Bro Tommy Frazier wasn't a slouch, neither was Turner GillWhat is up with this 'Run the Ball Guy' stuff? Hasn't he been right? A lot?
I'm still tripping to '01, aside from Black Friday and the Rose Bowl Beatdown. The point is, we were IN the Rose Bowl - it's the last time we even sniffed greatness. THAT'S what we miss. 14 seasons removed from a Husker team that played for a title, and we're pretty straight-forward people. What worked back then? Well, let's try that.
But, I do agree with whomever said we needed a championship-level defense first. That's the dang truth. Osborne did recruit great athletes for offense, but there are several that ended up playing defense (Tony Veland comes to mind) - I think our best athletes most years were Blackshirts. Watching the ASU vs TTU track meet the other night was a glaring example of using all your best athletes on offense.
Osborne kept formations and plays relatively simple and straight forward, and recruited to that simple, yet somewhat unique offense. He didn't have to try to get Peyton Manning, Vinny Testeverde, or Drew Bledsoe. He also didn't need to go after Lemming's top 5 receivers, either. Are we going to beat USC, Florida, and Alabama for all these cogs to Riley's machine? Not very often. So how are we going to beat them on the field?
Not nearly as fast as Barron Miles, or as quick as Terrell Farley. You may have a point with Gill, though. I believe it was '93 that Osborne and McBride made the switch to the 4-3, which put more speed on the field as opposed to size/strength.Bro Tommy Frazier wasn't a slouch, neither was Turner GillWhat is up with this 'Run the Ball Guy' stuff? Hasn't he been right? A lot?
I'm still tripping to '01, aside from Black Friday and the Rose Bowl Beatdown. The point is, we were IN the Rose Bowl - it's the last time we even sniffed greatness. THAT'S what we miss. 14 seasons removed from a Husker team that played for a title, and we're pretty straight-forward people. What worked back then? Well, let's try that.
But, I do agree with whomever said we needed a championship-level defense first. That's the dang truth. Osborne did recruit great athletes for offense, but there are several that ended up playing defense (Tony Veland comes to mind) - I think our best athletes most years were Blackshirts. Watching the ASU vs TTU track meet the other night was a glaring example of using all your best athletes on offense.
Osborne kept formations and plays relatively simple and straight forward, and recruited to that simple, yet somewhat unique offense. He didn't have to try to get Peyton Manning, Vinny Testeverde, or Drew Bledsoe. He also didn't need to go after Lemming's top 5 receivers, either. Are we going to beat USC, Florida, and Alabama for all these cogs to Riley's machine? Not very often. So how are we going to beat them on the field?
If you stack up the QBs who have played for MSU versus those for Nebraska since 2000, I have a hard time understanding why you think MSU has been more successful at recruiting or developing for college production.So, the contention at one point was that MSU has been recruiting better at QB under Dantonio than Nebraska has.P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.
....so?
90%+ of the teams in the B10 and SEC would probably start him if Armstrong was on their roster.
That's how good this kid is. And it's on this staff to utilize him properly.
I mean if you want to use recruiting rankings from high school to evaluate seniors in college, that's your prerogative, but I'm guessing the spirit of that contention is that MSU has had better quarterbacks than Nebraska has, which is... pretty hard to argue with. If we are recruiting better quarterbacks, we're doing a worse job of developing them, and that speaks to the previous staff as much as the current one.
You can't be serious, right?If you stack up the QBs who have played for MSU versus those for Nebraska since 2000, I have a hard time understanding why you think MSU has been more successful at recruiting or developing for college production.So, the contention at one point was that MSU has been recruiting better at QB under Dantonio than Nebraska has.P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.
....so?
90%+ of the teams in the B10 and SEC would probably start him if Armstrong was on their roster.
That's how good this kid is. And it's on this staff to utilize him properly.
I mean if you want to use recruiting rankings from high school to evaluate seniors in college, that's your prerogative, but I'm guessing the spirit of that contention is that MSU has had better quarterbacks than Nebraska has, which is... pretty hard to argue with. If we are recruiting better quarterbacks, we're doing a worse job of developing them, and that speaks to the previous staff as much as the current one.
What the hell are you smokin dude!If you stack up the QBs who have played for MSU versus those for Nebraska since 2000, I have a hard time understanding why you think MSU has been more successful at recruiting or developing for college production.So, the contention at one point was that MSU has been recruiting better at QB under Dantonio than Nebraska has.P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.
....so?
90%+ of the teams in the B10 and SEC would probably start him if Armstrong was on their roster.
That's how good this kid is. And it's on this staff to utilize him properly.
I mean if you want to use recruiting rankings from high school to evaluate seniors in college, that's your prerogative, but I'm guessing the spirit of that contention is that MSU has had better quarterbacks than Nebraska has, which is... pretty hard to argue with. If we are recruiting better quarterbacks, we're doing a worse job of developing them, and that speaks to the previous staff as much as the current one.
The simple fact is, we'll never know how TA may have progressed if he'd finished his career with some continuity in staffing. We do know that Martinez's production was clearly trending upward until he was injured as a senior. No reason to think TA wouldn't have continued along the same path.
it's not a beacon of hope. But it's what we have to deal with for a few years. So most ppl are actually on the "wait and see" side. Whereas you, with all your bitterness and negativity, confuse that for hope. Im as skeptical as the next guy. You'll never see me argue against the what-ifs. But dont confuse that with me pumpin sunshine. All I do is provide facts as to why maybe the wait and see approach is appropriate. You on the other hand, want to give zero chance. God you must be a pissy son a gun at home.People degrade Navy's top 30 winning % during the past 10 years, but think .500 at Oregon St is a beacon of hope.
Fascinating.
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.People degrade Navy's top 30 winning % during the past 10 years, but think .500 at Oregon St is a beacon of hope.
Fascinating.
Strength and conditioning didn't change from 90 to 94.