bo outcoaching anybody. Just look at the stats, NU only had one first down in the first half and 7 for the game. OU had 23 first downs and 325 yards compared to NU who had 180.

Oh and for the guy who said that Green played, yes he did start, but then was pulled after the 1st quarter in favor of Lee. And this was an OU team that ended up at 8-5 becasue of all of the injuries. So it's not like we beat a national title contender.

http://www.huskermax...oklahoma09.html

No, I'm afraid you're the one who isn't very bright, but that's been apparent for awhile now. Please tell me who said we beat a national title contender, because I'm not seeing that. We're not talking about a win over a top 5 team that suddenly lost their quarterback. We beat a 5-3 team who was #20 at the time and hadn't had their quarterback since the 3rd game (and who, by the way, lost their first game with said quarterback). You're an idiot if you automatically assume that just because people are proud of that win, they're remembering wrong and thinking Oklahoma was an excellent team that year. But there is nothing wrong with being proud of that win, regardless.

Now, if you had actually worded your original reply better and stated that you were comparing the 2009 Oklahoma team to the 2008 team, then you might get a bit more slack. But you didn't. And even if you had, your point wouldn't have been well made.

2008: Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009: Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

There is no way in hell that Nebraska would have lost by 34 points even if they'd had Bradford. If Oklahoma had won, say, 24-10, it still would prove the point that the original poster made, that Nebraska improved a great deal in Pelini's second consecutive year in the same conference.

Classy, you want to call people names now and then want to hide behind being a "woman" if I respond back in the same fassion that you spoke to me.

So let me lay it out for you since you obivouly don't know squat about what Nebraska football. Yes it was a nice win becaue it was agianst our ex-rival Oklahoma. However, they were listing big wins in Bo's tenure and OU was nice but at NU a big win is a top 10 win and that OU team wasn't ranked.

So you are a fortune teller now by saying that if OU was healthy that they wouldn't have whipped NU again? I don't see it becasue the only reason why NU won was becasue Crick and Suh dominated their injured OL which led their inexperienced QB's to turning the ball over which wouldn't have likely happened if Bradford and Daniel were playing. Both butt kickings that NU recieved in 2008 were while Mizzou had Chase Daniel and OU had Sam Bradford and in 2009 they had Blane Gabbert and Landry Jones in thier first years of their college careers. Do you seriously not think that those made a difference? You really can't compare the two years because they are differnet teams. In 2008 NU had a very good offense (because Bo let Watson run the offense without meddling) and a bad defense. Every since then it's been the opposite which is what you would expect with a defensive minded coach.

In 2009 (and every since then) our offense was pathetic in both of those games, espically the OU game. All we did was try to run the clock out on OU becasue our coaches knew that we didn't have a QB or good enough OL to run a normal offense (only passed the ball 14 times). There was a very good chance that if OU was healthy, that NU would have been taken behind the woodshed just as they were in Norman the year before. And that was with a much better QB in Ganz.

And you act as if I enjoy NU struggling, but I'm just telling the truth. NU's offense under Bo has been terrible to say the least and it's 90% his fault for meddling with both OC's. But why is it bad to state facts that NU was fortunate that OU was beaten up and it helped us win? NU lost a shot at a MNC in 1996 becasue of an injury to Amman Green and the defense catching the flu the day before. the game. If NU was healthy for that game, they likely beat Texass and win another MNC. That's the breaks, but it isn't taking anything away from Bo by saying that we were lucky that OU was missing their Heisman winning QB and maybe the best TE in the country. It also helped that Murry was limited just as Green was in 1996.

you sorta do..

 

['SkersRule]

And you act as if I enjoy NU struggling,

you sorta do..

That's the impression I'm getting as well.

 

[AFhusker]

So now I'm not a fan becasue I'm not a blind lemming? Give me a Fing break!

No. But christ almighty...couldn't you at least cut down on the bs? Counting a close win as a double digit loss is beyond dumb.

All I'm saying is that look at the stats. It was nice win, but with the amount of talent that OU was missing that was very likely a loss in the same ugly fashion as it was the year before. Maybe Suh and Crick make Bradford make some mistakes, but it's not likely it would be 5 INT's in which we needed every one of them to hold on for dear life. Don't get me wrong I understand why people count that as a big win, but it was mainly because the program has been a joke (by NU standards) since Colorado took us behind the woodshed at the end of the 2001 season and Miami did the same. I'm not saying that they would have scored another 62 points, but 40 would have been a good bet because our defense would have been worn out because of the lack of offense we had with two inept QB's.

And for the record I really enjoyed the win as any win over OU is nice, but I have a realistic view of the overall picture of where both of those teams were at that point in time. Now if we wouldn't have choked a 17 point lead in 2010 to OU in the CCG, then I would be if full agreement with you. Man that game was disappointing.

 

[AFhusker]

I guess missing Sam Bradford isn't that big of a loss. Man a lot of you lemming aren't very bright are you? If Bradford plays NU gets whipped, it's that simple. OU dominated the game with the exception of the 5 INT's from a freshman QB and are you saying that if Bradford played then it would have ended the same? Suh and Crick played a great game, it had nothing to do with Bo outcoaching anybody. Just look at the stats, NU only had one first down in the first half and 7 for the game. OU had 23 first downs and 325 yards compared to NU who had 180.

Oh and for the guy who said that Green played, yes he did start, but then was pulled after the 1st quarter in favor of Lee. And this was an OU team that ended up at 8-5 becasue of all of the injuries. So it's not like we beat a national title contender.

http://www.huskermax...oklahoma09.html

No, I'm afraid you're the one who isn't very bright, but that's been apparent for awhile now. Please tell me who said we beat a national title contender, because I'm not seeing that. We're not talking about a win over a top 5 team that suddenly lost their quarterback. We beat a 5-3 team who was #20 at the time and hadn't had their quarterback since the 3rd game (and who, by the way, lost their first game with said quarterback). You're an idiot if you automatically assume that just because people are proud of that win, they're remembering wrong and thinking Oklahoma was an excellent team that year. But there is nothing wrong with being proud of that win, regardless.

Now, if you had actually worded your original reply better and stated that you were comparing the 2009 Oklahoma team to the 2008 team, then you might get a bit more slack. But you didn't. And even if you had, your point wouldn't have been well made.

2008: Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009: Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

There is no way in hell that Nebraska would have lost by 34 points even if they'd had Bradford. If Oklahoma had won, say, 24-10, it still would prove the point that the original poster made, that Nebraska improved a great deal in Pelini's second consecutive year in the same conference.

Classy, you want to call people names now and then want to hide behind being a "woman" if I respond back in the same fassion that you spoke to me.

So let me lay it out for you since you obivouly don't know squat about what Nebraska football. Yes it was a nice win becaue it was agianst our ex-rival Oklahoma. However, they were listing big wins in Bo's tenure and OU was nice but at NU a big win is a top 10 win and that OU team wasn't ranked.

So you are a fortune teller now by saying that if OU was healthy that they wouldn't have whipped NU again? I don't see it becasue the only reason why NU won was becasue Crick and Suh dominated their injured OL which led their inexperienced QB's to turning the ball over which wouldn't have likely happened if Bradford and Daniel were playing. Both butt kickings that NU recieved in 2008 were while Mizzou had Chase Daniel and OU had Sam Bradford and in 2009 they had Blane Gabbert and Landry Jones in thier first years of their college careers. Do you seriously not think that those made a difference? You really can't compare the two years because they are differnet teams. In 2008 NU had a very good offense (because Bo let Watson run the offense without meddling) and a bad defense. Every since then it's been the opposite which is what you would expect with a defensive minded coach.

In 2009 (and every since then) our offense was pathetic in both of those games, espically the OU game. All we did was try to run the clock out on OU becasue our coaches knew that we didn't have a QB or good enough OL to run a normal offense (only passed the ball 14 times). There was a very good chance that if OU was healthy, that NU would have been taken behind the woodshed just as they were in Norman the year before. And that was with a much better QB in Ganz.

And you act as if I enjoy NU struggling, but I'm just telling the truth. NU's offense under Bo has been terrible to say the least and it's 90% his fault for meddling with both OC's. But why is it bad to state facts that NU was fortunate that OU was beaten up and it helped us win? NU lost a shot at a MNC in 1996 becasue of an injury to Amman Green and the defense catching the flu the day before. the game. If NU was healthy for that game, they likely beat Texass and win another MNC. That's the breaks, but it isn't taking anything away from Bo by saying that we were lucky that OU was missing their Heisman winning QB and maybe the best TE in the country. It also helped that Murry was limited just as Green was in 1996.

you sorta do..

Nope, I hate it. I'm just trying to give you some facts so you can look at that game more realistically.

 

['SkersRule]

So now I'm not a fan becasue I'm not a blind lemming? Give me a Fing break!

No. But christ almighty...couldn't you at least cut down on the bs? Counting a close win as a double digit loss is beyond dumb.

All I'm saying is that look at the stats. It was nice win, but with the amount of talent that OU was missing that was very likely a loss in the same ugly fashion as it was the year before. Maybe Suh and Crick make Bradford make some mistakes, but it's not likely it would be 5 INT's in which we needed every one of them to hold on for dear life. Don't get me wrong I understand why people count that as a big win, but it was mainly because the program has been a joke (by NU standards) since Colorado took us behind the woodshed at the end of the 2001 season and Miami did the same. I'm not saying that they would have scored another 62 points, but 40 would have been a good bet because our defense would have been worn out because of the lack of offense we had with two inept QB's.

And for the record I really enjoyed the win as any win over OU is nice, but I have a realistic view of the overall picture of where both of those teams were at that point in time. Now if we wouldn't have choked a 17 point lead in 2010 to OU in the CCG, then I would be if full agreement with you. Man that game was disappointing.

Here's my problem with what you're saying: You're actually discrediting Nebraska's defense in that game while artifically inflating OU's offense. I mean would it kill you to acknowledge that maybe Bo called a great game and the players did a great job executing? Naw....that couldn't be it. It had to be OU's injuries, lack of focus, inexperience, etc.

 

[skersfan]

Games are played, games are lost or won.

That really is all that matters to most, others it is how you win, why you you win or lose, and where you are headed.

I see a team that is not prepared for most tough games, lacks the ability to change during half time. A team that plays out of control, off sides over and over and over and over. I see a team that can not catch the ball, I see a team that can not block for the QB. I see a QB that is working hard to overcome the shortfalls provided by the coaching staff.

I see a coaching staff that does not use the roster to get players on the field, to grow, when seniors leave.

I see a team that is led by a young, inexperienced coaching staff, and scrambling every single game it seems.

I see games like the Oklahoma game as a great game. Do I think they would have won if Oklahoma would have been at full strength. Not likely.

I see fans that believe every little bit of drivel coming from the staff, that the players love the coaches, are working harder than ever, are growing by leaps and bounds, but seldom do I see these great improvements.

I see fans that think they are the only fans, because of how they feel, what the any think is the only way to be a Nebraska fan. I love this team, this program, and have been involved with supporting this program since the late 1800's through family that has played for Nebraska, that has given the Univeristy hundreds of thousands of dollars over their and my life time, but because I do not think like the chosen ones I am less of a fan.

I am sick of that Bull sh#t to.

Everyone is intitled to their opinion, try learning that. They have the right to voice that thought, whether you agree or not. Get over yourself.

 

['SkersRule]

Games are played, games are lost or won.

That really is all that matters to most, others it is how you win, why you you win or lose, and where you are headed.

I see a team that is not prepared for most tough games, lacks the ability to change during half time. A team that plays out of control, off sides over and over and over and over. I see a team that can not catch the ball, I see a team that can not block for the QB. I see a QB that is working hard to overcome the shortfalls provided by the coaching staff.

I see a coaching staff that does not use the roster to get players on the field, to grow, when seniors leave.

I see a team that is led by a young, inexperienced coaching staff, and scrambling every single game it seems.

I see games like the Oklahoma game as a great game. Do I think they would have won if Oklahoma would have been at full strength. Not likely.

I see fans that believe every little bit of drivel coming from the staff, that the players love the coaches, are working harder than ever, are growing by leaps and bounds, but seldom do I see these great improvements.

I see fans that think they are the only fans, because of how they feel, what the any think is the only way to be a Nebraska fan. I love this team, this program, and have been involved with supporting this program since the late 1800's through family that has played for Nebraska, that has given the Univeristy hundreds of thousands of dollars over their and my life time, but because I do not think like the chosen ones I am less of a fan.

I am sick of that Bull sh#t to.

Everyone is intitled to their opinion, try learning that. They have the right to voice that thought, whether you agree or not. Get over yourself.

Every one is entitled to an opinion, but that does not mean said opinion is worth a penny. I respect people who have intelligent comments based on solid analysis and/or reason--even if I disagree with him/her.

But when I read posts from people who totally discount a win, while chalking it up as a loss or double digit blowout loss, that pisses me off.

Bo isn't perfect and there are plenty of legitimate criticism to lob his way. But this whole Nebraska won a close game so it's really a loss mentality that some have is complete bullsh#t and seriously needs to stop.

 

[walksalone]

I guess missing Sam Bradford isn't that big of a loss. Man a lot of you lemming aren't very bright are you? If Bradford plays NU gets whipped, it's that simple. OU dominated the game with the exception of the 5 INT's from a freshman QB and are you saying that if Bradford played then it would have ended the same? Suh and Crick played a great game, it had nothing to do with Bo outcoaching anybody. Just look at the stats, NU only had one first down in the first half and 7 for the game. OU had 23 first downs and 325 yards compared to NU who had 180.

Oh and for the guy who said that Green played, yes he did start, but then was pulled after the 1st quarter in favor of Lee. And this was an OU team that ended up at 8-5 becasue of all of the injuries. So it's not like we beat a national title contender.

http://www.huskermax...oklahoma09.html

No, I'm afraid you're the one who isn't very bright, but that's been apparent for awhile now. Please tell me who said we beat a national title contender, because I'm not seeing that. We're not talking about a win over a top 5 team that suddenly lost their quarterback. We beat a 5-3 team who was #20 at the time and hadn't had their quarterback since the 3rd game (and who, by the way, lost their first game with said quarterback). You're an idiot if you automatically assume that just because people are proud of that win, they're remembering wrong and thinking Oklahoma was an excellent team that year. But there is nothing wrong with being proud of that win, regardless.

Now, if you had actually worded your original reply better and stated that you were comparing the 2009 Oklahoma team to the 2008 team, then you might get a bit more slack. But you didn't. And even if you had, your point wouldn't have been well made.

2008: Missouri 52, Nebraska 17. Oklahoma 62, Nebraska 28.

2009: Nebraska 27, Missouri 12. Nebraska 10, Oklahoma 3.

There is no way in hell that Nebraska would have lost by 34 points even if they'd had Bradford. If Oklahoma had won, say, 24-10, it still would prove the point that the original poster made, that Nebraska improved a great deal in Pelini's second consecutive year in the same conference.

Classy, you want to call people names now and then want to hide behind being a "woman" if I respond back in the same fassion that you spoke to me.

So let me lay it out for you since you obivouly don't know squat about what Nebraska football. Yes it was a nice win becaue it was agianst our ex-rival Oklahoma. However, they were listing big wins in Bo's tenure and OU was nice but at NU a big win is a top 10 win and that OU team wasn't ranked.

So you are a fortune teller now by saying that if OU was healthy that they wouldn't have whipped NU again? I don't see it becasue the only reason why NU won was becasue Crick and Suh dominated their injured OL which led their inexperienced QB's to turning the ball over which wouldn't have likely happened if Bradford and Daniel were playing. Both butt kickings that NU recieved in 2008 were while Mizzou had Chase Daniel and OU had Sam Bradford and in 2009 they had Blane Gabbert and Landry Jones in thier first years of their college careers. Do you seriously not think that those made a difference? You really can't compare the two years because they are differnet teams. In 2008 NU had a very good offense (because Bo let Watson run the offense without meddling) and a bad defense. Every since then it's been the opposite which is what you would expect with a defensive minded coach.

In 2009 (and every since then) our offense was pathetic in both of those games, espically the OU game. All we did was try to run the clock out on OU becasue our coaches knew that we didn't have a QB or good enough OL to run a normal offense (only passed the ball 14 times). There was a very good chance that if OU was healthy, that NU would have been taken behind the woodshed just as they were in Norman the year before. And that was with a much better QB in Ganz.

And you act as if I enjoy NU struggling, but I'm just telling the truth. NU's offense under Bo has been terrible to say the least and it's 90% his fault for meddling with both OC's. But why is it bad to state facts that NU was fortunate that OU was beaten up and it helped us win? NU lost a shot at a MNC in 1996 becasue of an injury to Amman Green and the defense catching the flu the day before. the game. If NU was healthy for that game, they likely beat Texass and win another MNC. That's the breaks, but it isn't taking anything away from Bo by saying that we were lucky that OU was missing their Heisman winning QB and maybe the best TE in the country. It also helped that Murry was limited just as Green was in 1996.

you sorta do..

Nope, I hate it. I'm just trying to give you some facts so you can look at that game more realistically.

I get a kick out of how people proclaim to be speaking the "truth". This is just merely your perception of certain events. You're not giving us the gospel of why this or that didn't occur. And you're losing most your readers in the multiple paragraph diatribes...