Born N Bled Red

6 hours ago, runningblind said:

This is a fair take, but do you really believe we are winning BECAUSE of him, or he is simply doing enough/not screwing up as much as Sims for the team as a whole to win?  I applaud his effort, his heart and his want to.  I simply think his ceiling is pretty low overall as a well rounded QB, and we should be trying to shoot higher.  I also acknowledge that the same should be said for the entire offense around him, so yes he may be better with better performance around him.  I think we want him on the field in some capacity regardless regularly, and he could be an emergency QB for the rest of his time here. 

 

How many games would we have won without his legs? Dang straight we are winning because of him. The QB run is the reason we will go bowling. 

21 minutes ago, deedsker said:

You may get stabbed getting to La Ja’s, but it is still worth it. 10 out 10, would recommend. It is the only thing that makes visiting friends/family in the area worth while. 
 

Otherwise, there is no other need to stop in Sioux City.

The solution is the LA Juas location in South Sioux City. 

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I mean .... I'm usually a decent defender of the guys in stripes.

 

But there were a bunch of really questionable decisions there.  I was at the game so I probably didn't get all the replay angles.  But it sure didn't look like there was enough to overturn either of the fumbles that they did.  And the trargeting call looked to be straight out of the definition but they tossed it.  Seems like there was another one that seemed really odd...

The ones that seemed odd were probably the holding calls that went against Purdue. I saw Satan in Scheels picking out a Columbia coat shortly after. 

I learned targeting is not a thing if it's done against a 6'5" QB wearing red. 

51 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

14 minutes ago, Dogs In A Pile said:

 

From what I've heard from the people that cover Husker FB he is currently the highest paid NIL player in Lincoln. So yeah, I see no he is here next year. And as much as I like the way HH has come in and lead the team I really hope we can get an upgrade at QB for next season. If the ball bounces just a little differently on few plays HH wouldn't be all that far behind Sims in turnovers.

 

As bad as it has been for Sims I do have to give the kid credit for remaining bought-in and supporting the HH and team. It would have easy for him to withdraw and sit on the bench sulking but everything I've heard says he has been encouraging and helpful.

Simms turns the ball over and finds ways to lose. Haarberg turns the ball over yet finds ways to win. That's the difference.

All of you demanding Simms get another chance can STFU now.

52 minutes ago, nic said:

https://www.on3.com/teams/michigan-wolverines/news/michigan-football-what-kind-of-advantage-does-sign-stealing-give/

 

Or that the Big10 is out to screw NU, but then read this. Also Bolded part of the quote. And added a second to ba k up you comment.

 

“I actually spoke to a Big Ten source, who gave me a quote — if other people are out there sharing anonymous quotes and these ESPN and SI articles, I can too. So, here is what I learned, ‘Every Sunday, coaches and support staff with mutual connections throughout the conference contact each other to trade not just schematic notes, but also to trade signals. Some of the top teams who consistently trade signals and have very accurate information on common opponents are Michigan, Rutgers, Ohio State, Indiana, and Purdue. Other teams who are decent at it and would always look to trade are Illinois, Northwestern, Maryland, Minnesota, and Penn State. Wisconsin was oblivious to it but is likely no longer with the new staff. Michigan State, Iowa, and Nebraska appear to be oblivious and out of the loop.’

 

“The other note I wrote down from my conversation, ‘Each team knows who each team’s person is, and they have their phone number.’ So, this is a pretty common practice, and clearly this also suggests that teams aren’t necessarily as afraid of Michigan as they are publicly proclaiming — or, I should say, anonymously proclaiming. This gives credence to, ‘Michigan is annihilating everything in its path. What can we do in order to kind of keep Michigan from achieving its goals?’”

 

Boy, that situation right there might, in itself, lead to a preposterous number of losses in one score games. Then throw in the refs swallowing thier whistles when Nebraska is on defense and not being able to breath without blowing them when Nebraska is on offense, and you have Nebraska siting out bowl games for a few years. 

6 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I know exactly what happened on that play, I've done it in games myself. Your eyes are watching both players and both get open, mentally you decide to throw the ball and somehow your brain aims for right between the two open players instead of for one or the other. It sucks, its like you're mentally tracking them both at the same time. 

5 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Nope.

 

HH has a turnover-worth play 3.6% of the time.  Sims has a turnover worthy play 9.5% of the time.

I think it really depends on what time frame you're looking at. If you look at just this last game, Sims didn't have any and Haarberg had several, so I'd say Sims is trending up... 

On 10/13/2023 at 7:37 PM, Heretic Husker said:

We are a little brother clone of the Pellini team when he had Zack Lee as QB and Suh on defense....... uh make that a midget clone

And T Mart on the scout team. I bet Pelini would give his left testicle to go back and figure out a way to get TMart in at qb that year. 1 decent QB away from a natty.

25 minutes ago, Kayvan said:

The o-line couldn’t get much worse, so I like that we are now beingg forced to play young guys. Building for next year. That’s what it’s about.

The o-line couldn’t get much worse, so I like that we are now beingg forced to play young guys. Building for next year. That’s what it’s about.

So do you like that we are forced to play young guys then? 

15 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Maybe a Demornay Pierson-El type player? Could definitely use that production.

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

If you want to measure long-term trends by winning percentage, Clemson has been trending down since 1981 and Nebraska has been trending down since 1994.

And because its going to snow this week, it certainly can't mean the earth is warming. - Its all good dude. This has already gone on too long for a joke that Clemson somehow stole our mojo. If you need a win, here you go, take it. I'll ship you a medal sometime. 

4 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Oh!  Look!  We were the program on the rise and they were the program in decline!

 

 

Aren't graphs fun?

1) You didn't use the same metric as I. I used win percentage. Not total wins. 2) even with that, this graph shows two programs holding relatively steady across a random 8 year time span, during which each program hit plateaus in their overall trendline. No one measures long term trends in 8 year clips. I get that you're trying to play devils advocate and illustrate how data can be cherry picked and looked at differently, but dude that's a stretch and a half. 

8 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Do you know what trendlines are? A one season variation of half a percent does not make a trend. Do I need to back the chart up 5 more years to more clearly show the Huskers have been trending down since 1997??? Seriously you are arguing just to argue. We have been in a 25 year decline. The only hope is last year we hit our floor and we.go back on the upswing. 

Here you go, I backed the data up 5 more years, and included trendlines. 

23 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

That happened Jan 1, 2009 at the end of the 2008 season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at your chart and notice that the lines before and going towards 2008 show Nebraska going up and Clemson going down.

 

I'm really not even 1% angry and I had a really fun weekend. I genuinely asked how you figured what you said, and then you responded by changing your argument (and then changing it again). Now like Mavric said, depending on what scale of time you're looking at you can make any argument you want, but if you're going to say from 2000 and then show this graph, at the very least Clemson has virtually no 'program on the rise' upward trend from 2000-2008 and at best you'd only be half right with that added and not-clear-at-the-start reference window. You even admitted as much:

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know what trendlines are? A one season variation of half a percent does not make a trend. Do I need to back the chart up 5 more years to more clearly show the Huskers have been trending down since 1997??? Seriously you are arguing just to argue. We have been in a 25 year decline. The only hope is last year we hit our floor and we.go back on the upswing. 

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

You said when Bo beat Clemson, not after. But to answer the initial question, both programs went through a few years of being on the rise, jumping in and out of the top 10, with some big wins and some big losses. It took until 8 years after that Gator Bowl for Dabo to surpass Pelini's win percentage and for them to jump up into the 'great' category.

 

So when you said "When Bo Pelini beat Dabo we were a program in decline and they were a program on the rise." did you actually mean "8 years after Bo Pelini beat Dabo, in 2015, we were a program in decline and they were a program on the rise."...?

Ok dude, I get it. Sometimes you just want to argue, I get it. Its ok, let it out man, all that anger, its cool, I can take it. Sorry you had a tough weekend. 

Bo Pelini beat Dabo Swinney on January 1, 2009. My suggestion, made in jest is on that night, even though Nebraska won, Clemson somehow stole our ability to win. You seem to take umbrage at my suggestion that in 2008, Nebraska was a program in its decline, while Clemson was on the rise. So lets see- before 2009, what does Nebraska's trend line look like? Hmm- steadily going down. And Clemson's? Stabilized. Two years after that game, Clemson surpassed the Huskers in win percentage, and have not fallen below it since. Nebraska's has continued the downward trendline. I fail to see your point or issue with my comment, but like I said - sometimes a person just needs to argue. I get it. Hope your night gets better.

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

How do you figure? We were coming off Callahan's barely .500 tenure and beat Clemson to the tune of a 9 win season in year one, whereas Clemson was coming off 8-8-9 win seasons and were preseason #9 before going 7-6 for their lowest win total in four years.

What happened after that season and in the ensuing season? Put the 20 year win totals on a line graph for each team and compare. Clemson's program was on the rise, Nebraska's was experiencing a dead cat bounce. I was jokingly conjecturing that Clemson somehow stole our MOJO when we won that game, as their program continued on to Natty's and ours continued on to Riley and Frost. 

10 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

When Bo Pelini beat Dabo we were a program in decline and they were a program on the rise. Maybe we somehow stole our MOJO back from them 

19 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The Big10 network is contractually obliged to carry these games, but lots of these match-ups are just bad football games that only a fan could care about. 

 

That being said, watching Matt Rhule body surf over happy Husker players feels good. It's a game, we won, and the weekend is a little brighter for it. 

 

Haarburg has caught up with Jeff Sims in poor decisions, bad interceptions, and mishandled snaps. I'm fine with Rhule sticking with Haarberg as his 4-1 starter, but I don't think there would be any drop off if Sims had to step back in, and frankly HH would benefit if he made quicker, more aggressive decisions to run, like Sims. 

 

I forgot about the one-possession loss curse. When we were up 17-9 with plenty of time still on the clock, I was feeling pretty confident we would win. If I felt that way, I guess the players did, too, and that's good news for a team with lots of young unproven players. 

 

It's becoming kinda fun to root for this defense. Games like Michigan remind you that we're still an entire level of football below where we want to be, but we do have a lot of company in the Big 10. 

 

So buckle up for more ugly football. Could be fun in its own ugly way. 

Haarberg may have made some poor decisions and had some dumb moments, but if you now feel, after 4 games, he has caught up to Sims in the number of those mistakes, the fact that it took 4 games to match Simms 2 shows who the better QB is. 

I still say, if we started HH instead of Simms, we have a win at Minny. 

I learned you can now hug, have hands on two planes and have two guys with arms out clothesline a player and none of it is holding. 

Hey guys. We have like 0 wide receivers left let's run 70% passes against a team that cont stop the run... idiots. 

Ketp get blindsided running his route or what??

1 minute ago, Micheal said:

Northwestern University was founded in 1851. 

 

At that time, after the Compromise of 1850 the US looked like this. They weren't even in the United States northwest which would have been like Wisconsin and Iowa. So I don't know what they were doing hahah. 

 

What the heck Northwestern? Maybe more like Northeastern Illinois University??? And they say our N stands for knowledge! 

 

Yes, and buckeyes are poisonous nuts, and Hawk eyes aren't even the whole animal, don't know why they only wanted to celebrate the eyes of a hawk.