Only 4 Teams With 9+ Wins Each Season Since 2008

[Stumpy1]

Yes, in fact, I can read. Which is why I'm also able to type and research a stance before I go off half-cocked with faulty data. You are suggesting they started at Ground Zero. Which is to say they had nothing on defense (having new coaches and a new scheme, yet loaded with talented players isn't exactly ground zero. But I digress.). Yet his 2009 defense, with Callahan's players, surpasses every defense he's had since. I would argue that there isn't a guy on the 2012 defense that would be starting on that 2009 defense, except for MAYBE a safety in place of Matt O'Hanlon. I'm not saying that the success of the 2009 defense isn't to Pelini's credit. I'm saying he walked into a stocked roster, used it, and has yet to restock it on the defensive side of the ball.

Maybe recruiting did start from scratch (though it isn't as if Pelini were an unknown guy - he was the defensive coordinator of the reigning national championship team and at the top of everyone's list to be promoted to a head coaching job). But, if there was ever a time for Pelini to capitalize on recruiting defensive players and DTs in particular, you would think it would have been after that 2009 season. Yet here we are in 2012, and Pelini's defensive line is paper thin, and the defense in general is lacking in playmakers. Apparently it is more difficult for Pelini to recruit players to fit his system than it was for him to coach players other people recruited. You think he built us to this point... while I'm saying we've severely regressed on defense in his time at Nebraska. Are you arguing otherwise?

Finally, if Pelini kept Watson, for whatever reason, and forced him to run an offense that he wasn't suited to run in 2009 and 2010... well, that's on Pelini as well.

If you searched your " facts " better, you would have known that Compton started as the MLB in that 09 defense as a redshirt freshman. Just sayin

 

[Junior]

Yes, in fact, I can read. Which is why I'm also able to type and research a stance before I go off half-cocked with faulty data. You are suggesting they started at Ground Zero. Which is to say they had nothing on defense (having new coaches and a new scheme, yet loaded with talented players isn't exactly ground zero. But I digress.). Yet his 2009 defense, with Callahan's players, surpasses every defense he's had since. I would argue that there isn't a guy on the 2012 defense that would be starting on that 2009 defense, except for MAYBE a safety in place of Matt O'Hanlon. I'm not saying that the success of the 2009 defense isn't to Pelini's credit. I'm saying he walked into a stocked roster, used it, and has yet to restock it on the defensive side of the ball.

Maybe recruiting did start from scratch (though it isn't as if Pelini were an unknown guy - he was the defensive coordinator of the reigning national championship team and at the top of everyone's list to be promoted to a head coaching job). But, if there was ever a time for Pelini to capitalize on recruiting defensive players and DTs in particular, you would think it would have been after that 2009 season. Yet here we are in 2012, and Pelini's defensive line is paper thin, and the defense in general is lacking in playmakers. Apparently it is more difficult for Pelini to recruit players to fit his system than it was for him to coach players other people recruited. You think he built us to this point... while I'm saying we've severely regressed on defense in his time at Nebraska. Are you arguing otherwise?

Finally, if Pelini kept Watson, for whatever reason, and forced him to run an offense that he wasn't suited to run in 2009 and 2010... well, that's on Pelini as well.

If you searched your " facts " better, you would have known that Compton started as the MLB in that 09 defense as a redshirt freshman. Just sayin

He started some, but not all games. As I recall as the season wore on, he played less and less. That said, he hasn't been the same since his injury in 2010. And I would argue that he was better in 2009 than 2012 in that he certainly hasn't seemed as fast (post injury) to my eye. Though that could be jaded by the amount of times I saw him trailing a RB out of the backfield in pass defense this season.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Compton started early in the year while Dillard was having his issues. Dillard returned and took the spot back. Compton did see significant PT against Kansas St and their more conventional running attack.

 

[Stumpy1]

Compton started early in the year while Dillard was having his issues. Dillard returned and took the spot back. Compton did see significant PT against Kansas St and their more conventional running attack.

He started 8 games and was good enough to earn All Confrence Freshman Team and Phil Steele All American Freshman Team.

I do agree with Junior about the injury part and him being a step slower.

 

[1HuskrFan]

I realize I'm getting in late on this topic, but I'm one to listen to all comments and go from there. For the most part the fans on this board are forgetting one very important fact. NU has always played a weak schedule. Name me a yr in the big 8 that we didn't go 9-1 or 10-0 before the okla game. It wasn't because we were go great, we played against the sisters of the poor, just like every other top team does. You don't play tough competition every week and end up undefeated. I believe the schedule we play now is tougher than the ones we played during the big 8 days.

For all you negative posters, I imagine you've never suited up, or if you did, you didn't play much. You act as though you have so much knowledge concerning how to coach and play. You make me sick. I haven't posted much on here and probably won't in the future. You don't need to drink kool aid to realize this team is on the rise, yeah, we got blown out a couple of times this yr, But lets not forget, we played Georgia tough and could have won the game if not for taylor's usual gaffs. interception or fumble at the worst times, against georgia it wasn't just him, ameer helped out in that department. Those were unforced errors and those mistakes are the ones that have killed us.

I also believe the young guns will be better than this yrs slow as molasses linebackers. I don't care how much you know the defense, if you're not fast enough to keep up, what good does knowing what to do help you. I'll add another players name that came in, and because of his speed, played lights out. Lavonte David anyone. Played pretty good without knowing the D, just extremely fast to the ball. The offense has returned and the defense will soon follow, if you can't see that, than you are just a naysayer that knows little. I've followed the Huskers since 1958, and with little exception, we've never had the skill at the skill positions that we have now, yeah, a player here or there, but not the overall talent at every offensive skill position. If our O line was anything like TO's teams, no one could stop us, they have trouble now. This is a husker board and our recruits look at this site to check out the fans, it's unfortunate that 70 percent of the contributors on here are negative, because we haven't brought home a title. I would like to have a few new banners myself, but I'll support the huskers with as much positive influence as I can. Support what we have, stop crying about what you want, have a little patience. TO left in after the 97 season. We haven't been a top flight program since. Bo's only had five yrs to repair 11 yrs of avg to poor coaching, loss of recruits with TO's retirement, etc. etc. etc. Grow up you bunch of cry babies. This team will get back to the promise land without your negative crap, and this board would be better off without you. Call me a kool aid drinker if you want, but I'm a true red husker fan, and will not put my team down regardless of how poorly they play. They are my team and will be till I die. I'll support them in victory and defeat. and be proud of the academic all americans we produce. GBR

Do we still use banners to recognize championships?

Your comment obviously indicates you argee with me if all you can pick out is my use of the work banner, when most fans would realize the use of that phrase is directly related to my age. You sir have made thousands of comments on this board, and I have yet to find one that was informative or enjoyable to read. I spend time on this site daily and look for my glass of kool aid.

 

[The Dude]

I would argue that there isn't a guy on the 2012 defense that would be starting on that 2009 defense, except for MAYBE a safety in place of Matt O'Hanlon.

I would take O'Hanlon over Smith or Stafford any day.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I realize I'm getting in late on this topic, but I'm one to listen to all comments and go from there. For the most part the fans on this board are forgetting one very important fact. NU has always played a weak schedule. Name me a yr in the big 8 that we didn't go 9-1 or 10-0 before the okla game. It wasn't because we were go great, we played against the sisters of the poor, just like every other top team does. You don't play tough competition every week and end up undefeated. I believe the schedule we play now is tougher than the ones we played during the big 8 days.

For all you negative posters, I imagine you've never suited up, or if you did, you didn't play much. You act as though you have so much knowledge concerning how to coach and play. You make me sick. I haven't posted much on here and probably won't in the future. You don't need to drink kool aid to realize this team is on the rise, yeah, we got blown out a couple of times this yr, But lets not forget, we played Georgia tough and could have won the game if not for taylor's usual gaffs. interception or fumble at the worst times, against georgia it wasn't just him, ameer helped out in that department. Those were unforced errors and those mistakes are the ones that have killed us.

I also believe the young guns will be better than this yrs slow as molasses linebackers. I don't care how much you know the defense, if you're not fast enough to keep up, what good does knowing what to do help you. I'll add another players name that came in, and because of his speed, played lights out. Lavonte David anyone. Played pretty good without knowing the D, just extremely fast to the ball. The offense has returned and the defense will soon follow, if you can't see that, than you are just a naysayer that knows little. I've followed the Huskers since 1958, and with little exception, we've never had the skill at the skill positions that we have now, yeah, a player here or there, but not the overall talent at every offensive skill position. If our O line was anything like TO's teams, no one could stop us, they have trouble now. This is a husker board and our recruits look at this site to check out the fans, it's unfortunate that 70 percent of the contributors on here are negative, because we haven't brought home a title. I would like to have a few new banners myself, but I'll support the huskers with as much positive influence as I can. Support what we have, stop crying about what you want, have a little patience. TO left in after the 97 season. We haven't been a top flight program since. Bo's only had five yrs to repair 11 yrs of avg to poor coaching, loss of recruits with TO's retirement, etc. etc. etc. Grow up you bunch of cry babies. This team will get back to the promise land without your negative crap, and this board would be better off without you. Call me a kool aid drinker if you want, but I'm a true red husker fan, and will not put my team down regardless of how poorly they play. They are my team and will be till I die. I'll support them in victory and defeat. and be proud of the academic all americans we produce. GBR

Do we still use banners to recognize championships?

Your comment obviously indicates you argee with me if all you can pick out is my use of the work banner, when most fans would realize the use of that phrase is directly related to my age. You sir have made thousands of comments on this board, and I have yet to find one that was informative or enjoyable to read. I spend time on this site daily and look for my glass of kool aid.

Wow. You sure told me.

I was only kiddin around bud. And as fact, I do pretty much agree with everything you said. I just happen to not have the patience or intellect to type it all out as you have. I go on runs where I make numerous smart-alec comments. You happened to be on the tracks of this particular mood.

I'm sorry I've contributed nothing of any significance pertaining to information or enjoyment. I will now try harder. Of course, my post average will take a giant blow. Yes, I am all about the numbers.

 

[hskrfan4life]

Nebraska is a part of an elite number. Next year can be a really good year.

 

[zoogs]

I just really don't like a number that is arbitrary. The supposition is that it is extremely rare for any team to win 9+ games five years in a row. I don't care to look up the statistics there, but can that be backed up? In other words, instead of looking at the five-year period 2008-2012, look at every 5-year period ever.

And account for winning % in days when teams played fewer games.

 

[Landlord]

I just really don't like a number that is arbitrary. The supposition is that it is extremely rare for any team to win 9+ games five years in a row. I don't care to look up the statistics there, but can that be backed up? In other words, instead of looking at the five-year period 2008-2012, look at every 5-year period ever.

And account for winning % in days when teams played fewer games.

Looking at this current five year period is a more beneficial study. Why? Because it's not fair to anybody to compare across generations. In our team's context, in our team's timeframe and in our team's national landscape, they are one of five teams to accomplish the feat. I have no idea what numbers from the past would drudge up, but even if the numbers were way different, what would it mean or how would it be relevant?

 

[kchusker_chris]

I just really don't like a number that is arbitrary. The supposition is that it is extremely rare for any team to win 9+ games five years in a row. I don't care to look up the statistics there, but can that be backed up? In other words, instead of looking at the five-year period 2008-2012, look at every 5-year period ever.

And account for winning % in days when teams played fewer games.

Looking at this current five year period is a more beneficial study. Why? Because it's not fair to anybody to compare across generations. In our team's context, in our team's timeframe and in our team's national landscape, they are one of five teams to accomplish the feat. I have no idea what numbers from the past would drudge up, but even if the numbers were way different, what would it mean or how would it be relevant?

what does it mean now, or how is it relevant today? it's just something people for some reason like to talk about during the off-season - but it's in no way an indication of future success...if it was more 9 win teams would continue to win 9 games. i'm getting tired of the 9 win thing to be honest - was tired of it a couple of years ago. use this argument to a fan of any other team and they'd laugh at us. tell Ohio State that they haven't won 9 games each of the last 5 years and they'd laugh at us. Tell Wisconsin that and they'd laugh at us. Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, A&M, Standford, Florida, etc. They'd all laugh at it, then point out how we're grasping for positives about the program. They'll tell us to enjoy our 9 wins, they'll enjoy their BCS games, championships, and big bowl wins. They'd say if we were winning anything of importance, we wouldn't have to continually look to the number 9 for something positive.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Not being able to get to 9 wins means that a team isn't playing at a higher caliber. If you win 9 games a year and you play 12 to 13, you're winning 3/4 of your games. Anyone who thinks a winning percentage of of .750 is a bad thing needs to talk to Doctor Tom....because he's only slightly above that at .836.

That's what I don't get. If anything we prove that past results are not a very good indication of future success. Or at least we are the exception - the one team on that list that the theory doesn't support. Does that mean that OSU isn't playing at a high caliber because just a season ago they were 6-7? Or Michigan, Wisconsin, A&M, or Stanford, Florida, Georgia, LSU, etc? They aren't on this list. Each of them would tell you it's a pretty crappy measuring stick, because each of them has had greater success during that period than we have. Some have had lower points...but all have achieved what we haven't been able to during that stretch.

(and his slightly above % equals 1.2 more wins each season)

 

[Enhance]

I think the nine wins per season does show stability, even if we haven't won a conference title or a significant bowl game in that time frame.

It at least gives me a little confidence that Nebraska isn't terribly far away from it's goals. We have talent on our roster even if it isn't world-beating, and I think we're on the brink of being really good. We're capable of doing great things, our biggest problem is discipline and coaching. K-State has averaged a recruiting ranking of 70+ over the last four years, and they took their roster of clowns to the Fiesta Bowl, whilst winning the Big 12.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I think the nine wins per season does show stability, even if we haven't won a conference title or a significant bowl game in that time frame.

It at least gives me a little confidence that Nebraska isn't terribly far away from it's goals. We have talent on our roster even if it isn't world-beating, and I think we're on the brink of being really good. We're capable of doing great things, our biggest problem is discipline and coaching. K-State has averaged a recruiting ranking of 70+ over the last four years, and they took their roster of clowns to the Fiesta Bowl, whilst winning the Big 12.

And in a couple of years when Snyder has to retire-for good this time-they will be right back where they belong. All that happened there was a 15 year lightning in a bottle with a man that is so great and legendary, that not only did he have no interest in leaving, but he came out of retirement to "make" kstate again. They arent gonna find that again.

 

[Enhance]

I think the nine wins per season does show stability, even if we haven't won a conference title or a significant bowl game in that time frame.

It at least gives me a little confidence that Nebraska isn't terribly far away from it's goals. We have talent on our roster even if it isn't world-beating, and I think we're on the brink of being really good. We're capable of doing great things, our biggest problem is discipline and coaching. K-State has averaged a recruiting ranking of 70+ over the last four years, and they took their roster of clowns to the Fiesta Bowl, whilst winning the Big 12.

And in a couple of years when Snyder has to retire-for good this time-they will be right back where they belong. All that happened there was a 15 year lightning in a bottle with a man that is so great and legendary, that not only did he have no interest in leaving, but he came out of retirement to "make" kstate again. They arent gonna find that again.

I think K-State will fall back into being irrelevant as well. My only point is it doesn't take top talent to win big, and it doesn't take top coaching either. I think there's a balance that has to be found. I also think we're not that far away from being pretty good. I think we have the talent there, we just need the discipline.