Mavric

Yeah, I suppose that a 5-10% chance of surviving is better than 0%, right? And why do we consider Chip Brown a valid source for anything? He probably couldn't even tell us straight what he had for dinner last night with embellishing it with false reports from 'inside sources'. That's a rhetorical question, BTW; not meant to be anything negative towards the OP.

Did you ever hear the story on how former Cowboy great, Golden Richards, ended up at BYU? A Mormon bishop told him he either plays at BYU or goes on a mission trip. It might be "suggested" to him that he stays in Utah. Pretty sure he's already been on a Mormon mission so....

I guess if we're not going to switch, at least they should have more money to spend on us because of how many others jumped ship.

Leaving Adidas...

Nebraska, Florida, Utah and Arizona standing out.

https://twitter.com/Manuel2Allen/status/734923157534965760 https://twitter.com/tyjonlindsey/status/734923576097177601

Player: Manuel Allen Hometown: Corona, California School: Centennial Position: Wide Receiver Height: 6-2 Weight: 175 40 time: Offers: Arkansas State, Nebraska, Washington Visits: 4/15/17 - Spring Game Twitter 247 Composite: #182 Overall; #39 WR; .9249; Rivals: #158 Overall; #32 WR; 247: #206 Overall; #36 WR; Scout: #63 WR; ESPN: #169 Overall; #25 WR; Hudl

Good plan as the deadline is Wednesday...

Forgot to include that I don't think Milt was lying, but that doesn't mean he was correct either. It's been 20 years and Milt isn't exactly a spring chicken let alone had some health problems. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that it seems to him that they basically played the entire game - which they did - and it really isn't "that important" that there was actually a sub in the game here and there. He's trying to be supportive of the new staff and a new friend. Not try to be deceitful or start a controversy. It's just how things go with Husker Football.

Not at all. We own MSU. In every sport.

Anyway, back to the actual topic. As per usual, this is being blown entirely out of proportion on both sides. Milt's comments that they "didn't rotate" is very unlikely to be true in the strictest sense. It seems likely - and evidence has been presented - that they did rotate to some extent. Probably not a lot, but some. And those saying they'd like to see some rotation are not saying we should make changes every possession. But have 2-3 backups who can come in and get a series here and there would provide a little rest for the starters, experience for the backups and help provide cover for injuries later in the season. I think we probably rotated OLinemen more than we needed to under the previous staff but I think we could definitely rotate more than we did last year without losing anything. There's a reason that every other position (except QB) gets rotated frequently. Football is a tiring game. OLinemen are not somehow immune from getting tired. If RBs, WRs, DLs and LBs can all rotate to some extent without losing chemistry, I don't know why the same can't be said for the OL. Even if every starter (except probably C) got one possession off per half, that would allow some rest and some valuable game experience. Not all at the same time, just sub one guy on about the third possession, a different guy on the fourth, etc. You always have four starters on the field and getting a couple guys some experience for down the road, whenever that might be. As we saw last year, we're unlikely to make it through the season without having to change starters for some reason. We replaced one starter because he wasn't playing as well as hoped and had to replace another due to injury. If the chemistry of the line is really that hard to get to come together, we should have been struggling down the stretch. Instead, we were at least as good and probably better. I just don't think the reasoning given really holds up.

Well, the coaches' system led the nation in interceptions, was a big part of having a 6-7 record and was admitted by the coaches that they probably should have been doing things differently during the year. So ..... yeah. Deed points out how far the argument has shifted from why the lack of rotation to posters complaining about which starting 5 were playing and finally to complaining about the system being run. Then you have a post that continues on the theme that Colorado Husk started by blasting the offensive system. This is your answer. There was no talk that a different system should be run until ITDTG brought it up. ITDTG didn't point out that the conversation had shifted, he was the one who shifted it. C N Red and I were only talking about why the backups weren't playing. I responded to him but neither CN nor I shifted the conversion. That was brought up by ITDTG - who wasn't trying to participate in the conversation, only belittle other member's posts. And now you've completely shifted it to arguing about it. Actually ITDTG simply commented on the shift in argument, he didn't bring up the discussion of system issues. Colorado Husk did that the post prior with this quote, "i understand needing to do "all aspects of the job", but this is where Riley's/Langsdorf's/Cav's focus on the pass game gets in the way of a successful run game." Regarding your last sentence, I will take 50% of the credit for prolonging our particular conversation, but you surely deserve the other half. Unless your position is that the current system has the total exclusion of the running game, "the system" would include both running and passing. Saying we could use a successful run game is not the same thing as saying we need to be running a different system. Even Riley has said that repeatedly.

Just paste the actual link into your post. Don't use the 'Link' button or tags. Should look like this:

FIFY You can just paste the URL directly into your post. Don't use the 'Link' or tags.

Well, the coaches' system led the nation in interceptions, was a big part of having a 6-7 record and was admitted by the coaches that they probably should have been doing things differently during the year. So ..... yeah. Deed points out how far the argument has shifted from why the lack of rotation to posters complaining about which starting 5 were playing and finally to complaining about the system being run. Then you have a post that continues on the theme that Colorado Husk started by blasting the offensive system. This is your answer. There was no talk that a different system should be run until ITDTG brought it up. ITDTG didn't point out that the conversation had shifted, he was the one who shifted it. C N Red and I were only talking about why the backups weren't playing. I responded to him but neither CN nor I shifted the conversion. That was brought up by ITDTG - who wasn't trying to participate in the conversation, only belittle other member's posts. And now you've completely shifted it to arguing about it.

Can't imagine he would seriously consider BYU after playing at Utah, even though he is Mormon. Aren't they pretty much bitter rivals? I mean that would be sort of like somebody transferring from CU to Nebraska........oops, nm. Considering he doesn't seem to think he's getting quite a fair shake at Utah, BYU might be the best way to show them what they're missing.

On their 247 profile page you can click a drop-down list on the right-hand side of the profile header and pick their high school profile to show you some information. Doesn't look like there is much in his but that may have been because it was obvious he wasn't going to qualify.

Apparently has been at (at least) three different JUCOs and is still working on getting eligible. Not sure what kind of eligibility he has left. I think he's been in JUCOs for three years so at best a 2-for-2 guy.