RedSavage

Was serving for first degree murder. Probably had it coming.

The thought of the overthrown passes will haunt my dreams forever

Yes, they've won more games than us in the last two seasons.ACCAn ACC team won the national championship in 2014 and made the playoff this year. Clemson also beat OSU last year. Not a very valid argument. ACC is easily the weakest Power 5 conference, who wouldn't have made the playoff without FSU and in any other conference, FSU wouldn't have even been in playoff contention.

Watched the first couple episodes of the new Daredevil on Netflix last night. Decent so far, with a surprising amount of gore for a Marvel show.

No he switched jerseys at one point and was wearing red on red playing for the other team. I watched it on B1G network and they said Cross switched sides at half

It boils down to the fashion in which we win/lose those games. As long as we are competitive, not looking completely lost and confused and not giving up 400 yards on the ground to one player, we could have 7 losses and I'd probably still be okay with it. On the flip side, if we barely eek out 9 wins and they're against the McNeese St. of the world, I'm certainly not going to be jumping for joy about next season. Edit: SPH and js beat me to the punch

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games. You just did what you said you weren't doing. You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing. Let me ask this. Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses. Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here? Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.[/size] So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo. I don't think that's what he's saying. It's more about the body of work and not regressing than the win/loss number. I think we can all agree we just want to see this team be competitive and stop losing games to themselves. Body of work? One season at Nebraska, that being his first season, is hardly a "body of work". Maybe we could give these guys a coupe seasons to see how things go. Maybe see what they're trying to do with their own players... I do agree though, some of the stumbling-bumbling and getting in our own way could start to vanish immediately. When I say "body of work", I meant the season as a whole. I get what people are saying that one season is hardly enough time to make a fair judgement but I will be disappointed if we don't see some sort of improvement this season. Typically that equates to more wins, but sometimes you just have some bad bounces and things don't go your way, I get that. So the total number of wins is not what really matters. Improvement is what matters. Whether that's fewer penalties, less mental errors, fewer turnovers, I don't really care as long as we are moving forward as a team. If these coaches are all they're cracked up to be, that shouldn't be a problem.

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games. You just did what you said you weren't doing. You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year. We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought. You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing. Let me ask this. Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses. Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here? Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what? You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses. Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought. So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo. I don't think that's what he's saying. It's more about the body of work and not regressing than the win/loss number. I think we can all agree we just want to see this team be competitive and stop losing games to themselves.

This is one thing that Meechicken fans should be encouraged about. They have most of their contributors back. Even if they did drop seven games last year. I didn't catch their spring game this weekend. But BTN will probly replay it a zillion times this week. So I might try to watch a bit of it. Try not to pay attention to the offense. Haha a whopping 7-0. Real nail-biter.

But it's not about Bo. It's about going forward. We'll even skip 2015 for the "transition year" bumps. If the baseline for Bo and co was X, with a staff of amateurs, then the new baseline because of the staff change/upgrade should be??? #9Wins

Talk about taking a step back. Have fun not making the tourney anymore.

It was one of the better finale's the show has had. The biggest thing that surprised me is that no one from Rick's group died.

The more prevalent that legalized pot becomes, the more the price will drop. There will be no revenue on marijuana when it is grown by the quarter section and planted by John Deeres and not aging pony-tailed hippies on patios. The price will be slightly less than that of good alfalfa hay...so figure the government's share of $150 a ton... Dude, do you math much? Lol the price will drop a little but to say $150/ton is ridiculous. It will be no different than cigarettes, just more expensive. If you honestly think there's not a LOT of tax money that could be made, I would say you should educate yourself a little bit on the topic bc you are wayyyy off.

It's legal in some places and the legalization movement is picking up steam. We now have 4 States with legal recreational and almost half with medicinal weed legal. It will be legal nationwide soon enough and then people won't be able to be denied jobs because of weed. Your last statement is false. Even if it becomes legal in all states, a person could still get denied employment from it. It would be no different then failing a piss test for alcohol during pre-employment screening. Failing a test for alcohol in pre-employment screening is much different than failing a test for marijuana. Alcohol can be detected in your system for what? 24 hours or so? And that's with a blood test. Marijuana can be found in your system for up to 6 months after you smoke it in some cases. And I don't think I've ever been tested for alcohol in pre-employment screening, it's always the big 5 in drugs. I can't get fired from a job because I had a few beers on Friday night, so why should I get fired for smoking a bowl on Friday night (assuming that weed is legal)? In both cases I've used a drug legally but one will get me fired and one won't? This one will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court but I predict that in the not so distant future pot smokers will have far less to worry about when it comes to employment. the idiot states that made pot legal just set up their residents to lose their jobs because most employers drug test routinely....this is now a grand mess, unintended consequences i believe is what its called.....i hope your brain surgeon doesnt fire up his bong just before your procedure.....just because he can! I've never worked at a place that routinely drug tests employees. Yeah, usually if a place drug tests it's upon hiring and then for cause after that. Yep. Most places don't routinely drug test bc it's fairly expensive for pee tests and even more for hair. They're typically only given if there's a reason too, like a workers comp claim, as Blackshirt said.

I remember the thread because I think I got involved in it and agreed with you because I had some inside info. that that was the real reason he was missing playing time and the injury(ies) were cover up. I took a bunch of heat too was told if I couldn't state my sources it didn't happen. It's pretty well known by anybody who's ever been at a party with him he likes to toke it up. I too have lots of friends in Lincoln who have either been at a party where he's done it or partaken in the act with him.

Lets be honest, a player of this caliber, who is probably a solid commit to Old Miss, would not even have gotten a sniff from the old staff 99% of the time.

What a doosh

Holocaust jokes are not funny, Anne Frankly, I find them offensive.

The three that have been posted that are possibilities for next in line: Glenn, Carol, Daryl, definitely all seem like they could be next. The one I'll throw in there as an added gonner, is Sasha. Girls got problems.

There's absolutely no way Banderas isn't the starter MLB. And leaving out Chris Jones from the 2 deep is a mistake. Perhaps but I'd put Trai Mosley above him.

Agreed. I think one possibility would go back the jack of all trades, master of none, philosophy the coaches had. I think he was constantly trying to be perfect in every aspect of the game so much that it hurt the rest of his game and may have caused the regression. Much like myself when I golf (or try to anyways).