What did we learn-Wyoming edition

Actually I played on highly successful highschool teams and yeah I did feel a since of personal accountability my senior year. But shouldn't that be the case with every senior class? So when you say Nebraska changed everything from 90 to 94 that is false.

 
BRV920 said:
Actually I played on highly successful highschool teams and yeah I did feel a since of personal accountability my senior year. But shouldn't that be the case with every senior class? So when you say Nebraska changed everything from 90 to 94 that is false.
Click to expand...
Yes it should. It should also be there with the other three classes every year. But here's the thing. It not always is. starting in 1990, it was there. Was the urgency and dedication the same in 2002 as it was in 1992? In Paul Koch's interview books, that's what most the guys talked about what happened in the early stages of those years in all those phases. major tweeks made to the way everything was done. So again, I go back to the whole point. The option running game is not the reason Nebraska went 60-3 from 1993-1997. And probably coulda been done with any system.

 
3rd and long said:
cm husker said:
People degrade Navy's top 30 winning % during the past 10 years, but think .500 at Oregon St is a beacon of hope.

Fascinating.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything that is saying that what Oregon St did or was is ideal. Obviously it wasn't. But Navy's system hasn't exactly put them on top of the rankings either. You've seen what Navy's best is going to produce, I thought the aspirations here were for more.
Click to expand...
Exactly, +1.

And I then gave him an example of a school (Michigan State) that:

1. Is in even colder weather than we are.

2. Isn't exactly at the top of the recruiting rankings each year.

3. Runs a pro style, balanced offensive system.

4. Has won multiple conference championships in recent years.

and he just doesn't want to hear it.

I'm not saying we want to be EXACTLY LIKE MICHIGAN STATE. But how many times do you need to be slapped in the face with extremely obvious data that suggests that Riley's style of offense (that as others have stated we haven't even actually seen yet) could very well be very successful here.

It could be an offense with identity. Wait and see. But the people who just gripe at every turn about the woes of not having a power run "identity" here and equating that unequivocally with failure...the mind boggles.

 
When is this thread did I say the option running game was the only way to win at Nebraska? Pretty sure I've been pretty consistent in saying a run first team. I would however prefer Osbornes offensive system over a balanced attack.

 
BRV920 said:
When is this thread did I say the option running game was the only way to win at Nebraska? Pretty sure I've been pretty consistent in saying a run first team. I would however prefer Osbornes offensive system over a balanced attack.
Click to expand...
you didnt. That I recall.

i think ive been over twice the sequence of this discussion and how it began.

this was said in an earlier post...."The original point was that Osborne overcame vast criticism that the game had passed him by. That his perceived conservative run-based attach with option was out dated and could no longer be successful. There's this thought that since he just made it work, we should be doing it today. Theres this ideal that it's the only way Nebraska can succeed in any era of football. And that's bullsh#t. My point (as proven) is that Osborne offensive principles were probably that only thing that DIDNT change to create that level of success. And with all the changes made to create that run, he probably coulda ran any system he wanted and still had success to that degree. Thta's my whole point. Offensive playcalling isnt the exlusive end all be all to a programs success. But ppl sure act like it is. That's becuase theyre too lazy to investigate things that really make a team hum."

It started out comparing Navy's system to Michigan St's. Why we should do what we used to (more similar to Navy than Mich st) because it worked before. All i did was point out I'd rather emulate someone who has proven levels of success of which we aspire (Mich St). Then it transpired into "well it was said Osbornes offensive philosophy was outdated and that the game had passed him by but he won anyway". All i did was argue against that and said that changes were made all across the program from defensive scheme to the most innovative ways of handling nutrition and phsychology, and a higher sense of urgency within the staff and team to get things done. So in the end, I didnt accuse you exclusively, but it's trasnpired into a discussion between you and I.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess what I learned from the Wyoming game is that a .500 season 4 years or so ago at Oregon State is more important than our current 2-0 record.

#Confused

 
cm husker said:
Count said:
cm husker said:
There's a difference between change tactics and changing strategic principles.

NU's strategic principles did not change, especially offensively.
Click to expand...
That is correct. But here's the deal.
Youve completely missed the whole point of this argument. It has been filled with such bs from folks like you, that the original debate has been sh#t on.

The original point was that Osborne overcame vast criticism that the game had passed him by. That his perceived conservative run-based attach with option was out dated and could no longer be successful. There's this thought that since he just made it work, we should be doing it today. Theres this ideal that it's the only way Nebraska can succeed in any era of football. And that's bullsh#t. My point (as proven) is that Osborne offensive principles were probably that only thing that DIDNT change to create that level of success. And with all the changes made to create that run, he probably coulda ran any system he wanted and still had success to that degree. Thta's my whole point. Offensive playcalling isnt the exlusive end all be all to a programs success. But ppl sure act like it is. That's becuase theyre too lazy to investigate things that really make a team hum.

You say their strategic principles did not change, "except on offense". LOL. Well they sure changed on defense. And on special team? Special teams stopped being this tunnel used to get walkons playing ttime. all a sudden, the studs were playing on special teams. Like Mike Riley said after he was hired, and did the round table during the NC game and was asked "you play your starters on special teams?" Riley says "if you wanna win you do".

Anyway. Point is, that's 66% of the strategic principles that changed as well. so.......

Lastly. Thanks for proving me that reading comprehension still lacks around here and that apparently there's a difference between tactics and strategy.
Click to expand...
You're incredibly arrogant, especially in light of how you continue to create strawman and misstate other people's arguments.
Anyway, Bill Walsh calling the '92 bowl game said the game, at least offensively, had passed Osborne.

Did Osborne revamp everything as you claim in '92?

Short answer: No. And he didn't change his principles on D and ST - where NU always recruited speed (they did change a tactic in alignment though). ST wise, you're factually incorrect that TO didn't play first and second stringers in the punting and kicking game. Blows my mind for you to claim you only state facts and then come out with something like that false claim.

And its crazy to think TO and his assistants had more urgency in '93 than they did in '89.
Click to expand...
Arrogance and all-knowing can be exclusive qualities. I see myself as the latter. I'm not going thru each statement you made here and defending my stance. Cuz ive already done that umpteen times. Go back and read. Read, then actually think. have a nice day.

 
The Dude said:
You guys got all this from the Wyoming game?
Click to expand...
football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football football

 
The point I was trying to make about Navy had nothing to do with Michigan State at least on my part. My point is that when people on this board say you have to throw the ball to be successful I don't agree. Not saying you don't need to be able to throw the ball. If you take the time to look up Navy's recruiting classes then compare that to their record on the field I'd say their system is pretty successful

 
Back
Top