When 9 wins a year isn't the whole story.

[sd'sker]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

why do you not just argue that t-mart has not been healthy since 2010. we will never know how good we could have been. multiple mnc's? maybe.

and our o-line is not why we lost to minny.

 

[The Dude]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

Both played against Wyoming and UCLA. Taylor played against Minnesota. The argument loses all meaning if you're simply talking about guys who played dinged up. Every team deals with that. It doesn't change where Nebraska belongs in the pecking order.

 

[sd'sker]

So, missing an All-American guard and a 1st team Big Ten QB had no meaningful impact on the season...

i guess we will never know. but what i do know is that we were not exactly world beaters when we were healthy. unless you think beating wyo. at home by 3 an indication of a good season.

would long have beaten minny for us?

how do you see the season playing out if those two players are healthy? bcs bid, big ten championship? how would it be different in a meaningful way? maybe an iowa win?

100% healthy? I think we might have still lost the UCLA game (they didn't even respect the QB run after the 1st 1.5 quarters), and maybe one of the other 3, but I'd guess wins over Iowa and MSU.

do we win or even get to the conference champ. game? a bcs game? if they are healthy, what meaningful way is the season different?

 

[Saunders]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

why do you not just argue that t-mart has not been healthy since 2010. we will never know how good we could have been. multiple mnc's? maybe.

and our o-line is not why we lost to minny.

Because we're discussing actualities from this year.

 

[Saunders]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

Both played against Wyoming and UCLA. Taylor played against Minnesota. The argument loses all meaning if you're simply talking about guys who played dinged up. Every team deals with that. It doesn't change where Nebraska belongs in the pecking order.

Care to provide stats?

 

[sd'sker]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

why do you not just argue that t-mart has not been healthy since 2010. we will never know how good we could have been. multiple mnc's? maybe.

and our o-line is not why we lost to minny.

Because we're discussing actualities from this year.

are we? seems like you are arguing that our season is different, for the better i assume, in a meaningful way if long and t-mart are healthy. i disagree.

 

[Saunders]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

why do you not just argue that t-mart has not been healthy since 2010. we will never know how good we could have been. multiple mnc's? maybe.

and our o-line is not why we lost to minny.

Because we're discussing actualities from this year.

are we? seems like you are arguing that our season is different, for the better i assume, in a meaningful way if long and t-mart are healthy. i disagree.

I'm arguing that any team is better with 2 of its best (top 5) players, especially when one is a all conference 4th year starter at QB, and therefore much more likely to have a better season.

 

[The Dude]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

Both played against Wyoming and UCLA. Taylor played against Minnesota. The argument loses all meaning if you're simply talking about guys who played dinged up. Every team deals with that. It doesn't change where Nebraska belongs in the pecking order.

Care to provide stats?

I highly doubt they're kept. It's only a meaningful argument if you can prove at what rate Nebraska plays guys that are dinged up compared to other teams.

Since you can't, it's not a meaningful argument. Stop failing so hard.

 

[skersfan]

Hey, the season ended, we lost 4, won 9. Wash and repeat.

No one knows if we would have been better or not. Hell they could have finished the season and the whole staff left. Yu can not change the past. Anyway my dad is tougher than yours, and he is dead. I can not prove it nor can you. End this useless crap.

 

[The Dude]

Hey, the season ended, we lost 4, won 9. Wash and repeat.

No one knows if we would have been better or not. Hell they could have finished the season and the whole staff left. Yu can not change the past. Anyway my dad is tougher than yours, and he is dead. I can not prove it nor can you. End this useless crap.

Because if there's one thing HuskerBoard hates, it's a good rally of banter.

 

[skersfan]

Neither side can prove the out come. I listen to my wife. Seems the same to me.

don't you get enough of this stuff at home?

lol

 

[Enhance]

Every team has to deal with injuries. Some teams, however, can get hit harder than others. And, some teams can lose players that matter a lot more in the starting line up. If Mike Moudy injures his knee this year, most people likely don't care as much. Sure it stinks, but, at least it's not a potential All-American.

I believe it to be completely fair to think Nebraska may have had more success this year without the injuries they sustained. I also find it reasonable to say you can't focus too much on the 'what-if' game.

I've said this before and it still sticks. Bo is going to have to win a conference title soon if he wants to continue as coach here, and he knows it. If every year ends in similar fashion, and the same or different reasons crop up for that ending, fans and administration eventually grow tired of it. Recruiting was rough for a few years, our coaches are still learning, the administration isn't forward thinking, we had too many injuries to be competitive, or whatever else we can come up with. As I said, it'll eventually get to the point where people will say let's get a guy in here who can better overcome challenges if Pelini can't win.

 

[Saunders]

. . . as evidenced by the Wyoming, UCLA, and Minnesota games.

I don't think there was ever any question where Nebraska belonged in the college football heap last season. Before or after those guys went down.

Spencer didn't play against Minnesota and Taylor was hurt game one.

Both played against Wyoming and UCLA. Taylor played against Minnesota. The argument loses all meaning if you're simply talking about guys who played dinged up. Every team deals with that. It doesn't change where Nebraska belongs in the pecking order.

Care to provide stats?

I highly doubt they're kept. It's only a meaningful argument if you can prove at what rate Nebraska plays guys that are dinged up compared to other teams.

Since you can't, it's not a meaningful argument. Stop failing so hard.

It is meaningful, you just don't want to admit that you're wrong. It's easier to keep moving the target and call people delusional than to back up your claims. Since "every team deals with it" surely you do a teeny bit of legwork. Go find teams that lost 4th year starters at QB and performed at the same or better level than projected. I'm slow pitch softballing this for you.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You gotta love Husker fans.

As the year went on, one of the main story lines with the team was how beat up the offense was. It was talked about many times during games and in the media.

However, after the season, the story line with some fans is...."It didn't matter, we just sucked".

 

[The Dude]

I love how the posts in this thread saying the Huskers wouldn't have been any better with all their guys healthy have committed 5+ logical fallacies in trying to argue their position too. Oh well...

Who's arguing that we wouldn't have been any better with every player healthy? Every team in the nation would be better if they could stay 100% healthy all year. But football doesn't work that way.

The salient point that's being ignored here is we weren't all that good even before the injuries.