-
daddyact
- 3 stars Rating: 56
1801 votes total - Two-deep
- (5445)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
Not relevant to this argument. We haven't won a championship since 1999. There are substantive reasons why that's true.
It's about f*cking time that we all acknowledge that and start appreciating what we do have, instead of insisting that we should win the championship just because we're Nebraska.
It's good to be the King.
Trash Angel
- 5 stars Rating: 82
320 votes total - Redshirt
- (1355)
- 17 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
Not relevant to this argument. We haven't won a championship since 1999. There are substantive reasons why that's true.
It's about f*cking time that we all acknowledge that and start appreciating what we do have, instead of insisting that we should win the championship just because we're Nebraska.
Bamboo, or else...
Panda_Bear
- 4 stars Rating: 61
685 votes total - Blue chip
- (439)
- 17 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
No, we have three returning WR starters, a QB, our RB, two TEs (pick one), and four OLinemen (ARod, Long, Sirles, and Choi) who were starters last season or the year before. But I will give you that we'll only start three of them.
If you want to count the FB, then okay, but that still means we return two WRs, a TE, a QB, a RB, and three OL starters. That's eight, and still four more than MSU returns. Don't want to count either Sirles or Arod as a returning starter? Okay, then we have SEVEN returning starters, which is still more than the four that MSU returns.
Sorry, but both McGaha and Foreman were their starters last year. As for their TEs, they lost two Seniors at the position, and you are gong to claim that Sims should be considered a starter. All right, I'll give you Rome for Sims.
So that means that MSU returns FIVE offensive starters compared to NU's EIGHT (two WR, RB, QB, TE, and three OL) offensive starters, and EIGHT defensive starters to NU's SEVEN defensive starters.
Yes, i will count at least one of the two (Sirles or ARod) as a returning starter, since they will both be playing RT and both have starting experience exceeding an entire season.
Even adding Sims and subtracting Rome, MSU has a total of 13 returning starters, while Nebraska returns 15.
Why do you insist on tweaking the numbers to favor MSU? Even when you do that you are barely able to match the totals returning. Your statement was "as much or more", so I assume that you now are planning to retract the MORE part of that statement.
I notice that you haven't admitted that it was inaccurate, but then perhaps you don't understand how the English language works. If you say as much or more, then you should have some evidence that shows how that "more" is implicit. I would have had no problem if the statement was simply "as much", but by adding the "more" you are implying that Nebraska can't measure up to MSU on the field, even though they have far more talent returning, and far more of the talent that beat MSU 24-3 last year.
Seriously, I don't expect you to make the retraction, because you haven't shown a proclivity for integrity in the past. Why would you start now?
I wonder sometimes why fans like you make these statements which are obviously intended to denigrate the current team. Are you so intent on hoping that Bo screws up and loses enough games to get him fired, or is it simply that you hate the players that we have? I mean, seriously, what kind of fan expects to see the team fail, just so they can be right?
nustudent ●
- 5 stars Rating: 87
881 votes total - Special teams
- (2297)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
Not relevant to this argument. We haven't won a championship since 1999. There are substantive reasons why that's true.
It's about f*cking time that we all acknowledge that and start appreciating what we do have, instead of insisting that we should win the championship just because we're Nebraska.
cool picture from space
Scooby ●
- 5 stars Rating: 95
252 votes total - scooby 7
- Walk-on
- (774)
- 18 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
I know what you said, and my answer stands. MSU does not have as much or more coming back this year than Nebraska.
On offense alone, the Spartans lose their starting QB, their starting Fullback, their three best Wide Receivers, both Tight Ends, and a starting Left Guard. They return all of five returning starters on offense.
Nebraska lost a starting WR and their Fullback, and return nine starters from last season.
On Defense, MSU lost two DL and their Free Safety. Yes, they return eight starters, but that defense wasn't all that great, unless you think giving up 39 points to Wisconsin in the CCG is the mark of a great defense.
Nebraska returns EIGHT starters from the end of last season, which is exactly how much MSU returns.
So tell me again how Michigan State returns as much or more than the Huskers.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
SpartanRocky said...
You're right. The defense only finished in the top 20 nationally in total D (6th), sacks (7th), rush D (9th), scoring D (10th), pass D (11th), tackles for loss (14th), 3rd down conversion D (16th) and pass efficiency D (18th). I admit the Red Zone defense was lacking; only 22nd.
Oh, and nice twist at the end there "Nebraska returns 8 starters from the END of last season. . . " If we want to go by that, MSU's DT, Anthony Rashad White, started the bowl game (and 4 other contests before being hurt earlier in the year), so if we want to go by who was starting at the end of the year, give MSU 9 starters. White had a pretty darn good bowl game for a DT; 7 tackles, 3 TFL and the game-winning blocked FG.
I can see questioning MSU's offense, but the defense? Really?
nustudent ●
- 5 stars Rating: 87
881 votes total - Special teams
- (2297)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
We lost one skill player, period. That alone puts us about five up on MSU. that, plus the fact that we actually return four former starters in the OL; ARod, Choi, Long, and Sirles, not to mention Moore, who will be no worse than Hardrick was last year.
If you're going to nitpick, let's do it honestly. Nebraska is a far more talented team on offense this season than MSU, and we aren't replacing our QB and our entire corps of receivers.
If you're going to call me out for miscounting, get that right as well. Actually, I did miscount. MSU also loses their starting LT from last season, so they're replacing just as many OL as we are. Four total returning on offense then.
Rome finished the season, and is the returning starter, at DT. We lost David, Dennard, and Cassidy, as I said.
I can count. MSU: 4 + 8 = 12. NU: 8 + 8 = 16
Have you forgotten that this same defense shut down MSU last year, or that we scored 24 on their oh so terrific defense? Apparently so.
One game better overall, AND a loser to the Huskers.
No matter how you want to slice it, Nebraska is returning more and better than the Spartans.
This post was edited by SpartanRocky on 7/28/2012 at 10:23 PM
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
Northwestern was better - in that game.
Nebraska was better - in the MSU game.
Michigan State was better in the Michigan game, and the first Wisconsin game, barely.
Iowa was better, in the Michigan game.
Nebraska was better, in the Iowa game.
There was not that much difference between the top three teams in the Legends. Home field was a major advantage for each of those teams.
No, MSU does not have as many starters as Nebraska has returning. I don't care that other people don't consider Sirles a starter, but you and I both know that having been a starter two years ago is a decided advantage, especially when he ends up as the back-up at RT, while a returning starter (ARod) from LG is probably going to slip into the starting job.
Again,this is not about winning or losing the division. It's about an inaccurate observation which stated that MSU has more talent returning than Nebraska this year. That is not true, and the people who keep trying to make such an argument are being completely disingenuous.
and your point about Rome is stupid. He started two games. He is returning, thus he IS a returning starter.
This post was edited by SpartanRocky on 7/28/2012 at 10:19 PM
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
We weren't even discussing which was the better team last year. The discussion centers around the statement this statement: "…Michigan State finished ahead of Nebraska last year and…(has)… as much or MORE RETURNING this year."
Let's stay on this statement instead of bringing in arguments about whether or not either of us think MSU was better last year or whether going to the CCG automatically warrants them consideration asa division favorite.
You said it, and I clearly showed you that MSU loses SEVEN starters on offense, as well as a third WR and a second TE. All nine of these players (including the starting LT and LG) played extensively and were instrumental in the success of MSU's offense.
That means that the Spartans return FOUR offensive starters from last season; literally, three OL and a RB.
Nebraska lost one skill player (Kinnie), and three starting OL from last season, so without even taking players like Sirles into account, the Huskers return SEVEN offensive starters. I tend to think that players who have started and are returning are just as important, so I added both ARod and Sirles to my original count, making NINE players, not counting the fact that both JT and Marlowe started at some point last year.
Now, we can talk about the relative talents about these returning players, but generally speaking, it's much harder to replace seven starters than it is to replace three or four, so whether you like it or not, at least on offense, NEBRASKA RETURNS MORE than Michigan State.
As to defense, MSU lost two starting DL and a FS from last years starting line-up, so they return EIGHT starters.
Nebraska lost a LB, a CB, and a Safety that were starters. We also lost a DT, who was replaced by another Senior DT, and a back-up freshman DT, due to injury, in the last two games. We can count him, if you'd like. In my opinion, any player that has started two games and played extensively throughout the last half of the season should be considered a returning starter, but that's splitting hairs.
Nebraska actually does return four DL starters, two LB starters, one CB and one Safety, and that adds up to EIGHT in my book.
Again, we can discuss the relative merits of these players, but going back to your original statement, both teams RETURN THE SAME NUMBER OF STARTERS ON DEFENSE.
SEVEN/NINE offensive starters to FOUR actually means that Nebraska returns more on offense.
EIGHT defensive starters to EIGHT actually would mean that both defenses return exactly the same amount, so at least the part of your statement that says "as much" would be true, at least on defense.
However, no part of your statement that MSU returns MORE than Nebraska is in any way, shape, or form even close to accurate.
Once again, I'm not interested in turning this into another argument surrounding other issues. My initial replay concerned the quoted statement. You were completely inaccurate, so i wish you'd just admit that you were exaggerating for effect, and let it go so we can actually discuss the other incessant posts that have absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
Gholston was helped a great deal by the presence of Jerel Worthy, and he will miss that presence just as much as Crick missed Ndamakong Suh in 2010.
QB talent? So you are automatically giving the edge here to a Junior with practically no playing time over a two time returning starter? Uh…okay. How sad that you hate TM so much that you'll even begin to make this comparison.
LB? Ah, yes, let's blame Bo for building his team to play in the B12 where there was little premium on utilizing or even needing more than four LBs in your two deep. Changing conference was obviously the fault of his mismanagement.
MSU does NOT return four OL starters. They lost Jared McGaha at LT and Joel Foreman at LG. And I don't see any All-Americans in their returning group either.
As to your statements about MS being better for a few years, I suppose it depends upon your definition of "a few". If you mean more than two, that would be highly inaccurate, unless you actually think that MSU's 6-7 in 2009 was better than Nebraska's 10-4.
If you only mean the last two years, it would be hard to dispute that, with the possible exception of 2011, when Nebraska beat them 24-3. If they've been better then they probably should have won that game, right?
I'll even argue whether they were "better" in 2010. Yeah, they shared the Big Ten championship, but then again they never had to play Ohio State that year. If they had, they would have likely had three losses, but it's difficult to make such conjecture since the two teams played entirely different schedules.
Your opinion that MSU has been better for a few years is completely subjective, imo.
Our talent level? Really? Interesting, since Pelini has out-recruited MSU since 2008, in every objective category you'd care to mention. And that same talent beat the living crap out of MSU last year.
Holy hell. You really do think McGaha was a starter
.
It's clear that you don't know much, if anything, about Michigan State. I'm down to discuss this, and I do think Nebraska is being over-looked, but you go on these giant long rants without basic facts to back them up.
Regarding your LBs . . . it's not about who recruited who to do what, it's about the actual on-field talent. Here's a breakdown of MSU's returning defensive starters, and their accolades last year:
SDE: Will Gholston, 2nd Team All Big 10 2011, Preseason Conf. DPOY,
WDE: Marcus Rush, Hon. Mention All Big 10 2011, FR All American
WILL: Chris Norman, Hon. Mention All Big 10 2011
MIKE: Max Bullough, 2nd Team All Big 10, 2011,
SAM: Denicos Allen, 2nd Team All Big 10, 2011,
BCB: Johnny Adams, 1st Team All Big 10, 2011,
SS: Isaiah Lewis, 2nd Team All Big 10, 2011
FCB: Darqueze Dennard, Hon. Mention All Big 10, 2011Count them. There's 8. That means every single returning starter on MSU's D was at least Hon. Mention All Big 10. Did I mention that 6 of those 8 were sophomores or younger last year, and those 6 were all 1st year starters last year (all but Adams and Norman)? I'd expect some improvement out of them.
The "new" DTs are 6'2 330 Anthony White a SR who started 5 games last year and MSU's 2010 starting SDE Tyler Hoover (6'7 310), also a senior. The new FS was the starter at NB last year; I don't "count" that position as a starter, but he did tally 17 tackles and 2 INTs.
Again, you can question the O all you want. To discount the D just seems foolish. I'm not guaranteeing that they'll be awesome again, but pre-season it's hard to argue with the perception that they look good; 8 returning starters, all of whom earned some sort of All Big 10 honor, 6 of which were 1st year starters. You can generally expect SOME improvement between your first and 2nd year starting, right?
Still want to discount MSU's defense (for preseason purposes)?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by SpartanRocky on 7/28/2012 at 10:17 PM
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
SpartanRocky said...
Again. What the heck are you talking about MSU's LT? State graduated all of 2 OL last year; starting LG Foreman, and back-up OT McGaha. McGaha started the first series of the game against Youngstown State, and then didn't see PT the rest of the year except in blow-outs. Dan France, a RS Soph last year, started the final 13 games at LT.
I mean, if you want to go off, at least do a bit of background research.
weiddj ●
- 5 stars Rating: 95
324 votes total - Redshirt
- (1580)
- 17 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Landohusker
- 4 stars Rating: 66
2066 votes total - Special teams
- (3548)
- 19 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
SpartanRocky said...
Sorry, I was enjoying the thread until I saw daddyact spewing pure misinformation about MSU. I think the discussion is one worth having, but both sides need to have the best information possible. Daddyact is very wrong about Michigan State. I defer to the Nebraska posters on Nebraska.
Anyways, my take is that the formula someone put out on page 2 is correct: Pre-season rankings = Finish Last year + Returning Starters + minor look at schedule (*cough* Georgia misses LSU, Arky and Bama *cough*) + deference to bigger named programs (FSU being top 10? Really?).
From that standpoint, it makes sense that Nebraska isn't ranked on the same level as MSU and UM. Does that mean that Nebraska will finish 3rd in the conference? Of course not.
I think your schedule is hard (@tOSU, @MSU, @Iowa, even @Northwestern isn't a cakewalk, plus UM at home), but hey, so is everyone else's (MSU: @UM, @UW, Nebraska, Iowa, tOSU at home; UM: @Nebraska, @tOSU, @Purdue, Michigan State, Iowa at home)
Conference is going to be a bloodbath. 6-2 could win the division outright, though I think tie-breakers become huge. Each of the top 3 teams have 1 road and 1 home game vs. the other 2; MSU goes to Michigan and hosts Nebraska, Michigan goes to Nebraska and hosts MSU, and Nebraska goes to MSU and hosts Michigan.
I've got a ton of respect for Nebraska's program and the belly-g option is a royal pain to deal with. State gets the Huskers at the worst possible time; 10th straight game, immediately after @UM and @UW. The only saving grace is that Nebraska is coming off a home night game vs. Michigan right before coming to East Lansing, so both teams could very well be beat up.
Husker SF
- 5 stars Rating: 97
1086 votes total - Two-deep
- (4372)
- 11 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Panda_Bear said...
So fans should stop holding the program in high standards ?
Nebraska is one of the Top 10 programs of all-time, the sooner you realize that not winning championships isn't acceptable then the sooner you can have a discussion on the matter. People need to stop lowering their standards and stop trying to rationalize the situation.
When Alabama won the SEC in 2009, it was their first Conference Title since 1999, should their fans have accepted that and acknowledge that they didn't matter one-iota in CFB ? No, they went out and hired Nick Saban. Maybe more fans should be demanding Nebraska hire a Top tier HC who can bring championships back to Lincoln.
beardown2489 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 96
2537 votes total - Two-deep
- (6232)
- 17 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact
- 3 stars Rating: 56
1801 votes total - Two-deep
- (5445)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact
- 3 stars Rating: 56
1801 votes total - Two-deep
- (5445)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
SpartanRocky said...
Sorry, I was enjoying the thread until I saw daddyact spewing pure misinformation about MSU. I think the discussion is one worth having, but both sides need to have the best information possible. Daddyact is very wrong about Michigan State. I defer to the Nebraska posters on Nebraska.
Anyways, my take is that the formula someone put out on page 2 is correct: Pre-season rankings = Finish Last year + Returning Starters + minor look at schedule (*cough* Georgia misses LSU, Arky and Bama *cough*) + deference to bigger named programs (FSU being top 10? Really?).
From that standpoint, it makes sense that Nebraska isn't ranked on the same level as MSU and UM. Does that mean that Nebraska will finish 3rd in the conference? Of course not.
I think your schedule is hard (@tOSU, @MSU, @Iowa, even @Northwestern isn't a cakewalk, plus UM at home), but hey, so is everyone else's (MSU: @UM, @UW, Nebraska, Iowa, tOSU at home; UM: @Nebraska, @tOSU, @Purdue, Michigan State, Iowa at home)
Conference is going to be a bloodbath. 6-2 could win the division outright, though I think tie-breakers become huge. Each of the top 3 teams have 1 road and 1 home game vs. the other 2; MSU goes to Michigan and hosts Nebraska, Michigan goes to Nebraska and hosts MSU, and Nebraska goes to MSU and hosts Michigan.
I've got a ton of respect for Nebraska's program and the belly-g option is a royal pain to deal with. State gets the Huskers at the worst possible time; 10th straight game, immediately after @UM and @UW. The only saving grace is that Nebraska is coming off a home night game vs. Michigan right before coming to East Lansing, so both teams could very well be beat up.
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
daddyact
- 3 stars Rating: 56
1801 votes total - Two-deep
- (5445)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
oldhuskerfan
- 5 stars Rating: 93
177 votes total - Redshirt
- (1246)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
oldhuskerfan
- 5 stars Rating: 93
177 votes total - Redshirt
- (1246)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
oldhuskerfan
- 5 stars Rating: 93
177 votes total - Redshirt
- (1246)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
BornToBeRed
- 5 stars Rating: 96
4944 votes total - Huskers Illustrated Moderator
- All-conference
- (17671)
- 26 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
daddyact said...
I think your point about schedule is extremely relevant, and examining the last decade of Big Ten football proves that home field advantage as well as which teams you play when is of utmost importance.
I'm convinced that the Michigan debacle does not happen if that game is played in Lincoln, just as I'm fairly certain MSU doesn't lose last year to Nebraska in East Lansing. Home field and schedule will always be important in games versus roughly equal opposition.
That being said, Dantonio has lots of work to do replacing his entire receiving corps (including TEs) and the guy who's going to have to put the ball into their hands. I hope your OL is as good as last year. It should be, but unless you plan to pound the rock sixty carries a game, you are not going to equal Cousins' production. Maybe a year from now, but not in 2012.
I feel similarly about Wisconsin this year. So many of our fans are ceding the game to UW, based on the team they had last year, but as we know, UW had vulnerabilities that could be exploited, and they did not play that well on the road against teams with comparable talent. They're hoping lightning will strike twice with another ACC import, but that's extremely unlikely, not to mention that they have considerable losses on the defensive side, as well as offense.
The games that concern me the most are Ohio State, because it's in Columbus, and Michigan, because they return practically their entire offensive team from last year. The MSU game does not concern beyond the the fact that it's in East Lansing. Your defense is certainly good enough to hold Nebraska to 24 points again, but is your offense going to be capable of scoring more than that?
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
oldhuskerfan said...
Anyone who bases a prognosis of this year's Huskers-Spartans game based on last year's result is 'way mistaken. Huskers had basically 3 weeks to get ready for that game a year ago--bye week after Ohio State, then a true cupcake game against Minnesota, and THEN the Michigan State week. What did MSU have leading up--a heavy game against Ohio State if I recall correctly, followed by the Wisconsin heartstopper just a week before they came to Lincoln. They were out of gas in all respects.
It went
@Ohio State
BYE
MIchigan
Wisconsin
@NebraskaThis year isn't any better, and may even be worse:
Ohio State
@Indiana (ok, psuedo bye week
)
Iowa
@Michigan
@Wisconsin
NebraskaOnly saving grace is that Nebraska has @Northwestern (revenge game for you guys) and hosts Michigan in a night game . . . just like how MSU hosted Wisconsin in a night game before traveling to Lincoln last year. Now, the Huskers don't have the same schedule immediately before MSU, but it's tougher than what you guys had going on last year.
The other thought . . . it's conceivable that one or both of our squads is out of the Big 10 race by the time they play. State could lose to Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin, and Nebraska could lose to Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan. You wonder what the motivation is going to be for both teams at that point . . . which is also why it's hard to debate a match-up in the second half of the season in the pre-season.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
SpartanRocky ●
- 5 stars Rating: 90
16737 votes total - Andrew Bell
- All-American
- (22343)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ... | 8
Is Nebraska being overlooked?