McKewon with a GREAT break down of Alabama's run, Osborne's run and Bo's 5 years.

HuskerNationNick

HuskerNationNick

New member
Like the title says. McKewon write another very interesting article, and a great breakdown. Now don't read into it too much, because we are still a few steps from being "elite", but I do believe we are close to being a finished team. Close to being NEBRASKA again. We have the tools, the coaches, now we just have to use them right.

McKewon shows we are there to compete offensively, with the exception of the turnovers, but we are behind on defense.

Great Read:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130113/HUSKERS/701139803/1002#mckewon-numbers-show-where-nebraska-needs-to-gain-ground

 
LOL - close...have you just gotten through the 2009/2010 seasons on your DVR? Wait until you finally get watch to 2011/2012...

(on a side note...I don't think it's really fair - or useful - to be comparing a programs 5 year run to the 2 best 3 year runs in the last 4 decades)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing is the styles are way different in the SEC of today and Big 12 of the 90s vs the B1G of today...not EXACTLY apples to apples.

 
I think you two (not chaddy) are missing the point, or at least the way I took it.

Its showing we have the offense, to compete with anyone in the country. The only problem we have is a team that puts the ball on the ground. With that, we also don't have a defense who can cause turnovers as well, to even our our ratio. It also shows we aren't close to either runs, even the current one from Alabama, defensively to compete. We fix turnovers and establish a decent defense, we will be a BCS or even a National Title team.

Why must you read into everything? Its not hard to know what you need to win championships. A team that can produce 400+ ypg, 80%+ redzone scoring, a defense that doesn't get gashed for multiple 150+ rushing/passing yards, and a team who doesn't turn the ball over and has a positive turnover ratio.

Thats what this says, and it shows we aren't too far. Sorry for showing progress to our horrible team that isn't even close to being able to compete with anyone. /sarcasm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one is jumping all over you, we were just looking at the picture as a whole. My only point is you must have a pattern of success that works well enough in your conference to get to the BCS before you can worry about championships. I would point out the vast majority of BCS champs since its inception are SEC teams...teams known for a specific style of play...punishing defenses, not necessarily high powered offenses. Its just an observation. You make good points, up until the B1G championship, NU was 10-2...although it did require a couple of significant comebacks to win. NU is close, I just don't know *how* close.

Personally, and this may be some SEC bias, I just am not sure the B1G competition as a whole is significant enough to truly get a gauge at how good any specific B1G team is.

 
I love McKewon's articles, and I love comparing stats, but I don't think we needed this article to know that we'd win more games if turnover margin and defense improve.

 
HuskerNationNick said:
I think you two (not chaddy) are missing the point, or at least the way I took it.

Its showing we have the offense, to compete with anyone in the country. The only problem we have is a team that puts the ball on the ground. With that, we also don't have a defense who can cause turnovers as well, to even our our ratio. It also shows we aren't close to either runs, even the current one from Alabama, defensively to compete. We fix turnovers and establish a decent defense, we will be a BCS or even a National Title team.

Why must you read into everything? Its not hard to know what you need to win championships. A team that can produce 400+ ypg, 80%+ redzone scoring, a defense that doesn't get gashed for multiple 150+ rushing/passing yards, and a team who doesn't turn the ball over and has a positive turnover ratio.

Thats what this says, and it shows we aren't too far. Sorry for showing progress to our horrible team that isn't even close to being able to compete with anyone. /sarcasm
Click to expand...
i'm sure a lot of fans and coaches say this about there team but its easier said than done there is a reason there are only a few teams that can hold a team under 15 points a game while scoring nearly 40 points a game like alabama did this year its because it hard to be great on both side of the ball not impossible just saying it seems like your making it seem to simple, but i like the optimism its good to read posts from a positive fan

 
I agree with you HuskerNationNick, we very well could be undefeated heading into the Big Ten Title game next year. If we had a defense that would have performed against the run or the pass in the matter of the Capital One bowl, how different some people's reactions would be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AgMarauder04 said:
No one is jumping all over you, we were just looking at the picture as a whole. My only point is you must have a pattern of success that works well enough in your conference to get to the BCS before you can worry about championships. I would point out the vast majority of BCS champs since its inception are SEC teams...teams known for a specific style of play...punishing defenses, not necessarily high powered offenses. Its just an observation. You make good points, up until the B1G championship, NU was 10-2...although it did require a couple of significant comebacks to win. NU is close, I just don't know *how* close.

Personally, and this may be some SEC bias, I just am not sure the B1G competition as a whole is significant enough to truly get a gauge at how good any specific B1G team is.
Click to expand...
Never stated anyone was jumping all over me lol. I think the B1G itself is much further than a lot of people give credit for. Each team selected to play in the bowl game, were matched with a higher opponent than they would have initially been with if it wasn't for PSU and tOSU being ineligible for bowl games. Now this is not anyone's fault except those programs under sanctions, besides those under them.

Michigan pared very well with a stout South Carolina team, one score from winning. They had that game, but fell off in the last 30 seconds of the game.

Nebraska hung right with Georgia, and could have won that game if they didn't let the "snowball" effect kick their asses. (we would have faced Georgia even OSU or PSU were eligible IMO)

Minnesota was one point away from beating Texas Tech.

Northwestern beat Miss Sate, who was suppose to beat them.

Wisconsin was one score away from a BCS Stanford team.

Michigan State beat TCU, who was favored to win that game.

Purdue got smashed as expected, and they wouldn't have played OSU if either teams ineligible were able to play.

Basically what I am saying, most of these match-ups wouldn't have happened if we had full eligibilty this year for all teams or even just all but one were eligible for bowl play. Teams would have been matched against better, but instead we played the best of the best, and it showed that the B1G is not far from the SEC or any program for that matter. The B12 is a high powered offense with a lack of defense now. The SEC is mixed. High powered offense (Alabama in a way, Georgia, South Carolina. A&M) while there are other teams who solely rely on a decent offense and a stout defense to get them to where they need to go (LSU, Florida, Alabama who's defense is better than their offense). I don't think the SEC has "one" identity. Same with the PAC 12.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
hskrfan4life said:
I agree with you HuskerNationNick, we very well could be undefeated heading into the Big Ten Title game next year. If we had a defense that would have performed against the run or the pass in the matter of the Capital One bowl, how different some people's reactions would be.
Click to expand...
If our DB's didn't have to be accountable for the run as much as they did this year, you would have seen more INT's and we wouldn't have been taken advantage of in the secondary like we were against Georgia. Georgia was smart. They spread us out, went deep to pull the safety or made him bite on the PA, and took advantage of a LB on a WR, RB or TE. Not saying we sucked by any means, but when you have to make players accountable for something they shouldn't have to focus on, it creates holes, and those holes will be shown sometime throughout the season.

If we had a decent Dline this year, you would have seen a different record. This would have allowed a better Pass Rush and Rush Defense for us, but we worked with what we could without ruining the future of these kids who want 4 full years to do what they love.

 
AgMarauder04 said:
So, is it coaching or not enough talent on D?
Click to expand...
This year, not enough talent on the field. These coaches got more than what they ever expected out of a sub par team. Compton played lights out this year. Fisher did quite well with 48 tackles in 5 games. Whaley ended better than I expected. Santos wasn't what anyone thought he would be, but he is young, and will get much better and be a great contributor next year if he doesn't get beat out for a starting position and add great depth. When you have to move a 235 DE to a DT, its talent and depth issues.

I know my views may not be like everyone elses, but this is just how I see it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top