JJ Husker

There is no such thing as survival of the fittest.........unless Rex Burkhead decides to let you survive. Rex Burkhead's used boxers are sent to North Korea and used to enrich uranium. The square root of Rex Burkead is pain. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Rex Burkhead can run through you for a touchdown......yesterday.

Common sense is a rare commodity, Matt. Especially when a seemingly weaker Michigan team would be equally offset by a seemingly stronger Iowa team. You guys are reading way too much into my preference for this Michigan-Iowa game. I don't think rooting for Iowa, or Michigan, implies anything about our program or what people are willing to accept. In fact, what we want or who we root for means jack. If you feel Iowa winning is better for us, then that is your opinion and I have no problem with it. I just don't agree. Personally I have very little respect for the Iowa program and it is my belief that most rational people would feel a victory over a 1 loss top 10+/- Michigan, with Robinson, would be much more impressive than a win against a 3-6 loss Iowa team. I have little concern over what outcome may best help Nebraska get into the CCG for 2 reasons. 1-Like I stated earlier, our desires mean nothing in what will happen and 2-I see no reason we should not win our 4 remaining games. I think a win over a 1 loss Michigan may help our national ranking and reputation whereas a win over, by that time a 5 loss, Iowa will mean nothing to voters or SOS. If we screw up and lose a game, I may have to change my tune but I see no sense in a$$ covering until it is needed. One of our poorest and most embarrasing stats is our record against top 10/15 ranked teams. Why pull for an outcome that will eliminate another opportunity to shed that stigma. I am planning for the best outcome and you guys are jockeying for position in case the worst happens. I will never share that outlook and you can say it lacks common sense all you want. I want great things for the Huskers and you want safe things.

State Penn. Now there is a B1G team I have a jump start on despising. I can see them rapidly replacing KSux and sCUm. I mean WTH, their coach can't even make it to the lockerroom for halftime.

I don't think the coaches should have Rex punting the ball, I mean what if there is a roughing the kicker penalty? Actually, the more I think about it, maybe they should have Rex doing everything.

You forgot your sarcastic smiley. But I do agree with you 100% that NU should not settle for anything less, but...............as someone who's hoping for a MI loss I think at this point with NU still not quite at Bama/LSU level we need all the help we can to get back to the top so that we can start attracting blue chip 5* athletes. Without stud players we'll be a perennial 3-4 loss team I wanted to use the smiley but I was posting on my Droid and don't have that option so I laid it on extra thick. The way this thread was going I wanted to make sure nobody thought I was serious. Funny thing is I've never said I would rather not be in the CCG. I'll take anyway we need to get there BUT I would rather earn it on our own merits. I don't want the help until we need it and I don't feel we'll need it. We just have to take care of business which, for me for now, includes defeating a higher ranked Michigan. If we stumble, I'll change my tune but not until then. If it turns out to be too late then, I am confident that what I or anyone wants now has no bearing on what is going to happen anyway. So, I'm just livin the dream. I am just glad I am not so far gone to make statements like "dignity doesn't matter", "respect is overrated", "it's not the 90's anymore-get over it", "we'll never return to dominance" etc. If those are true, I would have to seriously evaluate why I watch college football and why I care about the Huskers. IMO, if we don't strive for excellence and national prominence then it is just a waste of time. Might as well just play checkers. Heck CSU is only about 20 miles from where I live. If I want my team to depend on help from a weak conference, I could try being a Rams fan.

OK, ya'll convinced me. I'll be for Iowa over Michigan (like it matters who I'm for) and then the Huskers will have wiggle room to go stink it up in some of our remaining games. I feel good about this. The pride is welling up inside me. The old days are over. We can settle and we'll like it. Beating top 10 teams is overrated. We should be scheduling BigSky teams for our non-cons. We don't want any other B1G teams to ever win or be ranked because it will make it easier for us to get into our CCG. I can probably get the hang of this. Ah screw it, I'll just forget about college football and become a MLB fan instead. Then I could really be satisfied when my team breaks .500 and gets into the playoffs.

Hard to tell. If he is screwing off or not playing hard, then, yes, it's a lesson. However, I get the sense that he simply lost the practice battle and didn't get to play. I could be wrong, but if I am right, then it's ridiculous that he could not come in for a single play. If we have seen one flaw with this coaching staff it's that they want to play the top 22 and nobody else. Uhmm that's not a flaw, it's the direct result of not putting teams away early. And, it is also not accurate to claim they want to play the top 22 and nobody else. They rotate many on the D side and some on the O side. Having your best players on the field is not a flaw, it is smart. Not doing it would be a flaw.

Very well put, JJHusker1. Exactly my point. We are demanding as fans (as we should be) that the Huskers return to the greatness of winning championships. This means we mow over anyone in our path, and Iowa has already had some embarrassing losses, so I would rather have Michigan win so we face a 1-loss Michigan team, and if we beat them, it makes us look that much stronger. Personally, I think that Iowa loses to Michigan by at least 2 scores, probably 3. So, by JJ's thinking, when we won championships in the 90's yet there were only 3 or 4 ranked teams in the conference(specifically 97, but also 94), it was much better because we had no competition, maybe play one or two tough in conference games per year and we could dominate? Somehow that was more legit? Well, I remember people cracking on us for winning a weak league, specifically people from the Big Ten. Do you feel bad about playing in the last two CCG in 09 and 10? Again, what you are failing to realize is that if Michigan and/or Michigan State lose to Iowa, IT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER!!!! What matters is your conference record, head to head, and then intra divisional records. Why is this so hard for some of you to get??? The B1G will not get respect that the SEC and Big 12 get, and rightfully so, until they can run off a series of many years that are comparable to what those 2 leagues have. Also, if you are so worried about supposed "respect" and "what it looks like" think of this: Iowa wins its next three. Nebraska either wins/loses to a 8-2 Michigan team who would be ranked 15-25, we already beat an MSU team that would likely be 8-3 or 9-3 and still in the top 25, but then we would be able to face an 8-3 Iowa team who had just beat 2 top 25 teams in back to back weeks, and would likely be Top 25 or Top 30. We would get a hell of alot more respect for beating that Iowa team (if we do) than we would beating a 6-5 Iowa team that looks like crap. On top of that, if the Divisional Championship were on the line for the Iowa game, it would make it worthwhile. But if a 6-5 Iowa team comes in here to play spoiler and does, or at least make it a nail biter, it would look very bad on us. I would love to win out, win the CCG, and have our shot at getting beat by either Stanford or Oregon, but I also wouldn't mind having a little bit of a cushion going into that last weekend. Hell, I want us to dominate like we did in the good old days, but those days are over, and this team is not close to what those teams were. I will take whatever we can get right now. And being 10-2 and playing a 10-2 Wisconsin or a 9-3 O$U in the CCG, I will take that. ..........but if so, I would expect this from someone who is not accustomed to divisional play so forgive my tone, but again, in the big scheme, IT DOESN'T F'ING MATTER HOW RESPECTED ANOTHER TEAM IS!!!!!! SINCE THE MNC IS OUT OF THE QUESTION, WINNING THE DIVISION AND THE CCG ARE ALL THAT MATTER!!!! IF WE LOSE THIS WEEK, NONE OF THIS MATTERS. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! :bang :bang :bang :bang Well we are going to have to agree to disagree. You can yell, scream, stomp your feet, and act as incredulous as you wish but I am never going to accept mediocrity. The CCG means little to me if we can't do it with respect, dignity, and excellence. If you're willing to settle for a participation ribbon, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong but I'm sure as heck not going to share in the viewpoint. I had the good fortune to witness the glory years firsthand; early 70's as a 8+/- yr old child, early 80's as a student at UNL, and the 90's as a proud Husker fan. I can understand having a different point of view if a person had not experienced those things. I know that 0 or 1 loss seasons are going to be extremely rare in the B1G or any conference that has a CCG. And, I am not going to complain if we should backdoor our way into a CCG but I won't be truly happy about it if it comes at the expense of not controlling our own destiny. Our desires as fans mean squat in the grand scheme so I am going to push for excellence and leave the participation ribbon gathering to others.

Fixed it for ya.

I remember numerous times under Osborne where the qb would make a read before deciding to hand to the FB or keep and then do it again with the I back. It was true triple option. There were also FB dives or traps but you could tell there was no option on those. However it took exceptional qb's to do it well. Frazier, Gill, etc did it well but I think Tom dumbed it down a bit for more average personnel.

I like the numbers, the trend, and think the defense has improved by leaps and bounds but, please remember that in the middle of these 10 quarters of stats is 4 quarters of Minnesota. I'll take it but I'm a lot more impressed with the first 2 qtrs and the last 4. The next 3 games will hopefully prove this trend and partial snapshot is for real.

What part of this do you guys not get? It's not like a Big Ten team is losing to an SEC, MAC, or a PAC team, its all IN CONFERENCE. What looks worse, beating a 5-2 Iowa team, or beating a 3-4 Iowa team? IT'S A FREAKING WASH PEOPLE!!! I'd personally rather go to Indy with a 6-2 conference record than be sitting at home with a 6-2 conference record, while a 6-2 Michigan or 6-2 MSU plays in Indy. This whole strength of schedule and "what looks better" means absolutely nothing. The SOS is determined (by and large) in your non-conference schedule, since in conference play the conference will have a .500 winning percentage. On top of that, the B1G gave us the top 3 teams from the other division, so, if Michigan or MSU (or both) lose another game, I'll take it. I understand what your saying 74Hunter but I'm with HuskerShark on this one. We control our own destiny and I wouldn't want it any other way. If we don't take care of business, then we don't deserve the CCG. I'm tired of being inconsequential and relying on others to boost us up. If we want it then we should take it. If not, then we can go to the whatever bowl with all the other losers that didn't do enough to earn their own way. If it isn't this year, then I am prepared to wait until it is. Therefore I want Michigan and all other B1G teams to win all of their games except when we play them. Nobody (poll voters not SOS computers) will give us any credit for beating Iowa but a higher ranked Michigan may get us a little more national attention. If we aren't good enough to do it then it also may save us embarrassment down the road. I don't want any charity or CCG's between 2 or 3 loss teams. The B1G needs an image makeover and we're just the team to help that out. I'm sick of being told how good the SEC is. No more top 20 BS, I'm talking top 5 or go home.

It seems there are some people in this thread that understand the option game so I have a question. Has anyone else noticed that more often than not Martinez runs in an arc towards the backfield rather than going straight down the line? Is this because he is being taught different than our great option qb's or is it an allowance due to our O linemen not getting any line surge? I like Taylor and think he's the guy for the job but if you go back and look at Frazier, Crouch, Gill, Frost, etc they seem to go straight down the line and be in a better position to make the defender commit to them or the pitch man. It seems as though our option game would improve if Taylor tweeked his mechanics and made the D actually make a decision between him or Burkhead or whoever. I think his line path is what leads to all those pitches that make us gasp for air. Surely our coaches notice this if I am. Or am I just an idiot?

What gives, are you paraphrasing for the sake of brevity? I thought I would puke if he said that phrase one more time.

I will send my midget league team to play anyone, anywhere, anytime for.................... $10 Billion dollars (in the voice of Dr. Evil) Boise St asks for these ridiculus deals so that they can continue to feign the illusion that they are somebody and willing but the big boys must want to dodge them. They're decent but they'd be lucky to break .500 in a real conference that would dish out a beating week in and week out.

Prior to '06 the title game was one of the 4 BCS Bowl Games. Since then a title game has been added & there are now 5 BCS games(The 4 Bowls & the Title Game), with one site being used twice. Here is the Bowl Tie Ins. All BCS conferences except the Big East have contracts for their champions to participate in specific BCS bowl games. Unless their champion is involved in the BCS National Championship game, the conference tie-ins are: Rose Bowl - Big Ten champion vs. Pac-12 champion Fiesta Bowl - Big 12 champion vs. at large Orange Bowl - ACC champion vs. at large Sugar Bowl - SEC champion vs. at large To have OU in the Rose bowl will be almost impossible. The Big Ten or the Pac 12 would have to send someone to the title game, Okie Light would need to win the Big 12, OU would need to finish 2nd, receive a at large bid (OU would have to be in the Top 14) & the Orange & Sugar Bowl's would have to pass on them. Since the Fiesta, Orange & Sugar rotate the top 3 picks with the Rose Bowl always getting the last pick(Fiesta can't pick OU if they already have a Big 12 team in) So say good by to ever seeing a Big 12 team in the Rose Bowl (Outside of a title game at the Rose Bowl). Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the Fiesta, Orange, & Sugar have priority over the Rose if the Rose losses a conference champion to the NCG. I believe the priority goes to any bowl with a tie-in that lost a team to the NCG. Stanford could plausibly make their way into the NCG against Bama or LSU and Okie St could win the Big 12 without making the NCG. Nebraska could win the B1G and, without Stanford, there possibly is no Pac team left rated high enough. It is not far fetched at all for a possible NU-OU Rose Bowl. NCG- Bama or LSU vs Stanford Fiesta- Okie St vs Boise Rose- Nebraska vs who? The Sugar could screw it up because, if the SEC team is #1 and the Pac team #2, then the Sugar would have priority over the Rose to fill their tie-in spot. But, I gotta believe the SEC runner up, #5ish, would receive more consideration from the Sugar than a #8-10ish Oklahoma. Don't get me wrong, I would also love to play Stanford or Oregon, but an OU matchup is a distinct possibility. Biggest problem to all of this might be the Huskers making the Rose to begin with.

Bo Pelini is the head coach, not Tom Osborne. That's why. Pretty rude answer IMO. If you want to limit it to Pelini's QB Graveyard, I'm fine with that. But, since such a Graveyard is the result of "Blackshirts" effort and not just a coach, I thought it MIGHT be appropriate to expand backwards. You sir, can do whatever the F you want. Sorry if I came off as rude. Wasn't trying to be. But, the thread is titled "Bo Pelini's Quarterback Graveyard - 2011 Edition", after all. Sorry if I took it the wrong way and over-reacted. If it's a hard and fast rule that we have to stick to the thread title, then why the listings pre-2011? I'm not pushing for it to be anything other than Bo Pelini's Graveyard, just thought it could be. Thought it might be a little more intimidating for the visiting fans to see, that's all.

Bo Pelini is the head coach, not Tom Osborne. That's why. Pretty rude answer IMO. If you want to limit it to Pelini's QB Graveyard, I'm fine with that. But, since such a Graveyard is the result of "Blackshirts" effort and not just a coach, I thought it MIGHT be appropriate to expand backwards. You sir, can do whatever the F you want.

I don't want to shake up a good thing but what do you think about expanding this list backwards by including QB graveyard pre-Pelini? The blackshirts had much success at demolishing much hyped QB's even before Pelini. 1997 season-1998 Orange Bowl Peyton Manning comes to mind.

I have to agree with Badgerfan that the Rose Bowl traditionally, historically has been a Big 10-Pac 10 matchup. But, since the inception of the BCS, it has given way on occasion to non-traditional matchups. 2011 Wiscy-TCU 2006 Texas-USC (NCG) 2005 Texas-Michigan 2003 Oklahoma-WSU 2002 Miami-Nebraska (NCG) Prior to that you have to go back to 1946 to find anything other than a Big 10-Pac 10 matchup. I think all the Husker fans on here, that would like to see NU-OU in the Rose Bowl, are saying is; if the chips fall a certain way, then yes we would like a Nebraska-Oklahoma matchup in the Rose Bowl. No one is proposing shattering an untouchable 100 year tradition and no one is saying that it shouldn't primarily be a Big 10-Pac 10 matchup. And any Husker fan who fails to recognize the rivalry we did have with OU (simply saying it doesn't exist anymore) is either too young or is failing to recognize the storied history of Nebraska football. We would no more give up on NU-OU than those in the Pac 10-Big 10 would give up on the Rose Bowl. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It is what it is.

It stopped being a rivalry when Oklahoma decided that it wasn't in 1998. The Sooners are now married to Texas, and we're now married to Iowa after a brief stint with Colorado. If we were married to Colorado, why were we never charged with domestic violence? Just wonderin.

Sorry, I learned from Tom Osborne and continue to learn from Bo that the end result is not the most important thing. If you want to strive for excellence then you realize there are always things that can be improved upon. I'm happy with the win but only people that only care about winning or losing would gloss over where we could've been better. A wise man once told me that only the Sith deal in absolutes. Yes there were things that we need to fix and we did not play a perfect game but we did just beat a top ten team and there are more posts complaining about things than celebrating the win. It's like we can't just be happy we won we have to seek out every little thing and pick it apart with tweezers and a microscope. If we listed everything we did wrong in that game we would be here until December but we won. Let's celebrate that. If you'll look back over my previous posts you will see that I was pointing out a lot more positives than negatives. The reason I delved deeper into the negatives was in response to a specific question by another poster. I'm all for celebrating this victory but I am also of the opinion that we can and should be playing much better and more complete games. Tweezers and a microscope are not all that is separating us from being a top 5 team. Forgive me if I want the Huskers to be the best they can possibly be. I'll leave this discussion at; we are definitely headed in the right direction but we haven't arrived at our destination. This MSU victory was a significant milepost on the trip. And sorry about the "onlys". I do not believe in absolutes but tend to get sucked into them from time to time.

Sorry, I learned from Tom Osborne and continue to learn from Bo that the end result is not the most important thing. If you want to strive for excellence then you realize there are always things that can be improved upon. I'm happy with the win but only people that only care about winning or losing would gloss over where we could've been better.

There is no path that has any chance greater than me hitting the next 3 powerball jackpots in a row. We play our first decent game of the year against an obviously poor outing by MSU in week 8 and this is what it leads to? Beam me up Scotty. Northwestern, Penn State, Michigan, & Iowa. CCG in Indy is "possible". Rose Bowl after Indy, possible but getting more unlikely. Another BCS bowl highly doubtful. The NCG- no f'n way. I don't want to be Debbie Downer but I do not even want to see us in the NCG this season. The last thing we need is nationwide embarrassment that could set us back years on our rise from the ashes. Rose Bowl is the only pinnacle we have any business dreaming about this year.

Getting our scoring D under 20ppg would be quite a feat. A shutout next game would get us to 20 or we would have to average under 14ppg for our remaining 4 games. I'd love to see it but I don't think it makes us primed for a special season unless you're referring to next season.