Mavric

S Garret Wallow Who voted for: TCU Mavric, obert1, Warrior10, amhynes89, Dillrp4NU, Squeaks, HuskermanMike, huskerfan92, HuskerExpat, Cornhole, Huskr25

Who voted for: TCU Mavric, obert1, Warrior10, amhynes89, Dillrp4NU, Squeaks, HuskermanMike, huskerfan92, HuskerExpat, Cornhole, Huskr25

OT Billy Ross Who voted for: North Carolina Bball1091, huskerfan92, Cornhole, nphuskers12, Dillrp4NU, Mavric, Warrior10, Squeaks, smurphy14

Who voted for: North Carolina Bball1091, huskerfan92, Cornhole, nphuskers12, Dillrp4NU, Mavric, Warrior10, Squeaks, smurphy14

LB Drew Jordan Who voted for: Duke Mavric, Warrior10, Dillrp4NU, huskerfan92, smurphy14

Who voted for: Duke Mavric, Warrior10, Dillrp4NU, huskerfan92, smurphy14

Have a great one!

#PointTheThumb

Does it really matter, as we only shot 32% from the field. We only have 2 scorers and the problem lies in who will be the 3rd. By the way, shooting 32% from the field includes the 13% on threes. We were just over 40% from inside the arc. Not to mention a good portion of the 13-for-16 from the line coming from attacking the basket. If we took 22 more two-pointers and no threes - at the same percentage - we would have scored 9 more points. We were down by 10 with 27 seconds left. So yes, I think it makes a difference.

I generally agree with your points. I've said since TA became the starter that he was terrible at decision-making. That's why I have given Langs credit for calling several games that basically took that decision-making out of TA's hands and forced the short throws. I just don't know why we went away from that in other games. I've also said I'll give Langs more time with an actual QB to work with. That's why he's not on my check-list in this thread. I don't dislike the general design of his offense. My worry is that he doesn't really put it to the best use. He really wants to throw the ball. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, especially if we're completing mid-60%. But I don't think he has much feel for how to call the run game. And I think he'll be more prone to abandon the running game when he has a passing game that is more effective. Which will work in a lot of games because we have more talent than most teams we play. But I don't know if that will deliver championship-level football in the B1G in November.

Does it really matter, as we only shot 32% from the field. We only have 2 scorers and the problem lies in who will be the 3rd. Considering they tend to say the team that scores more points wins the game, yes, I think trying to take the shots best suited to scoring points matters.

Includes a 7 minute scoring drought and a 6 minute scoring drought.

You do realize that it could be the same play called with a route adjusted here or there for a certain look. It happens all the time. Beck was notorious for doing it. Is that what it looks like to you in the screen grabs I posted? Or should be just keep speculating?

Shoot 13% on threes but still take one every three shots. I'm sure that will work out. #DribbleDrive

Not very encouraging if this is the most talent we've ever had.....

CB Ambry Thomas Who voted for: Michigan BigRedBuster, huskerfan92, Cornhole, Mavric, huskersrule95, nphuskers12, swmohusker, Roger Dorn

Committed to Michigan Who voted for: Michigan BigRedBuster, huskerfan92, Cornhole, Mavric, huskersrule95, nphuskers12, swmohusker, Roger Dorn

I think there's a persuasive case to be made against this, summarized well in the Post article I posted previously. "It was necessary to end the war" is what I learned in school, but there's little room for any other view of this while still teaching us that we're fundamentally the good guys. And that is an important educational priority. To an extent we'll never know, but I think we can all agree wholeheartedly that it was a terrible event in a terrible war that, thankfully, ended thereafter. "It was necessary to achieve unconditional surrender, rather than surrender + the emperor clause (which came into effect anyway)" makes the case less compelling to me. It also seems the loss of a Soviet role in negotiations is being undersold, and the Japanese resistance in the face of a utterly hopeless situation being extrapolated too heavily. It seems to me that they realized the war was rapidly slipping away, and their priorities turned to preserving the Emperor (and some avoidance of total dishonor) above all else. I can't personally place a lot of confidence in the idea that all other avenues were truly exhausted. I understand that such things happen in war, though. I just hope a nuclear bomb is never dropped again. That we were the only ones to have ever done it is a justly discomforting legacy to have to carry, I think. Facing that can make us stronger, I think, if only to steel our resolve to opposing such action in the future. The world does depend so on the moral standing of America's commitments. The premise of your first sentence is basically that the history we are taught is written to show us in a favorable light. Yet the article you are referring to appears to be sourced from people who may be prone to do the same thing from the Japanese point of view. So being skeptical of their conclusions would seem to be prudent. Point 2 in that article does not seem to align with reality. They try to claim that possibly only 40,000 US deaths would result from invading Japan. That may have been the estimate at the time but, as knapp pointed out, if the battle at Okinawa resulted in 50,000-70,000 US casualties and 100,000 Japanese casualties, so it's obvious that those estimates for invading the Japanese homeland were significantly underestimated. Thus, using them as the basis for the article seems short-sighted at best. Point 3 seems to try to imply that simply granting the Emperor immunity may have led them to a conditional surrender. That doesn't seem to likely considering the overall mind-set of the Japanese people and especially military at the time. And at best there isn't much offered to back it up. So, again, I'm not really sure pointing that out as a viable option is really being truthful about the situation.

I would say Gates. But there may be more competition at Tackle. I guess it's hard to gauge how good an offensive lineman is. The best ones seldom have their names mentioned during a game. So anyway, I have a newfound respect for Farmer. May have to go back and watch him on this year's game youtubes. It really sucked to lose Foster. Has sounded for two years like our best run blocker. Been looking forward to both him and Farmer for a couple years. Both are tremendously strong and will be a great pair of guards for a couple years. Throw in Gates and that's a great foundation going forward.