Objectively……..What few teams CAN’T we compete with….??

[stlspartan]

At some point, I suppose it isn't about who you can beat on any given Saturday. It's about being able to bring it every week against good competition without a letdown. There are one or two teams that are so loaded with 5* talent that they can cakewalk the season. The rest of us are trying to string together the wins one Saturday at a time.

 

[husker B-rent]

The ONLY team where we'd be over matched on both sides: LSU.

All others would be very winnable.

OkieLite would give our pink secondary fits but then I hope TM would light them up too.

agreed. LSU would be the only team in the country that im not sure we could keep it within 2 scores of. okielite will be exposed if they have to play LSU and it wont be pretty, if they werent playing in a very WEAK big 12 they would not be undefeated. i truly believe that alabama would be a good close game within a score one way or another. oregon is an inconsistent team.

and i would pay large amounts of money to play wisky again because im of the opinion that we would throttle them. quite frankly to the tune of 31-10. they have regressed and we have gotten better.

So is this thread about who we could realistically BEAT or who we could COMPETE WITH? Huge difference. I was thinking who we could "beat" in which case, I agree with Badger...there's a pretty long list of teams I would expect to be able to beat. If we're saying teams we could "compete with" then yeah, I guess technically we could compete with most of them. Especially if you're considering "compete with" to mean keep it within 14 point of them.

But who freakin cares about competing? I would hope we'd be able to compete with just about everyone in the country. We're freakin' Nebraska for crying out loud. That's like bragging because you take care of your kids. Big f'ing deal if we can "compete"...that's nothing to brag about. I guess some people's standards have been lowered so much that they're proud of just being competitive.

well for starters take a glance at the thread title. "compete" is a clear component of the thread.

as for beating any of those teams, again the only team that we would have less than a 40% chance of beating imo would be LSU and further if you are asking which teams we have a chance to "beat" then there is not a team in the country that we CANNOT beat.

chances of "beating" a few top teams:

LSU-20% (1 game out of 5)

Oregon-40% (2 games out of 5)

Alabama-50% (2.5 games out of 5)

Okielite-50%

OU-50%

Wisky-55%

boise-60% (3 games out of 5)

arky-80% (4 games out of 5)

South Car-80%

"beating" and "competing" are pretty much the same thing because if you are a top 15 team in the country then there should not be a team in the country that you cannot "beat" OR "compete" with.

 

[Huskerlambs]

It also depends on where the game is played. Are you talking neutral site? The only team we can't beat is LSU. You can't say OSU; we beat them in Stillwater last year! Everyone else has a loss; therefore, they are beatable.

 

[3rd and long]

The ONLY team where we'd be over matched on both sides: LSU.

All others would be very winnable.

OkieLite would give our pink secondary fits but then I hope TM would light them up too.

agreed. LSU would be the only team in the country that im not sure we could keep it within 2 scores of. okielite will be exposed if they have to play LSU and it wont be pretty, if they werent playing in a very WEAK big 12 they would not be undefeated. i truly believe that alabama would be a good close game within a score one way or another. oregon is an inconsistent team.

and i would pay large amounts of money to play wisky again because im of the opinion that we would throttle them. quite frankly to the tune of 31-10. they have regressed and we have gotten better.

So is this thread about who we could realistically BEAT or who we could COMPETE WITH? Huge difference. I was thinking who we could "beat" in which case, I agree with Badger...there's a pretty long list of teams I would expect to be able to beat. If we're saying teams we could "compete with" then yeah, I guess technically we could compete with most of them. Especially if you're considering "compete with" to mean keep it within 14 point of them.

But who freakin cares about competing? I would hope we'd be able to compete with just about everyone in the country. We're freakin' Nebraska for crying out loud. That's like bragging because you take care of your kids. Big f'ing deal if we can "compete"...that's nothing to brag about. I guess some people's standards have been lowered so much that they're proud of just being competitive.

well for starters take a glance at the thread title. "compete" is a clear component of the thread.

as for beating any of those teams, again the only team that we would have less than a 40% chance of beating imo would be LSU and further if you are asking which teams we have a chance to "beat" then there is not a team in the country that we CANNOT beat.

chances of "beating" a few top teams:

LSU-20% (1 game out of 5)

Oregon-40% (2 games out of 5)

Alabama-50% (2.5 games out of 5)

Okielite-50%

OU-50%

Wisky-55%

boise-60% (3 games out of 5)

arky-80% (4 games out of 5)

South Car-80%

"beating" and "competing" are pretty much the same thing because if you are a top 15 team in the country then there should not be a team in the country that you cannot "beat" OR "compete" with.

In my opinion, those are wishful thinking numbers. We're no where near being able to compete with LSU, let alone take a game from them (excluding incredibly extenuating circumstances). They are just on another level. Oregon and Okie St would shred our defense, we would score a lot of points, but I don't see how we could stay within a couple of TD's of either team. We might actually play LSU a little closer just because their offense isn't nearly as potent as the other two and possibly the total score would just be less. I really would see Oregon and Okie ST putting up over 50 on us.

I really believe right now that the problem is defensively. On most teams other than LSU and Alabama, I think we can score enough points to at least be respectable, but our defense just doesn't appear to be capbable of stopping an even adequate offense on a regular basis.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Anyone who watches football knows anything can happen on any given Sunday. Or Saturday.

Sometimes good teams just get a collective brain fart, while the lesser team plays out of its mind. A week later they go back to being themselves.

So we could compete with anybody, and even the best teams have learned not to overlook unranked opponents, much less a Top 20 team. Which Nebraska is.

(by the way, I don't think Nebraska was looking past Northwestern. We had every opportunity in-game to make adjustments and failed to do so. It was clear from very early on that the Big 10 was at stake. We were under-motivated and out-coached, and saying we were looking past Northwestern to Penn State makes it sound like we had a good reason. I think we'd beat Penn State by 17 if we played them again. I'm not even sure we'd beat Northwestern in a rematch)

That being said: watching Stanford lose to Oregon yesterday, I realized how much better both offenses were than the offenses Nebraska has faced. We might put together a perfect game and bushwack LSU, but I don't see our defense slowing down Stanford, Oregon, Boise State, Oklahoma State, USC, Arkansas, or Wisconsin again. At least not enough for our still emerging offense to carry the day. We'd have our hands full against K-State and Baylor this year in the Big 12. I'd call the Michigan game a toss-up and can only trust we learned enough of a lesson against Northwestern to close out Iowa at home.

The defense has rendered this season a disappointment, but a 10 - 2 regular season, even if we miss the Big 10 title game, would be a great start to next year and probably better than I expected pre-season.

 

[PaulCrewe]

We would beat Nebraska, you guys are homers. I understand and respect that so I'll stop pressing the issue, its off topic anyhow.

We're discussing competitiveness, and speaking of homerism, I think your assertion that Nebraska wasn't competitive regardless of the Taylor Martinez interception extravaganza is wrong. They were competitive for 25 minutes, and in your house, too. The question for me is in a rematch could they be competitive for four quarters. I think probably yes. It doesn't mean Nebraska wins, because I do think Wisconsin is the better team, but to assert that Wisconsin would just blow them off the field again in a rematch, I don't find that very objective.

I openly admited that I am not objective on this game, so I don't see your point, but watching the highlights I don't see Martinez throwing interceptions to Badgers sitting there alone in 10 yard bubbles, our guys made plays and forced Martinez to make bad throws. We play good defense as is evidenced by our stats. The fact that we were able to turn every one of those interceptions into points is a testament to the superiority of our offense over NU's defense.

Assuming Martinez didn't throw the interceptions the Badgers still win 27-17 and we held Rex to under 100 yards rushing. We would win this game a second time. It would not be close. That's my opinion rested firmly on both facts and my own homerism, not a knock against NU, that's just what I think. It is what it is.

My saying that "You guys are homers" was not meant to discount your opinions, I was simply trying to say...so am I, I get where you're coming from, we're not going to agree on this...I guess it came out wrong.

Ok, I can't avoid this train wreck anymore. Do I think NU could beat Wisky, yes it could happen. Did I think they would win up in Madison, no. You put that game on a neutral field, or in Lincoln does NU get blown out? No. So the question regarding this whole thread should say on a neutral site or what. A neutral site helps any team beat any other team, unless one is playing LSU in the Title Game, that is not neutral.

Here is my ifs and buts arguements about the Wisky game. And yes everything could be Christmas everyday then. If one does take away the three picks by Taylor(and for the record, only one was a great defensive play, the others were really crappy throws and bad reads), and NU sticks with the running game Wisky doesn't hold Rex under 100. IF the game stays like it was the first quarter and a half the whole way through, Rex probably gets close to 130 or more, remembering he has gotten stronger as the game goes on(stats do back that fact up).

IF the game remains close and the defense doesn't fold and make the last runs for Ball look easy. Anyone watching that game realize the NU defense had watched the game snowball out of control due to the offensive ineffectiveness, and wanted nothing but to get the hell out of there. Take away the three picks, the game doesn't get out of hand, and the defense might show a couple more efforts like early in the game and get off the field.

IF one goes back and watches that game, you would see that when NU passed the ball the underneath stuff and checkdowns were VERY open. IF Taylor plays that game as it appears he is now and looks to those routes, NU's drives stay alive and Taylor moves the ball on Wisky through the air. There were open guys in that game, but Taylor(who has admitted as much) was trying to make the big play instead of taking what the defense was giving him. That is the biggest reason Taylor looks to be playing at a much higher level right now, he is not forcing things near as much as the Wisky game.

These things alone, along with a better rotation of WRs, and OLinemen make this game very interesting IMO. The losses of Crick and Randle make me cringe a little on the other hand. Being later in the year, in a possible Conference Title game, would the year of bumps make the defensive unit for NU better? That would be the biggest question mark for me. Do I think NU could win that game, yes. Would NU get blown out in a rematch on a NEUTRAL site, no. Does Wisky win more if the game is played 10 times, yes. But to say that game would be a blowout is so wrong. That is like NU fans scoffing at you losing to MSU when NU dominated them.

 

[husker0072]

We would beat Nebraska, you guys are homers. I understand and respect that so I'll stop pressing the issue, its off topic anyhow.

We're discussing competitiveness, and speaking of homerism, I think your assertion that Nebraska wasn't competitive regardless of the Taylor Martinez interception extravaganza is wrong. They were competitive for 25 minutes, and in your house, too. The question for me is in a rematch could they be competitive for four quarters. I think probably yes. It doesn't mean Nebraska wins, because I do think Wisconsin is the better team, but to assert that Wisconsin would just blow them off the field again in a rematch, I don't find that very objective.

I openly admited that I am not objective on this game, so I don't see your point, but watching the highlights I don't see Martinez throwing interceptions to Badgers sitting there alone in 10 yard bubbles, our guys made plays and forced Martinez to make bad throws. We play good defense as is evidenced by our stats. The fact that we were able to turn every one of those interceptions into points is a testament to the superiority of our offense over NU's defense.

Assuming Martinez didn't throw the interceptions the Badgers still win 27-17 and we held Rex to under 100 yards rushing. We would win this game a second time. It would not be close. That's my opinion rested firmly on both facts and my own homerism, not a knock against NU, that's just what I think. It is what it is.

My saying that "You guys are homers" was not meant to discount your opinions, I was simply trying to say...so am I, I get where you're coming from, we're not going to agree on this...I guess it came out wrong.

To assume that if the Interceptions didn't accur how can you assume the score would be the same, maybe those inteceptions turn magically into TD's then we have a 21 point swing in favor of NU. By your own logic NU wins 38-27. I know that's also an assumption I am just trying to point out the absurdity of "what ifs". Oh and for the record our D has been making alot of teams look all world this year you guys are not that special!

 

[Excel]

We would beat Nebraska, you guys are homers. I understand and respect that so I'll stop pressing the issue, its off topic anyhow.

We're discussing competitiveness, and speaking of homerism, I think your assertion that Nebraska wasn't competitive regardless of the Taylor Martinez interception extravaganza is wrong. They were competitive for 25 minutes, and in your house, too. The question for me is in a rematch could they be competitive for four quarters. I think probably yes. It doesn't mean Nebraska wins, because I do think Wisconsin is the better team, but to assert that Wisconsin would just blow them off the field again in a rematch, I don't find that very objective.

I openly admited that I am not objective on this game, so I don't see your point, but watching the highlights I don't see Martinez throwing interceptions to Badgers sitting there alone in 10 yard bubbles, our guys made plays and forced Martinez to make bad throws. We play good defense as is evidenced by our stats. The fact that we were able to turn every one of those interceptions into points is a testament to the superiority of our offense over NU's defense.

Assuming Martinez didn't throw the interceptions the Badgers still win 27-17 and we held Rex to under 100 yards rushing. We would win this game a second time. It would not be close. That's my opinion rested firmly on both facts and my own homerism, not a knock against NU, that's just what I think. It is what it is.

My saying that "You guys are homers" was not meant to discount your opinions, I was simply trying to say...so am I, I get where you're coming from, we're not going to agree on this...I guess it came out wrong.

To assume that if the Interceptions didn't accur how can you assume the score would be the same, maybe those inteceptions turn magically into TD's then we have a 21 point swing in favor of NU. By your own logic NU wins 38-27. I know that's also an assumption I am just trying to point out the absurdity of "what ifs". Oh and for the record our D has been making alot of teams look all world this year you guys are not that special!

I'm more than aware of the stupidity of the what-if game but for the record I didn't start it, I was simply indulging the poster who said "if Martinez didn't throw the interceptions." Bottom line is UW played a solid, well rounded game and won by a lot, NU did not. Rationalize it however you like.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I'd say LSU, Okie State, and Oregon would take us to the woodshed. After that it would depend on which Husker team decided to show up for the game.

 

[MLB 51]

We would beat Nebraska, you guys are homers. I understand and respect that so I'll stop pressing the issue, its off topic anyhow.

We're discussing competitiveness, and speaking of homerism, I think your assertion that Nebraska wasn't competitive regardless of the Taylor Martinez interception extravaganza is wrong. They were competitive for 25 minutes, and in your house, too. The question for me is in a rematch could they be competitive for four quarters. I think probably yes. It doesn't mean Nebraska wins, because I do think Wisconsin is the better team, but to assert that Wisconsin would just blow them off the field again in a rematch, I don't find that very objective.

I openly admited that I am not objective on this game, so I don't see your point, but watching the highlights I don't see Martinez throwing interceptions to Badgers sitting there alone in 10 yard bubbles, our guys made plays and forced Martinez to make bad throws. We play good defense as is evidenced by our stats. The fact that we were able to turn every one of those interceptions into points is a testament to the superiority of our offense over NU's defense.

Assuming Martinez didn't throw the interceptions the Badgers still win 27-17 and we held Rex to under 100 yards rushing. We would win this game a second time. It would not be close. That's my opinion rested firmly on both facts and my own homerism, not a knock against NU, that's just what I think. It is what it is.

My saying that "You guys are homers" was not meant to discount your opinions, I was simply trying to say...so am I, I get where you're coming from, we're not going to agree on this...I guess it came out wrong.

To assume that if the Interceptions didn't accur how can you assume the score would be the same, maybe those inteceptions turn magically into TD's then we have a 21 point swing in favor of NU. By your own logic NU wins 38-27. I know that's also an assumption I am just trying to point out the absurdity of "what ifs". Oh and for the record our D has been making alot of teams look all world this year you guys are not that special!

I'm more than aware of the stupidity of the what-if game but for the record I didn't start it, I was simply indulging the poster who said "if Martinez didn't throw the interceptions." Bottom line is UW played a solid, well rounded game and won by a lot, NU did not. Rationalize it however you like.

UW did play a solid game props for that. I'm with Paul on this one. Don't like our chances in Madison. At home or neutral site our chances improve. Still not sure we win though. Honestly, who thinks we beat OSU if Miller doesn't go down. LSU no way we beat them. Oregon, OK ST. burns our D. ALA. To closely matched with LSU we lose that one too. Stanford we compete but still a loss.

 

[Sub-Husker]

Objectively……..What few teams CAN’T we compete with….??

The Husker team many of us imagine that we have.

 

[Jason Sitoke]

I'd like to see this thread AFTER a loss. I'm sure there would be 20-25 teams on this list if it was made during last week's pity party.

IMO, this team should be ranked at about 20-25. Which means that, all things being equal, 20 teams would beat Nebraska 6+ times out of 10

 

[HeyBurke]

Where's all this Kool-Aid coming from? Do people really think that with all the inconsistency we've had this year and the loss to Northwestern that Nebraska could even compete with most teams in the top 10?

 

[Vizsla1]

Half of the old big 12 would beat us.

 

[Comish]

Wow.................didn't realize this simple topic would create such a firestorm..........

To reiterate my original intent..................I think there are 3 teams we match up with so badly we virtually have no shot at beating (given current make-up; strengths/weakness/depth/maturity/attitude/etc)

Those being LSU, OKie St., Oregon

I believe we can COMPETE with everyone else.................(not limited to site, revenge, last year, or any other considerations)...........

By compete, I'm not saying necessarily beat. Just compete. Have a shot and know that beforehand.

For those that are handicapping potential victories by percentage.........................that is a tangent unrelated to the intended topic..........i.e. "we would only have a 40% chance".............to me that means we can compete.

And finally, we should NOT be content with simply being competitive. This is a program that needs to compete with, and be able to beat anyone. Currently we are not that program. But, if there are only a few left that we can't currently compete with.................maybe we are closer than a lot of the negativity suggests. I suggest the "can't compete with" list is far smaller than it was a few years ago. jmho.