Tom Dienhart: Neb will have more talent than MN "until the end of the earth"

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,105
Reaction score
16,713
Points
113
Tom Dienhart: Neb will have more talent than MN "until the end of the earth"

per Dienhart's Q&A:

How many years in a row does Minnesota need to beat Nebraska before they earn respect? Nebraska has the name. However, these weren’t upsets the last two years. The Gophers were the better team. Nebraska gets a new coach and is in transition. Minnesota is stable under Jerry Kill. However, you still see Nebraska as the better team in your early look at 2015 standings. You’re losing credibility. – Lucas

Yes, Minnesota has beaten Nebraska the last two seasons. I love what Jerry Kill is doing in the Twin Cities. But past performance has no bearing on future performance. I still think the Huskers have more talent than the Gophers—and will each season until the end of the earth. Nebraska’s issues in recent years weren’t a function of talent. And, I’ll just leave it at that. I’m just not ready to pick Minnesota over Nebraska.

http://btn.com/2015/01/20/big-ten-mailbag-when-will-nebraska-challenge-for-big-ten-title/

Go Gophers!!
 

lol, ok. What an asinine thing to write.
 

What a stupid and needless thing to say.

Dienhart's a dink.
 


But past performance has no bearing on future performance. I still think the Huskers have more talent than the Gophers—and will each season until the end of the earth.
Click to expand...

The irony is that while he's basing what he says on past performance, and projecting it into eternity. Sports writers often have difficulty imagining that things can change. When good teams decline, or when poor teams improve, they assume that they will return to form. This lasts until reputations change, which can take a while. But things do change, you can't project to infinity.


Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2
 


More often than not they will have more talent on the roster than the Gophers, just like many other teams in the conference. We need superior coaching and some luck which we got the last two seasons.
 

And if the Gophers keep winning, recruiting will improve as well. It is hard enough to predict a decade out, let alone for eternity.

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2
 

If he was writing this 55 years ago, it would have been just the opposite.

Things change over the years.
 

We don't have enough Antonio Thompson's on our team to compete with Nebraska yet. :cool:

Side note: Dienhart is such a knob. I have no idea how he is still with/on BTN.
 



I'm surprised Jay Sawvel hasn't responded. I can't wait to see what he says :rolleyes:
 


Ski U Master said:
More often than not they will have more talent on the roster than the Gophers, just like many other teams in the conference. We need superior coaching and some luck which we got the last two seasons.
Click to expand...

You're a idiot. Where was the "luck " in beating Nebraska back to back?
 

More and more players are concerned with their education and at a minimum their opportunities after football that are not in the NFL. Minnesota has upside here and it will more evident in the future. Nebraska will never be the perennial power house of like the past. If things continue to progress here, we will easily compete with them going forward.
 




ruppertflywheel said:
You're a idiot. Where was the "luck " in beating Nebraska back to back?
Click to expand...
Obviously not all luck, but that last play this year was fortunate (yes I know he was ineligible anyway) If they run that play 100 times we don't get that turnover on 99 of them. Great play, and BBC took advantage of the opportunity but it was fortunate for the Gophs. It's not a knock on a team to say there was some luck involved in a win, no need to be so hostile.
 

Ski U Master said:
Obviously not all luck, but that last play this year was fortunate (yes I know he was ineligible anyway) If they run that play 100 times we don't get that turnover on 99 of them. Great play, and BBC took advantage of the opportunity but it was fortunate for the Gophs. It's not a knock on a team to say there was some luck involved in a win, no need to be so hostile.
Click to expand...

Your logic is poor. I could make this same argument for many of the 2-3 plays that determine the outcome of most games. What if Nebraska wasn't "fortunate" enough to block our FB at the end of the 1st half? The game wouldn't have been that close...

1. If David Cobb didn't fumble against Illinois...
2. If Damien Wilson fills his gap and JT Barret doesn't run 88 yards for a TD against us...
3. If DeVondre Campbell takes a good angle against Missouri on 4th and whatever...
 

If they run that play 100 times, we may not steal the ball away that often, but it is also not going to be caught 99 times either.

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2
 

RodentRampage said:
If they run that play 100 times, we may not steal the ball away that often, but it is also not going to be caught 99 times either.

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Because he was ineligible? :cool:
 

e.bigelow said:
Because he was ineligible? :cool:
Click to expand...

Your point is really a food example how stupid this discussion is. It was never going to be a catch since the potential receiver had already been flagged for an illegal play. Yet there are those here who are arguing that we were lucking to win the game. Another fantastic example of people's selected memory.:rolleyes:
 



Killjoy said:
Your point is really a food example how stupid this discussion is. It was never going to be a catch since the potential receiver had already been flagged for an illegal play. Yet there are those here who are arguing that we were lucking to win the game. Another fantastic example of people's selected memory.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree. It would have been 3rd and 15(?) after the play had been called back. Hard to say what would have happened after that.

I actually still don't understand on how it was a 'turnover' since it was technically 'illegal touching' by the WR. You would think everything including the catch and directly after it would be negated outside of a dead ball foul. But, what do I know? That rule is lost on me.
 

I don't agree that Nebraska is more talented than us. I don't care what the average star rating is for us compared to Nebraska. After watching the past 2 years there is no way someone can make the argument that they are more talented than the Gophers. Michigan is loaded with 4 stars but what did Limegrover say after we beat them? Something to the effect that it was not a fluke and we have better players than they do now? I can't find it maybe someone else can. But Dienhart's claim that they will have more talent than us forever is just asinine.
 

This year Minnesota had 5 first team all media selections and Nebraska had one. Minnesota had 11 combined first, second and HM's to Nebraska's 10. Minnesota and Nebraska each had 2 first team selections from the coaches and Minnesota had 11 combined first, second and honorable mentions to Nebraska's 10.
 

Ski U Master said:
Obviously not all luck, but that last play this year was fortunate (yes I know he was ineligible anyway) If they run that play 100 times we don't get that turnover on 99 of them. Great play, and BBC took advantage of the opportunity but it was fortunate for the Gophs. It's not a knock on a team to say there was some luck involved in a win, no need to be so hostile.
Click to expand...

Rewatch the first half. Nebraska got lucky break after lucky break after lucky break. They took a two touchdown lead into the locker room and easily could have been losing.

Luck often plays a factor in who wins a game but it wasn't a factor in this one. We lined up and beat them at the line of scrimmage all game long, just like we did in 2013.
 

The Gophers were better on the LOS both years. You could argue that Nebraska was more talented at WR both years, but the Gophers were better at TE and in the secondary. The Gophers were also better in special teams and linebacker. There should be an acronym for BTN that coincides with their prejudice towards teams they wish were marque (namely Michigan and Nebraska).
 


e.bigelow said:
Oh, I totally agree. It would have been 3rd and 15(?) after the play had been called back. Hard to say what would have happened after that.

I actually still don't understand on how it was a 'turnover' since it was technically 'illegal touching' by the WR. You would think everything including the catch and directly after it would be negated outside of a dead ball foul. But, what do I know? That rule is lost on me.
Click to expand...

I see your confusion. Just like any other penalty, other than a dead ball foul which this was NOT, the play stands and the offended team has the option of accepting the play or accepting the penalty. Obviously in this case, you accept the play every time.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom