What did we learn-Wyoming edition

[Count 'Bility]

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

Theres a very wide range of throwing the ball. It's a very vague term. When i say you have to throw the ball to be successful, I dont mean going all Mike Leach on someone, but rather, it has to be there. There has to be a threat. If we came out and only threw ten times like against Fresno St, we wouldnt be a successful team. But im calling for passing every play either. Lot of give and take in it. And it varies on a game by game basis.

I get the Navy talk. I do. They are rather successful for their situation. But my point in regards to Navy is, relative to our expecations? They havent done sh#t. Whereas Michigan St (who was thrown into that discussion by someone, cant recall who, as a model of what we may be headed to offensively) has already done everything we aspire to accomplish just within the last half decade. Just providing further case that maybe the particular offensive system has very little to do with it. Someone made a comment that "who cares what Mich St does. Let's just do what we do". Well....... Another point of evidence is, back in the early 90's, when we made the defensive changes-which probably had more to do with the mid 90's than anything-did McBride think up the 4-3 on his own? Or was there numerous trips back and forth and basically copying what Fla St and Miami were doing? This is what goes on in sports. You find a successful program and you want to emulate them. So you get inside of what theyre doing in all aspects. So when that person says "who cares what Mich St does...." that's ignorant and stupid. And to throw Navy in there, well....... If Navy didnt run the option, they wouldnt even be in this discussion. Which goes back to our infatuation with the option run game.

And i do understand the overall infatuation with the run game and the option. The most successful 5 year run in the history of college football utilized that philosophy. I just want some folks to get passed that and realize it's not the only way. And that it wasnt the only reason such a deal happened. And somehow, despite numerous facts I've pointed out, it's still looked passed.

 

[BRV920]

Navy is in the discussion for me because the cards are stacked against them and yet because of their system the are able to compete at a high level. Imagine if they were landing to 20 recruiting classes. I also like Michigan State but they aren't exactly a model of consistency under Dantonio either.

07 7-6

08 9-4

09 6-7

10 11-2

11 11-3

12 7-6

13 13-1

14 11 -2

15 12-2

 

[Landlord]

Navy is in the discussion for me because the cards are stacked against them and yet because of their system the are able to compete at a high level. Imagine if they were landing to 20 recruiting classes. I also like Michigan State but they aren't exactly a model of consistency under Dantonio either.

07 7-6

08 9-4

09 6-7

10 11-2

11 11-3

12 7-6

13 13-1

14 11 -2

15 12-2

1) Navy runs the system they do because they literally have to. There are no 300 pound behemoths in the Navy, they have no choice and...I mean, their team is made up of literal soldiers.

2) Michigan State under Dantonio has been remarkably consistent. Are you somehow knocking him for the building block years of turning a historically sub-par program into an elite one? For the last 6 seasons they had one where they won less than 11 games, and that 2012 team was even more unlucky than our 2015 team was.

6 years, 65 wins, two conference championships, three championship game appearances, one playoff appearance, a Rose Bowl win, a Cotton Bowl win...they're the premiere program in the conference.

 

[TAKODA]

Navy is in the discussion for me because the cards are stacked against them and yet because of their system the are able to compete at a high level. Imagine if they were landing to 20 recruiting classes. I also like Michigan State but they aren't exactly a model of consistency under Dantonio either.

07 7-6

08 9-4

09 6-7

10 11-2

11 11-3

12 7-6

13 13-1

14 11 -2

15 12-2

1) Navy runs the system they do because they literally have to. There are no 300 pound behemoths in the Navy, they have no choice and...I mean, their team is made up of literal soldiers.

2) Michigan State under Dantonio has been remarkably consistent. Are you somehow knocking him for the building block years of turning a historically sub-par program into an elite one? For the last 6 seasons they had one where they won less than 11 games, and that 2012 team was even more unlucky than our 2015 team was.

6 years, 65 wins, two conference championships, three championship game appearances, one playoff appearance, a Rose Bowl win, a Cotton Bowl win...they're the premiere program in the conference.

This above!

Ya, I really don't get why this is even in debate.

 

[RedDenver]

Navy is in the discussion for me because the cards are stacked against them and yet because of their system the are able to compete at a high level. Imagine if they were landing to 20 recruiting classes. I also like Michigan State but they aren't exactly a model of consistency under Dantonio either.

07 7-6

08 9-4

09 6-7

10 11-2

11 11-3

12 7-6

13 13-1

14 11 -2

15 12-2

1) Navy runs the system they do because they literally have to. There are no 300 pound behemoths in the Navy, they have no choice and...I mean, their team is made up of literal soldiers.

2) Michigan State under Dantonio has been remarkably consistent. Are you somehow knocking him for the building block years of turning a historically sub-par program into an elite one? For the last 6 seasons they had one where they won less than 11 games, and that 2012 team was even more unlucky than our 2015 team was.

6 years, 65 wins, two conference championships, three championship game appearances, one playoff appearance, a Rose Bowl win, a Cotton Bowl win...they're the premiere program in the conference.

Actually, there are literally no soldiers on Navy's team.

 

[BRV920]

I said I like Michigan State but we will see if they come back to earth without Cook.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Michigan St has been better than Ohio St. Ppl dont wanna admit that cuz of Ohio St's natty, but yeah......

Navy is in the discussion for me because the cards are stacked against them and yet because of their system the are able to compete at a high level. Imagine if they were landing to 20 recruiting classes. I also like Michigan State but they aren't exactly a model of consistency under Dantonio either.

07 7-6
08 9-4
09 6-7
10 11-2
11 11-3
12 7-6
13 13-1
14 11 -2
15 12-2

2010 and beyond? That's pretty frickin impressive. Esp for a program that was really in the shitter when he took over. He's a perfect example of building a program from the ground up and sustaining it. And how many times do folks sit around (myself and included) and ridicule Mich St in the early season only to see them get better and better.

And 2012? That "bad" year? worst loss by 17. The rest were by 1, 3, 2, 4, and 3. For an avg of 5 points per loss.

Navy on the other hand..

record against Power 5 record includes Notre Dame and bowl games....

2008 8-5/1-4

2009 10-4/ 3-2

2010 9-4/ 2-2

2011 5-7/ 0-2

2012 8-5/ 1-3

2013 9-4/ 2-2

2014 8-5/ 0-2

2015 11-2/ 1-1

Now. Landlord makes a great point on the necessity of their system. And yeah, relative to what the academies are accomplishing these days, yes, Navy is doing some work. But for the sake of this discussion, we have to have proper perspective of their competition level. Not only their record against power 5 programs including Notre Dame, but also how many they actually play. I think this is important because again, this is about what we expect for Nebraska. And looking at those records, if Navy ran any other offense other than an option style similar to that of long ago Nebraska's, it would be comical that Navy was used in this discussion.

 

[Undone]

I said I like Michigan State but we will see if they come back to earth without Cook.

What exactly is your point relative to our program or the discussion what that comment?

Look...just think about the talent we're bringing in at QB. Look at the talent we have returning and are recruiting at receiver. Look at what we have in Ozigbo, Wilbon, and Tre Bryant for next year. If that's not exciting, if that's not something you can at least give a shot to, I just don't really know what to say.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I said I like Michigan State but we will see if they come back to earth without Cook.

What exactly is your point relative to our program or the discussion what that comment?

Look...just think about the talent we're bringing in at QB. Look at the talent we have returning and are recruiting at receiver. Look at what we have in Ozigbo, Wilbon, and Tre Bryant for next year. If that's not exciting, if that's not something you can at least give a shot to, I just don't really know what to say.

his comment isnt out of realm. its in regards to the comparison of Mich St to Navy and Mich St's consistent success teh past 6 years. The last 3 really good years of which Cook was qb. So it's reasonable to have this question. But I'll not their great records in 2010 and '11 pre Cook as well. And, I dont think Cook became the starter til mid-2013 either, when he finally took it from Maxwell.

 

[Undone]

Sure. I think every team faces some kind of a drop off if their current quarterback isn't as good as the last one. That's just like, really obvious.

It's the case no matter what scheme you run.

At any rate, I really like what Riley is cooking up for the next two years.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

You guys got all this from the Wyoming game?

I know, right?! It's Wednesday before playing Oregon and this thread makes it seem like we lost to Wyo...

Last few pages:

 

[BRV920]

Thanks Count. This is why I would prefer a run based attack as opposed to a balanced attack. When a team like Michigan state gets great QB play the sky is the limit but when the QB play isn't lights out they drop back to .500 ish teams unless they have a top 10 defense.

 

[cm husker]

Navy is in the discussion for me because the cards are stacked against them and yet because of their system the are able to compete at a high level. Imagine if they were landing to 20 recruiting classes. I also like Michigan State but they aren't exactly a model of consistency under Dantonio either.

07 7-6

08 9-4

09 6-7

10 11-2

11 11-3

12 7-6

13 13-1

14 11 -2

15 12-2

1) Navy runs the system they do because they literally have to. There are no 300 pound behemoths in the Navy, they have no choice and...I mean, their team is made up of literal soldiers.

2) Michigan State under Dantonio has been remarkably consistent. Are you somehow knocking him for the building block years of turning a historically sub-par program into an elite one? For the last 6 seasons they had one where they won less than 11 games, and that 2012 team was even more unlucky than our 2015 team was.

6 years, 65 wins, two conference championships, three championship game appearances, one playoff appearance, a Rose Bowl win, a Cotton Bowl win...they're the premiere program in the conference.

1. Dimensions of Navy's OL this year: OT - 6'4" 300lbs, OG - 6'3" 294lbs, C - 6'2" 271lbs, OG - 6'3" 297lbs, OT - 6'4" 281lbs. Behind them you have 3 guys who are in the 295+ range, including a 330 pounder - all are 6'2" or taller. That's basically no different than the dimensions of most of our OL starters and backups.

Navy is under-talented compared to their peers, which is why they use the system they do. The system is one that really does offset talent deficiencies better than most other systems because it does a better job of isolate numbers advantages and giving OL an advantageous angle for blocking (rather than zone blocking where you need to be able to dominate your man one on one). The talent disparity issue isn't dissimilar to what NU dealt with historically when comparing to its desired peer group (i.e., the playoff contenders).

If you look back at Navy, they actually have ad a choice. For much of the 90s and early 2000s, they employed a pro-style attack (Jim Kubiak was QB from '91 to '94). During that period, they went 46-98 (103rd in the nation during that span).

The notable exception being that for two years while Paul Johnson was OC and two trailing years while Ken Niumatalolo was OC, they ran an option-based attack. Those 4 years accounted for 24 of the 46 wins from 1990 to 2002, and Navy was above .500 (and 51st in the nation in win percentage).

Apparently after realizing the error of jettisoning Johnson and Niumatalolo's option based attack, they rehired Johnson as HC in 2002 and during his first season, he posted Navy's second win of the 2000s. He and Niumatalolo would go on to combine for a 113-56 record (good for 20th in the nation during that span).

So, the bottom line is that Navy has plenty of choices, but only one right choice. (kind of what I think about Nebraska, too).

2. Dantonio is a great coach. We would definitely have fired him after 7-6 (especially after a 51-28 start). I actually think that Bo's approach was more similar to Dantonio than people realize - focus on D and attitude. Dantonio makes Bo look like saint when it comes to interactions with press. People forget that he was a hard hard nosed DC at OSU. He also benefited from moving to a team that was situated in the area where he already recruited (and a team he'd already spent 6 years at).

 

[Undone]

I actually think that Bo's approach was more similar to Dantonio than people realize - focus on D and attitude.

Tell me more about Bo's attitude and how you're able to spin it as a positive thing.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I actually think that Bo's approach was more similar to Dantonio than people realize - focus on D and attitude.

Tell me more about Bo's attitude and how you're able to spin it as a positive thing.

Dont. Just let it go. This one's too good to confront.