[Husker] Question for a quiet list

[jonlists at cbsol.com]

husker-bounces at tssi.com wrote on 10/19/2005 10:41:00 AM:

> >>>There is going to be
> >>>doubt in voters minds until the offense consistently
> >>>shows up.
> 
> Bob this is something I have been struggling with quite a bit 
> lately- I am guessing there have got to be other teams over the 
> years that have been highly regarded despite struggles on one side 
> of the ball- in ohter words, I find it hard to believe that all the 
> high ranked teams are blowing people out every week in any given 
> season. When Ohio State won it a few years back , weren't many of 
> their games very close, even against inferior opponents? Sure, Ohio 
> State was pretty darn good that year, but they by no means were 
> blowing everyone out.
>
I'm glad that with the offense beginning to resemble an offense that we've 
all seemingly forgotten our first three games of the season in which our 
defense scored more TD's than the offense.  The one score that still 
sticks out like a sore thumb is the Pitt game. We should have scored more 
than seven points against them if all we did was fall down in their 
direction on every play. 

I don't recall any teams who were highly regarded despite struggling on 
one side of the ball, mostly because the inability to score on a 
consistent basis is what catches teams during the season. If that doesn't 
get them, their defense fails them. One side or the other, even if they're 
darned good one one side and lousy on the other, they'll lose a game in a 
sport which requires perfection throughout the season. USC should lose 
this season and not repeat because their defense isn't what it was last 
year. In that regard, they'll lose the highest rank in history and fall 
amongst us mere mortals who have only won back to back titles instead of a 
three-peat. 
 
> I guess my point is, why is it that voters penalize teams for a 
> "struggling" offense or a "weak" defense, even if they are winning? 
> Perhaps soon voters will also drop teams because of poor special 
> teams play when they win by 30.
>
I don't think they're penalizing us for a "struggling" offense as much as 
they're waiting for us to play someone of substance. Texas Tech has yet to 
prove they're of substance, BTW. If they lose to Texas this weekend, 
they'll fall hard. 
> 
> By the way, this is not a knock on your post, in fact I agree that 
> voters behave this way, I'm just puzzled as to why.
> 
> Scott in NY

Our offense started turning around just as the media was releasing a 
flurry of articles regarding Bill Callahan's early demise. Perhaps they're 
reticent to vote us higher since they: 

a - don't like to be made fools of even if we all have really short 
memories
b - aren't convinced that it isn't going to fall apart
c - have waited for years for Nebraska to suck this bad, and they're not 
going to give it up that easily

Mike Nolan made the comment on another post : 
"The WCO is supposed to light up the scoreboard like a pinball machine, 
but the Huskers have cracked 30 points just twice this season...." 

We have a new quarterback, amongst other new players. I don't think that 
can be underscored enough. Taylor has improved greatly this season. He's 
shown remarkable skill at protecting the ball, and he's started to pick up 
the offense. As the season moves on, wouldn't it be probable that we'll 
light up the scoreboard on a more regular basis????? 

Jon Johnston
Creative Business Solutions
IBM, Microsoft, Novell/Suse, Sophos Consultants
http://www.cbsol.com
blog:http://bingo.cbsol.com