Texas: Glory Days

[bigred472]

You sure as hell don't give up on anything, why should we?

Since the offense was 'rebuilding' and the defense allowed 37 points and 503 points, it was the offense which was responsible for losing the game?

-------
Any team that has "young" tagged on it whether offense defense or both seldom run the table seldom get by with just one loss, and quite frankly seldom lose even just two games. We had a young offense. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? If the '96 team had the same backfield as the '95 team and by that I mean QB & RBs, do you really believe we'd have lost to Texas OR Arizona State? Being a young green team doesn't necessarily mean a team without talent, it means (at least sometimes) just being overconfident and not taking an opponent seriously.

Prior to our game with Texas we were averaging over 43 points per game offensively and giving up barely 11 points per game EXCEPT for the game with ASU. We didn't score anything and gave up 19--overconfidence. THEN we roll off 9 straight victories and play Texas (with 4 losses) and we score 16 points below our average and give up 26 points above our average.

This again shows the arrogance of Texas football fans in assuming you know MORE about Nebraska foot- ball than Husker fans.

 

[charlie42s]

Prior to our game with Texas we were averaging over 43 points per game offensively and giving up barely 11 points per game EXCEPT for the game with ASU. We didn't score anything and gave up 19--overconfidence. THEN we roll off 9 straight victories and play Texas (with 4 losses) and we score 16 points below our average and give up 26 points above our average. .

I notice you backtracked from(and ignored) your prior statement about a 'rebuilding' offense being the fault even though the Texas offense slobber knocked your non-"rebuilding" defense. That was the 'real' reason the better than good Huskers lost.


... and the game on that day made it a Glory Day for Texas, beating the proud and arrogant Huskers for the 1st Big 12 Conference Title.

 

[bigred472]

I notice you backtracked from(and ignored) your prior statement about a 'rebuilding' offense being the fault even though the Texas offense slobber knocked your non-"rebuilding" defense. That was the 'real' reason the better than good Huskers lost.


... and the game on that day made it a Glory Day for Texas, beating the proud and arrogant Huskers for the 1st Big 12 Conference Title.

-------
Didn't back track at all. You're just too fuckin drunk to not realize it. We were rebuilding and part of that at times is getting overconfident which we were in two separate games. Dry out and somber up and you'd realize, you won NO quality games that year. You can't tell an old Nebraska fan that YOU know more about Husker football than I do. THAT'S arrogance.

 

[bigred472]

I notice you backtracked from(and ignored) your prior statement about a 'rebuilding' offense being the fault even though the Texas offense slobber knocked your non-"rebuilding" defense. That was the 'real' reason the better than good Huskers lost.


... and the game on that day made it a Glory Day for Texas, beating the proud and arrogant Huskers for the 1st Big 12 Conference Title.

-------
Didn't back track at all. You're just too fuckin drunk to not realize it. We were rebuilding and part of that at times is getting overconfident which we were in two separate games. Dry out and somber up and you'd realize, you won NO quality games that year. You can't tell an old Nebraska fan that YOU know more about Husker football than I do. THAT'S arrogance.

 

[charlie42s]

Between the two of us the only one that is possibly "fuckin' drunk" is you. I haven't had anything to drink except for water.
What I did was expose your premise that the "rebuilding offense" which you used as an excuse in a prior post to not be at fault for the '96 lost to Texas, it was the defense.
Then you claim that the team was rebuilding while going 11-2 between 2 undefeated season. You clearly don't understand what rebuilding means, because it doesn't happen in one season.
This is funny as all hell, because you and most of the other Husker fans think your team sucked in the Big 12.

 

[HuskerOC]

NEBRASKA will never be the same without the Prop players.
It was well known amongst the coaches that Nebraska had an open admission policy under Osborne.

All the Texas hatred started with the Longhorns insistence on full qualifiers.
Nebraska wanted PQs. Texas did not. Texas won the debate 11-1 in the Big 12 voting.

Nebraska doesn't have enough talent in state.
And they cannot get elite sunbelt athletes to come to a cold weather plains state.
The PQ angle was their ace in the hole recruiting niche.

In fairness, Nebraska did an amazing and commendable thing with these guys.
Society might have turned their backs on some, but Nebraska embraced them and elevated them.

Nebraska deserves all the credit for doing an amazing job with PQs.
It was a good thing to do.

But, without the PQs, Nebraska is simply not going to ever be the same program again.

Vince Young agrees with everything you said. Then again, I'm not sure he could comprehend what you said, much less read to a 3rd grade level.

 

[charlie42s]

Is there a more bitter fanbase than the Huskers this offseason?

 

[HuskerOC]

Is there a more bitter fanbase than the Huskers this offseason?

Naw.

Texas always has the title. Outside of 2005, and dating back to 1969, you all been drunk ass bitter.

Better than everybody else, but nothing to show as to why.

Did you not read the thread title?

What, when, how, where, and why did UT dominate anything? (If Nebraska is your answer, we have already won.)

 

[charlie42s]

Naw.
Texas always has the title. Outside of 2005, and dating back to 1969, you all been drunk ass bitter.
Better than everybody else, but nothing to show as to why.
Did you not read the thread title?
What, when, how, where, and why did UT dominate anything? (If Nebraska is your answer, we have already won.)

So, you a fan that absolutely hates Texas, start a thread expecting and giving others the opportunity to beat up Texas about an old concept like "Glory Days". In football this is probably best reserved for schools like Yale and Harvard. Given that your own school's football Glory Days were in the 20th Century, it's hypocritical.

And no, I'm not going to answer your questions and play your silly, hate inspired game.

AFA Texas fans being bitter, you are really off-base with that comment. It's much more likely that you are among those fans that are jealous of the success that Longhorns have had in football and other sports.

At the best you're just bored and trying to provoke Longhorns and get a little chuckle out of the responses. Not going to work.

 

[Blackshirt]

So, you a fan that absolutely hates Texas, start a thread expecting and giving others the opportunity to beat up Texas about an old concept like "Glory Days". In football this is probably best reserved for schools like Yale and Harvard. Given that your own school's football Glory Days were in the 20th Century, it's hypocritical.

And no, I'm not going to answer your questions and play your silly, hate inspired game.

AFA Texas fans being bitter, you are really off-base with that comment. It's much more likely that you are among those fans that are jealous of the success that Longhorns have had in football and other sports.

At the best you're just bored and trying to provoke Longhorns and get a little chuckle out of the responses. Not going to work.

11 pages later...

 

[bigred472]

Between the two of us the only one that is possibly "fuckin' drunk" is you. I haven't had anything to drink except for water.
What I did was expose your premise that the "rebuilding offense" which you used as an excuse in a prior post to not be at fault for the '96 lost to Texas, it was the defense.
Then you claim that the team was rebuilding while going 11-2 between 2 undefeated season. You clearly don't understand what rebuilding means, because it doesn't happen in one season.
This is funny as all hell, because you and most of the other Husker fans think your team sucked in the Big 12.

-------
Again, the offnese was averaging over 43 points a game. In the two we lost one game the y scored zero points, the other 27 which was way below their average. Young over confident teams end up playing sloppy when they are not in focus and in neither game did we score what we were usually doing. Once again, I"ll point out to you had we the same backfield from '95 for the '96 season, we wouldn't have had the two losses in '96. You forget want to ignore or maybe you weren't old enough to remember, but the reason we won and had no losses for two straight years was because our offense was on the field most of the time. Therefore the defense was always "fresh". That tyoe of offense didn't happen in the two games we lost in '96. Therefore the "D" wore down.

The triple option chews up yardage and time, if that doesn't happen, then even a team like Nebraska is vulnerable to losing. THAT is why we los those two games--a green offense that got too confident for their own good.

It's the ultimate in arrogance when anyone other than Nebraska fans can try and tell people what our team was like and why. Twenty years ago when most of this happened, I was already in my 40's and I bet you weren't even out of diapers.

 

[charlie42s]

-------
Again, the offnese was averaging over 43 points a game. In the two we lost one game the y scored zero points, the other 27 which was way below their average. Young over confident teams end up playing sloppy when they are not in focus and in neither game did we score what we were usually doing. Once again, I"ll point out to you had we the same backfield from '95 for the '96 season, we wouldn't have had the two losses in '96. You forget want to ignore or maybe you weren't old enough to remember, but the reason we won and had no losses for two straight years was because our offense was on the field most of the time. Therefore the defense was always "fresh". That tyoe of offense didn't happen in the two games we lost in '96. Therefore the "D" wore down.

The triple option chews up yardage and time, if that doesn't happen, then even a team like Nebraska is vulnerable to losing. THAT is why we los those two games--a green offense that got too confident for their own good.

It's the ultimate in arrogance when anyone other than Nebraska fans can try and tell people what our team was like and why. Twenty years ago when most of this happened, I was already in my 40's and I bet you weren't even out of diapers.

Wrong again. I started attending UT in '76 and stopped wearing diapers in the late 50's.

The only thing that I stated about that game was that the Blackshirts were the reason that UNL lost to UT in '96 and you can't seem to accept that. You keep blaming the 'rebuilding' offense and they scored enough to beat UT if the defense had done their job.

 

[TexasExes98]

Naw.

Texas always has the title. Outside of 2005, and dating back to 1969, you all been drunk ass bitter.

Better than everybody else, but nothing to show as to why.

Did you not read the thread title?

What, when, how, where, and why did UT dominate anything? (If Nebraska is your answer, we have already won.)

Texas had glory years in the 60's, a couple in the 70's (winning a NC and playing for another in '77), and a couple in the 80's (playing for the NC in '83). Zero in the 90s, we sucked pretty bad. We've had great glory days in the BCS era, too. Now, unlike Nebraska, our glory days aren't over at all. I'm pretty confident Charlie Strong will get Texas back to competing for NC's and conference titles very soon. We obviously know Nebraska's glory days were in the 90's and are done and will NEVER, EVER come back for the following reasons:

1. Legendary Coach Tom Osborne is no longer coaching.

2. The end of the Big 8 conference and Nebraska finally having to play in a conference where they had competition outside of Norman for the 1st time in decades and the end of allowing unlimited partial qualifiers playing on their team.

3. Zero recruiting base. What made NU great back in the day was their walk on program, which again, goes back to Tom Osborne. There is zero in state talent in the state of Nebraska and without a legendary coach like Osborne, nobody is going to want to live in Lincoln fucking Nebraska for 4-5 years. Not to mention, nobody wants to play for a below average, asshole of a coach like Bo Pelini.

4. Nebraska no longers scares anybody. Back in the day, the former Big 8 schools shat their pants and automatically gave up before the game even started. No longer the case today.

5. Unless in conference powerhouses like Ohio State gets slapped with severe NCAA sanctions, rendering their program helpless, which what happened to OU and that's what allowed NU to go on their great run in the 90's, b/c OU's football program was basically shut down and Osborne's daddy, Barry Switzer resigned; even if all of that were to happen, Nebraska might, just might be able to compete for a conference title at least.

There you have it.

 

[bigred472]

Wrong again. I started attending UT in '76 and stopped wearing diapers in the late 50's.

The only thing that I stated about that game was that the Blackshirts were the reason that UNL lost to UT in '96 and you can't seem to accept that. You keep blaming the 'rebuilding' offense and they scored enough to beat UT if the defense had done their job.

-------
You just don't understand the triple option offense...period. It is designed to keep an offense on the field and as such keeping the oppositions defense on the field as well. Again and you keep circumventing the one main issue--if Nebraska had the same backfield in '96 as it did in '95 we wouldn't have lost either game. THAT's what's meant by having an offense with less experience on the field.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

-------
You just don't understand the triple option offense...period. It is designed to keep an offense on the field and as such keeping the oppositions defense on the field as well. Again and you keep circumventing the one main issue--if Nebraska had the same backfield in '96 as it did in '95 we wouldn't have lost either game. THAT's what's meant by having an offense with less experience on the field.

It also probably didn't help that something like 75% of our team got the flu that week. It happens, so it's no excuse, but as you are pointing out for the Texas fans, it is not nearly as impressive of a victory as they are making it out to be.

 

[charlie42s]

It also probably didn't help that something like 75% of our team got the flu that week. It happens, so it's no excuse, but as you are pointing out for the Texas fans, it is not nearly as impressive of a victory as they are making it out to be.

I was wondering when a Husker was going to bring that up.

It was the offense's fault because they only held the ball for 39:35 to UT's 20:25 nearly a 2 to 1 time advantage.
Huskers had 87 offensive plays to 57 for Texas, 30 more.
Texas outgained UNL 503 yards to 398. Texas average 8.8 yards/play, UNL 4.6 yards/play.
Texas averaged 5.4 yards rushing/play, UNL 3.8 rush/play.
Texas averaged 18.6 yard per pass, UNL 10.3.
Neither team fumbled and UNL had 2 INTs.
Texas threw 5 more passes and completed 4 more than the Huskers.

Nebraska held a 27-23 lead in the 4th with 10:11 to go and Texas scored 2 TDs to not only go ahead by pad their lead. to win 37-27.

Wow, when I look at it that way, I'll agree it was the UNL offense that cost them the game.

 

[HuskerOC]

Texas had glory years in the 60's, a couple in the 70's (winning a NC and playing for another in '77), and a couple in the 80's (playing for the NC in '83). Zero in the 90s, we sucked pretty bad. We've had great glory days in the BCS era, too. Now, unlike Nebraska, our glory days aren't over at all. I'm pretty confident Charlie Strong will get Texas back to competing for NC's and conference titles very soon. We obviously know Nebraska's glory days were in the 90's and are done and will NEVER, EVER come back for the following reasons:

There you have it.

Hell, lets book it, TexasExes98 says as much, so it will happen.

 

[HuskerOC]

Texas had glory years in the 60's, a couple in the 70's (winning a NC and playing for another in '77), and a couple in the 80's (playing for the NC in '83). Zero in the 90s, we sucked pretty bad. We've had great glory days in the BCS era, too. Now, unlike Baylor, our glory days aren't over at all. I'm pretty confident Charlie Strong will get Texas back to competing for NC's and conference titles very soon because I'm a complete homer. We obviously know that we don't have Nebraska's glory days and wish our program was that good at some point in time.

1. Legendary Coach in Darrel Royal is no longer coaching.

2. The end of the SWC conference and finally having to play in a conference where they had competition outside of Norman for the 1st time in decades and the end of allowing unlimited players in which we helped into our "strict" studies like Vince Young.

3. We have an unlimited recruiting base, and everybody in our state wants to play for us. Thus we get the pick of the litter of football players. It is absolutely amazing how little we succeed with so many advantages.

4. Texas no longers scares anybody. Back in the day, the former SWC schools shat their pants and automatically gave up before the game even started. No longer the case today.

5. Unless in conference powerhouses like Baylor get slapped with severe NCAA sanctions, rendering their program helpless, which what happened to OU and that's what allowed UT to go on their great 2010-2013 run of zero conference titles.

I fixed your entire post.

 

[Texas Jefe]

That was really kind of interesting, in that the similarity is weirdly similar.

 

[charlie42s]

I fixed your entire post.

Nebraska hasn't won a Confernce Championship in the 21st Century and the last time they played in a CC they lost and perennial power house Wisconsin scored 70 points on them.
Ouch!