Stop the nonsense

[I Bleed RED]

True, and yet the same top programs have dominated for the last decade. With parody you can lose on any given day, but with poor planning you will lose consistently. Somehow with all this parody WE never beat a good team....weird huh?

We have NEVER beaten a team that finished in the top 20 in 3.5 years. We are an exception to the parody rule.

With parity, more and more you see that the weak cupcake opponents are non longer. Parity means that often times these teams will be just as physical, fast, and prepared as the mightier ones. You'll see a lot of games that once could be counted on as blowouts to become shootouts.

Parity does not affect Nebraska in a good way. It means when we travel to Wake Forest, we may have more trouble than we think because they're a rising program with a lot of talent in the area. It means Michigan will have difficulty handling a determined, feisty program like ASU if they overlook them.

It doesn't mean Nebraska can beat USC except on extremely lucky circumstance, because USC is on the top of the mountain. We should have expected more of a game though, that's true. But if you're saying we're an exception to the parity rule, then you're being hysterical.

There was 2 points to my post, 1 was to use PARODY the way he did, second was to say parity only applies to us losing or struggling to lesser teams. We never step up and create parity for a better team. We are an exception.

 

[HuskerJosh82]

Ball St. has a QB that has 8 TD's to 1 INT.......................................

They also run the Wishbone offense...............................

Really, I thought it was Navy that ran the Wishbone?

 

[zoogs]

True, and yet the same top programs have dominated for the last decade. With parody you can lose on any given day, but with poor planning you will lose consistently. Somehow with all this parody WE never beat a good team....weird huh?

We have NEVER beaten a team that finished in the top 20 in 3.5 years. We are an exception to the parody rule.

With parity, more and more you see that the weak cupcake opponents are non longer. Parity means that often times these teams will be just as physical, fast, and prepared as the mightier ones. You'll see a lot of games that once could be counted on as blowouts to become shootouts.

Parity does not affect Nebraska in a good way. It means when we travel to Wake Forest, we may have more trouble than we think because they're a rising program with a lot of talent in the area. It means Michigan will have difficulty handling a determined, feisty program like ASU if they overlook them.

It doesn't mean Nebraska can beat USC except on extremely lucky circumstance, because USC is on the top of the mountain. We should have expected more of a game though, that's true. But if you're saying we're an exception to the parity rule, then you're being hysterical.

There was 2 points to my post, 1 was to use PARODY the way he did, second was to say parity only applies to us losing or struggling to lesser teams. We never step up and create parity for a better team. We are an exception.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. But if we are an exception, then would you agree that so are all the other traditional strong teams?

 

[HuskerJosh82]

Ball St. has a QB that has 8 TD's to 1 INT.......................................

They also run the Wishbone offense...............................

Really, I thought it was Navy that ran the Wishbone?

You're right, I was wrong.

 

[I Bleed RED]

True, and yet the same top programs have dominated for the last decade. With parody you can lose on any given day, but with poor planning you will lose consistently. Somehow with all this parody WE never beat a good team....weird huh?

We have NEVER beaten a team that finished in the top 20 in 3.5 years. We are an exception to the parody rule.

With parity, more and more you see that the weak cupcake opponents are non longer. Parity means that often times these teams will be just as physical, fast, and prepared as the mightier ones. You'll see a lot of games that once could be counted on as blowouts to become shootouts.

Parity does not affect Nebraska in a good way. It means when we travel to Wake Forest, we may have more trouble than we think because they're a rising program with a lot of talent in the area. It means Michigan will have difficulty handling a determined, feisty program like ASU if they overlook them.

It doesn't mean Nebraska can beat USC except on extremely lucky circumstance, because USC is on the top of the mountain. We should have expected more of a game though, that's true. But if you're saying we're an exception to the parity rule, then you're being hysterical.

There was 2 points to my post, 1 was to use PARODY the way he did, second was to say parity only applies to us losing or struggling to lesser teams. We never step up and create parity for a better team. We are an exception.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. But if we are an exception, then would you agree that so are all the other traditional strong teams?

Yes and no. They can't possibly be part of the lower parity. We on the other hand often play teams better than us so we can see parity on both sides, as a winner and a loser. We haven't been a winner yet. And teams like App. St can only see parity as a winner.

 

[huskerpower_76]

Well, now that I see your guy's opinions I guess coaching is really the problem. We have had so many chances to get over the hump to what we were before, but so many of those times we have taken BIG steps back. True, it may take 1 or 2 years for a coach to get a program back, but not 5.

 

[husker dick]

Since points allowed/scored is the true measure in wins and losses, wouldn't points allowed be the stat that matters most for defense?

Not at all. Too many unknown variables in the points allowed per game will skew the determination. For instance, suppose the offense had 10 turnovers on its own 15 yard line and the defense gave up 0 yards, and had two sacks, but the other team kicked 10 field goals, scoring 30 points. In that circumstance, you would probably say we had a pretty stout defense, but the points per game stat does not reflect that fact. Obviously that is an extreme example, but it explains why points allowed is not a very good stat for judging the defense.

If you are keeping points off the board, something is working. Apply you're logic to that statement. Saturday night sucked, but if you want to take statistics into account, at least take into account stats that tell the whole story. USC only passed for 130 yards, does that mean that the pass defense shut down USC's receievers? Chew on that.

Sure, I'll apply my logic to that statement. Maybe on a lot of drives, the other team's offense started on their own one yard line, drove down to our 5 yard line, and then had a turnover on a bad snap, or even missed a field goal. The defense just gave up 94 yards on one drive, but the other team didn't score any points. That does not mean the defense did well, even though there were 0 points allowed.

You are right, that looking purely at passing yardage is not necessarilly indicative of shutting down the other team's receivers. I agree with you, and I would not try and argue against that. My post was merely responding to the assertion that points allowed per game was the primary stat you needed to look at to determine if the defense is any good.

How do you determine who wins or loses a game? The friggin SCORE! Points allowed and points scored are the 2 stats that matter the most in determining success or failure, it's pretty much black and white. The scenario that a team is going to go on a 15 play 98 yard drive then either fumble, throw an INT or miss a FG by pure impotence of the offense is not typical. If the defense was really inept, the offense would continue to do that and score the majority of the time throughout a game, showing up on the scoreboard. You raised a pretty weak point of contention. The stats that matter most are points for and points against, thats how W's and L's are determined, which decide conferences and national titles, not yards allowed or yards gained or passing efficiency defense or offense or anything of that nature.

You have to be careful using any sort of statistic as rigid as you state. Example USC defense points /game 20.5 whose ahead of them at 20.3/game Ball State. Black and white I don't think so. You have to many other variable to boil it down to one number.

You have two team that have equal defenses, but one has a great offense the other marginal. The first defense being ahead by a large margin may back off, play second and third string, allow a few more points. (see fourth quarter of Saturdays game) the other defense may have to battle for four quarters to preserve a win.

Can they give you some indication sure. LSU is number 1 right now I'd gladly take Bo back but whose the next three Cincinnati, Iowa, Kansas.

I recall three years ago we lead the nation in sacks. Were we the best pass rush team in the nation? I think that is debatable. We got half those sacks in the first three games against marginal opponents 11 against Maine I think. The pass rush disappeared down the stretch

Careful using stats as black and white.

 

[IlliniHusker]

McKeon had an excellent soph yr as LB, then a mediocre yr as a Jr and now is having a miserable yr as a Sr.

Ruud entered this year ranked as the 2nd team All-American LB (Athlon Sports) and he is having a miserable yr.

Maybe the coaches could explain how this can be happening?

 

[DJR313]

Since points allowed/scored is the true measure in wins and losses, wouldn't points allowed be the stat that matters most for defense?

Not at all. Too many unknown variables in the points allowed per game will skew the determination. For instance, suppose the offense had 10 turnovers on its own 15 yard line and the defense gave up 0 yards, and had two sacks, but the other team kicked 10 field goals, scoring 30 points. In that circumstance, you would probably say we had a pretty stout defense, but the points per game stat does not reflect that fact. Obviously that is an extreme example, but it explains why points allowed is not a very good stat for judging the defense.

If you are keeping points off the board, something is working. Apply you're logic to that statement. Saturday night sucked, but if you want to take statistics into account, at least take into account stats that tell the whole story. USC only passed for 130 yards, does that mean that the pass defense shut down USC's receievers? Chew on that.

Sure, I'll apply my logic to that statement. Maybe on a lot of drives, the other team's offense started on their own one yard line, drove down to our 5 yard line, and then had a turnover on a bad snap, or even missed a field goal. The defense just gave up 94 yards on one drive, but the other team didn't score any points. That does not mean the defense did well, even though there were 0 points allowed.

You are right, that looking purely at passing yardage is not necessarilly indicative of shutting down the other team's receivers. I agree with you, and I would not try and argue against that. My post was merely responding to the assertion that points allowed per game was the primary stat you needed to look at to determine if the defense is any good.

How do you determine who wins or loses a game? The friggin SCORE! Points allowed and points scored are the 2 stats that matter the most in determining success or failure, it's pretty much black and white. The scenario that a team is going to go on a 15 play 98 yard drive then either fumble, throw an INT or miss a FG by pure impotence of the offense is not typical. If the defense was really inept, the offense would continue to do that and score the majority of the time throughout a game, showing up on the scoreboard. You raised a pretty weak point of contention. The stats that matter most are points for and points against, thats how W's and L's are determined, which decide conferences and national titles, not yards allowed or yards gained or passing efficiency defense or offense or anything of that nature.

You have to be careful using any sort of statistic as rigid as you state. Example USC defense points /game 20.5 whose ahead of them at 20.3/game Ball State. Black and white I don't think so. You have to many other variable to boil it down to one number.

You have two team that have equal defenses, but one has a great offense the other marginal. The first defense being ahead by a large margin may back off, play second and third string, allow a few more points. (see fourth quarter of Saturdays game) the other defense may have to battle for four quarters to preserve a win.

Can they give you some indication sure. LSU is number 1 right now I'd gladly take Bo back but whose the next three Cincinnati, Iowa, Kansas.

I recall three years ago we lead the nation in sacks. Were we the best pass rush team in the nation? I think that is debatable. We got half those sacks in the first three games against marginal opponents 11 against Maine I think. The pass rush disappeared down the stretch

Careful using stats as black and white.

If you look at the end of the season as to the teams that are top 5 in points allowed, they generally have the best defenses. USC will have one of the top defenses in the country when it is all said and done. I see merit in what you are saying, but I guess I went a little overboard responding to a silly argument that yards allowed being a key statistic. Look to points allowed and that is generally the best indicator of how a defense performs for a whole season. Nebraska was 24 and 25 the last two years and the team was ranked similarly. There are a ton of variables that factor into what makes a great defense, but that is generally the most telling stat.

 

[HUSKERWANK07]

besides losing to sc which is #1 and should win the NC cosgrove has lost to 8 unranked teams and let them score 30 points since he has been here..that horrible! we have talent but where is the coaching? tackling drills need to improve! if not cosgrove has got to go

 

[California Husker]

I think that the fact his defenses have finished 56th, 26th, and 56th in the country the past three years is reason enough to warrant a change. Our offense will finish in the top 20 probably every year with Callahan from here on out. If we had even a defense that could finish in the top 25, we'd be competing for titles. Cosgrove's units weren't that good at Wisconsin, and they havent been since he got here.

The defense has finished in the top 25 in points allowed per game in the past 2 seasons. Look it up.

Regardless of what the original poster says, Ruud and McKeon played awful on saturday and need to step it up. They consistently ran themselves out of plays.

Well, right now our defense is #46 in total defense and #67 in points allowed....Look it up. Coz sucks and should have been gone a long time ago. We have had the opportunity to get people to replace him. Hell, Tyrone Nix left Southern Miss, why did he end up at South Carolina? Nebraska is a higher profile school than South Carolina even with little-Stevie-ball-coach.

 

[husker dick]

Since points allowed/scored is the true measure in wins and losses, wouldn't points allowed be the stat that matters most for defense?

Not at all. Too many unknown variables in the points allowed per game will skew the determination. For instance, suppose the offense had 10 turnovers on its own 15 yard line and the defense gave up 0 yards, and had two sacks, but the other team kicked 10 field goals, scoring 30 points. In that circumstance, you would probably say we had a pretty stout defense, but the points per game stat does not reflect that fact. Obviously that is an extreme example, but it explains why points allowed is not a very good stat for judging the defense.

If you are keeping points off the board, something is working. Apply you're logic to that statement. Saturday night sucked, but if you want to take statistics into account, at least take into account stats that tell the whole story. USC only passed for 130 yards, does that mean that the pass defense shut down USC's receievers? Chew on that.

Sure, I'll apply my logic to that statement. Maybe on a lot of drives, the other team's offense started on their own one yard line, drove down to our 5 yard line, and then had a turnover on a bad snap, or even missed a field goal. The defense just gave up 94 yards on one drive, but the other team didn't score any points. That does not mean the defense did well, even though there were 0 points allowed.

You are right, that looking purely at passing yardage is not necessarilly indicative of shutting down the other team's receivers. I agree with you, and I would not try and argue against that. My post was merely responding to the assertion that points allowed per game was the primary stat you needed to look at to determine if the defense is any good.

How do you determine who wins or loses a game? The friggin SCORE! Points allowed and points scored are the 2 stats that matter the most in determining success or failure, it's pretty much black and white. The scenario that a team is going to go on a 15 play 98 yard drive then either fumble, throw an INT or miss a FG by pure impotence of the offense is not typical. If the defense was really inept, the offense would continue to do that and score the majority of the time throughout a game, showing up on the scoreboard. You raised a pretty weak point of contention. The stats that matter most are points for and points against, thats how W's and L's are determined, which decide conferences and national titles, not yards allowed or yards gained or passing efficiency defense or offense or anything of that nature.

You have to be careful using any sort of statistic as rigid as you state. Example USC defense points /game 20.5 whose ahead of them at 20.3/game Ball State. Black and white I don't think so. You have to many other variable to boil it down to one number.

You have two team that have equal defenses, but one has a great offense the other marginal. The first defense being ahead by a large margin may back off, play second and third string, allow a few more points. (see fourth quarter of Saturdays game) the other defense may have to battle for four quarters to preserve a win.

Can they give you some indication sure. LSU is number 1 right now I'd gladly take Bo back but whose the next three Cincinnati, Iowa, Kansas.

I recall three years ago we lead the nation in sacks. Were we the best pass rush team in the nation? I think that is debatable. We got half those sacks in the first three games against marginal opponents 11 against Maine I think. The pass rush disappeared down the stretch

Careful using stats as black and white.

If you look at the end of the season as to the teams that are top 5 in points allowed, they generally have the best defenses. USC will have one of the top defenses in the country when it is all said and done. I see merit in what you are saying, but I guess I went a little overboard responding to a silly argument that yards allowed being a key statistic. Look to points allowed and that is generally the best indicator of how a defense performs for a whole season. Nebraska was 24 and 25 the last two years and the team was ranked similarly. There are a ton of variables that factor into what makes a great defense, but that is generally the most telling stat.

What bothers me with this is that can Cosgrove have a good sheme and hold an opposing offense to a few points. Yes. But my concern is the opposite is also true. Seems he can strikeout just as easily. He kind of reminds me of Dave Kingman batting. If Dave guessed right he could hit some towering home runs. If not he looked like he was screwing himself into the ground.

We're allowing 10 pts total to Nichol St, Troy and K St. but allowed 73 pts to KU and Okie St. combined.

My fear is that Cosgrove's defense is going to be good for a couple of losses each year when he guesses wrong.

 

[HUSKERSTILIDIE]

I'm tired of seeing all of this crap about we should get rid of Cosgrove. I don't understand all the scrutiny he has been receiving. We know the defense has not played well the past couple games....but come on!

Having struggles against the #1 team in the nation and the defending ACC champion are not that bad considering we came out of that 1-1. And Nevada was a good team with a difficult offense to learn, we could have easily choked there but instead we beat, what, 52-10. Talk about a crappy coach huh. Come on!

And now you want to blame everything on Ruud and McKeon. These guys have done nothing but fight their butts off for the Huskers. Hell, last week you loved these guys and now you dont want them to start. If you want to blame any of the defensive personel than criticize the dline for not knowing how to wrap up.

I would agree with you if it were not for just how badly our defense looked. We aren't just talking about the USC O Line opening up holes, they took the entire defense and just simply moved the entire team to one side of the field and left holes the size of the freakin INTERSTATE to run the ball through. It's not so bad losing to the #1 team I agree and didn't expect us to win, but after seeing just how bad the defense is I have to say the coaching is lacking severely here. On the flip side, I think the offense looks very promising in the passing game. The O line looked terrible though. Pass protection was dismal and wow the running game...WHAT running game! I have to say the losses this year should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Coz and Wags.

 

[DJR313]

I think that the fact his defenses have finished 56th, 26th, and 56th in the country the past three years is reason enough to warrant a change. Our offense will finish in the top 20 probably every year with Callahan from here on out. If we had even a defense that could finish in the top 25, we'd be competing for titles. Cosgrove's units weren't that good at Wisconsin, and they havent been since he got here.

The defense has finished in the top 25 in points allowed per game in the past 2 seasons. Look it up.

Regardless of what the original poster says, Ruud and McKeon played awful on saturday and need to step it up. They consistently ran themselves out of plays.

Well, right now our defense is #46 in total defense and #67 in points allowed....Look it up.

Exactly my point. The defense performed very poorly and the stats don't lie. I am not sure if Tyrone Nix is the answer or who exactly is, all I know is that the talent that is on defense is not that bad. USC is good, but they are not that good. Nebraska could not stop them, but I am sure they could have done something to maybe slow them down a bit. I think it is alarming that Cosgrove has a meltdown or 2 a year, that seems to be par, but other times the game plans are a thing of genius. I guess, just like most here, I'd like more consistency. He has had good defenses in the past, mediocre ones too.