GBRedneck

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie. I guess this would certainly be a matter of perspective. I don't see a changing of a policy as a "lie." If you say one year that you don't comment on coaching statuses during the season, but then alter it in future years when your most important hire is coming under a lot of outside scrutiny, I would call it being conveniently disingenuous. Bo wasn't SE's guy and it's pretty clear he didn't support what Bo was doing overall. Riley is his guy and he felt the need to defend him. I could see the argument for it being misleading and even shady, but a lie? Again, I guess it's a matter of perspective, but that doesn't really fit the definition of lying to me. The lie was last year when he said it was his policy to not comment on current coaches during the season. He obviously would in certain circumstances, as he proved this year. It was a convenient lie last year. It's not a lie. Just stop it. I don't drink, I don't cuss and I don't smoke. God d@##it, I left my cigarettes at the bar!

This is easily overlooked by the folks who only follow football. Steve Pederson botched the Solich/Callahan situation, but other than that, he was a pretty good AD. I think every other program - the ones I follow closely, anyway - liked him. It's just that football being the cash cow, any mistake with that program is going to be hugely magnified. I guess you don't follow Pitt.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie. I guess this would certainly be a matter of perspective. I don't see a changing of a policy as a "lie." If you say one year that you don't comment on coaching statuses during the season, but then alter it in future years when your most important hire is coming under a lot of outside scrutiny, I would call it being conveniently disingenuous. Bo wasn't SE's guy and it's pretty clear he didn't support what Bo was doing overall. Riley is his guy and he felt the need to defend him. I could see the argument for it being misleading and even shady, but a lie? Again, I guess it's a matter of perspective, but that doesn't really fit the definition of lying to me. The lie was last year when he said it was his policy to not comment on current coaches during the season. He obviously would in certain circumstances, as he proved this year. It was a convenient lie last year.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

The OP is only referencing players currently on the roster. BTW, where's the link to this info?

Why would people not want to believe that we were talking to other coaches about coaching here? Because specifically mentioned coaches weren't approached? I mean... that's kinda a good reason, right? Bielema's agent is Neil Cornrich. The same guy also advises Eichorst. It's a fact that Bielema's people talked to Ecihorst's people about the job. Even if those "people" are the same person.

Because the players on the Dline don't really seem to like their coach or have any confidence in him. The players like or dislike of their coach has no bearing on their draft grade. Point Head It has a lot of bearing on where they set their minimum draft grade before declaring.

who is negative recruiting by saying Riley is 62? Your post insinuates that this is a fact. Or are you just throwing stuff against the wall to see if it will stick? Who wouldn't? Recruiting is a dirty game.

I believe the multitide of sources that are saying it happened. Look, you show me proof that he was offered and I will give you all my +1's for a year. But if you can't, it's just hearsay and one word against another and doesn't make it a lie. It's just you believing someone more than someone else. You don't have to see oxygen to know it exists. It's no more proof than all the media reporting that Les Miles was gonna get fired if he lost his last game this year. That's how this game works. So who lied? The lawyers.

Party pooper.

I believe the multitide of sources that are saying it happened. So...multiple message boards had it posted so it's true? I trust a guy like Gil Brandt. http://footballscoop.com/news/nebraskas-short-list-played/ I don't believe that Bielema was "offered" the job. I think it was one of those lawyerly queries ala "IF we were to offer you the job would you be interested?" I do believe Eichorst expressed interest in Bielema through the agent they both share.

So you believe Bret Bielema over Shawn Eichorst? Okay. Suit yourself. And do you know what lying means? Him speaking about Riley during the season isn't lying. The guy is allowed to change his mind on things. Whether we agree it was a good move or not. It doesn't make it a lie. The second link in that google search features Perlman laughing about the Bielema rumor, giving the best explanation of why we never contacted him about the job: "To all you doubters. You don't hire a coach (Bielema) who just moved a year ago. If he came could you be confident he'd stay? YOLO" I thought we put this Bielema thing to bed a long time ago. Now that's become "true" again because of a message board argument? Yikes. What's next, "county scholarships" coming back for another go-round? Funny how Harvey got the memo about hiring coaches who just moved a year ago, but missed the one on firing 9 win coaches. Not to mention that Harvey is a lawyer, so it's easy to tell when he's lying. Just look for lip movement.

http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/2015/lesson-learned-defense-not-so-simple-after-all/article_07b22db3-c0b7-5efb-859d-11b0306e5d13.html Last paragraph of the article: “We became tighter, because everybody knows what it’s like to be out there,” Banderas said. “We’ve all played with each other on the field, so I think we’re just tighter as a unit than we’ve ever been before, and we’re all coming back. Nobody’s leaving, so we’re going to build from there.”

Yep But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides". And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd. If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing. But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames. Anytime you and your ilk don't like the message, you call the messenger a liar. Its BS and its getting old. You do realize that the "messenger" said this a year ago... So... what were you saying about lying again? So he realized he was wrong, big f'ing deal. That does not make him a liar. I have no doubt the Pelini fortress was hard to see inside. Think you can find that mountain after tripping over the mole hole? So you're changing the rules again? Eichorst says after firing Pelini that he thinks we have the players to win championships. Then Boyd comes in and puts actual measurements to that thought and shows we don't. It doesn't make a guy a liar. Does it make him an uninformed doofus that says things before he has the correct information? I certainly can't argue with you on that. But I will say I didn't see him saying that as disingenuous. It was basic AD speech. I am sure there are several AD's that say the same thing every year after a firing or before a hiring. No, thta's far from true. Most ADs fire losing coaches and hire winning coaches. They give different speeches. Just shut the f#*k up if you aren't going to actually add to the conversation Just because you want to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALA" doesn't mean I'm not adding to the conversation. If you don't understand that Michigan or Florida or any other school that hired a new coach is talking about completely different circumstances than ours, then you shouldn't be comparing our AD's speeches to theirs.

And the last shreds of winning are finally eliminated... Mediocrity was flushed with the firing of the last coach, getting rid of the dead weight he recruited is only the next step to restoring the order. Radar do you really believe that pie in the sky bulls$#t you spew? Or are you paid by someone to come on here and reel off this crap when most every sign points the opposite way!!!!! I mean seriously wtf I am right 99.35% of the time. Its been calculated! I hope that was "tongue in cheek" Cuz if not, I want to know how you are calculating that, mus be usin that der nue math. lol He calculated it himself. That should explain everything you need to know.

Yep But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides". And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd. If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing. But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames. Anytime you and your ilk don't like the message, you call the messenger a liar. Its BS and its getting old. You do realize that the "messenger" said this a year ago... So... what were you saying about lying again? So he realized he was wrong, big f'ing deal. That does not make him a liar. I have no doubt the Pelini fortress was hard to see inside. Think you can find that mountain after tripping over the mole hole? So you're changing the rules again? Eichorst says after firing Pelini that he thinks we have the players to win championships. Then Boyd comes in and puts actual measurements to that thought and shows we don't. It doesn't make a guy a liar. Does it make him an uninformed doofus that says things before he has the correct information? I certainly can't argue with you on that. But I will say I didn't see him saying that as disingenuous. It was basic AD speech. I am sure there are several AD's that say the same thing every year after a firing or before a hiring. No, thta's far from true. Most ADs fire losing coaches and hire winning coaches. They give different speeches.

Prospects for the current class are looking pretty bleak. We likely need at least 8 more bodies to fill the class, and we are in (really in, not just an offer with low interest) on very few high ranked players. We are currently ranked #31 on 247. Not sure where you are getting that. Here are the players I think we are still in on pretty well. Farniok 4* Reese 3* (admittedly, I am concerned about his recent trip to Texas) Fitzpatrick 4* L. Jackson 4* Watts 3* Poljan 3* I. Simmons 4* M. Simmons 3* Those 8 have an average star ranking of 3.5. If we could get these, that would put our average star ranking at 3.3. That's a better pace than our last staff was in their second season. And, we are in on a lot of really good talent right now for the 2017 class. Can we get an update on this list?

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better. Not sure how to move goal posts so I'll ask an expert: GBRedneck, how do you move goalposts? Oh, let the record show that you STILL haven't come up with a source stating that Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple>>>>>>>>>that goalpost hasn't budged. Your turn. So you're looking for an exact quote of "the scheme was going to be simple"? The quote I just gave had Banker bragging about his 1 front-2 coverages defense. He was touting the simplicity. You're moving the goalposts. Also, from January on, the media line was "Banker to simplify the D". Banker did nothing to dispute that, in fact he seemed quite proud of it. Until Banderas made the "high school" comment. Then he went into damage control. And now everyone sees you exposed. Every single post I asked you to provide a source where Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple. Every. Single. Post. No one, least of all me, disputed that Banker wanted to simplify the defense from BP's paralysis-by-analysis. What got me started in this sorry ass chain of exchanges with you was the assertion that Banker said it was going to be simple. THAT WAS NEVER SAID BY BANKER. By Bando, yes. By Gerry, yes, By Collins and Valentine, yes. Banker or the staff, no. But you knew that. I cited sources where Banker responded to the players by saying that it wasn't as simple as they thought. You knew that all along, which is why after three demands by me to cite your source you always dodged it, moved the goalposts, so to speak. I could have just ended this a while back and stopped responding to your trolling, something you have been called out for on this board previously. Maybe I should have. For sure I'm done with you for now because you're boring me. But understand this, the next time you troll, me or someone else is going to call you out, not necessarily because I disagree with some point you're making, but because your agenda has no reason, no balance and no place on a board for fans of Nebraska sports. Banker didn't dispute the multitude of "simple" claims from January on until Bando made the "high school" comment in the fall. And I gave you a January quote where Banker not only claimed his D was simple, but he bragged about it. Okay, I changed my mind..... You're lying again. "Banker didn't dispute the multitude of "simple" claims from January on until Bando made the "high school" comment in the fall." Fascinating, but help me find where Banker said the scheme was going to be simple. "And I gave you a January quote where Banker not only claimed his D was simple, but he bragged about it." I'll make a deal with you......Here's your link to the article. Show me anywhere in it where Banker said the scheme was going to be simple, and I'll do a mea cupla, admit I was wrong, and move on. A direct quote, that's all I want out of you. http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html Now it's your turn to come back and act surprised that I want your source showing a direct quote...... I gave you a direct quote where he was bragging about how simple his 1 front-2coverages defense is. If your claim is that he never spoke the exact phrase "The scheme is going to be simple" then I cannot disprove your claim. If you want to claim that Banker didn't ride in basking in how aggressive the D would be with his simpler attacking D, then I already proved your wrong.

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better. Not sure how to move goal posts so I'll ask an expert: GBRedneck, how do you move goalposts? Oh, let the record show that you STILL haven't come up with a source stating that Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple>>>>>>>>>that goalpost hasn't budged. Your turn. So you're looking for an exact quote of "the scheme was going to be simple"? The quote I just gave had Banker bragging about his 1 front-2 coverages defense. He was touting the simplicity. You're moving the goalposts. Also, from January on, the media line was "Banker to simplify the D". Banker did nothing to dispute that, in fact he seemed quite proud of it. Until Banderas made the "high school" comment. Then he went into damage control. And now everyone sees you exposed. Every single post I asked you to provide a source where Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple. Every. Single. Post. No one, least of all me, disputed that Banker wanted to simplify the defense from BP's paralysis-by-analysis. What got me started in this sorry ass chain of exchanges with you was the assertion that Banker said it was going to be simple. THAT WAS NEVER SAID BY BANKER. By Bando, yes. By Gerry, yes, By Collins and Valentine, yes. Banker or the staff, no. But you knew that. I cited sources where Banker responded to the players by saying that it wasn't as simple as they thought. You knew that all along, which is why after three demands by me to cite your source you always dodged it, moved the goalposts, so to speak. I could have just ended this a while back and stopped responding to your trolling, something you have been called out for on this board previously. Maybe I should have. For sure I'm done with you for now because you're boring me. But understand this, the next time you troll, me or someone else is going to call you out, not necessarily because I disagree with some point you're making, but because your agenda has no reason, no balance and no place on a board for fans of Nebraska sports. Banker didn't dispute the multitude of "simple" claims from January on until Bando made the "high school" comment in the fall. And I gave you a January quote where Banker not only claimed his D was simple, but he bragged about it.

New first time head coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Tom Osborne - .836 Frank Solich - .753 Bo Pelini - .713 New "experienced" coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Bill Callahan - .551 Mike Riley - .417 Looking at these two posts I see a very rare situation: Both of your arguments are wrong. RADAR: While Frost has not yet been a head coach he's a proven leader and has plenty of coaching experience. He's seen how things work at Nebraska both on the field and on the sideline. He held multiple positions at Oregon, one of the better run programs in college football, and also Kansas State. And I'm sure he picked up a bit of know how from his playing days with four NFL franchises. GBRedneck: Ha ha! Those are some nice stats. But you know what they say about statistics. Numbers aside though, you can't possibly think that lack of experience trumps experience when comes to selecting a coach. It doesn't. You're misstating my argument. My argument was only against the incorrect claim that we MUST have someone with head coaching experience and can't have success with a first time head coach. Also, Tom, Frank and Bo did not lack experience. They only lacked HC experience. I would say experience AT NEBRASKA at any level is more valuable to a potential Husker coach than random NFL head coaching experience.

The term is prima donna.

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better. Not sure how to move goal posts so I'll ask an expert: GBRedneck, how do you move goalposts? Oh, let the record show that you STILL haven't come up with a source stating that Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple>>>>>>>>>that goalpost hasn't budged. Your turn. So you're looking for an exact quote of "the scheme was going to be simple"? The quote I just gave had Banker bragging about his 1 front-2 coverages defense. He was touting the simplicity. You're moving the goalposts. Also, from January on, the media line was "Banker to simplify the D". Banker did nothing to dispute that, in fact he seemed quite proud of it. Until Banderas made the "high school" comment. Then he went into damage control.

So far, all that these testing results have told us is that we don't have as much talent as we did in the mid-90s. Pretty sure no one needed the testing results to find that out. If we had testing results to compare with from the last 10-15 years, that would be a lot more interesting. I think it would be pretty easy to figure out that the overall level is not up to par with the 90's, The 9 win seasons and 5 win season are about the same, we are irrelevant as a football program until we get better talent. 9=5. Another RADAR fact.

New first time head coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Tom Osborne - .836 Frank Solich - .753 Bo Pelini - .713 New "experienced" coaches at Nebraska in the last 50 years: Bill Callahan - .551 Mike Riley - .417 Osborne was a longtime asst. Frank was a longtime asst, that failed when he ran out of Oz players Bo won mostly meaningless games Frost is just another risk with more downside right now than promise. At least you didn't make excuses for the experienced group.

Good to see that someone has faith in our offense! On a more serious note, I'm not surprised to see UCLA getting a lot of love. Josh Rosen definitely has a favorable matchup against our secondary. If the Vegas line is similar, I am putting my money on the under. I hate to be negative, but I just don't see the Huskers scoring over 150.