84HuskerLaw

If you do this. What would the offense identity be? Not very good!

Oh, I think the Dems will drop by the nursing home in a couple years and grab Bill and Hillary and nominate the old gal again! After all, she is the most qualified to ever run for the Presidency in history according the same media types that say Trump knows nothing about anything! A lifetime 'first lady' whose most obvious marketable skill is that of destroyer of people. Hillary has spent her entire adult life in the business of the politics of personal destruction, whether it being President Nixon in her first job to the legions of Bubba's bimbos to the mesne 'business partners and minions/co-conspirators of the Clintons in their land and savings and loan fraud schemes and commodities futures insider trading to the myriad of enterprises operated out of the Whitehouse and NY since the first Clinton stints in DC. No question you give Hillary some credit for thinking outside the box - er outside the law - but she is NOT qualified and does NOT have the basic moral compass to be President. The 'collective wisdom' of the majority of a razor thin margin of the voting population in enough of the several states, was able to recognize this basic truth and fortunately for all was able to prevent the Clintons from getting another 4 year 'lease' on the power and property of the federal government. So who in the Democrat party has the 'gravitas' to be President and could actually lead America in a positive and truly progressive (meaning making economic and otherwise improving the lot of the people and society as a whole and not another word for socialist as used by Dems) manner? Who? There are no obvious andnot so obvious answers, based on the two horrendous candidates the entire liberal caste was able to muster for 2016 election. The most challenging part of finding a candidate to run for election on the Dems' side of the political sphere is they have to be natural born liars and have no concious or qualms about speaking untruths repeatedly. Sooner or later they are going to be asked some direct questions about their policies and the logic and rationality of their proposals. Since very few liberal ideas make any sense to most people based on the known facts and common sense, liberals are put in the awkward position of having to change the facts to fiction and then convincing themselves and other like minded folks of these 'facts'. But really, people, why on Earth are we discussing the 2020 election as they haven't even finished counting up the absentee and mail-in votes from the 2016 election that was only 48 hours ago?

Liberals are apparently completed blinded by their own political spin and rhetoric. They talk about the 'factless' society and obviously to read some of the leftist comments on here, they have come to believe the stuff they say. For example, the economy is just plain NOT GOOD no matter how many ways the media and Whitehouse spin machine has tried to describe it otherwise. The only significant measure of economic data that is 'improved' is the unemployment rate. That took about 6 years to come down and basically it came down because they simply took people out of the labor force number rather than getting more people hired. Absolutely amazing the media is already bashing Trump for doing a bad job and all he has done is accept the election results (which they bashed him for not agreeing to accept the election results before the election was even conducted because the 'planned' on their gal winning hands down). It is a real shock to the liberal 1/3rd of the country to find the rest of the country is no longer listening and won't take the crap any more!. If the cry babies out 'protesting' think anybody cares, they are just as ignorant as their ideas. They can protest till the cows come home - nobody cares! Get it - nobody cares.

Newt would be good as Cheif of Staff or senior policy advisor or as Whitehouse liason to Congress. He will be supremely skilled in shepherding any legislation through the Congress and bringing together the various competing interests to forge strong conservative led agendas through the DC swamp until Trump gets it fully drained. Secretary of State would not likely be Newt's interest. Ben Carson more likely to be a leader on the repeal of Obamacare and then to spearhead the new drive to improve healthcare access to all. This will be a big job as Obamacare has created a terrible mess with households being stuck with premiums exceeding mortgage payments and deductibles so high the insurance pays for no care making the premiums nothing but massive income tax hikes for many families. Half the 'insureds' (one is not really insured by the current Obamacare insurance as the plans won't pay for any claims with deducts and premiums so outrageous) will be filing bankruptcy because of Obamacare not inspite of it. Don't see Rudy getting personally involved in the administration. He is aging and certainly not likely to want to be Atty Gen unless Trump wants to let him lead the way on the Clinton prosecutions. Rudy would like that job anyway. Maybe special counsel role would be a good one for him, being a NY federal prosecutor previously. I can see a couple other members of the Presidential candidates getting some roles in the admin (Huckabee ?) perhaps but I am sure he will be pick top notch pros who can get running as Trump is a demanding boss who expects performance.

The morning after is a bright and sunny day and without a doubt there is once again hope for America's future. Trump is not the 'ideal' candidate and may not be able to save the country from the abyss of political, social and economic deterioration we are headed to but there is atleast a chance. The Clintons offered absolutely NO HOPE to people. Frankly, I wonder how many (perhaps as many as a third?) of those who voted for Hillary would honestly admit they held their noseand voted for her even though they would have preferred someone else. But there was nobody else who ran against her, except Bernie. Now, to good far leftists, Bernie should have been the 'ideal' candidate. Sincere, honest, socialist and just plain nuts when it comes to his economics but truly the ideal liberal. But Bernie didn't win in the primaries. Why? Seemingly because Hillary was even more 'ideal' unless the election was really more of a coronation and selection. There were a half a dozen very intelligent, honest, sincere and decent candidates who ran against Trump in the primaries. Why did not the liberals who didn't really want Hillary not opt to participate in those choices and vote for one of them. Many of the Republican candidates had excellent government experience, common sense free market capitalism economic ideas, realistic foreign policy and domestic policy approaches and so on. I would suggest those who voted for Hillary yesterday but claim they didn't want to because they would have preferred someone else really did want to vote for Hillary and were quite comfortable in doing so. The real concern about such folks is why would anyone vote for Hillary Clinton after all the corruption and scandal and blatant lies (nobody can seriously deny the lies) that she spews and has been a part of the Clintons' lives since they were in college 45 years ago. ? Just asking? I really like someone to honestly say the truth is they voted for Hillary because she is a Democrat and it wouldn't matter what high crimes and misdemeanors, lies and corruption she participated in?

If you change the electoral college method, the best alternative would be to simply have the President chosen by a vote of the 50 governors of the States. Eliminate the popular vote and elections altogether and have the Governors select and vote for a new President every 5 years with the President subject to a recall vote every 2.5 years. This will keep the President beholden to the several states and will restore some of the federal power back to the states who would certainly need to be responded to by any President who would be subject to the on going approval of the 50 state governors. It would also keep the federal government from attempting to force unwanted federal laws and regulations back on to the States and local subs. you could even add the option of a 'recall' or vote of approval election of the people on that 2.5 year date as well by a majority vote of the public 'at large' and any President not so approved would then be replaced by another choice made by the Governors. .

Amen! Amen! Amen! Thank God for small favors and the all too rare HUGE favor! P.S. Stock market is actually up about 170 points right now - so much for the sky falling, although the market is grossly overvalued and needs to 'correct' down to be in line with the current dismal state of the economy. Time to get things fired up and Make America Great Again! And Saturday it will be time to Make The Huskers Great Again! Go Big Red!

Hillary gave the best speech she has ever given, by far, today. She answered your query quite clearly however as nowhere in her otherwise intelligent sounding remarks did she even mention the idea of actualy working with the majority party to get things done, finally, for the betterment of the nation. In fact, quite to the contrary, she gave a long list of things she urged the audience to keep 'fighting' (she used that term a number of times of course) to make America into the country she and her supporters believe in. This is NOT conciliatory nor cooperative in tone, although it was the least combative speech she has given in a long long time. Thanks to Hillary for that (from someone who vehemently despises her evil and diabolical self). Too bad but there is virtually no chance the liberals will even work WITH the rest of the country towards positive and meaningful change. She will no longer be any kind of leader and the Democrats will throw Hillary 'the loser' under the bus within about 48 hours. The best news of 2016 is that the Clintons are finally history!

Obama is leaving a huge 'legacy' and it has been barely mentioned in the campaign. It's called the 'national debt' but more precisely (Obama's half of the national debt). I would like to see a new tax enacted called the 'liberal tax' which is imposed on all registered Democrats who voted in any Presidential election since 2007. We should impose a tax of about 50,000 per year on each of those registered Dems who actually voted (I would not tax those who did not actually participate). Not sure how many decades it will take but let them pay the debt they ran up off themselves. The rest of us should not be repaying for Democrat credit card shopping sprees to buy "Obama phones' and for all the trillions that simply disappeared in recent years. That would be a good start on comemerating the Obama 'legacy'. They voted for their inheritance so let them have it. Just a quick idea. This debt will be an anchor around the necks of the American economy for a generation.

If Hillary wins, there is every reason to believe the angry electorate will become even more angry. The liberals simply have no capacity for reasonable compromise or cooperation with the result being more and more vitriol and ugliness. If Trump wins, there will be an initial conservative response and a bunch of basic economic, tax and regulatory reforms will be legislated and of course Obamacare will be repealed and some alternative and somewhat more sensible replacement enacted to attempt to provide some cost containment approach to insuring those who have no other coverage options. After a few months of somewhat tempered mass media reporting, the unending attacks and savaging of Trump and anything not advocated by radical leftists will resume, most likely at unprecedented levels. This will in turn aggravate the middle and conservative sectors of the poulations. Sadly, if Hillary wins, the continued decline and ultimate collapse of our country will be accelerated, with realistically another two decades left before the end of the United States of America as such. What will be left will be an economic basket case with massive poverty and political unrest if not outright civil war. Seems rather extreme but, unfortunately, it is a very high probability (90% in my opinion and I have a great deal of political and social science background and about 44 years of careful and close attention to the state of all things America (political, social, economic, etc.). For too many liberals are simply oblivious to the unquestioned disintegration of our Nation. Like a malignant cancer that is spreading, soon the cancer will be throughout the body with no hope of survival. The probable election of Hillary Clinton is equivalent to the cancer patient making the deliberate choice to decline chemo or radiation or surgery and to simply live or die basically on the basic of luck or some kind of devine intervention. Not a good plan.

Yes, but as both teams are pretty equal in record and Minnesota holds the edge in recent years' win/loss record but home for Huskers. With the injuries to the offensive line and obvious questions about QB position (who knows what injuries might actually be involved for both teams by game time?), and Nebraska coming off a 62-3 debacle/disaster/thrashing, this is certainly a game to stay far away from with your betting dollars. If I put a point spread on this one, I would favor NU by 3 but that's the most. Probably an 'even' up game really. If Huskers are still shellshocked, then Minneapolis will likely win. They are playing as well as they have in several years I'd say so it will be a 'big' win for the Big Red IF it happens. Let us pray!! And hope the refs are not blind again!

I think the whole redshirt notion is one that ought to be looked at when talking about undersized linemen and tight ends and even full backs that need to add weight and strenth or need just don't know their positions. Skilled position players (WRs, RBs, QBs and TEs and CBs etc) should NOT redshirt unless they are clearly playing behind top notch starters, etc and buried in that way. Just my opinion. Play your best players. Great athletes need to learn on the field if at all possible. We know that POB is physically big enough and likely as big as he will ever be. Hopefully he doesn't add 30 lbs and become a Clydesdale (a beautiful horse pulling a beer wagon but not gonna win the Triple Crown). He is taller and hopefully more able to see over those skyscrapers on the line of scrimmage. This limits Tommy in my view although nobody seems to bring up his 6 feet of height behind a 6'5" row of O and D linemen flailing arms and etc. Fyfe is taller but I guess I don't recall how tall he is or plays. We know Tommy has had a number of passes batted down near the line in last several weeks. These hurt as we don't know if the pass was headed to a receiver or not. One or two got deflected and picked as well. The future is NOT with Fyfe for sure. I still think we should always have a one or two year eligibility gap between the top two QBs unless both are underclassmen. I am OK with Fyfe playing the first half vs. Minne but if we are not moving the ball well and leading reasonably, then POB better be ready to go in the second half as I don't feel we can simply punt the rest of this year. There is too much to sacrifice. This recruiting class is atleast in part dependent on the team winning atleast 10 games and hopefully not having any more gross embarrassments on national TV.

This discussion hits many of my concerns with just 'where are the second and third string linemen that I have asked. But still, we have as many as 5 or so missing from the 'two deep' and another half dozen or so that freshmen and obviously not good enough to play even at the level we are now watching the 'starters' are playing at. There should be about 4 (four) deep across the offensive line spots (20 plus a couple decent walk ons or so). That suggests to me that we are still missing about 5 or so that are seemingly missing somewhere. Do we have far too many 'other' players who may be darn good athletes and good 'football players' but just don't really fit in at any given position. Maybe we have too many 'tweeners' that are not really big and strong enough to play Def tackle or offensive guard/tackle but are not fast enough to play defensive end or tight end. Do we have half a dozen 4th string level receivers and tight ends and fullback types that are just not really up to the job of being the starting fullback or tight end? These guys who are 6-3 and 235 lbs but not fast enough to play linebacker and not quite big enough to be a blocking tight end? We simply may have 20 or 30 guys that are hard working unrated or 2 or 3 stars 'athletes' that are getting letters as special teams guys. Obviously, we are not playing top ten level special teams (Drew Brown being the obvious exception). Our kick off and kick return teams are not performing at a high enough level, nor are the punt and punt return teams. Do we have too many 'contributors' out there who are not ready for prime time players although the play hard, work harder than most, have all the Husker heart and desire, etc etc but just aren't 2nd and third string players just waiting their turn to 'reload'. I wonder?

Seriously, now, how many, on this board or anywhere for that matter, honestly thought we'd win all our games this year? I doubt there were more than about 5% of Husker fans (the dreamers) and far less of the non Husker fans out there. Assuming this team can recover from the shock and PTSD that will follow from taking this kind of trouncing, there remains every reason to believe we have a fighting chance to win our next three games and play in a pretty decent bowl against a very tough opponent. Nobody can say we didn't deserve the bowl and assuming we play well (we should be healthy as a team by then), we have chance to finish in the top twenty and possibly the top 15. This drubbing (or seal clubbing as some might put it ) was incredibly bad and the most alarming part is the 'quit' aspect of it because Ohio State is NOT 59 points better than Nebraska on a 'normal' day. Riley and his staff have to earn their money this month as a complete collapse to finish out the season is NOT acceptable (with or without Tommy Armstrong out there). This team better show up and play hard and not get embarrassed by Minne, Mary and Iowa. None of those teams is MORE talented or better coached or otherwise should be expected to beat Nebraska, even without our Mr. "Hot and Cold" QB. I believe a post game report suggested this loss was our 'second worst' in history but I just can't recall when we lost by 60 or more and certainly not since Devaney came to Lincoln ? 62-3 is just plain mindblowingly bad! Whew! Ohio State is loaded but isnt stocked with 'superheros' or something.

When you lose 62-3, there is almost nothing positive going on with your team and the game generally. This is as bad as they get I think. Funny part is that I did not expect much this week and was therefore somewhat ready for the loss (I predicted 31-13 today but also said it could be worse but hope hot). I think some other losses felt even worse but I don't know how it's possible. Next week will be tough but I am gonna predict we win that game, with or without Tommy A. Just wishful thinking and or a gut hunch or my Husker heart there.

This team can get themselves ready and win the next three and with this humility beating, they should not have to worry about getting over confident. The challenge for the coaches is to prove they can keep the kids' heads up somewhat. They won't just fold up and quit as nobody could really be all that disappointed we lost these last two as they were mostly expected. Now, this loss is as bad as any we've ever had so the coach will have to dig deep to find the motivation switches to right the ship. Got to think about the future as well so play the young guys. I am sorry but you don't reward seniors with valuable playing time if they are not getting the job done. Give the youngsters a chance.

You can always start again!

Dam this is just plain stupid. Take the seniors out of the game. We need to play the returning guys. You get in this kind of situation because you are not building depth and you get depth by making sure you always return players with real game experience. Fyfe should not be second string as a senior. If you arent the starter by your senior year, you need to be third or fourth string. You are at best a situational players ONLY. T. Newby needs to sit as well. Play the young guys. Should have been since half time for sure. We can't block them at all with starters.

Ohio still has starters in at this point with critical games ahead and this one is a blowout already. Stupid. Would they look dumb if Barrett gets hurt.

You know the refs are on the Ohio State side - was quite predictable - but Christi, they are up by about 40. Think it may be time to kind of let the game get over. I have worred ever since we joined the Big Ten that Ohio State and Michigan would end up being the Texas/Oklahoma of the conference and we've seen that clearly in the first 6 years with obvious favoristism in the scheduling with East teams getting more than half the home games, etc etc. They get the officiating calls as well.

Was very afraid of this happening. Our offensive line has been terrible for a month - blame injuries but something sure happened - and we are playing a darn good team and they are playing well and we are not playing well at all. At this point, I think the team has quit and that is NOT acceptable. Looks like Tommy going to be OK but who knows whether he plays next week but surely he will be back for part of the remainder of the year.

I think this team has done well but it seems like there are some folks getting a little 'too excited' about where we are at this point. The team has been more successful than most thought we would so that is somewhat understandable. But if one lets their enthusiasm get out of control, then you may well be up for a big let down. If we manage to hang with the Buckeyes this weekend, and avoid any more major injuries and get some guys healthier, we have decent chance to finish out the regular season on a positive note. But making the playoffs and or something beyond that seems dreamland at this point. As they used to say back in the olden days "Hold yer horses!"

While we miss a guy or two each who go elsewhere and turn out to be pretty good players, there are more of these relatively low rated 'unknowns' that go the lower tier programs and do 'ok' at that level but would have most likely languished on the 3rd and 4th strings their entire time here, seeing only brief action in kicking games or that last 7 snaps of 'decided' games. The real interesting question is Where are the legitimate players that Nebraska used to bring in like all the RBs from Omaha, for example? Who was the most recent I back from Nebraska that became the starting RB ala Calvin Jones, Keith Jones, Benning, Clinton Childs, Gayle Sayers, etc etc etc. It seems to me we had a run of a couple decades of always having a couple excellent ball carriers from Nebraska on the depth charts. Seems like it stopped early on in Frank's reign and all but disappeared. Our FBs were always from Columbus or Gretna or Grand Island or Brainard or the Mackovica boys, etc. ? My guess would be that prior to 2004, a typical recruiting class would have 20 scholarships and another 20 or so walk ons. Of those numbers, maybe 4 or 5 scholarships to Nebraska and nearby kids and about 17 walk ons from the States of Nebraska, Kansas, Dakotas and Iowa. (Mostly Neb). I think CM is right to say that Nebraska kids are kind of overlooked and not even seriously considered by the 'rating and recruiting outfits'. Let's face it, they don't spend the time and money to travel on the ground in flyover country to check seriously a handful of guys when they can grade hundres in other places in the same time/cost. Thus, Nebraska players probably go unnoticed.

I think these issues are being covered elsewhere already. O line is not playing well enough at this time to beat Ohio State and didn't play well enough in the past several games to really put this team into the top tier nationally.

Clinton is Old Boy Network politics and bad for America. She's not the person I would choose to run this country in a million years. She's qualified, and will do an adequate job. Trump is not remotely qualified. He's bad. Scary bad. Like, possibly in the pockets of the Russians and has basically zero interest in running this country bad. I can't imagine why sane, rational adults who purport to love Ronald Reagan and who are, by their own admission, Reagan Republicans, would vote for Donald Trump who loves Vladimir Putin & Russia and has said so openly. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he knew what his party was offering America as a presidential candidate. It's baffling how we got to this place. The only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton - the only reason, in my opinion - is that she's not Donald Trump. Who's in who's pocket? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-foundation-millions-tied-uranium-report-article-1.2197173 I agree with you on Trump,he's said things that make my head hurt. I know there are people voting for him only because he is not Hillary Clinton. With the Clinton's we see a history of "questionable" cases ,from the whitewater land dealings to mysterious deaths of associates to where we are now. With Trump, maybe we get lucky and he surrounds himself with good people...maybe. With Hillary, its a safe bet that we get more of the same. No, in fact it is the safer bet that with the Clintons back in the Whitehouse with the full power of the Presidency for atleast a couple years until impeachment can finally happen, we will get worse that the scandalous crap of the past 30 years. There is every reason to believe the Clintons, upon successfully getting away with all the obvious to anyone with a brain crimes, will be even bolder, although it is really hard to fathom the outright gall of their activities. They really don't believe the law applies to them as they hardly try to hide the stuff. They are a crime family. I just saw a news report that shows Chelsea Clinton has a publicly declared net worth of 30 million dollars! There ius absolutely no way she can have that without getting it from illegal activies. She has barely had any kind of job at this point in her life and certainly nothing that would allow to earn and save after tax that kind of money. Bill and Hillary have accumulated 350,000,000 after tax and after living the life of royalty after just 15 years since leaving the Whitehouse 'broke' according to Hillary. Neither have had any job except giving public speeches 'for hire'. Hillary wrote a book that sold less than 3000 copies upon being published and unltimately was paid about 5 million in advance royalties. That does not add up UNLESS you are conducting activities that even Walter White couldn't generate with his world class meth lab in full production! For the Clinton supporters, please offer any reasonable explanation please! Reports are that the Clinton Foundation has accumulated another 2 Billion dollars in it of which it is 'estimated' by the Clintons in the future they will spend as much as 35% thereof on 'charitable' functions with the rest going to fund the foundation 'staff' (the Clintons and a handful of their closest allies) and foundraising activites (Clinton jets and travel and living expenses while they travel and party all over the world). All this money was raised by solicitation of 'gifts' and 'donations' from foreign and domestic 'donors' who in return get incredible favors in return.