Mierin
Donor
Now that Dylan is in….
NATTY! :woo
Year one or... how long do we have to wait?
Now that Dylan is in….
NATTY! :woo
Yes, it's not exactly mind blowing to understand that Nebraska lost games they shouldn't have and won games they didn't play well. It's why they have the record that they do because they weren't significantly better or worse than the teams they played. They could've had a better record and easily could've had a worse record.So you accuse others of ignoring close wins and focus on close losses. Then you focus on the close losses. Seems legit.
It was improved play over the previous outings from Nebraska's QBs up to that point in the season. Wisconsin was a case where Purdy didn't turn the ball over until the final play of the game, after the coaches galaxy brained themselves out of a win for the second game in a row.And you can only talk about things in relativistic terms that fit your narrative. You claim "decent" QB play in those games. By whose standards?
169 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT against Wisconsin isn't really a benchmark that most of anyone would conder to be good enough.
189 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT against Iowa is basically the same.
Those yards per game would be 100+ in the country in passing offense. I don't think that's really getting it done.
That TD:INT ratio would be at least in the 80s.
Strained definition of "decent".
I've been pretty clear in saying that 2024 is a relatively easy schedule but that, on average, it's going to be substantially more difficult for Nebraska in the future."Pretty substantial" when we play basically the same type of schedule next year. When 20 ppg this year would have gotten us 4-5 more wins. Just need a Top 100 scoring offense. But that's a lot to you.
Not sure what the hangup here is. It's simultaneously true that Nebraska isn't playing the same schedule in 2024 as they did in 2023 and that the 2024 schedule also favorable considering the alternatives isn't exactly earth shattering analysis because it's true.First you say we aren't going to be playing the 2023 schedule. But the 2024 schedule is still "favorable". You simply change your statements whenever it's convenient for your argument.
Perhaps you watched a different Michigan State game than I, but Nebraska did not play well and lost that game.The 2025 schedule contains two teams we beat this year (Michigan State and Northwestern)
To put it into perspective, Nebraska would have to double their acquisition of Blue Chip talent (currently sitting at 8 players) to 16 blue chips in order to be in the realm of teams that will consistently go 10-2 or better and compete for playoff spots.If NU drastically improves recruiting, then we are talking about getting into the top 12 and the playoff picture.
I've been pretty clear in saying that 2024 is a relatively easy schedule but that, on average, it's going to be substantially more difficult for Nebraska in the future.
Why I have to explain this when the B1G is adding 4 teams - all better than Nebraska at the moment - while simultaneously getting rid of divisions is beyond me. This isn't complicated or difficult to understand.
Not sure what the hangup here is. It's simultaneously true that Nebraska isn't playing the same schedule in 2024 as they did in 2023 and that the 2024 schedule also favorable considering the alternatives isn't exactly earth shattering analysis because it's true.
With improved QB play, Nebraska has a chance to go 7-5 or 8-4 next year and average that record over a decade which is what I've been saying this whole time.
What I'm referring too is the overall average schedule Nebraska will play going forward. Pick any year you like, 2030 or 2035 and the schedule is, more likely than not, going to be more difficult than what Nebraska faced in 2023 - which was the easiest and most favorable schedule Nebraska has had in recent memory.That wasn't your argument at first. Only when I pointed out that 2024 wasn't any different than 2023 did you extend your timeline.
And now I showed that 2025 isn't really any different either. You're just stuck on that narrative so you're sticking with it.
Because it doesn't matter who's all in the conference. It only matters who we actually play.
That isn't that complicated or difficult to understand.
Again, that wasn't your original argument. Only after I pointed out the flaw in your argument. I'm glad you agree with me.
No, you've been saying that would need to be "pretty substantial" improvement. That's been your argument about needed a lot more help than just a QB this whole time.
But, again, your argument just keeps changing because you're just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.
Looks like you went back and looked at some 80’s and 90’s schedules because your verbiage earlier was Nebraska modern football history :lol:which was the easiest and most favorable schedule Nebraska has had in recent memory
Just as other teams are going to get worse and struggle at times. Funny how that works.Teams are going to improve or get better just as Nebraska is going to improve or get better
FIFYRaiola wins 3 Heismans and proceeds to get drafted 1st overall by theChicago BearsMinnesota Vikings where he restores that franchise to former glory as well winning 4 super bowls(to avenge the Vikings' 4 SB defeats) in his HOF career.
he was right the first time. If the vikings tried to draft him he would pull a John Elway and threaten to play baseballFIFY
he was right the first time. If the vikings tried to draft him he would pull a John Elway and threaten to play baseball
I would. And I'm pretty sure more ex-huskers have played for the Bears than the Vikings.I hate to break it to you, but no one would rather play for the Bears than the Vikings. If we're talking NFC North he'd probably pick the Lions given his dad's 14 year career there and their current upward trajectory.
I would. And I'm pretty sure more ex-huskers have played for the Bears than the Vikings.