ADVERTISEMENT

There's no excuse for Neb

What goes on at press conferences is for Joe fan. What changes in coaching, teaching and preparing is what matters. Actions speak louder than words in these cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuskerPower972
What goes on at press conferences is for Joe fan. What changes in coaching, teaching and preparing is what matters. Actions speak louder than words in these cases.

Except for what Riley has shown and demonstrated. He pretty much tells it how it is at press conferences. My only point is last year he seemed to be more of a father figure with ice cream and balloons. This year his demeanor has been more ball coach.
 
To not start 7-0

Oregon isn't good, weak defense.

You have more talent, it's on your coaches

36603346.jpg
 
Uh oh...here come lots of Husker fans to defend the team in case they are not 6-0 in the games you listed

We have to remember which games it is "okay" for the Huskers to lose:

Oregon
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Indiana*
Ohio State
Iowa

*"Trap game" and stuff...


it is not OK to lose any of those but simple math might argue we aren't going to be 6-0 in the games you listed

even if you give Nebraska a 60% chance of winning each of those individual games what would Nebraska's odds of being 6-0 after all those games?? I will let you do the math.


"If you argue with math you will lose"

hqdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
Coaches don't fumble or throw Ints. Coaches can only control so much...you can lead a horse to water but can't make him play with his rubber ducky....
I do not agree with this at all - Teams that are well coached do not fumble as much or turn the ball over as much - they also are very discipline and do not make mistakes - it is in my mind the difference between most teams
 
I do not agree with this at all - Teams that are well coached do not fumble as much or turn the ball over as much - they also are very discipline and do not make mistakes - it is in my mind the difference between most teams

And so far we are +2 in the turnover game. So far so good!
 
And so far we are +2 in the turnover game. So far so good!
Yes we are and I love it - I especially loved that the staff put the game in the hands of the Oline and the running backs - I thought last year we lacked efficiency in scoring - meaning we would roll up 500 plus yards but only score around 30 points and then that included a couple of turnovers. This game we did not have huge yards, 400 or so but we scored 43 points - that I think is what can win us a lot of games
 
Yes we are and I love it - I especially loved that the staff put the game in the hands of the Oline and the running backs - I thought last year we lacked efficiency in scoring - meaning we would roll up 500 plus yards but only score around 30 points and then that included a couple of turnovers. This game we did not have huge yards, 400 or so but we scored 43 points - that I think is what can win us a lot of games
And we were 5/5 in the red zone!
 
If we beat Oregon we WILL go 7-0. Ironclad prediction. But that is IF we beat Oregon. They are still a dangerous team.
But I think we will beat them. It is my one game a year annual trip to Lincoln. And with the exception of Iowa last year, a game we should have won, I am "undefeated" in my last 20 trips home to Lincoln.
Phil Steele ain't got nothin' on my predictive powers. Lol
 
I know I have been very critical with this staff - But I do think Riley is a smart guy and a good offensive mind - This game plan had his prints all over it Langsford has always been more pass happy - I loved that they stuck with the run even when the score is close, yes this will not always be the case against better defenses but this represents change in thinking from last year.

Defense - still not sold on Banker we look good against the run but putting a freshman corner on an island makes me nervous. If he does that against better teams we are going to give up a lot of long ball touchdowns

Special teams - No excuse for what we saw in this first game - Read is paid big bucks and from what I saw we would have been better without a dedicated special teams coach

Riley - he was not happy and I take that as a very good sign - It is one thing to say you want to win titles it is another to act like - we must improve dramatically if we are even going to win the West - but as long as he is not accepting performance that will not get us there I am good with patience
 
I know I have been very critical with this staff - But I do think Riley is a smart guy and a good offensive mind - This game plan had his prints all over it Langsford has always been more pass happy - I loved that they stuck with the run even when the score is close, yes this will not always be the case against better defenses but this represents change in thinking from last year.

Defense - still not sold on Banker we look good against the run but putting a freshman corner on an island makes me nervous. If he does that against better teams we are going to give up a lot of long ball touchdowns

Special teams - No excuse for what we saw in this first game - Read is paid big bucks and from what I saw we would have been better without a dedicated special teams coach

Riley - he was not happy and I take that as a very good sign - It is one thing to say you want to win titles it is another to act like - we must improve dramatically if we are even going to win the West - but as long as he is not accepting performance that will not get us there I am good with patience

Great post
 
it is not OK to lose any of those but simple math might argue we aren't going to be 7-0

even if you give Nebraska a 60% chance of winning each of those individual games what would Nebraska's odds of being 7-0 after all those games?? I will let you do the math.


"If you argue with math you will lose"
How did you come up with 60% chance at each individual game? I'd have to believe Nebraska is more like 95% or higher to beat Wyoming, maybe 55% to beat Oregon, 50% (or lower) to beat Northwestern, 80% to beat Illinois, 70% to beat Indiana, and 90% to beat Purdue. I can't do your simple math because it starts with bad assumptions that every game should be 60%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan1414
How did you come up with 60% chance at each individual game? I'd have to believe Nebraska is more like 95% or higher to beat Wyoming, maybe 55% to beat Oregon, 50% (or lower) to beat Northwestern, 80% to beat Illinois, 70% to beat Indiana, and 90% to beat Purdue. I can't do your simple math because it starts with bad assumptions that every game should be 60%.

**SPOILER ALERT**
He came up with that number cause he's a Hawkeye fan.
 
To not start 7-0

Oregon isn't good, weak defense.

You have more talent, it's on your coaches

Not sure coaches can prevent every single loss. But if they can, I'll bet you're still really pissed at Harbaugh for instructing his punter to crap himself and hand MSU a touchdown on the final play of the game. What an odd strategy that was...
 
How did you come up with 60% chance at each individual game? I'd have to believe Nebraska is more like 95% or higher to beat Wyoming, maybe 55% to beat Oregon, 50% (or lower) to beat Northwestern, 80% to beat Illinois, 70% to beat Indiana, and 90% to beat Purdue. I can't do your simple math because it starts with bad assumptions that every game should be 60%.
50% or lower to beat Northwestern? Why should we take you seriously again?
 
50% or lower to beat Northwestern? Why should we take you seriously again?
I don't know what the point spread will be, but I imagine it will be close to pick'em. Yes, Northwestern lost their first game at home, but they have more talent than they've had in the recent past and they will be playing at home. When I see that spread, I will adjust the percentages, but until then, I have to think it will be near pick, maybe Nebraska by 3.

And for the record, I didn't ask to be taken seriously. Lighten up.
 
How did you come up with 60% chance at each individual game? I'd have to believe Nebraska is more like 95% or higher to beat Wyoming, maybe 55% to beat Oregon, 50% (or lower) to beat Northwestern, 80% to beat Illinois, 70% to beat Indiana, and 90% to beat Purdue. I can't do your simple math because it starts with bad assumptions that every game should be 60%.

read the post I was replying to -- 6 games were listed .. Wyoming wasn't one of them, neither was Purdue (of course it is 90% + we beat Wyoming)

Oregon, NW, Wisconsin, Indiana, OSU, Iowa were listed

the 60% was arbitrary as an aggregrate of those 6 games .. you can assign a realistic probability however you like ... the point is even if you think you are going to win every one of those games individually the odds still favor an outcome other than six and zero
 
Last edited:
50% or lower to beat Northwestern? Why should we take you seriously again?
You know he might be closer then you think??? That's why I'm so interested in this year. After last year would you of thought Wisconsin was going to beat LSU??? Simply put we lost a lot of games without our head on straight. So I can't wait for our games with Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois and Iowa.
 
read the post I was replying to -- 6 games were listed .. Wyoming wasn't one of them, neither was Purdue (of course it is 90% + we beat Wyoming)

Oregon, NW, Wisconsin, Indiana, OSU, Iowa were listed

the 60% was arbitrary as an aggregrate of those 6 games .. you can assign a realistic probability however you like ... the point is even if you think you are going to win every one of those 6 games the odds still favor an outcome other than six and zero

Yep... way to go Herbstreit.

You tell him.
 
You know he might be closer then you think??? That's why I'm so interested in this year. After last year would you of thought Wisconsin was going to beat LSU??? Simply put we lost a lot of games without our head on straight. So I can't wait for our games with Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois and Iowa.
Of course we might lose to them. I was responding to the fact that he thinks our odds of beating them are less than just about everyone else on our schedule. Ha. No.
 
If we beat Oregon we WILL go 7-0. Ironclad prediction. But that is IF we beat Oregon. They are still a dangerous team.
But I think we will beat them. It is my one game a year annual trip to Lincoln. And with the exception of Iowa last year, a game we should have won, I am "undefeated" in my last 20 trips home to Lincoln.
Phil Steele ain't got nothin' on my predictive powers. Lol
Just a thought: I'm attending Oregon game, from Tigard. Haven't seen a game since 1980's. I won't be wearing green either.
# GBR
 
I'm still trying to figure out this one important question....why do I still laugh every single time someone posts this silly reference? :D Every. Single. Time.

Absolute comedy gold at the height of Jim Carrey's powers. Lloyd Christmas may be his best character ever.

FUN FACT:
As Lloyd Christmas, a.k.a. Dumb of Dumb and Dumber, the rubber-faced comedian sports a chipped front tooth, which, he says, is real. ”Clark La Prairie jumped on my head in grade school detention,” says Carrey, explaining the source of the old injury. ”The nuns sent me home with my tooth in an envelope.” So when Carrey decided that his irregular chopper would complement his character’s goofy grin, he had his cap removed. ”De Niro gains weight. I file my teeth off,” he says.
 
read the post I was replying to -- 6 games were listed .. Wyoming wasn't one of them, neither was Purdue (of course it is 90% + we beat Wyoming)

Oregon, NW, Wisconsin, Indiana, OSU, Iowa were listed

the 60% was arbitrary as an aggregrate of those 6 games .. you can assign a realistic probability however you like ... the point is even if you think you are going to win every one of those games individually the odds still favor an outcome other than six and zero
Why would those games be selected when original poster talked about starting 7-0 which would be the first 7 games?
 
Of the next 6 teams,
  1. which has the best passing offense?
  2. which has the best rushing defense?
 
Why would those games be selected when original poster talked about starting 7-0 which would be the first 7 games?

I don't know. You would have to ask the OP. I was just commenting on the 6 games he or she listed. I apologize if I didn't make that clear

Generally speaking you can be favored in every single game on your schedule and have it be mathematical highly improbable that you are going to have an undefeated or even a single loss season.
 
Of the next 6 teams,
  1. which has the best passing offense?
  2. which has the best rushing defense?
I'm not to be taken seriously, so don't read this. But my quick take is as follows:

Best passing offense will be Oregon. Yes, maybe Indiana as they like to sling it around, but I think Oregon's fast-paced offense will press our team like they haven't been pressed before.

Best rushing defense should be Northwestern, but their first game leads one to scratch their head. I still believe they will be the toughest run D of the teams in front of us.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT