ADVERTISEMENT

Lowest point total by okla in Lincoln Riley era

Chinander's unit has proven me wrong. I did not buy the hype before the season but they are better than I expected. They played pretty well today all things considered. One of those games where the defense played well enough to win against a superior opponent so it sucks to see them not get the 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.
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.
 
Both defenses were stout today, sort of like watching some old school Big 8 battles between these two.
Nebraska has gotten progressively better with each game this season. They are close, at least in my opinion, to being a pretty good team. Gotta stop shooting themselves in the foot.
Next week is a big game.
 
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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?
 
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?
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?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NorthWillRiseAgain
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?
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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?
 
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.
 
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?
No one blathers like you are right now. No one.

John Madden wouldn’t even say such a stupid thing. I got it… Nebraska-Iowa State, final score 9-7 iowa state with our offense turning it over 7 times. And you’re gonna actually get on this board and stick to your guns about a “logical” statement that the defense didn’t do enough.

Go ahead and be “logical”. You look like a buffoon.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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?
 
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?
 
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.
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.

They just did enough to win a game if Scott Frost had any damn clue what he is doing on offense and special teams.
 
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.
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?
 
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.
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.
 
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.
How many times have we had false starts the last 4 years ? I’d day a lot of those fall on Austin and SF..
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun
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?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldjar07
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.
this is over the top. be civil.
fwiw, bama was penalized 11xs yesterday.

I was at the game.
I was also at ‘04 and when we lost 30-3, it literally could’ve been 70-3 if bill had not just played to keep score down.
and ‘08. It was awful. I was more embarrassed than ‘04, because I thought someone was a defensive mind.
this felt different.
Scott needs to string some wins together.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz
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 alert
 
ADVERTISEMENT