HuskerNation1

I wish that had been the case. Maybe then our defense wouldn't look so horrible. Haha...we traded a horrible run defense for a horrible pass defense with the change in staff. But for today, it seems like we've reverted back to the Pelini years.

Hiring a winner, gets a winner..... Man isn't that the truth. Despite that, I have enjoyed watching the botched punt over and over on you tube this week. I am guessing that the Michigan/OSU game this year will be one of the most watched regular season games in years.

Wow, this now looks like Pelini's defense giving up all these rushing yards. Did they let Bo come back to practice this week.

Hey, for those worried about our pass defense, it's looking pretty good..................SO FAR

I agree...our special teams is not where it needs to be, especially our kick return game. Punting has been the strength (outside of today).

You are right...Martinez could not throw either. I'm not buying that we don't have another option at QB. To run the offense we are trying to run, the QB must make the short and intermediate throws, so this notion that Darlington is not a candidate because of the long throws seems mind-boggling. We have some good playmakers at WR and are not using them effectively.

There have been some holds but lots of missed tackles - looking at you gerry. Straight clown college d on those runs. Sure, I think the D has missed some tackles, but on both big runs, which accounts for 90% of the yards allowed, there were major holding calls missed that would have negated the plays. I think that overall the defense is getting better each week and deserve some kudos.

I'm so glad POB is joining the team in December. He will pick up the offense quickly and challenge for the starting position as a true freshman. Tommy is not a QB and I don't want to spend the entire 2016 season with him trying to learn how to be a QB.

I agree...He does not deserve to be the starting QB for this team. I would rather lose giving a younger guy a chance to get reps than to lose with the same old inconsistent QB.

I guarantee the the officials will overturn this call.

Any QB can break big runs if their offense can hold defenders the entire way.

Armstrong needs to be benched. Many plays are there, and he simply can't execute them. I'm done with Tommy.

Our defense is getting better each game, while the offense is getting worse, mostly due to Armstrong's inability to throw and make plays. He may have one good game (like at Minnesota), but he's not consistent enough to be the starting QB for NU. I'm wondering if Patrick O'Brien or another QB on the team may start next season despite Armstrong being a senior. I'm all for a change.

I'm also not going to be able to convince you that the POTUS has the power of the bully pulpit and is uniquely positioned to set the tone for how things get done in Washington, and has the ability to go directly to the people in a positive way (unlike how he did after the Oregon shooting) to influence fair and honest debate in order to achieve real results. You keep mentioning the start of the divide in 1993. I agree that the rise of more television and web options for conveying news has resulted in some of the partisan divide, yet it was after 1993 when a Democratic President and Republican Congress worked well together to deliver real reform (welfare) that the American people wanted. It was January, 1995 when a Democratic President accepted the results of the voting public from the 1994 mid-terms and stated "the era of big government is over." That acknowledgement by the POTUS set the tone for some good results and is a template of how a POTUS can get the job done for the American people in this post-1993 era. However, if you want to continue to defend our current POTUS and suggest he does not have the ability to set the right tone to get results achieved as Clinton did, so be it. What part of this don't you understand that I said in several posts? Chug a lug. You say a lot of things that try to have it both ways, and sometimes a President can simply be wrong, period, without all sorts of "buts" and explanations that others are to blame, its new propaganda, blah, blah, blah. Just accept it for what it is...

I'm also not going to be able to convince you that the POTUS has the power of the bully pulpit and is uniquely positioned to set the tone for how things get done in Washington, and has the ability to go directly to the people in a positive way (unlike how he did after the Oregon shooting) to influence fair and honest debate in order to achieve real results. You keep mentioning the start of the divide in 1993. I agree that the rise of more television and web options for conveying news has resulted in some of the partisan divide, yet it was after 1993 when a Democratic President and Republican Congress worked well together to deliver real reform (welfare) that the American people wanted. It was January, 1995 when a Democratic President accepted the results of the voting public from the 1994 mid-terms and stated "the era of big government is over." That acknowledgement by the POTUS set the tone for some good results and is a template of how a POTUS can get the job done for the American people in this post-1993 era. However, if you want to continue to defend our current POTUS and suggest he does not have the ability to set the right tone to get results achieved as Clinton did, so be it.

Trump is just as liberal as Hillary, so it's a good day for the left or center-left of this country. Trump is the Kim Kardashian of politics, and the question is whether the voting public will be sick of him before election day 2016. Somehow nothing seems to stick the guy, so I guess he's effective at what he's doing as a candidate.

Wow, I guess you are more naive than I thought...that certainly is the missing piece in the puzzle. I'm certainly not catching on to your thinking and don't buy into the notion that the primary reason any President or political figure is not viewed favorably is due to propaganda. I agree that both parties are constantly out to get the sitting President of the opposite party, and that will always be the case. But to dismiss major misteps and/or poor policy decisions that are reflected in negative approval ratings as simply being the result of propaganda is way off base. This buys right into Hillary Clinton's persistent argument that anything she may have done wrong that has resulted in voters saying she is not trustworthy is simply the result of the opposing party, and she is not responsible. I do think that her personal decision to go against the federal government's direction of using private email is a big deal, regardless of what is uncovered in the emails. She chose to break the law, and pointing fingers at the opposing party as if they are to blame is ridiculous. I was very critical of Aaron Schock (a Republican) when the news came out that he was abusing taxpayer dollars for his own personal gain and wanted him to step down, and am glad he so. I don't think it would have been appropriate for him to blame Democrats for his own mistake. So getting back to the topic that started this thread, the President's words after the Oregon shooting were inappropriate and a mistake, and I don't think the opposing party is to blame for that. If he was truly serious about finding ways to reduce fatalities from gun violence, he should have been working his tail off these past few weeks trying to find a way to bring all sides together for real reform. Perhaps he is doing so, but I have not seen any steps he's taken since his speech. Hmmmm....so now we are moving the goal post. The discussion was about your statement of why the US is so divided or "he is the most partisan President ever". That is what my comments are about. For which I stand behind my comments and the graphic above helps prove my point. Ever wonder why the red and blue blobs become two distinct blobs right around 1993? Now, if you want to have a discussion about a political figure not being viewed favorably, that's an entirely different discussion. At this point, I don't view any of these people favorably including Obama. I have never voted for him and even if he was to run again, I still wouldn't. If you had been on this board longer than you have, you would know that I have been extremely critical of his policies and actions in office. That doesn't make him the "most partisan President ever". That simply is a guy in office I disagree with. The fact is, all these policy issues get almost completely glossed over and not even seriously discussed because for years the right wants to concentrate on "OMG....I don't think he was born in America". "He must be Muslim", "He's hates America and is going to take all of our guns away".........bla bla bla bla.....BENGHAZI!!!!! All that crap does is divide America and solidifies the Republican base against the Dems and the President. Which isn't a bad thing if it were actually based on policy and issues. But....it's not. AND...wait for it.....it further divides America and makes all of us more partisan....ding ding ding....and (getting back to it) that is what this discussion was about. But...hey.....if you want to just sit back and keep drinking the poison then I can't stop you. Chug-a-lug If I had the desire, I should post on here for one week the absolute crap I get either sent to me or see on Facebook that us completely BS propaganda that does absolutely nothing but brainwashes some people into believing Obama and the Dems are evil and out to destroy everything that is good in America. Polling outfits that are showing a partisan divide are the same ones that show the favorability/unfavorability ratings of a political figure, and you were the one suggesting that Gallup polling should not be trusted on whether Obama is the most Partisan President ever. If you discount that data point, how can you not discount the favorability ratings too? You also seem to assume that all voters responding to polls are super political partisans, which is not the case. I never listen to talk radio, and watch little television. I usually stay informed through news updates and various editorials from realclearpolitics. I also do not do facebook, so whatever depiction you have of me or many other voters is way off base. Perhaps you hang out in social circles where that propaganda is constant, but what does that say about you or your friends if you allow that to sway your own personal opinion. Most voters understand the basic differences between the parties on social and fiscal issues. I don't think you will find many voters swayed to be pro-life because they've listened to Rush Limbaugh talk about it, or they've read an editorial from a Conservative journalist. Just as I don't think the anti-war crowd has come to that opinion because the left has pushed an anti-war agenda. I think they are truly against war. As for the "birthers" on the right, and the "truthers" on the left, these are fringe elements and do not represent a majority of the mainstream parties. Now I agree the media likes to sensationalize stories such as these, but that's a cop-out answer to excuse a President's actions from true scrutiny. As I just stated, if the President really meant what he said, and was serious about finding solutions to the nationwide problem with gun violence, he would be leading the charge, and making it an open, transparent process for all Americans to observe. I would have much more respect for the guy if he actually led in that manner, and I think all Americans would, and his partisan divide would not be so strong. His leadership style is his choice, not the choice of medial outlets and propagandists, and he owns that, even if you choose to blame others.

For those of you that didn't see this on SNL, it was pretty good. The guy playing Bernie was great.

Wow, I guess you are more naive than I thought...that certainly is the missing piece in the puzzle. I'm certainly not catching on to your thinking and don't buy into the notion that the primary reason any President or political figure is not viewed favorably is due to propaganda. I agree that both parties are constantly out to get the sitting President of the opposite party, and that will always be the case. But to dismiss major misteps and/or poor policy decisions that are reflected in negative approval ratings as simply being the result of propaganda is way off base. This buys right into Hillary Clinton's persistent argument that anything she may have done wrong that has resulted in voters saying she is not trustworthy is simply the result of the opposing party, and she is not responsible. I do think that her personal decision to go against the federal government's direction of using private email is a big deal, regardless of what is uncovered in the emails. She chose to break the law, and pointing fingers at the opposing party as if they are to blame is ridiculous. I was very critical of Aaron Schock (a Republican) when the news came out that he was abusing taxpayer dollars for his own personal gain and wanted him to step down, and am glad he so. I don't think it would have been appropriate for him to blame Democrats for his own mistake. So getting back to the topic that started this thread, the President's words after the Oregon shooting were inappropriate and a mistake, and I don't think the opposing party is to blame for that. If he was truly serious about finding ways to reduce fatalities from gun violence, he should have been working his tail off these past few weeks trying to find a way to bring all sides together for real reform. Perhaps he is doing so, but I have not seen any steps he's taken since his speech.

The part about him being the most Partisan President is a fact according to Gallup and other polling outlets. I do hold Congressional leadership responsible too, but let me ask you this: 1. When there is a tragedy like this shooting in Oregon, a major tornado that has ripped through a community, etc..., which elected official is usually asked to go and help heal the community? 2. When there is a conference at the UN with other countries leaders presenting, who from the US typically speaks on behalf of America? 3. When there is a major foreign policy decision to go to war or consider going to war, who speaks to the American people on this topic? You seem to miss the point that of all 539 elected officials at the federal level, there is one, and only one, that has more power and ability to influence the tone and dialogue in the nation, regardless of party. The only thing those polls show is how good the republican propaganda is working. Great job for falling for it. So given what you said, I should assume that any polling showing George W Bush had a fairly high partisan divide and had high unfavorable ratings in his second term was simply Democratic propaganda? If that is really your response, I think my job here is done.

Same broadcasting crew from the BYU game....these guys have seen some interesting finishes this year I love that the announcer was so shocked and stunned his voice cracked at the end. I think he did a great job of calling that play and he was representing what we were all thinking as we watched that play. While I do feel bad for the kicker, Michigan fans are some of the cockiest and have talked the most trash about how great Harbaugh is, so not much sympathy for their fan base.

Lol...that is the understatement of the weekend. I posted on one of the Michigan boards that Nebraska fans understood their pain. I don't think they really cared though.

DL needs to understand that college ball is not the same as the NFL.

I think going into this season, I felt most confident about the offensive playcalling, and halfway through the season, that is my biggest gripe. I think our defense is doing ok for all the injuries and lack of talent in the secondary.

I totally agree with you. DL needs to realize you can still run the ball in these situations and be more creative in doing so.