Only one Team came to play
- Thread starter xxjfgxx
- Start date
So you mean the team that was down by two scores...and came back to win by two scores?
I mean, I don't know if you've noticed but if you look around the conference a lot of teams start slow in Week 1. Ohio State, Wisconsin, etc. Sure, there's room for improvement but nothing to be alarmed about. We won.
Plenty to be alarmed about I think. Mainly 2 things.... we weren't anywhere near their QB all day. Zero pressure. Second, we had no push from our OL. We could not run the ball well at all. Those two things alarm me.
But Clayton was awesome and the D did a better job in the second half and we won, so its a good day. Hope those two problem areas are fixable.
And the Germans came to play in WWII!
Final outcomes matter. A lot. The winners win. And go to the NU locker room and accuse the players of not playing. Tell the injured players they didn't play. I dare you.
That poorly prepared team with a lack of energy had over 500 yards of total offense. I'll be more than happy to listen to that broken record for 11 more games this season.
No idea how we'll do next Saturday, but today was a quality win, especially since we fell behind. Last year, this was a loss.
I fail to follow your logic...it was a quality win BECAUSE we fell behind...by your thinking if we fall far behind the consensus worst team in CF but somehow manage to escape with a one point last minute victory, it'd be a "quality win"...sorry...it'd be A WIN...I'd give you that...but NOT a QUALITY win...
FWIW, Nevada finished last season with an average ranking (multiple computer models) of 107 (yes that is in the bottom 20 of FBS)...and this season was picked 7th out of 12 teams in its relatively minor conference...I'd say that escaping with a relatively close win to them (after falling significantly behind late in the game) it's A WIN...but NOT a "quality win". Sorry.
Last edited:
I am disappointed that we weren't sharper. However, a win is a win. We fought hard and came back to win. That is a good sign. Debating a subjective term like "quality" win is fools play.
Nevada definitely came to play. Their coaches did an excellent job of convincing them that they could win this game. They played like it. This happens a lot in college football. The good teams weather the storm and find a way to let their superior players win the game for them. The bad teams get beat.
We won.
They had a new coaching staff and gimmicky systems on both offense and defense that were difficult to prepare for in a first game. Lou V. alluded to this in his pre-game reports.
Lou and Fitz talked about this saying that Nevada had an advantage preparation wise and that NU had no real film to study. Based on the idea that one of our advantages is intelligence and study discipline, I can see the logic. I also think it played out in the game because as the game wore on and we could see what they were trying to do, we had more success.
It makes a bit of sense, but not as much as you think...LOTS of teams have started with new coaching staffs this or previous seasons...can you prove with some sort of hard data that such teams have done better than they were supposed to, considering how they eventually did by end of season? I reckon not...
A new coaching staff also brings special challenges to the team in question (transfers, learning new schemes, new personalities, etc., etc.)...so any advantages the new schemes give such team may be out-weighed by the accompanying challenges, leaving only a very small net advantage, or more likely a net disadvantage to the team.
Last edited:
I never quite understand this.
College football is entertainment. Theoretically, we are supposed to enjoy it. I see nothing in your posts to indicate that you receive any pleasure from it at all.
Why do you do it?
No data but I think Fitz's mention of it was pretty strong and was a indication that he at least was struggling to find good material to prep his guys.
Also if you read the posts of MRCat and others on the Rock it's pretty clear that lack of game film made it very difficult to prepare. But Felix will argue otherwise for days and days, so not going down that rat hole any further.
I nominate this post for the Michelobe Ultra Poseur Post of the Week.
probably all true but NU's O and D lines were outplayed in 3 of the 4 quarters and don't think that has much to do with a lack of old film study. Also as mentioned before the CB position is now a problem. Was Nagel hurt? Didn't see him the 2nd half.
But actually it did. We didn't prepare for their 3-3-5 defense that loaded the box so the blocking assignments were confused until adjustments were made. Similarly for our D we were spread to account for their Air Raid so they ran up the middle.
It's no accident we outscored then 24-3 in the second half.
I have been hard on the OL and DL play here, too, but how do you know? Any more than a pure guess?
MRCAT and Fitz can say what they want...but the question remains and is legit: do all teams who play another team with a new coaching staff experience a lot of difficulties to beat the team with the new staff even if it is an inferior (bottom-20-type) team from a minor conference (and the other team is a decent major-conference team)? They can say what they want, but the fact they say it doesn't make it true...and yes that holds true even if they are former players.
Do your own research if the question remains in your mind. Don't just argue to argue.
Hard to say where we are now. Would anyone have seen NU winning seven games and beating a ranked Pitt team in a bowl game after losing to Illinois State last year? At that point I was figuring we might be luck to win 2-3 games. The major thing that concerns me at this point is getting some of those cornerbacks on the field. We won't have much of a shot at outfits like Penn State without them.
Actually it's been noted, even on these fan boards for weeks that Nevada would use a 3-3-5 defense. Just don't think that this is the first time that Fitz and our OL coach have heard of or even saw that alignment. it's called coaching.
If you did not see Flynn play in the second half, you must be blind. Exhibit A: guess who was targeted twice in a row in the end zone on our FG drive?
You do realize that almost no one in the country uses a 3-3-5, so by definition that would make it a difficult defense for which to prep, correct?
They used a variation of it at TCU when they started coming back into prominence in the '90s (naturally starting about the time they played Northwestern), and it used to drive opposing teams nuts.
Every defense is different, regardless of base formation. Took, I don't know, maybe a half to adjust? 24-3 with the only points given up in the second half due to a short field.
You should look it up and see but even if it holds true, my argument is going to be that one of the things that NU does well is film study. Being mentally better prepared to anticipate what is happening and going to happen on the field makes them better than they would be otherwise. They are good at study and coached well how to study. They are not a bunch of 5 star athletes, they are a bunch of disciplined, smart athletes. When you take away one of their strengths, you take away on elf their advantages. So what ever the statistics, I would argue that Nu is a special case where this situation plays against them more than an average team.
I respond to Willycat because I don't believe he is actually trolling; he is quite the legit fan but just has the Debby Downer perspective on most everything for some reason. Feli is a terrible troll to whom I stopped responding some time ago.
Thanks, Felis, for giving me the permission to say what I want. I'll use that freedom to say that you suck.
