BigRedBuster

You mean we are so irrelevant they are now making the stadium smaller? #fireriley

most team work on the things they are not as proficient at in practice. So it doesn't surprise me that they would be working on the passing game a lot. Passing game takes a lot of time to be really good at. Just like option game it really is about timing and trust between the QB and receivers. West Coast is misleading IMO, it is built off of option routes which is what they ran last year. I think you will see more defined routes this year. I was actually very surprised that Joe used the WCO term. I wonder what he specifically meant by that because I agree. This year I would have thought it would sort of be NOT like a WCO passing game.

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate.

I agree with an awful lot of what you said. Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides. It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something. BRB - those single issues can be and should be more than noise to many people but they should not be the only noise or the loudest. Normally it is the economic/pocket book issues that steer the election one way or another. The single issues may persuade a voter between equally matched candidates. That is why I think you see a lot of single issue red meat thrown in a large field as this year's group. The repubs generally have similar economic views the only way to differentiate themselves is on the degree of support they may have on a social issue. The ONLY reason why gay marriage, abortion...etc are even discussed is because the politicians want it discussed to solidify their base and eat up talking time to not have to discuss meaningful topics. Neither of them should even be a political issue. That's how meaningless the discussion is.

Sounds like the correct one.

I agree with an awful lot of what you said. Abortion, gay marriage...etc are nothing more that noise. Those issues don't mean squat in an election other than controlling the mind numbed bases on both sides. It's sad that so many people vote based on those issues when the politicians on both sides really have no desire for those debates to ever go away. So, they have no motivation to change anything. Meanwhile we could be spending all that energy actually fixing something.

This is pretty much my attitude on his recruitment at this point.

I found this video discussion interesting. And, in an effort to not be "that fan" that over reacts to a few phrases. I found the comments Joe says about the West Coast offense and "throwing allot" interesting. But, I think the "throwing allot" is maybe due to the fact that's the part of the offense they need to work more on in practice. Not necessarily an indication of what they are going to do most in games. LINK

As to the bolded part. This is a quote from the article. The non-violent offenders are less than 20%. As to the RED hi lighted part. LINK Now, most of the top 5 (at least) talks about drug crimes and how there needs to not be mandatory sentencing for these crimes. Not much of what I read talked about violent crimes. So, I'm assuming he is talking about non-violent crimes. This is Eric Holder's top 10 list of how to reduce the over populated prisons. Now, this article seems to contradict the one I posted above. It would be interesting to know what the actual truth is. You mentioned poverty related to crime. I'm not necessarily questioning you. However, one political side would try to have everyone believe that poverty in America is horrible and getting worse every day. To that, I found this article very interesting and it's from a pretty left leaning site. LINK So, poverty is getting worse and violent crime is getting better. Another part of this that leaves me scratching my head. If violent crime is going down, and non-violent offenders aren't the majority of the prison population, then why do we have an explosion in prison population? Let me throw out a theory that I have no data to prove. Back in the 80s and 90s, there was a big movement in the government to become tougher on crime. It was talked about during the Reagan years, Bush 1 years and Clinton took it even a step farther and put legislation through to increase the police force by 100,000 cops to try to reign in violent crime. Well...it appears to me it has worked. So....is the violent crime rate going down because we are locking up a large portion of the right people who would be out committing more violent crimes? I know that goes against most popular political speak today. But, is it true? So, if we reduce sentences and let more people out of prison to reduce prison populations, are we going to see a rise in crime rate again? If so, what is going to be the solution then? Sorry, this discussion is changing in scope faster than I can figure out what the point is. I'll try and hit the refresh button here with my main thoughts. 1. If the total number of nonviolent drug offenders behind bars was 1%, it would still be a moral abomination. It would still be true that by not arresting those people, it would cost less not just for the state, but for society as a whole (try to get a job with a conviction on your record). Letting them out after you've already sent them to prison is anther story. It seems very few people who go through the penal experience come out any less apt to commit crime. In fact the opposite may be true. 2. Poverty is one of, but certainly not the only, reason people turn to crime. We've had a few epidemics of white collar crime, including one in the years leading up to the Great Recession. These tend to not get much media attention. But generally speaking, if you have a comfortable salary and a home, a car, money to spend on leisure activities, and a reasonable expectation that your future financial situation is secure, you have less reason to get involved with crime at all. On the other hand, if you can't get work either because you can't afford advanced education/training, there are no decent-paying career opportunities anywhere nearby (e.g. inner cities), or you're already a convict (for whatever reason), your incentive to make money through criminal activity increases. 3. Which means your likelihood of being involved in violent crime increases. If we weren't so busy pretending that the "War on Drugs"––which isn't a war, because like Ellis Carver in The Wire quips, "Wars end"––was somehow essential to our national survival, and we regulated the drug trade like we do any other business, the incentives and rationale for violent behavior in the drug trade practically disappears. I haven't heard too many stories about marijuana dispensary owners doing drive by shootings on other marijuana dispensary owners. 4. Context is important, and I think that's what your post was going for. Yeah, the United States is not Honduras. I don't know the stats off the top of my head because this is pretty far afield from my area, but I would imagine between gang violence and domestic violence, you'd have a pretty big chunk of the numbers. 1) I agree. But, that doesn't seem to be the attitude of Holder in the link I posted. He seems to think releasing non-violent drug offenders or greatly reducing there sentences is a main (if not THE main) way to reduce prison over population. To me, if we want to fix the over population of prisons, talking about non-violent drug crimes is mostly pointless. 3) But, like I said, we are lead to believe that poverty is growing and getting worse and worse and worse in our country but yet our violent crime rate is going down. Which, leads me to believe that, yes, it is a factor but a small factor. Community, family, leadership/moral examples (or lack there of) is a much bigger issue. AND, once someone commits a violent crime, having the police force to lock them up and keep them off the street is a much more productive effort to reducing violent crime than focusing on non-violent drug crimes.

And, that's right where politicians want it.

It's just after a couple practices. Defense many times is ahead of the offense at this point. Especially learning a new system.

Bomb threat at Wrigley today. Must be a Cardinals fan.

No...it would help if you wouldn't just throw a bunch of ....isms around willy nilly. Try actual discussing the issues.

Thanks. The reason I asked is I wanted to know what Walkons they brought in.

This is the latest from huskers.com. I think there are 140 guys listed: LINK Thanks. I was looking for the 105 man roster.

After the last post, I got to thinking. Is our over population in prison partly due to timing? Meaning, look at the graph on violent crimes. We peaked during the 80s and 90s and is coming down ever since. So, I would assume there might be a lot of people in prison from that period of time. Do we have an aging prison population? Do most people actually deserve to be in prison due to crimes they committed a long time ago and we need to allow those older prisoners to die off (of old age) and our population will start coming down. That's assuming our decrease in violent crimes continues.

What is up with these Olinemen and DLinemen liking each other. They are supposed to hate each other.

Agree.

Might be worth casually mentioning to recruits that Nebraska had two players inducted into the NFL hall of fame this year.

Kansas - obviously home town. Bad team. Goes through coaches pretty often. Nebraska - 193 miles Missouri - 167 miles OU - 332 miles OSU - 283 miles TCU - 519 miles

And, I'm saying...that is your opinion and your entitled to that opinion. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the world feels that way. I have been around a lot of athletes along with three kids who all have been multi sport athletes and honestly, the only time I remember the Nike brand being an issue is with my daughter who runs cross country. She absolutely loved these Nike shoes she just had to have. She spent all last year with leg problems. After seeing several specialists we were told it's the shoes. They all pointed us in other directions than Nike shoes. I have done a lot of running in my life and when I go to a running store, they almost NEVER point me to Nike. I did get a laugh last week when my son was looking for football shoes on line. (he wears size 15, have to order them). He doesn't follow Huskers on line and had no clue about the whole uniform (adidas vs Nike) debate. he hadn't even seen the alternative unis. He went to Eastbay and was looking through shoes. What did he pick out? The same ones the Huskers are wearing this year. I got a good chuckle out of that. My son's HS basketball team ordered team shoes last year. They were Nike. The team ended up hating them. Looked nice. Performed bad.

I just found it interesting that he is committed to Florida but posted that he received these other offers. I guess if I were committed to Nebraska and received the other offers in the mail, they probably would go in the trash and not say anything. Probably doesn't mean anything.

When there are this many on stage, it really is worthless. Because everyone is trying to upstage the others in the group and that becomes the theatrical act instead of the issues. When there is just two it still is basically worthless because both camps have put in so many rules as to what can and can't happen. What questions can and can't be asked....etc. If you could have both candidates sit down and actually have an open conversation, we might actually be able to learn something from these.

Curious where you saw this. If he wasn't audibling, he - and the rest of the team - did a great job of making it look like he was audibling on many occasions. I agree. I always thought he was audibling. http://www.theticketfm.com/drop-the-mike/dan-hoppen-husker-online-5/ The team may have been audibling, but the calls were coming up from Beck down to the players on the headset giving signals. That's when TA would look to the sideline and adjust the play if need be. He didn't always look to the sidelines before he audibled.