Mavric

There are a lot of times that the WRs have bailed out Martinez, but a lack of throws their way is no excuse for dropping the ball.... They get plenty of balls thrown their way in practice.... I thought the drops were an isolated situation for the most part, *cough* Brandon Kinnie *cough* Apparently I am forgetting all the big-time adjustments the WRs made to bail Martinez out. Maybe someone can remind me of a few.

I wouldn't. The 49ers are a 13-3 team vs another 13-3 team. Meanwhile the Pats are 13-3 while the Broncos 8-8. There is a reason why the Broncos finished the season at .500...they aren't that good. Go look at the Broncos schedule and you will realize they played a very soft schedule. Except for the part where they played the third-toughest schedule in the AFC and tied for the 8th toughest schedule in the NFL.

Pretty annoying that the audio is 3-4 seconds behind the video. Anyone else having that problem?

Alex Smith: 5/9, 78 yds, 2 TDs Drew Brees: 9/12, 56 yds, 1 INT Show of hands: who had Smith out-playing Brees (and not even close) through 15 minutes?

You do not recall correctly. That "drive" started on our own 16 yard line with 52 seconds left in the half. Martinez ran for six yards on the first play (I don't recall if that was a called run or a scramble) then the INT came on the next play. Clock management was not the issue. So we called a draw, and then didn't call a timeout, and then threw downfield? How does that make any sense in terms of clock management? If you're going to let the clock burn, why would you call a pass? If you're going to try to score, why would you call a draw and then not call a timeout? Becasue, particularly at that point in the season, we are not a great passing team. Trying to complete 3-4 passes for about 50 yds (to get into field goal range) wasn't very likely. We run it once to burn the clock down so we don't go three incompletions and have to punt it back to them with 40 seconds left to work. Then we take one shot just to see what happens.

You do not recall correctly. That "drive" started on our own 16 yard line with 52 seconds left in the half. Martinez ran for six yards on the first play (I don't recall if that was a called run or a scramble) then the INT came on the next play. Clock management was not the issue.

I'm not sure what Frazier running the option 70% of the time has to do with your argument. Shouldn't that have given him a lot of chances to rack up yards? Phillips and Green were great backs. Phillips ran for 1722 yds in 1994, the second-best season in Husker history. Green ran for 1086 in 1995, the Husker freshman record. Green is the #2 rusher in Husker history. Phillips is #8 (in limited action). However, Burkhead's 1357 this year is #7 all-time bumping Helu's 1,245 last year to #12. Helu is #4 on the career rushing list. Burkhead is already #12 and would be easily into the #2 spot (ahead of Green and joining Rozier as the only 4,000 yd rushers in Husker history) with the same numbers next year. Martinez needs to average 657 yards over the next two years to move into the #6 spot (he had 874 this year) which would mean three of the six leading rushers in Husker history would have been on the 2010 team. I think Martinez definitely had something to do with that. So TM isn't as good as one of the greatest Huskers in history. How does that equate to Martinez not being good?

That's why there should be single payer. Which is what the majority of americans have wanted for many years. Reference?

Um ... you do know that Denver won their division, right? They didn't need a wild card bid.

Ya. I have no problem with the kid, but I cannot believe there wasn't someone better than him to play!! He was on Big Red Wrap Up this week, and dude has to do something with his curly ass long hair. He looks like a girl! It really doesn't help with his looks!! Troy Polamalu says hi.

Hopefully running the same offense for two years in a row for the first time since TM got to campus will allow for more time to work on "other things."

According to Sporting News (for whatever that's worth): Considering: Florida State, Nebraska, Stanford, USC The latest: It’s hard to see Peat going anywhere other than Nebraska, where his brother already plays and one of his prep teammates is heading. There is early playing time to be had on the offensive line, and historically it’s been a great place for linemen. “Distance isn’t an issue,” Peat told Sporting News this past year. “ … If it’s halfway across the country and I fit in the best, I’ll go there.” SN’s guess: Nebraska in a landslide

This seems to be the logical solution to me. I doubt very many would argue that the government (and, by extension, taxpayers) should do something to help those who really need it. Obviously this goes beyond the scope of just health care. My issue is the government has gone far beyond trying to help those who really need it and are trying to do way too much (i.e., more than the government can afford). It goes exactly backwards from how anyone (or any business) has to run their budget. You can't decide what you want to do then figure out how to pay for it (well, I guess you can but it doesn't work out very well); you have to figure out how much you have to spend and figure out what you can do with that money. I think this sums up my opinion as well.

I generall like the CGI "enhancements" to the original trilogy (Death Star, battle scenes, etc.) but also didn't care for the ones that changed the story lines. Another arguement for watching them in release order is some of the biggest plot twists in the original three are rendered moot by watching the prequels. Really ruins some of the drama (if you didn't know ahead of time).

I agree with you, but a 16 team playoff ruins the regular season, which college football fans love. I don't think that's the right way to go... I have never understood the argument that a playoff would "ruin" or "devalue" the regular season. Are teams going to take a game or two off because they can afford a loss? Are you not going to watch every week because a loss isn't as big of a deal? The argument that really gets me is "every week is a playoff". The first LSU/'Bama game this year didn't mean anything. Granted, they didn't know that at the time but it still meant absolutely nothing (as far as the MNC goes). There was even talk that LSU could still be in the MNC even if they lost their CCG (maybe that game didn't count either?). If every week is a playoff, how can a team go undefeated and still not even PLAY for the NC (2004, 2006, 2008, 2009) often when teams with one loss are in? How does it make sense for two losses to gets you into the NC game one year when most of the time one slip up costs you your chance? Just have to be lucky, I guess. I definitely think you should be rewarded for having a great regular season. That's why I think a playoff should be kept small (16 is way too many). Four teams would be OK but most of the there would still be argument between several one-loss teams over who should get in. I'd rather argue the difference between #4 and #5 than #2 and #3 but still an argument. IMO, eight teams (including conference champs in the Top 12) would catch all one-loss teams (there have been as many as seven in recent years but only twice less than five), giving them a chance to make up for a single slip-up or because their conference or their non-conference opponents that were scheduled seven years ahead of time are having a down year.

Career Win % @ Nebraska Nee - .572 Sadler - .557 Nee coached for 14 years and 444 games (254 wins). If Sadler coached as many games (at current win %) he'd win 247. That's seven fewer games won over 14 years. Not a lot different. Yes, Nee had a couple good teams but not outstanding (still no NCAA tourney wins). I'd call that "hard to win at Nebraska."

Indeed, thanks to Sub-Husker. I've never seen a contest quite like this. Makes all the games pretty interesting. I'll see what I can do to defend my title next year.

... so he can get it out of the way and commit to being N?

I tend to think this as well. Especially with Sirles starting at LG against Iowa, I'd be interested to see how this lineup would look next year: LT - Peat LG - Sirles C - Reeves RG - Long RT - T. Moore Under most circumstances, starting two Juniors, a Soph and two Freshmen would scare the crap out of me but I think that unit would have the talent to be really good and play together for a long time. As far as how many linemen per class, if you look at five spots times two deep you absolutely need 10 that can get the job done. Even if they're all here for five years, that's for sure two per class so I would think that would be the absolute minimum. Five last year was great. I'd feel a lot better with three per class but I'd "settle" for Thurston and Peat.

I'm not so sure optioning the DE is the problem so much as where the RB is. LSU's RBs were directly behind the QB. That's why the defenders had so much time to react to the pitch and track down the RB (though Jefferson made it that much easier by pitching too early). The RB needs to be nearly on the same yard line as the QB so he's already by the optioned defender by the time he gets the pitch. Nebraska attempts to do this by having the QB reverse pivot or hesitate coming down the line, giving the RB time to get out in front. The tricky part about optioning the DE is if he crashes hard, you have to be ready to pitch quickly, which Martinez didn't do on a few occasions and that's when you can get fumbles (like the forward-backward pitch against Minnesota).

Let's see ... he's the DC at Auburn where they've had below average defenses with SEC talent ... takes a lateral move (title wise) to Conference USA ... then another lateral move to Penn St. Am I the only one confused by this?

So how'd that work out for ya? chuckleshuffle Look the Tebow band wagoners finally came out of their caves where they've been hiding at for the past 4 weeks. Just like the detractors are silent all of the sudden but will be back with a vengeance if he plays poorly next week? Tom Jackson said it well about a month ago (paraphrasing): "First they said he couldn't play QB in the NFL. Then they said he couldn't be a starting QB in the NFL. Then they said he'd never win the division. (At the time) Now they're saying he'll never win the Super Bowl. How rediculous is it that we've gone from 'can't play QB' to even talking about a Super Bowl?" Tebow has played really well at times. He's played poorly at times. Tell me which other second year QBs to which this does not apply? Bradford? 8-18 as a starter; 24 TDs, 21 INTs. Tebow is 9-6. Orton was 4-14 with Den last two years. Clausen? 1-11. 52% completions. 3 TDs, 9 INT. Tebow 47%, 17 TDs, 9 INTs McCoy? 6-15; 20 TDs, 20 INTs First-year guys? Newton? 6-10; 21TDs, 17 INTs Locker? 51%; 0-3 when he threw more than one pass Gabbert? 4-10 (thanks to beating Indy twice and TB once); 51%, 12 TDs, 11 INTs Dalton? 8-8; 58%, 20 TDs, 13 INTs No other QB is above .500; only Dalton is even close; Only Dalton is above 1.2:1 TD:INT ratio; Tebow is almost 2:1. I wouldn't be surprised if Tebow has more rushing yards than all the others put together. None of that makes Tebow great. Be he has more than earned his playing time.

On another reading, you're probably right. I was looking at a "claim" as an individual event. But it does say that is total claims for the year. However, it is still obvious that they aren't working with the same population base, statistically speaking. I agree that it is surprising but I'm still far from convinced that it's really all that far apart. Taxes (US corporate tax rate is amongst the highest in the world) and premium refunds (probably minimal) would need to come off the 16 cents. Also, Medicare covers everyone at once while the government mandates that private insurers are split up, decreasing efficiency.

Some comments from an interview with Wilkerson: “I liked Nebraska’s coaches. They were real honest and straight forward. If Nebraska has an advantage it would be because of my conversation with the coaches, and coach Bo.” “He (Pelini) told me that they have two guys that are their playing tight end right now,” Wilkerson said.” They are going to be gone after next year, and he said there really isn’t a lot of depth behind them. He told me that I could come in and compete right away, and after those guys are gone, I could get a lot of playing time if I choose Nebraska. He said I would have to come in and work real hard and earn my stripes and stuff too. ” “You know the two schools are a lot a like,” Wilkerson said. “I would say Nebraska’s football facilities are a lot nicer though. I liked their weight room and stuff and the town was nicer. Facilities aren’t really to big of a deal, but Nebraska’s were definitely nicer.”

1. Yes. Both are estimates by necessity. Those estimates are an attempt at accurate numbers rather than just relying on government or private claims. In fact, if the author had relied on the government numbers rather than his own research estimates the results would be skewed even further in favor of government health care. 2. You are not quoting this correctly. The quote from the paper is " [l]iabilities accrued can create issues just as significant as costs, whether they are funded or not." Your statement hints that this applies to Medicare only. That is not correct. The context of the prior sentence shows that it applies to both Medicare and private insurance. 3. Again, you are not quoting this correctly. The paper states that if claim costs were equal in the private and public sector that Medicare administrative costs would rise to 6-8%. This is not related to the number of people covered. It is strictly a per claim cost estimate. Note also that the total administrative costs in the private sector is around 16.7%. Even if the 6-8% projection is correct that is approximately half of the costs of the private sector. 4. I would also like to know what factored into "our judgment." Luckily this topic is addressed in many other studies. 5. Where are you reading this? Please quote it for me. I think you might be reading something into the study that isn't there. 1 & 4 - I just noted that there were - by their own admission - a lot of estimates in the report. As I stated earlier, I'm sure they did an honest job as best they could with the data they had to work with. I have not argument with them, just noting that it's not an exact science. 2 - I do not think you are correct. The full explanation reads: "Other sensitivity tests could have been tested, but none was likely to alter the basic conclusions that the size of Medicare produces some benefit related to Medicare Administrative cost alone, although not nearly as much as the government claims. Further, significant increases in benefit costs is helping to reduce the Medicare Administrative cost, but this is misleading due to the issues raised by increasing Medicare benefits/costs. A separate paper on Federal Budget liabilities created by Medicare examines this issue in part." That is only talking about Medicare. Also, it states that "Private Health Market expenses are expressed as a ratio of administrative cost to premiums paid. The reason premiums are used in the private market is that they consist essentially of claims and administrative costs, thus it is the same measure as used for Medicare." That says premiums (income to the insurance company) equal administrative costs plus claims paid (expenses). Any liabilities of the company would have to be included in the administrative costs, thus included for private insurance. 3 & 5 - I think you are right in that I did slightly misquote that specific phrase. I combined two separate statements into one. These are two more examples of why it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. There is one Medicare program versus hundreds on private programs. Why are there hundred of programs? Because the government says there has to be. It's tougher to compete when your competition sets the rules. Also, Medicare is covering a segment of the population that has nearly three times the claim cost (bigger, more expensive problems). It's like two cars with different sized gas tanks. A person driving a car with a 30 gallon gas tank will have fewer fill-ups (overhead) than a person driving a car with a 10 gallon gas tank (all other things being equal in my example). Finally, they are the ones who suggested that the lower number for private insurance would be "more comparable": Again, part of the problem is the competition is setting the rules (taxes) and refunds to policyholders should obviously be taken out. I'm not quite sure why they say that commissions and payments to shareholders could be excluded (other than Medicare doesn't have similar costs) but they didn't break down how those costs are distributed. Thus, they said the "more comparable" number is 8.9% versus possibly 8% for Medicare (adjusting for claim costs). With all the estimates I'd say that's pretty close to statistically equal. I think the closest "comparable" number would probably be somewhere between the 8.9% and the 16.7% that they list but I'm not sure where. However, there are a lot of things that make this comparison very tough to make.