Dan_F_31

Thought we couldn't trust everything we hear from the media. Only ones that fit our narrative? Ok

Who are you kidding? You won't be able to wait til morning

Plus the benefits of an education are intangible.

Everyone MN helmet is lower than Nebraska. Guys are getting pancakes by DL. This is amazing.

I don't get it either. The Dline is part of the problem in the rush D

Just turned it on. What happened to Lee?

This. We just had a LDS family move in right next door and everyone in the neighborhood was excited for a new family with kids all of our kids' age to move in. Then they found out the new family is LDS and the demeanor changed completely toward the new neighbors. It is unfortunate they are judged by their religion, especially because they are good people, but it is the reality. I work with several LDS colleagues currently and have no problem with them personally but the stigma still remains unfortunately.

The Smiley face was inserted as an edit after my reply BTW. It wasn't in there prior.

noted

Interesting. Didn't see that I wrote I didn't love my parent. I'll keep looking though.

I agree with this rendition of how it would go. People that think this would be a great thing for them to be closer to Scott's family are making a rather large assumption that his wife would want to be closer to her in-laws. Now I can't speak for all women out there but I know a my wife would probably divorce me if I made her move close to my parents. There is a reason Everybody Loves Raymond was a hit show and it's because everyone could relate to the downside of being so close to family, especially in-laws. So let's stop acting like them being close to Scott's family is a certain upside of the Nebraska job.

If Scott's wife is anything like my wife she wouldn't move within 8 hours of her in-laws.

Most likely a negotiated buyout to go away. I think Moos at least gives him something to make it an easy divorce.

But your original quote states that Gary could be wrong and that Sharp and Bending have been pushing this narrative that Frost might not come here. You did not state that Severe could be wrong as well. Sharp at least has connections he is referencing. Severe offered no references as far as I know.

Gary also spent a lot of time in the sports scene in Florida before coming back to Omaha. He might have a bit of insight. Of course everything, including what you say, is all speculation and anyone can probably find a narrative that fits what they hope will happen.

Perhaps he does. I still like his writing though. He paints a picture with words well. It's a nice change.

McKewon's rewind basically just called out the Diaco again. Sam is usually much more cerebral about things focusing on X's and O's and doesn't usually get caught up in the craziness of what is swirling around the program. He usually offers a nice perspective for on the field and how it might relate to off the field issues which is why I like to read him. This rewind was a departure from how Sam usually writes. Practically saying Diaco is full of it and this staff is gone. It was a bit cathartic I bet.

The rule is not black and white that you strictly can not call DPI on a fake punt pass. The rule states (From the LJS article) "Indeed, the NCAA’s rule says defensive pass interference is not to be called when, “there is contact by a (receiving team) player that otherwise would be pass interference during a down in which a (kicking team) potential kicker, from a scrimmage kick formation, simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep.” There is room for interpretation from the officials in this rule. The rule says that the kicker can throw the ball but it must NOT be "high and deep" if DPI is to be called. The HIGH and DEEP part is what is open to interpretation. Not the Punter throwing the ball. The thrown pass must meet BOTH of those requirements in order to NOT be DPI. The refs (with the help of Brohm I suspect) interpreted that the ball did not meet the "HIGH" requirement of that rule. This is evidenced by the quote from Riley that the refs said the ball was NOT thrown high enough or "arcing" and therefore did not simulate a punt. This rule should be changed to take the interpretation out of it. It should just state ANY pass from the punter in the punt formation can not have DPI called. And not because of this particular call. High and Deep should be defined. And I bet you would get varying opinions on what constitutes both High and Deep. And once you've defined High and Deep that can be accurately determined by the referee in the field of play the second question you must ask is can a punter from 12 yds behind the line of scrimmage REALISTICALLY meet the requirements of High and Deep? I doubt it. It is a poorly worded rule that would be interpreted differently by different officials and these officials had the help of the Brohm and the home field crowd to assist in their interpretation. this also doesn't account for the possibility of the punter shanking it.

I am convinced that Brohm was not looking to successfully complete the catch but his sole purpose was to get the DPI. Here is my reasoning. 1) It was 4th and 19 so you have a very slim chance of converting even with a real QB throwing the ball. it was a crazy call if you actually wanted to complete the pass and convert. 2) you can not reasonably expect a punter to make a 40 yard throw. 3) Brohm said they worked on it all week. To me this means they worked on making sure the pass was low enough trajectory to not be perceived as a high "arcing" simulated punt. This would take timing to make sure the receiver gets to a spot and waits to be hit by the Bootle. 4) the referee seemed to have an explanation for why it was a flag based on an obscure exception to the rule. I'm just speculating but I would be willing to bet that Brohm talked to the officials before the game, informed them that Purdue was going to run this fake punt and how they interpreted the rule. Coaches go to officials prior to games to inform them of a play that will only be successful if the referee interprets the rule correctly. The Rule should be changes to eliminate that exception of "simulating a scrimmage kick"

I'd venture to guess he is looking at this particular columnist and saying what he said in reference to his column last week. http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/sipple/steven-m-sipple-frost-s-rise-brings-clarity-to-at/article_c2812fb0-db80-572c-bf03-8ce791d62dc8.html or this one http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/sipple/steven-m-sipple-another-loss-to-purdue-would-be-impossible/article_c8f6cd24-1477-56a9-a6cf-53a29801c1f0.html

Glad someone can put it more eloquently than I. not to mention, what is the chance of converting on 4th and 6? Has to be less than 25%.

No biggie. Debate is debate. How is this for something I learned. i live in West Lafayette. Work at Purdue. Live next door to Purdue D-line coach. I'm embedded here. What I learned is how quickly my buddies can turn from gloating to pissy in about 10 min. and that their excuses for injuries are more relevant than Nebs.

Ha ha. Ok man. thanks for the condescension.

It's about the percentage to win. You are arguing in favor of the option that failed. And had Nebraska stalled on their last drive in the Red zone, as they did repeatedly, then it would sure be nice to. E able to kick a FG to win. Big bird.

How is kicking the FG not playing to win? There was 3:08 left and 2 TO! had they gotten the ball back with 1:22 left and 70 yds to go. You only have to go 40ish to be in position to win rather than 70! Which Neb had shown little ability to do BTW.