Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You gonna post this in every single thread?Yes. 3 points below the lowest offensive output of points under Lincoln Riley. D did enough to win. It's the stuff Frost controls that failed the team AGAIN.
Saints preserve us, I need to tape a quarter on you so you'll quit skipping on the record. Same damned thing in everything you post.Yes. 3 points below the lowest offensive output of points under Lincoln Riley. D did enough to win. It's the stuff Frost controls that failed the team AGAIN.
Don’t tempt himYou gonna post this in every single thread?
Seem more anti Frost than antirowboatYes. 3 points below the lowest offensive output of points under Lincoln Riley. D did enough to win. It's the stuff Frost controls that failed the team AGAIN.
D obviously didn't do enough to win, because we didn't win the game. That first OU possession, we had plenty of opportunities to get a stop and didn't. OU was able to run on us at various points throughout the game. They were also able to run out a bunch of clock on their last possession and our offense had less than a minute to score. The defense played decent for going against a top 10 team, but it wasn't enough to win.Yes. 3 points below the lowest offensive output of points under Lincoln Riley. D did enough to win. It's the stuff Frost controls that failed the team AGAIN.
Did you expect Buddy Ryan and the '85 Bears?D obviously didn't do enough to win, because we didn't win the game. That first OU possession, we had plenty of opportunities to get a stop and didn't. OU was able to run on us at various points throughout the game. They were also able to run out a bunch of clock on their last possession and our offense had less than a minute to score. The defense played decent for going against a top 10 team, but it wasn't enough to win.
No he expected ou to score 60 i think lmaoDid you expect Buddy Ryan and the '85 Bears?
You are unbelievable. You wanna bitch, bitch about special teams. Bitch about OLine penalties. To lay the blame of this loss at the feet of the defense (which is exactly what you are doing here) is asinine and why you get blasted by posters as often as you do.D obviously didn't do enough to win, because we didn't win the game. That first OU possession, we had plenty of opportunities to get a stop and didn't. OU was able to run on us at various points throughout the game. They were also able to run out a bunch of clock on their last possession and our offense had less than a minute to score. The defense played decent for going against a top 10 team, but it wasn't enough to win.
We didn't win did we? Therefore the defense didn't play well enough to win the game. It's basic predicated logic. People saying the defense played well enough to win the game when we in fact lost the game is a logically faulty statement. I'm not bitching about anything, just using predicated logic and it irks me when others use logically faulty statements such as this.You are unbelievable. You wanna bitch, bitch about special teams. Bitch about OLine penalties. To lay the blame of this loss at the feet of the defense (which is exactly what you are doing here) is asinine and why you get blasted by posters as often as you do.
There is plenty to complain about from this game. Defense really shouldn’t be your punching bag here.
“The defense played decent for going against a top 10 team…” is that really the best you can do? Not surprised hearing this from you.
Here’s a simple rebuttal. Defense played well enough to win. Against a top 5 team in their own crib.We didn't win did we? Therefore the defense didn't play well enough to win the game. It's basic predicated logic. People saying the defense played well enough to win the game when we in fact lost the game is a logically faulty statement. I'm not bitching about anything, just using predicated logic and it irks me when others use logically faulty statements such as this.
It is a logically faulty statement, because we didn't win the game. Where did I say I only blame the defense for the loss?Here’s a simple rebuttal. Defense played well enough to win. Against a top 5 team in their own crib.
Special teams, on the other hand, made it so that the defensive effort was squandered.
This is a logical statement.
Would you agree with this rebuttal, or are you going to stubbornly blame the defense for this loss?
Why can’t you say the defense looked good and did enough (held a team who has an ncaa record games of scoring 27 or more points to 23 - or actually, 21, since the 2 point conversion was on special teams) for a win, but since it’s a team effort, and special teams sucked, the team came up short?It is a logically faulty statement, because we didn't win the game. Where did I say I only blame the defense for the loss?
D obviously didn't do enough to win, because we didn't win the game. That first OU possession, we had plenty of opportunities to get a stop and didn't. OU was able to run on us at various points throughout the game. They were also able to run out a bunch of clock on their last possession and our offense had less than a minute to score. The defense played decent for going against a top 10 team, but it wasn't enough to win.
Because it's not true, it's logically false. You're right, if Nebraska lost 3-0, the logically factual statement is the defense didn't do enough to win the game, because they in fact lost the game. I did say the defense played decent against a top 10 defense. Why are you so pigheaded and won't accept that?Why can’t you say the defense looked good and did enough (held a team who has an ncaa record games of scoring 27 or more points to 23 - or actually, 21, since the 2 point conversion was on special teams) for a win, but since it’s a team effort, and special teams sucked, the team came up short?
Don’t be pigheaded. Nebraska’s defense did to Oklahoma what no team has done in 76 games or whatever the record was, and you say it wasn’t enough.
By your logic, Nebraska could have lost 3-0 and the defense didn’t do enough to win. To stick to that mantra makes you sound silly. You’re claiming to use logic, but you are looking at one facet of the game. You’re smarter than that. I know you are.
The defense played decent, maybe even good. But not great. Even if the defense had played great, but we still lost the game, the logically factual statement is the defense didn't play well enough to win the game.Defense played great. Right now the defense looks as good as just about any other unit in college football. Chins needs some big time props. He has built a damn good Defense in a couple years.
The defense played decent, maybe even good. But not great. Even if the defense had played great, but we still lost the game, the logically factual statement is the defense didn't play well enough to win the game.
No one blathers like you are right now. No one.Because it's not true, it's logically false. You're right, if Nebraska lost 3-0, the logically factual statement is the defense didn't do enough to win the game, because they in fact lost the game. I did say the defense played decent against a top 10 defense. Why are you so pigheaded and won't accept that?
Under appreciated post, well doneLincoln Riley is also going bald
The defensive performance should have been enough to win the game with even an average special team and offensive performance. (My opinion)The defense played decent, maybe even good. But not great. Even if the defense had played great, but we still lost the game, the logically factual statement is the defense didn't play well enough to win the game.
It's more of a mentality thing for me. When someone says the defense played well enough to win the game when the game was lost, that seemingly excuses any mistakes the defense may have made, even if they played relatively well. One side of the ball or the other could have always played better than they did to ensure victory. That statement makes it sound like the defense doesn't have to improve at all because they did their job. Well they didn't do their job. Their job is to win the game, and they failed at that task.The defensive performance should have been enough to win the game with even an average special team and offensive performance. (My opinion)
The defense didn't play well enough, though, to overcome the shortcomings of the other two facets of the game and win the game (factual statement)
You know what people mean when they use that statement. They actually mean something along the lines of. "What the defense did should have been enough to win the game."
I like logic as much as the next nerd. It bothers me sometimes too.
But it also bugs me when people get caught up in semantics and feel the need to correct every little thing when it's usually pretty easy to read between the lines and get the jist of it.
What's the point? To educate them? To make them feel stupid? Or do you truly not understand what they are trying to say and need clarification?
I personally could care less if people misspeak.
And yes I said "I could care less" instead of what I meant which was "I couldn't care less" just to trigger you for a moment.
And don't come at me for my spelling, grammar and punctuation because I know it's not perfect and I don't care to be educated.
Praising the defense for playing a damn good game is different than praising Nebraska. Nebraska lost. Simple as that. But the defense played well. Are we not supposed to acknowledge that?Praising Nebraska for for losing a football game in year 4. What a loser mentality and part of the reason the program is where it is at. What a pussy society we currently live in.
Defense is not the problem.I am told. Interesting
I know what you are saying, oldjar07. The defense did give up 404 yards so it wasn't a lights out performance to hang the hat on.We didn't win did we? Therefore the defense didn't play well enough to win the game. It's basic predicated logic. People saying the defense played well enough to win the game when we in fact lost the game is a logically faulty statement. I'm not bitching about anything, just using predicated logic and it irks me when others use logically faulty statements such as this.
Did the coaching staff cause the false starts?
Did the coaching staff cause the unsportsmanlike penalties?
Did the coaching staff cause the missed field goals?
Did the coaching staff cause the blocked PAT?
Agreed. Not the strongest argument to say the coaches didn’t cause those penalties. They may not have caused them, but they could have addressed them in practices so they happen less frequently. Or not at all.What’s that quote, “You are on Saturday what you practice all week”? So kind of. Good coaches will iron out mistakes. Frost has time, but he hasn’t improved the little things in his 4 years.
How many times have we had false starts the last 4 years ? I’d day a lot of those fall on Austin and SF..Agreed. Not the strongest argument to say the coaches didn’t cause those penalties. They may not have caused them, but they could have addressed them in practices so they happen less frequently. Or not at all.
take that shit and shove it up the ass. A head coach is responsible for installing discipline and execution. The special team's mistakes have been happing every game since Scott Frost has been the head coach at Nebraska. He continues to fail.Did the coaching staff cause the false starts?
Did the coaching staff cause the unsportsmanlike penalties?
Did the coaching staff cause the missed field goals?
Did the coaching staff cause the blocked PAT?
YesDid the coaching staff cause the false starts?
Did the coaching staff cause the unsportsmanlike penalties?
Did the coaching staff cause the missed field goals?
Did the coaching staff cause the blocked PAT?
this is over the top. be civil.take that shit and shove it up the ass. A head coach is responsible for installing discipline and execution. The special team's mistakes have been happing every game since Scott Frost has been the head coach at Nebraska. He continues to fail.
Dumb shit like false starts and unsportsmanlike penalties have been here the entire time under Frost on a consistent basis. A penalty here and there will happen even to a Saban coached team, but this is 100% on the failure of Scott Frost.
Internet tough guy alerttake that shit and shove it up the ass. A head coach is responsible for installing discipline and execution. The special team's mistakes have been happing every game since Scott Frost has been the head coach at Nebraska. He continues to fail.
Dumb shit like false starts and unsportsmanlike penalties have been here the entire time under Frost on a consistent basis. A penalty here and there will happen even to a Saban coached team, but this is 100% on the failure of Scott Frost.