PM to Fans of loser schools (WSU, Oregon, ASU, et all)

This thread was redeemed with limp Bizkit.

haie said:

Whatever about Oregon. They were good. Probably underachieved.

But I love the Playoff smack.

You got fucking destroyed against a b1g team full of freshmen. Jesus

You're not talking about that Ohio State team and Ezekial Elliott?

Doogles said:

Doogles said:

Rubberfist said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

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.

K

creepycoug said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

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.

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

K

creepycoug said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

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.

creepycoug said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

K

creepycoug said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

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.