What's with all the talk about how bad our talent is
- Thread starter WestCoastCornhusker
- Start date
- Status
Didn't see many UNL RB's, LB's, TE's or QB's on the All Big Ten teams voted on by coaches and media. Armstrong more talented than Beathard? Certainly not talented enough to win any meaningful games. "Superior talent" that is so laughable. If so, then your coaches must really be horrible. Either you are not paying attention or not too bright.
Oh, look there a Hawkeye fan with his chest all puffed out and cocky, that's cute. I'll love to see how you guys are if you ever win anything meaningful. Give it 3 seasons and you guys will all look like the kid in the store aisle throwing a tantrum and all wanting Ferentz's head on a platter.
Just the facts. Speaking of tantrums, did you listen to or read posts on this board from the UNL fan base after games this year? I did and it wast great comedy. Thank you.
Your team is better than ours right now and we may never get back to where we were, so I'll let you have your moment. But your team has never been where the Huskers have been and you should just resign yourself to the fact that they will never reach the pinnacle the Huskers have. 5 Time National Champions and I've been alive for them all. Let that roll around on your tongue for a while and see how it taste, because that's as close as you will ever come.
Your right man, I didn't think of that. Remember when the Herks were champions? Yeah, me neither!
29-14-3 advantage Nebraska. The thing that's nice about being a National Champion, it's like being President. Even when your term is over your still a President, and you are still introduced as President. Nobody says 0 time National Champion Iowa, but they do say 5 time National Champion Nebraska.
Bo was far from being a great game time coach. I don't think he liked to recruit. With that stated why was he able to win 9 games every year with the lack of talent that so many on this board write about. How did he do It? The majority of us are in agreement that Bo was a bad coach and recruiter so why wasn't Riley able to match or exceed the number of wins Bo got every year. Don't give me that it was AA's talent as that is too simple. Ameer wasn't a factor every year Bo was at Nebraska. Doesn't Riley have to share some of the blame for the losses. It can't be just the players.
Yes Riley does share in the blame. It isn't one or the other, it's a combination of things. Many on here have said this very thing. The coaches could do better for sure. And to run the systems they want to run on both sides of the ball the talent needs to improve, and be more tailor made to suit our offense and defense.
We need to get away from its one thing or another. That's where we fight too much.
I agree it's a combination of things but when you can beat a playoff team and hang with the team going to the Rose Bowl, talent isn't an issue.
So if talent isn't an issue then what is the combination of things you are talking about? If talent is off the table, what's left?
Keep in mind, I'm also talking about the right talent to fit the systems we are running. When Tommy is playing well his talent is evident. But he isn't always playing well. And even then, we still hung with Iowa.
I still believe talent is an issue. But again, it is far from the only issue. If what you say is right then Bethune cookman doesn't have a problem with talent since they hung in there with Florida (or whatever no name school it was that kept things close, I think overtime, even, with Florida early in the season). You can lack talent and execute a plan the other team wasn't expecting. Or catch the other team when they were flat or overconfident.
Not only hang, but dominate statistically. We know talent at the qb isn't the issue, but more mental
16 years in a culture and system make a difference. If you watch NU play and can't see the decline in talent, nobody can help you.
Game management, play selection, lack of buy-in, lack of motivation and team psychology just to name a few. Are we where we were in the 90's from a talent perspective? Absolutely not but we had enough talent to beat every team on our schedule.
We ha enough talent but not for the entire season due to injuries, and poor coaching/execution at times. If we get the right signal caller (or if Tommy improves dramatically) it does make our offensive talent better. Defense is another story. You will be hard-pressed to convince me that we had enough talent up-and-down our defense this season.
WINNING EVERY GAME takes something special. Having enough talent TO BEAT EVERY TEAM on our schedule, we have that.
IT WAS NOT A RUNNING PLAY! IT WAS A PLAY ACTION PASS/run! A pee wee coach would have called a simple FB trap. That one play makes me believe that MR/DL will never "get it"
So we had enough talent to beat #3 Michigan State, but not enough talent to beat the mediocre teams we lost to? Makes sense.
So when 3–8 Iowa State beat a Tommie Frazier led husker team in 1992, that automatically means they had enough talent. Makes sense.
Or maybe we went into that game flat. That makes sense too.
Lmao, didn't you know Iowa State had more talent! Or, they had better coaching!
Blotards heads are gonna explode with your response.
Any Riley apologist should be able to see the Purdue game was on coaching. Purdue had one of the worst run defenses this year, and we passed it 48 times with a backup qb. You can blame Fyfe all you want, but any smart game plan would have been to run the ball and get out with a win, but like I said we we did the opposite. You can tell yourself Purdue had the same talent level as Nebraska all day, but anyone with half a brain knows it's false. Average coaching would have beat Purdue.
I'm not a Bo fan and you know that. Tell me which of the teams we lost to, did we not have enough talent to beat? We were competitive in every game, had leads in the last minute of several of those games, but weren't talented enough to win them. Again, great logic.
Still waiting for a logical argument detailing how we did not have enough talent to beat any of the teams we lost to.
Even though the whole argument for hiring Riley was that he is able to win with less talent because he's such a great coach.
I gave you an argument which you have ignored. So you continue to bang this drum... Whenever a team beats another team they automatically have enough talent, according to your argument. That is asinine... Waiting for a logical argument detailing how Iowa State had enough talent to beat Nebraska in 1992.
I love having these conversations with you because of how often you show that you're not only an idiot and wanna-be insider but just a bad person in general. Why don't you use more epithets for mentally handicapped people because obviously that makes you feel better. What a tiny, tiny man you are
I don't think the talent level is that far off. If the talent level was so bad, we would not have been competitive all year long. Might not have won these games, but they were competitive. It is possible to win with lesser talent on a consistent basis, but it takes great coaching which we don't have. Hardest part about this season is the fact of the players not being bought in for the entire season as they did improve over the course of the season. Offense could move the ball on great defenses and the defense could stop a good offense towards the end.
- Status
