It was a down year for us. Should have been much worse if there was actual competition in this conference. That's on you!
Haha, 12-2 is literally the best season in school history.
Your 91 team with no offense would have gotten rolled in a real playoff scenario. No more Michigan gimmes.
Don't worry some kid from Idaho will get you to the mountain top....
USC is about to take over for the better part of a decade again and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. They are located where the talent lives and Chip will poach just enough to screw over programs like Oregon and UW.
Lol your program is the only one fucked. Petersens track record doesn't lie. Chip will crush USC. You just hired a coach with a career losing record, at a non p5.
You are so fucked.
It's almost as if you believe Mosster is a real quook.
lol just off the top of my head, I can think of four or five NFL players from the 91 team's offense
While the comment that the 91 team with no offense shows somebody didn't do their homework, I'm struggling to figure out who they were.
Kennedy had a real career. If you're counting Bruener then, yeah, he did too. Weren't the rest of the guys either cup 'o coffee or career journeymen? Berry and Bryant didn't really have careers, nor did McKay or Bailey. Who are you thinking about? Maybe Cunningham? I think he started for a while. The real NFL success of that crew, offense or defense, was Lincoln. Almost all of the other guys didn't pan out.
You're probably also thinking of Brunnell, but he didn't play that year.
Kennedy, Cunningham, Billy Joe (he lasted at least five or six years, even if he was a lazy flake at times), Bruener, Bailey (sort of a stretch, but he at leasted suited up for a few years), and Kaufman (he played, didn't start).
It wasn't a historic high octane offense, but it was good to great most games.
Aaron Pierce played in the league for seven seasons.
lol just off the top of my head, I can think of four or five NFL players from the 91 team's offense
While the comment that the 91 team with no offense shows somebody didn't do their homework, I'm struggling to figure out who they were.
Kennedy had a real career. If you're counting Bruener then, yeah, he did too. Weren't the rest of the guys either cup 'o coffee or career journeymen? Berry and Bryant didn't really have careers, nor did McKay or Bailey. Who are you thinking about? Maybe Cunningham? I think he started for a while. The real NFL success of that crew, offense or defense, was Lincoln. Almost all of the other guys didn't pan out.
You're probably also thinking of Brunnell, but he didn't play that year.
Kennedy, Cunningham, Billy Joe (he lasted at least five or six years, even if he was a lazy flake at times), Bruener, Bailey (sort of a stretch, but he at leasted suited up for a few years), and Kaufman (he played, didn't start).
It wasn't a historic high octane offense, but it was good to great most games.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about guys who made a roster and sent in play signals. Every school's numbers are markedly different if you include those guys. I forgot about Kaufman. I think Kennedy, Cunningham (sort of) and the TEs had the most success. Most of the other guys didn't get there or didn't really do much for the short time they were around.
Actually, I'd say the offense from that team is SEVERELY underrated. If you look at Washington's box scores from that season, the thing that jumps out at you more so than the defensive stats are the offensive stats. They ran on everybody and threw on most everybody. I think the only pedestrian game the 91 offense had was against a 3-8 SC team. I remember that game. Hobert was off and they just weren't playing well. But every other game I recall, even the come from behind in Lincoln, involved a lot of yards and usually a lot of points.
It wasn't one of the greatest offenses of all time but it had 3 first round picks (Kennedy, Bruener, Kauffman), 4 third round picks (Malamala, Cunningham, Hobert, Pierce), two 5th rounders (McKay and Brunell), 6th rounder (Bailey) (how the fuck did McKay go before Bailey?). and 11th rounder (Rongen - yes that's a UDFA now) eight of those picks and seven that would be in the current draft started on the 91 team and whichever TE you don't count as the starter played a very big role. And perhaps the two most well known of them all came off the bench (Kauffman and Brunell).
It was a damn talented offense, and highly underrated as you note.
Because speed is like crack to the NFL, and McKay was faster.
Including all those names relies on a generous definition of "NFL Players".
People who get to the league and don't do anything are a dime a dozen.
At least seven of those guys had legit careers where they started for multiple seasons. Bailey was the only one who really didn't play in the NFL. Bjornson definitely doesn't really count because he didn't play anything but garbage time in 91 and didn't play close to the position he played in the NFL.
Including all those names relies on a generous definition of "NFL Players".
People who get to the league and don't do anything are a dime a dozen.
At least seven of those guys had legit careers where they started for multiple seasons. Bailey was the only one who really didn't play in the NFL. Bjornson definitely doesn't really count because he didn't play anything but garbage time in 91 and didn't play close to the position he played in the NFL.
We have very different definitions of "legit". Even Kaufman feels like a stretch. He had two, arguably three, "legit" seasons out of six. Cunningham was a real starter 2 out of 5 seasons. Malamala 1 out of 7.
I'm ok w/ short careers. Shit happens. But stars typically make an impact relatively soon and will grab a few pro bowls in their short time, unless they are not popular with the vets, which happens to some guys.
I'd say there was one super star - Kennedy.
Two solid careers: Bruener and Pierce.
One kinda/sorta solid career: Bjornson.
Some guys who watched and situationally made their way into a lineup over a relatively short time.
And a bunch who didn't get that cup 'o coffee.
Citing Hobert is like citing Hall: both were expected to do more and count as busts, Hall more than BJ. Doogs like to shit on Torretta for not doing shit in the NFL and ignore the reality that it was amazing that he was even drafted in the bottom rounds. Torretta was a classic college QB and didn't have the physicals for the NFL. Unathletic with a mediocre arm. Hobert had an NFL body but was too retarded to learn the playbook and made himself irrelevant long before NFL defenses had a chance to confirm the same. Re Hall, not sure what happened there, but I'm guessing he had a cornerback's brain in a safety's body. More fun hitting WRs than TEs I guess.
lol just off the top of my head, I can think of four or five NFL players from the 91 team's offense
While the comment that the 91 team with no offense shows somebody didn't do their homework, I'm struggling to figure out who they were.
Kennedy had a real career. If you're counting Bruener then, yeah, he did too. Weren't the rest of the guys either cup 'o coffee or career journeymen? Berry and Bryant didn't really have careers, nor did McKay or Bailey. Who are you thinking about? Maybe Cunningham? I think he started for a while. The real NFL success of that crew, offense or defense, was Lincoln. Almost all of the other guys didn't pan out.
You're probably also thinking of Brunnell, but he didn't play that year.
Kennedy, Cunningham, Billy Joe (he lasted at least five or six years, even if he was a lazy flake at times), Bruener, Bailey (sort of a stretch, but he at leasted suited up for a few years), and Kaufman (he played, didn't start).
It wasn't a historic high octane offense, but it was good to great most games.
College Success !== NFL Success
Wrong!
NFL Success = reasonable proxy for how good a player was in college.
lol just off the top of my head, I can think of four or five NFL players from the 91 team's offense
While the comment that the 91 team with no offense shows somebody didn't do their homework, I'm struggling to figure out who they were.
Kennedy had a real career. If you're counting Bruener then, yeah, he did too. Weren't the rest of the guys either cup 'o coffee or career journeymen? Berry and Bryant didn't really have careers, nor did McKay or Bailey. Who are you thinking about? Maybe Cunningham? I think he started for a while. The real NFL success of that crew, offense or defense, was Lincoln. Almost all of the other guys didn't pan out.
You're probably also thinking of Brunnell, but he didn't play that year.
Kennedy, Cunningham, Billy Joe (he lasted at least five or six years, even if he was a lazy flake at times), Bruener, Bailey (sort of a stretch, but he at leasted suited up for a few years), and Kaufman (he played, didn't start).
It wasn't a historic high octane offense, but it was good to great most games.
College Success !== NFL Success
Wrong!
NFL Success = reasonable proxy for how good a player was in college.
lol just off the top of my head, I can think of four or five NFL players from the 91 team's offense
While the comment that the 91 team with no offense shows somebody didn't do their homework, I'm struggling to figure out who they were.
Kennedy had a real career. If you're counting Bruener then, yeah, he did too. Weren't the rest of the guys either cup 'o coffee or career journeymen? Berry and Bryant didn't really have careers, nor did McKay or Bailey. Who are you thinking about? Maybe Cunningham? I think he started for a while. The real NFL success of that crew, offense or defense, was Lincoln. Almost all of the other guys didn't pan out.
You're probably also thinking of Brunnell, but he didn't play that year.
Kennedy, Cunningham, Billy Joe (he lasted at least five or six years, even if he was a lazy flake at times), Bruener, Bailey (sort of a stretch, but he at leasted suited up for a few years), and Kaufman (he played, didn't start).
It wasn't a historic high octane offense, but it was good to great most games.
Kaufman started, rushed for 1k and led the league in YPC.
It was a down year for us. Should have been much worse if there was actual competition in this conference. That's on you!
Haha, 12-2 is literally the best season in school history.
Your 91 team with no offense would have gotten rolled in a real playoff scenario. No more Michigan gimmes.
Don't worry some kid from Idaho will get you to the mountain top....
USC is about to take over for the better part of a decade again and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. They are located where the talent lives and Chip will poach just enough to screw over programs like Oregon and UW.
Lol your program is the only one fucked. Petersens track record doesn't lie. Chip will crush USC. You just hired a coach with a career losing record, at a non p5.
You are so fucked.
It's almost as if you believe Mosster is a real quook.
It was a down year for us. Should have been much worse if there was actual competition in this conference. That's on you!
Haha, 12-2 is literally the best season in school history.
Your 91 team with no offense would have gotten rolled in a real playoff scenario. No more Michigan gimmes.
Don't worry some kid from Idaho will get you to the mountain top....
USC is about to take over for the better part of a decade again and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. They are located where the talent lives and Chip will poach just enough to screw over programs like Oregon and UW.
Wow somehow you LEAVE! for awhile and then come back even more retarded. Speechless.
I'm hearing football is a rich man's game and the poor kids in the hood can't afford $500 body armor to play in.
It was a down year for us. Should have been much worse if there was actual competition in this conference. That's on you!
Haha, 12-2 is literally the best season in school history.
Your 91 team with no offense would have gotten rolled in a real playoff scenario. No more Michigan gimmes.
Don't worry some kid from Idaho will get you to the mountain top....
USC is about to take over for the better part of a decade again and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. They are located where the talent lives and Chip will poach just enough to screw over programs like Oregon and UW.
Wow somehow you LEAVE! for awhile and then come back even more retarded. Speechless.
I'm hearing football is a rich man's game and the poor kids in the hood can't afford $500 body armor to play in.
Did you hear that from someone who coaches at the highest classification in a football state??
It was a down year for us. Should have been much worse if there was actual competition in this conference. That's on you!
Haha, 12-2 is literally the best season in school history.
Your 91 team with no offense would have gotten rolled in a real playoff scenario. No more Michigan gimmes.
Don't worry some kid from Idaho will get you to the mountain top....
USC is about to take over for the better part of a decade again and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. They are located where the talent lives and Chip will poach just enough to screw over programs like Oregon and UW.
Wow somehow you LEAVE! for awhile and then come back even more retarded. Speechless.
I'm hearing football is a rich man's game and the poor kids in the hood can't afford $500 body armor to play in.
Did you hear that from someone who coaches at the highest classification in a football state??
Yup. For some reason soccer trolling always seems to bring out the TUFF! guys that need to overcompensate. For something. Allegedly. It's always special to be a socioeconomic expert with truck nutz on your F-150.
lol just off the top of my head, I can think of four or five NFL players from the 91 team's offense
While the comment that the 91 team with no offense shows somebody didn't do their homework, I'm struggling to figure out who they were.
Kennedy had a real career. If you're counting Bruener then, yeah, he did too. Weren't the rest of the guys either cup 'o coffee or career journeymen? Berry and Bryant didn't really have careers, nor did McKay or Bailey. Who are you thinking about? Maybe Cunningham? I think he started for a while. The real NFL success of that crew, offense or defense, was Lincoln. Almost all of the other guys didn't pan out.
You're probably also thinking of Brunnell, but he didn't play that year.
Kennedy, Cunningham, Billy Joe (he lasted at least five or six years, even if he was a lazy flake at times), Bruener, Bailey (sort of a stretch, but he at leasted suited up for a few years), and Kaufman (he played, didn't start).
It wasn't a historic high octane offense, but it was good to great most games.
Kaufman started, rushed for 1k and led the league in YPC.
Winning on the field is the standard of the current era. You can't 'win' something that's handed out by default. Voted natties are for doogs living in the past. It's all they can cling too after the heartbreaking Bama loss.
So the 1995 Nebraska team was illegitimate because they didn’t win it on the field?
Anyone who doubts Tommy Frasier and Lawrence Phillips in the same backfield can shut the fuck up.
Can we hyper analyze this. Look at that 6 foot 220 running back make that cut back, break about 7 tackles, and high step it in. How demoralizing it must be to be an SEC DB and watch a bigger man run past you.
Meanwhile Tommie Frazier breaks another 11 tackles and is so board with the lack of competition he actually looks back to see if people are still competing. And they weren't.
That was the biggest game of Steve Spurriers career and that Hall of Fame coach couldn't make them try. Mid 90s Nebraska is GOAT imo.
Bull shit.
Just as a little refresher, that Florida defense was as soft as the French resistance. That game is the reason Bob Stoops was hired to be D coordinator at Florida. Once that happened, it was lights out.
Phillips was a CLASSIC Nebraska I back. They are unbelievable bullies at what they do until you take it away. What you need to take it away isn't complicated: you need the athletes who can, without struggling, run sideline to sideline with you, and who can handle a physical inside running game, because that explains about 99.5% of Nebraska's offense in those days.
Note, too, how many Nebraska I backs were shit in the NFL once they had to start running between the tackles and actually show some vision and moves. NFL defenses blow that Power I option shit right the fuck up just organically with personnel. Let me explain further. Rich Alexis (member him?) would have been a great Nebraska I back. What ever happened to Rich?
A fast and physical defense could have handled that team. Tommie ran it as good as anyone ever, but you're getting carried away. The 01, 91, 86 and 89 Miami defenses shut that shit down COLD. 91 Washington shuts that shit down COLD. Probably some of the mid-90s Florida State defenses do too - Boulware, Brooks and those guys. No way you're running around them, and if you punch them in the mouth up the middle, they punch back.
You are basing all this hype on a show against a soft as fuck defense.
And I'm not sure where you're getting that it was Spurrier's biggest game. He coached in a few. He beat Peyton Manning every year he played at Tennessee. He beat Gene Stallings at Alabama 5 out of 6 times. And he won a title in the Sugar in 1996. Why is a loss his biggest gayme? You must be a Husker fan.
In terms of GOAT, the 2001 Miami team beats that Nebraska team. Miami was better at more things and had a more balanced offense.
I can respect the 2001 Miami argument, but don't pretend Lawrence Phillips was a system back. He was a man with serious character issues and eventually a murdering problem.
The fiesta bowl was Spurriers biggest game to date. He won the title the following year, but that game was a battle against the undefeated defending national champs while they were still unbeaten.
You must be a dirty South homer to disrespect the mid 90s Nebraska.
Winning on the field is the standard of the current era. You can't 'win' something that's handed out by default. Voted natties are for doogs living in the past. It's all they can cling too after the heartbreaking Bama loss.
So the 1995 Nebraska team was illegitimate because they didn’t win it on the field?
Anyone who doubts Tommy Frasier and Lawrence Phillips in the same backfield can shut the fuck up.
Can we hyper analyze this. Look at that 6 foot 220 running back make that cut back, break about 7 tackles, and high step it in. How demoralizing it must be to be an SEC DB and watch a bigger man run past you.
Meanwhile Tommie Frazier breaks another 11 tackles and is so board with the lack of competition he actually looks back to see if people are still competing. And they weren't.
That was the biggest game of Steve Spurriers career and that Hall of Fame coach couldn't make them try. Mid 90s Nebraska is GOAT imo.
Bull shit.
Just as a little refresher, that Florida defense was as soft as the French resistance. That game is the reason Bob Stoops was hired to be D coordinator at Florida. Once that happened, it was lights out.
Phillips was a CLASSIC Nebraska I back. They are unbelievable bullies at what they do until you take it away. What you need to take it away isn't complicated: you need the athletes who can, without struggling, run sideline to sideline with you, and who can handle a physical inside running game, because that explains about 99.5% of Nebraska's offense in those days.
Note, too, how many Nebraska I backs were shit in the NFL once they had to start running between the tackles and actually show some vision and moves. NFL defenses blow that Power I option shit right the fuck up just organically with personnel. Let me explain further. Rich Alexis (member him?) would have been a great Nebraska I back. What ever happened to Rich?
A fast and physical defense could have handled that team. Tommie ran it as good as anyone ever, but you're getting carried away. The 01, 91, 86 and 89 Miami defenses shut that shit down COLD. 91 Washington shuts that shit down COLD. Probably some of the mid-90s Florida State defenses do too - Boulware, Brooks and those guys. No way you're running around them, and if you punch them in the mouth up the middle, they punch back.
You are basing all this hype on a show against a soft as fuck defense.
And I'm not sure where you're getting that it was Spurrier's biggest game. He coached in a few. He beat Peyton Manning every year he played at Tennessee. He beat Gene Stallings at Alabama 5 out of 6 times. And he won a title in the Sugar in 1996. Why is a loss his biggest gayme? You must be a Husker fan.
In terms of GOAT, the 2001 Miami team beats that Nebraska team. Miami was better at more things and had a more balanced offense.
I can respect the 2001 Miami argument, but don't pretend Lawrence Phillips was a system back. He was a man with serious character issues and eventually a murdering problem.
The fiesta bowl was Spurriers biggest game to date. He won the title the following year, but that game was a battle against the undefeated defending national champs while they were still unbeaten.
You must be a dirty South homer to disrespect the mid 90s Nebraska.
2001 Miami is the best team I’ve ever seen, but the mid 90’s Nebraska teams were right up there.
Winning on the field is the standard of the current era. You can't 'win' something that's handed out by default. Voted natties are for doogs living in the past. It's all they can cling too after the heartbreaking Bama loss.
So the 1995 Nebraska team was illegitimate because they didn’t win it on the field?
Anyone who doubts Tommy Frasier and Lawrence Phillips in the same backfield can shut the fuck up.
Can we hyper analyze this. Look at that 6 foot 220 running back make that cut back, break about 7 tackles, and high step it in. How demoralizing it must be to be an SEC DB and watch a bigger man run past you.
Meanwhile Tommie Frazier breaks another 11 tackles and is so board with the lack of competition he actually looks back to see if people are still competing. And they weren't.
That was the biggest game of Steve Spurriers career and that Hall of Fame coach couldn't make them try. Mid 90s Nebraska is GOAT imo.
Bull shit.
Just as a little refresher, that Florida defense was as soft as the French resistance. That game is the reason Bob Stoops was hired to be D coordinator at Florida. Once that happened, it was lights out.
Phillips was a CLASSIC Nebraska I back. They are unbelievable bullies at what they do until you take it away. What you need to take it away isn't complicated: you need the athletes who can, without struggling, run sideline to sideline with you, and who can handle a physical inside running game, because that explains about 99.5% of Nebraska's offense in those days.
Note, too, how many Nebraska I backs were shit in the NFL once they had to start running between the tackles and actually show some vision and moves. NFL defenses blow that Power I option shit right the fuck up just organically with personnel. Let me explain further. Rich Alexis (member him?) would have been a great Nebraska I back. What ever happened to Rich?
A fast and physical defense could have handled that team. Tommie ran it as good as anyone ever, but you're getting carried away. The 01, 91, 86 and 89 Miami defenses shut that shit down COLD. 91 Washington shuts that shit down COLD. Probably some of the mid-90s Florida State defenses do too - Boulware, Brooks and those guys. No way you're running around them, and if you punch them in the mouth up the middle, they punch back.
You are basing all this hype on a show against a soft as fuck defense.
And I'm not sure where you're getting that it was Spurrier's biggest game. He coached in a few. He beat Peyton Manning every year he played at Tennessee. He beat Gene Stallings at Alabama 5 out of 6 times. And he won a title in the Sugar in 1996. Why is a loss his biggest gayme? You must be a Husker fan.
In terms of GOAT, the 2001 Miami team beats that Nebraska team. Miami was better at more things and had a more balanced offense.
I can respect the 2001 Miami argument, but don't pretend Lawrence Phillips was a system back. He was a man with serious character issues and eventually a murdering problem.
The fiesta bowl was Spurriers biggest game to date. He won the title the following year, but that game was a battle against the undefeated defending national champs while they were still unbeaten.
You must be a dirty South homer to disrespect the mid 90s Nebraska.
Not a system back. Good at what he did at Nebrasak - run out of the power I option. It's a different animal than taking the ball and running between the tackles. In addition to being a giant moron, he failed miserably as a pro on the field. His game didn't translate. He was a straight line runner who couldn't create.
Comments
Kaufman
Malamala
Kennedy
Cunningham
Brunell
Hobart
Pierce
Bruener
Bjornsen
Bailey
Kaufmann
Mala'aamala
Kenedy
Cuntingham
Brunnel
Hobart
Pearce
Bruenner
Bjornstad
Bayleigh
People who get to the league and don't do anything are a dime a dozen.
I'm ok w/ short careers. Shit happens. But stars typically make an impact relatively soon and will grab a few pro bowls in their short time, unless they are not popular with the vets, which happens to some guys.
I'd say there was one super star - Kennedy.
Two solid careers: Bruener and Pierce.
One kinda/sorta solid career: Bjornson.
Some guys who watched and situationally made their way into a lineup over a relatively short time.
And a bunch who didn't get that cup 'o coffee.
Citing Hobert is like citing Hall: both were expected to do more and count as busts, Hall more than BJ. Doogs like to shit on Torretta for not doing shit in the NFL and ignore the reality that it was amazing that he was even drafted in the bottom rounds. Torretta was a classic college QB and didn't have the physicals for the NFL. Unathletic with a mediocre arm. Hobert had an NFL body but was too retarded to learn the playbook and made himself irrelevant long before NFL defenses had a chance to confirm the same. Re Hall, not sure what happened there, but I'm guessing he had a cornerback's brain in a safety's body. More fun hitting WRs than TEs I guess.
NFL Success = reasonable proxy for how good a player was in college.
Beno Bryant started most of those games brah
The fiesta bowl was Spurriers biggest game to date. He won the title the following year, but that game was a battle against the undefeated defending national champs while they were still unbeaten.
You must be a dirty South homer to disrespect the mid 90s Nebraska.