Dan_F_31

1 hour ago, jessica0 said:

 

I'm just looking forward to all of this being done and over with. Now people are having freak outs about rumors of Frost not the #1 target even after an ESPN employee states that Nebraska has made it known that they want Frost as the next head coach. SMH. 

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

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

Ok when I check back in the morning - I expect this thread to be at page.....127

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

1 minute ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Agree. Instead of giving them free tuition. Just give them 80,000. They can choose to use that on their college education or piss it away and have student loans instead.

Plus the benefits of an education are intangible.

1 hour ago, famoustitles said:

 

 

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

This is amazing.

3 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

I don't get the Parella love.  What has he done?

 

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?

3 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

To put it bluntly, some parents wouldn't want their kids playing for that coach.  I don't share that view point but there is no denying the stigma that some people have towards the religion.  Google is your friend- your a smart guy do some research and you will find a gob of answers.  I am not interested in getting into a debate with you if that is where you are headed.  

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.

6 minutes ago, Huskinator said:

Lighten up, DAN

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

Just now, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

The smiley face was inserted for sarcasm, Dan.

noted

Just now, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Some of us love our parents, Dan. 

I think some of you might be overestimating the amount of say his wife might have in this decision. If it was me, I'd definitely consult my wife on it and weigh out the pros/cons of each destination with her, but in the end I'm the one that has to go do the job everyday, it's my career, and in the end I'm going to do what I think is best for the family; while also assuming the $5+ million a year will help her get over it. Again, in my house, if it were her as the breadwinner, I'd ultimately leave the decision up to her as well.

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

8 hours ago, neepster said:

 

To be a devil's advocate, because this is how my wife would call it if I wanted to move near my parents.

 

"Sweetie, I want this Husker job"

 

"Honey, I know you are emotionally attached to them, but remember when they never called 3 years ago?   Remember how hurt you were?  Those nice Florida people will pay AT LEAST as much as Nebraska, AND we get to enjoy weather that isn't colder than a well digger's behind!  And I LOVE the beach.  Plus think how much easier it will be to recruit here!  I know you are disappointed but I will make it up to you, I promise!"

 

And there goes that.  I mean, one thing you all don't seem to factor in here is that this woman has lived in Scottsdale, Arizona, Eugene, Oregon, and now Orlando, Florida.  I mean, I know there's global warming, but as someone who currently lives in Phoenix (but has lived in Portland, OR and Florida), the weather in Nebraska would be a significant negative for me as far as thinking about moving back there (and judging from the number of Nebraskans and other mid-westerners in Arizona, for a lot of folks).

 

 

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.

25 minutes ago, jessica0 said:

 

I was like that until I had kids. Having a parent around makes a huge difference. 

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

7 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

Serious question because I'm stupid:  If Riley resigns, that means he doesn't get all that money he would get if he was fired, right?

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

4 minutes ago, jessica0 said:

 

Media people are wrong more than they are right regardless of which way they lean/state on a topic. 

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.

1 minute ago, brophog said:

 

I personally think Sam departs further and further from that description the longer he's at the OWH. 

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.

34 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

You cannot call a fake punt pass interference. The Refs got that call wrong...If in punting formation and throw the ball high and deep cannot be called 

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.

6 hours ago, brophog said:

 

Having seen it again, it was the correct call. It's actually a very flat trajectory for a pass of that depth. It does not satisfy the requirement for simulation. Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the spirit of the rule: these are not two players engaged going downfield as they would on a punt. The defender does not even engage until the pass is to arrive. 

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"

14 minutes ago, 4skers89 said:

I've read the OP and then I read the article to try to get the context of the quote from the recruiting assistant "Write about that sh-!!".  Without hearing the spoken words I have no idea if he means 'Write about our crappy play' against a very bad Purdue team that had this board completely demoralized during the game?  Or is he delusional and crowing about pulling out a last second win over a bad Purdue team.  His choice of the word shi!! is almost freudian. 

 

This reminds me of the Barney Cotton 9 wins quote.  These heat of the moment expressions reveal a lot about the coaching staff's mindset.  In the Barney case it became obvious the goal was to win 9 games and getting blown off the field by OSU, Wisconsin didn't matter. 

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

3 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

I see both sides of this question but I would have kicked the field goal as well.  The advantage of the field goal is that if it is made, we and now within a field goal of the win and we don't need to score any TDs which are clearly harder to do that getting field goals.   This game showed that clearly.   The other advantage is that assuming you make the kick, you get to kick off and have a chance, albeit a small one, of getting the ball back with an onsides kick.  This allows the offense to control the remainder of the game and you don't even have to worry about whether or not you are able to prevent the opponent from running out the clock with a first down or two, no matter the time left or time outs, etc.  

 

If you miss the kick, you get to go on defense at that spot and of the field without worrying about a kick off return against you or the time running off for that play or a bad kick out of bounds or something of that sort.  We did have to rely on Brown to make a TD saving kick off return tackle already in the game as well.  

 

Yes, the 4th down attempt would look great if it worked and we went on down and scored the TD and used up the clock in the process but that didn't happen and we were not exactly controlling anything offensively such as the line of scrimmage battle, etc.  Our QB was getting sacked and hit repeatedly throughout the game.  The chances of scoring a TD on a long drive, as we did to end the game, were very low (less than 10%) surely.  You might have an 80% chance of Brown making two field goals kicks and a 10% chance of recovering the onside kick.  If not, you still get to play defense with about the same time and time outs etc.   

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%.

4 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

My apologies if you feel that way. That wasn't my intention. You seem a little worked up over this and me using "little bird" wasn't necessary for trying to convey that. My apologies.

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.

Just now, NebraskaHarry said:

Nah. You go for the lead, little bird.

Ha ha. Ok man. thanks for the condescension.

Just now, NebraskaHarry said:

Relax man. If they kick that field goal and don't get the ball back at the end i guarantee you'd be singing a different tune, little bird.

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.

12 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

Just because it appears to be the going topic to discuss, I would have went for it on 4th down like Riley did. Not a lot of time left in the game, you play to win the game. Im no Riley apologist but imo it was the right call. My beef with Riley is when he gestured like he wanted to spike the ball to kill the clock with 30 some seconds on the clock with no timeouts when we were within the redzone. Luckily we didn't and preserved that extra play even though it was an incomplete pass. Thats plenty of time to run a play Riley. Come on.

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.